I was once addicted to cigarettes.
Contrary to popular belief, howver, I was not addicted to nicotine or smoking. I did have a small physical dependency to nicotine, but I am a very strong willed person and that dependency was easily broken. In fact, even as a smoker, it was very simple for me to go 10, 12 even 15 hours without a cigarette, as long as I knew when my next one was coming and nothing stood in its way. I was not addicted to pipes, cigars, cloves, chewing tobacco, or pot. While I may have used one or more of those things from time to time, an addiction was never formed and using them certainly would not have served as a substitute for cigarettes for me. On March 10th, 2005, I made a conscious and deliberate choice to end my addiction to cigarettes. The physical trauma was easily endured. The psychological trauma was long lasting and is still present in some respects to this day. Since that time, I have casually smoked cigars, cloves, and hookah. I am still absolutely afraid to even consider taking one drag from an actual honest-to-god cigarette. Some day, one day, I’ll conquer that fear, and I’ll have a cigarette, and I’ll maintain my separation from the addiction to them. But that day is not here just yet.
So “what is addiction”:http://addictionis.org/? Is it a “brain disease”:http://www.issues.org/17.3/leshner.htm? Is it a “matter of choice”:http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90688&page=1? The word addiction is defined in “many different ways”:http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+addiction depending on ones personal bias, ones experience with addiction, and ones belief in what makes human beings work the way they do. Some insist that an addiction is a constant recurring craving for a substance or chemical. This, however, would imply that one cannot be addicted to gambling, sex, sleep, television or some other activity. Others state that an addiction occurs if cessation causes trauma. However, not breathing would certainly cause trauma but I don’t think it’s fair to say the entire nation is addicted to oxygen. Other definitions use words like “uncontrollable” and “involuntary”. However, these definitions would suggest that “curing” an addiction without physical restraints or chemical assistance would be impossible.
There is a “difference”:http://www.aarpsegundajuventud.org/english/health/2003-nov/glossary.htm (though the two are often related and/or caused by one another) between addiction and physical dependency. We are physically dependent on food, oxygen, and water, for instance, but these are not addictions. People who are addicted to gambling, for instance, certainly aren’t going to suffer any physical illness if they should cease such activities. Alcohol is a chemical many people become addicted to, where the chemical manifests itself psychologically. It is this psychological change that people become addicted to. However, as tolerance increases and the body’s inability to cope decreases a very “real and dangerous physical dependence”:http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic123.htm can be formed.
In the case of the abuse of most habit-forming drugs, a physical dependence is eventually formed. Either physical trauma must be endured or detoxifying chemicals must be administered in order to relieve this physical dependence before the addiction can even be addressed. This is why rehab clinics start patients off with a detoxification phase before beginning to relieve the feeling of addiction. However, generally speaking, the lower the effect a particular chemical has on the body, the less intense the physical trauma will be when that chemical is no longer ingested. Caffeine and Nicotine are good examples of chemicals that create a physical dependency that most people can endure the pain of ceasing without the aid of other chemicals. It’s the addiction that is more difficult to control.
Let’s compare, for a moment, an addiction to cigarettes with an addiction to food. In my observations, there is as much evidence that smoking kills you as there is evidence that “Trans Fats”:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=391523&in_page_id=1774 kill you. In fact, people don’t actually die from either. If it wasn’t for “smoking” being the official cause of death for any person who died of a smoking related disease who also happened to be a smoker, officially speaking, no one would die from smoking. The fact of the matter is, while smoking has an outward appearance of being a horrible thing, and food with Trans Fats in them doesn’t appear to be horrible at all, there are roughly equal amounts of proof that either of them actually “kills” you.
So, the smoker takes a puff of a cigarette and he feels just fine. The food lover eats a super sized McDonalds French Fries and he feels fine. They tell the smoker he will die from smoking and he keeps puffing away. The tell the food lover he’ll die from Trans Fats and he pushes three or four more fries into his mouth. Most people would call the smoker an addict. Unless the food lover is very overweight or happens to eat the same Trans Fat filled food every day, most people would not label him an addict. Yet both “know” that what they are doing will kill them yet they continue to do so. In fact, even the potential harmful secondary effects of these two things are similar. So really, what’s the difference here? Why do so many people urge smokers to quit, yet never bother telling the food junkies in their lives that they need to give up some of their favorite foods?
