Why do they call them "survivors" of sexual assault when almost all live through it?

[DMBFFF]

You pout when people tell you that you're wrong.

More a smirk.

 

[dolf]

I doubt anyone really believes that.

 

[DMBFFF]

I doubt anyone really believes that.

We all have our doubts about stuff.

 

[DMBFFF]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDO0cuzdpY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZjqFxPdtP0

You know what kind of pisses me off?

posters, particularly rightist ones, who post YouTube links with no titles, duration, or helpful descriptions or comments.

Put some fucking effort in your post, Trumpster!

Breathe--Ministry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO0nfoV771s
5:40
86,888 views

Breathe...Breathe...BREATHE you fucka

 

[Oblimo]

Ethelridge and Dr. Ford are both suffered (one by a disease that will kill perhaps a a few 100 000s of North American women this year, one by some drunken frat-boy asshole 30 years ago).

Ethelridge and Dr. Ford are both survivours—thus their suffering is the same.

You’re just playing Silly Buggers with language.

I will no longer question this, because as I have suffered neither, I have no legitimate opinion on the matter and my questioning of all of this is largely based on a terrible lack of sympathy based on my male privilege—a privilege that only a handful of women on this continent can equal (i.e. compensate their lack of such male privilege) through increased effort.

And this reads as 100% pure troll snark.

 

[DMBFFF]

Ethelridge and Dr. Ford are both suffered (one by a disease that will kill perhaps a a few 100 000s of North American women this year, one by some drunken frat-boy asshole 30 years ago).

Ethelridge and Dr. Ford are both survivours—thus their suffering is the same.

You’re just playing Silly Buggers with language.

My argument, I figure, is based mostly on quantity—generally if the term is appropriate given that in some of these cases its use is, I think, redundant.

Dolf's response is, at least I somewhat take it as, an argument ad hominem: as I haven't suffered sexual assault—at least not a fraction the typical woman, I presume, suffered/still-suffers—my arguments are thus invalid; and in these days of political correctness, where arguing against forces of political correctness—particularly as a man—puts me on the bad side, I generally let them win after peppering things with sarcasm.

It's like the term "Afro-American"—which SNL about 20 years ago mocked as a viable term. I prefer "black": it's one, not five, syllables and somewhat leaves the other term for those actually born in Africa. But at times it seems my use, if not insistence of use, of "black" might as well be "negro," in terms of standing out, so if we want to use 5-syllable terms as oppose to one, why should I, a privileged white person, who hasn't felt a fraction of racism as the typical Afro-American, Afro-Canadian, or others in the African diaspora, disagree.

Ditto "Indigenous" instead of "Aboriginal"—it seems there's a new term every 20 years; or LGBTQI2S—9 syllables.

This is not a "woe-is-me." Of course I have it good compared to others and yes, one should consider the other view. I just get annoyed about it from time to time.

I will no longer question this, because as I have suffered neither, I have no legitimate opinion on the matter and my questioning of all of this is largely based on a terrible lack of sympathy based on my male privilege—a privilege that only a handful of women on this continent can equal (i.e. compensate their lack of such male privilege) through increased effort.

And this reads as 100% pure troll snark.

Perhaps more passive-aggression.

Perhaps, but it's funny how things we ridicule come true.

Around 2006, the Onion had "Zambia elects black president."

Less than 3 years later, the US gets one.

Lisa Simpson commented about a President Trump. About 20 years later, the conman becomes one.

For most of the 201st decade, Canadian Liberals were divided between the Martin and Chretien factions (the what and the what?): the idea of the son of PET would become PM was almost ridiculous.




I used to get mad at people who didn't take a little time to learn the metric system. Now I think, if one wants to use a largely inferior measuring system, go ahead: forgive my use of those weird-sounding units.




At any rate, this will be my last post for a while, but I'll come back to it in several days.

Thanks for your post.

 

[CandiCame]

I used to, perhaps stupidly, think that cigarettes aren't as addictive as heroin.

Of course, I didn't know as I was addicted to neither: and in these issues, the addicts are perhaps the supreme authority on the subject.


Then I heard that cigarettes are as addictive as heroin: i.e. both were not only addictive, but equally addictive.

Now at a great risk of political incorrectness, I thought the reverse—that if cigarettes are as addictive as heroin, then heroin is as easy to kick as cigarettes.


But I mustn't say, or perhaps even think, such politically incorrect things.

