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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)