Nicotine

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69044 wrote:

I don't think Aedes was beating you up over smoking. In fact, he hasn't made any medical suggestions whatsoever. All he has done is noted that, from his medical experience, smoking can be linked to atrial fibrillation, either by exacerbation or cause.

The irony from which the Nile saying spawned was thus: You created a thread placing smoking in a favorable light, displaying your good health from 11-years-old on. You state later you have atrial fribrillation, a condition which has been shown to be linked to smoking. You immediately deny smoking has anything to do with your condition. We call this denial.

Zetherin, the imposition of guilt, in any respect, is to me WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It does far more harm than the tobacco itself, than alcohol itself, or obesity itself. That guilt disturbs the mind. That is what exacerbates further illness. Because I will not allow others to "dictate" my life, my mind is in GREAT SHAPE. Anyone who tries to impose guilt on me will behold my wrath. Big time. Amazingly enough I am getting better at controlling it. I have no idea "why" I use tobacco. Perhaps it uses me to help me get through life. I am not perfect by anymeans physiologically. I agree to that. My body has taken a beating, big time. I realize there is reason for it, but I don't let it "get me down". I live with it. Don't tell me how to live my life based on how you live your life, doctor, preacher, or Mr, America perfect specimen of health. Our "health" problems began the minute we began drilling holes into the body. But with a healthy mind, the body does and tries to deal with as best it can. It's a natural tihing. Happiness is by far the more important as long as that happiess does not sacrifice the happiness of others. As I said, I am not advocating smoking. But telling someone to quit by imposing guilt, which is what accusing them of denial does, to me, does far more damage. I treat people with respect, laugh a lot, share what I know with others whom I can help with their permission. Yes, I know this body will eventually give out, I am totally resolved with that fact.

Imposing guilt is so very bad and it really %$@$ up the mind. (pardon my symbolism). Ha. It creates paranoia in that people have no idea of where to turn. God, it could be the air, it could be the food, it could germs (that's a real bad one), as Howard Hughes; people get so afraid they won't even step outside their homes for fear of DYING. They get to the point in which the become totally "imobilized". But they don't have cancer. Hmmm? They don't have a life either, because no one, no one has ever experienced it; not yet anyway, IMO.

I am not impressed with how smart you are, what credentials you have, what your "status" is,or how you regard yourself; JUST DON'T TREAD ON ME. I am probably the most PRO-LIFE individual on the planet Earth. I have respect for you as a human being and I will be the first to agree, I don't have all the answers, no one does and to impose on anyone that you think you do, is B$^%*#$%. There goes that symbolism again, sorry.

Salima, the reason why I mentioned woman is because of the pregnancy thing. My family were smokers and I think I had a predisposition to it. When I was young, it seemed every person in the world smoked. They didn't smoke because the "had" to, it was agreeable to them in some way mentally. It offered some sense of peace of mind. I agree it is to offense to impose your smoking on others by smoking in their presense if it offends them. I totally respect that. But this guilt thing has got to go. Hell, they have "No Smoking" signs OUTDOORS now. I wish I didn't use tobacco. I sincerely do and if the time comes where I don't mentally need it, I will quit on my own. I have drank enough scotch in my day to float a battleship and one day, I just didn't need it any more. That too could have something to do with my heart problem.

I have never questioned my life, nor would I allow others to do it for me. I have never imposed my life on others. If you could possiblly know all that my life has entail, it would blow you away. it never did me. I just let it flow. I had no idea of where it would lead, nor did I worry about it. Perhaps one day we will come up with a reasonable alternative to smoking that really works, even then, don't force it on me especially by using guilt. I am not speaking to you Salima, bless your heart. Although you are in India, I feel it beating as we speak.

William

0 Replies

@William,

William;68963 wrote:

Aedes, the only way any one can charge one with denial is if all the facts are 100% KNOWN.

The facts are known to medical providers. If you believe that your doctors have told you, as you've said, that we have no idea what causes atrial fibrillation and if they have led you to believe that your smoking is unrelated, then you're not listening to them very well -- which can indeed be a result of denial.

William;68963 wrote:

Otherwise it is extremely offensive.

