Bangkok Smoking Kid
creativesamba.substack.com
creativesamba.substack.com
1. switch 100% to vaping (try a nicotine-heavy liquid if you don't enjoy what you try initially), get rid of cigarettes. Make sure to find a flavor you enjoy and try different ones every now and then.
2. you'll find your health improving soon: vaping is not 100% safe but usually a much healthier choice than cigs because no tar, heavy metals, formaldehyde etc. I bet your doctor will tell you "good job!" once they notice the changes in your health.
3. quitting is going to be much easier than you imagine at this moment. I just stopped one day and had no problem, I even enjoyed the mildly weird feeling during 2 days (but gained a couple of extra pounds).
Perhaps this depends on the kind of the vaping liquid you use, I only tried one kind. Don't try butter/caramel-flavoured liquids or THC oils - these are dangerous.
To help smokers quit, vaping only needs to temper their physical and psychological cravings and be in the same realm of affordability, availability and ease-of-use. Selling cotton candy vape juice delivered with a apple-esque vaporizer and slick ads & commercials is not to "help smokers quit"
Some of the bigger vaping companies are owned by tobacco companies. e.g. Juul.
> IRC smoking was at a very low rate for youth after decades of improvements and then vaping has seen nicotine use rise in this demographic.
Okay, but smoking and nicotine use are very different metrics. Looking at number of smokers + number of vapers is a bit like looking at the number of drunk drivers + number of people biking without helmets. There's a heavy relative harm weighting factor missing if you just sum the numbers, especially if kids aren't vaping tocopheryl acetate or diacetyl.
Some parties strongly suspect that vaping is a gateway to smoking, but the studies I've seen are contradictory (granted, I haven't looked in depth). After all I was told about marijuana leading to crack cocaine use as a kid, I'm strongly skeptical of any gateway hypothesis that's not supported by rigorous studies. Rebellious kids tend to do all kinds of things, generally starting with less risky things, and if your study doesn't control for this, your study is going to show a causative link between stepping on sidewalk cracks at age 5 and using crack cocaine at age 17.
On the one hand, we do want to protect people from stupid decisions in their wild youth. On the other hand, the gateway hypothesis is the best argument I've seen against vaping, and it doesn't look like a good argument from where I'm sitting.
I think there's also a lot of hysteria that fruity vapes are targeted at kids. There must be tons of people over 21 who secretly like wine coolers and secretly like fruity vapes.
I've never been a cigarette smoker, and have only smoked a handful of cigars, but I've tried vaping a few times and found it pleasant. If, in another decade, vaping turns out to be no more harmful than my occasional single malt habit or my grilled red meat habit, I might take up vaping regularly at the age of 50. I get plenty of exercise, watch my weight, practice intermittent fasting, and spend a bit of my health budget on a small number of vices.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/s...
Sure, THC itself (at least in reasonable doses, taken by a mentally stable person) is not dangerous, vaping [black market] THC oils is. We don't vape anything but nicotine here in Europe, we just smoke weed occasionally when we want THC so we have no vaping-related deaths here.
THC probably does affect the brain in a permanent negative way.
Although they said "THC-oils" which implies they are talking about the black-market issue, I think unlike vaping nicotine which is probably mostly safe. Vaping THC-oils should only be seen as safer than smoking THC.
The studies are far from conclusive (and mostly lean to the opposite of what you're suggesting). I'd advise against making such strong statements such as these since the science simply isn't on your side here.
If the comment had said "may or may not cause damage", that's a different thing. But the resulting phrase "probably causes permanent brain damage" is definitely a loaded statement to not back up with evidence.
It's not hard to find many journal articles that conclude it might -
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-160833 or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6182105/
What journal articles conclude it might not?
That would change my opinion to "may or may not cause damage"
And the above journal also makes an effort to mention how "low to moderate quality" the data is.
For what is the world's most popular recreational drug, it's astonishing to see the lack of research committed.
Vaping is a great product for quitting nicotine. It should definitely be more accepted as such, and not just be seen as an alternative to smoking.
I tried to quit smoking with vaping 3 times before it worked and it was due to a multitude of reasons.
1. Cheap vaping kits. They leak, are hard to change the coils and to fill up with liquid. On my current attempt, I got a proper set (40eu) and made sure it fills up by unscrewing the top and not the whole top bit. It stops leaking, its easier to fill up and its less of a chore.
I think that was the main reason as with cheap kits, they would leak, be hard to maintenance and it was such a hassle that picking up a cigarette and lighting it up was much easier.
