NationStates Jolt Archive

There's something that bugs me about the cigarette-addiction rhetoric. It's the implication that people cannot control their own actions with regards to purchasing and using packs of cigarettes. In many cases it's not just an implication but an outright statement. Well, if people can't control their own actions with regard to one thing, what else can they?

Perhaps a better question would be, what situations CAN people control their own actions, hmmm?

My main problem with this kind of thinking is that it disempowers people. After all, if I can't control my own actions, I am literally not responsible for what I do. I can't be blamed for what is beyond my control.

What a wonderfully attractive paradigm! Hey look, I'm addicted to the Internet, so I can't be blamed for sitting down every day for six hours. I'm addicted to shopping, so I can't help but go out and get that new purse. I'm addicted to sex, so my STD is not my fault. No one is responsible for themselves.

(Maybe that's why we need government. We can't think for ourselves or do anything. Help me Big Brother.)

The first step to quitting anything - really, to taking ANY course of action - is to recognize that you do indeed want to. Then the next step is to actually set about altering your behavior.

But if behavior is outright controlled - by inanimate objects, for example - it can't be altered by one's own will. So, why bother trying?

And is it therefore any wonder that people are coming up with new "addictions" all the time? Pick an activity, there are those who honestly believe it to be an addictive substance. Go on, pick an activity. I can find the support group for quitting it.

The more the idea that people can't control themselves is perpetuated, the less responsibility people will assume. The more easily they will give in to self-fulfilling prophecies of addiction. The more they'll die.

Telling a smoker that he is a helpless victim of the evil cigarette and is not responsible for his own choices is effectively reinforcing his belief in the strength of the addiction. The more he believes he is an addict, that his drug is "the most addictive substance KNOWN TO HUMANITY EVAR!" the more he WILL be an addict. Anti-tobacco propagandists, in this manner, ironically kill smokers. I guess it's payback for smokers killing everyone else.

Perhaps a better question would be, what situations CAN people control their own actions, hmmm?

a good portion of them, most of the time, at least to some extent. but we've got a lot going on that is entirely outside of our conscious control. shit, we know that there are bacteria that can radically change our behavior.

Some actions are easier to control than others. Nicotene actually makes changes in the brain that cause constant cravings and compulsions to smoke when the flow of nicotene is interrupted. Sure you can override those impulses, but you have to do so frequently throughout the day for many days before they start to disappear. In essence the decision to not smoke is a hard choice that must be made frequently, not a one time decision.

The action to decide to start smoking is indeed in a person's control and I certainly am of the opinion that responsibility for that choice is too often washed away. People need to be responsible for their actions.

However having said that, addiction is very real and it's an illness. The ability to quit or even to contol one's behavior is hampered by the drug in question. How hampered depends on the person and the drug. But it has to be cured like a mental or even physical sickness.

Some actions are easier to control than others. Nicotene actually makes changes in the brain that cause constant cravings and compulsions to smoke when the flow of nicotene is interrupted. Sure you can override those impulses, but you have to do so frequently throughout the day for many days before they start to disappear. In essence the decision to not smoke is a hard choice that must be made frequently, not a one time decision.

So it's too DIFFICULT to control oneself. Because of evil nicotine.

Well, I am at times a heavy smoker and I don't agree about the "constant cravings." But I do agree that the decision to not smoke is not a one-time event... but it IS a decision, as is the decision to light up. People should not be held unaccountable for their own actions when there is no reasonable way to show they literally cannot control them.

so you dont believe that addictive substance are addictive

you dont believe that the addictive nature of cigarettes make them hard to quit

and yet you still smoke and go back to smoking even after quitting it for months at a time. you delude yourself into thinking that taking up a habit that is blatantly bad for your health is a reasonable adult decision based on liking the habit.

you cant see that even for you its hard to control your own actions.

interesting.

yeah its hard to quit things that are physically addictive. some people need extreme help to get it done.

its also hard to quit things that are psychologically driven, like shopping addictions, precisely because they ARENT physically addictive so you can delude yourself longer that you are in control of your actions.

some people only need a metaphorical slap upside the head to have them realize that they are engaging in destructive behavior; some people need help from a psychologist to help them deal with the underlying psychology before they can get a grip on these kinds of addictions.

Hmmmmm.

Certainly humans are capable of controlling their own actions completely. However they may not be able to control their drives, which influence their choices about this sort of thing.

