Although for most smokers, the
assumption is that their habit and their addiction are synonymous, this is
not quite true. In fact, my Microsoft Word for Windows thesaurus defines
"habit" as synonymous with "inclination, tendency, routine", while
"addiction" brings up "fixation, chemical dependency, obsession". I see
that as a dramatic difference of definitions, don’t you?
I see it as far more than a slight
variance in semantic interpretation. To me, there is a huge discrepancy
between an inclination or tendency, and a fixation or obsession. Defining
these differences is the root tool of the process described in my book,
"How to Quit Smoking Without Willpower or Struggle". Knowing how much of
your smoking is habit and how much is addiction is the huge step toward
dismantling and removing both from your life.
I separate them this way. The addiction
is to the nicotine. The rest is the habit.
It is my experience from my own
cigarette struggle, and assisting others with theirs, that the addiction
to nicotine in a seriously addicted, long-term smoker is actually about
four cigarettes a day. Once all, or most, of the habitual behavior is
removed, four fully smoked cigarettes per day will satisfy most nicotine
addictions.
Yet most heavy smokers assume that each
cigarette smoked, each urge to light up, stems from the chemical
addiction. This is simply not so. Cigarette habit/addiction is far more
complex than that.
Most, seemingly all, of the current
discussion about cigarettes revolves around the nicotine content. But
little, if any, of the material I’ve recently researched discusses how the
tobacco companies have attached cigarettes to the smoker’s self-image,
sexuality, and social acceptability.
Although I have placed an article in the
reference section of my book about illegal cigarette "product placement"
in the movie industry, since Wilson Key's book, "Subliminal Seduction" in
1973, I have found no information whatsoever about the subliminal
advertising techniques used by all the tobacco companies. And I am not
speaking about suggestive images of people being happy, I'm talking about
the word "SEX" quite literally being micro-embedded into the ads, among
other practices.
These techniques, having nothing to do
with the drug (nicotine) addiction, nonetheless have an addicting affect
of their own, on subconscious psychological levels the tobacco companies
pray never get mentioned in the press. While not as powerful as the
chemical addiction, these tactics alone may keep many smokers "hooked",
even if there was no nicotine in the cigarettes at all!
The old adage, "It takes one to know
one," certainly seems to apply to smokers. I don’t believe anyone who has
never experienced that panic of finding out that it is 1:00 in the
morning, they are out of smokes and money, and there’s no stores within
miles can know how that feels, forget be able to teach anyone else how to
make that craving "go away". While an "eater", finding themselves out of
munchies, will likely not start going door to door in the middle of the
night, asking neighbors for a Twinkie or a baloney sandwich, a true "butt
junky" will not hesitate.
I know. Been there, done that!
So when I say that I know the way out of
this insidious problem infecting fifty million Americans and perhaps ten
times that many more throughout the world, it is not from some theory I’ve
dreamt up, or some strategy I’ve designed because "it ought to work". IT
DOES WORK. I successfully used it to end my sixteen year compulsion, and
have helped others as well.
I know there are those who will say,
"Sure, it worked for you. But I’m different. I’m more
addicted than you were. I have less willpower than you did. I’m
not as smart as you. It’s harder for me."
That can be true...but only if they want it to be. The only
difference between those folks and me is I decided to quit, and
they really don’t want to quit.
Sure, they will say, "Yes, I do! You
have no idea how many times and how hard I’ve tried! If I could quit right
now, I’d do it on the spot." But unfortunately, they are lying. Not so
much to you or me. They are lying to the one person with whom they must be
on the level...themselves.
Another semantic differentiation that
must be made is the difference between "trying" and "doing". While common
understanding is that the first leads to the second, this is only true for
the first few efforts. Then, "trying" can become a way of behavior in and
of itself, having little to do with "doing".
As a Certified Master Hypnotist for
nearly twenty-five years, I have performed hundreds of theatrical hypnosis
demonstrations called "hypnosis shows", as well as the many instructional
seminars in clinical hypnotherapy I have given for clinicians.
One of the "tests" to "prove" a subject
is "under" is I have them clasp their hands together, interlacing and
overlapping their fingers. Then I tell them to "try" to get them apart,
but that they "can’t". The confirming suggestion (instruction) is, "In
fact, the harder you try, the more you find you can’t. Trying only makes
them grip tighter!" After they have demonstrated that indeed, they "can’t"
get the hands apart, I say, "Now, on the count of three, you will release
your fingers and your hands will come apart quickly and easily." Of
course, you know how this always works out.