Oh no it's not. It's certainly less offensive than a thread that purports to minimize the medical effect of smoking on men, in whom (like women) it is the single leading cause of preventable death in developed countries.

William;68963 wrote:

the imposition of guilt, in any respect, is to me WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It does far more harm than the tobacco itself

I haven't seen anyone catch cancer from guilt, which I incidentally do not recall imposing on you in any form. And might I add that when someone is doing something that is self-destructive, guilt can be a very persuasive motivator. I once got a patient of mine to quit both cigarettes and crack cocaine using guilt. My bad.

William;68963 wrote:

For you to maliciously attack me saying I'm in denial is extremely egotisical

Right. Where's the malice? And go put your first post side by side with all of mine in this thread and tell me who is displaying more egotism.

William;68963 wrote:

It is perfectly ok for you to offer a suggestion based on your knowledge, fine.

I didn't offer you a suggestion. You're not my patient. Do what you want to yourself, I don't care. Just don't infect other people with misinformation that might lead them to make poor decisions.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;69067 wrote:

The facts are known to medical providers.

I think almost every day new medical studies are made known that contradict previous ones. In many cases, studies are never released because of monetary reasons. Facts change every day.

Quote:

I haven't seen anyone catch cancer from guilt.

Stress is one of the most, if the leading cause of all types of illness. It is also found as a precursor in cancer cases.

I think what William is saying, and what I have also experienced, is that the neat sense of itself that the medical profession seeks to promote, only hides a very chaotic, uncertain world filled with ethical issues, unhealthy providers, and masked problems which people don't want to hear about (they want to believe in their physicians) and physicians to not talk about. It is actually quite a mess. Not too different from the way it was thousands of years ago. People pretending that they can heal another person's problems. It's a game. Smile

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;69072 wrote:

I think almost every day new medical studies are made known that contradict previous ones. In many cases, studies are never released because of monetary reasons. Facts change every day.

This particular area of discussion is one with little controversy, so I'm willing to stand by any declarative statements until such a hypothetical study comes out. The direct contribution of smoking to a-fib has only been recently established, but many smoking-induced diseases are slam dunks.

richrf;69072 wrote:

Stress is one of the most, if the leading cause of all types of illness.

Yes, we thought that until studies came out debunking the role of stress in heart disease and in peptic ulcer disease. Stress is an independent risk factor for many things, but to say it is "one of the most, if the leading cause of all types of illness" is baseless.

0 Replies

@William,

Conspiracy theories are often more exciting than the truth, and easier to understand as well!

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;69080 wrote:

Conspiracy theories are often more exciting than the truth, and easier to understand as well!

I don't think there are any conspiracies. Just people acting out their roles in life. A person goes to medical school for eight years or so, and then he comes out, and people pay good money to be cured. Both are pretending. It is quite funny and absurd when you think about it, but it is part of the life that we all lead.

Rich

0 Replies

@William,

Aedes,
Please hear me. To be a physician, you must anestithize yourself from it to a degree in order to be objective and treat people who are suffering. Yes it would be great to have those definitive answers to all that "ails" mankind, but we don't. There are entirely too many limbs on that tree. YOU CANNOT FEEL GUILT in any respect whatsoever or you could not do what you do. You have to BLOCK that out. Nevertheless it is still there because we DON'T have all the answers or all the data on the patient. We can only hope it helps. Practitioners today do two things: They look at charts and prescibe medications and surgeons invade. They know very, very, very little about the life they are treating. They couldn't or it would take all day to administer to ONE patient. The Doctor would have to be a phychaitrist, pediatrician, a nutritionist, a therapist; the list is endless. Causes for illnesses are only assumptions based on the limited emphirical studies we can gather. Now when a patient comes to you, he is entirely under your control and he puts faith in you to make him better. you have to have that staid foundation to give that patient confidence in you. I do very well understand all that. Now in your profession, whether you are that "rock solid" is not something you choose. It happens automatically after time. You, in the mind of the patient, are the answer to their prayers; what is known as a "god complex". I am not saying you think that, but in the eyes of the patient, you are. That has to have an affect on you personally. It has to. It cannot be helped.

