The truth about alcohol

Root cause of alcoholism isn't neces alcohol - usually alcohol is being used to self medicate. My grandfather actually did drink himself to death. He suffered from chronic depression, if it wasn't the alcohol it would have been something else. I had a close friend achieve a similar level of self destruction with eating. 

Anyway, it's a far cry from that kind of drinking to enjoying a glass of wine with dinner or a beer on a hot day. 

Nothing is without risk and the dose makes the poison. My point wasn't so much about alcohol as it was alcoholism, in any case.

A modern trend among substance abusers is to abuse many at a time, which leads to wildly unpredicatable behaviour, and can kill. Little as I liked Rob Ford... misuse of food, booze, crack, smack, you have it. Dead at 42, was it?

But at the same time, I don't like scare stories, or rather, moral panics. I'm old enough to remember when drink driving and smoking in front of just anyone were practically socially acceptable. Fortunately they aren't any more.

As a person who quit drinking and smoking in the same year, I can tell you that quitting drinking is easy. Quitting smoking is another thing altogether. Tobacco is extremely addictive, and smoking is, without doubt, the worst epidemic in the land, and in fact, around the world.

From Physician's for a smoke-free Canada:

Tobacco in Canada

45,000 Canadians die from smoking each year – and the number is still growing.
 
Tobacco is responsible for one in five deaths in Canada.   This is roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined.

​...No Canadian health authority has produced a comprehensive estimate of the number of Canadians who are killed from second-hand smoke, but international scientific reviews indicate that second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death (after smoking and drinking alcohol).

​Junkies and alcoholics will not force their poison down your throat. Smokers, on the other hand, have no problem sharing their smoke with you. 

Rev Pesky wrote:

As a person who quit drinking and smoking in the same year, I can tell you that quitting drinking is easy. Quitting smoking is another thing altogether. Tobacco is extremely addictive, and smoking is, without doubt, the worst epidemic in the land, and in fact, around the world.

From Physician's for a smoke-free Canada:

Tobacco in Canada

45,000 Canadians die from smoking each year – and the number is still growing.
 
Tobacco is responsible for one in five deaths in Canada.   This is roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined.

​...No Canadian health authority has produced a comprehensive estimate of the number of Canadians who are killed from second-hand smoke, but international scientific reviews indicate that second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death (after smoking and drinking alcohol).

​Junkies and alcoholics will not force their poison down your throat. Smokers, on the other hand, have no problem sharing their smoke with you. 

This is an extremely dangerous type of statement.

You should not presume that your experience in this area is at all transferable. Addiction is a dependency and the degree a person is dependent to a particular substance is variable from person to person and the degree by which a person  is dependent on one substance or another varies according to the person.

You will see such statements often comparing sugar, fat, alcohol, various drugs including tobacco and other dependencies based on individual experience. The are mostly unsupported by evidence.

Dependencies (as discussed here) have different root causes and substances have different effects on each individual.

Some sources claim Nicotine is slightly harder to kick but this can only be seen in the context of the strength of dependecies being at some relative baseline as some are more addicted to one than another. As well, the ease of giving up one thing or another has a lot to do with your exposure and context. In an increasingly smoke free world it may be easier to avoid nicotine than alcohol, especially in some work or family contexts.

Any such statement by medical authorities assumes a number of scientific controls that do not exist in the real world. It is common that the two are ranked close to each other when compared against other levels of addiction so these other factors can make the difference.

I hope you will do more research and refrain from making such sweeping statements ever again about this topic as it is potentially damaging to people.

http://americanaddictioncenters.org/adult-addiction-treatment-programs/h...

"Since smoking is not illegal, is often a social endeavor, and does not have to be performed clandestinely, it may be harder to stop than some other drugs." In many circumstances it is now illegal in many public places where alcohol is permitted.

"Alcohol dependence may range from mild to moderate to severe, and in its more severe form, the resulting withdrawal symptoms can be life threatening." And this emphasizes why you cannot make comparisons from personal experience to another person or people.

I hope anyone here fighting any addictions gets all the support they require and that their struggle is not minimized in any way by those around them.

From Sean in Ottawa:

This is an extremely dangerous type of statement.

45,000 people die in Canada every year from tobacco. That is far more than any other cause of death. As noted above 

"roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined. ​"

Many of those who die from tobacco are non-smokers. In other words, they are ingesting smoke given to them freely by smokers. 

So what was so 'dangerous' about my statement?

