# Smoking



## Michael.

.

Pack it in or else!



.​


----------



## Jillaroo

_I gave up smoking in 2002 and i smoked 40 a day, i have learnt over the years that you can't tell someone to give up, they have to want to give up of their own accord as they are addicted not only to the nicotine but to the associations that comes with smoking , so one needs to deal with the associations in order to give up, slowly stop having a smoke with coffee, stop smoking in the car another week, stop smoking in your home, and stop having a smoke when out drinking
             Count how many you smoke each day and what time, it's amazing just by doing that you smoke so much less, then gradually take away the associations over a few weeks, make it one a week and before you know it you will be able to give up for good and not want another one ever, a good exercise too at the start is to work out how much you have spent on smoking since you started, you will be shocked.


                      I did this through a 7 week course called Smoke enders, sadly it folded due to Little Johnny Howard refusing to subsidise {he was our PM }_


----------



## Pappy

I quit in 99 after 40 some years of smoking. Too little too late but at least I can say I am a non-smoker now. Habit started in school, it was the in thing then, and really got going in the Army. "Take 5, smoke if you got em." We did.

1999 was the year I retired and realized that I just could not afford to smoke on a fixed income anymore. Up till then I had used the patch, pills, seminars, recordings, etc. I probably quit a hundred times over the years. I am very lucky to be among the living having smoked all those years.

None of my kids ever smoked or my wife either. Thank God.


----------



## rkunsaw

I quit smoking cold turkey 18 years ago and  never had another urge to smoke after the first week.


----------



## Jackie22

I also quit cold turkey...one of the hardest things I ever did, but after watching my dad die of lung cancer that was enough.


----------



## TICA

I've spent well over a thousand dollars trying to quit over the years.   The only time I truly quit without a problem was when I was planning to have a child and I didn't smoke at all  then.   My son was born crying and didn't stop for 2 years - yup, back to the cigs for me!   He settled down and now is the calmest fellow you could hope to be around, but I still smoke.   I don't smoke in the house anymore since I've renovated, but it's getting bloody cold out now so that should help me cut back.   

Although everyone, including me knows how bad it is for our health, I like having a puff with my coffee or drink.  Guess that's the problem, I like relaxing with a cigarette and admit I'm addicted.


----------



## Diwundrin

> Although everyone, including me knows how bad it is for our health, I  like having a puff with my coffee or drink.  Guess that's the problem, I  like relaxing with a cigarette and admit I'm addicted.



You too eh?


----------



## Bee

Me three.


----------



## Jackie22

One tip that helped me more than any other when I quit was to brush my teeth after eating or drinking...this seems to help with the craving.


----------



## SeaBreeze

I smoked for 15 years, 1-1 1/2 packs a day (Marlboro red)...quit cold turkey over 30 years ago and never regretted it.  I think when you really want to quit, cold turkey is not that difficult.  Cigarettes were cheap back then, you could smoke at work, in buildings, etc.  Now I actually feel sorry when I see people outside in the wind and snow on their breaks, sucking hard to get as much in before they have to go back in to the job.  I never preach to anyone about quitting, they know it's bad for them, and they'll make the decision when they're ready.


----------



## That Guy




----------



## Diwundrin

Right on SB, our choice.  So far.  None of us really know what's going to kill us, only that something is. 
 I have to smirk a bit at the young know-it-all set who look with disgust at anyone smoking.  The irony that they are sitting in trendy out-door cafes sucking down their lattes within 2 metres of traffic idling at the lights and spewing exhaust fumes all over them is apparently lost on them.   But it isn't on me, I think it's hilarious.  
It would take an awful lot of passive smoking to come close to killing you as fast as exhaust fumes in close proximity.

I also shake my head at the fitness obsessed who never smoke, bolt down the correct balance of carbs, and workout to stay healthy and then use their superior lung power and  physical attributes to go base-jumping. Or fall off mountains. Or kill themselves on a motor cycle.  Bit of a waste really.  If the ciggys had slowed them down they might have lived longer.  Life's funny like that. 



A very well liked workmate went through months of hell giving up smoking. He was so proud when he was finally free of the habit.  Maybe if he'd pulled off the road to have a smoke instead of driving too long he and his family would still be alive too.  But we'll never know will we?


----------



## GDAD

I worked for 30 years in the Tobacco industry as a Engineering superviser.
W.D.& H,O, WILLS & ALSO ROTHMANS.
Never ever smoked!!!!!!!


----------



## rkunsaw

When I quit smoking I would go to the candy machine and get a candy bar whenever I got the urge to smoke. After about a week I realized I wasn't craving cigarettes any more...I was craving candy. 

I steadily gained weight for about two years after quitting but after that I returned to my normal weight.


----------



## Katybug

After my divorce, I became a social smoker for years, maybe a pack a month.  Haven't had a real cig in so long I can't even remember (tho most remember the very second of their last one.)  I was a complete closet smoker, would never smoke in public under any circumstances.  I can count on one hand those who ever saw me smoke.  Only my very best friends knew and I kept them hidden in my laundry room for very inconvenient access, as my desire for one would be when I was out and having a glass of wine. By the time I got home to my hidden cigs, the desire had gone.  

Even now if I'm at home & going through stress, or sometimes when not, I'll pick up my electronic cig with my coffee and have a few puffs. It's probably as dangerous as real cigs, but I do it so rarely that I just don't worry about it.  And there is zero smell in your house or on you and I especially like that aspect of it.


----------



## Diwundrin

GDAD said:


> I worked for 30 years in the Tobacco industry as a Engineering superviser.
> W.D.& H,O, WILLS & ALSO ROTHMANS.
> Never ever smoked!!!!!!!



That's understandable GDAD, I worked for the railways and never travel on trains.


----------



## SifuPhil

I'm sort of a reverse-image of the usual routine. With the exception of herbal compounds (with which I was a judicious and only occasional user) I was a non-smoker for most of my life. Only after I "retired" from my martial arts career and started bouncing in clubs did I pick up the habit.

Of course I couldn't just do the pedestrian Marlboro or Newport - no, I had to go for Dunhill Reds and Sobranie Blacks along with an antique Ronson lighter. I figured if I'm going to Hell I might as well enjoy myself as I'm on the road.

Later when a pack of those premium smokes rose to $8 a pack I figured it was time to reign-in a bit and switched to Marlboro 100s and Newports.

Now, about 10 years on, I'm reduced to sucking on Sonoma Menthols, the McDonald's of the tobacco world. 

Tough habit to break, especially when you're in front of a computer 16 hours a day.


