Session 16 August 2014

[Voyageur]

Thank you for the session. This was also timely in a synchronistic way for me related to what Perceval said below on SRT.

(Perceval) It's almost like by definition, if you have an attachment, then you also have an issue that needs to be worked on. Just getting rid of the attachment doesn't get rid of the issue. Say you were being morose or moody or whatever, and then some attachment comes along. Just because the attachment goes away, doesn't mean the issue is gone. You already had the issue that drew in the attachment in the first place. So, just getting rid of the attachment doesn't fix the issue. You also have to continue to work on yourself.

Just yesterday I was called from an employer, who is also a friend, has a worker (cousin in fact) who is causing great disruptions and risk. This cousin is 20 years old and very recently started consuming drugs, any drugs he could get his hands on. At work, he was operating heavy machinery and has been falling asleep – oh boy. They are at their wits end and removed him from work. Apparently he is getting minor unknown quality of help from a councilor, yet they feel someone close to him needs to attend the sessions. The question asked of me was how to proceed with the work aspects and legality and what advice I could impart. In the back of my mind was thinking about SRT work and thought perhaps, if the sessions he is in does not work out, it might be viable. Nevertheless, something gave me pause to reflect on this some more before commenting further on this. Was thinking similar to the above in the quote, will this reach the root of his problem? Even if attached and removed, the problem still exists and another attachment may just move in and fill the vessel.

The comments concerning the work, the “I’s” and programs that are not recognized are the first steps to cleaning the machine. SRT may in some cases only offer a mirage of self-cleaning, a false sense of release (which still may be helpful in some cases), yet may not really address the beings vessel; ourselves and what really needs awareness.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Most of what we post and discuss IS OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. We just have the nasty habit of experimenting ourselves to see if they are telling the truth or not.

Hm. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing!

I'm curious -- from your personal experience, when smoking the non-corporate cigs, do you find any difference in the addiction itself? Do you still crave nicotine in the same way other smokers do? In other words, do you get grumpy or tired when it's time for a new fix?

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't smoke, but addiction is one of those things I've studied over the years because I find it really interesting (and because I've experienced addiction, as well).

Nicotine is addictive. But the commercial cigs have things added that sends the nicotine to the brain faster. Which can make it more addictive. But if you smoke a pack a day of organic additive free tobacco and try to quit for a day, you will feel the addiction. In my experience is is about as addictive as caffeine. And it varies by individual like caffeine. Some people can smoke or drink caffeine occasionally and don't feel withdrawal when they stop. I am not one of those people. :)

 

[Minas Tirith]

Nicotine is addictive.

Not so sure any more. Considering that people with the genetic profile need nicotine, it would be just a natural process for them to try and get it. Like one starts taking Magnesium, realizing that it does one a lot of good and feeling funny when one is not taking it. Why would such a person want to quit?

I always wondered why some smokers could easily stop smoking while for others it's almost impossible to do so or why other people have a strong aversion towards it. After reading about the genetic profile it made a lot of sense.

Also, nicotine seems to be on a different scale than alcohol or weed - even though it's also named a "recreational drug". The latter work with or through the emotional center, helping to dumb it down, like: "I want to forget my emotional pain, therefore I drink". These drugs (like others as LSD or cocaine) knock you out, transport you to a different reality, make you become a different person - in short helping you losing yourself) whereas nicotine from my experience helps you stay more in the present and clear, which makes it so dangerous to the PTB.

(Please note that I consider myself not fitting the genetic profile, and although first I do experience what Mr. Premise posted about, a great mental clarity, I get dizzy and anxious afterwards).

When I started smoking I also started to observe smokers around me, and there is obviously a lot of peer pressure involved as well, also quite a few smokers (mostly women) do not inhale - and one can hardly call that a physical addiction.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts.

M.T.

 

[meta-agnostic]

Most of what we post and discuss IS OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. We just have the nasty habit of experimenting ourselves to see if they are telling the truth or not.

Hm. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing!

I'm curious -- from your personal experience, when smoking the non-corporate cigs, do you find any difference in the addiction itself? Do you still crave nicotine in the same way other smokers do? In other words, do you get grumpy or tired when it's time for a new fix?