I should accept the declarations based on quantification without question, while at the same time, if I encounter a the reverse, immediately resort to qualification.

Both are addictive.

Cigarettes are as addictive as heroin.

Ethelridge and Dr. Ford are both suffered (one by a disease that will kill perhaps a a few 100 000s of North American women this year, one by some drunken frat-boy asshole 30 years ago).

Ethelridge and Dr. Ford are both survivours—thus their suffering is the same.

I will no longer question this, because as I have suffered neither, I have no legitimate opinion on the matter and my questioning of all of this is largely based on a terrible lack of sympathy based on my male privilege—a privilege that only a handful of women on this continent can equal (i.e. compensate their lack of such male privilege) through increased effort.

I was never big on heroine, but I was in rehab with people who were. They still smoked. It's a LOT easier to kick heroine than it is to kick cigarettes, because you can't run into a gas station and pick up a pack of heroine. Once you cut ties with your social circle, there's nowhere to get it- and immersion therapy forces you to sever those ties until you're out of the DTs.

I used to do a LOT of shit- mostly narcotics, and I got over that but I still smoke. The thing is- I live in a culture where it is RIDICULOUSLY easy to get narcotics, where it's socially acceptable to do narcotics, where people don't give you an hour long lecture about how snorting pills will kill you because they'd be a hypocrite and they know it, where you can't just walk into a gas station and buy a bottle of oxis, but your mom probably has some in her purse. And they were still easier to quit than cigarettes. Because cigarettes just are... goddamn there's something in a tobacco leaf that just kicks your fucking ass.

You KNOW it's killing you, but it does it so slowly. You just "want to settle your nerves". You just "want to step outside for a second". You can FEEL it, in your heart mostly. You know, for a fact, that you're not getting any benefits (you're not getting high), but you still do it.

Because you have an addictive personality, and it's perfectly legal. You're an adult and you can smoke if you want to. More dangerous than weed by a long shot- but you can get it, you can use it, you can have something to do every two hours that satisfies the intense desire for routine and pain that comes with having an addictive personality disorder.

Pack of smokes will fucking kill you, man. Hardest thing in the world to fucking kick. There are so many recovering addicts or addicts in recovery who still smoke like fucking freight trains.

In immersion rehab, they're actually not allowed to withhold cigarettes (or anything that has chemically addictive qualities like caffeine) as a punishment. They can have a "no smoking on the premises" rule, but they HAVE to give you the nicotine. Got me out here looking like a dumbass with a $12 pack of gum that don't do SHIT.

 

[girlsmiley]

Why do they call them "survivors" of sexual assault when almost all of them live through it?

Well they could hardly call them “survivors” if they died, now could they?

Tedious fuck.

You talk a lot for someone with nothing to say.

 

[girlsmiley]

Cobby worked in Sydney and commuted daily from her home in Blacktown. On the day of the murder, she finished work at Sydney Hospital at 3 p.m. and met friends for dinner in nearby Redfern. Cobby then caught a train from Central railway station to Blacktown station. Arriving at Blacktown, she would usually ring her father who would pick her up. On the day of her death, she most likely decided to walk home after finding the phone to be out of order and no taxis available at the taxi rank.[2] Aside from her killers, only two witnesses saw Cobby after she left the train station.

Cobby was walking alone from the station along Newton Road, Blacktown around 10 p.m., when the gang of five men drove up beside her and stopped their stolen white HT Holden Kingswood.[5] Two men leaped from the car and dragged her into the vehicle, kicking and screaming. A 13-year-old boy, his younger sister and mother heard someone screaming from their house directly opposite and had gone outside in time to see Cobby forced into the attackers' car.[2] The boy ran across the road to help, but the car drove off before he reached it. Returning home he telephoned the police to report what he had seen. A few minutes later, their neighbour and his girlfriend arrived home and, after being told of the abduction, drove off to search for the car.[2] They eventually drove down Reen Road (now known as Peter Brock Drive), Prospect and stopped by the now-empty Holden, where he used a spot light to search the adjacent paddock. Seeing nothing in the paddock and believing the car he was looking for was a different model Holden, he decided to return home. The attackers later stated that they had hidden in the long grass to avoid the spotlight and waited for the man to leave.[6]

