Cravings and Withdrawal
- Thread starter medatitus
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I think it's important to delineate "tobacco" and tobacco. In quotations, I am referring to conventional tobacco, especially cigarettes (although dippers are often just as bad off). The "more addictive than heroin" conjecture is just a talking point by the pharmaceutical backed authoritarians. It probably does apply to cigarettes and dip as I said. But to imply that non-inhaled cigar and pipe smoking is as dangerous and addictive to try as heroin is a bit much, I think. I always come back to pipe smoking, probably because I stop worrying about it after a week of feeling completely fine and no cravings. (unless it's an insidious enough addiction that it tricks my body into not perceptibly craving it to lull my back into my 3-5 bowls per week routine, but I doubt that)
Plenty of people who give up cigarettes never get over the cravings, even if they never relapse. In the old studies, they had to learn to delineate between primary pipe and cigar smokers, and former cigarette smokers who had switched, because they often inhaled. But I postulate to take that a bit further, because even if they are "reformed" properly to not inhale, there is still, for many many people, a sleeping addiction to what is, if we are honest, an ersatz frankenstein drug. A couple of decades of cigarette smoking is going to change someones body significantly enough that it should be considered a modifying factor in their pipe/cigar smoking.
On the other hand, it's probably a relief to just tell yourself that you're addicted and be done with it, rather than worry about it like some people do, in the way a 13 year old kid might worry about being addicted to masturbating. It's a uphill battle with other people in your life to maintain that you aren't addicted, because everyone is conditioned to believe unsubstantiated claims that nicotine is as addictive as heroin, and whose only experiences have been with ersatz, reconstituted tobacco sheet cigarettes.
That's just conjecture on my part though. I don't condone smoking, but damn if I listened to any such disclaimers as these when I was considering taking up the pipe.
As I go back through all of the references to nicotine and tobacco throughout history, I find it unusual to hear so many say that smoking a pipe is NOT addictive. Unusual, not crazy or insulting. Maybe someone can smoke at the edges of being addictive. I can buy that. Maybe even something genetic that keeps a few from being addicted. But, Mark Twain referred to his addictions to tobacco often. In My Lady Nicotine , James Barrie the author of Peter Pan also has several hysterical stories of being addicted to his pipe, and even setting out by boat to steal some tobacco.
I can't argue with testimonials of personal experience, which is forbidden in formal debates for obvious reasons. But, I do turn to accounts of Christopher Columbus about the plant even to state that addiction to this was obvious from the discovery. I would state that some are able to enjoy the hobby at such a conservative rate that they can as reported forgo any addiction at all, but it is a drug known to be very addicted, even when smoked in a pipe. However, tread with caution. You are forewarned. Enjoy at your own risk, as it should be.
Is it as hard as cigarettes to quit? No, I don't think so. As I said my addiction to it seems much more controllable than cigarettes. Cigarettes, which have really only been popular since WW2, but yet the leaf has been known to be addictive far longer, historically. YMMV
Is it easy to quit? I can't say for sure. I can go a week maybe more... But, as long as I keep a pipe in my clench, it doesn't feel like an addiction, ha ha. YMMV
Lawyer and debate coach approved answer to the question, ha ha. Happy smoking!! :
:
I can't argue with testimonials of personal experience, which is forbidden in formal debates for obvious reasons. But, I do turn to accounts of Christopher Columbus about the plant even to state that addiction to this was obvious from the discovery. I would state that some are able to enjoy the hobby at such a conservative rate that they can as reported forgo any addiction at all, but it is a drug known to be very addicted, even when smoked in a pipe. However, tread with caution. You are forewarned. Enjoy at your own risk, as it should be.
