Question:
> >Not with sex addicts > This sex addiction business? How does one join up?
Call me for an appointment. Only problem is, I’ve been known to have the treament take a long, long, long long, long, time ;-)
Response:
> Its not that *smoking* helps, its that the > relief from the constant struggle to not smoke helps if the > person is well beyond the point where they can deal with > everything on their plate at that point.
Yeah, that’s it, exactly. > I fully agree that there are certain attitudes that undermine a > quit, but by the same token we need to keep it real. Sometimes > this group gets a tad fanatical about smoking being the worst > thing a person can do, and I sincerely believe it is not. It > *is* however what we are here to overcome and help each other to > overcome, and as we know that a large part of quitting is > mental, it is right and proper that cognition attract a > disproportionate amount of commentary.
Well said. > Personally, I have not had so much trouble fighting off cravings > for cigarettes during this quit, but it has instead raised the > spectres of alcoholism and depression- demons I thought I had > got well under control. I’m doing all the right things to deal > with them now, but I *know* that for me, smoking is not the > worst thing I can do, and that I may not always have the > strength that I have now.
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. IMHO, it’s a good thing for other people here if you put that right on out here on as3. There are a LOT of people going through the same thing, and I’ll bet you can help with that. > I love being a non smoker- I don’t want to give up my new found > freedom for anything. But I get pissy when depression is > discussed as though it were a mood or something that a pill can > cure. I’m not saying that you do that… just letting you know > that there’s more than one bug up my arse
A sensitivity which I can totally understand. I personally get the old bug way up my ass when people start talking about depression like it’s some kind of self-indulgent "moodiness." The way I see it, depression is an inability to experience the moods we take for granted when we’re not depressed. Great post, GG. I’m so glad your quit is feeling so good! You sound terrific! ep dof
Response:
>>The word "addict" doesn’t have to be negative, at least I don’t think so.
BINGO! i believe that some folks really CRINGE when the word addict is connected to a nicotine habit. somehow some folks believe that smoking is a "step up" from other addictions, and the word addict should be reserved for "those" not me! i work in the field of addiction, and the behavior of ADDICTS, no matter what the drug, is all the same! rosie OOF Today’s youth are disrespectful and undisciplined.
Response:
> > Anyone who can’t see that should thank their lucky stars that > experience hasn’t given them such insight and start supporting > and stop fucking judging the rest. > Georgie.
BINGO!
Response:
> If somebody says "My quit is better than your quit > because I didn’t use NRT," I think that’s judgmental and it has bullshit > results.
I have NEVER said that for the record EP. NEVER. I don’t give a rats ass how one goes about quitting. Just remember that with NRT you are still and addict to nicotine or dependent. And for the record most persons who go to Methadone never quit. Methadone is used to keep the herion addict from shooting up and going through withdrawals. I only know of ONE person who was on methadone that quit. Most just keep on increasing their dosages. And for the record methadone is MUCH harder to quit tha herion. Just because you *think* I am against NRT you choose and have chosen to verbally and very ABUSIVELY attack me on numerous occassions. So let this be known today. I have NO problem with the word addiction. It is not a nasty word to me. If one choses to be hooked on NRT’s and be a nicotine addict for the rest of their lives so they NEVER SMOKE again BRAVO to them. I commend them for that as it is FAR better than smoking and much more healthy. No doubt about. Gwen
Response:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 "Edna Pearl" posted: > The ’seriousness’ of smoking needs to be addressed at a very early > age, and reinforced into adulthood. Neither the taking up of the > ‘habit’ nor the trying to end it should be taken at all lightly. >Well said.
At the risk of bursting into song, I’m waiting for the politically correct rendition of that old country favorite to become: "Mama, don’t let your children grow up to be smokers…" Mike OF+ — "My brain is like a troublesome sponge!"
Response:
I’m not responding to anyone’s post in this thread in particular, but I do have something to say. My belief is that quitting an addiction is just that…halting, stopping, avoiding, no longer participating in, whatever words you want to put to it. It is a commitment to changing your most basic responses to how you deal with things that affect you both internally and externally. Whether you accomplish this change by reaffirming it every day or by going for broke and saying "no more ever again" obviously is an individual decision. That said, I think it’s very, very dangerous to negoiate, if you will, about what might cause one to return to the addiction. This is my personal story, take it for what it’s worth. After I quit smoking this last time, I crashed hard. At two months I was in such bad shape, I couldn’t imagine living in my own head anymore. Finally I realized I needed professional help. Even so, I could barely function enough just to get myself to a doctor. I did though…I saw several doctors and finally a psychiatrist. She put me on an antidepressant, but even so relief was many weeks in coming. I only mention this because I think it’s important to understand the background when I say that through all of it, I held steadfast to my commitment that smoking wasn’t an option. Hell, I was terrified if I started again, I’d end up in even worse shape, or at the very least, have to go through those first few months all over again as I tried to withdraw from the very thing that had masked my symptoms for so long. Instead of reaching for a cigarette to get me by all of life’s crises, what if I hadn’t been a smoker? Would I have realized something was wrong and have gotten help sooner? Would I have even gone through those rotten several months when I didn’t care if I lived or died if I’d never started smoking at all? I really like to think it never would have gotten to that point. No, I’ll put it more strongly, I’m absolutely *convinced* it never would have. My advice…don’t play with fire by making bargains with yourself about when the circumstances might be right to resume your addiction. Deals like that often turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. Try to reject the idea that it’s either smoking or some truly dreadful thing will happen. There’s always another solution. Cindy VOF Courseware Design & Development Columbus, Ohio 43210 Office of Information Technology 614/292-9689
Response:
I wrote a post, actually two, but I don’t think I’m sending either one out. This says it all. Sorry I snipped so much, but I wanted to focus on the words below. You really captured it in an nutshell. Diane M. (off to bed after a hard workout at the gym, and 366 odat’s) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I don’t see a mental breakdown or a major bout of mental illness > as a *temptation* to smoke, nor as an *excuse*. One *can* quit > again- its hard, yes, but not as fucking hard as scraping up the > remanants of what was you after you slid over the brink. > *Nothing* is worth a mental breakdown. Certainly not a fucking > quit. > Anyone who can’t see that should thank their lucky stars that > experience hasn’t given them such insight and start supporting > and stop fucking judging the rest. > Georgie.