Once inside the car on Newton Road, Cobby had been ordered to strip off her clothes but refused, begging her attackers to let her go and saying she was married and also menstruating. Her attackers punched Cobby repeatedly, breaking her nose and both cheekbones, before forcing her to perform fellatio on all five men. The attackers then drove to a service station to purchase fuel using money stolen from Cobby's purse.[2] Cobby was then driven down Reen Road to the secluded paddock, while being held down in the car, raped repeatedly, and being continually beaten by her five attackers. They then dragged the brutally beaten Cobby into the paddock along a barbed wire fence, where they dumped her and continued to sexually and physically abuse her for some time. According to his taped confession, one of the attackers, John Travers, then became concerned that Cobby could identify them because she had seen their faces and heard their names, and convinced the other attackers to kill her.[2] Urged on by the others, Travers slit her throat, almost severing her head.[7]

 

[CandiCame]

Hey, GS, quick question WHAT THE FUCK?

 

[girlsmiley]

Hey, GS, quick question WHAT THE FUCK?

Anita Cobby. She did not survive her sexual assault.

From Wiki

Anita Lorraine Cobby was a 26-year-old Australian registered nurse and beauty pageant winner who was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered while walking home from Blacktown railway station.

 

[CandiCame]

Anita Cobby. She did not survive her sexual assault.

From Wiki

Anita Lorraine Cobby was a 26-year-old Australian registered nurse and beauty pageant winner who was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered while walking home from Blacktown railway station.

You just caught me off-guard. No "viewer discretion is advised" or nothing just RIGHT into the rape & murder.

 

[girlsmiley]

You just caught me off-guard. No "viewer discretion is advised" or nothing just RIGHT into the rape & murder.

Sorry.

I’m sick of assholes like DMBFuck up there talking shit.

 

[CandiCame]

Sorry.

I’m sick of assholes like DMBFuck up there talking shit.

That's absolutely fair. He even uses examples of shit that don't make sense, like the addiction thing.

 

[CandiCame]

He has trolled for rape stories for over a decade now. Ken needs help. I never liked him when he was growing up. I am happy I'm dead so I dont have to pretend any longer.

Sorry.

I’m sick of assholes like DMBFuck up there talking shit.

You might be giving him exactly what he wants...

 

[girlsmiley]

You might be giving him exactly what he wants...

It’s not like you can’t find articles about sexual assault online. Unfortunately, there are a gazillion.

The guy is either stupid, blind, ignorant, a wanker or all four. My money is on all four.

 

[DMBFFF]

Well I'm back sooner than I expected. I suppose I'll spend the next day or two—among RL activities—working on the bigger posts and longer threads.


We'll see.


(my 1500th post is coming up, and with it my habitual self-imposed 72 hour time of not posting afterwards—everybody say yeayyy!)

I was never big on heroine, but I was in rehab with people who were. They still smoked. It's a LOT easier to kick heroine than it is to kick cigarettes, because you can't run into a gas station and pick up a pack of heroine. Once you cut ties with your social circle, there's nowhere to get it- and immersion therapy forces you to sever those ties until you're out of the DTs.

I used to do a LOT of shit- mostly narcotics, and I got over that but I still smoke. The thing is- I live in a culture where it is RIDICULOUSLY easy to get narcotics, where it's socially acceptable to do narcotics, where people don't give you an hour long lecture about how snorting pills will kill you because they'd be a hypocrite and they know it, where you can't just walk into a gas station and buy a bottle of oxis, but your mom probably has some in her purse. And they were still easier to quit than cigarettes. Because cigarettes just are... goddamn there's something in a tobacco leaf that just kicks your fucking ass.

You KNOW it's killing you, but it does it so slowly. You just "want to settle your nerves". You just "want to step outside for a second". You can FEEL it, in your heart mostly. You know, for a fact, that you're not getting any benefits (you're not getting high), but you still do it.

Because you have an addictive personality, and it's perfectly legal. You're an adult and you can smoke if you want to. More dangerous than weed by a long shot- but you can get it, you can use it, you can have something to do every two hours that satisfies the intense desire for routine and pain that comes with having an addictive personality disorder.

Pack of smokes will fucking kill you, man. Hardest thing in the world to fucking kick. There are so many recovering addicts or addicts in recovery who still smoke like fucking freight trains.

In immersion rehab, they're actually not allowed to withhold cigarettes (or anything that has chemically addictive qualities like caffeine) as a punishment. They can have a "no smoking on the premises" rule, but they HAVE to give you the nicotine. Got me out here looking like a dumbass with a $12 pack of gum that don't do SHIT.