2. Flavours, as you mentioned finding a flavour you like and sticking to it is key. I tried many and found just the right flavour level that suits me and it was a huge break through for me.
I started on 12mg nicotine level, lowered to 6mg after 4 weeks, and 6 months later I'm on 3mg and feel so much better. My next step is to go no nicotine vape then kick it entirely.
And only as enough time passes (not less than some months) - consider quitting if you want.
That would work better. IMHO.
And I don’t think I would have made it without the help of vaping which, yes, I also eventually quit. I made my own flavorless juice and titrated the nicotine down to zero which made it real easy to stop vaping at that point.
Before I started smoking (relatively late in life), I didn't really grasp that smoking is non-trivially immediately psychoactive.
Like I thought it was something that you did just to do, and then it quietly wormed some sort of hook into your brain that made you feel bad if you stopped, but the whole thing happened entirely "subconsciously".
Maybe I was just especially retarded, and most people properly understand this.
I grew up in a household where chips, soda, and ice cream were dinner. I've been at points in my life where easily 70% of my daily calories were sugar. My body hurt and I felt like shit, but those moments where I took that first bite of ice cream in an hour were bliss.
Quitting it was fucking painful. I was tired, irritable, and had this constant feeling in the back of my throat of just needing some sweets. I managed to go a whole year without any sweets at all an finally forgot the feeling and managed to lose a bunch of weight, then someone gave me a box of chocolate and I've been trying to quit (and failing) for two years. Whenever I make some progress on quitting, someone offers me some sweets and the cycle starts all over again.
Just looking at the obesity problem in the world, I think loads of people are suffering from an equally debilitating addiction, but they're not targeted by ad campaigns asking them to quit, and they've never tried to do so. People who've tried to lose weight will often say it's incredibly tough, and a lot of experiences seem to align with what smokers describe.
The worst thing about nicotine is how it alters reality so much. It’s like a science fiction mind control nightmare. From the outside I see people standing in the cold with a burning bit of crap in their mouth. To them it is among the most important thing in their lives.
It is why I think we should ban commercial sale of nicotine completely, whether through smoking or vaping. I’m not directing this at you personally, but I’m sick of hearing mind hacked smokers complaining about how hard it is to quit and how good their lives were standing in the cold with a burning piece of crap in their mouth. You want to grow your own tobacco and smoke it, be my guest. But letting someone make money from hacking your brain permanently? That is madness. If the brain was a software product you would urgently patch the nicotine receptor as a critical vulnerability.
That thought really changed it from doing it for myself to doing it for my kids. It seems maybe if we thought more about our examples would be mirrored by the young people around us we'd set a better example.
This is not the logic of most smokers I know (myself included). My reasoning, like that of most smokers I know, is:
1. I know how bad smoking is.
2. I know how hard quitting is.
3. I know the mental health effect of a quitting effort (whether successful or not) is challenging and unpredictable.
4. I have a lot of other challenges in life that incentivize putting off #2-3 until such a time as I think I can weather the storm and have a high chance of success.
Most smokers try and fail to quit multiple times before they succeed. It's a strong addiction, with a lot of negative emotional associations.
The tl;dr is that, for a lot of different reasons that aren't your fault, you've become convinced that quitting smoking is a lot harder than it actually is. If you have any feeling like you would like to quit (or that you think its gross) then go grab the PDF and give it a shot.
I dropped the habit two years ago and have never had a slight urge to try again. The text is a little cringeworthy, but if you can look past it you will see the benefits
https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingJUUL/comments/d10l69/full_p...
In a subreddit called "QuittingJUUL", none the less! An entirely new generation is getting to learn about Carr's book.
Quitting smoking is both easier and harder than you think it is, but having done it, I learned a lot about my mind and the way humans think in general. Another step on the path to enlightenment.
Good luck.
There's truth to the joke "quitting is easy, I've done it many times". It's not the quitting part you have to worry about.
I know it will sound too obvious but my thought when I read the above is that the best time to reach people about the dangers of smoking is before they start smoking.
I am not so sure that smokers are aware of the risks of smoking, especially when they first start smoking. A big one a smoking friend told me that he could tell himself was decreased lung capacity. I don't know if this is scientifically proven (anecdotal evidence) but he says he used to swim longer when he was younger (and didn't smoke).
Just spitballing: How do you feel about a ban on buying tobacco related products without a license/prescription? Like you can buy cigarettes and such only if you have a document that says you need it?