Response:
> It made me hot.
You were born hot. Yeow! > I agree mostly, but would add that quitting ciggies is one of the few > addictions that most people try to break on their lonesome.
Yeah, ain’t that it. I swear, if they put us in a hospital ward and gave us a bunch of talking therapy, occupational therapy, and medication, maybe we’d have a better concept of how hard it is to quit and be less critical of ourselves! > Both > camps, those who are trapped in the addiction and those kibbitzing > from the sidelines, are staffed mainly by amateurs, so there’s a > million theories and schemes and folk wisdoms, some better than > others, some not so good. Also, it’s easy to lapse because society is > so accepting of the behavior in the first place. People can become > conflicted re tobacco via the politics, health warnings, friends, > parents, the media, etc.
Yeah, I was trying to make that point exactly, thanks. > The ’seriousness’ of smoking needs to be addressed at a very early > age, and reinforced into adulthood. Neither the taking up of the > ‘habit’ nor the trying to end it should be taken at all lightly.
Well said. > Take care, Ms Pearl,
You too, pinhead :-) > el pinheado
ep dof
Response:
> "Addiction" is just a word, apparently one with strong negative > connotations. Dependence might be a better term, if you feel the need to > label it.
Good point. > At the risk of being contentious, Edna, you’re talking about a very small > sub-set of the "addictions" category. An important one, no doubt, but > it’s just as important to NOT imply that alcoholics, amphetamine abusers, > people dependent on pot, etc. fall into that category because they don’t.
You’re probably right there. So maybe this is one of the ways tobacco addiction differs from other addictions. And maybe this is one of the peculiarities of tobacco addiction that makes it hard to beat — we need replacement therapy and/or medication longer to stay off our drug of choice than other types of addicts do???? I dunno; it’s just an interesting question to me. I DO know it’s damned hard to quit smoking though. > Only because of the negative connotation you place on the word "addict." > The word "addict" doesn’t have to be negative, at least I don’t think so. > Would you deny that NRT users (and I was one and would be still if I felt > it would help me maintain my quit, so don’t think I’m anti-NRT or consider > people who employ NRT as anything less than true non-smokers) are > dependent on their NRT of choice?
Actually, I can’t even wrap my mind around the question. I’m not sure the answer matters :-) I don’t give a rat’s ass whether I’m dependent on NRT, or toothpicks, or Listerine "breath strips," or whatever, as long as I don’t smoke. But I do see your point, and I like the issues you’re raising a lot. > If not, why is "dependence" a less > inflammatory word than "addiction"–and is it possible that you and Gwen > (and many others) are using different terms to mean the same thing?
I don’t think it’s just semantics. I think it’s a question of results. If somebody says, "NRT addiction is no better than cigarette addiction, so I’ll smoke," I think that’s bullshit because the results are bullshit. If somebody says, "I’m strung out on NRT so I might as well smoke," I think the results are bullshit. If somebody says "My quit is better than your quit because I didn’t use NRT," I think that’s judgmental and it has bullshit results. If somebody says, "You’re an addict because you’re still on NRT," I think that’s belittling and bullshit and destructive and I’ll say so. Words can be important. Getting and staying quit is a lot more important
> Cold turkey didn’t interest me in the least–I loved my patches :-)
Patches burn a hole in my skin. But my gum helped a lot! ep dof
Response:
>If it’s a choice between smoking and suicide, then smoke. That’s a >no-brainer.
enuff said! rosie OOF (also a depressive who is a recovering alcoholic, and addict)
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There is a BIG difference in your analogy here. With quitting smoking > it is STILL very acceptable to ingest NICOTINE, ie NRT’s. > Where as with any other type of addiction be it alcohol, herion, > cocaine, valium etc it is NOT acceptable to continue ingesting > said drug even if your prefered method is shooting up said drug > why not just start snorting it. > You are incorrect. In fact, replacement therapy IS an acceptable, proven, > recommended way to treat MANY addictions. > I happen to be close to a former street-narcotics addict. He will take > methadone for the rest of his life. If he doesn’t, he will almost certainly > go back to street drugs. If he goes back to street drugs, he will be dead > within two years. Methadone is a narcotic, it is a "replacement therapy" > for narcotics addiction. It’s called "treatment." NRT is also "treatment." > It works. It saves lives. It’s not an "addiction" unless you pervert the > word "addiction." (As one of our as3 members’ doctors recently explained.) > When barb addicts, benzo addicts, whatever addicts, go into a rehab, they > are treated with REPLACEMENT therapies during withdrawal. Back when I still > knew something about this stuff, librium was replacement therapy of choice > for someone withdrawing from alcohol. It’s called TREATMENT. It works. It > saves lives.