----------



## Diwundrin

How much?? !!!  A pack of 'maccas' here costs around 30 bucks for 50. I gave up the good ones years ago too.
 As I said the Government aren't curing people of smoking by constantly raising the taxes on cigarettes, they're just pushing them onto weed.  It's probably cheaper by now.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> How much?? !!!  A pack of 'maccas' here costs around 30 bucks for 50. I gave up the good ones years ago too.
> As I said the Government aren't curing people of smoking by constantly raising the taxes on cigarettes, they're just pushing them onto weed.  It's probably cheaper by now.



So that's about $12USD/pack of 20 - about the price of smokes in places like NYC. Here in the 'burbs the tobacco is cheaper because we use child labor to pick the leaves ... 

I got a kick out of a _Dragnet_ rerun yesterday - it's the one where Joe Friday lectures a young mom and dad about the evils of weed, how it leads to cocaine and heroin and gives you brain damage. Of course, the hip young couple wasn't having any and the dad even told Joe that in a few years weed would be totally legal in the U.S. (this was from 1968, BTW).

Of course, being a Jack Webb ("Joe Friday")-produced show the ending had the couple's little girl drown in the bathtub because they were too stoned to remember she was in there.

The most hilarious part was in the very beginning, when Joe was giving his usual voice-over. They showed 4 fat joints and Joe told us that each joint cost $0.50, and a "lid" (ounce) cost $15. 

... I drooled ...


----------



## Pappy

Right Phil and while Joe was lecturing the kid, he had a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. I love these old shows on ME and watch them most nights during supper.

i guess I'm a virgin......never smoked a joint in my life but had plenty of chances to.


----------



## SeaBreeze

I gained around ten pounds when I quit smoking, but it was worth it IMO.  I started chewing gum every day at work instead, that helped a lot.


----------



## That Guy




----------



## Anne

Pappy said:


> Right Phil and while Joe was lecturing the kid, he had a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. I love these old shows on ME and watch them most nights during supper.
> 
> i guess I'm a virgin......never smoked a joint in my life but had plenty of chances to.



Pappy, what is ME???  

I was checking a movie with my granddaughter, and mentioned it was rated R, and I couldn't see why it should be.  She said, oh, there might be smoking in it.   Wow.


----------



## Michael.

.




.​


----------



## Davey Jones

As an engineer doing dirty work on machines and occasionally reaching into my shirt pocket for a cigarette,the wife screamed "I am not washing amymore of those work clothes shirts and pants with all that grease and stains,you have any idea how hard that is to remove??
I quit then.


----------



## Katybug

Davey Jones said:


> As an engineer doing dirty work on machines and occasionally reaching into my shirt pocket for a cigarette,the wife screamed "I am not washing amymore of those work clothes shirts and pants with all that grease and stains,you have any idea how hard that is to remove??
> I quit then.



You were a good husband and easily influenced, it would take far more than that for most.  Good for you, she did you a wonder favor in complaining!


----------



## babyboomer

I smoked (2 X 20_ for some 30 years. (where I came from, belief is that, one starts to smoke, when one starts to buy cig's. 
Then in 1988, i gave up "cold turkey" About a year ago, I started again. Just trying to give up, for last week, I'm on patches now!


----------



## terra

Nothing worse than a reformed smoker !.... yep !.. I'm one of them.

Starting smoking at the age of 34, gave it up at the age of 49 (circa 1992).  
Not a big deal, I went to the Docs 'cos I was having terrible night sweats and a bad cough.... x-rays showed pneumonia. Just stopped smoking there and then... threw the remaining fags in the bin and never had the urge to smoke again.

 So far, I've outlived my elder brother by 8 years (he died in 2005) and no health issues to talk about 'cept creaky hip joints.  One thing I've gained is an acute sense of smell.... I can smell a smoker from 20 paces 'cos they stink and don't know it !





My daughter who is 43 years o age, took up smoking 2 years ago when she split from her husband.... I'm hoping that she'll kick the habit before it gets her.
[h=1][/h]


----------



## babyboomer

terra said:


> Nothing worse than a reformed smoker !.... yep !.. I'm one of them.



Funny, you mentioned that! My wife still smokes, regardless that she suffers with pulmonary carcinoma.
I'd say, for my self"Once a smoker, always a smoker!
It is tantalizing for me to be near someone ,who smokes. Smells good!


----------



## GDAD

Diwundrin said:


> That's understandable GDAD, I worked for the railways and never travel on trains.



DI; TAKE IT FROM ME SMOKING KILLS. I AM OFF TO A FUNERAL TO-MORROW OF A FRIEND(DIED OF LUNG CANCER)WHOM I WORKED WITH. SMOKES FREEBIES FOR 30 YEARS.
       ONE OTHER FRIEND PASSED(THROAT CANCER 10 YEARS AGO). & LAST WEEK ANOTHER FRIEND JUST STARTED CHEMO FOR THROAT CANCER ALL WORKED AT ROTHMANS.
       OH, I DON'T TRAVEL ON TRAINS EITHER PREFER MY TOYOTA. I HAVE SEEN HOW RABBITS WITH THEIR HEAD PUT IN A CHAMBER WERE SUBJECTED TO CIGARETTE SMOKE
       & HOW MANY WERE DISSECTED & FINISHED UP WITH CANCERS OF ALL TYPES.....tAKE THE ADVISE OF YUL BRYNER=====DON'T SMOKE!


----------



## Diwundrin

Yes Gdad I hear you YELLING at me and if it's okay with you, even though I'm aware that the smugness of non and reformed smokers gives them delusions of being free to insult any who don't agree with them, I'll have a fag any damned time I feel like it!

If you want a statistics duel I can name vastly more smokers I've known who died of non smoking relating causes than science would want to make public.  I've known a few who did die of what is commonly blamed on smoking who didn't smoke and didn't come from a household who smoked. I've been privileged to have known 2 centenarians who smoked since they were kids.
There are anomalies in any statistics, we get born, we play our cards, and we take our chances. 
We are all going to die of something.  Do try and appreciate that if your dire predictions hold true then we'll die earlier and there will be less of us aging and taking up space in the ever tightening accommodation in aged care.  We're doing you a favour.

No one is getting out alive. All the health nazis will die, even vegans aren't immortal and anti-smoking nazis still breathe in all the other toxic garbage in the air and sit and suck their cafe lattes down in outdoor cafes dragging in exhaust fumes without turning a hair and that is a damned sight more carcinogenic than getting a whiff of tobacco smoke from a passer by. 