Every stimulus in a way controls your actions, for example when the stimuli are radically changed then the mind acts in a different way - e.g. taking hallucinogenic drugs.

Certain drugs have physical withdrawal symptoms, for example alcoholism induced DT and these are the ones I would call truly addictive. Cigarettes are only really mentally addictive, and this is the controversial kind of addiction. People want the feeling that smoking gives them, and also as a force of habit. These are only addictive in that you want them, because they make you feel good. Everything is mildly addictive in this way because of the way that the human mind works. I personally believe that cigarettes have a very strong force of habit type of addiction, in the same way that I might find some repetetive tapping motion comforting, and become slightly distressed if stopped from doing so.

As for your opinion on self-responsibility, it is difficult to say where to draw the line in this situation. Having a lot of dealings with developmental disablilities has broadened my mind as to what is voluntary and what is involuntary, and how much responsibility should be taken to yourself. I'm not sure where to draw the line.

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense at all to anyone.

So it's too DIFFICULT to control oneself. Because of evil nicotine.

Well, I am at times a heavy smoker and I don't agree about the "constant cravings." But I do agree that the decision to not smoke is not a one-time event... but it IS a decision, as is the decision to light up. People should not be held unaccountable for their own actions when there is no reasonable way to show they literally cannot control them.

It can be done. It's just not easy. I'm not saying it's not the smoker's responsibility to decide wheather or not to quit. All I'm saying is that some choices are very hard to make. Ultimately you're responsible for your choices though. I don't think I've heard anyone say that it's impossible to quit smoking.

BTW, what is "at times a heavy smoker"? What, like you smoke a pack of cigarettes on the weekend? Maybe you go a pack a day for a month then quit for a month? What do you mean?

so you dont believe that addictive substance are addictive


No. I think people throw around "addiction" far too often and it becomes, in effect, an excuse for people to do things they wouldn't if they actually believed they had control over.


you dont believe that the addictive nature of cigarettes make them hard to quit

Well, do you believe that the addictive (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/shopping-spree-addiction) nature of shopping makes that hard to quit?

I believe this: if you believe something is hard to quit, you'll find out you're right. If you believe the opposite, you'll find out you're right too.

and yet you still smoke and go back to smoking even after quitting it for months at a time. you delude yourself into thinking that taking up a habit that is blatantly bad for your health is a reasonable adult decision based on liking the habit.

I figured someone would try to say I'm an addict, deluded, blah blah blah.

Nice ad hominem, but I'm going to tell you that my expert opinion regarding myself is more credible than your assumptions.

And there are plenty of "blatantly bad for your health" activities I engage in. "Bad for your health" does not amount to "addiction." Yes, I smoke - I like it. Deal with this or not, but don't try to act like you know I'm "deluded."

you cant see that even for you its hard to control your own actions.

interesting.

I have 100% control of my own actions. Maybe you are weak and do not. Interesting.

its also hard to quit things that are psychologically driven, like shopping addictions, precisely because they ARENT physically addictive so you can delude yourself longer that you are in control of your actions.

I'm guessing you've never known any heroin addicts, or else you wouldn't be perpetrating the myth that they can't control themselves. Because that myth WILL kill them. Dead.

If you don't believe you can, you WON'T.

Hmmmmm.

Certainly humans are capable of controlling their own actions completely. However they may not be able to control their drives, which influence their choices about this sort of thing.

Every stimulus in a way controls your actions, for example when the stimuli are radically changed then the mind acts in a different way - e.g. taking hallucinogenic drugs.

Certain drugs have physical withdrawal symptoms, for example alcoholism induced DT and these are the ones I would call truly addictive. Cigarettes are only really mentally addictive, and this is the controversial kind of addiction. People want the feeling that smoking gives them, and also as a force of habit. These are only addictive in that you want them, because they make you feel good. Everything is mildly addictive in this way because of the way that the human mind works. I personally believe that cigarettes have a very strong force of habit type of addiction, in the same way that I might find some repetetive tapping motion comforting, and become slightly distressed if stopped from doing so.

As for your opinion on self-responsibility, it is difficult to say where to draw the line in this situation. Having a lot of dealings with developmental disablilities has broadened my mind as to what is voluntary and what is involuntary, and how much responsibility should be taken to yourself. I'm not sure where to draw the line.

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense at all to anyone.

