Others Bug Me With This in the Backcountry!

Diane, I find the loud talking very much an "American" thing. I don't mean it to be offensive, and I don't mean other individuals from other parts of the world don't sometimes talk loudly, but living in a country of soft-spoken people, it is really grating to visit America (at least until you adjust), or brush up against American tourists, as they always seem like they are shouting at each other.

That aside, HYOH may be fine in theory, but I just remembered THE thing that annoys me most in the back country. It's Folks that chopper into your remote experience (that you have worked hard for several days to attain on foot), usually bringing all the luxuries of home (including booze, rifles and boom boxes), stay up all night playing cards and drinking, for as long as their supplies hold out, then chopper out again. It's a real bonus if they butcher a stag in camp….HYOH is one thing, but fly your own hike is quite another.

Personally, I think the loud talking is a regional thing–to generalize/stereotype ALL Americans as "loud talkers" is unfair. Having lived in three different regions of the United States (midwest, west coast, southeast), I can say that regional & cultural differences have a HUGE influence on communication style. The setting (urban vs. rural) is also an important factor to consider as well. Since tourists are usually around populated/busy areas (cities, national parks, etc.), is it really fair to judge the whole of a country based on a few experiences in a limited number of settings?

Hopefully your experience with the "chopper hiking" was somewhat isolated, but please don't judge the rest of us based on that experience.

The chopper hiking was a different issue all together, and they are almost always local hunters out for a good time.

"is it really fair to judge the whole of a country based on a few experiences in a limited number of settings?"

Of course not, and there are always exceptions. I grew up in America, and travelled/backpacked widely. I really didn't notice the volume difference until I moved away, as I was immersed in it myself. And I stop noticing after a while whenever I return for a visit. FYI, in this part of the world, the Aussies also have a reputation as being somewhat loud, but again it's just a gross generalisation as I'm sure there are many soft spoken ones. As I said, although some may take offence, none was intended. It was just an observation.

No offence taken on the stupid smokers comment. In fact I’m incredibly difficult to offend most of the time. I’m just saying, it is a wide misconception that tobacco addiction is related to poor education or poverty. While the demographics may lean towards this populous, I have personally known many wealthy and highly educated tobacco addicts. I would also never leave butts in the woods, that is unthinkable. Plus I roll my own cigs using rice paper and cotton filters, which burn completely in a camp fire, else they get hiked out like all trash. I don’t know what those Marlboro/Camel manufactured filters are made from but they seem to kind of melt instead of burn. Nasty things they are. My smokes may not be more safe but at least I know what I’m smoking, 100% additive free tobacco, rice paper, and a cotton filter.

Lynn,
Do people really fly helicopters in to the wilderness and camp? More importantly what does a helicopter weigh?

Daniel, people pay helicopter pilots to drop them (and all their gear) off and then pick them up later. Some people even have the chopper fly in one of those portable huts into a remote region so they don't have to rough it in a tent. Heli-skiing and heli-kayaking are also pretty popular…all very annoying IMHO (unless I get to be in the helicopter too)!

I smoked for 14 years.
and what people seem to be missing is that most everyone who is a smoker started when they were very young. I started at age 14. The reason is simple, all the bad girls smoked (bad girls are the good ones) and well, that meant me and my friends did too, and if old people and society didnt like it- all the better. the fact that many found it offensive- all the better. Thats how kids are. The problem is when the novelty wears off as you get older, the habit remains.
But its not as hard to quit as people make it out to be, oh I know people will be on my case for saying that but, when someone wants to quit they will when they dont they will give reasons why its too hard. Everyone I know who has quit did tit the same way- they stopped.

>Everyone I know who has quit did tit the same way- they stopped.

So have the vast majority of people who didn't end up permanently quitting. Nicotine in cigarette form is really one of the most addictive drugs around. Like any addiction, some will find it easier to quit than others. In the case of cigarettes, around 80% of people who get hooked struggle to give it up permanently. This makes it more 'addictive' than heroin (~50% quit rate). Of course, heroin is illegal and hard to get and not as socially acceptable, which may be why smoking appears more addictive.

Smoking also appears to strongly ameliorate some of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. You will not find many schizophrenics who DON'T smoke. So there is probably a genetic or developmental aspect to nicotine addiction too.

Note that nicotine is not especially bad for you, it's the smoking that kills and offends.

Twelve months ago I walked into remote river in the North Island NZ to spend a few days trout fishing and this chopper flew over, dropped off some fisher persons and guide and left, on the way back to camp we bumped into the group, the guide was really annoyed that we where there, they stayed 2 hours and left.

In 2004 I did the Overland Track in Tasmania, for the first three days there was a helicopter continually flying overhead resupplying some commercial huts along the track, it was not a very pleasant experience.