Is it as hard as cigarettes to quit? No, I don't think so. As I said my addiction to it seems much more controllable than cigarettes. Cigarettes, which have really only been popular since WW2, but yet the leaf has been known to be addictive far longer, historically. YMMV
Is it easy to quit? I can't say for sure. I can go a week maybe more... But, as long as I keep a pipe in my clench, it doesn't feel like an addiction, ha ha. YMMV
Lawyer and debate coach approved answer to the question, ha ha. Happy smoking!! :
:
There are a lot of factors in that, though. In Twain's time, there were no health concerns, no taxes, no studies to verify that it is, in fact, a bad idea to inhale because it increases nicotine absorption and leads to spontaneous addiction. There was no real reason to stop, for most people, for pretty much the entire duration of pipes and cigars reign of popularity. Only since cigarettes have taken over have these things become factors, and so it's hard to judge anything based off an ersatz drug, when all those things suddenly became factors. Back then people got beheaded, drawn and quartered, oppressed by the monarchy, and had to live through life completely ignorant of almost everything we take for granted today. Most of them died horrible deaths. Even in Twain's time, there was still a good chance you'd die a horrible death. Far more stressful, and there was almost no reason not to self medicate against that stress with tobacco, about which we knew nothing apart from the intuition of the individual-- and that intuition was "hey, this stuff makes me feel better!"
There is also the view of tobacco as medicine. Hypothyroid people are much more likely to smoke, as are schizophrenics. I knew one guy who swore when he went off his thyroid meds, his cigarette intake increased from 3 per day, to 30. And when he went back on the thyroid meds, it'd drop from 30, down to 3, almost effortlessly. There are a lot of examples of people who self medicate with tobacco, even today, while medicine is much more advanced then it was 100 years ago. There were less effective treatments back then for anything, across the board. Most people don't know why they smoke. a couple hundred years ago, when people thought the earth was flat, that was even less likely. What was *more* likely was self medicating for more things than we do today, and that's saying something because plenty of smokers still smoke for that very reason today. We haven't wholly escaped ill health just because of technology and based on a longer life span.
Lots of things have survived this long because they are useful. Whether it's tobacco, tea, or the humble potato. When I light up a good pipe, or a fine cigar, there is no question in my mind why people said "hey, this is some gooooood shit!" all those years ago. But it still doesn't mean it's as addictive as heroin (which it's not, except for maybe conventional ersatz cigarettes), anymore than that could be said about the humble potato (which I also would not want to live without).
There is also the view of tobacco as medicine. Hypothyroid people are much more likely to smoke, as are schizophrenics. I knew one guy who swore when he went off his thyroid meds, his cigarette intake increased from 3 per day, to 30. And when he went back on the thyroid meds, it'd drop from 30, down to 3, almost effortlessly. There are a lot of examples of people who self medicate with tobacco, even today, while medicine is much more advanced then it was 100 years ago. There were less effective treatments back then for anything, across the board. Most people don't know why they smoke. a couple hundred years ago, when people thought the earth was flat, that was even less likely. What was *more* likely was self medicating for more things than we do today, and that's saying something because plenty of smokers still smoke for that very reason today. We haven't wholly escaped ill health just because of technology and based on a longer life span.
Lots of things have survived this long because they are useful. Whether it's tobacco, tea, or the humble potato. When I light up a good pipe, or a fine cigar, there is no question in my mind why people said "hey, this is some gooooood shit!" all those years ago. But it still doesn't mean it's as addictive as heroin (which it's not, except for maybe conventional ersatz cigarettes), anymore than that could be said about the humble potato (which I also would not want to live without).
aguineapig, seeing as ersatz could mean "an inferior substitute", would you conjecture a difference even among pipe tobacco, say between OTC's and higher end blends?
I think so, but the difference is probably less in magnitude than, say, comparing a factory made camel, marlboro, etc with an organic additive free rolling tobacco. In general, pipe tobacco that isn't "re purposed" tax evader crap is at least more innocent than cigarettes. That doesn't mean that there isn't a divide that is significant in and of itself between, say, John Middleton burleys (Prince Albert, Carter hall etc) and non-aromatic blends from Cornell & Diehl (my favorite company), which according to the Tarler's, only contain a food grade mold inhibitor, which I would rather have then moldy tobacco. So I think it's a matter of degree. And I do enjoy some OTC blends like half and half, PA, CH, and CB royal. Just not that regularly out of sheer preference.
