I hear you brother....in fact I still have a bloody great time occasionally, amazing what things get given too you whilst DJ'ing! incidentally didn't Shulgin die a few weeks ago?
Of course withdrawal from the prolonged use of a drug will have certain physiological and/or mental effects, some decidedly more severe than others. That being the case, it is for the individual smoker to determine whether these physiological and/or mental effects are too high a price to pay for the undoubted health and financial benefits of giving up nicotine. As far as I am aware, and as far as my own 20 years' experience as a smoker is concerned, nicotine is not a drug that is immediately 'addictive'. In fact, I would suggest that a wannabe smoker would have to consciously choose to become a regular smoker over a considerable period of time before his/her habit became 'addictive'. It is therefore a habit that the smoker adopts freely with his/her eyes fully wide open. No arm is twisted, no gun is put to head and there is no near-term 'addiction'. Frankly the same can be applied to other narcotics, as I would imagine that few are so immediately 'addictive' that a user becomes an 'addict' after first use. There is enough adverse publicity about the harmful effects of nicotine use, not only to the user himself/herself, but also potentially to those they purport to care about, particularly in terms of 'casual smoke', household income and the pain of bereavement. There is sufficient information about the harmful aspects of nicotine, but I would not seek a ban. There is something positively Darwinian about it.
Fuelled many a good night at 'Escape From Samsara', 'Pendragon' and 'Return To The Source'.......Oh how I miss those halcyon days......
As a smoker, I fully accept what I do. I have made attempts to quit - some more serious that others. One part that supersedes the addition, is the fact that you're more inclined to smoke during stressful times. That in part is down to the nicotine but also it's a self-destructive urge (that's probably got much darker undertones). Things I hate on the subject:- 1) The governments lip-service to trying to give up - closed cabinets, bigger warnings etc. It's not for the benefit of the smoker or non-smoker, it's for the facade of seeming to be doing something while not having the balls to deal with an all out ban. There's no morality in the way the government do it. They still have their smoking room in the commons I believe too. Any battle with black market cigarettes would be worth it if they truly believed in what they were doing. 2) E-cigarettes being banned on trains and in stations. The only vague reason is that it makes it look appealing to kids - is that as opposed to all the merry people outside every establishment elsewhere that kids have to edge past? If someone started smoking because they saw someone with an e-cigarette on a train then they really are waving a white flag at evolution. 3) Law suits like the OP. Are the details of this guy sufficiently different that the ruling doesn't undermine the material value put on the life of all the others (claimants with reduced value settlements and all the others). Apart from the fact that it would be like me suing VW because I caused an accident after getting into one of their cars through negligent driving.
Excellent reasoning qprbeth and maybe if the government were not so manipulative, then yes i might just listen as i do to with my friends and family. I don't smoke in my home and i try to be as careful has possible to not irritate or affect other people with my smoking. But as you state it's the governments legitimate way of taxing the poor. I believe at least since the days of Thatcher, that there has been continued social cleansing through this method. Traditional pubs have closed in their thousands, they have changed a culture. Yet never really resolved anything ie the greedy supermarkets now hold all the ace cards. Drinking has gone from a social gathering to binge drinking, all because of the governments continued interfering. There was an option with smoking when e-cigarettes came along, I looked i considered, i looked again, shall i or shall i not, just as i was about to give them a try, they were banned from football grounds, there was reports of banning them even over in Wales, not that i go there...but still on and on. So in the end i made a decision, stick with the traditional cigarettes. Now i ask you a question if the choice was merely a pack of 20 or an e-cigarette which would you prefer i smoke? Not doing either is not an option in my vocabulary but i am prepared to listen, but once again to many interfering busy bodies made my choices for me...i will continue to smoke. Maybe stupidity in the eyes of some, but up until now the government have failed, more and more youngsters taking up smoking, why because rather than us not listening, they continue to want to interfere like big brother. Look at Amsterdam for examples, drugs available in coffee shops a controlled method, not one that could be used in this country, because the government banned smoking indoors! I thought it ironic, that we now make smokers at airports gather squashed in numbers in smoking shelters, including e-cigarette smokers, this says to me its not about health as the smoke is forced in their lungs by such drastic measures, you don't even need to light a cig, just breath in deep. The government trying to squeeze every last penny out of you, like we have spoke of in the same way as the motor vehicle. Do you think they should ban McDonalds and Burger King qprbeth, all that lovely congealed fat going in human bodies, but it's all ok as long has there ain't burnt smoke coming out of them buns. But the interfering busy bodies will not stop there, once they've got their way, something else will be on the agenda.
My Dad died of that cancer Beth. He went downhill so quickly it was unbelievable. From diagnosis to death was around 3 months. He'd obviously had it for a while and the specialist said that, if he had to have this cancer, that's the way he'd want to go............quick!! My Dad had given up a 40 a day habit more than 20 years before his death, so I presume this bought him some extra time. The pictures of his lungs were unbelievable. They were both pretty much covered by tumour.
