Others Bug Me With This in the Backcountry!

Thank you for your reply LT; I retired my chemical dependency professional license for the Washington State several years ago after a number of years in the field and in probation. Best people I ever met were in recovery!

I don't really crave them, but there are times when I climb up to a good view or something and I wish I had just one to "relax" and chill back, basically for something to do. The only problem is that I wish that the nasty smell would just magically disappear from my fingers, and out of sinuses, and lungs, and my teeth wouldn't get plaqued up, and I wouldn't have to carry that stinky, ashtray-like smelling butt out, and I could go right back to smelling the wonderful aromas of the outdoors, and I could immediately be able to breathe freely, etc, etc… But since magic doesn't really happen, I never worry about it much.

>Best people I ever met were in recovery!

Amen. Many folks in recovery have a greater depth of empathy and understanding of their fellow humans. And yes Brian, that recovery requires great willpower, all day every day. I do not abstain from cigarettes. I simply have no desire to smoke them. I abstain from alcohol all the time, every day of my life. So which are you? Someone who abstains, or someone who no longer craves cigarettes?

What do you do with yourself now Scott? The other half of my collaborative research is with the department of Psychological Medicine, so the two disciplines tie-in nicely together. The more I learn about psych disorders and addiction, especially in adopted twin research, the clearer it becomes that we are not all as fortunate as Brian. There but by the grace of God go I.

"Someone who abstains, or someone who no longer craves cigarettes?"

Some one who abstained until they no longer craved cigarettes.

>Some one who abstained until they no longer craved cigarettes.

OK then, I abstained from cigarettes around 3 weeks until I no longer craved them. If I wish to remain sober for life then I must abstain from alcohol for life. It's a heck of a lot harder than absatining for 3 weeks…This is turning into another semantics game (and still needs to move to chaff). I could 'abstain' from coffee for 3-4 days. I would go through a hellish migraine, but at the end of it I could easily forego coffee for life if I thought it was in my best interest. This makes me 'dependant' but not 'addicted'.

"i can't see how a discussion of willpower, religion, genetics, and smoking belongs in "General Lightweight Backpacking.""

Something to do with the "Unbearable Lightness of Being a Backpacker", no doubt.

Ooooh……….. “just quit” and “will power”. Silly me, why didn’t I think of that? Heck, they should print “Use will power and just quit” on the cigarette package, that will make everyone stop.

I applaud everyone that quit. Good job.

Lynn, I appreciate your posts. They make more sense to me than the “just quit” camp. My wife is in the “just quit” camp of thought and she no longer craves nicotine, 6 years running. The longest I have every quit was 12 months and I craved it every hour of every day for 12 months. There is something to what Lynn is saying.

Telling me to “just quit” is like Leonardo da Vinci saying, “It’s just art. Spread some paint around the canvas. You can be as good as me, what’s wrong with you…?”.

Assuming that everyone can do something because you can, and implying that they lack “will power” or any other form of mental fortitude for their inability to do what you can, is pure self righteousness. Don’t quit your day jobs to be come life coaches. Just keep “tellin’ it like it is” and keep feeling clever for doing so.

I’m not let yet. I will quit eventually. I will certainly die trying.

And yes, this is totally chaff at this point.

Daniel, nicotine has the fastest path to addiction, has to do with nicotine having the shortest half life of any psychoactive drug. The good news is that because of nicotine’s short half life that your physical dependence on the drug is eliminated in less than two days.

Craving on the other hand is a whole different matter and relates to personal triggers in ones relapse process; and if you don’t recognize what is causing the craving and take steps to confront and change those feelings as part of a relapse strategy, then all one is left with is willpower which unfortunately works for very, very, few individuals. Make no mistake; nicotine is probably the hardest drug to kick.

Smoking cessation classes were offered in the addiction center I worked at as they are offered independently in all communities. The immediate and long term health benefits to you personally and to further enjoy your outdoor activities seem obvious but the additional material, referrals, and support from a local smoking cessation group may be helpful, it’s just a thought.

I retired my counselor and chemical dependency professional license several years ago having left the field so ethically I have said all I can say other than to wish you good luck and to congratulate you on quitting smoking for twelve months.

Physical dependence on nicotine is not over after just two days!

Are you kidding? Seriously.

What you mean is that nicotine completely leaves the body after two days. But even that isn't correct–it can take up to 72 hours for nicotine to completely leave your bloodstream. But that is the point at which physical dependence KICKS IN. You now have no nicotine, and you are physically dependent on it, and the intensity of your craving will skyrocket.

.

Yes, I started a thread here: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=18703

And I tend to agree that, although nicotine will be completely metabolised and clear of your system in a short period of time, the nuerochemical changes induced by continuous nicotine administration may take longer to return to homeostasis. It could be compared to something like the SSRI antidepressants. They clear your system relatively quickly when you stop taking them, but the changes in gene expression in the brain take a lot longer to return to pre-drug treatment. It is likely that all drugs of addiction have longer lasting effects like this.