Sorry to hear about your troubles, and hope they end as soon and completely as possible.

Yeah, and I suppose—and this is me, the ignoramus posting—that heroin might do the body less long-term harm than, say, one or two packs a day—and there might be safe amounts—somewhat like alcohol-versus-tobacco: alcohol is not as bad as tobacco as there might be safe amounts—not much maybe, but such is there—maybe a shot of Johnny Walker for Dr. Jane Goodall, versus there's no case of a person smoking 2 packs of cigarettes, getting behind a steering wheel, and causing tragedy.

Still, my thinking isn't too refuted. If the popular assumption is that drug A is more, perhaps far more, addictive, than drug B, then along comes someone like the Surgeon General (I think it was the SG who made the claim about tobacco vis-à-vis heroin), who says B is as addictive as A is conversely saving that A is as easy to kick as B. While 10s of millions of North Americans are hooked on cigarettes, as many—perhaps more—have kicked the habit. Now if tobacco is as hard to kick as heroin, then conversely heroin is as easy to kick as tobacco, then why are we bothering with all the heroin—and perhaps other opioid—treatment attempts as a society? Maybe Nancy Reagan had something going on there.

Now to expose myself to even more attacks, I might venture to say that it might be possible that our society, by arguing dependency and addition, as oppose to citing a lack of willpower and that we have wills—elements of the left are denying freewill—and making it worse. Maybe the "you can't help it, you're addicted" bit might be encouraging people to say, "I can't help it, I'm addicted."

Look at all the fat Jews around—okay, only some of them are fat.
Nobody was fat in Auschwitz
When the prisoners of Auschwitz was liberated, there were no fatties.
I like to think that weight reduction of such magnitude (ar at least within health limits) needn't a bunch of Nazis.

One additional danger in me posting this is the difference of our respective countries—presumably the US is more punitive and less accommodating in addiction-treatment attempts. When I walk the streets of Toronto, I can easily ignore the occasional addict bothering me for change—pity the American woman who might have to run a gauntlet of men—maybe gun-toters—maybe gun-totering descendants of slaves: mind you, it does seem to be getting worse here.

But back to that what our drug-talk is supposed to be an analogy/metaphor to. The Yemeni woman who survived the bomb-blast—or to be less anti-American, the Syrian woman who survived the barrel-bomb blast—are more survivours than Dr. Ford—however her suffering and injury is, or valid her case against Kavanough—for the record, I think the hysterical emotional midget should never have been appointed and for him to bleat about his wife and children is to demean a psychological toughness I'm certain on their part—or maybe a chat with, say, Chelsea Clinton might help them.


If the gum don't do shit, why do it? I assume you've tried patches, vapping, and regular gum.

Again, best wishes.

Well they could hardly call them “survivors” if they died, now could they?

First off: love your avatar.


Second, your statement has a superficial logic. However: the redundancy. It'd be like describing two people as rich.

"She drove a DeLorean, wore Prada (or some other fashion thing that means so little to me that I don't know what it is), and lives in a Beverly Hills mansion—oh, and she's a millionaire."—the reader kinda figures it.

"She drives a moped—her only motor vehicle, wears stuff she got from the Sally Ann or similar places, and lives in a shack in the hills with no plumbing or (AC) electricity—oh, and she's a millionaire."—well, that stands out.

They're survivors because they live.

They're wealthy because they have lots of ostentatious wealth.

Okay, maybe my analogy is a bad one.

Maybe I should go back to the bus crash analogy somewhat.

Two women: one walked out of a flaming bus crash with barely a scratch, another was in a car that got dinged by a shopping cart someone erroneously thought would stop due to mechanical friction—the wheels seemed a little stuck, as well as go straight into the corral, but then the gunk causing it to be slow came off.

Both are survivours insofar that they lived, but calling the one in the latter case such is redundant.

Tedious fuck.

Yeah, maybe you should stop reading my posts—by all means, put me on ignore. (I think BBX50 does: he no like my abusive posts and porn-spamming on his spam alt-right threads. SpeareChucker has given me warning that he will if I ever PM again—another hysterical alt-rightist, I suppose.




DBMFFF uh...,
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1487166

(It seems the contents of my only and (I thought) innocuous PM sent to him were deleted by Laurel. No posting content that I 100% made, huh?)

https://media.8ch.net/file_store/341ddc2eac55e06762914e2ca3a743c0781aac5c11c555a819fceac92276deab.jpg

You talk a lot for someone with nothing to say.

