OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DIE FOR SMOKING!!!
OK, who smokes?
- Thread starter Paleface
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
BabyDuck
Contributor
eh, my theory is that smokers get used to lower pO2s & have lower sacs.
not really. but i have been a pack a week smoker, a no smoke for years smoker, a quarter a pack a day smoker, and quit when pregnant. maybe if you got pregnant?
not really. but i have been a pack a week smoker, a no smoke for years smoker, a quarter a pack a day smoker, and quit when pregnant. maybe if you got pregnant?
vladimir
The Voice of Reason
- Messages
- 46,471
- Reaction score
- 69,575
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
Never smoke a Cohiba "El Presidente" on the back deck of a rocking boat after drinking most of a bottle of cheap red wine. Especially if you have to be off the boat by 8:00 am. Just a little rule of thumb I've developed.
- Messages
- 1,860
- Reaction score
- 102
OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DIE FOR SMOKING!!!
Short of the second coming, you're gonna die not smoking. We just won't taxes as long as the smokers.
The popular book The Tipping Point used smoking as the primary illustration for its thesis. Most people try smoking while young because the cool kids are doing it, and they want to be like them. The difference is that some people are able to stop and some people aren't. The book cites research indicating that the difference is in the genes.
It is well known that children of smokers are more likely to smoke than the general population. Research indicates that this is not true for adopted children of smokers, who are no more likely to smoke than the general population. This suggests that the natural children of smokers inherited their parents characteristics that make it difficult to quit, whereas the adopted children are no more likely to have those characteristics than the general population.
The studies cited in this book indicate that some people can quit easily, some have more difficulty, and for others it is nearly impossible. The reason is in the biology of the individual.
It is well known that children of smokers are more likely to smoke than the general population. Research indicates that this is not true for adopted children of smokers, who are no more likely to smoke than the general population. This suggests that the natural children of smokers inherited their parents characteristics that make it difficult to quit, whereas the adopted children are no more likely to have those characteristics than the general population.
The studies cited in this book indicate that some people can quit easily, some have more difficulty, and for others it is nearly impossible. The reason is in the biology of the individual.
Here's another interesting point.
About a year ago, Time magazine's cover story was on recent research on addiction. It indicated that all addictions (nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, shopping) have an identical effect on the human brain. The brains of addicts light up in specific areas when they simply see an image of the source of their addiction.
The studies suggest that the process that "cures" one addiction should be effective in curing another. One clear implication is that the longer the addict goes without indulging, the close that person comes to an actual cure. Apparently 90 days is a magic number that gets one over the hump of intense craving. That research suggests that rehab programs that are less than 90 days are ineffective.
With longer absences from indulgence, the cravings become more an more manageable. The author tested this. He was an alcoholic who had been sober for 25 years. They tested him by showing him his once favorite beverage of choice, and his brain's reaction was the same as would be expected from a non-drinker. Despite the suggestion that he was "cured," he decided to stick with the standard belief that one is never actually cured, and he declined to try it with an actual drink.
About a year ago, Time magazine's cover story was on recent research on addiction. It indicated that all addictions (nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, shopping) have an identical effect on the human brain. The brains of addicts light up in specific areas when they simply see an image of the source of their addiction.
The studies suggest that the process that "cures" one addiction should be effective in curing another. One clear implication is that the longer the addict goes without indulging, the close that person comes to an actual cure. Apparently 90 days is a magic number that gets one over the hump of intense craving. That research suggests that rehab programs that are less than 90 days are ineffective.
With longer absences from indulgence, the cravings become more an more manageable. The author tested this. He was an alcoholic who had been sober for 25 years. They tested him by showing him his once favorite beverage of choice, and his brain's reaction was the same as would be expected from a non-drinker. Despite the suggestion that he was "cured," he decided to stick with the standard belief that one is never actually cured, and he declined to try it with an actual drink.
Anti-Hero
Contributor
I chewed for years, I've been quit for sometime now and I don't crave it but I LOVE it. If they came out with a dip that didn't rot my face off and give me cancer, I'd never quit.
Here's another little story about alcohol addiction. From '63 to '71 I was a hard liquor drinker. Real hard. After experiencing many changes in employment, a couple marriages, and blackouts which could last from a day or two to a week, jillions of hangovers, conflicts with the police and other bar patrons, I decided that it was time. So I went off cold turkey. BIG mistake. First thing I noticed unusual was that after a couple of days with no booze I was hearing band music and there was no band there. Figuring it has something to do with no alcohol I called my friendly doctor, a guy who was also alcoholic and a fellow drinker and bowler. He made an appointment, right away, for me to go over to the hospital and be examined by the local alcohol clinic guy, another drunkard who I drank with on occasion. I was so paranoid that I started hearing voices and seeing strange things which I will not divulge. I got out of there fast. Another BIG mistake. I remember little of the next two weeks or so but my friends and relatives told me about some of it later, some with a grin and some with my death in their eyes. I guess I was pretty much of a wild man during that time. DT's big time. Got thrown in jail twice and admitted to the hospital once. Told Mr. Doctor about it later and he said that it was like 50% fatal to go off cold turkey like that. Must have a strong heart he said. Anyway, what I am getting at is that if you are considering laying off booze and you drink a LOT you might think about getting off the streets and going in where you can get some drugs or medicine to take the place of the alcohol. It might save your life. By the way, I've been dry for 38 years though I sometimes have a beer after diving. Now that I am70, who gives a hoot?
Eric Clapton's biography (Clapton) is written very much from the perspective of a recovering alcoholic. It is very interesting to see how he recounts his years as a drunk and how incapacitated he was and what a poor human being he often was. More than 20 years sober now, he says he still attends an AA meeting every day.
Similar threads
