[Nika2003 (OP)]

I'm interested in this problem because my father died from smoking. The pollution caused by cigarettes does not stop in our bodies or in the air; it also affects the land in which we live, and the water we drink. Every day millions of cigarette butts are thrown to the ground. They find themselves in rivers and lakes, where fish and animals eat them by mistake and quite often die from it. The rest is left on the ground to decompose, which will take an average of 25 years, while all chemicals and additives leach to the ground and pollute the soil and plants. It looks unattractive, this is a great fire hazard in dry weather, and it is extremely harmful to the environment.
Probably, the most influential aspect of cigarettes actually produces them. There is land used to grow crops around the world that could be better used by planting more trees or products for starving children in third world countries. These crops are also often sprayed with a large amount of harmful pesticides and chemicals, because tobacco is a very fragile plant and is likely to become ill. It also requires a lot of trees for the production and packaging of cigarettes. The production of cigarettes uses four miles of paper per hour only for rolling and packing cigarettes. One tree is wasted for every three hundred cigarettes. These trees can filter out pollutants already in the air, instead of hacking them to add new ones.
The tobacco industry is completely unwilling to use more advanced technologies to reduce the impact that they have on the environment, as every year it gets too many of its billions of dollars in profits. They often try to grow more trees, but because they use trees to dry the tobacco and for rolling and packaging, it probably does not concern the environment, but concerns the loss of wood sources that encourage them to do so. They do not care about the contamination of our bodies, so it is unlikely that they will think twice about pollution.
The only way to stop them from harming the environment is to stop buying their products. Quitting smoking is difficult, but it can be done, and it's not just that smokers harm their bodies, but also about the harm they cause on the ground, and the pain they cause their friends and families.
Your opinion on how to stop this crazy

[alancalverd]

For many people, smoking is a solution, not a problem.

Quitting is easy. Unlike heroin or steroids, sudden and total withdrawal from nicotine will not harm you. The only problem is social - a smoker has a selfdefined image and status, and participates in many primitive rituals for comfort. Becoming a nonsmoker is a bit like retirement or redundancy: some people love the freedom and the money, others regret the loss of social milieu and routine.

I'm not sure that tobacco farming does any more harm to the environment  than wheat (remember the Dustbowl, or even the Sahara) or beef.

At least in the UK, all tobacco products have carried a bold warning of the lethal consequences of their use for decades. Sympathy for you, my friend, but your dad made an informed choice, and if he extinguished and binned his butts properly, there is no legitimate point of criticism. Littering of any sort is a civil offence.

The only way to reduce the incidence of smoking, I think, is to continue to point out that it is an expensive, slow,  moderately effective and always painful suicide, and causes irritation to others. I used to work in an office with a sign on the door: "You smoke, we drink. If you exhale in our office, we will urinate in yours."

[Bored chemist]

sudden and total withdrawal from nicotine will not harm you. The only problem is social - a smoker has a selfdefined image and status,

I think you will find that's a false dichotomy.
There is a third option; abrupt withdrawal will not kill you, but it will make you feel like s***.
That's why people find it hard to quit- and why things like nicotine patches help.
That rather casts doubt on this psychobabble "Becoming a nonsmoker is a bit like retirement "

[alancalverd]

Not a great lover of psychobabble (my lover is a psychologist) but I have noticed that acquaintances who "try to give up" with patches, gum, electrofags, new year resolutions or therapy, generally fail, whilst those who just extinguish a ciggie and say "no more" generally succeed. It's (nearly) all in the mind.

"Makes you feel like s**t" is no reason for giving up giving up. Hangovers make you feel like s**t but alcoholics put up with them every day. That is a physical addiction.

[Bored chemist]

"Makes you feel like s**t" is no reason for giving up giving up. Hangovers make you feel like s**t but alcoholics put up with them every day. That is a physical addiction.

You have mistaken  the toxicity of alcohol- which gives you a hangover- for withdrawal which is different.
This suggests that you don't actually know what you are talking about.
Do you have any qualifications in this field?
If you had, I'd imagine you could distinguish  a hangover ( mortality rate about zero)  from withdrawal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delirium_tremens
with a death rate of 20%  without treatment.

[Bored chemist]

have noticed that acquaintances

Thanks. The next time I need a clear distinction between anecdotes and proper data, I might cite you as an example.
I'm not saying that there isn't a psychological factor- there obviously is, but...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27009521

[alancalverd]

Since my assertions are supported by both the sources you quote, I think you might do well to review your response.

I'd imagine you could distinguish  a hangover ( mortality rate about zero)  from withdrawal

is exactl;y the implication of my last two sentences on the subject.

Turning specifically to the "smoking" paper:

You are doubtless aware of the inherent bias of any "meta-analysis". For readers unfamiliar with the term, it is the process of combining the results of several published papers. The quality question to be asked here (indeed always) is who published the original papers and why.

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care.

. Presumably the original research was carried out by people interested in promoting some kind of intervention (including "usual care", whatever that may be) so (a) it is unlikely that any papers showing the intervention to useless or worse, ever reached the editors (b) "success" was defined as a 6-month cessation, validated "where available", but with no indication of how many resuts were self-reported or validated, and (c) there is no mention of the success rate of smokers who just said "f**k it", which is the group that interests me.

No big deal. It's what we expect from published research nowadays - nuggets buried in bullshit..

 

[Bored chemist]

Hangovers make you feel like s**t but alcoholics put up with them every day.

No, they do not "put up with them" they drink again to escape them at the first opportunity.

However, a hangover is not the same as withdrawal is it?

You are doubtless aware of the inherent bias of any "meta-analysis".

Yes, I am.
Do you really think that

I have noticed that acquaintances...

is any better?

[alancalverd]

Exactly the point: when you get to the point that the prospect of a daily hangover is tolerable and withdrawal is dangerous, you are physically addicted,whether to alcohol or heroin. We seem to agree that this does not happen with nicotine.

Caffeine is an interesting case: according the FAA, most US adults suffer impaired judgement and reaction times if not regularly topped up with tea or coffee - the recommendation is for habituated  pilots to carry a caffeine drink on any sector over 4 hours. But the "s**t" feeling only lasts about 72 hours, after which performance returns to an acceptable level for the task.

Re: smoking anecdotes. Scientists pursue their observations, fools ignore them. The saddest kind of fool is the one who unquestioningly ranks third party "authority" above experience - "pew fodder".

I had a brief involvement with an e-cigarette developer who wanted to make a smokeless, unperfumed inhaler for habituated soldiers, pilots etc who cannot smoke on duty but rely on nic for alertness. Not sure whether the project got anywhere - I moved on to a different device.