My last uncle died a few months ago, from lung cancer. He gave up smoking 54 years ago and had been an active anti smoking campaigner ever since!  Drove us all mad with it!   Lot of good that did him.
Get over yourselves.
It's a holier than thou obsession that until now on this thread I've ignored.  

I don't mind that you think I'm an idiot, but I won't be YELLED at however well intentioned.
 I have weighed up risks and other factors and made the decision to continue to smoke. My reasons are not your business.
That is my business, my life, and I pay my own medical expenses which up until this time have had no correlation whatever to smoking.  I have no desire to live too many more years in this condition anyway so bring it on!  That okay with you??

Sorry, not aimed just at you alone, your post just triggered a venting.  I'm tired of being nannied and controlled by authorities, and insulted by snide comments and cartoons.  
Like the subject of religion, we may not agree with others decisions on it, and may even ague on it, but it is not our right to denigrate that decision nor to issue an order in bold capitals like 'DON'T BELIEVE!"
It's a matter of etiquette.

I consider it an abrogation of my right to the freedom of choice.  People who campaign for their rights to do whatever they consider sacred have no compunction in doing their damnedest to prevent others exercising theirs if what those others choose to do 'annoys' them.

Know what 'annoys' me?  The smell of strong perfume and beer and other people's feral grandkids in restaurants.  Let's start a campaign to ban them! 



I shall now attempt to quell my Darth Vader alter ego with a feed of chocolate.  ... and a cigarette!


----------



## Casper

_*Di, I hope you enjoyed that ciggie and chocolate....layful:
As far as I'm concerned, it's just the luck of the draw re those that get smoking related diseases....
My dad died from emphysemia at 65, he smoked all his life but also worked in mines when he was about 14
and suffered from lung problems all his life.....
Smokes or the mines.....:dunno:


*_


----------



## Pappy

Anne said:


> Pappy, what is ME???
> 
> I was checking a movie with my granddaughter, and mentioned it was rated R, and I couldn't see why it should be.  She said, oh, there might be smoking in it.   Wow.



Sorry Anne, I didn't see this question. ME is a station we get up north, not down here, that has all the old programs like......Dragnet, Emergency, Car 54 where are you, all the real oldies. Rest assured it is not a R rated movie.


----------



## rkunsaw

I find it silly ( actually rather stupid)  that for years people have been trying to outlaw smoking and have succeeded in most places. Those same people are now pushing to legalize smoking.( s different leaf, but still smoke going into the lungs). 

The tobacco they said was killing people and even said it was harmful to those nearby that didn't smoke.The other leaf they want to smoke they say is harmless.These people are very strange. Some of them I think are on this forum. 

A show of hands, how many on here have quit tobacco but now want to legalize smoking pot?


----------



## Pappy

I think tobacco in its self is not all that dangerous. It is when the tobacco companies started adding all their lethal additives in the tobacco.


----------



## That Guy

This is scary:  Berkeley, CA, wants to pass a law making smoking illegal in a single family home.  So far, farting is still okay...


----------



## kel397

I got through school without smoking but at 18 was learning to fly in the RAAF and after going solo in a Winjeel out over Port Philip Bay in Melbourne one of the other cadets came up to congratulate me and offered me a cigarette. I was so buzzing I took it. 33 years later I quit after trying for six years to follow my wife's example. I still remember how hard it was to quit and I calculated that in those smoking years I had literally smoked a house ($330,000 in 1999 dollar figures!) I tried all sorts of quit measures but in the end I followed the instructions for three months on the Nicabate patch packets and was nicotine free. I notice these days there is an inhaler that looks good - I dont need it though!!


----------



## SeaBreeze

I don't think smoking tobacco or marijuana should be banned.  I quit smoking cigarettes years thirty years ago, of my own accord...don't need a nanny government telling me what to do, or the smart way to do it.  Pappy's right, it's not the tobacco, it's all the chemicals that big corporations mixed with the tobacco to rake in the profits that's the real killer.  I think I heard recently that they're trying to ban those "E-cigarettes", either completely or from being used in public places.


----------



## Pappy

I read yesterday that in Oregon you can no longer smoke in your car if there is a small child in it. Okay if it is adults, no kids.


----------



## TICA

Pappy said:


> I read yesterday that in Oregon you can no longer smoke in your car if there is a small child in it. Okay if it is adults, no kids.



That's been the law here for about a year now.   I smoke and have for years.  I've tried cold turkey, patches, pills, acupuncture, you name it.   These days, I've given up smoking in the house so I'm smoking less because it so friggin cold out.   I enjoy my smoke!!!!


----------



## That Guy

I think it began at CAL and now many universities across the country are making smoking illegal anywhere on campus.  Free Speech is still okay for the time being . . .


----------



## SifuPhil

Pappy said:


> I read yesterday that in Oregon you can no longer smoke in your car if there is a small child in it. Okay if it is adults, no kids.



... yet I saw pictures today of hundreds of people lined up in the Colorado snow to buy weed on the first day of its legality for recreational purposes. :eagerness:

_Oh, I'll move to Colorado
With a bong upon my knee
Then I'll buy some legal pot there
And my spirit will be free

Mar-i-juana
Oh, you're so good to me
So I'll move to Colorado 
With a bong upon my knee_


----------



## Diwundrin

kel397 said:


> ........ I still remember how hard it was to quit and I calculated that in those smoking years I had literally smoked a house ($330,000 in 1999 dollar figures!.......)



I love it when someone throws that one into the argument.  I just ask 'em where their spare house is.


----------



## SifuPhil

That's a tough number to match, Kel. 

My own smoking habits (tobacco ) have been on and off over the years, even though I started when I was 18. 

55-18=37 years

Of those 37 years I smoked for approx. 25 of them. Not always the same amount each day, either, but for simplicity let's say a pack a day.

25x365= 9,125 days = 9,125 packs.

The price of a pack has gone up considerably since I started, but I also smoked premium European brands for a long while, so I suppose a fair average price would be $4/pack.

9,125 packs x $4 = *$36,500*. 


... maybe I could get my trailer with that ...


----------



## SeaBreeze

SifuPhil said:


> ... yet I saw pictures today of hundreds of people lined up in the Colorado snow to buy weed on the first day of its legality for recreational purposes. :eagerness:


----------



## Katybug

That Guy said:


> This is scary:  Berkeley, CA, wants to pass a law making smoking illegal in a single family home.  So far, farting is still okay...



Now, how in the world are they going to enforce that??!!!