Tony

"This makes it more 'addictive' than heroin (~50% quit rate)"

Ive heard this before, and frankly I simply dont believe it. I know people with real drug addictions and I think this is plain propaganda. Its not like its "easy" to give up smoking, but why does it have to be easy to quit? Its hard to stop biting ones nails too. If quitting smoking is harder than quitting heroin all I have to say is that I have no sympathy for heroin addicts.
use your will power -its your heath, ignore those who tell you its too hard. there is no magic pill and no excuses. take control of your own destiny and leave the doubters in your dust.

It is basic human nature to get addicted. We are essentially hard-wired to crave things that make us feel good. Some are just stronger at resisting it than others, and upbringing DOES have an impact for many people, and some are more prone to one kind of addiction than others. If you don't understand this, you have never been truly addicted…

An addict can be miserable…for life…if they forego the object of their addiction. Living with that constant craving can make life utterly miserable. This is a big reason obesity is such a growing problem. Salty fatty sweet foods are addictive to a lot of people. Obesity is a big health problem, and if it were 'easy' to give up over-eating, more people would be a healthy weight.

Two things are for sure: Cigarettes should be banned, as in treated as the addictive substance they are. Treat them like heroin, and I'll bet a LOT less people will have problems with them. And addiction is no reason to litter the planet with unwanted butts, or blow smoke in other folks face.

You think we should ban cigarettes? That sounds like a great idea. There seems to be too much room in our prisons anyway. It will make the woods much more exciting also since you will have to watch out for illegal tobacco fields as well as pot fields. I can't think of a single reason that this wont work! Just think about how much more taxes will be! It seems people have to much money in their pockets, the government really needs to step in and help them spend it.

These are the kinds of ideas that make the world a better place.

"Two things are for sure: Cigarettes should be banned"

Well, I don't know what things are like in your country, but here in the U.S. there are a lot of people being persecuted and imprisoned for something that gets smoked. What kind of penalties do you suggest? A fine, jail, beheading? It would create a huge black market and a lot of violence, and the judicial system would just love it when they were able to profit immensely from it. We could even double the amount of prisons/factories in the U.S, as if we aren't going to get taxed enough to pay for all of the non-violent offenders we already have. Oh, what joy.

How about trying to get this thread back to something related to backpacking?

Edit: I see someone else beat me to it!

OK, maybe not "ban" as in imprisonment. I don't even believe that using heroin should be a crime, or anything that isn't directly hurting someone else. What I really meant was to make access to, and selling of cigarettes a whole lot less easy. And of course ban smoking them in public places, or in private residents when there are non-consenting minors around (so no one else is harmed). Make it a really un-cool misdemeanor for youths to stand around in gangs smoking cigs on public streets. Eliminate it from ads, supermarkets, vending machines and liquor stores. Provide viable alternatives for medicinal use such as treatment of schizophrenics. I hear there are some good nicotine inhalers now available. They don't pollute airspace and provide pure nicotine in a quick hit, without all the other chemicals from inhaling burnt tobacco. Let our next generation grow up thinking that cigarettes are not a mainstream option.

To get back to general backpacking topic, reducing the availablity and desirablity of cigarette smoking would make a whole lot more people fitter for backpacking, and wouldn't upset the OP when in the backcountry.

Oh yeah, and we should ban choppers, airplanes, cars, horses, cooking in your tent, camp fires and most especially roasting marshmallows from the backcountry!!

:)

Maybe we should ban UL equipment so we can ensure no one will get hurt with not enough equipment, or have a certification program and tax to ensure those using them are competent. Perhaps a tax collector at all trail heads for a BPing tax, that would cover any expenses for medical evacuation, etc. etc.

I say, let it go… and just go out and hike.

What we need is our own backcountry version of the Mutaween. I suppose they would have to use helicopters and spies to efficiently carry out their work, as that's a lot of country to cover. This would quickly rid of us a lot of those problematic ones who bug us so much.

>Maybe we should ban UL equipment so we can ensure no one will get hurt with not enough equipment, or have a certification program and tax to ensure those using them are competent. Perhaps a tax collector at all trail heads for a BPing tax, that would cover any expenses for medical evacuation, etc. etc.

Why bother to evacuate them at all if they are dumb enough to get into trouble due to not enough gear? Or just charge the evacuation to their credit card, which is probably already over-burdened from spending too much on flimsy light gear? Besides, they're not hurting anyone else…so why ban it?

"If you don't understand this, you have never been truly addicted…"

I dont know I sure felt addicted all those nights at 3AM I would warm up the car and shovel the driveway in -10 degrees (Fahrenheit) just to go to the store and buy a pack of smokes.

but hey, Im politically incorrect, I believe we are in control of selves and not just mindless victims of society and circumstance. This is not a popular belief, but I would rather be unpopular and have my health than be pat on the back as I coughed up my lungs. Every one has to make that choice.

