Replies

1999 was years after the US surgeon general changed the definition of addiction.

And anyway - addiction is different than dependence which is different again from habituation.

I'm not going to argue the semantics of it, it's a waste of time.

What are the percentages of fatal auto crashes due to the use of those 5 substances?

What are the percentages of domestic violence reports due to the use of those 5 substances?

I would venture a guess that tobacco use wouldn't even make the list.

And to quell the onslaught (not from you MrLeRoy) of antis screaming about injurious and/or fatal house fires caused by careless smoking, the vast majority are caused by the primary factor of some type of substance intoxication.

addiction is different than dependence which is different again from habituation.

True---but IMO dependence is what most people have in mind when they talk about "addiction," so "cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine or heroin" is not misleading to the general public.

What are the percentages of fatal auto crashes due to the use of those 5 substances?

What are the percentages of domestic violence reports due to the use of those 5 substances?

Alcohol is undoubtedly far and away #1 in both categories, with tobacco, as you say, a distant fifth. But that's a whole 'nother discussion---and I'm not at all sure why someone who recognizes the similarity between the War On Tobacco and the War On Drugs is bringing it up.

"1999 was years after the US surgeon general changed the definition of addiction.

And anyway - addiction is different than dependence which is different again from habituation."

You aren't suggesting that cigarettes aren't physically addictive are you? If they are only "habituating" then how do you explain the strong physical withdrawal symptoms I have personally experienced?

No offense, but I just don't get your strong defense of that nasty death causing habit. Do you work in or somehow profit from the tobacco industry or are you just trying to justify your own bad habit? I mean, you argue that the 450,000 number our government gives us as being the number of folks killed each year is exaggerated. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they exaggerated it, but how many hundred thousand does it have to kill a year before it's a bad thing?

Geez, it rots your teeth and gums out, causes cancer and major cardiovascular problems. It ruins your stamina, smells bad, costs too much, hurts your sex life, and on and on and on. It's just a rotten awful indefensible habit. If you want to smoke, go ahead and smoke. If you want to fight against anti-smoking legislation, more power to you. But trying to convince the non-smokers out there that smoking isn't such a bad thing isn't going to win you any points. It will only backfire and lessen the effectiveness of your arguments.