----------



## Katybug

SeaBreeze said:


> I don't think smoking tobacco or marijuana should be banned.  I quit smoking cigarettes years thirty years ago, of my own accord...don't need a nanny government telling me what to do, or the smart way to do it.  Pappy's right, it's not the tobacco, it's all the chemicals that big corporations mixed with the tobacco to rake in the profits that's the real killer.  I think I heard recently that they're trying to ban those "E-cigarettes", either completely or from being used in public places.



They can ban E-cigs all they want, but it must be in public places.  Otherwise, who is gonna know?


----------



## Katybug

TICA said:


> That's been the law here for about a year now.   I smoke and have for years.  I've tried cold turkey, patches, pills, acupuncture, you name it.   These days, I've given up smoking in the house so I'm smoking less because it so friggin cold out.   I enjoy my smoke!!!!



Switch to the E's and it won't be a problem....less expensive too!:sentimental:  I know so few anymore who smoke, when it used to be almost everyone I knew did.  I hear it takes a few days to get used to the weight of it but gives the same enjoyment. It's worth a try and would mean you could smoke in the house.


----------



## kel397

SifuPhil said:


> That's a tough number to match, Kel.
> 
> My own smoking habits (tobacco ) have been on and off over the years, even though I started when I was 18.
> 
> 55-18=37 years
> 
> Of those 37 years I smoked for approx. 25 of them. Not always the same amount each day, either, but for simplicity let's say a pack a day.
> 
> 25x365= 9,125 days = 9,125 packs.
> 
> The price of a pack has gone up considerably since I started, but I also smoked premium European brands for a long while, so I suppose a fair average price would be $4/pack.
> 
> 9,125 packs x $4 = *$36,500*.
> 
> 
> ... maybe I could get my trailer with that ...



Wow, you have me there. I had that figure worked out years ago and now I  cant replicate it but I know I used a higher per pack cost than $4 and I  was averaging 40 a day for those 33 years. Even at $8 a pack that's  only $192,720 - so I stand corrected and feeling relieved that I smoked a  smaller house than I originally thought!!


----------



## SeaBreeze

Katybug said:


> They can ban E-cigs all they want, but it must be in public places.  Otherwise, who is gonna know?



Why should American citizens have to hide behind closed doors, to use a device that has helped them stop the cigarette habit?  Isn't this helping people stop or curtail the smoking habit that may not only be harmful to them, but others around them??   I haven't been following any of this, and have never even touched one of these things, but I've heard that they're trying to stop their sales.  

Kind of like telling people how many ounces of a soft drink they may purchase.  Neither of these items are hurting anyone else, but that doesn't matter anymore.  They want to protect us from ourselves, for our own good...of course! After all, none of us are intelligent enough to make our own personal decisions, we await directives from above, and trust all that is recommended.    Maybe if the FDA was so concerned about our health, they would stop putting out (and "approving") harmful vaccines, prescription meds, GMO foods, toxic additives in our meats and other foods, fluoride in our water, etc., etc.  Here's a short article on the e-cigarette...http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...he-anti-smoking-lobby-s-clueless-crusade.html


----------



## Ozarkgal

SB..You can bet the tobacco lobbyist are in the pockets of the politicians on the e-smokes.  In fact all of those things you mentioned have lobbyist and/or large corporations behind them to induce the population from doing or not doing something or ignoring things that should be legislated.  Can you say kick backs and campaign funds.  Hell, with the SuperPacs now, they don't even have to have under the table kick backs anymore, they can just spend the donations how ever they want, no strings attached apparently.


----------



## That Guy

Katybug said:


> Now, how in the world are they going to enforce that??!!!


----------



## SeaBreeze




----------



## SifuPhil

Wow ... sending cigarettes to guys in hospitals ... those were definitely different days.

I've never regretted wrapping my lips around a Camel. 

How mild, how mild, how mild can a coffin-nail be ...

C'mon, kids - follow the bouncing cancer cell!


----------



## jrfromafar

I remember where and when I quit - on a trail up in Yosemite - the Summer of 1969. I had just turned 19 - at each switchback on the trail I had to stop and have a smoke. It was pretty obvious I was going to have to give up smoking or hiking. I don't regret my choice!


----------



## Michael.

.
Our latest arrival

(Apologies if this has been posted previously)

*Perhaps this add should be screened at our side of the planet?
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=g_YZ_PtMkw0

.


----------



## Vivjen

UK is conducting trials into e-cigarettes, in case they are harmful.
they are banned in some places, because people can't tell the difference, allegedly...(you would have thought that the smell would give the real cigarette away!)
E-cigarettes are not available on the NHS, as there is no control over production, ingredients etc, although patches etc are.
who knows what next?!


----------



## Diwundrin

Exchange sucking in one set of dodgy chemicals for another, yeah sounds legit.  E-cigs seem to be around to benefit  the  'passive smoking obsessed'  more than for the quitters.


----------



## rkunsaw

Diwundrin said:


> Exchange sucking in one set of dodgy chemicals for another, yeah sounds legit.  E-cigs seem to be around to benefit  the  'passive smoking obsessed'  more than for the quitters.



Agreed. I never see ads that mention quitting. I believe the law here that bans smoking in public places covers E cigs too. Smoking is smoking depending on what the definition of is is I guess.


----------



## drifter

My wife quit smoking in '99. She was still working but I had retired three years earlier. I'd wait until she went to work then Id light up outside. I didn't want to quit but didn't want to be the cause of her going back smoking. One Saturday I needed to go to the bank and to the library. I was standing at the teller window and had just made a deposit, when the teller asked if I needed anything else, but I couldn't speak. Pain began shooting down my left arm to my wrist, back up o my center chest and down and down to my right arm to my elbow. I finally said no, thank you and sat down in a nearby chair. I asked myself, "Is this a heart attack?' I got up and went to my car. The library was nearby and by then I was feeling better. I went in. I had volunteered at the friends of the Library for several years and knew everybody. When I got to the shelf I wanted to look, I could not read anything. A librarian I knew spoke to me, then stopped. She asked if I was alright, she asked if I needed an ambulance, said she thought she should call my wife. I left the library, fearing I might shortly become a public spectical, I drove home with much difficulty. My wife had been notified and had called my daughter, a nurse on the teaching staff of our largest hospital. I was having a heart attack. After being stabilized in the hospital, and a stint inserted, I had another heart attack. I quit smoking then and it was one of the hardest things I've ever done, maybe the hardest.


----------



## Warrigal

An unexpected result from the introduction of hideous cigarette packaging last year in OZ. It was supposed to deter new smokers by making it much harder for the tobacco merchandisers to appeal to them but the effect has been quite pronounced on existing smokers. There has been a sustained spike in the number of smokers wanting to quit, according to the Quitline.

