cigarettes can [censored] diagf

[so sick bro]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with me is I started smoking before I started drinking. Now I need cigarettes when I drink. If I chug 3 beers back to back and don't light up a cigarette, I'll puke. Well hey I love smoking anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am the same way, I was actually feeling physically TERRIBLE at a beerbq on sunday. After chillin out on beers all afternoon I was just dying to have one, especially after a bunch of people started lighting up and that smell was in the air. I'm also now prescribed to adderall which isn't helping with this. I feel like I've closely emotionally anchored smoking and enjoying lots of cigarettes to both alcohol and uppers like the adderall which I now take every day

[bubaloo]

beat: ive been smoking for > 1/2 my life and it suuucks

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pretty unlikely that 2nd hand smoke (unless in confined areas over a prolonged period of time) hurts anyone. even smoking could be alot less harmful, if it weren't for the way it was packaged."

[/ QUOTE ]

"Smoking directly causes an estimated 430,000 deaths per year and is believed to kill some 50,000 non-smokers through repeated exposure to second-hand smoke."

The believed impact of second-hand smoke is hardly trivial.

<font color="blue"> Your quote and my statement are not mutually exclusive. I doubt their is any effect to 2nd hand smoke outdoors.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
its likely that the engineered nicotine delivery system is far more harmful than the tobacco itself. in fact, the filter of most domestic cigarettes contains a compound chemically similar to asbestos (fiberglass) which is meant to cut the surface of the lungs in order to increase the nicotine absorption rate. Heating a known carcinogen of inorganic composition and inhaling the particulates would logically be far more dangerous than organic (albeit still carcingenic) tar.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an urban legend. there is no fiberglass in cigarettes.

<font color="blue"> i'll concede on the fiberglass thing. ur right. however, the below link is to a 'new scientist' article detailing the efforts conciously made by the tobacco industry to enhance the addictive nature of thier product.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3990 </font>

[ QUOTE ]
nicotine replacement therapies actually have a higher recitivisim rate than a cold turkey approach. in other words, NRT's actually feed the business of keeping people addicted to nicotine.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is false. As I mentioned above, the cold turkey approach has a success rate of ~5% after one year. NRT's have rates many times this.

<font color="blue"> actually, what you are saying is false. The first link is an australian study done on long term smoking cessation amongst successful abstainers. Declaring someone 'quit' when they are still invibing nicotine is parellel to declaring someone quit that has switched to smokeless tobacco. They are still addicted. The following links point out the flaws in the clinical studies which you cite and give more realistic numbers.

http://whyquit.com/pr/051906.html

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_NRT_JAMA.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/10/prweb84809.htm

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/12/1/21

</font>

[ QUOTE ]
my granddad died in his early 80's from his 2nd heart attack. he smoked 2 packs of unfiltered camels a day for a long time. while this certainly contributed to his heart condition (he had to quit after #1) he did not get cancer. while this is anecodotal evidence at best, i believe that because he did not smoke filtered cigarettes, he dodged the most harmful effects of the current engineered cigarette.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry to hear about your grandfather. however, the only thing that filters change is how concentrated the smoke is. Seeing as how much you smoke is driven by how much nicotine your body needs, and not by number of cigarettes, filtered vs. unfiltered is largely irrelevant.

<font color="blue"> article to the contrary:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/557548

</font>


[ QUOTE ]
i quit in early february, cold turkey. i still want one, but the cravings are MUCH farther in between now. I encourage you to quit (if you're ready) - but not to use NRT's or 'light' cigarettes as a catalyst to quit. Both are largely ineffective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you for quitting, keep it up.
<font color="blue">ty</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[billygrippo]

i won a $2400 prop bet to quit for 1 year on 7/14/07

i started smoking again on 8/7/07


been a smoker for 10 years +/- a few times i quit

[pokah5]

Have any of you seen Thank You For Smoking? How much of that stuff happens in real life?

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]
this is false. As I mentioned above, the cold turkey approach has a success rate of ~5% after one year. NRT's have rates many times this.

<font color="blue"> actually, what you are saying is false. The first link is an australian study done on long term smoking cessation amongst successful abstainers. Declaring someone 'quit' when they are still invibing nicotine is parellel to declaring someone quit that has switched to smokeless tobacco. They are still addicted. The following links point out the flaws in the clinical studies which you cite and give more realistic numbers.

http://whyquit.com/pr/051906.html

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_NRT_JAMA.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/10/prweb84809.htm

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/12/1/21

</font>


[/ QUOTE ]

this part interests me. I don't have time to go through them all now but i plan to when i get some time.