Librium still is the treatment of choice for alcohol withdrawal (the symptoms of which can be fatal). Note that Librium (or any other drug) is NOT a treatment for *alcoholism* nor is it a replacement therapy. AFAIK, only methadone is a true "replacement therapy" and it simply replaces the addict’s need for heroin with a different narcotic, one that doesn’t (in theory) give the user the high one experiences with heroin. I’ve been told (by one who knows) that withdrawal from methadone was more difficult–for him–than withdrawal from heroin, FWIW. > Bullshit. You are the one making ridiculous (and dangerous) comparisons. A > person on NRT is not killing themselves with the poisons in cigarettes. A > person on NRT is recovering with the assistance of nicotine as a medication. > I don’t know what the recommended treatment is for crack recovery, but I > doubt it includes lethal substances like cocaine or cigarettes. And I’m > damn sure it includes medication.
Again, an important distinction: only the symptoms of *withdrawal* are treated, and only in the very short term (as in a few days). > <snip> all anyone here cares about it NOT smoking > and really no one has a problem with the "real" addiction of nicotine. > Long as ya don’t light up a cancer stick it is "A" 110% OK to continue > the nicotine addiction for the rest of ones life. > That is precisely my attitude on the issue. Bingo. Well said. :-) Except > that I object to the characterization of NRT use as an "addiction." That is > a dangerous perversion of the word, "addiction," IMHO. Cigarettes will make > you stink, cough, lie to yourself, waste your money, and die. Cigarettes > kill. In contrast, nicotine replacement therapy SAVES LIVES.
"Addiction" is just a word, apparently one with strong negative connotations. Dependence might be a better term, if you feel the need to label it. > Most addictions one has to stop ALL and or any type of ingesting said > drug. > Again, this is an assertion that is misleading at best and false in many > cases. Again, some former narcotics addicts stay on methadone FOR THEIR > ENTIRE LIVES. If they quit methadone they will DIE. Methadone makes it > possible for these FORMER addicts to lead productive lives, save money, hold > down a job, regulate their narcotics intake, and abide by the law.
At the risk of being contentious, Edna, you’re talking about a very small sub-set of the "addictions" category. An important one, no doubt, but it’s just as important to NOT imply that alcoholics, amphetamine abusers, people dependent on pot, etc. fall into that category because they don’t. > If some people need to take NRT or DIE from smoking, then god bless NRT. > NRT SAVES LIVES. And far be it from me to judge such people. Far be it > from me to call them names, like "addict." To call someone who is on NRT an > "addict’ is, IMNSHO, meaningless, meanspirited, judgmental, narrow-minded, > and counter-productive to the goal of quitting smoking. It does nobody any > good and is just another example of how passing negative judgments can hurt > other people. People who are trying to recover from a life-threatening > addiction.
Only because of the negative connotation you place on the word "addict." The word "addict" doesn’t have to be negative, at least I don’t think so. Would you deny that NRT users (and I was one and would be still if I felt it would help me maintain my quit, so don’t think I’m anti-NRT or consider people who employ NRT as anything less than true non-smokers) are dependent on their NRT of choice? If not, why is "dependence" a less inflammatory word than "addiction"–and is it possible that you and Gwen (and many others) are using different terms to mean the same thing? > Mind you, I think CT is a great way to go, too, for some people. Some > people get their minds in the zone and they are ready to quit CT and using > NRT would just be a distraction from the zone their heads need to be in to > stay addiction-free. The Allen Carr method is a great example of this. > Allen Carr’s method works. So does NRT. We all have to find our own way > out of our own personal mazes. And passing ill-informed judgments on other > adults based on irrational prejudices about NRT and ignorant assumptions > about addiction isn’t going to help anybody out of the maze, IMNSHO. YMMV.
Cold turkey didn’t interest me in the least–I loved my patches :-)
Response:
<snips> >I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual >disclaimers.
It made me hot. I agree mostly, but would add that quitting ciggies is one of the few addictions that most people try to break on their lonesome. Both camps, those who are trapped in the addiction and those kibbitzing from the sidelines, are staffed mainly by amateurs, so there’s a million theories and schemes and folk wisdoms, some better than others, some not so good. Also, it’s easy to lapse because society is so accepting of the behavior in the first place. People can become conflicted re tobacco via the politics, health warnings, friends, parents, the media, etc. The ’seriousness’ of smoking needs to be addressed at a very early age, and reinforced into adulthood. Neither the taking up of the ‘habit’ nor the trying to end it should be taken at all lightly. Take care, Ms Pearl, el pinheado OF+ — "My brain is like a troublesome sponge!"