It was said that the absence of branding would make no difference to people hooked on tobacco but it does seem to have strengthened the resolve of those considering giving it up. There are now more ex-smokers in Australia than there are smokers.


----------



## Diwundrin

Not to mention the spike in the number of self righteous do gooders who get their kicks out of depriving people who don't have much else to enjoy in life from doing something they don't themselves care about because it isn't what they enjoy.

Warri I'm surprised that you would equate the number of calls to a result driven, venally interested, profit based organization with actual facts.

Many people give up because of health reasons as they age, they always have, or due to pressure from thoughtless families, or cave in to a societal fad or just plain can't afford it on a pension.  I doubt it's the piccys on the packs that drive it.  Nor do all who call Quitline use them to quit or even quit at all.  

i've asked the proprieter of the store where I buy mine, whom I've achieved chatting acquaintance with, and his overall sales of cigarettes hasn't changed in years.  Still orders the same amounts of the same brands he was 5 years ago.  

When the price was due to go up last December the Government put a clamp on him ordering more than was usual so we smokers couldn't stock ulp in advance to avoid the new tax hike. 
They got his normal supply order amounts from his tax records over the last 3 years. He actually showed me the letter he got.  They didn't reduce his order which they would have had his sales dropped over that span.    What's that tell you?

Don't just believe the 'good' news Polly.

It's fashionable to kick smokers these days, we are the new whipping boys.  Seems people always need someone to feel superior to. Who's next?  Booze seems to be drawing the Nannies' attention these days, hope no anti smokers enjoy a drink too much. I sure won't be carrying any protest banners for you when your turn comes.

Came across this long article on a blog site. It points out that attitudes to smokers often prevents them from seeking health care early or often enough as they fear being stigmatised and lectured for their weakness or IQ deficiency. Rings true. Happens all the time.  If people are so concerned about our health then why this disparity in research funding?  Do we only approve of 'goody' diseases?  What about AIDS research funding?  That's acquired virtuously but lung cancer isn't?  

Do the anti-smoking lobby care about smokers' health or are just using that as the excuse for getting their jollys dragging down a big industry that they don't like for an ego  'win.'?



> According to a recent article published by _The Orange County Register_, “In 2011, the two federal agencies providing most of the research money funded breast cancer research at a rate of $21,641 per death while spending $1,489 per lung cancer death.” The article further cites National Institutes of Health estimates concerning research grants for fiscal year 2012: NCI invested about $712 million on breast cancer versus about $221 million in research on lung cancer.




 I'll quote another interesting view on it, that smoker-ism has become the new racism.  Think about it.



> Another name for the “stigma of smoking” is _smoker-ism_. Racism denigrated many generations of American citizens who were from non-white minority groups. In today’s emerging post-racial era, it is judicious that we also contemplate how _smoker-ism_ is damaging another class of citizens, censuring their lack of character for not beating the addiction or for succumbing to the habit during youth. By making individuals fully responsible for this malicious habit, we deny the tectonic political, social, and business forces that for more than a century combined influence to hook a nation on cigarettes.
> _Smoker-ism_ diminishes the potential for longer, healthier lives among current and former smokers, significantly represented by citizens over age 50. If the nation would have the collective resolve to spend more research dollars on the most pernicious metastatic disease of our time, and in proportion to the impact that disease has had on adult mortality, then many more lives could be spared and greater social justice would prevail for a maligned group.



http://boomers.typepad.com/boomers/2012/12/smoker-ism-the-cancer-thats-killing-post-50-adults.html


----------



## Warrigal

> Warri I'm surprised that you would equate the number of calls to a result driven, venally interested, profit based organization with actual facts.
> 
> Many people give up because of health reasons as they age, they always have, or due to pressure from thoughtless families, or cave in to a societal fad or just plain can't afford it on a pension.  I doubt it's the piccys on the packs that drive it.  Nor do all who call Quitline use them to quit or even quit at all.


Agreed but the point being made was that the number of calsl to the number advertised on the new packs spiked once they came on sale and the spike has not fallen away since. Make of that fact what you will. It is surprising because it was thought that the new packes would not have any effect on current smokers but hopefully would deter new ones.

Many smokers want to quit as they grow older, for all sorts of reasons, health and cost being just  two. It would seem that the packs are having an influence in bringing them to the point of decision. Of course not everyone who rings Quitline will follow through but the more people who make the move, the more people who will succeed and the public purse will benefit. The tax on cigarettes does not pay for all the health care that smokers consume over a lifetime.


----------



## Diwundrin

But the TAXES they pay on cigarettes does cover it!  That aspect is never mentioned by the Pollyanna Nannies.  I haven't cost the taxpayers a dime for my smoking related ailments because I don't have any.  But the taxpayers sure owe me a heap, I, and all smokers contribute to the revenue coffers big time.  

Where do you draw the line at that attitude anyway?  No treatment for AIDS sufferers, self inflicted? Or is that too unPC?
What about permanently disabled car drivers and bike riders that drain the health budget for near a lifetime?  Only those not speeding or at fault entitled to live?
No treatment for diabetics because they didn't stick to the Nannies recommended nutrition regimen??  Hell, they don't even pay tax on sugar! How unfair to the taxpayer is that!??

I'm yet to see convincing figures that smokers are a lifetime drain on the health budget anyway.  They don't seem to get sick any more often than anyone else that I can see.  The spin put on blaming every sniffle on cigarettes has become, like other do gooding crusades, farcical.

My mother got a lecture from a Doctor about giving up smoking because she had pleurisy, she'd never smoked a cigarette in her life and it was even before I started and no one else in the house smoked either.

More recently she received a dressing down from an anti-smoking crusader nurse who informed her that her Osteoporis and wait for it... arthritis,... was caused by her smoking!.  She still at the age of 88 hadn't smoked her first cigarette.  If I'd had the time and energy I'd have hounded that nurse and demanded to see her qualifications and asked her what she thought had caused it among so many of Mum's relatives down through the generations when most of them had never smoked at all!

I have it now, at the same age it hit my non smoking mother, but much later than it affected her father, most of his sisters, some of their children and now grandchildren.  Smoking isn't genetic.  Neither apparently is common sense.


----------



## SifuPhil

There is an entire family tree of righteous finger-pointers that is divided into several branches: the Race Baiters, The Smoking Demons, The Weed Slayers, The Demon Rum Crew - all are descended from common ancestors somewhere way back down the line.