But the point is, the best pipe tobacco is here;
OTC is here;
.
....
......
.........
.............
..................
................................................And conventional cigarettes are here.
But the point is, the best pipe tobacco is here;
OTC is here;
.
....
......
.........
.............
..................
................................................And conventional cigarettes are here.
***Not that I condone smoking cigarettes, even additive free organic ones, but that has more to do with the method (inhalation, having a quicky) than with the quality of the tobacco.
Anyone who calls pipe smoking a hobby is in denial.
There is no way to put an addicting drug into the body without becoming addicted.
If one chooses tobacco he is choosing addiction.
If one chooses tobacco the question is not whether one will become addicted but rather the effects of the addiction.
The best that can be said medically is that the health establishment's universal condemnation of tobacco as dangerous, based on conclusive evidence, can't be all wrong.
Nevertheless, one can still embrace tobacco knowing that there are also dangers for the teetotaler and the mountain climber and the avid consumer of junk food; my local McDonalds is always busy,
How long do you want to live? While living what is the balance of things that you do to promote health and well-being and those you do that are frankly not in your best interest? What about those whose disposition is obviously not the best, and what effect does this have on their health?
There is no way to put an addicting drug into the body without becoming addicted.
If one chooses tobacco he is choosing addiction.
If one chooses tobacco the question is not whether one will become addicted but rather the effects of the addiction.
The best that can be said medically is that the health establishment's universal condemnation of tobacco as dangerous, based on conclusive evidence, can't be all wrong.
Nevertheless, one can still embrace tobacco knowing that there are also dangers for the teetotaler and the mountain climber and the avid consumer of junk food; my local McDonalds is always busy,
How long do you want to live? While living what is the balance of things that you do to promote health and well-being and those you do that are frankly not in your best interest? What about those whose disposition is obviously not the best, and what effect does this have on their health?
Why? Is someone who smokes a pipe once a week (and who can sustain that) in denial? What are they denying? It seems to me like the denial is coming more from people who, based on they own personal vice, cannot fathom sporadic use of tobacco. On the other hand it does happen, and it's a fact. Some cigarette smokers can chip. Huge numbers of cigar smokers are occasional smokers and never get addicted. And these aren't just people who say "I smoke 5 cigars a day and inhale and I'm not addicted". That is denial. If someone smokes 1 cigar a week, and isn't lying, where is the denial there? It's not like an alcoholic who gets smashed during the weekends. He's not smoking 10 cigars on saturday and sunday and non the rest of the week. It's easier to ignore those people, but they do exist.
Alcohol is also addictive. Not everyone who drinks is addicted to alcohol. Do you have any actual evidence that every addictive drug is equally addictive in every environment?
For what it's worth, 20% of the soldiers in Vietnam used heroin extensively while deployed. 87 to 90 percent of those 20% stopped when they were back home without rehab. And this is heroin we're talking about, smack. Not smoking a pipe and not inhaling.
Plenty of people get addicted to oxycontin. Plenty more people use it as directed, and very carefully, and don't get addicted to it. Context matters, as does judiciousness. Gambling can be addictive, and it isn't even something you ingest. If you got addicted to video games as a kid, porn as a teenager, cigarettes and alcohol as a college student, and gambling after graduating, then something in your life or your psyche or your physiology is awry. Don't try smoking a pipe.
Here is an interesting study, along with some comments for the study's architects:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/8/2539.full.pdf+html
"Scientists discover beliefs can be just as powerful as nicotine"
"Two identical cigarettes led to a discovery by scientists at the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute. Study participants inhaled nicotine, yet they showed significantly different brain activity. Why the difference? Some subjects were told their cigarettes were nicotine free."