In my opinion if you want people to quit smoking you need to give them the tools to create that feeling without smoking. Otherwise people will seek that feeling out when they're trying to quit and the easiest way for them to get it is to light a cigarette.
I don't smoke and I have no intention of learning the nice, peaceful feeling. I was just saying that we already require people to be twenty one years old to buy tobacco. I completely support legalization of all drugs but perhaps there should be some supervision. I thought requiring a prescription/license to buy drugs makes sense. We require a doctor's visit to get birth control pills.
Perhaps we could even get rid of the age limit if we require a prescription... Or do you fear the market will flood with unlicensed (possibly adulterated/low quality) tobacco products if we make it too difficult to get tobacco without a license/prescription?
If so, doesn't that mean it's something we should probably ban as a society and provide transitional support to help wean people off of it more gracefully? Even if tobacco itself remains an accessible substance, getting rid of pre-rolled cigarettes would probably annoy a large portion of the population into quitting.
I've never been a smoker so I can't really relate, but sugar is addictive as hell and quite terrible for you as well. I try and minimize deserty things and get really annoyed when something I'd like (like a nice dry cracker or a marinated piece of meat) is needlessly slathered in sugar. I, personally, want regulations that would push prepared food back into the realm of healthy because, even if the taste suffers a little, it'll let me relax a bit when trying to consume food healthy while also feeling the time stresses of a full time job & commute.
We, as a society, have allowed our food supply to get saturated with sugar - fixing that is just as controlling of our lives as allowing it was in the first place.
We, as a society, have allowed tobacco smoking to bloom as it has - fixing it is just as controlling of our lives as allowing it was in the first place.
How many processed foods would contain sugar if it raised the price by a few cents per unit cost?
If we're going down the market path of "letting people choose," why not let them bear the real cost of sugar proliferation?
Hey it's a libertarian site talking about sugar subsidies:
https://reason.com/2019/02/27/sugar-subsidies-are-welfare-fo...
For my part, since we're doing market-based stuff for diet, I'd rather end meat, dairy, and sugar subsidies entirely. (I'd actually rather we subsidize vegetables and so on, but I'd be okay with ending all of them.) Let people buy food as it really costs, and then let's see what the national diet looks like.
If your basis for banning smoking is that it harms smokers, then you have no logical reason to stop at smoking. The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, if you ban smoking, you should also ban everything that can contribute to an unhealthy diet. The US has 12.4 traffic deaths per 100,000. Given that why would should anybody be permitted to drive for non-essential purposes? Millions of people suffer negative effects from social media and video game addiction, why should they be allowed to consume those products? Less that 5% of US adults get 30 minutes of exercise per day, so why should I be allowed to stream Netflix or YouTube for as long as I like?
If you think it’s the governments responsibility to ensure we make healthy choices, then you really can say goodbye to any sense of freedom over your life. Unless you think that should apply to smoking only, in which case you don’t have a rational argument.
This choice, like many choices involving vices or other intentional deviations from happiness vs wellbeing, are too often assumed to be made in ignorance. This same misunderstanding also happens when one political persuasion attempts to rationalize the choices of another.
Unless you've invented a mind-reading device I'm pretty sure you're talking out of your ass. Most people, including myself, might at times express a lack of desire to quit smoking, but it's often not how we really feel about it (especially not in the morning).
You may feel that. But you can't know what other smokers feel, either.
Smoking happens to be a vice that has particularly noticeable side-effects on the rest of society. If you lived alone, had an adequate ventilation system (which does not distribute your smoke to your neighbors), and only smoked in your own house, I doubt there would be many complaints. The problems start when you have a family, or when you go outside where others now have to deal with your smoke.
I know some people who express the same. I just don't know very many at all who express the delusional sentiments from TFA.
the health impacts of coffee are significantly less than the health impacts of smoking. Coffee doesn't cause cancer or heart disease. ~480000 americans don't die every year of caffeine-related illnesses. being dependent on anything sucks, but a dependency on something that's not really even bad for you is a lot different than a dependency on something that has a decent chance of killing you.
Smoking is a horrible delivery mechanism. There are others that seem to present far fewer downsides.
Addiction makes you crave something in an irrational way.
Logic and thinking are not the proper tools to make you stop the craving.
Look at the 12 steps program of AA, there are no "thinking" or "logic" steps.
Recovering from addiction, as well as getting addicted, are mostly social and biological processes.
You might want to read about the Rat Park experiment, here's a quick link: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/what...