Doctors have found a part of the brain called the Insula, which causes cravings. There are nicotene sensitive receptors in the Insula. When it's used to nicotene and the nicotene stops flowing in it's not just habit, it's actual changes in brain function that cause the cravings.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=1100067UNU1S&page=1

It can be done. It's just not easy. I'm not saying it's not the smoker's responsibility to decide wheather or not to quit. All I'm saying is that some choices are very hard to make. Ultimately you're responsible for your choices though. I don't think I've heard anyone say that it's impossible to quit smoking.

Yes, but people get dismissed as "addicts" because of their choices. And that marginalizes choice to such an extent that we've got a country full of people who can't even be bothered to VOTE, let alone exert any real self-control in their lives.

Yes, some choices are harder than others. Physical addiction can help make that harder. But while no one in particular says it's impossible to quit, they nonetheless imply that one is being Controlled by an inanimate object. This does relieve responsibility and perpetrates part of an idea, the idea that people are powerless.

BTW, what is "at times a heavy smoker"? What, like you smoke a pack of cigarettes on the weekend? Maybe you go a pack a day for a month then quit for a month? What do you mean?

I smoke about a pack a week on average, but sometimes at parties I'll wind up chain-smoking a pack or two. And sometimes I don't smoke at all. Basically at times people would, looking at me, describe me as a heavy smoker, other times they would assume a nonsmoker. It changes and depends.

Yes, but people get dismissed as "addicts" because of their choices. And that marginalizes choice to such an extent that we've got a country full of people who can't even be bothered to VOTE, let alone exert any real self-control in their lives. Addiction is a real condition. In a true addiction, not internet addiction or porn addiction, but cocaine or nicotene addiction, the brain actually starts working differently from a normal brain and that makes quitting more difficult. We don't say a guy in a wheelchair doesn't have to hold down a job, but we do provide wheelchair ramps in most public buildings to make it easier on him to function. In much the same way we should do research on how to help addicts quit and give them access to effective programs that will help them quit. That is if it's in the best interests of society to get them off drugs.

Yes, some choices are harder than others. Physical addiction can help make that harder. But while no one in particular says it's impossible to quit, they nonetheless imply that one is being Controlled by an inanimate object. This does relieve responsibility and perpetrates part of an idea, the idea that people are powerless. Saying someone has less power to make a certain decision doesn't mean he's powerless. All it does is acknowledge that he's going to have a rough time and he could use some help.



I smoke about a pack a week on average, but sometimes at parties I'll wind up chain-smoking a pack or two. And sometimes I don't smoke at all. Basically at times people would, looking at me, describe me as a heavy smoker, other times they would assume a nonsmoker. It changes and depends.
1) You're not a heavy smoker in my estimation. You don't even average a pack a day. I'd say you're a heavy smoker when you average close to a pack a day.

2) Most smokers can go a day or a day and a half without cigarettes and not suffer much. Beyond that point the cravings really start.

Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't quit. Just means it's a struggle.

Saying someone has less power to make a certain decision doesn't mean he's powerless. All it does is acknowledge that he's going to have a rough time and he could use some help.

it seems to me that gt is coming at this from a somewhat incoherent position of absolute libertarian free will, and thus doesn't recognize the existence of greater and lesser power over a decision of the will.

Addiction is a real condition. In a true addiction, not internet addiction or porn addiction, but cocaine or nicotene addiction, the brain actually starts working differently from a normal brain and that makes quitting more difficult.

I've also read that thought patterns carve some sort of physical path on the brain, making one more likely to believe or think things if one already has.

Still, lots of things alter the brain without removing any mote of responsibility. I just maintain that even physical addiction is like that. It's not like some sort of brain control. (Unless one got addicted without choice, like babies born with heroin habits.)

We don't say a guy in a wheelchair doesn't have to hold down a job, but we do provide wheelchair ramps in most public buildings to make it easier on him to function. In much the same way we should do research on how to help addicts quit and give them access to effective programs that will help them quit. That is if it's in the best interests of society to get them off drugs. Saying someone has less power to make a certain decision doesn't mean he's powerless. All it does is acknowledge that he's going to have a rough time and he could use some help.

I think that a lot of drug abuse (whether it be cocaine or caffeine) stems from a sense of self-worthlessness and lack of control. So I think a good way to get people to quit (if they truly want and need to, not just because I want them to) is to build up their sense of personal control. And I think that partly because of this enforced-helplessness which is just prevalent in society, people find it easier to not only stay an addict, but to become one in the first place.