Let’s assume for a second that there are no physically harmful effects to cigarettes or Trans Fats. At that point, the only ill effects of either activity would be either monetary or external. If this were the case, what’s wrong with smoking 5 packs of cigarettes a day or eating McDonalds French Fries with every meal?
Another problem with addictions is that they are disruptive. Addictions tend to create a need in the addict to sustain that addiction. If the smoker goes too long without smoking, he gets antsy. If the food lover doesn’t eat at regular intervals, he gets moody and unable to cope. In most cases, especially with physical dependencies that are not all that strong, these psychological effects are easily handled: stop and have a cigarette or a quick snack. So the level of disruption is really not all that intense. Addictions that are harder to satisfy or more expensive to sustain, or that present stronger physical dependencies can create even greater problems, of course. But, if all substances could somehow be made magically safe and all substances could be made cheap, legal, and in great supply so that their disruption to life would be limited, then what’s the harm in addiction? Addiction itself is only harmful because of the effect the addictive substance or activity has on the addict. If the substance does not harm the addict, then there’s no harm in the addiction.
So many people in my life were eager to see my addiction to cigarettes end and were incredibly supportive through the entire process. However, most people failed to see the entire picture. My addiction to cigarettes was not my strongest addiction. My addiction to cigarettes was not my most physically or mentally harmful addiction. In ending my addiction to cigarettes, I acquired several new, more potentially harmful yet more socially acceptable, addictions. Now that I am aware of this, it is a personal goal of mine to rid myself of the harmful addictions I have and to cherish and nurture those that bring me joy.
I urge you to dig into your own lives and minds and find the things that affect you. Consider the things that you do or have or enjoy that life would be very unpleasant without. Analyze what potentially harmful effects those things might have on you, not only in a single dose, but as a repeated event. Determine which things would make you antsy or anxious to be without. Consider how improved your life is by having those things.
Make sure you consider things that seem like they shouldn’t be considered. Take clothes for instance. How many of you wear them? Daily? What would happen to you and your life if it was suddenly determined that wearing clothing drastically increased the chances of getting cancer? How uncomfortable would you be without clothing? What if you were the only one affected by clothing and others continued to wear clothing while your doing so would give you cancer? I think you will find that many of you are addicted to clothing. I’m sure that most of you would opt to remain clothed despite your increased risk of cancer. Besides, it’s not like wearing clothes causes you to feel immediate pain. If somethings happening to you, you can’t feel it, so it’s not that important, right? Welcome to the smoker’s dilemma.
I’m not suggesting you rid your life of clothing (although I’m not exactly opposed to that either). I’m not suggesting your purge your life of all addictions. In fact, I strongly believe that our small addictions are often what make us who we are and what make our lives worth living. However, I am suggesting that you take a quick inventory of your own life.
Imagine all of your addictions and consider how they might be harmful to you. Then determine if its worth it to try to end that addiction. Take McDonalds French Fries, for instance. Let’s assume for a moment that what we are told is true: Trans Fats will kill you. Is the satisfaction you get from that food worth the years of life you are losing thanks to them? Is it even worth it every now and then considering what it does to you?
Think not only of the physical effects that your addictions have on you. Quantity of life is not the only thing worth considering. Think also of how you are affected emotionally, mentally, monetarily, and temporally. For instance, does your need to see the next episode of “Lost” cause you jump through hoops, cancel plans, push away friends, and fail to meet obligations just to see it?
Imagine if something you love and cherish was suddenly determined to be harmful. Would you stop? How would you cope with that? How would life be different? Remember, at one time, cigarettes were considered to be a perfectly acceptable pass time. They were cool, mysterious, and intriguing. All the celebrities smoked. There was no reason to believe there was anything wrong with them. Cigarette ads appeared on television and in newspapers telling you of how satisfying they are. Those ads are no more, however. They’ve been replaced by advertisements showing fit, attractive, young people stuffing their faces with McDonalds French Fries and proudly stating “I’mlovin’ it!”. What will you do when your favorite addiction is deemed “bad for you” by some inconclusive evidence?
(1819 words)