I read through the first site. It is very disingenuous in how it represents what the first article is saying. The study is looking at people who come into the doctor's office and saying "ok, x former smokers quit cold turkey, and we saw y current smokers who tried to quit cold turkey within the last 5 years. Therefore, quitting cold turkey has a 77% success rate." (success rate = former smokers / (current smokers + former smokers). The website makers twist it into saying cold turkey has twice the success rate of NRT, and in general totally ignores everything even the authors mention as flaws. Hell, according to the website 80% of people are successful at quitting cold turkey. Nicotine doesn't sound very addicting at all, now does it, after all 80% of people quit cold turkey, right?

here's a quote from the same article that the first website you linked uses to "prove" that cold turkey is so great..

"In general, when smokers try to quit on their own, their long-term success rate is about 5% (Fiore et al., 1990). When smokers engage in other strategies such as counselling, nicotine replacement therapies or other pharmacological aids, success rates can be as high as 33% (Lancaster, Stead, Silagy &amp; Sowden, 2000)."

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

meh, i've smoked ~1 pack/day for about 4 years and quit cold turkey about a week ago. just get some [censored] will power and it's not that hard.

people who need counseling and crap like that to quit smoking are weak minded pussy whiners

[cowboy2579]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is false. As I mentioned above, the cold turkey approach has a success rate of ~5% after one year. NRT's have rates many times this.

<font color="blue"> actually, what you are saying is false. The first link is an australian study done on long term smoking cessation amongst successful abstainers. Declaring someone 'quit' when they are still invibing nicotine is parellel to declaring someone quit that has switched to smokeless tobacco. They are still addicted. The following links point out the flaws in the clinical studies which you cite and give more realistic numbers.

http://whyquit.com/pr/051906.html

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_NRT_JAMA.html

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/10/prweb84809.htm

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/12/1/21

</font>


[/ QUOTE ]

I read through the first site. It is very disingenuous in how it represents what the first article is saying. The study is looking at people who come into the doctor's office and saying "ok, x former smokers quit cold turkey, and we saw y current smokers who tried to quit cold turkey within the last 5 years. Therefore, quitting cold turkey has a 77% success rate." (success rate = former smokers / (current smokers + former smokers). The website makers twist it into saying cold turkey has twice the success rate of NRT, and in general totally ignores everything even the authors mention as flaws. Hell, according to the website 80% of people are successful at quitting cold turkey. Nicotine doesn't sound very addicting at all, now does it, after all 80% of people quit cold turkey, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? That's what you got out of reading that?

80% of successful long-term abstainers quit using cold turkey methods. That does NOT = 80% of smokers quit. It means that 80% OF PEOPLE WHO QUIT LONG TERM quit cold turkey.

Read the rest. They're pretty good &amp; have good links to more good info.

[wazz]

I've quit something like 30-40 times in last two years. My new years resolution this last year was to quit quitting, but then i remembered that it was the same the year before.

[so sick bro]

[ QUOTE ]
meh, i've smoked ~1 pack/day for about 4 years and quit cold turkey about a week ago. just get some [censored] will power and it's not that hard.

people who need counseling and crap like that to quit smoking are weak minded pussy whiners

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're strong willed and determined enough to do it then yes, you can quit by yourself but you're certainly making light of how difficult it is. Everyone is different. Some people have incredibly addictive personalities, some people have very weak will power, and the extent to which a person is becomes physically dependent on cigarettes varies greatly from person to person.

The real battle for me, and I'm sure it's the same case for many many people, is not slipping and having that one smoke that will inevitably get me making excuses and have me back to regularaly smoking within a week or two. Almost every day is a battle not to break down and have that one little cig. The fact is for me at least that so many activities I am going through on a daily basis are heavily anchored mentally to smoking cigarettes and when I do them now it's like there is this unconscious force inside me that feels like there is something wrong since I'm not smoking. Drinking, studying, breaks between class, watching TV in my apartment, walking to school...etc

Also man, you are FAR from having quit. If you really have been smoking a pack a day for 4 years theres no denying that at least to some degree, the compulsion to smoke is there. Going a week without one is a very good start but is in no way at all an indicator of if you're actually going to be able to commit to not smoking the rest of your life. While I think the attitude you're approaching it with is a very good one to have for YOURSELF while trying to quit, it would be very ignorant of you to believe that anyone who can't quit without help of any kind is a "weak minded pussy"