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't smoke, but addiction is one of those things I've studied over the years because I find it really interesting (and because I've experienced addiction, as well).

Interestingly enough, I had a prolonged episode of not being able to smoke yesterday, about four hours.

I did notice that I was not as grumpy or moody as I would have been had I still been a Camel smoker. I also noticed that when I finally did get to light one up that I didn't get the crazy head rush that I would have gotten with the mainstream cigs.

I've been smoking hand rolled, organic tobacco for about two years now, previous to that I had smoked Camels for almost twenty years.

In conclusion I would say that there is a much lower level of withdrawal associated with natural tobacco according to my experience.

I was never a regular smoker until age 32 - about 4 years ago. Before that I had smoked maybe a dozen cigarettes total in my life. This may mean I don't fit the genetic profile.

I started out slowly with regular American Spirits then switched to hand-rolled organic NAS and also pipe tobacco that is claimed to be close to organic (no additives at least). I don't think I quite reach the equivalent of a pack a day but I still smoke at least some every day and at regular intervals throughout the day.

When circumstances arise where I cannot smoke (at least not without raising the ire of relatives etc. who would look down upon it) I sort of forget that I smoke for sometimes a day or more until I'm either back in unobserved surroundings or something in media, etc. reminds me of smoking. Then I sort of get the idea of "oh yeah, that would be nice, I'll make a note to do it as soon as I can." A few times when I've gone as long as 3 days without smoking it becomes high on the list of things I would like to do but it still doesn't feel like a really urgent need. It's sort of a relief once I can get a fix but it's not not like I'm at the point of climbing the walls, scratching my eyes out or anything.

Not sure if this more because I don't fit the genetic profile or because I never smoked enough additive-laden cigarettes to get hooked on those. Just based on anecdotal stories from people who switched from regular cigarettes to natural additive-free, it sounds like some of the addictiveness of the former may carry over. Then again, that could be because they have the genetic profile and that's why they started smoking regular cigarettes in the first place.

 

[Laura]

Nicotine is addictive.

Not so sure any more. Considering that people with the genetic profile need nicotine, it would be just a natural process for them to try and get it. Like one starts taking Magnesium, realizing that it does one a lot of good and feeling funny when one is not taking it. Why would such a person want to quit?

I always wondered why some smokers could easily stop smoking while for others it's almost impossible to do so or why other people have a strong aversion towards it. After reading about the genetic profile it made a lot of sense.

Also, nicotine seems to be on a different scale than alcohol or weed - even though it's also named a "recreational drug". The latter work with or through the emotional center, helping to dumb it down, like: "I want to forget my emotional pain, therefore I drink". These drugs (like others as LSD or cocaine) knock you out, transport you to a different reality, make you become a different person - in short helping you losing yourself) whereas nicotine from my experience helps you stay more in the present and clear, which makes it so dangerous to the PTB.

Yes. I wrote about it extensively in The Wave and included a whole raft of scientific info. Nicotine actually does numerous beneficial things for the body and brain.

My best guess is that those who have the "genetic profile" just got some genes that were either damaged or belong to a different environment and don't work well in this one. Let's face it, having more acetylcholine receptors in an environment such as ours is seriously adaptive for survival. If I didn't have to think so hard, stay so aware, deal with myriads of toxins, and could just veg out a lot instead, I wouldn't need to smoke because I wouldn't need all that acetylcholine pumping.

 

[Alkhemist]

Wow, what a fascinating subject! As someone who worked as an "addiction professional" (HA!), it's amazing (well, not really anymore) that this info isn't even discussed among therapists who treat addiction.

I'd like to learn more about the "genetic profile." It makes sense to me that there might be one since I've never become addicted despite smoking occasionally. Anyone have a link to this research?

My partner has switched to the Native American organic brand cigs not too long ago. Are these as good as the hand-rolled ones?

Also, how to the ecigs rate in this experiment? They claim they're cleaner than the regular types. What do you think?

And thanks for all the info, guys! Very interesting!

 

[dant]

As always, great questions and session!