>I dont know I sure felt addicted all those nights

Addiction is a term that means that a craving is there for life. It is different to a habit that may be uncomfortable to break, but once kicked it's kicked. An addict will always be fighting their craving. Some manage to fight it for the rest of their life, most don't. I also had a cigarette habit (pack a day for two years). And yes, it took effort and determination to kick it, but now I no longer crave cigarettes. I was not an addict. Just had a bad habit.

>I believe we are in control of selves and not just mindless victims of society and circumstance.

There is increasing evidence coming out all the time that some people are naturally, indeed genetically, more robust at avoiding addictions or suffering negatively from mal-treatment and abuse:

Variants in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors alpha5 and alpha3 increase risks to nicotine dependence

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19132693?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Cannabinoid receptor 1 gene association with nicotine dependence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18606954?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Genetic variation in the CHRNA5 gene affects mRNA levels and is associated with risk for alcohol dependence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18414406?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Ethnic- and gender-specific association of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor alpha4 subunit gene (CHRNA4) with nicotine dependence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15790597?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Association of a single nucleotide polymorphism in neuronal acetylcholine receptor subunit alpha 5 (CHRNA5) with smoking status and with 'pleasurable buzz' during early experimentation with smoking

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18783506?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Beta-arrestins 1 and 2 are associated with nicotine dependence in European American smokers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17579607?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[Influence of parental tobacco dependence and parenting styles on adolescents' tobacco use]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17379474?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

etc…

So if you feel you are 100% incontrol of your life, then thank either good parenting, or good genetics (or both).

if you look up the word you will see its not strictly used in that way and many people use the terms interchangeably. But you may be right, it may have once been used that way. But how does one know if they have an addiction or a habit?
I say they should use their will power, who knows it may be a real "adventure" for them…

Lynn,

Sorry to jump in here, but your definition of addiction is wrong and misleading. There are two problems. First, I believe you are speaking of what the medical community now terms "dependence"–that is, the physical nature of the addict's relationship to the substance. Addiction, in contrast, is the psychological habit. Second, substance dependence does not need to be dependence for life. The elements of substance dependence are 1) that a patient needs a substance in order to maintain normal functioning abilities and 2) abrupt discontinuation of use of a substance causes physical withdrawal symptoms. This is all outlined in the DSM-IV. (See wikipedia's run-down under the article on "addiction".)

The idea that one is an addict for life comes from the "addiction-as-disease" model, popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous, etc., and seeks to characterize those who use substances as people with a psychological disorder that draws them to substance use. This is apart from the physical dependence the substance use eventually causes.

In anycase, I assure you, if you had a cigarette habit of two packs a day, you were addicted and dependent. This does not mean that your addiction and dependence will last for life, and that it hasn't is a blessing, but doesn't lessen that while you were smoking, your body was most certainly physically dependent on cigarettes for many normal processes (circulation, neuro-transmitter levels, bowel movements, etc.).

I was certainly dependant, but not addicted. I use the terms like this:

"Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiological disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving."

"Physical dependence is a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug-class specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist."

Dependence can be overcome (I call this kicking a habit). Addiction is not so easy to overcome, and I'm pretty sure Brian never suffered from it.

I am currently dependent on caffeine, but not addicted ;)

I see a lot of 'associations" and 'influences" in those scientific reports- no mention of "control". So we are still safe.

>I see a lot of 'associations" and 'influences" in those scientific reports- no mention of "control". So we are still safe.

Not sure what this means. It's definitely not a deterministic "you have this gene you are screwed". But it is clear that the risk and strength of addiction is partly controlled by genes and environment. If you are a devout muslim living in a fundamentalist muslim nation, your risk of alcoholism approaches zero, even though you may have many 'risk' genes. However, your 'risk' of nicotine addiction is very high because you grow up with everyone around you chain smoking, and likely also have many of the 'risk' genes. So you are virtually screwed.

When you say "dependence can be overcome" means that "you can kick the habit", you are conflating the two different meanings even you agreed on.

Dependence is not the HABIT element of addiction. It is the physical element. (most people still believe one is addicted if one is dependent, so this adds a further wrinkle.)

The medical definition in the states does not require dependence or addiction be lifelong to be characterized as such. As I said, that is a behavioral model used for therapy. For the purposes of cigarette addiction, it's a useless model since cigarette smokers are not abusing a substance for psychological/social reasons (in a general sense….cigarettes are not like heroin, alcohol, etc., in that they do not fulfill some deep need for escape from reality, problems, etc.).

Since the habit element of cigarette addiction is by definition not a lifelong, chronic obsession (the dependence lasts much longer than the psychological habit of taking smoke breaks), then under your definition, NO ONE can be addicted to cigarettes. But obviously this isn't so.