Jump to content
Mental Support Community

Nicotine and Al K. Hall.


Recommended Posts

Hi JR

I would like to comment about what you were talking about however I think I did not understand a part of it and I'm confused who Bill is :) either way I'll add my bit and if I'm missing something let me know:D

I think that I agree wondering why it is that smoking could be legal along with alcohol when it is proven to affect people negatively causing addiction and death in an extream way. I have wondered if the ones doing this close to me even identify it as a self distructive behavior they have certanly been there to point out my issues but completly refuse to accept there own. I do not smoke so I don't see it from there eyes but I hurt for them in fear that they will hurt themselves in the long run. Why can it be legal for someone to do this when other not socially approprate addictive coping means are not accepted such as SI both run its own risk. I don't think any of it is appropriate or a good coping means however it is a puzzling thought of mine?

Interesting topic I will look forward to read what others think by the way this is just my opinion and I know that opinions run widely I mean no offence to anyone. Take care:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JR,

It's a cultural thing which drugs are considered "evil" and which are simply recreational. Alcohol and nicotine are the west's recreational drugs of choice (and many other places too). Marijuana is probably not more dangerous than a combination of smoking and alcohol (which many people combine regularly), but it is demonized in America. Not sure why.

The major difference I can discern between alcohol and nicotine is not the amount of addiction they cause, but the degree to which their respective intoxications can harm another person quickly. If you drink and drive you can kill another person easily. If you blow smoke in another person's face for years, you could kill them too (second hand smoke), but it will take years and it takes a research study to establish the causation. So people don't get so punishing about nicotine as they do about alcohol.

the other thing that is interesting is that alcohol has historically been handled by the twelve steps/aa, but the "dangers of alcohol" were apparent from 100 years ago. the dangers of cigarettes are only apparent since maybe the last 30 years. the pharmas are all over the cigarette cessation thing and they have products to sell and money to lobby so I think smoking cessation has been handled via a medical paradigm rather than a "spiritual" one. There's no alcohol patch, if you know what I mean. Yes, I know about Antabuse, but it's so unpleasant to take it never caught on really, and AA was already dominant by the time they invented it.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JR (and all others interested)

While we're on the subject of Antabuse, what do you think of this (tangentally related but very interesting use of opioid antagonists for the treatment of alcohol addiction. The interview is by David Van Nuys, Ph.D. who does Wise Counsel for us. This is his other show Shrink Rap Radio.

http://www.shrinkrapradio.com/2006/12/03/64-the-sinclair-method-for-treating-addiction/

#64 - The Sinclair Method for Treating Addiction

David%20Sinclair.jpg

David Sinclair,Ph.D. is a Senior Researcher at the National Health Institute in Helsinki, Finland. He has pioneered an approach to the treatment of alcoholism which has come to be called, the Sinclair Method. His protocol involves the use of opiate antagonists such as naltrexone or nalmefene to decrease the craving for alcohol over time. He finds that the use of these drugs just prior to alcohol consumption blocks endorphins and, thereby, leads to what he calls “pharmacological extinction,” which is to say the learned pleasure response to alcohol is unlearned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

Thanks JR for the clarifying, you know I don't know much about AA or alcohol addiction and find most of this topic a bit over my head. I really don't follow this well and can't really understand much of what is being talked about. Sorry all. I think the only bit I can add here is just a small peace about smoking. First I get what Mark said about how much more dangerous the drinking and driveing is in comparison to the long term second hand smoke issue conserning the danger to others component...but what I see happening now is the banning of smoking in public area's I do feel for the people who smoke and literally can't even go outside in public because they can be charged a fine because it is inflicting on others. However it is protecting non-smokers from the effects. I am shocked that they were able to ban it in the outside areas around if it is on private proberty like around the outside of hospitals, transit stations, malls, even though it is outside you still can't smoke. Anyways I think that they are trying to make it actually hard for people to smoke as a way of pushing it away from them. I know it must be hard for them as my family members are affected by these changes. 10 years ago they could smoke in a mall, now they can't smoke within the x space around the whole building?

Anyways I don't know, I'm not sure if I am babbling I hope my post still fits the topic??:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...