1) You're not a heavy smoker in my estimation. You don't even average a pack a day. I'd say you're a heavy smoker when you average close to a pack a day.

OK, well I said "at times," which could be read as "not" but which i meant "sometimes/have the capability to."

2) Most smokers can go a day or a day and a half without cigarettes and not suffer much. Beyond that point the cravings really start.

I still haven't encountered this. And yes, I've gone for weeks and months at a time without smoking. (Though I never call it "quitting" in the permanent sense because never did I have the intention to refuse smoking ever again.)

People are different physiologically, so that could be why.

There's something that bugs me about the cigarette-addiction rhetoric. It's the implication that people cannot control their own actions with regards to purchasing and using packs of cigarettes. In many cases it's not just an implication but an outright statement. Well, if people can't control their own actions with regard to one thing, what else can they?

Perhaps a better question would be, what situations CAN people control their own actions, hmmm?

My main problem with this kind of thinking is that it disempowers people. After all, if I can't control my own actions, I am literally not responsible for what I do. I can't be blamed for what is beyond my control.

What a wonderfully attractive paradigm! Hey look, I'm addicted to the Internet, so I can't be blamed for sitting down every day for six hours. I'm addicted to shopping, so I can't help but go out and get that new purse. I'm addicted to sex, so my STD is not my fault. No one is responsible for themselves.

(Maybe that's why we need government. We can't think for ourselves or do anything. Help me Big Brother.)

The first step to quitting anything - really, to taking ANY course of action - is to recognize that you do indeed want to. Then the next step is to actually set about altering your behavior.

But if behavior is outright controlled - by inanimate objects, for example - it can't be altered by one's own will. So, why bother trying?

And is it therefore any wonder that people are coming up with new "addictions" all the time? Pick an activity, there are those who honestly believe it to be an addictive substance. Go on, pick an activity. I can find the support group for quitting it.

The more the idea that people can't control themselves is perpetuated, the less responsibility people will assume. The more easily they will give in to self-fulfilling prophecies of addiction. The more they'll die.

Telling a smoker that he is a helpless victim of the evil cigarette and is not responsible for his own choices is effectively reinforcing his belief in the strength of the addiction. The more he believes he is an addict, that his drug is "the most addictive substance KNOWN TO HUMANITY EVAR!" the more he WILL be an addict. Anti-tobacco propagandists, in this manner, ironically kill smokers. I guess it's payback for smokers killing everyone else.

People can always control their own actions. BTW, try to find the support group for reading manga (Japanese comic books).

People can always control their own actions. BTW, try to find the support group for reading manga (Japanese comic books).

OK (http://www.comicworldnews.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?column=pastthefrontracks&page=28), its not a real support group yet, but that's just because so many manga addicts are in the denial phase! :p

People can always control their own actions.

except when they physically or mentally are unable to...

OK (http://www.comicworldnews.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?column=pastthefrontracks&page=28), its not a real support group yet, but that's just because so many manga addicts are in the denial phase! :p

Lolz.

So, you've devoured Planetes, what next? You could just walk up to the manga shelf and buy anything that catches your eye, but are you the right audience for something like Shaman King? I know I'm not.

I read that. (Shaman King, not Planetes)

except when they physically or mentally are unable to...

Except when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, yeah, that's true.

Except when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, yeah, that's true.

Which is kind of the whole subject of this thread.

Influence. Not control. There is a profound distinction that people are running over here.

Yes, drugs influence behavior, but so does... everything. Behavior is modified by any and all stimuli. But as far as responsibility and self-control are concerned, that lies with the self, because the human being is remarkable with its sentience and free will which combined make it more than a walking response mechanism enslaved to the external environment.

Legally I can't really use the "But I was drunk" excuse to get away from being punished as a rapist, can I? Why not - if alcohol indeed Controls a person's behavior, it seems that the charge would have to be dropped entirely since a person can't be held responsible for actions beyond their control?

Meh, somethings you can control, somethings you can't. It just depends. You can control alcoholism, smoking addicition, and most other addictions. Things you can't control would be an extreme OCD, or having Torrets(sp?) or something along those lines.