The point is this. In the first part of
the test, I tell the subjects to "try" but not "do". In the second, I tell
them exactly what to do, and they do it. Two completely separate
actions. Therefore, I assert that anyone "trying" to quit smoking is
probably not in the process of quitting, and someone truly in the process
is not "trying", they are "doing".
In a personal growth training seminar I
attended many years ago, among the many valuable lessons I learned about
people, life, and myself was simply this: You can generally tell what
someone really wants to do, and will continue to do, by what they are
doing now, and have done in the past.
It’s called "based on results." It
assumes that we all do exactly what we want to do all the time. That each
choice we make and action we take leads us to an inevitable, predictable
end. That end, to the largest degree and general certainty, can be
foreseen. Perhaps not by the person taking that action the first time, but
certainly by anyone who's been down that road a time or two.
As to the issue of willpower, I must say
that I am a lazy person. I will always try to find the "easy way out". It
is my nature (as was, I now choose to believe, the man who invented the
wheel). It was, for many years, a personality trait that caused me to feel
guilty, and discount myself as somehow unworthy. I actually believed in
that "No pain, no gain" crap. I now know "gain" can be made, not only
painlessly, but while having fun and enjoyment at the same time.
(The following story is true and
accurate to the very best of my recollection and information. Apologies to
Charles Tate and any other family member who may find errors in my
account.)
Later in life I made a friend named
George, a man who, at thirty-four years old, quit working "hard", and
became "lazy". He’d lost his $600 per week job, his home, ended his
long-term relationship, and according to him, was nearly dead broke. He
just laid down on an army cot in a friend’s garage "to think", where he
told me he'd stayed for "a couple of years."
When he moved out of that garage and
rented a room in my home, he was worth over $25,000,000, and was earning
nearly a million more a month, net! About a year and a half after
that, he took his new business public at $87 Million and took home $10
Million the first day of offering. Less than ten years later that business
he started in a friend's garage sold to Borland for $2.2 Billion!
Was he smart? He told me his IQ was 90.
George said, "That’s just one point above moron, buddy!", which of course
it's not. It's just the bottom point of average.
Was he educated? Dropped out of school
in the 10th grade, later to get a GED. He had absolutely no foreknowledge
or training whatsoever about the one product that brought him the bulk of
his success. In fact, George never even learned how to fully or properly
operate it!
Was he industrious? He told me he worked
about six hours a day, and most of that with his hands in his pockets. In
his own words, he was "...lazy as an ol’ coon hound!"
Was he a physically compelling presence?
He was overweight and prematurely balding. His constant daily uniform was
a pair of worn-out Chinos, and a K-Mart white dress-shirt, always open at
the collar, cuffs turned back, with a pocket protector full of pens and
pencils, and many stripes of ink above the pocket from where he'd missed
the protector. I never saw him wear a suit or tie. He could pass for the
janitor of any building he happened to be in. He had a "Matlock" type of
soft-spoken country-boy charm. But no, he was not a compelling presence in
the movie star sense. He appeared to be just an average guy. In fact,
except for the incredible income, that is what he was for the most part.
Just an average guy, enjoying his life.
We had many late evening talks about
what he'd done and was doing, and how easy it seemed. What he finally got
through to me was that he had simply "...decided..." to get rich. Not
"try" to get rich. Not "work" at getting rich. As Nike keeps saying, "Just
do it." George just did it.
How? With only his self-taught
understanding of computers (he built one of the first Altair 8080-based
home computers from a kit, and immediately set about studying computers
and educating himself) George decided to make his fortune somewhere in
that industry. He began a mail-order software business, Discount Software,
one of the first of its kind. He started reading computer magazines and
studying software for inclusion in his business. One was highly
recommended to him. He read a magazine article about this program that a
man had written at home as a hobby. He read the article several times. He
sensed he was on to something big, something apparently no one else had
recognized.
When he finally did understand the
implications and ramifications of what this program could truly become, he
found the programmer, with whom he met on the man's lunch break at work.
They wrote a one page, hand-written contract on a yellow legal pad, giving
George the exclusive right to sell the program. George agreed to pay the
programmer (who’d apparently lost faith in the value of the program he
called Vulcan), a small royalty for each copy he could sell. The
programmer readily accepted. When they parted that day, he wished George,
"Good luck!"
That program was called dBASE! Yes,
dBASE! Yes, Borland’s (now named Inprise) foundation for their Enterprise
Technology! (I believe dBASE was recently acquired by Ksoft, Inc. To get a
detailed history of the evolution of dBASE, see
http://www.sakia.se/dbulletin/bu03hist.htm