 

[Psalehesost]

My partner has switched to the Native American organic brand cigs not too long ago. Are these as good as the hand-rolled ones?

Throughout the US, pre-rolled cigarettes now come with strips of carpet glue in the paper, for "fire safety". So while the tobacco itself (aside from the paper) is clean in your partner's brand, it's still better to roll one's own. (EDIT: Or alternatively, smoke tobacco in a pipe.)

Also, how to the ecigs rate in this experiment? They claim they're cleaner than the regular types. What do you think?

They contain nicotine, and deliver it quite well (and safely), but they lack other beneficial substances in tobacco, including but probably not limited to MAO inhibitors. Smokers here have found that they are a reasonable short-term substitute, but that real tobacco remains the best.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Regarding the smoking and genetic profile link ...

It might be good to rule other things out first, before jumping to the conclusion that one doesn't fit the genetic profile ... Unfortunately I can't find it anymore, but recently somebody mentioned a link about the interaction of smoking with Candida. So if you still have Candida, it might be difficult for that reason ...

M.T.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Regarding the smoking and genetic profile link ...

It might be good to rule other things out first, before jumping to the conclusion that one doesn't fit the genetic profile ... Unfortunately I can't find it anymore, but recently somebody mentioned a link about the interaction of smoking with Candida. So if you still have Candida, it might be difficult for that reason ...

M.T.

I mentioned the Candida and smoking connection. A search on the forum will bring up quite a lot of info about smoking tobacco being anti-candida and having Candida overgrowth will make people have an aversion to smoking and tobacco smoke. I'm pretty sure there's info in the long "Is smoking... good?" thread, but there may be a few other threads with info about it (if I remember correctly). Also, if memory serves there's some articles on SOTT about this - so worth a search for those interested. Don't have too much time right now to search and provide links - have to get offline soon (also it's good for people to get in the habit of using the search function on the forum and SOTT before asking others to do it for them).

 

[Chad]

Regarding the smoking and genetic profile link ...

It might be good to rule other things out first, before jumping to the conclusion that one doesn't fit the genetic profile ... Unfortunately I can't find it anymore, but recently somebody mentioned a link about the interaction of smoking with Candida. So if you still have Candida, it might be difficult for that reason ...

M.T.

I mentioned the Candida and smoking connection. A search on the forum will bring up quite a lot of info about smoking tobacco being anti-candida and having Candida overgrowth will make people have an aversion to smoking and tobacco smoke. I'm pretty sure there's info in the long "Is smoking... good?" thread, but there may be a few other threads with info about it (if I remember correctly). Also, if memory serves there's some articles on SOTT about this - so worth a search for those interested. Don't have too much time right now to search and provide links - have to get offline soon (also it's good for people to get in the habit of using the search function on the forum and SOTT before asking others to do it for them).

I wonder if there is any correlation to the sugar junkies and "i can't BREATHE if somebody is smoking within 100 metres of me", candida and their support of the smoking ban? In the sense that there's a double whammy; there's the conditioning, but that's in addition to a biological reaction? i know my lifelong sugar supping mother hates smoke! (all the while she's exhibiting symptoms of diabetes)

 

[Minas Tirith]

Thanks Seekin Truth!

I wonder if there is any correlation to the sugar junkies and "i can't BREATHE if somebody is smoking within 100 metres of me", candida and their support of the smoking ban? In the sense that there's a double whammy; there's the conditioning, but that's in addition to a biological reaction? i know my lifelong sugar supping mother hates smoke! (all the while she's exhibiting symptoms of diabetes)

Indeed. Plus, since almost everybody is a sugar-addict, many will be anti-smoking, too. Two flies with one stroke ... In case of genetic profile, it probably overrides everything ...

M.T.

 

[davey72]

Nicotine is addictive.

Not so sure any more. Considering that people with the genetic profile need nicotine, it would be just a natural process for them to try and get it. Like one starts taking Magnesium, realizing that it does one a lot of good and feeling funny when one is not taking it. Why would such a person want to quit?

I always wondered why some smokers could easily stop smoking while for others it's almost impossible to do so or why other people have a strong aversion towards it. After reading about the genetic profile it made a lot of sense.