I was just looking at some magazine ads ranging from the late 1880's until the 1970's, specifically the ones that targeted the then-current views of what a woman should be. Thus, you had Lysol being sold as a douche as well as facial clamps designed to eliminate those terrible lines. 

The point is, within each of those ads was a not-so-subtle accusation along with a suggested cure, a technique that is being utilized today by these so-called crusaders.

Like Di, my personal habits have never cost the public a dime, so I don't feel I need to listen to them.


----------



## Warrigal

Diwundrin said:
			
		

> But the TAXES they pay on cigarettes does cover it!


For some individuals, maybe, but overall the government pays more than the taxes it raises.
Don't forget that the state governments don't get any of the excise on tobacco, just the GST and if smokers are not buying cigarettes, they will spend the money they save on something else.

A scholarly article here that covers the gamut of the costs.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking

For hospitalisation costs alone, these are the sort of results the studies show.



> *17.2.2.1 Smokers' health service utilisation and costs*
> 
> Studies comparing actual health care utilisation rates (or health care costs) for smokers and non-smokers consistently report higher health service usage and costs for smokers. The following are examples of such studies.
> 
> 
> English et al. compared the hospitalisation rates of smokers, former smokers and never smokers over the period 1978–94 in Busselton, Western Australia.[SUP]16[/SUP] *Smokers' hospitalisation rates were 1.32 times higher than never smokers and their use of hospital bed-days was 1.4 times higher*.
> 
> Former smokers' rates for hospitalisation and bed-days were 1.13 and 1.22 times higher than never-smokers, respectively. English and colleagues point out that these rates give estimates of the number of hospitalisations and bed-days in Australia attributable to smoking that are about 40% higher than estimates obtained using the aetiological fraction methodology normally used, and described in Section 17.1.4.1.
> 
> In other words, the health care costs attributed to smoking are usually underestimated. Hurley used the rates calculated by English _et al_. to estimate hospital costs attributable to smoking in 2004–05.[SUP]17[/SUP] She estimated that almost 300 000 hospitalisations and 1.47 million bed days costing $682 million could be attributed to smoking in Australia in 2001–02 alone.[SUP]17[/SUP]
> 
> Hurley noted that this estimate was still conservative; the actual costs would be even greater than $682 million because costs for those aged 80 years and over, and costs of pharmaceuticals provided from hospital, were not included. In comparison, Collins and Lapsley's estimate for the gross costs of hospitalisation attributable to smoking in 2004–05 was $669.6 million.[SUP]5
> [/SUP]​
> 
> In the United States, Vogt and Schweitzer, surveyed about 2500 members of a health maintenance organisation between 1967 and 1974 and found that current smokers used 20% more hospital days than non-smokers.[SUP]18[/SUP] Bland et al. studied almost 8000 members of a Minnesota health plan in 1999 over 18 months.[SUP]19[/SUP] They found that medical costs were 16% higher for smokers than never smokers.
> 
> 
> Hvidtfeldt et al. in Denmark studied hospital admission data over a 20-year period for approximately 12 000 people enrolled in the Copenhagen City Heart Study in 1981–83.[SUP]20[/SUP]
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking increased hospital admissions and the duration of hospitalisations for all diseases, not just smoking-related illnesses. For example, for men who smoked more than 20 gm of tobacco per day in 1981–83, the risk of an admission to hospital over the next 20 years for a smoking-related condition was 2.77 times that of a non-smoker, and the risk of admission for other conditions was 1.32 times higher than for non-smokers.
> 
> 
> 
> A 1995 study of 43 408 people living in rural Japan found that male smokers' medical costs were 11% higher than those of non-smokers over a 30-month period. Costs for female smokers were not higher.[SUP]21[/SUP]



What we need now is a figure for the amount of excise and other taxes collected in the same years.
If you read right through to the end, there are some figures comparing costs vs excise and other taxes.


----------



## Jillaroo

_I will just say this i went through a 7 week course called "Smoke enders" which dealt with all the addictions and associations etc and on March 14th 2002 i quit never to smoke again after smoking 40 sometimes 50 a day, i was well and truly addicted i had tried giving up numerous times without success.
      Smoke enders asked Little Johnny Howard the then PM for subsidy but they were knocked back.
            I believe it is a money grab for them, they are not serious about stopping the people from smoking as they will then be out of pocket_


----------



## Diwundrin

> *Smokers' hospitalisation rates were 1.32 times higher than never smokers and their use of hospital bed-days was 1.4 times higher*.



Warri be kind to a numerical dyslexic and explain that '1.32 times higher' in terms of how many more out of 100 people are indicated here.
I keep getting confused by that 1.  Does it mean point 32 time higher? Isn't 1 redundant? Isn't one smoker the same as 1 non smoker?  Is it really 32% of 1% or how does that work?    I can kind of get the 2.77 times as mean twice as many plus 77% of 1% but that doesn't seem right either.  Just do one of those little cut out doll graphs they use to show .33 of a family etc as a set of legs and kid cutout or something.

... note I'm not kidding, I don't do numbers well at all, I was never wired for it. That's why I leave it to you ferret out the figures.



> Smoking increased hospital admissions and the duration  of hospitalisations for all diseases, not just smoking-related  illnesses. For example, for men who smoked more than 20 gm of tobacco  per day in 1981–83, *the risk of an admission *to hospital over the next  20 years for a smoking-related condition was 2.77 times that of a  non-smoker, and *the risk of admission* *for other conditions *was 1.32  times higher than for non-smokers.



There's that magic 1.32 times again.  What's the risk rate for those fat and sugar tax evading diabetics being admitted "for other conditions," any  figures on that?





> Diwundrin wrote:   Where do you draw the line at that attitude anyway?  No treatment for AIDS sufferers, self inflicted? Or is that too unPC?
> What about permanently disabled car drivers and bike riders that drain  the health budget for near a lifetime?  Only those not speeding or at  fault entitled to live?
> No treatment for diabetics because they didn't stick to the Nannies  recommended nutrition regimen??  Hell, they don't even pay tax on sugar!  How unfair to the taxpayer is that!??



btw, any word come in yet as to the stance to be taken and buzz phrases to be used to toe the Pollyanna Party line on that attitude line drawing  thing?



Yeah, yeah, I'm stooping to sarcasm already, I'm tired.  I'm not defending smoking per se, I'm under no illusions that it's beneficial except to keep some of us sane through stressful times and seemed the better option than heroin or Wild Turkey. 

 I'm simply defending the right to be allowed to go to Hell in the manner of my choice without interference from people whipped to a fervor by bodgied figures, twisted terminology, scare campaign furfys and illusions of gaining heavenly brownie points for harrassing the fad pariahs of the moment.  