Meh, somethings you can control, somethings you can't. It just depends. You can control alcoholism, smoking addicition, and most other addictions. Things you can't control would be an extreme OCD, or having Torrets(sp?) or something along those lines.
while i disapprove strongly of cigarette companies, they can hardly be blamed for a smoker initiating the habit. folk made the conscious decision to start. there have been campaigns for >15 years (all that i can remember) declaring how smoking affects health. the fact that a smoker did not make an informed choice is not the fault of the cigarette companies.

however, i disagree that addictions can be controlled, at least addiction in the medical sense, meaning that shopping, sex, etc usually considered trivial, addictions are quite real. having started, addictions render the individual psychologically unable to part with the addiction. it is not a case of mind over matter, though that helps. nonetheless, under the influence is not a defence in any way for one's actions (short, i suppose, of being under the influence of prescribed medicine, but that's likely a murky area).

Nice ad hominem, but I'm going to tell you that my expert opinion regarding myself is more credible than your assumptions.

Yes, I smoke - I like it. Deal with this or not, but don't try to act like you know I'm "deluded."
i didn't read the buildup to this, but the two ideas are mutually exclusive. if you were deluded, your expert opinion about yourself would be invalid. i'm just sayin...

Hm. I am philosophically a determinist, but I believe that people do have the ability to control their own actions. With that said, sometimes this ability is hampered by things, such as addiction.

Mu, in the way that Pirsig meant it. Unask the question.


Now, I can make my getaway and feel smart about it before any of you think to question me further.

i didn't read the buildup to this, but the two ideas are mutually exclusive. if you were deluded, your expert opinion about yourself would be invalid. i'm just sayin...

Invalid? I don't think so. Deluded or not, I know myself far, far better than some anonymous stranger online does. It takes more than an accusation of delusion to invalidate someone's argument.

Invalid? I don't think so. Deluded or not, I know myself far, far better than some anonymous stranger online does. It takes more than an accusation of delusion to invalidate someone's argument.
not if you've fooled yourself into believing something about yourself, i.e., are deluded.
i refer you to the comment,
I used to think the brain was the most important organ in the body, until I realized who was telling me that. - Emo Phillips
thus if your brain patterns are distorted (drugs), you can think you're the most rational person ever, and be totally deluded. example: paranoia, or "i can quit anytime i want to"

granted, someone online likely does not know you well, though possibly is making a valid diagnostic. but only possibly.

There's something that bugs me about the cigarette-addiction rhetoric. It's the implication that people cannot control their own actions with regards to purchasing and using packs of cigarettes. In many cases it's not just an implication but an outright statement. Well, if people can't control their own actions with regard to one thing, what else can they?

Perhaps a better question would be, what situations CAN people control their own actions, hmmm?
To continue with your argument, why did you omit the entire matter of addiction psychology and physiology?

not if you've fooled yourself into believing something about yourself, i.e., are deluded.

Nope. I might be deluded on one matter, but you would need to show more than just the accusation for that to have any validity in the first place. Ideally you'd need a psychologist. Anyway, "delusion" about one thing doesn't invalidate my experiences in totality, and it still gives no credibility whatsoever to whether anonymous online strangers can know anything about me at all.


thus if your brain patterns are distorted (drugs), you can think you're the most rational person ever, and be totally deluded. example: paranoia, or "i can quit anytime i want to"

Denial and paranoia aren't the same as a delusion. Delusion is basically one step short of hallucination. A good example would be if I believed reptilian transdimensional aliens are possessing people's bodies. A bad example would be, I can't make an argument so I'll just accuse my opponent of being deluded.

And as for "I can quit anytime I want to," I can. The key phrase there is "anytime I want," which some people seem to think means "anytime someone makes the demand."

To continue with your argument, why did you omit the entire matter of addiction psychology and physiology?

What does that have to do with my argument?

Do you even know what my argument is?

People are their actions, and whether they control who they are depends on what you mean by "control".

Do you even know what my argument is?

Hmm...

"I can quit! I don't wanna, but I can!, I really, really, can! >_>'"

Hmm...

"I can quit! I don't wanna, but I can!, I really, really, can! >_>'"

Can you quit posting on NSG?

Do you want to?

This concept of "doing something because I like it" really isn't difficult. I'll bet with some imagination you could even think of some other examples of things you do, that you are not addicted to, but which you nonetheless don't feel like stopping just because some random person online challenges you to.

Edit: And no, that wasn't what my argument was. You phail.

Can you quit posting on NSG?

Do you want to?

*shrug* I've had to. The internet usually cuts out every weekend, I got lucky this time. And my mom likes to take away the modem for a while, form of punishment.