Further from Sean in Ottawa:

In an increasingly smoke free world it may be easier to avoid nicotine than alcohol,

​You must be joking. A smoke free world? How about when I walk down the street and am forced to inhale tobacco by the smoker on the street? How about when I enter the coffeeshop where I have to brave the tableful of smokers hanging around by the door? How about the several million cigarette butt filters casually tossed into the gutter to help feed the fish? How about the tobacco smoke that enters my apartment when I leave my windows open on a hot summer day?

I'm not sure what world you live in, but in my world you can't get away from tobacco. I would love to be able to sit outside on a nice fall day and have my coffee free of tobacco smoke, but that is not possible, and if you ask someone to put out their cigarette they'll either ignore you, or became very aggressive. I've had someone take a swing at me because I pointed out the No Smoking sign they were standing next to when they lit up.

The only function tobacco has is to assuage the symptoms of it's own addiction.

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

This is an extremely dangerous type of statement.

45,000 people die in Canada every year from tobacco. That is far more than any other cause of death. As noted above 

"roughly five times the number of deaths caused by car accidents, suicides, drug abuse, murder and AIDS combined. ​"

Many of those who die from tobacco are non-smokers. In other words, they are ingesting smoke given to them freely by smokers. 

So what was so 'dangerous' about my statement?

Further from Sean in Ottawa:

In an increasingly smoke free world it may be easier to avoid nicotine than alcohol,

​You must be joking. A smoke free world? How about when I walk down the street and am forced to inhale tobacco by the smoker on the street? How about when I enter the coffeeshop where I have to brave the tableful of smokers hanging around by the door? How about the several million cigarette butt filters casually tossed into the gutter to help feed the fish? How about the tobacco smoke that enters my apartment when I leave my windows open on a hot summer day?

I'm not sure what world you live in, but in my world you can't get away from tobacco. I would love to be able to sit outside on a nice fall day and have my coffee free of tobacco smoke, but that is not possible, and if you ask someone to put out their cigarette they'll either ignore you, or became very aggressive. I've had someone take a swing at me because I pointed out the No Smoking sign they were standing next to when they lit up.

The only function tobacco has is to assuage the symptoms of it's own addiction.

It is one thing when you miss the point by accident but when you are actually trying to miss it  the result is irritating.

I said it was dangerous assuming your personal experience is transferrable when it comes to ease of quitting -- here you bring up the unrelated issue of the numbers of people who die from smoking. So long as you were not aiming to have your comment respected I guess we are all right.

The point I made is that while smoking is prohibited in many environments there are people who have to live around alcohol being consumed and work around it. By this I do not mean walking past it. But then again I gather that this is all about you and only your experience matters so carry on and be the kind of person who thinks your experience applies universally.

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Sean in Ottawa:

I said it was dangerous assuming your personal experience is transferrable when it comes to ease of quitting -- here you bring up the unrelated issue of the numbers of people who die from smoking. So long as you were not aiming to have your comment respected I guess we are all right.

The point I made is that while smoking is prohibited in many environments there are people who have to live around alcohol being consumed and work around it. By this I do not mean walking past it. But then again I gather that this is all about you and only your experience matters so carry on and be the kind of person who thinks your experience applies universally.

​The reason I made the point about how many people die every year from tobacco use is to emphasize that the addiction to tobacco is a transferable phenomenon. If it wasn't transferable, how does one explain the deadly addiction that almost every smoker tries to rid themselves of, but can't, to the point of killing themselves with their addiction? 

​How do you explain that people don't generally become violent when told they can't consume alcohol in a public place, yet smokers do that all the time? 

​There are a relatively small number of alcohol drinkers that cannot stop drinking. Yet an extremely large percentage of tobacco smokers cannot quit smoking. That suggests to me that the experience of being addicted to tobacco is a lot more common that being addicted to alcohol.

​I'll tell you something else. I have been a semi-professional musician, and when I quit smoking I was still playing in bars where smoking was allowed. After one of those gigs, I would dream that I had started smoking again. I have confirmed that is a relatively common response to being in a smoking environment for ex-smokers. 

​At the same time, I had also quit drinking, and there I was in a drinking environment, yet that 'dreaming' experience never occurred. Now why do you suppose that was? 

​You know what I think? I think the experience of watching someone drink is different than the experience of being forced to breath in tobacco smoke. 

Roughly twenty percent of Canadians smoke, while roughly eighty percent drink. Deaths from tobacco are about 17% of deaths in Canada, while deaths from alcohol are about 7%.

