You know what really grinds my gears? II

[sledger]

See, IMO, casual smokers are a joke. Going from 20 a day to 4 a day may be a lot easier than going from 20-0... but surely, comparatively, it's relatively simple to go from 4 a day to 0? What's the point of 4 a day? Yeah, it might make you feel slightly better than if you totally quit but it is infinitely more damaging for the baby than quitting completely.

Stress out woman = bad for baby. Smoking woman = bad for baby. As I said, why would there be huge campaigns to get women to quit it quitting was worse than continuing smoking?

The NHS recommend us to have no more than 2 or 3 units in a drinking session because anything more is deemed detrimental to our health and can have serious consequences if sustained over a substantial period. If I go out on a Saturday night, I'm aware of the fact that what I'm doing is bad for me, pregnant women who continue smoking are the same. They choose to ignore the health warnings and actively harm their unborn child.

I think this post represents a drastic misunderstanding of the issue tbh.

[PhoenixFire]

A member of my family recently battled alcoholism. It would be beneficial for them to give up cigs too but 'will power' might be too much of an ask with the battles already going on.

You say 'too much of an ask', but what does that mean. Does it mean he is Pharmalogically impossible for him to quit due to some reason, or some other reason? I'm not denying that if he quit both it might have some serious health effects, I'm saying that it's not impossible for him to quit.

[sledger]

You mean people with a vastly superior knowledge of Pharmacology and public health won't be able to change your opinon on something....?

The basis of NHS campaigns are largely decided by the Secretary of State tbh, I'd be interested on hearing how extensive his knowledge of pharmacology is.

[Marcuss]

If was is the case, then addictions would not be medically and legally defined as diseases. If curing yourself from one was as simple as just giving up I'd imagine there would drastically fewer cases of people suffering from these problems out there. Sure it is a persons chance to start taking up whatever they choose to do, but if the habit is continued to a point where your body becomes dependant on whatever it is you've been doing, it's not simply just a case of saying enough is enough and using your willpower, to assume that is the case in every situation is naive. Granted, it may be there fault that they end up in such a state, but the issue of fault doesn't really come into it for me. Regardless of whose fault it is, these people are suffering from an illness, which would not be any easier to be cured from whether it was their fault or not. I don't in any way advocate smoking, but anyone who ends up in a truly severe state would have my sympathy.

In some situations your position on this matter is ultimately correct, I am sure there are a lot of people who could get off these habits with some self discipline and control, as is the case with any habit. But to assume this will always be the case in any situation is just innacurate.

What you are saying may be right, it's probably more common in serious drug addictions, such as heroin addicts being weaned off using morphine and the like.
But the way I see it is that before you reach that point the person has had countless opportunities to stop but they've consciously made the decision to continue smoking/drinking/injecting because to them stopping is "too difficult", I'm not suggesting that stopping is easy, just IMO it's easy enough for anyone and the only thing stopping people from quitting smoking at any point is themselves. It's not like if quitting is tough there is no alternatives other than cutting down... things like nicotine patches/gum were invented purely for that purpose.

[GIMH]

You mean people with a vastly superior knowledge of Pharmacology and public health won't be able to change your opinon on something....?

No. I am saying its laughable to use the NHS campaigns as a defining point in an argument. Everybody knows smoking isn't good for a baby, FFS. You just don't get what I'm saying.

[PhoenixFire]

No. I am saying its laughable to use the NHS campaigns as a defining point in an argument. Everybody knows smoking isn't good for a baby, FFS. You just don't get what I'm saying.

OK what are you saying then, because I certainly don't know and you aren't exactly making yourself clear.

[Marcuss]

I think this post represents a drastic misunderstanding of the issue tbh.

Why? Isn't it fundamentally an addiction to nicotine and/or craving... so if you can reduce the amount of nicotine in your blood by up to 80% then surely the last 20% is a small step? It's not like it's exponential.
As far as I understand it anyway.

[GIMH]

RE nicotine patches - could be imagining this but am sure I've been told they are worse for a baby than cigs, or almost as bad, whatever

[GIMH]

Why? Isn't it fundamentally an addiction to nicotine and/or craving... so if you can reduce the amount of nicotine in your blood by up to 80% then surely the last 20% is a small step? It's not like it's exponential.
As far as I understand it anyway.

If you had ever had an addiction I guess you'd understand why this is wrong a bit more

[Marcuss]

No. I am saying its laughable to use the NHS campaigns as a defining point in an argument. Everybody knows smoking isn't good for a baby, FFS. You just don't get what I'm saying.

You're saying it should be excusable in certain circumstances because in the cases of women cutting down it's preferable to them continuing as normal and that quitting can cause stress in the mother which is potentially dangerous for the baby.

What I'm saying is that quitting completely is entirely more preferable to cutting down and that smoking is more likely to harm the baby than stress, as supported by the backing of the NHS campaign.

[sledger]

What you are saying may be right, it's probably more common in serious drug addictions, such as heroin addicts being weaned off using morphine and the like.
But the way I see it is that before you reach that point the person has had countless opportunities to stop but they've consciously made the decision to continue smoking/drinking/injecting because to them stopping is "too difficult", I'm not suggesting that stopping is easy, just IMO it's easy enough for anyone and the only thing stopping people from quitting smoking at any point is themselves. It's not like if quitting is tough there is no alternatives other than cutting down... things like nicotine patches/gum were invented purely for that purpose.

To really get into this sort of thing, it has to be considered why people smoke, why they drink, or why they take drugs in the first place. People can do this for a variety of reasons. It's no coincidence that a lot of addictions (particularly alcohol and drugs) go hand in hand with cases of depression. People indulge because it makes them feel better, and if they do this because their lives are in such a terrible state anyway, I don't feel like it is right to judge in such a context. Again, assuming people just take part in these activities because they feel like it would be fun or a good leisure activity isn't allowing for a bigger picture to be painted. There are various reasons why it is not just a question of pure choice in every situation. Obviously nictotine patches and whatever else that has been manufactured offers some alternative to a smoking addiction, but they are far from an out and out cure for the worst cases.

[Marcuss]

If you had ever had an addiction I guess you'd understand why this is wrong a bit more

Probably, but then again I make the active, conscious decision to not develop an addiction or put myself in a position to do so.
Self discipline ftw

[GIMH]

OK what are you saying then, because I certainly don't know and you aren't exactly making yourself clear.

That because the NHS say something won't sway me, given we live in a nanny state

[Marcuss]

RE nicotine patches - could be imagining this but am sure I've been told they are worse for a baby than cigs, or almost as bad, whatever

Would be interested in reading about whether that's the case or not.
But I can guarantee for sure that I read that smoking is worse for a baby than not smoking

[sledger]

You're saying it should be excusable in certain circumstances because in the cases of women cutting down it's preferable to them continuing as normal and that quitting can cause stress in the mother which is potentially dangerous for the baby.

What I'm saying is that quitting completely is entirely more preferable to cutting down and that smoking is more likely to harm the baby than stress, as supported by the backing of the NHS campaign.

I would have thought that no smoke is indeed preferable to minimal smoke, I don't think this has ever been in dispute.

Also be careful, the NHS campaign (unless I am very much mistaken) doesn't in any way suggest that smoking causes less or more harm than stress, unless you are suggesting that by not mentioning stress it acacquiesces to this position, which I would submit is a tenuous ground for any argument.