This concept of "doing something because I like it" really isn't difficult. I'll bet with some imagination you could even think of some other examples of things you do, that you are not addicted to, but which you nonetheless don't feel like stopping just because some random person online challenges you to.

Did I challenge you to stop? This whole side of the arguement is that we think you probably couldn't. *shrug* If I'm addicted to something, I wouldn't want to admit it to myself either, now would I?

Edit: And no, that wasn't what my argument was. You phail.
Hmm, strange that.

Nope. I might be deluded on one matter, but you would need to show more than just the accusation for that to have any validity in the first place. Ideally you'd need a psychologist. Anyway, "delusion" about one thing doesn't invalidate my experiences in totality, and it still gives no credibility whatsoever to whether anonymous online strangers can know anything about me at all.
fair enough

Denial and paranoia aren't the same as a delusion. Delusion is basically one step short of hallucination. A good example would be if I believed reptilian transdimensional aliens are possessing people's bodies. A bad example would be, I can't make an argument so I'll just accuse my opponent of being deluded.
from the OED definition of delusion, 3. a. Anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement.

thus for example, the expression, delusion of grandeur. denial and paranoia are two examples of varying severity of 'fixed false opinion'.

in other words, delusion is not a hallucination, nor on its way to being one, because it is not a person's opinion that is wrong, but some other sense, 2. Path. and Psychol. The apparent perception (usually by sight or hearing) of an external object when no such object is actually present. (Distinguished from illusion in the strict sense, as not necessarily involving a false belief.)

And as for "I can quit anytime I want to," I can. The key phrase there is "anytime I want," which some people seem to think means "anytime someone makes the demand."
maybe you can. my point is that "i can quit any time" is stereotyped as an inability to quit any time, any way. The general conclusion that those who say it actually can't quit anytime is not unreasonable.

The general conclusion that those who say it actually can't quit anytime is not unreasonable.

It's "I have black friends" for smokers.

It's "I have black friends" for smokers.
:p

from the OED definition of delusion, 3. a. Anything that deceives the mind with a false impression; a deception; a fixed false opinion or belief with regard to objective things, esp. as a form of mental derangement.

thus for example, the expression, delusion of grandeur. denial and paranoia are two examples of varying severity of 'fixed false opinion'.

in other words, delusion is not a hallucination, nor on its way to being one, because it is not a person's opinion that is wrong, but some other sense, 2. Path. and Psychol. The apparent perception (usually by sight or hearing) of an external object when no such object is actually present. (Distinguished from illusion in the strict sense, as not necessarily involving a false belief.)

No, a hallucination is not a delusion, but they are both key forms of mental derangement. You want to make the argument that I'm mentally deranged?

Or perhaps you can explain why and how I could be "deceived." I will make the same argument to call you "in denial" about any and all behaviors you engage in. It will have the exact same amount of validity.

maybe you can. my point is that "i can quit any time" is stereotyped as an inability to quit any time, any way. The general conclusion that those who say it actually can't quit anytime is not unreasonable.

Yeah, it's stereotyped, and people stereotype those who say it - and those who smoke, in general - as lying, deceived and/or addicted slaves, blah blah blah. So your argument is based more on stereotype than on something I like to call reality.

*shrug* I've had to. The internet usually cuts out every weekend, I got lucky this time. And my mom likes to take away the modem for a while, form of punishment.

Yeah. And I've had to before, too. Like when I got bronchitus for a month, or when I didn't have the income to support it, and when I just didn't feel like it.

But... somehow, I must be An Addict while you are not?


Did I challenge you to stop? This whole side of the arguement is that we think you probably couldn't.

Sounds like a challenge to me. "If you can stop anytime you want, STOP RIGHT NOW!"

And what you think about what I probably can, or can't do, is irrelevant. You're not me, you don't know me, in fact the only reason you have to believe I smoke at all is because I say so. So do me a favor and don't assume I'm lying or delusional... and if you insist on making the assumption, then don't bother posting on this thread since after all, everything I say might well be some deluded lie.

*shrug* If I'm addicted to something, I wouldn't want to admit it to myself either, now would I?

Wouldn't you? I was addicted to caffeine, and I had no problems admitting it. Maybe you're different.

It's "I have black friends" for smokers.

Nonsense. "I have black friends" demonstrably does NOT invalidate the charge of racism. That is why that is a stupid statement. "I can quit anytime I want," however, DOES invalidate the charge of addiction. Unless I'm a lying, deluded, probably mentally deranged individual. Difference.