After smoking cigarettes, volunteers played a reward-based learning game while their brains were scanned. The subjects viewed a historical stock price graph, made an investment, and repeated the cycle multiple times.
"Researchers used computational models of learning signals thought to be generated by the brain during these kinds of tasks. In each subject, the individually tracked signals were specifically influenced by beliefs about nicotine.
Montague and his team found that the people who believed they had smoked nicotine cigarettes made different choices and had different neural signals than the other participants, despite the fact that both groups had consumed the same substance.
The scientists also found people who believed they had smoked nicotine had significantly higher activity in their reward-learning pathways. Those who did not believe they had smoked nicotine did not exhibit those same signals."
This is pertinent, because words like "denial" are being tossed around, as well as claims taken from the unsubstantiating anti-smoking zealots that nicotine is as addictive as heroin. If you believe that you are addicted to smoking a pipe, and that it really is as addictive as heroin, or that it's impossible to use tobacco (or any other drug labeled as an addictive one) without becoming addicted (which is as unintuitive as it is unsubstantiated), that's definitely going to manifest itself somehow.
As a disclaimer, I much prefer "useful drug" to "addictive drug", because I think the main thing that modulates frequency of use and a tendency to return to a drug is it's usefulness to the user.
Although a lot of this is going to come across as very vitriolic and probably kind of rude, I really don't mean any disrespect whatsoever. I just find this an intensely interesting subject and have spent a lot of time and energy into learning about it, and as a result probably come across a bit rude. Apologies in advance.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/8/2539.full.pdf+html
"Scientists discover beliefs can be just as powerful as nicotine"
"Two identical cigarettes led to a discovery by scientists at the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute. Study participants inhaled nicotine, yet they showed significantly different brain activity. Why the difference? Some subjects were told their cigarettes were nicotine free."
After smoking cigarettes, volunteers played a reward-based learning game while their brains were scanned. The subjects viewed a historical stock price graph, made an investment, and repeated the cycle multiple times.
"Researchers used computational models of learning signals thought to be generated by the brain during these kinds of tasks. In each subject, the individually tracked signals were specifically influenced by beliefs about nicotine.
Montague and his team found that the people who believed they had smoked nicotine cigarettes made different choices and had different neural signals than the other participants, despite the fact that both groups had consumed the same substance.
The scientists also found people who believed they had smoked nicotine had significantly higher activity in their reward-learning pathways. Those who did not believe they had smoked nicotine did not exhibit those same signals."
This is pertinent, because words like "denial" are being tossed around, as well as claims taken from the unsubstantiating anti-smoking zealots that nicotine is as addictive as heroin. If you believe that you are addicted to smoking a pipe, and that it really is as addictive as heroin, or that it's impossible to use tobacco (or any other drug labeled as an addictive one) without becoming addicted (which is as unintuitive as it is unsubstantiated), that's definitely going to manifest itself somehow.
As a disclaimer, I much prefer "useful drug" to "addictive drug", because I think the main thing that modulates frequency of use and a tendency to return to a drug is it's usefulness to the user.
Although a lot of this is going to come across as very vitriolic and probably kind of rude, I really don't mean any disrespect whatsoever. I just find this an intensely interesting subject and have spent a lot of time and energy into learning about it, and as a result probably come across a bit rude. Apologies in advance.
You are continually making the assumption that we are saying that pipe smoking is bad, addiction is bad. No one in this thread has said that. No one in this thread is anti-tobacco.
I've spent hours conversing with 4nogginsmike about different blends and pipe techniques. I know more about his passion and love of this hobby or whatever than either of you guys.
In the face of logic and reason, I will agree with science. Whether I believe 2+2=3 or that science is wrong is jumping more into a faith thing than arguing whether someone else is wrong. Fine, believe what you will.
I think it is addictive, and my thinking goes along with all of science. If you are not addicted, good for you. I don't think there's a thing wrong with certain addictions. It in and of itself is not an evil.