It's the same tactics we've fallen for since gods were invented, divide and conquer.  Them and us. Goodies and baddies. Believers and skeptics, smokers and non smokers.  Everyone wants to clamber onto the heaven bound train...  hallelujah.
Lies and creative figures are produced by both sides of this crusade just as they are by others. There's bucks in it for both sides.
 Somewhere down the middle is the closest to the truth.

Another point while I think of it.  They implore everyone to give up. They say that each year after you quit your risk of lung cancer reduces.  My uncle died of lung cancer 54 years after he gave up smoking and took up driving us nuts as an anti smoking campaigner.  What's the point of giving up, particularly late in life, if you're gonna die of something else before the full quitting benefits kick in anyway?  54 years seem a bit of a wait.  Wasn't he supposed to live forever as a non-smoker?  

... sorry sarcy again.


----------



## Warrigal

Just on the maths first - .32 times any number means it will become one third of its original value because you are multiplying by a number less than one, so it is correct to say 1.32 times a value, and it will then increase by one third of its value. i.e. 132% of the original value. I would take the research to say that the average numbers of days in hospital of the smokers in the study was 132% of the average number of days in hospital of the non smokers.


> Diwundrin wrote:   Where do you draw the line at that attitude anyway?  No treatment for AIDS sufferers, self inflicted? Or is that too unPC?
> What about permanently disabled car drivers and bike riders that drain  the health budget for near a lifetime?  Only those not speeding or at  fault entitled to live?
> No treatment for diabetics because they didn't stick to the Nannies  recommended nutrition regimen??  Hell, they don't even pay tax on sugar!  How unfair to the taxpayer is that!??


Have you left the planet? Where was it suggested that smokers, diabetics or drivers who don't do the right thing shouldn't get medical treatment? The point made was that the cost of treating smoking related diseases is high and that smokers are more expensive over the long run than non smoker ON AVERAGE. The extra expense is related to more than health costs if you read the full report. I heard it said before that the extra costs outweigh the taxation revenue. If no-one smoked, not only would individuals be better off financially, the state would be too.



> I'm simply defending the right to be allowed to go to Hell in the manner of my choice without interference from people whipped to a fervor by bodgied figures, twisted terminology, scare campaign furfys and illusions of gaining heavenly brownie points for harrassing the fad pariahs of the moment.


You can go to hell any way you choose but your paranoia is breaking out again. The world and all the people in it are not plotting against you. And I'm not being sarcastic. You are paranoid.

:hide:


----------



## Diwundrin

Yes, never denied that, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me though. 



What I'm getting at is this.  When was the last time you noticed someone pointing at and lecturing in public a Diabetic?  When was it pointed out to them that they were costing the taxpayer heaps and they should be ashamed because their disease is self inflicted?

Can you imagine the reaction... well you don't have to, we've seen it... to someone pointing out the errors of gay AIDS suffers ways?  Hell would descend.  They must be treated with kid gloves, tolerated, accepted, comforted and told that's okay that they took stupid risks because it's just the way they're wired.

Smokers are obviously wired strangely too,  to either enjoy, or need  to continue to do it but they sure aren't comforted and tolerated for it are they?

Paranoia, okay if you say so. I say hypocrasy.


----------



## SifuPhil

_Someone_ always has to be the sacrificial goat - smokers are currently "it". 

Next week, who knows? Maybe it will be seniors, for allowing themselves to get old.


----------



## Warrigal

Phil, already women are not allowed to get old. Or at least not allowed to look old. Or fat.
It's enough to drive you to the fags and grog.

And Di, people are very judgmental these days, especially members of Gen Y. And oldies.
It's hard to tell if someone is Type II diabetic but their obesity is very visible and some people can be very vocal about that.


----------



## SifuPhil

Warrigal said:


> Phil, already women are not allowed to get old. Or at least not allowed to look old. Or fat.
> It's enough to drive you to the fags and grog.



I know, I know ... 



> It's hard to tell if someone is Type II diabetic but their obesity is very visible and some people can be very vocal about that.



We have a commercial on TV here for one of those non-insulin "helper" drugs for diabetes, and every one of the people depicted having diabetes is obese.

It's hard to think differently when even the media is portraying them in a certain light and your opinions are formed exclusively from the tube..


----------



## Falcon

Several years ago I had back surgery and was hospitalized for several days.

When I got back home, I realized that I hadn't smoked for those several days and wondered if I could keep it up.

And I DID ! COLD TURKEY ! For 6 years!

Then I met a girl (who happens to be a member here)who smoked like a chimney. One day when I went to see her, she and her girlfriend were out in
 the patio smoking up a storm. It looked like so much fun, I said, "Give me one of those."  And I've been smoking ever since.

*OH....and the worst part....SHE quit, and I'm still at it.*   Such is life.


----------



## nan

I'm glad I quit 30 years ago,it is just a shame that something couldn't be done about the over use of alcohol, by youth,in my opinion alcohol causes many more problems.


----------



## Diwundrin

I was given the rundown on how risky anaesthetic was to smokers when I had to go day surgery.  "Don't smoke for at least 3 days before the op!"  I've been smoking around 40 years so I was a particularly high risk contender.  I stopped smoking 10 hours before the op (to be honest, because I didn't much care about going quietly at that time. I wouldn't know a thing about it and it seemed a pretty fine option to me really.) 

The last thing I remember was the gas guy explaining the procedure and telling him to get on with it and knock me out because I was bloody starving and perishing for a cigarette. Someone sniggered, then ...
The smoking made no difference whatever.  I came out of it faster than they expected and had no ill effects from the anaesthetic at all.  3 hours after the op I hoed into a steak and veggies dinner.  and a ciggie.

A long since next door neighbour used to batter on death's door every time she had to have anaesthetic and was always in ICU for two days to recover.
She never smoked at all.  I think while probably true that it's a risk for some, it is a beat up that never mentions that non-smokers can be badly affected by anaesthetics too.


----------



## Warrigal

Alcohol is the most socially disruptive drug in common use and tobacco is the most injurious to health.
Both are legal and widely available everywhere but society would be better off without either.

Yeah, yeah, I know, something else would just fill the vacuum but the facts still stand.
We need to delay the age of uptake by children as much as we possibly can.
At least until brain development is complete.


----------



## Warrigal

Di, anecdotal evidence is not really evidence.
I've never smoked and I handle anaesthetics extremely well too.
I never fight them, I go to sleep peacefully and wake up without feeling unwell.