12 step programs work for about 40% of the people who participate, and a large portion of that success is attributed to the availability of such programs. [2]
I believe logic has it’s place. Like a 12 step program, it won’t work for everyone, but there is a place for rational approaches to treatment of addictions.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_...
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evidence-based-livin...
My knowledge of them is very limited to pop culture (like its depiction in TV shows such as The Wire, Breaking Bad and Grey's Anatomy), but their depictions always seemed annoying to me because they are all about god, submission to a "higher power", and "the original sin"/"flawed humans" in one way or the other. If you are actively atheist, you will find this approach off-putting and it won't help you.
Reading their brochure, however, it seems they are effectively not a 12-step program, since they ditch or ignore most of the steps (a must if they want to remain religion-neutral, since about half the steps mention god, a higher power or prayer in one way or the other).
From their brochure:
> "What about the 12 Steps? How can you be A.A. without following them? A.A. co-founder Bill W.’s thinking evolved on many issues [...] he wrote that, “so long as there is the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most antisocial, the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and announce to us that a new Alcoholic Aonymous group has been formed [...] these rampant individuals are still an AA group if they think so!”"
That's a very lax definition. It's very hard to measure effectiveness with this...
I'm not sure how standard AA can help an atheist, since about half their 12-steps mention god, submitting to a higher power or praying. If atheists say it helps them, I believe them -- who am I to doubt it? But I don't understand the principle at work.
Being willing to alter your deepest held beliefs predisposes you to altering other things about your life, from big things like moving across town to small things like taking a lunch break at a different time.
There's also a social element that I think is hard to reproduce in a secular context. Convincing a bunch of adults to coordinate their schedules is much easier if they believe that they will go to heaven if they do so. Furthermore, you already have a public building as a location to hold meetings. Hell, even the architecture of a lot of churches is awe-inspiring. They're physically designed to be these places where you come to terms with your faults (sins) and begin to deal with them. Of course, that also means that their design is religious, with religious iconography in the stained windows and on the walls.
Yes, it is. Believe it or not, I described it. I wasn't describing the logic of being addicted, or of how to overcome addiction, but of conditions that affect the decision to try to quit.
> Look at the 12 steps program of AA, there are no "thinking" or "logic" steps.
You're either deliberately or ignorantly misrepresenting the 12 step program. They are nearly entirely about reasoning (even if you don't particularly subscribe to the suggested reasoning).
If you are a positive reinforcement type of person, keep a "money and time I didn't spend on cigarettes" and "days of life saved to spend with my kids" counter as a reinforcement every time you log in.
Also, thanks for the positive re-inforcement idea.
High dose NAC with a couple night’s of Xanax to sleep would probably be better.
It's also probably a good idea to disclose that it can be pretty nauseating in its own right, and that it's often paired with other drugs like guaifenesin that are even more likely to cause nausea and vomiting.
Like, don't get me wrong, if folks wanna take a robotrip to quit smoking, I'm not going to dissuade them. It's crazy what works for some people. But I don't think just encouraging people who are desperate to find a way to quit smoking to take a robotrip without warning is a good idea at all.
FWIW, I know some have said this is bad advice, but it's remarkably similar to my most recent attempt that had any kind of success. I did taper first, but when it came time to actually follow through, I did reserve some time for self isolation. I did drink myself to sleep (I basically had a drink any time I had a craving for a smoke). I did substitute long distance cycling! All of this helped immensely.
Unfortunately, most of that is available to me right now. I'm fortunate to be working, but I'm currently working far more than I should. My family is depending on me for routine contact (and I on them) for mental health during isolation. I don't currently have access to my bike, and even if I did I would not have the time or energy to exercise.
I will get there again. It's just not the time. Thanks for the advice though!
When one accepts that the rational choice is to continue smoking, then it is much easier to deal with the emotions that come with quitting.
That being said, I am a huge fan of nicotine. Gum, patches, vape, snus, are all great. If you want to explore your subconscious then a nicotine patch before bedtime is diving straight into the deep end.
1- every day I'm not smoking has a positive impact on my health. Even if it's a few days
2- I had to make it as easy to quit as it is to restart smoking. Because restarting smoking is too easy and there is nothing I can do about it
3- my environment can make it more easy or more difficult for me to stop. So I had to be ready to stop when the conditions were ideal. For instance, my partner was a smoker too, which made it more difficult for me stop. So when she finally decided to quit smoking, I was able to immediately stop too. We encouraged each other and succeeded together
The article suggests that it works because it fits in with Thai culture. That's not it. I'm not Thai, and it had an impact on me.
It's the story of a child saving an adult's life. That will have an impact in any culture.