Now, let me sing the praises of the pipe. It relaxes me. I love the flavors, and explorations of different blends. I love that it keeps me close to artisans and even growers, blenders, and other very interesting people who smoke pipes. I love that it has an aesthetic to it, more more stylish than firing up a cig or sucking on a iVape flashlight thingy. I think it has benefited my health. I think that it keeps me healthier than I've been in years. I've lost a lot of weight. I jog now. And, all because of the pipe and the healing that it has allowed my lungs after years of cigarettes. But, I think I'm addicted, and I'm fine with that. I'm not going to kid myself, and even that makes me a little more healthy. Addictions are not an out of control destructive thing in and of itself.
Now, if you want to start calling someone anti-tobacco, those are fighting words here, buddy. So, quit that strawman argument and relax. Join me in a bowl, and lets stop looking false ways to degrade one another.
I've spent hours conversing with 4nogginsmike about different blends and pipe techniques. I know more about his passion and love of this hobby or whatever than either of you guys.
In the face of logic and reason, I will agree with science. Whether I believe 2+2=3 or that science is wrong is jumping more into a faith thing than arguing whether someone else is wrong. Fine, believe what you will.
I think it is addictive, and my thinking goes along with all of science. If you are not addicted, good for you. I don't think there's a thing wrong with certain addictions. It in and of itself is not an evil.
Now, let me sing the praises of the pipe. It relaxes me. I love the flavors, and explorations of different blends. I love that it keeps me close to artisans and even growers, blenders, and other very interesting people who smoke pipes. I love that it has an aesthetic to it, more more stylish than firing up a cig or sucking on a iVape flashlight thingy. I think it has benefited my health. I think that it keeps me healthier than I've been in years. I've lost a lot of weight. I jog now. And, all because of the pipe and the healing that it has allowed my lungs after years of cigarettes. But, I think I'm addicted, and I'm fine with that. I'm not going to kid myself, and even that makes me a little more healthy. Addictions are not an out of control destructive thing in and of itself.
Now, if you want to start calling someone anti-tobacco, those are fighting words here, buddy. So, quit that strawman argument and relax. Join me in a bowl, and lets stop looking false ways to degrade one another.
That hasn't been my intention at all so I'm sorry to hear that it's come through and been perceived that way. It goes without saying that senior members of a pipe smoking forum are not anti-tobacco. Some of the things I have been reading, though, seem unsubstantiated and unequivocally stated. So this is not an attack on you as a fellow pipe smoker and someone who enjoys tobacco, just an (as far as I can tell) constructive exercise and debate about something that is contested (the addictiveness of non-inhaled, high quality tobacco), whether you acknowledge that or not, as well as just being damn interesting.
I'm not trying to degrade anyone as a person, or as a knowledgeable figure about pipe smoking, only some statements that were typed on a keyboard and espoused by them. Nothing but respect for you and Mike. However that doesn't mean I can't respectfully disagree with you in a public venue where you have disagreed with other people prior to. You put forth your opinion, and I chose to disagree with it to try to make a constructive discourse. I will, however, make more of an effort to not come across as rude or degrading, and I do apologize for that part.
Logic and reason work great in philosophy, or in mathematics. Not so much in something like physiology or biology. When you say you agree with science, I can't help but interpret that, given what you are asserting, that you agree with the scientific consensus. That's normal, and fine I guess. But it's also dangerous. Some people give me the old "SO, YOU'RE SAYING THAT ALL THESE SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG ABOUT SMOKING HUH? AND ALL THESE NICE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES? THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE? ALL WRONG?"
Yes, I do believe that. At least partially. I do not condone smoking as the best thing you can do for your health. It's more prudent never to start, even if there is a good chance that it's benign. But I do think they are gravely mistaken. And there is a historical precedence for this-- a blunder of the same magnitude. Read; Ancel Keyes and the lipid hypothesis. It was bad science, and it spread like wildfire. It also hasn't worked, because heart disease is still the leading cause of death. And plenty of scientists and doctors still believe it. I have been chided and told to buy tub margarine instead of butter, despite the latter being far healthier as long as your diet isn't 70 percent fat or something absurd like that.
