It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Survival for smokers

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:51 PM
Most smokers have attempted to quit in the past. That said, most of us know how difficult it is to deal with the effects of nicotine withdrawal. Most of us are also aware of, and suffer from, the adverse effects that regular smoking has on our fitness levels.

It would seem to me, that in the face of a societal apocalypse, smokers are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to survival. We cannot run as far or as fast. We suffer to a much greater extent during physical exertion at altitude (kind of a big deal here in Colorado, if you're going to run, it's to the mountains). Not to mention, once you've had your last one, for a period of days to several weeks, our decision making abilities are drastically impaired, and we begin to move even slower as the general feeling of, well, crap overtakes us as withdrawal sets in.

I've been a pack and a half smoker for 15 years, and have never really been all that concerned about the long term physical effects. Until recently, I've been a proponent of the Dennis Leary "No Cure for Cancer" concept, in that I'm not really all that excited about the "Adult Diaper Years" anyway.

However, as fears mount, and the line begins to blur between current events and conspiracy theory of yester-year, it's becoming clear that becoming a non smoker should be part of my preparations for the unknown (as well as the other more obvious reasons to quit). I mean, I'm not afraid to die, I just don't want it to be because I couldn't breath, or made a stupid judgment call, or took too long to make the right one because I was trying to figure out where I might find a burned out 7-11 that might have a few butts under the ruble.

So, my question is this. Has anyone quit for the sole purpose of preparing for Sit X?

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:59 PM
Quitting isn't that hard when you don't have any other option. I was locked up for a year and could not smoke. I hardly noticed the withdrawals. And very rarely did I have a craving. When something isn't staring you in the face everywhere you go, isn't easily accessible, then it is alot easier then knowing everytime you fill up your gas tank you will have to stare your smoke of choice in the face and say no.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:59 PM
Thats a really good point about smoking!!
I am a smoker, so is my other half and have made no attempts to give up...yet, its definately been playing on my mind for a while because just simply walking up a flight of stairs can leave me breathless.
Ive been smoking since i was 11 and am now 30, i really feel compelled to give up but the addiction is soooo strong its unreal (im quite a strong willed person usually but this has me!!).
I wish you luck in giving up

Im now off to light one up, just the thought of giving up. lol

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Beauty_HairyBeast]

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:01 PM
I have been thinking about this exact senerio for the past few weeks. The only thing I have done at the current time is slow down...but it has been a difficult process. Currently I am on a half-pack a day, but like tou said, it diminishes our ability to think.

What helps me is to stay very busy...I just start a buch of projects and ideas I know I will never finish, but I put a lot of effort in them anyways cause I know the reasons I am doing them.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:18 PM
I actually agree with what you all are saying, but I say hell if the S*** hits the fan then why not. I mean smoking has effects that could help you like loss of appetite, and stress and both of those are sure to be a big factor later, and it gives you something to do.
If your lungs are giving you trouble you should try some herbal smoking mixes that are beneficial to the lungs.

Look here:

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:25 PM
I pick and choose when I smoke.

And its hardly ever.

I start, and a I stop.

The key is to rule the cigs and not let them rule you.

If you have to have a smoke with a drink all the time then cut down on your drink.

In SitX I'll still have the rare cigarette. I enjoy the buzz and the cool vibe.
smoke too many and its sht.

In the early days smoking was supposed to be an occasional thing.
Its only when the government mass produced them and people binge smoked that the cancer really went crazy.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:26 PM
It has been easy for me to quit, and I do it all the time. I do have to agree that smoking does tend to make me stupid. I have major difficulty in composing post, spelling, and even remembering what the post is about if I am disturbed while on the keyboard. I'll quit again when I'm out of tobacco, and in about 3 or 4 days I will probably buy more. There is always the remote chance that I won't.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:28 PM
Tensetek, thanks for the link.
I dont know how long it takes for the lungs to become damaged from smoking but i know for sure i can feel it.
I am really considering thinking about giving up!! No can only be a good move if the SHTF

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Unit541

"Oh we love you, you giant F&*king Q"
"The lewds dude"
"I'll make a bong out of this guys head man"
"Tracheotomy man"
"have a hotdog and hummer"

Why did you have to bring Dennis Leary up, these lines will be stuck in my head for

On a serious note, all smokers need to quit. If we all quit together then no one would smoke. Why don't they outlaw it? I'm sure the CIA could set up a killer operation, and ream us real good on the black market...wake up CIA. You guys are missing out on a gold mine.


posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:22 PM
I approached a rehab 'rep' in the parking lot where they were 'repping' to inquire on smokers inpatient.