You are a doctor and it only right to defend what you have spent so much time devoting your life to and any thought that challenges that status and what you know, it must be responded to. My OP was a supposition to inspire thought, not invite someone to attack me because of my use of tobacco. I explained all that which you totally ignored. To maintain your ego, and you have to have one or you would lose patients by the droves, you have to protect it. I am very aware of what is "common knowledge". I am not a idiot sir. For you to use the word "denial" is an attack on me, personally, because I am not a scholared physician and have no title in front of my name therefore shoud have no right to question you. You are not accustom to that. No "Dr." is. If some one "asks" your advice, then fine, give it. I wasn't asking your advice; I was asking for opinions on a suppostion and the "Dr." in your took over and is still trying to though I have made my stance EXTREMELY CLEAR. If you have nothing to offer, please, give me the consideration of bowing out. I am looking for possible answers, not being beaten to death and charged with denial.
Thanks.
William

---------- Post added at 11:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

There are No slam dunks in medicine. None.. The only slam dunk is the body itself. It might take a few thousands years but it will return to it's pristine state. I can guarantee it. Of course, you will just have to take my word on that. Ha.:a-ok:

William

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

Aedes;69079 wrote:

Yes, we thought that until studies came out debunking the role of stress in heart disease and in peptic ulcer disease. Stress is an independent risk factor for many things, but to say it is "one of the most, if the leading cause of all types of illness" is baseless.

What do you mean baseless? To make the above statement is baseless.
William

0 Replies

@William,

I doubt that anyone can deny that historically medicine has gone hand in hand with a certain degree of charlatanry, or that even today doctors sometimes fool their patients for medical purposes. For example, the Placebo effect is in reality a rather large scale duping of certain patients for research purposes.

However, I do think credible medical standards in the developed world have pretty much eliminated the snake handlers from legitimate practice. To say that doctors pretend to cure patients, who go along with the pretence, is pretty misleading I think.

Like all branches of science the practice of medicine is subject to a process of rarification, new discoveries may well render current practices moot, but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because there's a certain fashion for distrusting the word of experts. I think that's the ego of the uneducated layman asserting he knows better than the "quacks".

I mean, if I were to find myself hit by some sort of a time-warp and appear back in the 1600s with a nasty gash on my leg (the sort of example I'm sure we can all relate to) a barber-surgeon might well recommend I have the wound cauterised with a red hot poker.

I might agree that that would be preferable to just letting it rot, but I'm sure I would find myself pining for antibiotics, surgical gauze and sterilisation.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

A quick visual message from a well-meaning moderator to those wrapped in the throws of spirited debate:

http://peacelikeariverblog.com/images/2008/relax.jpg

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;69120 wrote:

However, I do think credible medical standards in the developed world have pretty much eliminated the snake handlers from legitimate practice. To say that doctors pretend to cure patients, who go along with the pretence, is pretty misleading I think.

Hi,

I don't want to try to convince you one way or another. We all harbor our own beliefs. However, if you are interested in the subject, I am sure you will do research and see what you discover. As in the case with most explorations, I am quite certain you will reveal to yourself many surprising discoveries. Suffice to say, money is king and it is amazing what people - in very large numbers, on an individual basis - will do for money. Simply amazing. But that again is life.

Rich

0 Replies

@William,

I'm sure we do all harbour our own beliefs. What I am trying to get a hold on is why you harbour yours. Now I know I can just search the internet and uncover all manner of information or supposed evidence for all manner of conspiracies - some of them might even be true.

Note also that, as a citizen of the UK, I don't pay for healthcare directly and am therefore free to bother a doctor (who is undoubtably well compensated with money I give the taxman) whenever I feel the least bit lousy.

However, at the end of the day I have to ask myself what is more likely? Are doctors well paid because they are liars who have the world convinced they need doctors more than they do and this is a worldwide phenomenon of which the only whistleblowers tend to be conspiracy nuts?

Or...

Are doctors well paid because it takes a lot of training and a fair bit of intelligence to develop all the skills and knowledge needed to be a good doctor and people are willing to reward others for restoring their health?

I proffer that the second example is less mutilated by an encounter with Occam's Razor.

Could this largess and evidence of intellect result in resentment from people less lucky, or who made different dedications to easier pursuits in their youth, and who therefore are open to suspicion of doctors as a result of their grudgeful attitude and the occasionally overhyped malpractice story in the media?