"Repeated exposure to either nicotine or ethanol leads to a robust CPP (conditioned place preference) response that persists following 3 weeks of abstinence and in the face of adverse stimuli, a behavioural indicator of the establishment of dependence. Microarray analysis using whole brain samples from drug-treated and control animals identified 1362 genes that show a significant change in expression between control and treated individuals. Of these genes, 153 are common to both ethanol- and nicotine-treated animals. These genes include members of pathways and processes implicated in drug dependence in mammalian models, revealing conservation of neuro-adaptation pathways between zebrafish and mammals."

"Neuroadaptation and tolerance involve changes in both nicotinic receptors and neural plasticity. Nicotine addiction can occur in the context of physical dependence characterized by self-medication to modulate negative affect and/or to relieve withdrawal symptoms, as well as, in light or occasional smokers, primarily for positive reinforcement in specific situations. Nicotine is metabolized primarily by CYP2A6. Its clearance exhibits considerable individual variability that is determined by genetic, racial, and hormonal (sex) factors. Genetically slow metabolism of nicotine appears to be associated with a lower level of dependence. Nicotine dependence is highly heritable and appears to be influenced by genes coding for some nicotine receptor subtypes, some neurotransmitter genes, and genes involved in neural connectivity"

So maybe you can blame your parents for inheriting their 'weak will' (or Brian can thank his parents for passing on to him their strong will)?

Some of the changes in an alcoholics brain can also be permanent in nature, and persist decades after abstinenance. These include changes in sleep architecture (sleep disturbances are the biggest risk for relapse), dopaminergic insufficiency resulting in conditions such as restless legs syndrome, depression and cognitive impairment to name but a few. I don't know if the same applies to nicotine, but I do know that, even as someone who was dependant but not addicted, it took more than two days for me to feel 'normal' after quitting.

There are other even nastier drugs. As yet, I haven't heard of anyone who has managed to kick a methamphetamine addiction. Perhaps they just have less 'will power' than other more succesful addicts!

Whats funny is all you bio determinist claim I have a magical "cant get addicted" gene and yet- none of you have the faintest clue what my family history is? or what my influences are!
If you could see my family history you would know that your arguments only strengthens mine.

and I believe I was the one who said that cigarettes can't be compared to drugs like heroine….
The best use of "will power" when it comes to hard drugs is in avoiding them, dont listen to the pop culture celebrity's and the glorified gangsters on the streets- its all manipulation. You're not a rebel for using just another sad story.
Will power cant be patented and sold, thats why scientist look down on it.

"If you could see my family history you would know that your arguments only strengthens mine."

You have an identical twin who's hooked on cigarettes??

I never said addiction is deterministic, but it is clear that it is VERY VERY much easier for some to avoid addictions than others. And it is VERY VERY clear that environment and genetics play a huge role in this. That's why we can breed rodents who are strongly prone to addiction, and other who are completely immune. They are completely inbred animals (100% genetically identical), and the addiction/lack of addiction is very robust between strains. Not deterministic at all. For instance, if you don't give the animal the drug, they don't get addicted, just like you won't find many alcoholic devout muslims. If you take the drug away, they stop using it, but this is hard to do in humans. And that doesn't mean the rodents addiction has gone away, just that they don't have access to their drug of addiction.

So keep patting yourself on the back for your will power Brian. Who has the stronger willpower? You who have magicall kicked you 'addiction' or someone who craves the drug every moment off every day for life but still manages to abstain (a true addict).

"Will power cant be patented and sold, thats why scientist look down on it."

That's why placebos will never be the block-buster drug that they deserve to be either!

"Willpower" is sold. Go to any cognitive behavioral therapist and see how much a lesson in 'willpower' costs you!

Wow, this has been a very interesting thread. Maybe I should quit smoking. I never really thought about it before because there is not one single piece of evidence prooving that smoking is bad for you. I always figured smokers were scapegoats for the real polluters of our world. Our government fills our water with chemicals which abviously kill allot of stuff, why not us. I guess cancer has to come from somewhere and if they told us it was our water or whatever–well that wouldnt go over well. So why not blame smokers and then start a conspiracay that it is impossible to ever get off them, problem solved I regularly do 50 plus miles in the BC on my single speed and run 20 miles at a clip. I try to stay aove 7-8000' when I do this. The first time I ran Mt Whitney I thought I was going to die but the first thing I did at the bottom was crack a beer and light up. When I say regularly I mean in season. I have smoked a pack a day since I was 18, I'm 40. I dont beleave in switching one drug for another unless its herb, yes I smoke that also. So help me quit. I figure If I can have a few weeks to mentally build up and finish the carton of organic cigarettes I just paid way too much for then I'm up for it. I had to edit this, at the age of 40 I still get carded for cigaretts. Any tips welcome Ali

I don't have any specific tips, except to urge you to try nicotine replacment therapy. Nicotine itself is not necessarily bad for you, and may have some positive benfits to you health. Smoking OTOH, is not so good for you, with or without the nicotine.