Also, nicotine seems to be on a different scale than alcohol or weed - even though it's also named a "recreational drug". The latter work with or through the emotional center, helping to dumb it down, like: "I want to forget my emotional pain, therefore I drink". These drugs (like others as LSD or cocaine) knock you out, transport you to a different reality, make you become a different person - in short helping you losing yourself) whereas nicotine from my experience helps you stay more in the present and clear, which makes it so dangerous to the PTB.

(Please note that I consider myself not fitting the genetic profile, and although first I do experience what Mr. Premise posted about, a great mental clarity, I get dizzy and anxious afterwards).

When I started smoking I also started to observe smokers around me, and there is obviously a lot of peer pressure involved as well, also quite a few smokers (mostly women) do not inhale - and one can hardly call that a physical addiction.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts.

M.T.

I would have to agree that nocotine itself is not addictive. I have heard this from others as well that when they were smoking additive free tobacco they could take or leave it after awhile but when smoking commeecial cigarrettes they could not. Many of the additives are already known to be addictive as well.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Nicotine is addictive.

Not so sure any more. Considering that people with the genetic profile need nicotine, it would be just a natural process for them to try and get it. Like one starts taking Magnesium, realizing that it does one a lot of good and feeling funny when one is not taking it. Why would such a person want to quit?

I always wondered why some smokers could easily stop smoking while for others it's almost impossible to do so or why other people have a strong aversion towards it. After reading about the genetic profile it made a lot of sense.

Also, nicotine seems to be on a different scale than alcohol or weed - even though it's also named a "recreational drug". The latter work with or through the emotional center, helping to dumb it down, like: "I want to forget my emotional pain, therefore I drink". These drugs (like others as LSD or cocaine) knock you out, transport you to a different reality, make you become a different person - in short helping you losing yourself) whereas nicotine from my experience helps you stay more in the present and clear, which makes it so dangerous to the PTB.

(Please note that I consider myself not fitting the genetic profile, and although first I do experience what Mr. Premise posted about, a great mental clarity, I get dizzy and anxious afterwards).

When I started smoking I also started to observe smokers around me, and there is obviously a lot of peer pressure involved as well, also quite a few smokers (mostly women) do not inhale - and one can hardly call that a physical addiction.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts.

M.T.

I would have to agree that nocotine itself is not addictive. I have heard this from others as well that when they were smoking additive free tobacco they could take or leave it after awhile but when smoking commeecial cigarrettes they could not. Many of the additives are already known to be addictive as well.

Sorry, for most people nicotine is addictive. The proof of that is that you can develop a tolerance for increasing amounts, and you go through withdrawal when you quit. Maybe not for 100% of the people but some high percentage. Plus there are millions of people who dearly wish they could quit and can't. That, to me, is a sign of an addictive substance. I think the resistance to calling it that is that "addictive" has a negative connotation. But caffeine is addictive, too, and there is no stigma against caffeine addicts.

 

[Alkhemist]

Sorry, for most people nicotine is addictive. The proof of that is that you can develop a tolerance for increasing amounts, and you go through withdrawal when you quit. Maybe not for 100% of the people but some high percentage.

Plus there are millions of people who dearly wish they could quit and can't. That, to me, is a sign of an addictive substance.

Keep in mind those "millions of people" are most likely smoking the standard high-additive variety.

But yes, nicotine is addictive. Because of its mechanism of action, it's self-reinforcing by first activating acetylcholine receptors, which causes the increase in blood pressure and heart rate, the release of epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrendal glands, and increases the tone and activity of the gastrointestinal tract. It then activates the midbrain dopamine neurons, which creates the "feel good" effect. That's the reinforcement, and it's a powerful one.

However, addiction itself isn't necessarily a negative; we are all addicted to air, water, and food. We necessarily live in a thick soup of chemical reactions here in Third Density!

Interestingly, nicotine is also extremely toxic -- a drop of pure nicotine can kill you. The limit is considered to be approximately 60mgs (smokers maintain levels only between about 30 to 40mgs per ml of plasma).