Response:
Wow. You’re a real *sshole aren’t you Gwen? NRT works for a ton of people (myself included) with very few people becoming *addicted* to their NRT method. And for the ones who do stay on NRT forever….. So what? It’s their business and in the small doses NRT delivers it isn’t any more harmful than caffeine. Just a slight stimulant and mild vaso-constrictor. Tobacco is the "dirty syringe" of nicotine delivery systems and is our real nemisis. Using alternative safe methods to taper off of this drug while we concentrate on breaking the insidious cycle of long term conditioning is highly effective and desirable. Except I think to sanctimonious prigs like yourself. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual > disclaimers. > There is a BIG difference in your analogy here. With quitting smoking > it is STILL very acceptable to ingest NICOTINE, ie NRT’s. > Where as with any other type of addiction be it alcohol, herion, > cocaine, valium etc it is NOT acceptable to continue ingesting > said drug even if your prefered method is shooting up said drug > why not just start snorting it. > I think there in lies some of the reason it is so lack as it is tolerated > and or allowable means to quit smoking while continuing to get > your "fix" with said drug, ie nicotine. Therefore it makes sense > to me why people feel the way they do or can feel the way the do. > Why not just give all the "crack" heads snortable cocaine instead > while they are quitting their "crack" addiction. > But I know no one will see the dynamics of this and it will turn > into all out flame since all anyone here cares about it NOT smoking > and really no one has a problem with the "real" addiction of nicotine. > Long as ya don’t light up a cancer stick it is "A" 110% OK to continue > the nicotine addiction for the rest of ones life. > So to me the comparisons is like comparing apples and kumquats. > Most addictions one has to stop ALL and or any type of ingesting said > drug. > Gwen
Response:
Agreed, from a rational and personal perspective. Thanks for your post. Carol <–saying me too OF + 5 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual > disclaimers. > I personally believe that cigarette addiction is every bit as serious, life > threatening, life destroying, joy destroying, etc. etc. as heroin addiction, > cocaine addiction, alcoholism, or whatever. I also believe one of the > reasons that cigarette addiction is relatively hard to beat is because we > DON’T take it as seriously, as quitters and as a society. > Here’s an analogy. Let’s say we were all alcoholics instead of tobacco > addicts. And let’s say one of our members came here to our quit-drinking > support group and said, "I suffer from chronic, severe depression, and I’ve > been sober x amount of time. But if the depression gets too bad, I’ll > drink. I’ll only stay sober if I can do it without being disabled by > depression." > What would we all do and say in respone, as members of this person’s support > group? We would debate the issue, we would try to be supportive, we would > try to offer ALTERNATIVES to drinking. We would try to help this person > prepare himself, arm himself with such alternatives. We would try to > encourage this person to maintain, continue, and plan for meaningful, > effective treatment for his depression that does not involve reactivating > his addiction and threatening his health and life. > Why don’t we act the same way when somebody says, "If my depression gets too > bad, I’ll smoke"? I think it’s because we forget that smoking is as serious > an addiction as drinking or any other addiction. And I think that > negligence, that forgetfulness makes it harder to quit smoking, and harder > to support each others’ quits. We don’t take it seriously enough. And I > think some people here a lot of misconceptions about smoking being some sort > of "anti-depressant." Smoking is an "anti-depressant" in the same sense > that crack cocaine is an "anti-depressant." I hear that when you smoke > crack, you get happy. Does that make it a rational response to depression; > a rational "treatment" for depression; a rational life choice; an > "anti-depressant"? Only if you pervert the meaning of the word > "anti-depressant," IMO. > And what if the above-referenced alcoholic came to the above-referenced > quit-drinking group and said, "But alcohol is such an amazing > mood-stabilizer for me! It really works! Nothing else stabilizes my mood > as quickly and effectively as drinking!" Would we just let that remark > pass? THAT’S CRAZY! I have never heard such a bunch of junkie-thinking > bullshit in my life! Again, the rational response is to say, "That’s junkie > thinking," and try to be supportive, we would try to offer ALTERNATIVES to > drinking. We would try to help this person prepare himself, arm himself > with such alternatives. We would try to encourage this person to maintain, > continue, and plan for meaningful, effective treatment for his depression > that does not involve reactivating his addiction and threatening his health > and life. > And what if somebody said, "But smoking crack cocaine is such an amazing > mood stabilizer!" "Shooting heroin really works for me — nothing else > stabilizes my mood as quickl and effectively as a big fat injection of > smack!" > We would NOT say, "Oh you’re such a special case and I can understand why > you say you may drink again one day." Or smoke crack cocaine. Or shoot > herion. That’s bullshit. It’s delusional. It’s dangerous for this > particular addict and it’s dangerous for every addict reading this > newsgroup. I personally feel such thinking should be challenged here. I’m > not trying to belittle this particular depressed addict or criticize his > thinking, but I AM trying to warn other addicts away from that addict’s > slippery slope, that junkie thinking. > If it’s a choice between smoking and suicide, then smoke. That’s a > no-brainer. But it’s also an utterly false dichotomy. The choice is NOT > between smoking and suicide. The choices are between living and dying, and > between smoking and not smoking (and between drinking and not drinking, > etc.). > In my experience, if you set up any set of circumstances in which you are > willing to relapse, then you will relapse. Sooner or later. If you say, "I > won’t smoke unless x happens," then x will happen. Because that’s how > addiction works. An addict will subconsciously arrange her life so as to > ensure the occurrence of x, if she has decided that x is an excuse to > relapse. > So instead of setting yourself up that way, figure out what x is that would > tempt you to smoke and figure out how NOT to smoke if x happens. Plan. > Prepare. No more excuses. > ep dof
Response:
> I haven’t read in here "I won’t smoke unless X happens", what I have > read is: "I quit, just for today", an especially healthy POV, IMNSHO.
I’ve read both. I agree with you that odat is "an especially healthy POV." In fact, it’s how I quit! And it’s how I stay quit to this day! :-D Odat is great. "I won’t smoke unless . . . " is, IMHO, junkie thinking. ep dof
Response:
Great Post, EP!, It’s the uninformed addict that thinks drinking, smoking, shooting, or snorting is their only problem. All of our addictions cover over our real problems. When we stop drinking, smoking, etc…, we get to take a sobering look at our lives. Maybe for the first time. It can be a shocking depressing experience. But IMO, you have to start with ‘OK, I don’t use that substance any more, now what?…… what am I going to do?…. Like you say, using the substance again can’t be an option. That just sets you up for failure. That’s enough out of me
-G. OF > I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual > disclaimers.