Science is fine as a concept. Science as an institution has been a failure in certain (very important) facets. There is a strong chance that we all will die of something that it was purposed to understand, prevent or cure, which they haven't. There are good individual scientists, but that's not enough to change a corrupt and, frankly, unintelligent institution that now values perpetuating itself through peer review control of new science over evolving out of it's doldrums and continue doing what made it garner trust and clout in the first place. But I'm not holding my breath.
I don't contest that it can be addictive. I don't think anyone does. And I think it's pointless to argue that fact. What I'm interested in is the number of people who are not addicted to nicotine despite low but regular use.
Science also knows that heroin is addictive. People also know that intuitively. Yet I would point to data from the Vietnam war, where a large number of young men used heroin without getting addicted. I would never, ever condone heroin use. But, that is very interesting to me. If we look at addiction as a chemical going into your brain and doing some stuff, and then you are addicted, we won't get far talking about why tobacco is addictive for some people, and not for others. If we look at addiction as an environmental response or adaptation, and acknowledge that as a possibility, then we can start to look at it in a much more fluid way-- much more constructively and empirically than with the standard addiction model.
I would have a bowl with ya, but I haven't smoked in 11 days since I posted in this thread! I'm not sure when I will again. I have some cigars that are looking pretty good, but I guess my brain is firing up on the power of suggestion that I'm not addicted =) enjoy yours though, as if I have to tell ya!
Because one is able to quit, does not mean that there was not an addiction. I quit cigarettes. I have friends who are ex-alcaholics, ex-pill poppers, ex-pot smokers. That doesn't mean that it wasn't addictive. And, I did not assert that absolutely everyone who takes a puff of a pipe is addicted. There are other factors, such as genetics, the environment, etc...
I do not inhale, and yet I crave the pipe.
I think that what we have here is a kneejerk reaction. One says that tobacco is addictive, which is a fact. And, the reaction which should have been, "the pipe might be less powerful of an addiction than cigarettes." But, became the pipe is only addictive if you inhale. ...Or, this is how I see the conversation.
Anyways, what does it matter. No one is going to care enough to read through all of this. Ha ha. Have a good day. Over and out.
I do not inhale, and yet I crave the pipe.
I think that what we have here is a kneejerk reaction. One says that tobacco is addictive, which is a fact. And, the reaction which should have been, "the pipe might be less powerful of an addiction than cigarettes." But, became the pipe is only addictive if you inhale. ...Or, this is how I see the conversation.
Anyways, what does it matter. No one is going to care enough to read through all of this. Ha ha. Have a good day. Over and out.
I guess we can't acknowledge that there are other things that modulate the propensity to return to a useful substance other than being addicted to it, then. For example sugar. Which is a macro nutrient, not an addictive drug. Whether something is addictive has more to do with withdrawal than propensity to return to it. In fact the lack of withdrawal might even be a part of why people return to it, if they are of the constituency that doesn't get tangible withdrawal symptoms. If I went through horrible withdrawals 10 days ago when I stopped for the sake of curiosity, I would think twice about starting again. I didn't.
Tobacco is known to pinch-hit for proper thyroid function by raising T3 (active thyroid hormone-- the ultimate "feel good" hormone in the body). If you crave tobacco, maybe look into the possibility that your thyroid function is compromised. Anyone who has had a thyroidectomy and tries to stop their thyroid hormone supplement (even the inferior T4 only which is oft prescribed), they can attest to how awful they feel. Tobacco effectively treats it, according to scientific studies (facts). So, there is my fact-based explanation for why tobacco is addictive, or "reinforcing", as I would rather choose to describe it, for a lot of people.