Their response was, "Huh?"

I guess, speaking of goldmines..... there it would be..for humanity, not for cancer doctors.

I did modify my smoking for my survival; A pack a day for 25. Switching to a megalow tar:nic brand at somewhere like year 22, something of a 20th of a marlboro.

At the doctors recently I was asked to hold my breath. A minute and a half. I couldn't believe it. I can't run-but I won't die on an excercise machine. It's what I had to do. Because I was noticing I was losing my breath.

But to put-put them down. I need an inpatient specifically gaged for smoking cessation as well as the mental recovery/life skills that go into the mental process. Anybody want to start a business? Need a monkey?

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:32 PM
I smoke a pipe, yes tobacco. Not as much as I used to but its definately an addiction. I can feel it when I take long hikes or run a good distance, and have been trying to quit, just needed some incentive. Other than death of course. This recent economic scare really has me thinking about when sit x will happen and I have been cutting back more and more.

I dont think Ill ever quit, I do enjoy a good pipe, but to not be beholden to it would be nice.

Oh, in the event of a collapse, I do stock and rotate tobacco like my other survival foods and have learned to grow my own. If nothing else, fresh tobacco would be a great barter item.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:36 PM
I quit last year. It was tough, at least for me. I am a sweaty person, and patches do NOT stick to me. I tried to taper off, and I guess I'm not a taper off person. I had to cold turkey. I'm pretty certain I was unpleasant and pretty much a coiled spring of nastiness for the better part of four days. After that, I was merely surly.

I've said to folks before, when talking about hurricane supplies -- it's a bad thing if you have an addiction, but in the middle of a hurricane is the wrong time to quit. It's been my experience that the SitX event is exactly the wrong time to quit things, as the associated withdrawls can change a person's ability to respond in a clear-headed manner.

I drink alcohol. Sometimes I go a day or two, just as a reality check, to insure that it's not a problem to do so. So far so good.

I quit smoking solely because I thought if a SitX came about, I would freak out if I were FORCED to quit due to lack of supply. I still occasionally smoke a pipe. Occasionally = maybe twice a week. I have a large bundle of smooth tobacco. I think I'm okay now.

Honestly, I don't really feel a marked difference. I'm certain my body is happier, and I suppose my endurance is better. I stopped being a runner about 20 years ago when I tore both Achilles tendons. I have been an avid swimmer for years.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:45 PM
You gotta quit. Smoking removes water from your body, makes it harder to run and will no doubt contribute to sickness in the long run. You dont want to be tired, sick and thirsty in a survival situation.

I smoked for about ten years. The state I was in started jacking the taxes on them. My intense hatred for taxation and funding government BS got me to quit the moment they passed the tax. I still remember hearing it on the car radio, tossing the one I was smoking out the window followed by the crushed pack. That was 6 years ago. Made it without any cheats or "relapsing."

I have a cigar on the fourth of July each year. It's easier to light fireworks with than a Bic.

Associate them with something you hate. It worked for me.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:18 PM
It appears this smoking issue is probably the last bastion of »political correctness« to remain unchallenged...

I usually laugh off the PO-CO crap (with gusto).
But when it's actually obscuring the overall perception of the world and damaging a person's hold of him/herself, I am not going to remain silent, no matter how unpopular my views may be.

»Smoking makes you stupid«...?

It's the first time I've even heard this particular myth, but whoever said that must have been smoking BIG TIME – and not tobacco, my friend...