I think so.

So my suspicion of doctors, allayed in part through my personal experience of having certain problems - arranging a visit to my GP - receiving treatment - feeling better more often than not, is not so great as my suspicion of someone who claims doctors and patients are involved in a game of pretend to cure/be cured.

I can't prove why, of course, but all I would want to say further at this point is that my conviction remains that I would want access to modern medicine over that of medeival barber-surgery, or even renaissance medicine, or Victorian, or that of the 1950s, or of even a decade ago.

You may disagree, but I think you would be foolish to do so. If you don't disagree then I can't quite understand why you are so dismissive of progress in medicine.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;69140 wrote:

You may disagree, but I think you would be foolish to do so. If you don't disagree then I can't quite understand why you are so dismissive of progress in medicine.

Before you dismiss my conclusions as foolish, please at least put the time into developing awareness of the subject that I have.

Learning good health takes time, and most people would rather spend their time doing other things. So be it. Everyone is doing what they choose to do in their life. So, for lack of interest, someone comes along as says that they will do it for them, for a certain price, and the offer is accepted. If they believe this is possible, then by all means. As they wish. It is no mind to me.

I am 57 and I can compare my health very favorable to my peer group. I haven't been to a physician in 27 years nor have a taken any type of drugs during that period. Ditto for my family.

For me, life is about accumulating knowledge and awareness. I have done so in the area of health and have come to a very satisfactory state for myself. Others may differ.

If someone feels that they have not had good results after 30 years of going to a physician, I can certainly understand their point of view. There are alternatives. If someone is satisfied, then that is fine also.

Rich

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;69120 wrote:

I doubt that anyone can deny that historically medicine has gone hand in hand with a certain degree of charlatanry, or that even today doctors sometimes fool their patients for medical purposes. For example, the Placebo effect is in reality a rather large scale duping of certain patients for research purposes.

However, I do think credible medical standards in the developed world have pretty much eliminated the snake handlers from legitimate practice. To say that doctors pretend to cure patients, who go along with the pretence, is pretty misleading I think. (THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY A DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION TO WHAT i DID SAY).

Like all branches of science the practice of medicine is subject to a process of rarification, new discoveries may well render current practices moot, but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because there's a certain fashion for distrusting the word of experts. I think that's the ego of the uneducated layman asserting he knows better than the "quacks".

I mean, if I were to find myself hit by some sort of a time-warp and appear back in the 1600s with a nasty gash on my leg (the sort of example I'm sure we can all relate to) a barber-surgeon might well recommend I have the wound cauterised with a red hot poker.

I might agree that that would be preferable to just letting it rot, but I'm sure I would find myself pining for antibiotics, surgical gauze and sterilisation.

This type of rhetoric is uncalled for. Not one word in my post lead to the institution of any of this type callous bilge:letme-at-em: you are spewing, Dave. This post is "snake oil"! Like I said, I am not an idiot. It is meant to discredit me and the legitimate concern rendered in the OP. You are sabotaging the thread and I don't care for it one bit. So please address he OP in it's entirety or take your "expertise" elsewhere. If you have no answers, then don't respond. I was hoping to find if any positive research had been done on nicotine itself properly administered. This is the 2nd thread I have had sabogtaged. This type of "freedom of speech" is the same type of ploy you were using to defend NAMBLA and EVOLUTION.

William

0 Replies

@William,

William, please do try and relax.

My post was mostly directed at Richrf, who was the one who stated doctors and patients indulged in pretenses. I note he was able to defend his position without a great deal of shrieking and crying that I was misrepresenting him or spewing callous bilge.

As far as I see this forum is a place for debate.

That means that if you share your ideas here you should be prepared to have people disagree, or even riff on the theme in a way you might not have intended. If you or other posters are going to assert that medical opinion is disreputable I'm afraid you really should expect people to disagree. If you have a defence to make to make then make it - but whining that people are being perjorative is a pretty weak defence, especially when they aren't.

I mean, where will it end? "I'm a skaghead and I reckon heroin is great - can I hear from people who might have evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to affirm me in my beleifs? If you feel otherwise just shut up." As Aedes said, you must be in denial if you can't bear people offering up a different opinion.