On those figures alone, the transferable experience of tobacco addiction is much more prevalent than the transferable addiction to acohol.

Lots of somewhat interesting and irrelevant points.

The iossue is that you made a sweeping statement of universal application from your personal experience related to the relative power of the addictions of two substances. I called you on it and you keep answering with stuff about how bad tobacco is. Of course it is bad but the point I made was addictions carry different force in different people and both individually and relatively.

Try as you want to wriggle out of the point I made -- it still is the point when mnaking sweeping statements from a dataset of one.

I don't understand a lot of the tobacco laws.

I agree with the crack down on smoking on the bus,restaurants,public places like malls,airplanes,etc...

But I really strongly disagree with the ban in bars. There should have been a choice where you could decide if you prefer to drink or work at a smokeless bar or a smoking bar.

Everytime I go to a bar,98% of the clientele is huddled outside smoking including the barmaids and staff. It's ridiculous. And then they (the government) over reached by imposing a ban on smoking  on terraces. It's a complete joke because terraces for neighbourhood bars are practically on the road in front of the sidewalks. If you're so worried about inhaling carcinogens,shouldn't you worry about car,truck and bus exhaust? It's stupid.

Then they ban smoking outdoors within 9 metres of an entrance. The only comical part of that law is that it applies to vaporizers as well.

I find there is an agenda to make it illegal to inhale smoke,even water vapor. It's an over reach and a blow to freedom of choice.

Also,seeing that nicotine is so highly addictive,the price of cigarettes should not exceed $1. By jacking up the price,you're not stopping anyone from smoking,addicts will pay $10,$20,$50,$100 a pack if they had to. That's a blatant punishment to people with the sickness of addiction. I think it's just a huge cash grab in reality anyway.

Other than that,I have no problems with the anti-tobacco laws.

alan smithee wrote:

I don't understand a lot of the tobacco laws.

I agree with the crack down on smoking on the bus,restaurants,public places like malls,airplanes,etc...

But I really strongly disagree with the ban in bars. There should have been a choice where you could decide if you prefer to drink or work at a smokeless bar or a smoking bar.

Everytime I go to a bar,98% of the clientele is huddled outside smoking including the barmaids and staff. It's ridiculous. And then they (the government) over reached by imposing a ban on smoking  on terraces. It's a complete joke because terraces for neighbourhood bars are practically on the road in front of the sidewalks. If you're so worried about inhaling carcinogens,shouldn't you worry about car,truck and bus exhaust? It's stupid.

Then they ban smoking outdoors within 9 metres of an entrance. The only comical part of that law is that it applies to vaporizers as well.

I find there is an agenda to make it illegal to inhale smoke,even water vapor. It's an over reach and a blow to freedom of choice.

Also,seeing that nicotine is so highly addictive,the price of cigarettes should not exceed $1. By jacking up the price,you're not stopping anyone from smoking,addicts will pay $10,$20,$50,$100 a pack if they had to. That's a blatant punishment to people with the sickness of addiction. I think it's just a huge cash grab in reality anyway.

Other than that,I have no problems with the anti-tobacco laws.

Most of the bars I go to, which isn't especially often, about 10% of the clientele goes out for a smoke. That number continues to fall. And, as someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke and likes to enjoy the patio in the summer just as much as smokers do, I freaking love the patio ban. Cigarette smoke affects me when I'm outside as much as in if I'm downwind or even just nearby. A face full of smoke leaves me feeling like I've been punched in the head. I also love not having to run the gauntlet without breathing in because smokers can't be arsed to take their fumes a reasonable distance from the door. And I really don't want a facefull of water vapour, either - although, it's more than just water vapour, isn't it? I mean, what would be the point, otherwise? 

Cost, to some degree, motivates some people to attempt to quit or cut down, even though some will continue to pay. Rather than just throw up our hands because people are addicted, it's at least an attempt to address the problem. If you feel it's ineffective, suggest something else. But making cigarettes super cheap doesn't sound like much of a solution - more of an enabling.

If you drink too much, you're hurting yourself, and that's your business. But if you smoke in my environment, you're hurting me and yourself.

First off, you're wrong about adolescents and smoking - the rates are shrinking steadily over time.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/c-e/c-e01-eng.htm

Next - when you say that it's tough shit that someone has an allergy, which is a health issue they are not in control of, are you also saying that there are places people with disabilities should just choose not to go?