Yeah. And I've had to before, too. Like when I got bronchitus for a month, or when I didn't have the income to support it, and when I just didn't feel like it.

But... somehow, I must be An Addict while you are not?

Did I say I wasn't addicted? I'm sneaking on right now, I should be in bed.

Sounds like a challenge to me. "If you can stop anytime you want, STOP RIGHT NOW!"

And what you think about what I probably can, or can't do, is irrelevant. You're not me, you don't know me, in fact the only reason you have to believe I smoke at all is because I say so. So do me a favor and don't assume I'm lying or delusional... and if you insist on making the assumption, then don't bother posting on this thread since after all, everything I say might well be some deluded lie.

Never thought being talkitive was one of the psychological effects of nicotine.

Not entirely sure why you bother being on the internet at all, seeing as, apparently, no one knows nothing about nobody, and thus it's all irrelevant. What's this, some kind of internet nihilism?

Wouldn't you? I was addicted to caffeine, and I had no problems admitting it. Maybe you're different.

I could compare the chemical structures of caffeine and nicotine for you, maybe?

Nonsense. "I have black friends" demonstrably does NOT invalidate the charge of racism. That is why that is a stupid statement. "I can quit anytime I want," however, DOES invalidate the charge of addiction. Unless I'm a lying, deluded, probably mentally deranged individual. Difference.

Not even quitting itself invalidates the fact that one was once addicted, how could talking about it do so?

Did I say I wasn't addicted? I'm sneaking on right now, I should be in bed.

Heh OK - so, because you're an addict, I must be too?

Enough bandying. I'm not addicted and you have absolutely no way in hell of proving otherwise. You really shouldn't even try.

Never thought being talkitive was one of the psychological effects of nicotine.

It isn't....

....

Did you think I said it was?

Not entirely sure why you bother being on the internet at all, seeing as, apparently, no one knows nothing about nobody, and thus it's all irrelevant. What's this, some kind of internet nihilism?

I'm on the internet to communicate. You seem to be here to accuse me of being deluded. There is a difference.

I could compare the chemical structures of caffeine and nicotine for you, maybe?

Sure! knock yourself out! While you're at it, explain how the chemical structural differences has ANYTHING to do with your claim that I am deluded or lying about a nicotine addiction when I had no problem being "non deluded" about a caffeine addiction.

Frankly, you're just spitting out bullshit at this point.

Not even quitting itself invalidates the fact that one was once addicted, how could talking about it do so?

If Joe has black friends as he claims, he could still be a racist. He could be racist against non-blacks, for example. Therefore, if he is telling the truth, "I have black friends" doesn't invalidate the charge of "racist."

If Joe can indeed quit at any time he wants, as he claims, he's not an addict because the very definition of addiction makes it non-trivial to just stop at will. Therefore, if he is telling the truth, "I can quit at any time I want" does invalidate the charge of "addict."

So you see the difference? No? Yeah, I guess you wouldn't - you're just an internet addict throwing stupid charges at people with nothing to back them up other than cliche, stereotype, and your unwillingness to STFU.

Heh OK - so, because you're an addict, I must be too?

*shrug* Says who? You asked me if I was addicted, remember?
Enough bandying. I'm not addicted and you have absolutely no way in hell of proving otherwise. You really shouldn't even try.
Who'd want to prove it to you? Hell, I don't even know you exist, right? I could be a brain in a jar.

It isn't....

....

Did you think I said it was?
That was a thinly veiled way of saying you talk a lot.

I'm on the internet to communicate. You seem to be here to accuse me of being deluded. There is a difference.

How would you know what I'm here to do? After all, you have know way of knowing anything about me, riiiiight? :)

Sure! knock yourself out! While you're at it, explain how the chemical structural differences has ANYTHING to do with your claim that I am deluded or lying about a nicotine addiction when I had no problem being "non deluded" about a caffeine addiction.

Presumably there's a difference. I've never heard of caffeine patches.

Frankly, you're just spitting out bullshit at this point.

Bullshit and sunshine :D

If Joe can indeed quit at any time he wants, as he claims, he's not an addict because the very definition of addiction makes it non-trivial to just stop at will. Therefore, if he is telling the truth, "I can quit at any time I want" does invalidate the charge of "addict."

*shrug* Addicts can quit, can't they? What more is there to them being able to quit besides wanting to? It must simply be a want of a sufficient degree, enough to overcome the physiological and psychological bit.