So?
So nothing.

It's the large studies that present the clearest picture.

But you know that, don't you?


----------



## Vivjen

Do you not think that perhaps alcohol may turn out to be as injurious to health in the long run to today's youngsters....due to binge drinking and it's consequences?

I write this with some timidity, hating to interrupt a private ding-dong.....a little!


----------



## Diwundrin

> But you know that, don't you?



Yes ... but it's nitpicking about the use and spin of the results by manipulators that are my little fetish.  You know that too. 



Hey Viv, our ding-dongs aren't private, we're just jousting for the hell of it.  If there's ever a real one we'll do it via PMs, and you'll never know, we're alike in that at least. 




See??  Told yas alcohol would be the next crusade. They're talking about it already.   Bwaahahahaha.


----------



## jrfromafar

I had a grandfather who was a medical doctor - he drank like a fish and smoked like a freight train and lived to be 86 years old. Some people are as tough as jack rabbits, and if they can take it, more power to them. Others, including me, I doubt if my body could take it. Everyone needs to do their own DD on the subject and make their own choices. I don't care what others do - but I don't want to be picking up anyone's hospital tab so I think the taxing of it is fair.


----------



## Warrigal

Diwundrin said:


> Yes ... but it's nitpicking about the use and spin of the results by manipulators that are my little fetish.  You know that too.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Viv, our ding-dongs aren't private, we're just jousting for the hell of it.  If there's ever a real one we'll do it via PMs, and you'll never know, we're alike in that at least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See??  Told yas alcohol would be the next crusade. They're talking about it already.   Bwaahahahaha.


We argue all the time Vivjen. Feel free to wade in without fear or favour any time you like.

Di, alcohol isn't a new crusade. My chemistry book at school had warnings something like this:
_"The effects of drinking methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) are blindness, insanity and death. 
The effects of drinking ethyl alcohol are similar."
_​[Actually, someone ought to warn the kids of today about wood alcohol (CH3OH) and at the same time mention the down side consuming of its cousin, CH3CHOH]​
In those days the pubs closed at 6.00pm and the legal drinking age was 21. 


So,  crusaders versus vested interests with truckloads of money to lobby politicians? 
Which side would you back with real money ?


----------



## Diwundrin

Oh I'll bet on booze being around in some form while the planet turns.

It's just that there's so many professional campaign pushers out there they have to find a crusading cause to employ them.  There are a few being cut adrift from the climate con campaign and the smoking thing seems to have been done to death so they have to find something new to write new phrases for and get research funding from.  They also have to keep getting their  nodding and tut tutting heads seen on TV to keep their status as 'experts'.  They don't need to win, they get paid to try.  

Politicians have more at stake, it'll be interesting to see who throws a leg over which saddle to ride out for that stoush.

So far the Left is tutting loudest but that stance could pose a few problems.  For one thing they were in charge (NSW) when the youth binge-drinking fad started heading Hellwards and for a decade they did buggar all to stop it.  Now '5 minutes' after they were turfed out they demand that the Right get off their bums and fix it overnight.  See the hypocrasy there?

Another problem for the Left is that their voting demographic are mainly younger than the Right's.  It's the bogans who indulge in these drunken stoushes who are their voting base.  So who ya gonna call? 



It may not have been a huge number but from hearsay, mainly on talkback shows,  I'd say that many smokers turned against Labor( Federal) over the constant hammering of their Nanny politicians.  Most smokers are an older demographic and more prone to switch sides easier to suit their changing circumstances.  But many who phoned were old Labor voters who had simply had enough of being trashed by the Party they'd supported all their lives.  A lot must have switched for a lot of reasons to have figured in such a landslide ousting.  All these little Nanny niggles add up.  For every minority they pander to, there's another that they've ticked off big time.

The Right have their own image problems to consider.  They can't be seen to be doing nothing but if they raise the drinking age*, the civil libertarians will cry foul.  If they restrict drinking hours, they'll  put the more mature club scene denizens offside. These are the ones more likely to be their own voters,  not to mention the donations they'll lose from the liquor industry.  

Should be some entertainment in watching them dancing around this one.

Coincidentally just heard O'Barrel is to announced a 'severe crackdown' on it.  Can't wait to hear how that's worded.



*Heard something interesting about that drinking age being dropped to 18.  I'd forgotten, but it was brought in when 'Nam conscripts were deemed old enough to be sent out to die but not old enough to have a beer with their mates if they made it home.
The Leftist libertarians who are crusading for something to be done about it now,  are the ones who crusaded to have it dropped to 18 all those years ago.  

These 'rights' things are slippery critters which do tend to bite us on the arse aren't they?   
It's just that most people don't remember the whole story, and that's exactly what they're  counting on.


----------



## SifuPhil

They'll take my cigarettes when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

... wait ... that doesn't sound quite right ... how come it works so well for the gun lobby?


----------



## Mrs. Robinson

Old thread but I`m new   Quit smoking on Nov. 17th,1988. Had smoke for 20 years and smoked (yikes) 5 packs a day. Tareyton 100s to boot-well, until the last year, then I had switched to Barclay`s,not 100s. Of course,that was when I started the extra pack-had "only" been 4 a day up til then. Then one morning,I saw Yul Brynner being interviewed on TV. He knew he was dying of cancer at that point. She asked him "If you could change one thing about your life,what would it be?" He answered "The cigarettes." It just hit me so hard that I put out the cig I was smoking and never smoked another. Two days later dh quit as well so we are 25+ years smoke free now.


----------



## Ozarkgal

Good for you and hubby Mrs. R.  With the heavy habit you had, it's so amazing you were able to quit so cold turkey.  I'll bet you felt not only felt much better, but really enjoyed the financial windfall of not having to burn up so much money on cigs.

Never smoked, but I have a lot of respect for the will power it takes.  My hubby quit 10 years ago and I was thrilled.  I got so tired of sitting in restaurants by myself finishing dinner because he had to immediately go outside and smoke when he finished eating...I spent a lot of time by myself while he was outside smoking.


----------



## SifuPhil




----------



## Mrs. Robinson

Oh wow Phil-that made me cry. When I think back on it,I always think I was watching him "live" but he had already been dead for 3 years in 1988. I`m thinking that they were probably showing an old interview with him that day because it was also the "Great American Smokeout" day that day-which had absolutely nothing to do with why I quit....it was totally about what Brynner said...


----------



## Diwundrin

OH SH*T !!!  Wish I'd been told about it's affect on those hallowed 'T' levels.  aaaagh!.  That might account for why I'm female do ya think?


----------

