reply to post by jude11
Well, I can totally relate to your post, thought process and difficulties. S&F for the naked display of honesty.
Like you, been there, done that - rinsed and repeated for 25 long years.
Heroin withdrawal was a major nightmare, but I did what had to be done and got over it. Won't be going there again and that's a fact. Then the party
drugs, I used alcohol and hashish in inordinate amounts to compensate. Alcohol was the hardest for me, never could sit in a bar and drink a coke, so I
stayed at home any time I wasn't working and smoked myself stupid for a year or two. Finally, I managed to kick the hashish: that too was a long slow
process, reducing and reducing further to the point where for the past three years I have smoked exclusively for the ten days covering Christmas and
When I look back at the process, it does seem obvious that I went from crutch to crutch. Therein lies the main problem with cigarettes: they are the
last crutch, the final hurdle. It is not simply about quitting tobacco.
To quote Mark Twain...
'Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times.'
... I've actually done it about half a dozen times, personal best 5 1/2 months so far. And yet, and yet....
The thing about long-time smoking is that when you quit, you must win a battle every few minutes or so. Months go by, and you are still fighting that
very same battle every few hours or so. Apparently, after years of no smoking, the craving can and will still hit you occasionally...and the thing is,
one moment of weakness, one lost battle and you are back in the deep end immediately. Such moments of weakness are inevitable, as we all grow older
and lose loved ones, or tragedy strikes within our close circle, we lose a job, a friend, are forced to renounce a dream that was crucial to us...
Which brings me to my next point.
This is not due to nicotine.
Nicotine assuefaction lasts 72 hours. In that sense, the physical battle is indeed many times milder than what you go through whilst experiencing the
full brunt of heroin withdrawal, and by that I mean without compensating with methadone and meds.
It is my firm belief that tobacco companies have been experimenting with psychotropic drugs in their products for the best part of 30 years.
No, I can't prove it, and I won't be arguing the point. Nevertheless, I am absolutely convinced it is so. In truth, I did find some interesting
scientific papers on the internet years back, postulating this very hypothesis...but either I cannot find them anymore or they have been scrubbed.
The emphasis on nicotine is your classic red herring.
One final consideration must be made, and that is that despite the damage due to the chemicals and psychotropic drugs, it has been suggested smoking
actually prevents lung cancer. In all honesty, I actually think I believe that, for the following reasons:
- Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to
this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the
highest incidence of lung cancer. Real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers.
- the phenomenal rise in lung cancer coincides precisely with the first-use of nuclear weapons and subsequent beginning of nuclear testing. This is
quite easy to statistically verify.A 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global "deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled
during the period 1945 to 1955", though no explanation was offered.
- Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles are sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams
circulate them far and wide. Half-life of the particles: 50,000 years or longer...inhale a single particle and eventual death from lung cancer becomes
inevitable: the solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body's limited reserves of
vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.
- How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which
government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke...
- Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking
promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, "which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the
The above points are extracted from the following article, an interesting read:
Google 'Smoking helps protect against lung cancer', ATS doesn't like my link despite their belief in free speech.
I have no problem with the premises and conclusions of that article, but everyone else will just have to make up their own mind.
In closing, I am no longer trying to stop smoking. Fistly because I find it near to impossible, and second because between radioactive particles and
chemtrails I really do believe, experientially, that smoking is contributing to protecting me from far worst alternatives.
I have found that the only thing that bothered me with smoking was the constant wheezing cough and breathing difficulties. I say bothered because I
have found a combination of breathing exercises, H2O2 inhalations and jogging to have fixed the problem. Smoking rolled tobacco has also helped, but
possibly the breathing exercises are the key.
Your lungs will regain elasticity and you might just find that you don't really need to quit as badly as you think you do.
Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck.
edit on 31-3-2014 by D377MC because: spelling, punctuation, edit to add.