Cigarette smoke is a workplace hazard. From a public health perspective, it's irresponsible to expose workers to it whether they think it's okay or not. This is borne out in case law and class action suits that have led to these regulations over time. Sooner or later cigar bars will meet the same fate if they don't go out of fashion first.

If you want to smoke in the privacy of your own home, go for it. I have no bone to pick with that. It has no place in public. Your addictions shouldn't dictate where I can or cannot go. Ultimately, the freedom of people to be in safe environments, both workers and other customers, trumps your desire to poison yourself and the people around you. So if you dislike regulation - in your words - tough fucking shit.

Adolescents may smoke less but that's only because they are smoking vapes and pot. I  really don't care what studies say. I take a good look around myself. Those mobs of teenagers smoking by the metro at noon speak for themselves.

Again,if a bar is smoke friendly,YOU have the power to avoid such a place. This authoratarianism by non smokers makes ME ill.

Notice I am talking strictly about bars. I'm not forcing you to be exposed to anything. you don't have the right to expose smokers or anyone else with this agenda.

The tough shit comment was badly worded. I am talking more about people who want society to continue criminalizing pot smokers simply because they don't like the smell. To them I say tough shit.

I didn't mean to demean your allergy. I have allergies too,so I can relate.

Bars should have the right to make that choice and people can make the choice whether they want to enter such an establishment or not. And it's a freedom that does not impede your rights.You have the right to avoid such places.

There's not much to argue with what i'm saying. I'm talking exclusively about bars. Which brings me to another question. Where will peple be able to smoke their pot once its legal? 9 metres from an entrance or at an establishment that serves up cannabis?

We all neeed to live on this planet with some amount of respect toward each other. Not imposing personal opinions on all of us.

Actually, there is a lot to argue with your bar stance - and it's been argued to death over decades and you're not on the winning side for a lot of extremely good reasons.

Basically, due to the inherent hazards of cigarette smoke, an employer is irresponsible - and potentially liable - if he or she allows conditions that expose employees to a harmful substance beyond a reasonable degree. Over decades, it's come down to this: Cigarette smoke in bars is not a reasonable risk for the employer to expose employees to even if they agree to it.

As to me avoiding a place: Well, I'm just using myself as an example. However, you're creating conditions that bar entry from people who, for example, have emphysema or COPD or asthma, much more serious health concerns than my allergic headache. This is ablist. It's like creating a space where people in wheelchairs can simply choose not to go because of the stairs when you have it in your power to easily make it accessible. Not gonna fly with with civil liberties or human rights commissions. You're asking for your addiction to be a pass for discrimination.

And as for not caring about stats... Well, I don't care about your observation because you just don't have enough information. Only 20% of teens have tried vaping, although that is higher than those who smoke, it's not necessarily a fixed rate as vaping and ecigarettes are relatively new. It could rise, but to my mind the novelty will eventually wear off. And bear in mind the vast majority of teens haven't bothered. So while you're seeing gaggles of kids with ecigarettes, what you aren't seeing is the 4x as many who have better things to do. My empirical research (daughters and their cohort) is that most of them think eciggies are kind of stupid.

As for weed, there are other ways to consume it - I think edibles are going to be huge business once they're legal. I feel the same about weed smokers as I do about tobacco smokers. Keep it out of my face and I don't care. I figure it should be legal, but used in a way that doesn't affect anyone but the user.

Timebandit wrote:

Actually, there is a lot to argue with your bar stance - and it's been argued to death over decades and you're not on the winning side for a lot of extremely good reasons.

Basically, due to the inherent hazards of cigarette smoke, an employer is irresponsible - and potentially liable - if he or she allows conditions that expose employees to a harmful substance beyond a reasonable degree. Over decades, it's come down to this: Cigarette smoke in bars is not a reasonable risk for the employer to expose employees to even if they agree to it.

As to me avoiding a place: Well, I'm just using myself as an example. However, you're creating conditions that bar entry from people who, for example, have emphysema or COPD or asthma, much more serious health concerns than my allergic headache. This is ablist. It's like creating a space where people in wheelchairs can simply choose not to go because of the stairs when you have it in your power to easily make it accessible. Not gonna fly with with civil liberties or human rights commissions. You're asking for your addiction to be a pass for discrimination.