I have had the privilege of meeting very prolific and profound creators and thinkers, mostly but not exclusively artists, actors and writers. No, let me re-spell that: Artists, Actors and Writers. (Because it seems everyone can claim these titles these days. But the actors and, most especially, writers I am talking about are/were a category unto themselves, not just guys with writing equipment and a »good idea for a story«.)
Some of those were or later became statesmen – and not the stupidest around.

99% of them were not smokers – they were HEAVY smokers. A cigarette was like a permanent attribute of theirs. There are some that I cannot recall in my memory without a cigarette in their hands.

»Smokers have diminished physical capacities«?

Some do; some don't.
One of the writers mentioned above used to run every single morning, UPHILL through a woody terrain (maybe he still does, it's just that I haven't met him in more than 10 years), and he was close to sixty at the time.
He also used to smoke at least 30 cigarettes a day, and had been doing that since his teens.

But that's nothing compared to Joe DiMaggio who, I am told, used to smoke no less than 40 cigarettes a day – and that was during his most active years as a baseball player.

Socrates, a Brazilian footballer, used to smoke 60 (sixty) cigarettes a day when he was one of the most formidable members of the Brazilian national team.

And I am told Johan Cruyff, a legend, used to smoke even more than that during his active years as a football player.
(I actually heard him say 100 - that's one hundred, a day - but he may have been just boasting or... whatever.)

Am I advocating smoking?


But I am not going to listen to bunk, either, and say nothing – sorry.

What I am advocating is personal freedom.
And it is my conviction that personal freedom is, no doubt, much greater without any addictions.

Speaking of addictions...
That is one of the myths that I find truly sinister – because I cannot, for the life of me, see the reason why would anyone claim that, when it is actually not true.

People CAN stop smoking (or most other behaviours) at any time they please, without any suffering. Or indeed (as one of the poster indicated) a person can quite easily have a cigarette now and then without developing even the slightest »addiction«. I have two friends who are quite capable of smoking 15 cigarettes in an evening – and then not even THINK of them for the next two years.
I have seen it, I have experienced it myself.

Even in people with high levels of addictiveness (what is usually – and most incorrectly – called »addictive personality«, as if it were something inborn or permanent, when it's not), ANY addiction will be purged out of the system in 21-23 days.

Psychological addiction, of course, is something else – and pumping false fear-based ideas into people's heads (»it's VERRRY difficult, you won't be able to quit!«) is actually just reinforcing the slavery of the supposed addiction.
And THAT'S what I find sinister: because it almost seems as if there were a purpose to the perpetuating of this myth – and I cannot see the use, the purpose of perpetuating this particular myth.

For those who would like to quit smoking and THINK they can't do it on their own, try the objectivist method proposed by Barbara Branden, an ex- disciple of Ayn Rand.

On Smoking

And finally, the statistics...

You may have read this or not, you may believe this or not, but the FACT you'll never hear (unless you press hard to extract it from people) is that in all those »cancer deaths« a direct and irrefutable correlation between their smoking and their cancer (not just lung) has not been established.

Yes, laboratory research and studies have shown that certain components found in tobacco products can cause cancer in rats and other lab animals.

Yes, the people included in the stats who died of cancer had smoked.

What they forget to tell you is that, not so long ago, MOST adults in the societies covered by those statistics used to smoke...

On the other hand, we all know (or know of) people who got cancer – even lung cancer – without having smoked a single cigarette in their life.
(Oh right... »secondary smoking«!
Well, no – certainly not as a norm.
The disease was around well before the advent of cigarettes.)

So, considering all the other common (but, curiously, less targeted) carcinogens of the same era – like, fried food (because of the boiling oil), pesticides, the once ubiquitous asbestos, all kinds of environmental (and other) factors – how do we know it's really cigarettes what brought the disease upon them?

We don't.
They MAY have, but we don't know that.

The argument goes:

»X died of cancer + s/he smoked = cigarettes caused her/his cancer.«

Well, they MAY have.
Maybe not.