Boy, you can get away with saying anything after disclaimers like that, huh?
) > <snipped all the greatness
> > So instead of setting yourself up that way, figure out what x is that would > tempt you to smoke and figure out how NOT to smoke if x happens. Plan. > Prepare. No more excuses. > ep dof
– Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Response:
>Not with sex addicts
This sex addiction business? How does one join up?
bobf 1y+
Response:
You got this one right, Edna. I always said if I saw a friend die as soon as he smoked a cigarette I’d be able to put them down a lot quicker!!!! We often criticize ourselves and others re: starts/stops and buckling/knuckling down quitting smoking. Quitting Smoking is a VERY SERIOUS business and sometimes newbies may think it appears to be an easy task. You hear of people stating "I just put them down". Well, for the majority of persons quitting smoking you don’t always "just put them down". No excuses. Quit any way you possibly can. Carolina Two months, one week, 18 hours, 23 minutes and 49 seconds. 2002 cigarettes not smoked, saving $313.47. Life saved: 6 days, 22 hours, 50 minutes.
Response:
I really apologize if the following is a multiple post — I thought I posted it earlier but it appears to have disappeared in cyberspace, so I’m re-posting it. As follows: —– Great post, GG! Comments are inserted below.
> I think this is where many of us will disagree strongly. > Especially those of us that have had more than one addiction.
I agree that this is an issue to be questioned and examined and tested. I don’t think that everyone with multiple addictions will agree with what is apparently your proposition, however — that smoking isn’t as "bad" as other addictions. > A person is not going to crash their car or lose their licence > for being under the influence of tobacco. Smokers don’t smoke > one too many cigarettes and go home to beat the shit out of the > wife and kids. Smoking doesn’t render a person unfit for work.
All totally excellent points of comparison between smoking and drinking. Smoking is a lot more likely to make you sick and kill you at lower dosages, however — dosages where you are still fully functional, not wrecking cars, not making a fool of yourself otherwise, but you’re still dead. Which kills more? Which causes more days of lost work? More waste of life? Smoking or drinking? I don’t know — I think these are relevant questions to ask when we are considering how serious smoking is as an addiction. > Whether or not smoking is as serious an *addiction* as > alcoholism isn’t really the point. Its the consequenses > of the behaviour itself that should determine whether one > behaviour is less or more harmful than another.
I think that is very well said, and I would propose that, for the SMOKER, the most dangerous thing they could do is smoking. Maybe the recovering cigarette addict who is in a life crisis or nearing breakdown would be better off going to the doc for some pills — and maybe those same pills would mean death for a person who is recovering from a previous addiction to THOSE pills. Here, we’re recovering from cigarette addiction, and so SMOKING is not an option. For most of us, Xanax, anti-depressants, therapy or maybe just a good stiff drink to get us through a shock ARE options, and they beat the hell out of smoking — for an ex-SMOKER. > What worries me more than any slippery slope is that people > with very real mental health problems come here and seek advice > and support about quitting because they want to make their lives > better. When they get here, will they be rubbished for their > negative thinking? Even though it may be depression talking, and > not just a person who likes to attract attention? Will they be > told that the most important thing is to not smoke, when no one > really gives a fuck if they smoke when they are a complete > basket case? Do we want to support people who want to quit, or > do we want to be the smoke police and bully others into quitting > and make them feel like 2nd class individuals if they slip or > need more help or suffer more.
I think that every time somebody like me comes up here at as3 and tells somebody some simple home truths in language that is arguably too rough, there is going to be somebody else like you who comes along and balances the scales in an articulate and compassionate manner. Some of need a hug sometimes. Some of us need a kick in the pants sometimes. We will find both here on as3. And I think there’s a big difference between somebody like me trying to make general statements about addiction (which are not directed at ANYBODY and who do not "rubbish" ANYBODY, and do not call ANYBODY any names and do insult ANYBODY), and somebody who name-calls, finger-points, and has temper tantrums. I hope you can give me credit for not doing the latter, however much you may dislike my doing the former. > We all do what we can to get by.
Absolutely! > When you are at breaking point, > something has to give. The choice is not suicide *or* smoking. > The situation is more one where waking up and living through > each day is itself an unbearable struggle, and adding the extra > burden of a quit is more than can be withstood. A person who is > experiencing suicidal thoughts isn’t thinking the same way as > those who aren’t. They can’t think of long term costs and > benefits- they just want life to be less painful *now*. A choice > then has to be made as to what can be sacrificed in the short > term. The choice may well be between losing your mental health > (possibly permanently) or decreasing your physical health now > and possibly contracting a disease further down the track.
That is very, very well said. I could not agree more. > I don’t see a mental breakdown or a major bout of mental illness > as a *temptation* to smoke, nor as an *excuse*. One *can* quit > again- its hard, yes, but not as fucking hard as scraping up the > remanants of what was you after you slid over the brink.
I’m with you so far, but – - – > *Nothing* is worth a mental breakdown. Certainly not a fucking > quit.