One redditor told of the time that, when he was a kid, he decided to be goofy and “dress like Uncle”, which naturally included humorously puffing on his pretend “pipe”.
That uncle then had a come-to-Jesus moment and finally quit, from the sight of his nephew seeing him that way.
This is only true at the very beginning of a smoker's habit.
I know a lot of smokers. Exactly zero of them are "willing" to trade the cost for the benefit, for any meaningful definition of "willing".
Addiction is hard. Many addicts rationalize, but few truly "choose".
For an addict it becomes not a choice, I'm not absolving every addict of everything ever but addiction really screws with your brain and if you have an addictive personality you can end up feeling compelled to do something even while fully accepting you'll feel guilty about it later.
From a technical & mechanical perspective the person has made a choice, from an agency perspective the scenario is less clear and we generally understand that intoxication (either through physical addictions or obsessions) can lower the responsibility of the party involved... and there are a lot of examples toward and against this point in society[1] but I don't think we can clearly consider this a choice.
1. For instance drunk driving is considered in the opposite manner where choosing to drive drunk assumes a greater responsibility, and implies a greater agency, on the actor.
Yes of course there could be other entity that try to shift my perceived but its still on me to take that into account.
>Once you're hooked, it's no longer a fair fight
Life is never fair. if I have a susceptible personality, that mean I just have to fight it harder than other people.
The cost doesn't come until much later (sometimes never). Most smokers secretly hope they'll never have to pay the piper. For the majority of smokers, they are probably full of regret when the bill finally comes due and cuts their life 20 years short (and/or makes the last few years utter misery).
It's not like consuming junk food/drinks, where you harm yourself mostly (there are also environmental issues though)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-f...
>Previous cancer studies have had mixed results, the researchers said, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still calculate secondhand smoke is responsible for 46,000 heart disease deaths and 3,400 deaths from cancer a year.
I smoked from age 16 to 23 and now I'm 27. I've had cravings for the stimulation that I miss for the last 4 years. I expect to have them for the rest of my life.
As a teenager, smoking was mysterious and therefore attractive to me because everyone seemed to agree that it's bad. The benefits were a secret that I had to discover through first-hand experience.
I don't regret quitting smoking and I'm not planning on starting up again, but the "smoking is bad" messaging is not as clear-cut as it seems.
I'm glad it's help other people but it feels out-of-touch in exactly the way that I highlighted in my comment above: it demonizes cigarettes, describing the harms of nicotine without the benefits.
In many ways, nicotine is similar to amphetamines or caffeine. Adderall isn't healthy but people take it for a reason. It doesn't help anyone to pretend like it's totally irrational to consume addictive stimulants.
I'd like to add; that I think that all of the stimulants mentioned above result in a net loss of energy and focus, even if the peaks are higher.
The title for World's Cleverest Anti-Smoking ad really should be given to whatever actually gets people to stop smoking.
so the only solution is to make the product cost so much that the immediate cost becomes the concern or just outright ban it. The US issue is too many states rely on the tax and penalty revenue associated with the products they may be loathe to give it up.
> And calls to the hotline went up 62% in 1 month.
It's worked out really well. It's much smaller than most headphone amps and has the added bonus (for me) of making my headphones wireless.
I think i still want to smoke when out for drinks. Like, what do you do? Just gulp all the beer in 1 go and leave? The smoking is good for pauses in between the alcohol.. But temporarily stopping is no hardship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2nvAFOk7x0
The subtext is "you are speeding because you have a small penis".
Yes it's addictive, but the first step towards quiting is accepting, or rather convincing yourself, that you need to quit now!
This ad is a step towards that, making people realize that they need to quit.
Once that threshold is crossed, rest follows at it's own pace.
Not exclusively in my experience. Sometimes it's about enjoyment, as is the case with many vices. For many, the consequences are known, and the trade off is consciously chosen (and maybe hedged, e.g. with lowered frequency).
"I didn't say 'it's bad', I said 'it's bad for you'. Just because you're a little kid doesn't mean you get to move goal posts, so try again."
edit: that's my answer. If you say I must be impressed because those other people are, then you're wrong. Smoking is bad for kids an it's bad for adults, adults get to make choices that harm them, ask parents for details, case closed.
Title violate HN guidelines against inventing editorizalied titles.
As a gay man, this anti-smoking ad campaign doesn't really appeal or apply to me, but I could see why it would be effective for heterosexuals:
https://youtu.be/82x9pzHkHK4?t=16
Edit: nevermind, this is satire.