Conquer Club

I just passed a major milestone, and I forgot to celebrate.

As of August 3rd, I've been smoke-free for Eight Years. For 30 years that toxic shit ruled my life. I made many attempts to quit but always went back. Then, on August 3rd 2009, I finally smoked for the last time.

For those of you who never started, I'm jealous.

For those of you who started and managed to quit, good job people!

For those of you still serving that filthy toxin, it's never too soon to quit and it's (almost) never too late to quit. I was a hard-core smoker -- at least three pack a day, sometimes four or five if I had a sleepless night. If I can do it, you can too!

Well done.

Cold Turkey? Patch? The rx stuff that has crazy side effect?

Congrats dukkie. How did you do it?

Well done mate. I've been smoke free much longer, but that's just cos I'm horribly old. Quitting was the hardest thing I ever did.

Dukasaur wrote:For those of you still serving that filthy toxin, it's never too soon to quit

He says if any of us leave PL he'll dox us so hard we'll want to die

jonesthecurl wrote:Well done mate. I've been smoke free much longer, but that's just cos I'm horribly old. Quitting was the hardest thing I ever did.

Congrats to you as well, then!

waauw wrote:Congrats dukkie. How did you do it?

mookiemcgee wrote:Cold Turkey? Patch? The rx stuff that has crazy side effect?

I tried everything over they years. You name it, I tried it.

My final success came with a double-barrelled approach, using both the gum and Champix.

I didn't find the side effects all that bad, but then it's ultimately just another SSRI, and I've been on a lot of different SSRIs at various times for various reasons.

i believe i'll go have one right now. congrats, duk - but dang, 3 packs a day???

riskllama wrote:i believe i'll go have one right now. congrats, duk - but dang, 3 packs a day???

On good days. Was more when I had trouble sleeping.

Dukasaur wrote:For those of you who never started, I'm jealous.

I've never smoked. I've reserved the right to smoke a cigar for some special event; my wedding which after over 56 years of life has not yet come, or some great success in a social order or politics which also has not yet come.

I remember one day when I was driving someone who used to roll his own cigarettes. It was good tobacco. The smell flowed through the car. My only thought was "you want to set fire to that?"

P.S. I think once in my life I passed by someone smoking pot. The smell was sickeningly sweet. Honestly, I think you have to be stoned to smoke that shit (or else you will be).

(My old joke: I never smoked: I did work BINGO once. All of the smell and none of the benefits. Actually had a separate set of clothing for this because you can never get that sell out of fabric.)

riskllama wrote:i believe i'll go have one right now. congrats, duk - but dang, 3 packs a day???

llamo, you won't listen to me due to spite and false pride..., but maybe you'll listen to Duk, QUIT NOW. There is nothing on the road you're traveling but tumors, iron lungs and death (spelled w/o numbers).

wrong again, vegetable lasagne. most everyone on my mums' side smokes/smoked and aint nobody gots the cancer, just a massive heart attack. hard to beat that for a way out...

Congrats, Duk.

Smoking is another addiction that is extremely difficult to Conquer, so join the Club. I am glad that you made that Conquer(ed) Club.

JP4Fun

Dukasaur wrote:I just passed a major milestone, and I forgot to celebrate.

As of August 3rd, I've been smoke-free for Eight Years. For 30 years that toxic shit ruled my life. I made many attempts to quit but always went back. Then, on August 3rd 2009, I finally smoked for the last time.

For those of you who never started, I'm jealous.

For those of you who started and managed to quit, good job people!

For those of you still serving that filthy toxin, it's never too soon to quit and it's (almost) never too late to quit. I was a hard-core smoker -- at least three pack a day, sometimes four or five if I had a sleepless night. If I can do it, you can too!

Here's a cool little thing that Oregon is trying to pass.

All sale of tobacco will now be age restricted to 21. I also heard at one point, whether true or not, that they're trying to make cigarettes less addicting.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:All sale of tobacco will now be age restricted to 21.

woohoo, prohibition

You make me want to drive my head through my monitor.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Here's a cool little thing that Oregon is trying to pass.

All sale of tobacco will now be age restricted to 21. I also heard at one point, whether true or not, that they're trying to make cigarettes less addicting.

Old enough to vote, old enough to fight and die for country, but too young to buy cancer sticks?

Bernie Sanders wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Here's a cool little thing that Oregon is trying to pass.

All sale of tobacco will now be age restricted to 21. I also heard at one point, whether true or not, that they're trying to make cigarettes less addicting.

Old enough to vote, old enough to fight and die for country, but too young to buy cancer sticks?

Of course, they could easily make tobacco products less addicting but the addicts wouldn't buy the less-addicting brands. All that ad-talk about 'flavour' is just code for nicotine content.