As for my using "freedom of speech" to defend NAMBLA or evolution - I think that's pretty lame. I don't see what it has to do with evolution at all - freedom of speech wasn't a bone of contention in that thread. The only time I recall speaking to you about evolution you made some pretty common claims put about by creationists on the subject, which I countered. You then offered some objections, which I tried to answer, I don't see how "ploys" or freedom of speech even come into it - you were simply not equipped to make as strong a criticism as I was able to build a defence because you didn't know your onions on the subject.

The NAMBLA thing I am pretty tired of and don't really want to go through again - but as I recall it was raised by you in a fairly tangental way to begin with and all I did was defend what I saw as unnessecary criticism of the ACLU. As I recall you made my defence of the ACLU tantamount to defending paedophiles and their behaviour as a whole - which I feel I strongly and justly refuted, because that's not my position.

Strikes me you just don't like it when people disagree with you, which is not a very wise attitude to hold when on a forum populated by people who, being into philosophy, probably like to have debates and draw their own, sometimes contrary, positions and conclusions.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;69203 wrote:

William, please do try and relax.

My post was mostly directed at Richrf, who was the one who stated doctors and patients indulged in pretenses. I note he was able to defend his position without a great deal of shrieking and crying that I was misrepresenting him or spewing callous bilge.

As far as I see this forum is a place for debate.

That means that if you share your ideas here you should be prepared to have people disagree, or even riff on the theme in a way you might not have intended. If you or other posters are going to assert that medical opinion is disreputable I'm afraid you really should expect people to disagree. If you have a defence to make to make then make it - but whining that people are being perjorative is a pretty weak defence, especially when they aren't.

I mean, where will it end? "I'm a skaghead and I reckon heroin is great - can I hear from people who might have evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to affirm me in my beleifs? If you feel otherwise just shut up." As Aedes said, you must be in denial if you can't bear people offering up a different opinion.

As for my using "freedom of speech" to defend NAMBLA or evolution - I think that's pretty lame. I don't see what it has to do with evolution at all - freedom of speech wasn't a bone of contention in that thread. The only time I recall speaking to you about evolution you made some pretty common claims put about by creationists on the subject, which I countered. You then offered some objections, which I tried to answer, I don't see how "ploys" or freedom of speech even come into it - you were simply not equipped to make as strong a criticism as I was able to build a defence because you didn't know your onions on the subject.

The NAMBLA thing I am pretty tired of and don't really want to go through again - but as I recall it was raised by you in a fairly tangental way to begin with and all I did was defend what I saw as unnessecary criticism of the ACLU. As I recall you made my defence of the ACLU tantamount to defending paedophiles and their behaviour as a whole - which I feel I strongly and justly refuted, because that's not my position.

Strikes me you just don't like it when people disagree with you, which is not a very wise attitude to hold when on a forum populated by people who, being into philosophy, probably like to have debates and draw their own, sometimes contrary, positions and conclusions.

You and Aedes are entirely off topic of the OP. If you cannot address the OP in the context it waw written, please take your vaccuous rhetoric someplace else. I was not inviting dabate. I never do. I am a little more sure of myself than you might think.

William

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

William;69213 wrote:

You and Aedes are entirely off topic of the OP. If you cannot address the OP in the context it waw written, please take your vaccuous rhetoric someplace else. I was not inviting dabate. I never do. I am a little more sure of myself than you might think.

William

The thread was going great until the hit team arrived. I hope Justin is watching this thread. I rely on his judgement. This type of sabotage has got to stop. All of the Earth's resources when wisely used is a good thing. Any sense of "opulence" is wrong in all measures. I was merely offering something to spur thought. As I said I wish I didn't smoke, but honestly, I am not sure if it is nicotine or the air we breath that is the most dangerous, to say nothing of the tap water we drink.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

Neil;68899 wrote:

Hello,
Nicotine is a stimulant, and is addictive like caffeine in small amounts. In larger amounts i heard that one drop in its purest form is enough to kill you. in moderate amounts i guess it could cause heart palpitations, it is a stimulant and increases your heartrate. Also, as far as medicinal purposes. They use stimulants in cold medicines, and they also used them in those weight loss products for a while. Even NoDoz or vivarin to keep you alert.