Here are three pertinent studies on that subject, for anyone who happens to be interested.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3692496
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2006-0762
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22651374
Bear in mind that most doctors view a thyroid as something that is fun to cut out of you or irradiate, sort of like a gallbladder (It's basically in there for no real reason as most seem to see it), and hypo is extremely under diagnosed, as well as the treatment usually poorly chosen. Anyway, doctors aren't doing their jobs, and tobacco is a widely available and intuitively effective medicine.
It's fine if you don't want to continue replying to this thread, but I will in case someone is interested in the pharmacology and physiology behind it. I think it's fun.
That's definitely your stance and you made that clear, but other people disagree with it, not just me, and have personal and intuitive evidence enough to convince themselves. And I'm just a doubter that tobacco or nicotine is universally addictive given that it's very unique in terms of its myriad of effects on the body, which muddle why is has the propensity is does to return to it's use.
For what it's worth, I definitely do acknowledge that part-- it does have appeal to return to for me, because it's useful. But I definitely think it's important to delineate, and not use addiction as a term so broadly, to describe anything that has that propensity to which I elude. Sugar has a similar tendency (which zealots more and more are calling "an addictive drug" too, by the way). My body tells me I need some from time to time. Same with green vegetable. And I've already mentioned prior one extremely important mechanism that applies to tobacco in the prior post-- if my thyroid isn't functioning right, and my body knows that tobacco alleviates that, there is no wonder that the body recognizes that and acts accordingly. For some people, that pull is strong enough to constitute confusion with addiction. In reality it's medicine. Medicine with side effects beyond small doses, but medicine nonetheless.
And there are other hormonal and chemical benefits from tobacco as well-- thyroid is just one, but I won't get into the others right now because this is a pipe forum and not a science forum.
Have a good one =)
Thanks for all the great, informative responses aguineapig. I really appreciate your input in this matter.
My last post had no tact and acknowledged no gray area. Mostly it comes from years of reading guys dismiss what I feel is addiction, plain and simple, and important to be acknowledged as such, as a hobby. My opinion is this is denial, absolutely. But before I continue to repeat what I've already said, which met with a certain amount of opposition
, I'll just say that I stand by my post, but also that before these opinions are aired again, I will attempt to support them with the data.
, I'll just say that I stand by my post, but also that before these opinions are aired again, I will attempt to support them with the data.I expect you to stand by what you said in some capacity, insofar as I expect that you yourself feel that your relationship with tobacco is best described as an addiction. I'm not trying to convince you that you are not addicted at all, and it's certainly not my prerogative to do so. You body is smarter than I am in what it wants-- but that's basically what I'm trying to put forth. I'm not trying to tell you that your experience is wrong, but provide reason enough to think that's it's a subjective
What you project, though, is that everyone else is in denial about the nature of their relationship with tobacco, based on your own subjective and intuitive relationship with tobacco. What I've tried to do here is supply enough material to actually substantiate some reasons why everybody is different in this respect, and not just "Well, some people have the right genes", or something else that is generally just a token admission. Some people can moderate extremely well, and other people can't. But there are a lot of factors in that. A few decades of prior cigarette smoking, whether you inhale at all, underlying health problem that the body is trying to self medicate, emotional/psychological trauma and accompanying brain chemistry changes, etc.
Schizophrenics essentially all smoke heavily (90% or so, if I recall correctly), and there is a lot of material out there about how tobacco effects the dopaminergic functions of the brain, the MAO-I effects, and it's propensity to suppress serotonin (which is chronically elevated in schizophrenics, some scientists say even that "serotonergic overdrive" is the cause). In other words, it's an intuitive anti-depressant, and very efficient one at that.
I'm not just going on and on to proclaim "health benefits" from smoking, although it's assuredly true there are some (in addition to risks), but to further the idea that self-medication with tobacco is undeniably true, and that self medication is a confounding factor. And that addiction and self medication can exist individually. Some people chronically self medicate and cannot live without it (if they are married, for example :lol: ). Other people use it much more sparingly based on the lack of need to, and use it either more for the ritualistic effects (in pipe and cigar smoking), or in addition to that for self-medication in an exploratory, outward way, as opposed to a reactionary, adaptive way to deal with stress or illness (physical, mental, etc. as I have detailed here in previous posts) ala cigarette smoking or chronic habitual tobacco use of any kind.