IMO, you have set up a false dichotomy: you suggest that this is the choice one makes: between a quit and a breakdown. In contrast, what I’m suggesting, is that we can see the falsity of this dichotomy now, while we are NOT on the brink of a breakdown. In our calmer moments, our quit-building moments, we can prepare ourselves, plan, work on our attitudes, so we are better equipped in times of emotional crisis, so we WON’T fall into this false choice during the panic and fear of crisis, between poisoning ourselves with our old addiction on the one hand, and experiencing a traumatic breakdown on the other. And here’s a scenario based on my own personal experience of depression and failed quits in the past: You are in a crisis. You think smoking will help. You smoke. It doesn’t help. You are too weakened by crisis to re-quit. You get re-addicted. You’ve lost your hard-won quit. Your self-esteem plummets and you’re even more depressed. The fallacy inherent in the idea of "I’ll smoke if I get to depressed" is the fallacy that smoking will HELP. It WON’T. To suggest that it WILL helps is misleading and potentially dangerous, IMO. It is more likely to HURT you. All smoking will do is assuage the PANIC involved in deciding whether you’re going to relapse. Then your self-esteem TANKS, and you have TWO problems instead of just depression. It happens all the time on this ng. People get depressed, relapse, stay depressed, re-quit. It happens all the time. This is unnecessary if we know to expect it and plan how to deal with it without smoking. > Anyone who can’t see that should thank their lucky stars that > experience hasn’t given them such insight and start supporting > and stop fucking judging the rest.
Well I won’t be able to count my lucky stars on that one (having had several lengthy visits on the other side of the brink you so beautifully describe), but at least I’m not judging anybody :-) I’m just offering my belief, for what it’s worth, that if you say, "I will smoke if I get too depressed," is a very good way to set yourself up for a relapse, and that there’s no reason to think this way. We can prepare ourselves for the bad times here and now by rooting out such junkie thinking and replacing it with realistic coping skills. GG, you seem to see some judgment on some *person* in my post. If it’s there, I’m sorry. All I was trying to "judge" — or "weigh," or evaluate, or critique — is *attitudes* that are helpful or unhelpful to staying quit, just like anybody else does here. I think there are some people here who will tell you that I do not lack sympathy for a relapse. In fact, my own attitude is that I am a puff away from a pack a day, and that the only reason I have not relapsed myself is that I have not experienced that particular juxtaposition of events that would end with a lit cigarette in my mouth. Knowing I’m an addict, I’m not bloody likely to judge somebody else for being one. So if you want to point your finger at me, feel free to do so for my having strong opinions and a big mouth, but I don’t think you can point your finger at me for passing judgment on anybody. ep dof
Response:
> There is a BIG difference in your analogy here. With quitting smoking > it is STILL very acceptable to ingest NICOTINE, ie NRT’s. > Where as with any other type of addiction be it alcohol, herion, > cocaine, valium etc it is NOT acceptable to continue ingesting > said drug even if your prefered method is shooting up said drug > why not just start snorting it.
You are incorrect. In fact, replacement therapy IS an acceptable, proven, recommended way to treat MANY addictions. I happen to be close to a former street-narcotics addict. He will take methadone for the rest of his life. If he doesn’t, he will almost certainly go back to street drugs. If he goes back to street drugs, he will be dead within two years. Methadone is a narcotic, it is a "replacement therapy" for narcotics addiction. It’s called "treatment." NRT is also "treatment." It works. It saves lives. It’s not an "addiction" unless you pervert the word "addiction." (As one of our as3 members’ doctors recently explained.) When barb addicts, benzo addicts, whatever addicts, go into a rehab, they are treated with REPLACEMENT therapies during withdrawal. Back when I still knew something about this stuff, librium was replacement therapy of choice for someone withdrawing from alcohol. It’s called TREATMENT. It works. It saves lives. > Why not just give all the "crack" heads snortable cocaine instead > while they are quitting their "crack" addiction.
Bullshit. You are the one making ridiculous (and dangerous) comparisons. A person on NRT is not killing themselves with the poisons in cigarettes. A person on NRT is recovering with the assistance of nicotine as a medication. I don’t know what the recommended treatment is for crack recovery, but I doubt it includes lethal substances like cocaine or cigarettes. And I’m damn sure it includes medication. > <snip> all anyone here cares about it NOT smoking > and really no one has a problem with the "real" addiction of nicotine. > Long as ya don’t light up a cancer stick it is "A" 110% OK to continue > the nicotine addiction for the rest of ones life.
That is precisely my attitude on the issue. Bingo. Well said. :-) Except that I object to the characterization of NRT use as an "addiction." That is a dangerous perversion of the word, "addiction," IMHO. Cigarettes will make you stink, cough, lie to yourself, waste your money, and die. Cigarettes kill. In contrast, nicotine replacement therapy SAVES LIVES. > So to me the comparisons is like comparing apples and kumquats.
That’s because you have committed yourself to an irrational position and feel obliged to defend it regardless of its irrationality, for your own personal reasons, whatever they may be. But I’m not going to sit here and pretend it is a valuable contribution to the cause of helping people quit smoking. And that’s why this group is here. To help people quit smoking. This group works. So does NRT. And IMHO, anti-NRT ignorance is counter-productive. > Most addictions one has to stop ALL and or any type of ingesting said > drug.