And as for not caring about stats... Well, I don't care about your observation because you just don't have enough information. Only 20% of teens have tried vaping, although that is higher than those who smoke, it's not necessarily a fixed rate as vaping and ecigarettes are relatively new. It could rise, but to my mind the novelty will eventually wear off. And bear in mind the vast majority of teens haven't bothered. So while you're seeing gaggles of kids with ecigarettes, what you aren't seeing is the 4x as many who have better things to do. My empirical research (daughters and their cohort) is that most of them think eciggies are kind of stupid.

As for weed, there are other ways to consume it - I think edibles are going to be huge business once they're legal. I feel the same about weed smokers as I do about tobacco smokers. Keep it out of my face and I don't care. I figure it should be legal, but used in a way that doesn't affect anyone but the user.

Looks like we crossposted on this. I agree with all you say here.

alan smithee wrote:

Employers are not subjecting their employees to something hazardous like smoking when virtually ALL of them smoke anyway.

Aside from the fact that it's irrelevant, it's becoming less and less the case all the time.

It's irrelevant because the employer cannot allow that environment even if the employee agrees to it or is already a smoker. It's not about the habits of the individual, it's about public policy. And the fact that the individual can come back and say that they made a mistake, but their employer helped reinforce it. Given the data, it's an ureasonable exposure. This is something that's been hashed out in courts and by Worker's Compensation Boards (I used to work at one, 20+ years ago, so this is NOT NEW.)

alan smithee wrote:

I admit,I only go to local bars mostly in St-Henri and Ville Émard. This subject comes up often and virtually everyone I talk to thinks it's a stupid law.

Irrelevant again, from a public policy point of view.

alan smithee wrote:

Please come to my neighbourhood and I'll prove it. And the ban on terraces are even more unpopular. Terraces at neighbourhood bars in this area are off the sidewalk where a parking space would be. They are set up when the weather gets warm and taken down when the weather gets cold. You're sitting in the middle of the street. Cars,trucks and buses passing constantly and you're going to worry about a fuckin' cigarette? Give me a break.

As it happens, I'm working on a documentary on air pollution, so I probably have more information on exhaust and other air pollutants than you do. However, it's not just one cigarette. It's millions of them. And with an amazing flexibility that is common in the human mind, you can care and worry about more than one thing at a time. Both cigarette smoke and exhaust are bad and something needs to be done about them.

alan smithee wrote:

People who've been smoking for decades,like myself,all have COPD and these neighbourhood bars are filled with people my age and older. I'm sure some of the people I talk to outside having a smoke have even worse problems with their lungs than I do. They all want to be able to sit,have a beer or a shot and a smoke. In my life I've met non-smokers who were 'casual' smokers. They only smoked when they drank. I fit into that crowd and there are plenty of people who agree with me that they like to have a cigarette while they drink. This is talked about with patrons and barmaids all the time. I'm telling you this as someone who is out there at these establishments,not some arm chair quarterback reading too much propaganda from the 'Smoke-free Canada' organizations.

And I'm out and about a fair bit in more than one city and neighbourhood. You're in a very small and shrinking cohort, and the concerns of that small cohort should not dictate policy that affects millions of other people.

alan smithee wrote:

As for teens,I said some vape,which they do,but the majority of them are smoking cigarettes. This is what I see all the time. Why would I lie?

I don't think I said you lie. I am certain I said you're incorrect. And you are - the numbers bear it out. Unless you're doing large-scale surveys, you don't have the information to make your conclusion reliable.

alan smithee wrote:

As for cannabis,what I do in the privacy of my own home is MY business,nobody else's. But landlords don't want you smoking in their appartments,the federal government wants to pass a law prohibiting people from smoking in THEIR OWN HOMES,there will have to be Dutch style coffee houses or people will have to deal with people smoking pot outdoors. It's either or. There are no other choices.

As I said,it's narcissistic and authoritarian,this 'I don't like the smell of smoke so nobody should be able to' attitude. It's full of shit. And freedom of choice out weighs someone's opinion.

And you don't think "I do what I want, regardless how it affects the people around me" isn't narcissistic???

alan smithee wrote:

Anyway,this conversation is going nowhere. Seeing that you don't go to bars,you shouldn't even have an opinion.

I didn't say I don't go to bars. I do go for a drink from time to time. I'm also every bit as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, although much of what I've posted isn't so much opinion as explanation for why things are not to your liking based in some facts and stats.

I understand that we don't see eye to eye on this, and I'm fine with that. What I do object to, though, is mischaracterization.

