This just in…
Peter Jennings is still dead.
I know, it seems almost crass to make fun of dead people, (almost) but I am not really making fun of him. I’m making fun of the media. I understand that he is one of the few noteworthy journalists that actually read very well from a teleprompter. Ok… that was mean. I never watched Peter Jennings… ever. I can’t tell you if he was any good at his job. I am assuming so as he kept it for a very long time. But there is one thing I know for a fact… the man smoked! The shock! The horror! The valuable lesson! The soapbox!
Why is it any time someone dies from cancer people feel it necessary to get on their anti-smoking soapboxes (and ex-smokers are by far the worst) before the body is even cold? Don’t you think that perhaps the more appropriate time for blaming the dearly departed for their death may be a little further down the road then 15 minutes after the announcement? His family is now in mourning and probably feeling bad enough about his cancer, and some self-righteous prigs feel it is necessary to point and bellow “THIS IS WHAT SMOKING DOES TO YOU, EVIL HEATHEN!!!!!!!!!!”
Now, as an ex-smoker, let me make something perfectly clear to all the non-smokers and the ex-smokers that have forgotten - it doesn’t matter how many times you tell a smoker that it is bad for their health, they will not and can not quit (successfully) until they are ready. The more you nag and berate, the more they will smoke out of spite. We’re kind of stupid that way. Also, keep in mind that smoking, like alcohol, heroin, cocaine and many other assorted drugs is addictive by nature. It just kills me that everyone treats smokers with disgust and distain while all the while making excuses for other addicts. The only difference is that smokers are the only addicts that can continue to positively contribute to society while in the mighty death grip of their favorite drug. So, don’t they deserve a little of the sympathy usually reserved for those morons that smoke, inject or pill themselves into oblivion?
And why is it that when some asshat movie legend or young star is found dead in a pile of his or her own vomit due to not knowing when to say when, it is the stuff of legend. Marilyn Monroe, River Phoenix, Sid Vicious, Janis Joplin, Chris Farley, John Belushi … why are they idolized for their stupidity and selfishness? And why are their deaths any more tragic then the death of a smoker?
But whatever…
As an ex-smoker I can say this: It is very difficult to quit smoking. There is so many different parts of that particular addiction which is why so many people backslide into the addiction. There is a whole ceremony to lighting up a smoke and it is terrifying to get on with life when you are no longer lighting up. And your body will sabotage you every chance it gets. I now smoke in my dreams, something I never did while smoking. I can’t drink alcohol without the instant craving for tobacco, I cannot smell a cigarette without salivating just a little, and being disgusted with myself for doing so… Peter quit smoking for 20 years, and backslid into the habit on 9/11. Should he be scorned for it? I can tell my readers honestly that if I had quit smoking before that day, I probably would have started up again. As it was, I spent a good deal of my time outside in the smoking area.
So, Pete … My non-judgmental sympathies to your family and may you rest in peace.
Ethne, I feel sorry for Dana Reeves who is now diagnoised with lung cancer and she has never smoked a day in her life. I always wondered why people thought you had to smoke to get cancer of the lungs. Evidentally there are other ways to get it. I was not a fan of Peter Jennings but I feel for his family. They have lost a husband, dad, etc.
I've never smoked but my son does and I know he has tried to quit many times. He is really addicted to it. I was 13 yrs. old when my dad was trying to quit. I watched him work himself away from it and it was really hard for him. He finally was able to get away from it by sucking on lemon drops. I thought to myself that if it was that hard to quit that I never wanted to start. To this day, I have never smoked. I have a feeling that I would become addicted to it if I ever did. I have enough trouble with food. That's another whole story.
Posted by: Lucy Stern at August 11, 2005 02:40 PMStaying "quit" is one of the harder things I deal with. In fact, I backslid just today, and feel pretty danm guilty about it.
I didn't smoke as much as Shawn, but I still get the cravings, especially when I'm stressed, or drinking a beer. You just can't understand until you've been there, or been close to somebody struggling with it.
Fortunately, Shawn and I quit at the same time last year. I just can't smell it without wanting one. Health reasons don't come into it when you're craving a smoke. The addiction uses a more basic aprt of the brain, I guess, because when I want one, all I can think about is how good that smoke will feel in my throat.
Then today aside, I usually make myself take a walk, or drink a glass of water, or just close my eyes and breathe. That, and staying quit for Shawn and the Bean's sake is what keeps me going.
Thanks for bringing this up today, Ethne. Oh, and:
GET OUT OF MY HEAD.
Hugs,
Linda
Sorry : "aprt" = "part" PIMF.
Posted by: Linda at August 11, 2005 03:07 PM