Again, this is an assertion that is misleading at best and false in many cases. Again, some former narcotics addicts stay on methadone FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. If they quit methadone they will DIE. Methadone makes it possible for these FORMER addicts to lead productive lives, save money, hold down a job, regulate their narcotics intake, and abide by the law. If some people need to take NRT or DIE from smoking, then god bless NRT. NRT SAVES LIVES. And far be it from me to judge such people. Far be it from me to call them names, like "addict." To call someone who is on NRT an "addict’ is, IMNSHO, meaningless, meanspirited, judgmental, narrow-minded, and counter-productive to the goal of quitting smoking. It does nobody any good and is just another example of how passing negative judgments can hurt other people. People who are trying to recover from a life-threatening addiction. Mind you, I think CT is a great way to go, too, for some people. Some people get their minds in the zone and they are ready to quit CT and using NRT would just be a distraction from the zone their heads need to be in to stay addiction-free. The Allen Carr method is a great example of this. Allen Carr’s method works. So does NRT. We all have to find our own way out of our own personal mazes. And passing ill-informed judgments on other adults based on irrational prejudices about NRT and ignorant assumptions about addiction isn’t going to help anybody out of the maze, IMNSHO. YMMV. ep dof
Response:
Hi Edna, I appreciate your taking the time to articulate your feelings about this issue. I’m only going to address one or two points: 1) I don’t know about chronic depression, and not being a medical professional I’m unwilling to offer advice or alternatives, other than: "see your health care provider". This goes for alcoholics as well as smokers. Call my "chicken" or "unfeeling" if you must but I did work at a medical facility for a while and I have some idea about the law of "unintended consequences". 2) I haven’t read in here "I won’t smoke unless X happens", what I have read is: "I quit, just for today", an especially healthy POV, IMNSHO. BTW, YMMV, FWIW, etc. back at you. regards, dave (lh) OF – and apparently cranky today
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual > disclaimers. > I personally believe that cigarette addiction is every bit as serious, life > threatening, life destroying, joy destroying, etc. etc. as heroin addiction, > cocaine addiction, alcoholism, or whatever. I also believe one of the > reasons that cigarette addiction is relatively hard to beat is because we > DON’T take it as seriously, as quitters and as a society. > Here’s an analogy. Let’s say we were all alcoholics instead of tobacco > addicts. And let’s say one of our members came here to our quit-drinking > support group and said, "I suffer from chronic, severe depression, and I’ve > been sober x amount of time. But if the depression gets too bad, I’ll > drink. I’ll only stay sober if I can do it without being disabled by > depression." > What would we all do and say in respone, as members of this person’s support > group? We would debate the issue, we would try to be supportive, we would > try to offer ALTERNATIVES to drinking. We would try to help this person > prepare himself, arm himself with such alternatives. We would try to > encourage this person to maintain, continue, and plan for meaningful, > effective treatment for his depression that does not involve reactivating > his addiction and threatening his health and life. > Why don’t we act the same way when somebody says, "If my depression gets too > bad, I’ll smoke"? I think it’s because we forget that smoking is as serious > an addiction as drinking or any other addiction. And I think that > negligence, that forgetfulness makes it harder to quit smoking, and harder > to support each others’ quits. We don’t take it seriously enough. And I > think some people here a lot of misconceptions about smoking being some sort > of "anti-depressant." Smoking is an "anti-depressant" in the same sense > that crack cocaine is an "anti-depressant." I hear that when you smoke > crack, you get happy. Does that make it a rational response to depression; > a rational "treatment" for depression; a rational life choice; an > "anti-depressant"? Only if you pervert the meaning of the word > "anti-depressant," IMO. > And what if the above-referenced alcoholic came to the above-referenced > quit-drinking group and said, "But alcohol is such an amazing > mood-stabilizer for me! It really works! Nothing else stabilizes my mood > as quickly and effectively as drinking!" Would we just let that remark > pass? THAT’S CRAZY! I have never heard such a bunch of junkie-thinking > bullshit in my life! Again, the rational response is to say, "That’s junkie > thinking," and try to be supportive, we would try to offer ALTERNATIVES to > drinking. We would try to help this person prepare himself, arm himself > with such alternatives. We would try to encourage this person to maintain, > continue, and plan for meaningful, effective treatment for his depression > that does not involve reactivating his addiction and threatening his health > and life. > And what if somebody said, "But smoking crack cocaine is such an amazing > mood stabilizer!" "Shooting heroin really works for me — nothing else > stabilizes my mood as quickl and effectively as a big fat injection of > smack!" > We would NOT say, "Oh you’re such a special case and I can understand why > you say you may drink again one day." Or smoke crack cocaine. Or shoot > herion. That’s bullshit. It’s delusional. It’s dangerous for this > particular addict and it’s dangerous for every addict reading this > newsgroup. I personally feel such thinking should be challenged here. I’m > not trying to belittle this particular depressed addict or criticize his > thinking, but I AM trying to warn other addicts away from that addict’s > slippery slope, that junkie thinking. > If it’s a choice between smoking and suicide, then smoke. That’s a > no-brainer. But it’s also an utterly false dichotomy. The choice is NOT > between smoking and suicide. The choices are between living and dying, and > between smoking and not smoking (and between drinking and not drinking, > etc.). > In my experience, if you set up any set of circumstances in which you are > willing to relapse, then you will relapse. Sooner or later. If you say, "I > won’t smoke unless x happens," then x will happen. Because that’s how > addiction works. An addict will subconsciously arrange her life so as to > ensure the occurrence of x, if she has decided that x is an excuse to > relapse. > So instead of setting yourself up that way, figure out what x is that would > tempt you to smoke and figure out how NOT to smoke if x happens. Plan. > Prepare. No more excuses. > ep dof
Response:
Not with food addictions Not with sex addicts Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual > disclaimers. >There is a BIG difference in your analogy here. With quitting smoking >it is STILL very acceptable to ingest NICOTINE, ie NRT’s. >Where as with any other type of addiction be it alcohol, herion, >cocaine, valium etc it is NOT acceptable to continue ingesting >said drug even if your prefered method is shooting up said drug >why not just start snorting it. >I think there in lies some of the reason it is so lack as it is tolerated >and or allowable means to quit smoking while continuing to get >your "fix" with said drug, ie nicotine. Therefore it makes sense >to me why people feel the way they do or can feel the way the do. >Why not just give all the "crack" heads snortable cocaine instead >while they are quitting their "crack" addiction. >But I know no one will see the dynamics of this and it will turn >into all out flame since all anyone here cares about it NOT smoking >and really no one has a problem with the "real" addiction of nicotine. >Long as ya don’t light up a cancer stick it is "A" 110% OK to continue >the nicotine addiction for the rest of ones life. >So to me the comparisons is like comparing apples and kumquats. >Most addictions one has to stop ALL and or any type of ingesting said >drug. >Gwen
Response:
> I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual > disclaimers.