Maybe cigarette buyers should have to show proof of smoker-surcharged health insurance before they can buy their smokes?
Trust me, if smokers had to pay for the additional burden they put on the healthcare system only the 1% could smoke.
...and while it's true that their are some rich people stupid enough to smoke, the general trend runs the other way. it's mostly the poor that choose (initially) to pay to become addicted to poisoning themselves.

My comments are in RED to what ThorThorh said:

Of course, they could easily make tobacco products less addicting but the addicts wouldn't buy the less-addicting brands. All that ad-talk about 'flavour' is just code for nicotine content.

I do not know from personal experience and therefore offer no comment on the above "flavour" comment.

Maybe cigarette buyers should have to show proof of smoker-surcharged health insurance before they can buy their smokes?
Trust me, if smokers had to pay for the additional burden they put on the healthcare system only the 1% could smoke.

I understand the argument about health care costs (emphysema, lung cancer, cancer of the breathing areas, such as trachea, etc.)

However, there is one factor overlooked: If someone does not die due to smoking, that person would die of something else, such as a heart attack or a stroke (as two common examples). Does that mean the smoker has higher OVERALL health cost (lung cancer vs. stroke or heart attack, after recovery and rehab and subsequent problems)? NOT necessarily. A slow death to a lung cancer is more painful and usually involved more medical attention and costs versus a sudden heart attack, of course. Here is one key fact: 80% of the health costs are spent on the last 20% of a person’s life: nursing home, assisted living, extra medical care of doctors and other health care workers, medicines, feeding tubes, bad pans, and so much more….). Are stats available? Unlikely, as this is a very complex comparison and the money required to do such a study is not deemed worthy of research, IMO.

...and while it's true that their are some rich people stupid enough to smoke, the general trend runs the other way. it's mostly the poor that choose (initially) to pay to become addicted to poisoning themselves.

It is true that there is a higher percentage of smokers who are poor and that percentage tends to decrease overall as the income rises. As I recall, the lowest percentage of smokers are among the upper middle class, in the USA.

JP4F

Bernie Sanders wrote:Old enough to vote, old enough to fight and die for country, but too young to buy cancer sticks?

Yes, that stupid progressive bull crap thing should be repealed. Pearl Harbor is history.

The 1940 STSA instituted national conscription in peacetime, requiring registration of all men between 21 and 35, with selection for one year's service by a national lottery. The term of service was extended by one year in August 1941. After Pearl Harbor the STSA was further amended (December 19, 1941), extending the term of service to the duration of the war and six months and requiring the registration of all men 18 to 64 years of age.

We should move the age back to 21.

jusplay4fun wrote:My comments are in RED to what ThorThorh said:

Of course, they could easily make tobacco products less addicting but the addicts wouldn't buy the less-addicting brands. All that ad-talk about 'flavour' is just code for nicotine content.

I do not know from personal experience and therefore offer no comment on the above "flavour" comment.

Maybe cigarette buyers should have to show proof of smoker-surcharged health insurance before they can buy their smokes?
Trust me, if smokers had to pay for the additional burden they put on the healthcare system only the 1% could smoke.

I understand the argument about health care costs (emphysema, lung cancer, cancer of the breathing areas, such as trachea, etc.)

However, there is one factor overlooked: If someone does not die due to smoking, that person would die of something else, such as a heart attack or a stroke (as two common examples). Does that mean the smoker has higher OVERALL health cost (lung cancer vs. stroke or heart attack, after recovery and rehab and subsequent problems)? NOT necessarily. A slow death to a lung cancer is more painful and usually involved more medical attention and costs versus a sudden heart attack, of course. Here is one key fact: 80% of the health costs are spent on the last 20% of a person’s life: nursing home, assisted living, extra medical care of doctors and other health care workers, medicines, feeding tubes, bad pans, and so much more….). Are stats available? Unlikely, as this is a very complex comparison and the money required to do such a study is not deemed worthy of research, IMO.

...and while it's true that their are some rich people stupid enough to smoke, the general trend runs the other way. it's mostly the poor that choose (initially) to pay to become addicted to poisoning themselves.

It is true that there is a higher percentage of smokers who are poor and that percentage tends to decrease overall as the income rises. As I recall, the lowest percentage of smokers are among the upper middle class, in the USA.

JP4F

jusplay, I don't know why you felt like adding comment. On my first point you were completely ignorant, on my second point you were completely incorrect*, and on my third point you just agreed with me, adding only trivial details.

*smoking is also a major risk factor for heart attacks and strokes, in addition to the serious lung ailments you mentioned... and the costs for medication, surgery and recovery for these cardiovascular diseases is in the billions of dollars.

One more thing, jusplay, now that you've decided to switch over from Guide game bore to forum 'commentator', be very careful or people may start comparing you ... to me! (gasp... lol)