Hello Neil, thank you. Sorry it has taken me so long to address your post. I have been putting out forrest fires. I agree with you one hundred percent. Anything "beneficial" can be dangerous when abused. Yet it is here for "some" purpose. That is what we need to concentrate on. It could be just a milligram of usage. We don't know for we are too busy fighting the abuse. I think the abuse is because it offers something we are desperately lacking. I have no idea of what that is. No one else does either. There is a tremendous amount of money being made as the results of abuse and I think the answer has to do with that and the power being derived from that money. IMMHO. Thanks again for your response.

William

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

I am a little more sure of myself than you might think.

Oh, William, if anything we know you're sure of yourself, don't fret.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Aedes is a practicing medical doctor. He happens to be a freakin' expert in the field.

1 Reply

@William,

"Anything "beneficial" can be dangerous when abused. Yet it is here for "some" purpose. That is what we need to concentrate on. It could be just a milligram of usage. We don't know for we are too busy fighting the abuse. I think the abuse is because it offers something we are desperately lacking. I have no idea of what that is. No one else does either. There is a tremendous amount of money being made as the results of abuse and I think the answer has to do with that and the power being derived from that money. IMMHO. Thanks again for your response. "

William

hi william-
i understand your reasoning above about use and abuse. arsenic is great for rat poison but we cant smoke it. not trying to be sarcastic, but this can be applied to nicotine i think. morphine is great in relieving terminally ill patients in excruciating pain, but has devastating effects if used as a social outlet or to help us 'loosen up'. etc....

what you said about guilt is hidden within the issue of smoking and addiction. do you call yourself an addict? you said more than once that you wish you didnt smoke...so if you are doing something that you wish you didnt do, i think that could be addiction. i am an addict, i admit it, but have been very fortunate in that my system couldnt tolerate alcohol at all, i just spewed it out sometimes after only one drink, and i have at last successfully quit smoking with the help of being embedded in a society where it is even MORE frowned upon than in contemporary america.

but the problem of addiction goes on in my life and always will-another issue, another thread...

what i also have to offer to your question in the OP is that i think the reason the doctor didnt advise me not to smoke while i was pregnant is that he knew i couldnt quit, and then i would be anxious about it (feeling guilty) and dealing with being pregnant while doing something unhealthy and harmful for my child, in turn would most definitely harm the child-my anxiety i mean. anxiety sets off a lot of chemicals.

i never believed smoking had any medical effects on anyone, i was certain all those warnings were false and made up by people who want to control the world and stop me from smoking which i didnt even enjoy but was driven to do. i am an addict, we think like that when we are challenged. i could point to how many people smoked and never got ill and how many had lung cancer and never smoked...

but the real proof was when i actually did quit and found a great number of problems disappear and my health was improved drastically. even while i smoked i was aware that having a cigaret never calmed me down, even though it was the first thing i would reach for if i got the least bit upset. once i had quit i realized i had been having a lot of anxiety because of the pressure put on us these days by society not to smoke, and all that is gone now.

i still sympathize with smokers and i always will, and i would never tell anyone they shouldnt smoke. i believe there are people who can do it and not be addicted and i believe there are people who can smoke and not have serious health problems. but if you want to know exactly how it is affecting you-at least on the surface-you must quit for six months at least. you will probably notice good effects in about three months. and if you find your health and energy and capacity vastly improved in what you are able to observe, you can surmise that internally, as far as the heart, brain, and lungs are concerned that they must also be improved and probably the whole system in ways you cant notice or measure.

if on the other hand you quit for six months and feel exactly the same, other than the agony of still wanting to smoke, then you can go back to smoking again.

what do you think?

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;69276 wrote:

"Anything "beneficial" can be dangerous when abused. Yet it is here for "some" purpose. That is what we need to concentrate on. It could be just a milligram of usage. We don't know for we are too busy fighting the abuse. I think the abuse is because it offers something we are desperately lacking.