You talk about not liking the smell of something: The reasons I gave for why public health regulations are the way they are had nothing to do with that. The smell of egg salad, while not pleasant to some, isn't going to compromise anyone's ability to breathe. Smoke of any kind - whether it's from cigarettes, fireplaces or doobies, has the potential to do that. It's harmful enough to a large enough group that regulation is warranted.

You talked about "my" goal of eradicating smoking: I already addressed being concerned about more than one thing not being an impossibility. From the work I'm doing right now, I can tell you that exhaust from vehicles is a huge concern and I think there will be changes in the future with some of the new science on the subject. HOWEVER, we're talking about cigarettes, and the pulling in of other pollutants doesn't change the argument against a cigarette free for all one whit.

On being dull, vacant and/or naive: You're kind of pulling a "I would never say x" - one of Trump's favourite gambits. I think that's beneath you. Please don't do that. Especially since I haven't once said this was the addiction talking. (I kid, I kid. You're entitled to your opinion.)

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

Timebandit wrote:

I understand that we don't see eye to eye on this, and I'm fine with that. What I do object to, though, is mischaracterization.

You talk about not liking the smell of something: The reasons I gave for why public health regulations are the way they are had nothing to do with that. The smell of egg salad, while not pleasant to some, isn't going to compromise anyone's ability to breathe. Smoke of any kind - whether it's from cigarettes, fireplaces or doobies, has the potential to do that. It's harmful enough to a large enough group that regulation is warranted.

You talked about "my" goal of eradicating smoking: I already addressed being concerned about more than one thing not being an impossibility. From the work I'm doing right now, I can tell you that exhaust from vehicles is a huge concern and I think there will be changes in the future with some of the new science on the subject. HOWEVER, we're talking about cigarettes, and the pulling in of other pollutants doesn't change the argument against a cigarette free for all one whit.

On being dull, vacant and/or naive: You're kind of pulling a "I would never say x" - one of Trump's favourite gambits. I think that's beneath you. Please don't do that. Especially since I haven't once said this was the addiction talking. (I kid, I kid. You're entitled to your opinion.)

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

Im glad  that you mentioned fireplaces and car exhaust. These are 2 things we clearly agree with.

If you're writing something on this subject,I'd be happy to read it and I hope you release it here if possible.

And as much as we disagree about smoking in bars,I do happen to agree with all the other bans,I have no desire to blow smoke in your face simply because I want to smoke everywhere and anywhere. (I'm old enough to remember those days)

I respect someone's opposition when the subject is about public safety.

As for cannabis,like I said,when legalized provinces will have to have Dutch style coffee shops or there will be no other choice but to smoke outdoors. It's either one or the other.

Would you have a problem with Dutch style coffee shops where people can smoke their cannabis? If so,you'd be driving them outside,which you don't like either. There must be a compromise or resignation to the reality of coffee shops being a thing in Canada.

To me,this issue is complicated and there are a lot of nuances that must be considered. I don't think it's a black and white subject.

Peace.

lagatta4 wrote:

Even here in Québec, it has been falling. Why do so many young people in Saskatchewan smoke?

General hopelessness?

Yes, and the physical addiction to alcohol is much less prevalent among drinkers than the physical addiction to tobacco amongst smokers. Here's my story:

Rev Pesky's Story:

I'm not exactly sure when I had my first drink, but I know that by the time I was 15 years old I was thrown out of home because of I had come home very drunk, puked in my bed, and then tried to attack my father the next day when I was awoken with a terrific hangover. That's the real beginning.

From then until I was 42 years old alcohol was a pretty big part of my life. How many times did I have have blackouts, days when I woke up and couldn't remember what I had done the night before? Quite a few.

How many times did I drive drunk? More than quite a few. How many people thought I was a disgusting drunk? A lot.

I did slow down as I got older, opting for a daily dose of half-a-dozen beer, sometimes reinforced with wine, and hard liquor at Christmas.

With a little time to recall, I could probably keep you for a few hours telling stories of my drunken episodes. But that would be embarrassing for me, and boring for you.

All in all I was a heavy drinker for the best part of 28 years.

I quit drinking about six months after I quit smoking. I couldn't tell you what happened in my life that caused that to happen. I don't remember anything of any great import.

Quitting smoking I remember very well. It was extremely difficult. The utter despair that gripped me when I thought about a future without tobacco was something that will stay with me 'til the day I die.

On the other hand, quitting drinking took nothing at all. I don't even remember making the decision.

Thus my view of  tobacco compared to alcohol was formed by my own experience, yes, but a pretty good test of both, I’d say.