Because in reality, the picture looks more like this:

»X (who clearly had a genetic predisposition towards the disease) died of cancer + s/he smoked – AND/OR s/he ate fried foods, AND/OR s/he lived in an asbestos-infested environment, AND/OR he ate tons of fruits and vegetables treated with what is now known as carcinogenic substances, AND/OR was exposed to God know how many other known carcinogens = and one (maybe the cigarettes, maybe not) or more of these factors probably caused his disease.«

But, for some obscure reason, this vital part of the statistic figures is lost on the public (not to mention many of the the GPs).
Oh wait, it must be all that nicotine – that's what made people stupid...

I don't expect you to believe me, and of course you don't have to.
(I also know that, if you continue your research, you will eventually arrive at the same conclusions.)

I already said »finally« once, but I'd rather close with this thought:

You can "inject" a purpose – a healing purpose as well as a destructive one – into ANY product, any sight, any thought, anything you want.

If you don't do it yourself, others will do it for you.
So - guess where all those warning printed on cigarette packs are leading us...

I am sorry if this offends anyone.
(And I feel very funny finding myself in the role of a seeming passionate advocate of smoking – when, in reality, I am not. I am only passionate, and very much so, about the things that matter to me – one of them being the survival of actual, independent thinking by individuals.)

But I can and will also say this: a person who is offended by open discussion on this, has FAR worse problems to worry about than smoking...

There, the devil's advocate has spoken.
(Who would've thought he ever needed one, eh...?

I don't think I'll be returning to this thread – it doesn't have a good effect on my blood pressure :-) - so excuse my silence if you happen to ask or say anything that would require my answer.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Vanitas]

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:41 PM
Thanks for the wealth of information, but I think you missed a few points.

First, Smoking most certainly does diminish ones physical capacities. It's not a "some do, some don't" issue. While there are plenty of smokers who could out run, in both speed and distance plenty of non-smokers, physical fitness is relative. Those smokers who can run a 5 minute mile 5 times in a row, would assuredly do better were they not smokers. Regular, chronic smoking affects the lungs of everyone who smokes in a negative way. This cannot be argued.

Also, smoking doesn't make me stupid, but quitting does. That's what this thread is about. The scenario to examine is one where you're forced to quit due to lack of supply, during a time of intense turmoil and danger. When withdrawal symptoms kick in, decision making is impaired. While some people may exhibit only mild discomfort, others experience quite severe withdrawals. I happen to be one of the latter group, and I can tell you without a doubt, being a smoker in a Sit X with no supply of tobacco would greatly reduce my chances of survival.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by Unit541

I was working, minding my own business, when I suddenly remembered the last part of my own post, and it hit me that it could be misinterpreted as if were saying that there was something wrong with the thread...

So I came back, to correct that impression.

And I am glad I did, because now, after reading your post, I can also apologise for having deviated somewhat from the main point of the thread.
(I don't visit smoking-related threads or forums, so I seize the day whenever and wherever it dawns upon me...

So: I think this thread is actually a very good and useful one.

But I will repeat this:

You are NOT as addicted as you think you are.
You CAN smoke at will, that is, whenever you want to - or never again, if that's what you want.

I do hope Branden's article (see above) will help you or anyone reading it.

If she could do it - no suffering involved - so can you.
Anyone can. ANYONE.

The best of luck!

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Vanitas]

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:19 PM
Survial for smokers

There is none

It used to be a billion dollar indusrty............every movie someone smoked.every cowboy, every car was sponsord by tabaco its a bad thing really a bad thing, headline bad ..criminaly bad!

Studys have been done, and smokers are less productive,,,,,,,,they have to stop to smoke! and if they smoke, there is at least a 50% chance they will not do as told.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H

When I smoked, there was a 100% chance I would not do as I was told.

Funny, that doesn't seem to have changed.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by argentus

It is a long term effect known as minding your own business.

A very important natural trait that saved countless of our primeval ancestors from poking a sleeping saber-tooth tiger with a stick because its snoring/steam from nostrils on a chilly morning/not being in their clique was annoying them.

Unfortunately not enough non-smokers have gained this trait.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:39 PM
reply to post by argentus

My point exactly.

Some wealthy people are haveing to sacrafice for this no smokeing drive.

The question is why and what for.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in