I just read a post about smooking
How can I get my wife to quit smooking???? I sure would appreciate some advise, I quit 3 years ago, I sure wish she, my wife would quit also.
0
-
poke her in the eye with a sharp stick. and if it works, poke me in the eye with a sharp stick. 0 -
YOU can't get her to quit.
The only way she'll quit, is when SHE wants to.
Quit nagging her.
Why impose so much stress on your relationship over something as meaningless and trivial as smoking ??
Don't make it an unacknowledged contest of wills.
It can KILL your marriage.
Believe me, I know.
Doug0 -
Tell that you decided to help her quit smoking by using the method used in Steven King'e "Catseye" That should do it....!!! 0 -
Chuckie...
YOu know that both Classic and I quit, he while in the hospital with a morphine drip into his back and I quit 6 months later with the help of Welbutrin...
Welbutrin worked for me, and it worked for quite a few others I have talked to...
Doug Wilson:
quote:Why impose so much stress on your relationship over something as meaningless and trivial as smoking ??
Meaningless and trivial? Did you know that in some states one spouse can SUE the other one if the first one gets cancer from the spouse's smoking or if it is cause for any further damage to lungs already damaged by COPD, asthma etc?...0 -
stress?
let me get this straight...she's KILLING HERSELF and youre suppose to just sit and watch?
she should consider herself fortunate that you care enough to NAG HER EVERY DAY to stop KILLING HERSELF.
remind her that she is part of your body (2 become one,) and that you dont want 1/2 of you to die.
i feel for you. drug addiction is a terrible thing.0 -
Well, different viewpoints from people I respect.
Good luck to you both.
Doug0 -
Cancer cures smoking[V] 0 -
Different strokes for different folks, unfortunately. Also as Doug says, she has to decide, you can't do it for her.
Welbutrin, a mild anti depressant, was all it took for BR. She did the rest on her own because she wanted to.
In my case(I quit around the same time BR and Classic did), Nicotrol inhalers did the trick. They require a prescription. I was addicted to that shock that occurs when the nicotine hits the lungs, and the inhalers gave me that. My doc gave me lots of refills, I don't remember how many, and I used them up over a six month period. While I was on them, I was fine, no strong desire for a cigarette, because the inhalers were almost the same. With no effort on my part, or at least very little, the need seemed to slack off gradually. By the time my prescrips ran out, I was still puffing on the inhaler but forgetting to put the nicotine cartridges in, and I just didn't renew it. I kept sucking on the inhaler, now with no nicotine at all, for another few weeks, maybe a month, then put it away. I still have it I think, but haven't checked in five or six years now.
They seem expensive on the surface, but in that same period I would have smoked up almost twice as much in Winstons.
There are as many ways to quit as there are people, and everyone must find his/her own.
After quitting, she must NEVER even try a cigarette again. I firmly believe that once addicted is addicted for life, and I think if I had just one, I'd immediately run out to buy a carton. No, I don't feel the need for smoking. I say that from experience. I smoked over forty years, and like Mark Twain, I quit a thousand times.
Whatever route she takes, if it fails, encourage her to not give up, try again, try as many times as it takes. She CAN do it, anyone can, but she must really decide she wants to, and decide, "Now is the time."
I wish her the best, and I'll keep my fingers crossed(figuritively) for her.0 -
We don't allow smookers in our house.
Smookers smooke too much.
Smooking can be harmful to everyone's health
even smokers.
[:D]0 -
I once got caught smooking behind the barn, but, fortunately for me, she didn't get pregnant.
That would have been a bitch.
I got to use it !!
Doug0 -
I have heard that the hypnotising method works. I knew someone who did it and it worked for her. I'm not a big fan, but who knows.
BTW: My neighbor is a hypnotist for a living and gives a 100% guarentee for smokers - he says it is easy to offer a money back because he has a 95% success rate.0 -
She will have to decide to quite smooking for herself. Nagging is not evidence that you care, it is evidence that you want your own way. I would have a discussion and ask her to smooke only outside. Otherwise, let her clean the walls before you repaint. That should get her attention. 0 -
Yep, cancer is a sure fire way.
My first wife refused to quit, until she heard the magic words from the doc. That was 2000. Buried her in 2005. 62 years old. Never smoked another one after 2000. Too late.
RIP.0 -
After my dad had a pretty severe heart attack back in March his Cardio Doc wrote a prescrition for some new quit smooking drug and it works. I don't think it's Welbutrin because I thinks he's already tried that. He's been smook free for the first time since the early '60's. My mom tried it and she hasn't smooked since March either. I didn't think I'd ever see them quit smooking but it works. Next time I talk to them I'll get the name of that new pill (they only took the pill for about a month). 0 -
hows about a good vacation in the UK...its banned from 1july 07!! (all bar, cafes ,infact anywhere indoors)folks see smokers here as'leppors' seriously.[:D] 0 -
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=251405
Read this one.. I know about smoking..also smooking..0 -
I'd like to see the "evidence" introduced at the trial of the Smooking hubby that "injured" his spoose. Since there have been thousands of studies on smooking, and none turned up anything other than a coincidental case of asthmoo.