There is a BIG difference in your analogy here. With quitting smoking it is STILL very acceptable to ingest NICOTINE, ie NRT’s. Where as with any other type of addiction be it alcohol, herion, cocaine, valium etc it is NOT acceptable to continue ingesting said drug even if your prefered method is shooting up said drug why not just start snorting it. I think there in lies some of the reason it is so lack as it is tolerated and or allowable means to quit smoking while continuing to get your "fix" with said drug, ie nicotine. Therefore it makes sense to me why people feel the way they do or can feel the way the do. Why not just give all the "crack" heads snortable cocaine instead while they are quitting their "crack" addiction. But I know no one will see the dynamics of this and it will turn into all out flame since all anyone here cares about it NOT smoking and really no one has a problem with the "real" addiction of nicotine. Long as ya don’t light up a cancer stick it is "A" 110% OK to continue the nicotine addiction for the rest of ones life. So to me the comparisons is like comparing apples and kumquats. Most addictions one has to stop ALL and or any type of ingesting said drug. Gwen
Response:
I got something I gotta get off my chest. YMMV. FWIW. All the usual disclaimers. I personally believe that cigarette addiction is every bit as serious, life threatening, life destroying, joy destroying, etc. etc. as heroin addiction, cocaine addiction, alcoholism, or whatever. I also believe one of the reasons that cigarette addiction is relatively hard to beat is because we DON’T take it as seriously, as quitters and as a society. Here’s an analogy. Let’s say we were all alcoholics instead of tobacco addicts. And let’s say one of our members came here to our quit-drinking support group and said, "I suffer from chronic, severe depression, and I’ve been sober x amount of time. But if the depression gets too bad, I’ll drink. I’ll only stay sober if I can do it without being disabled by depression." What would we all do and say in respone, as members of this person’s support group? We would debate the issue, we would try to be supportive, we would try to offer ALTERNATIVES to drinking. We would try to help this person prepare himself, arm himself with such alternatives. We would try to encourage this person to maintain, continue, and plan for meaningful, effective treatment for his depression that does not involve reactivating his addiction and threatening his health and life. Why don’t we act the same way when somebody says, "If my depression gets too bad, I’ll smoke"? I think it’s because we forget that smoking is as serious an addiction as drinking or any other addiction. And I think that negligence, that forgetfulness makes it harder to quit smoking, and harder to support each others’ quits. We don’t take it seriously enough. And I think some people here a lot of misconceptions about smoking being some sort of "anti-depressant." Smoking is an "anti-depressant" in the same sense that crack cocaine is an "anti-depressant." I hear that when you smoke crack, you get happy. Does that make it a rational response to depression; a rational "treatment" for depression; a rational life choice; an "anti-depressant"? Only if you pervert the meaning of the word "anti-depressant," IMO. And what if the above-referenced alcoholic came to the above-referenced quit-drinking group and said, "But alcohol is such an amazing mood-stabilizer for me! It really works! Nothing else stabilizes my mood as quickly and effectively as drinking!" Would we just let that remark pass? THAT’S CRAZY! I have never heard such a bunch of junkie-thinking bullshit in my life! Again, the rational response is to say, "That’s junkie thinking," and try to be supportive, we would try to offer ALTERNATIVES to drinking. We would try to help this person prepare himself, arm himself with such alternatives. We would try to encourage this person to maintain, continue, and plan for meaningful, effective treatment for his depression that does not involve reactivating his addiction and threatening his health and life. And what if somebody said, "But smoking crack cocaine is such an amazing mood stabilizer!" "Shooting heroin really works for me — nothing else stabilizes my mood as quickl and effectively as a big fat injection of smack!" We would NOT say, "Oh you’re such a special case and I can understand why you say you may drink again one day." Or smoke crack cocaine. Or shoot herion. That’s bullshit. It’s delusional. It’s dangerous for this particular addict and it’s dangerous for every addict reading this newsgroup. I personally feel such thinking should be challenged here. I’m not trying to belittle this particular depressed addict or criticize his thinking, but I AM trying to warn other addicts away from that addict’s slippery slope, that junkie thinking. If it’s a choice between smoking and suicide, then smoke. That’s a no-brainer. But it’s also an utterly false dichotomy. The choice is NOT between smoking and suicide. The choices are between living and dying, and between smoking and not smoking (and between drinking and not drinking, etc.). In my experience, if you set up any set of circumstances in which you are willing to relapse, then you will relapse. Sooner or later. If you say, "I won’t smoke unless x happens," then x will happen. Because that’s how addiction works. An addict will subconsciously arrange her life so as to ensure the occurrence of x, if she has decided that x is an excuse to relapse. So instead of setting yourself up that way, figure out what x is that would tempt you to smoke and figure out how NOT to smoke if x happens. Plan. Prepare. No more excuses. ep dof
Response: