Last cig at night - smoking cessation

[imatfaal]

...

 

O, be thou damned, inexecrable dog! And for thy life let justice be accused! [/dramatic flourish]

 

That same theater tried to put on Merchant of Venice, and on opening night, nobody knew their lines because they'd all fallen asleep while memorizing them. The troupe fell into disrepute, and later moved to France where they were forced to become mimes.

 

Those. Poor. Actors. [/shatner]

 

"prop store" - Actors only get their grubby hands on props at the spacing runthrough or one of the technical rehearsals and they should have learnt their lines by then - and heaven defend them if they venture into the prop store to help themselves and actually try to use a prop. Sorry - but I was the sort of techie who thought actors were an unnecessary inconvenience to an otherwise well run show. Frankly mimes would be an improvement - wouldn't have to listen to the jumped up...

 

By the way love the shatner tag

[Phi for All]

By the way love the shatner tag

 

You don't think I should have used more spacing between the words?

[michel123456]

I have no experience in smoking. However I have been a passive smoker for years, when I was young at home with my father & brother who smoked a lot, and at work for 20 years long before it became forbidden. I have become a smoker hater.

[StringJunky]

 

You don't think I should have used more spacing between the words?

No. You got the point across just fine. I think the full stop is the longest interval in our language, is it not?

 

I have no experience in smoking. However I have been a passive smoker for years, when I was young at home with my father & brother who smoked a lot, and at work for 20 years long before it became forbidden. I have become a smoker hater.

Hate the activity, not the person.

Edited September 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

No. You got the point across just fine. I think the full stop is the longest interval in our language, is it not?

 

Hate the activity, not the person.

It doesn't work like that.

[StringJunky]

My CO level was 2 today; it was 8 last week and 16 before that.

 

I realised today why ones energy levels increase with cessation. The carbon monoxide binds to haemoglobin much more readily than oxygen and forms a stable compound which renders the red cells with reduced capacity ,meaning we have to breath faster and our hearts pump faster to try to compensate. Once the polluted red cells are replenished one feels more alive and alert.

It doesn't work like that.

How do you mean?

 

Phi

 

When you see the number of cups a Moka is stated to make, note that they are small cups so you probably want at least a 6 cup to make a mug or you could use a smaller one and top up with water in the mug; I do this with my 3-cup.

Edited September 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

No. You got the point across just fine. I think the full stop is the longest interval in our language, is it not?

Not.

In.

Shatner.

 

Hate the activity, not the person.

As long as the person isn't doing the activity anymore, this becomes possible.

[StringJunky]

Not.

In.

Shatner.

 

As long as the person isn't doing the activity anymore, this becomes possible.

It's the same principle as attacking the argument in a discussion not the person.

[Phi for All]

It's the same principle as attacking the argument in a discussion not the person.

 

Is it? Behavior isn't like an argument until it becomes the argument. If I'm talking to you, and you're honking one of those really loud air horns every five seconds, you can argue it's the horn that's the problem, but if you keep doing it, is the horn to blame? Should I still love you and hate the horn?

[zapatos]

Is it? Behavior isn't like an argument until it becomes the argument. If I'm talking to you, and you're honking one of those really loud air horns every five seconds, you can argue it's the horn that's the problem, but if you keep doing it, is the horn to blame? Should I still love you and hate the horn?

Given that smoking is an addiction, I'd say it is similar to the principle of attacking the argument, not the person.

If I'm talking to you and and you keep calling me a son of a bitch due to your Tourette's, should I still love you and hate the outburst? Or should I blame you because it is your behavior?

[iNow]

If I'm talking to you and and you keep calling me a son of a bitch due to your Tourette's, should I still love you and hate the outburst? Or...

You should feel thankful that somebody finally understands the real you

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

Given that smoking is an addiction, I'd say it is similar to the principle of attacking the argument, not the person.

If I'm talking to you and and you keep calling me a son of a bitch due to your Tourette's, should I still love you and hate the outburst? Or should I blame you because it is your behavior?

 

Now I want to see the public reaction to the two of us, downtown somewhere, arguing about science. Every few seconds, you blast the horn, and I call you a son of a bitch, then we go back to arguing.

You should feel thankful that somebody finally understands the real you

 

 

 

 

Son of a bitch! That was REALLY funny.

[zapatos]

Putang ina!

At least I'm in good company!

[StringJunky]

 

Is it? Behavior isn't like an argument until it becomes the argument. If I'm talking to you, and you're honking one of those really loud air horns every five seconds, you can argue it's the horn that's the problem, but if you keep doing it, is the horn to blame? Should I still love you and hate the horn?

Both are actions and both have the same cause: the brain. If the person behaving like an idiot must take ownership of their behaviour then so must the person talking like an idiot. To argue otherwise would lack logical consistency and denies that both phenomena have the same root cause.

Edited September 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

It's the same principle as attacking the argument in a discussion not the person.

Maybe. There is no logic in it, it is a reaction that comes from deep inside .I think we call that anger, lawyers have a word for that.

After anger is finished it may be that you are right: when I see a smoker next to me I should simply turn to him and say very politely "you SOAB stop smoking NOW"..."Please"

[tar]

...and I mean that sir, in the nicest way possible, bless your heart, and have a beautiful day.

[Phi for All]

Both are actions and both have the same cause: the brain. If the person behaving like an idiot must take ownership of their behaviour then so must the person talking like an idiot. To argue otherwise would lack logical consistency and denies that both phenomena have the same root cause.

 

But it implies that the action of lighting up a cigarette is as involuntary as a Tourette's sufferer's expletives. Can someone with Tourette's choose not to swear, like a smoker can choose not to light up?

[tar]

Phi,

 

I don't know about Tourette's but I remember that morning, before I quit where I decided not to smoke for an hour when I first woke up and my nicotine levels were low from not smoking for 7 hrs., and I found a lit cigarette in my mouth two or three times in 57 minutes. The last time, I smoked the thing.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

Phi,

 

I don't know about Tourette's but I remember that morning, before I quit where I decided not to smoke for an hour when I first woke up and my nicotine levels were low from not smoking for 7 hrs., and I found a lit cigarette in my mouth two or three times in 57 minutes. The last time, I smoked the thing.

 

Regards, TAR

 

That still seems like comparing a physical tic with a muscle memory action. You were on auto-pilot (like making the right turn you usually make at a familiar intersection when you really needed to turn left this time).

[zapatos]

 

But it implies that the action of lighting up a cigarette is as involuntary as a Tourette's sufferer's expletives. Can someone with Tourette's choose not to swear, like a smoker can choose not to light up?

You seem to be implying that choosing not to light up is as voluntary as choosing to not pick up a magazine. While the person with Tourrette's probably cannot choose not to swear, the person who lights up is not doing so simply by muscle memory. It is an addiction.

Edited September 13, 2016 by zapatos

[Phi for All]

You seem to be implying that choosing not to light up is as voluntary as choosing to not pick up a magazine. While the person with Tourrette's probably cannot choose not to swear, the person who lights up is not doing so simply by muscle memory. It is an addiction.

 

No, I understand the addiction part. But addicts do have the capability to choose in the moment not to exercise their addiction, something I don't think Tourettes would allow. It's akin to a physical tic, right? An uncontrolled spasm? That doesn't describe a person addicted to cigarettes. Smokers light up against their will, but someone with Tourettes is working against their muscles, aren't they? The one person I saw with the disease (many years ago) also had some physical cues that seemed related (head jerked to the side, facial tics).

[tar]

That still seems like comparing a physical tic with a muscle memory action. You were on auto-pilot (like making the right turn you usually make at a familiar intersection when you really needed to turn left this time).

Phi,

 

Oh, I get you. The tick is way deeply buried below the conscious control, you can't stop it, even if you wanted to. In the cig case, I could find the thing in my mouth, laugh at my dependence and lack of control, knowing exactly the cause, and put the damn thing in the ashtray, and let it burn.

 

Regards, TAR

[zapatos]

 

No, I understand the addiction part. But addicts do have the capability to choose in the moment not to exercise their addiction, something I don't think Tourettes would allow. It's akin to a physical tic, right? An uncontrolled spasm? That doesn't describe a person addicted to cigarettes. Smokers light up against their will, but someone with Tourettes is working against their muscles, aren't they? The one person I saw with the disease (many years ago) also had some physical cues that seemed related (head jerked to the side, facial tics).

Yes, 'in the moment' the addict has some control whereas someone with Tourrette's does not (I have a niece with Tourrette's). My point is that the addict must act on the craving eventually; it is not something that can be readily controlled. Therefore to hate the smoker for smoking, is to hate them for something they have very little control over. The addiction is not the same as the tics and outbursts, but it is much closer to having an uncontrolled tic than it is to blowing a horn while they are talking to you.

It seems fair to me to be annoyed at the smoker who smokes next to you while you are eating instead of stepping away and smoking, but it does not seem fair to me to be annoyed at them for bending to the addiction.

[tar]

Phi,

 

And I had my second knee replaced and had these spasms that I did not have with the first. Spasms that would bend my knee a little even as I was standing, trying to put my foot on the floor. I would laugh that my leg was too short to reach the ground, but I was not bending my knee, it was bending on its own. Perhaps like the Tourette's. Not really me doing it. Well me, my knee muscles, my brain sending motor control signals to the muscles, but not going through the normal predictive motor simulator circuit, that has some conscious component of command to release the complex of signals that are ready to go.

 

So yes. My spasms I cannot prevent, although I have learned how to subdue them or counteract them or block them, to a certain degree, but smoking, requires a whole large chain of actions that you can interrupt at many various points if you don't wish to smoke. Don't buy them, don't put them in your mouth, don't light them, don't inhale...easy to prevent oneself from smoking. Spasms, not so easy to prevent.

 

Regards, TAR

[Phi for All]

It seems fair to me to be annoyed at the smoker who smokes next to you while you are eating instead of stepping away and smoking, but it does not seem fair to me to be annoyed at them for bending to the addiction.

 

Of course. There are some norms that have changed favorably, and it's become very rude and even illegal to annoy people with smoke while dining. Most modern smokers ask before lighting up in enclosed spaces, so it's rude when you don't. That behavior has changed dramatically, during our lifetimes. I remember when there weren't even sections for smokers/non-smokers in restaurants.

 

Most smokers I encounter still aren't as concerned about second-hand effects as I feel they should be. I get annoyed at the folks who are in an acceptable situation for smoking (say, in a park), but don't care who else is affected. Smoke drifts if the wind isn't blowing, and ash drifts if it is blowing (I'll be generous and assume they're disposing of the butts properly). I realize there's no way a smoker can control the winds, but would that excuse be acceptable if we were talking about the smokestack from a coal plant?