Hi salima,

This is very much how Chinese medicine would view the problem

For example, the cigarette smoke when inhaled warms the inner body. The inner body is "cold" (energetically) and seeks warmth. This may be lack of Qi (energy). Notice how some people always say they are cold. It is because they are Qi deficient, from a Chinese medical point of view, and Chinese medicine would treat the underlying problem with warming herbs (e.g. onions, garlic, etc.). The problem may even be deeper than this. Since the Lungs (Po) is affected, it could be that the person is having problems sorting out his physical being. But, that is as far as I think I can go. I don't want to complicate things with Chinese metaphysics, philosophy and medicine.

Rich

Rich

0 Replies

@William,

Thank you Salima,

Wonderful post. My curiosity was sincere in that I wanted to see if there was a connection in those substances we abuse and their natural purpose for existing, for I think there is one. There are people that are addicted to carbohydrates too. Sincerely, I have never tried to quit. There were times when, I couldn't use tobacco and it never really bothered me. My body has become accustom to it. It's not a crutch, or at least I don't think it is anyway. I enjoy it. When I said I wish I didn't, that was true, but I don't worry about it. And now I will explain that. It's amazing how just doing a simple thing like turning on a radio can change your life.

My biggest problem and it has been one ever since I can remember that caused misery on everyone is my zero tolerance at being told what to do. It was as if, "domination" is the motto of the world we live in, as if anyone new "what to do". So my life involved developing an understanding that allowed me to live with never having to dominate anyone. In order for me to fully understand that I had to undertand why people were so "controlling", so that I would be able to dodge their attacks and save us both a lot of grief. Ha. There were entirely too many people trying to control my life and I knew I couldn't change them, so I had to effort to understand them. I couldn't change me if I tried. Not that I wouldn't,I couldn't. Neither should anyone have to, ideally. But when you live in a world full of "bosses", it's hard to realize that.

Subsequently, I have developed an "understanding" of others for that is where I focused all my attention, for the selfish reason of allowing me to control my temper. That's all. That was my only concern for me was to control my anger. I don't focus on me. Never have. I just had to figure out a way to deal with others so they wouldn't direct, command, order or tell me what to do. In that process, I discovered a universal truth, NO BODY LIKES TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO. I have developed such a defense to it, even the slightest attempt to do so, I notice it. There is no manner of communication in which I can't recognize control, even brainwashing. That's why I don't watch television. For the most part, it makes me see red.

Now since I never really focused on myself, my life has been through the ringer. Ha. But I wouldn't trade it for all the tea in China, because of what it taught me about the innate goodness in other people, no matter what they "showed" on the outside, it was what was buried deep beneath that surface that mattered. There was no way I could ever know why the output manifested was, because I didn't know all the input. That's the problem with medicine. We don't know all the input; we can only arriive at consensus by using statistics. What's good for one, is good for another. There are just to many people to treat them individually and there is "not enough time". I became obsessed with finding that root cause that would allow us to treat all people. And that search led me to the "bossiest" culprit of all: God. Uh oh? Now what? I......am......sunk! How does one approach such a "culprit" and withstand his wrath, jealousy and vengeance? That explains it. Now I knew why people were so bossy. It's because God is. Hmmm? Talk about confusing. How can I understand God?

Then one day as I was thinking, in this void of "what now" since I was not totally obliterated by God and his Wrath, at that very moment, as if robotic, because I rarely listen to the radio, I turned it on and a song by the Commodores was playing, and immediately my ears became super sensitive and the words came out as clear as a bell, ".......don't go changin' to try and please me; you never let me down before". I started weeping; tears were running down my face like you wouldnt believe. Now you have to understand, I am a man. We don't weep! Where in the world did that come from? That was in 1979. Then my life began the second leg of my journey. I took him at his word and i didn't change, and that was one hell of a trip. Literally. Only my immediate family and closest friends know a little of what that entailed. It was a journey of the mind and to explain all that happened would be to no avail, because no one would believe it. I have let out bits and pieces only and perhaps one day I will tell, "the rest of the story". Ha. Even now as this is a very abridged version of all that happened, Very!

So you can understand why I don't like anyone accusing me of "denial". The only only thing in this world I have every denied is an understaning of myself. That was totally out of my hands. The first 30 years of my life was to learn, and the last was to forget most of what I had learned to know the truth. So to speak.

Thanks to you and your so very gentle and warm nature, I will give it a shot and try and quit using tobacco for a month. I'll keep you posted.

William

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know