- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Ok, this thread could get nasty 
Last week, while at a party a couple of us had a discussion involving cigarettes. There were a couple of non-smokers(including myself), and a couple smokers.
They conversation was about cigarettes being addictive.
To make a long conversation short, a couple smokers said that they had quit smoking for more than a couple months at a time, and some even as long as a year, but they said that they went back to smoking because they were addicted.
Ok, I'll accept that if you try to kick smoking in a week or so go back to it because of aggitation, headaches, ect, then yes, you have succumbed to the powers of addiction.
BUT, after a period of a month or two, and especially after a year of non smoking, the withdrawl symptoms have been kick, and your body is already trying to repair itself from the damage that smoking has caused.
So this brings me to my point - I will not accept "addiction" as a reason for going back to smoking, or using any other substance for that matter, after quitting it for an extended amount of time. After a month or two, and especially a year, it is because [insert substance of choice here] use is habitual. Habits can be broken, you just have to try. The addiction arguement is no longer valid.
I see people giving up substances for pregnancy, lent, bets, personal choice, and whatnot for extended periods of time, and eventually going back to them.
Anyone care to comment on this?
I know that a post like this could be considered trolling, but I do feel that there is a very legitimate question involved here. Lets try to keep it remotely civil
Last week, while at a party a couple of us had a discussion involving cigarettes. There were a couple of non-smokers(including myself), and a couple smokers.
They conversation was about cigarettes being addictive.
To make a long conversation short, a couple smokers said that they had quit smoking for more than a couple months at a time, and some even as long as a year, but they said that they went back to smoking because they were addicted.
Ok, I'll accept that if you try to kick smoking in a week or so go back to it because of aggitation, headaches, ect, then yes, you have succumbed to the powers of addiction.
BUT, after a period of a month or two, and especially after a year of non smoking, the withdrawl symptoms have been kick, and your body is already trying to repair itself from the damage that smoking has caused.
So this brings me to my point - I will not accept "addiction" as a reason for going back to smoking, or using any other substance for that matter, after quitting it for an extended amount of time. After a month or two, and especially a year, it is because [insert substance of choice here] use is habitual. Habits can be broken, you just have to try. The addiction arguement is no longer valid.
I see people giving up substances for pregnancy, lent, bets, personal choice, and whatnot for extended periods of time, and eventually going back to them.
Anyone care to comment on this?
I know that a post like this could be considered trolling, but I do feel that there is a very legitimate question involved here. Lets try to keep it remotely civil