"Secondhand smooke" is a buzzword, nothing more.
If you look at it realistically, you'll find that outdoor air has many more carcinogens floating around in it than some smooky bar's atmosphere.
Smookers are good for the economy; they allegedly die younger (leaving their pensions fully funded), spend little time in hospitals (they're supposed to get better?), and the taxes they pay cover all the illegals' medical costs.
I smooke, and will probably quit eventually. But I cannot abide with the Nazi-like nannies that hound a person endlessly just because one chooses to set fire to bits of leaves.
There are studies that show that ex-smookers have little to gain in lung function or heart damage repair, since the nicotine (which occurs naturally in the body as nicotinic acid) becomes such an expected part of the diet. Losing that portion in the body by quitting often aggravates existing health concerns, and can cause strokes.0 -
Gunnut, you prolly right, but I bet you stink..[:D][:D] 0 -
SNUFF !!! That's the Swedish way of quit smoking.
The snuff takes away the high you get from a ciggarete.Making it useless to smoke.
I know you can at least get copenhagen snuff in the states...But oh my ....That's strong stuff .Probably u get might get ulcer from that stuff.But it tastes great.
Well but ofcourse the Swedish snuff is the best in the world.
MY choise is the brand General but even the new brand Knox is god also and slightly cheaper.
Hmm however EU tried to forbid our Swedish snuff.Most likely paidoff by lobbygroups working for ciggarettecompanys.But snuff is really great stuff and it doez'nt destroy you lungs.0 -
Stinkin' is when I'm drunk (been over 5 years, now); but snuff will cause lip/gum cancer. That's why those ol' cowboys got no teef. 0 -
Road apples. Between 35,000 and 65,000 die yearly from diseases related to exposure to second hand smoke. 0 -
Smoke 'em if ya got 'em, there's STILL no causal link; here's a little post by a researcher friend of mine:
Active smoking is nuts, but no scientific link between mortality and passive smoking has been shown in over a decade of research.
"Secondhand smoke debate `over." That's the message from the Surgeon General's office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others' cigarettes can kill you. Actually, "debate over" simply means: "If you have your doubts, shut up!"
But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon General's report, a massive 727-page door stop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, it's probably designed that way so nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary. That includes me; if I had that much time I'd reread War and Peace. Twice. But the report admits it contains no new science so we can evaluate it based on research already available.
First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: "Passive Smoking Kills Thousands" and editorials demanding: "Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It's a Killer."
But the EPA's report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agency's refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.
Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.
Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts back because the football had fallen short. In scientific terminology this is known as "dishonesty."
The Surgeon General is monkeying around with the facts.
A much larger meta-analysis has appeared since the EPA's. Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2002, it found slight statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer. Thus 41 did not.
Meta-analysis, though, suffer from such problems as different studies having been conducted in different ways - the apples and oranges conundrum. What was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.
The World Health Organization authorized such a study, which covered seven countries over seven years and appeared in 1998. It actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. Put otherwise, please don't puff in your kids' faces on the basis of one study. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers.
The mammoth of all passive smoking studies, however, and probably the largest that will ever appear because of its enormous cost and effort, came from the labs of research professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Published in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003, this 39-year analysis of 35,561 Californians found no "causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality," adding, however "a small effect" can't be ruled out.
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 - when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges - the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. That's not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?
But none of this has the least impact on the various federal, state, and city agencies and organizations like the American Lung Association for a very good reason. They already know they're scientifically wrong. The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers, but rather to cow smokers into giving up the habit.
It's easy to agree with the ultimate goal, but inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany "proved" the validity of eugenics.0 -
Would you please rephrase that, for clarity ??
Doug0 -
I have known several who worked in the offices of pulmonary specialists who have seen repeated cases of lung cancers in people who never smoked, but showed high levels of cotinine from working in bars, resturants or other work places where smoking was permitted.
This "debate" over the dangers of shs, reminds me of the fact that there is theoretically an antidote for cyanide poisoning, but in practical application it does not work quickly enough to save you.
No rational person who smokes or has ever smoked can seriously argue that smoking is healtyful. We all know it is very addictive and very damaging.
How can you argue anyone else should have to breathe the poisons you exhale, because "no one has shown a causitive link?"0 -
If secondhand smoke isn't dangerous for you, why do people move out of the smoke of a campfire? It's just burning wood.........
Don't be a fool, for god's sake. How could it NOT be bad for you? Our lungs weren't meant to be covered in smoke.
Some people. [:0]
Merc0 -
I don't have a problem quitting smoking, done it a thousand times. 0 -
Never said it was healthful, reread my 1st post; I'm just exposing you to some secondhand research, guess it doesn't effect some folks as much as the subject of when, where, and who can smooke what. 0 -
If she wants to quit, all you have to do is prevent her from buying and smoking cigs. Remind her whenever she tries buying them that she's trying to quit. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
28 comments