So I do acknowledge that tobacco can be addictive (who doesn't), but I also acknowledge that it sometimes isn't, and have tried to explain my thought process regarding why that is, and can be, and that it isn't just random, but very tied to tangible factors. I have defined, or attempted to define, what comes to my mind when the word addiction is used, and what it means to me and what it doesn't. It is, undeniably, a vague term, that is pervasive in a society that doesn't really have any intuitive knowledge of physiology. This is evident by the sheer number of things that are being labeled "addictive"-- sugar is the latest and greatest (fraud, that is). It seems the only criteria to be met for a substance to be labeled addictive, is that the human body desires it.
So that I do acknowledge-- tobacco has a draw for many people. But what I hope I have explained, or at least sufficiently touched upon, is that "draw" does not equate to "addiction", based on the sheer evidence for the self-medication theory. In that paradigm, tobacco is not the initiator, but the response, or the answer to a problem (a great many different problems, it does seem). That's the only answer that satisfies me as to why some people can do it at will, and others are continually drawn to it, rather than mystery genes or simple denial.
What you project, though, is that everyone else is in denial about the nature of their relationship with tobacco, based on your own subjective and intuitive relationship with tobacco. What I've tried to do here is supply enough material to actually substantiate some reasons why everybody is different in this respect, and not just "Well, some people have the right genes", or something else that is generally just a token admission. Some people can moderate extremely well, and other people can't. But there are a lot of factors in that. A few decades of prior cigarette smoking, whether you inhale at all, underlying health problem that the body is trying to self medicate, emotional/psychological trauma and accompanying brain chemistry changes, etc.
Schizophrenics essentially all smoke heavily (90% or so, if I recall correctly), and there is a lot of material out there about how tobacco effects the dopaminergic functions of the brain, the MAO-I effects, and it's propensity to suppress serotonin (which is chronically elevated in schizophrenics, some scientists say even that "serotonergic overdrive" is the cause). In other words, it's an intuitive anti-depressant, and very efficient one at that.
I'm not just going on and on to proclaim "health benefits" from smoking, although it's assuredly true there are some (in addition to risks), but to further the idea that self-medication with tobacco is undeniably true, and that self medication is a confounding factor. And that addiction and self medication can exist individually. Some people chronically self medicate and cannot live without it (if they are married, for example :lol: ). Other people use it much more sparingly based on the lack of need to, and use it either more for the ritualistic effects (in pipe and cigar smoking), or in addition to that for self-medication in an exploratory, outward way, as opposed to a reactionary, adaptive way to deal with stress or illness (physical, mental, etc. as I have detailed here in previous posts) ala cigarette smoking or chronic habitual tobacco use of any kind.
So I do acknowledge that tobacco can be addictive (who doesn't), but I also acknowledge that it sometimes isn't, and have tried to explain my thought process regarding why that is, and can be, and that it isn't just random, but very tied to tangible factors. I have defined, or attempted to define, what comes to my mind when the word addiction is used, and what it means to me and what it doesn't. It is, undeniably, a vague term, that is pervasive in a society that doesn't really have any intuitive knowledge of physiology. This is evident by the sheer number of things that are being labeled "addictive"-- sugar is the latest and greatest (fraud, that is). It seems the only criteria to be met for a substance to be labeled addictive, is that the human body desires it.
So that I do acknowledge-- tobacco has a draw for many people. But what I hope I have explained, or at least sufficiently touched upon, is that "draw" does not equate to "addiction", based on the sheer evidence for the self-medication theory. In that paradigm, tobacco is not the initiator, but the response, or the answer to a problem (a great many different problems, it does seem). That's the only answer that satisfies me as to why some people can do it at will, and others are continually drawn to it, rather than mystery genes or simple denial.
- Status