"Willpower" is sold. Go to any cognitive behavioral therapist and see how much a lesson in 'willpower' costs you!"

better yet save your money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFKBwJAXh5s

" because there is not one single piece of evidence prooving that smoking is bad for you."

Wrong.

1/3 in smokers die of lung cancer. That's more than ten times the rate for non-smokers. And that's just lung cancer–doesn't touch on heart disease, mouth and throat cancer, emphysema, etc.

Will, with all due respect thats not proof of anything. Rather its just a skewed statistic with no proof to backup its documentation. How do you explain people who smoke two packs a day for life and live in good health into thier 90's well above the national average. Without a proper controll group you will never get acurate data. Ali

Another good way to acquire willpower, at least as it relates to quitting smoking, is to go to a nursing home and watch the emaciated guys with emphysema, slouching in their wheel chairs with an oxygen tube in their nostrils. It's pretty sobering to watch them wheeze and gasp as they struggle to get enough oxygen to stay alive for one more breath. Eventually their hearts fail. I took a shortcut; that's the way my Dad went after smoking 2 packs a day all his life, and I had a box seat. Ali, are you listening? It's not too late. BTW, there is a very strong correlation between smoking and emphysema, no smoking gun(excuse the pun), but close enough for me. Bottom line: The lungs were not designed to handle smoke of any kind, nor volatile organic compounds, nor particulate matter. Force them to do so and there eventually there is a price to be paid.

>1/3 in smokers die of lung cancer. That's more than ten times the rate for non-smokers. And that's just lung cancer–doesn't touch on heart disease, mouth and throat cancer, emphysema, etc.

True, but there are also people who smoke pack-a-day and live to a healthy old age. Smoking is worse for some than others, just like it's more addictive to some than others. Like I imagine Brian would say, smoking is not deterministic of suffering from smoking-related illness, but it's a strong risk factor.

I think the problem with visiting rest homes is the same with putting graphic pictures on cigarette boxes…most people are in denial. Unless you've watched a close relative go like that, it is easy to convince yourself "it won't happen to me".

Tom thats a really good post and though provoking. I'm just curious after that horrible experience did it make you give up your car and move out into the country where you wont be exposed to an ultra toxic society? I wont have anything in my house if its not 100% non toxic I try and spend as much of my time far from anything toxic including not drinking any water thats not pure. I eat farm fresh produce and the only meat I eat is local free range organic. I just lost a friend to a horrible death from lung cancer, he wasnt a smoker but it was still a very disturbing loss. I feel your pain and am VERY SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS. Ali

Ali, there was a control group in that study. See where I said that is more than ten times the rate for non-smokers? Non-smokers are the control group there. Let's go over it again: Smokers — 1 in 3 risk of dying of lung cancer. (That's 1/3rd of all smokers DIE of lung cancer. Not just get it but DIE from it). Non-smokers — less than 1 in 30000 chance of dying from lung cancer. That's why the link is indisputable. (Also, 90 percent of lung cancer occurs in smokers, and yet smokers make up less than 20 percent of the population).

Sheesh, ….

Smoking is dangerous, and there are innumerable studies demonstrating this. Just because George Burns was able to live to be old does not disprove that smoking is dangerous. It doesn't have to have a 100 percent fatality rate to be dangerous….

I think something was lost in translation. I was just giving my opinion. To have a proper controll group you would need all idenicale twins raisied 100% together on the same diet and excerise plan ect… You cant just take a bunch of random peaple and do a experiment and call it science. I was looking for quit tips not a debate about smoking. Time to take the dogs hor a hike. :) Ali

Where to even begin. First of all, the science behind the dangers of smoking isn't just some 3rd grade science project slapped together by amateurs. Thousands upon thousands of studies have been undertaken by the most qualified scientific bodies in the world and peer-reviewed in the most well-respected medical journals with the highest standards of scientific rigor. Second, no you don't need identical twins to get a control group capable of concluding that smoking is dangerous. Statisticians are perfectly capable of sifting through data to eliminate alternate causes and adjust for variables in a control group. (If you were right, by the way, you would have just invalidated ALL scientific studies EVER–because none of them had a set of identical twins to work with).

Your ignorance (and denial) is truly breathtaking. Kudos.

Ok smoking is bad for you. Now what? can we get back to the real post? Quit smoking tips