That's right, girlsmiley, you go tell that pompous windbag what you really think of him!

I've already pissed off adrina and KimGordon67—I think: no reason why you should suffer my vapid posts

[A woman named "Cobby" was gang-raped, beaten-severely, and murdered. The details are so grusome that one mention in this thread is more than enough to get the picture that the last hours before her horrible death were, again, horrible.]

Now, what does this have to do with what I'm posting about?

Sorry.

I’m sick of assholes like DMBFuck up there talking shit.

Put me on ignore. Perhaps if you're lucky, I'll be banned from Literotica.

That's absolutely fair. He even uses examples of shit that don't make sense, like the addiction thing.

The drug argument is about quantity—is heroin worse than tobacco or are they about the same.

My argument about survivours is also about quantity—was Dr. Ford's life as imperiled as some lady in Sydney being dragged into a vehicle around 10 PM by guys she doesn't know—and presumably have less to fear from her as a witness.

You're a masochist, aren't you?

^ Is trolling for rape stories, the sick fuck.

He has trolled for rape stories for over a decade now. Ken needs help. I never liked him when he was growing up. I am happy I'm dead so I dont have to pretend any longer.

posted by one with less than 159 posts and started her(?) account this month.

You might be giving him exactly what he wants...

Yeah, I totally like the abuse—the Trump-shit I hear and see on the radio, TV, and here isn't enough;
and yeah, I've been here for 10 years, spending much of the 3652.5 days trolling here: I have no other life.

I could be working on my stories, but here I am—maybe it's an addiction.

(I might, just might, get one uploaded by the end of the year.)

It’s not like you can’t find articles about sexual assault online. Unfortunately, there are a gazillion.

The guy is either stupid, blind, ignorant, a wanker or all four. My money is on all four.

You are at least 25% correct.








To my detractors here:

I've spent a few hours here on posts on this thread, and for what?

Not much apparently.

No complaint: I'm learning.

I'm learning that if I go against even (what I think are) tangential and/or minor stances of much of feminism, even for reasons of clarity, or discussing differences, and I don't accept poorly-thought-out counters immediately, or near-immediately, repetition and ad hominems will ensue. Perhaps I should keep my apparently sexist views to myself—maybe talk about it only with a few other men who see things pretty much as I—and let the feminists dictate their definitions and beliefs with the confidence of a Hillary Clinton before November 2016.

After all, in these polarized times, we apparently need less, not more, dialogue.

Perhaps I'll be wrapping all of my feminist and other PC-related stuff in a few months and everybody can return a little more to their per-conceived notions.

 

[Freshfish1000]

Why do they call them "survivors" of sexual assault when almost all of them live through it?

Keep in mind we aren't just talking about rape but all sexual assaults—including inappropriate touching or whatever are relatively easily chargeable offenses.

Imagine there was a busload of women that crashed into a concrete wall; and that there was an explosion and fire and the bus was reduced to quite a wreck, yet for a few minor injuries, all the women lived through it. They'd properly be called "survivors," as the chances of not surviving such are quite significant.

While injurious psychologically and at times physically, I don't see how even rape—much less the other aforementioned violations—is particularly lethal. Therefore to say someone "survived" it is to be somewhat redundant. One might as well say one survived a wrestling match, boot camp, a powerful kick in the groin, or falling from a step ladder.

("He'll survive," I think said the Terminator.)

I remember watching an interview (or interview-of-sorts) with Grace Slick of the Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship/Starship ridiculing the idea that she is an "acid survivor" (apparently she took a lot of LSD in her time), describing an image of someone in a river clinging for life to a rock.

Will such superfluous use of the term "survivour" in this reduce its meaning?

What's wrong with the term "victim?"

Because I "survived" it and I am no longer a "victim"

 

[DMBFFF]

That's it.

I'm no longer posting in this thread until at least 1 January 2019—maybe longer.




Time to do your victory dance(s), feminists and PC-SJWs:

you won.

 

[Generic_chick]

That's it.

I'm no longer posting in this thread until at least 1 January 2019—maybe longer.




Time to do your victory dance(s), feminists and PC-SJWs:

you won.

I think you should give yourself a time out from this place. You seem a little fragile.

 

[CandiCame]

I feel like this dude is going old-school.

Like... laudanum or someshit.

Again, it's pretty shitty to try to pit survivors against each other. There's no reason to do it.

"Other people have it worse so quit your bitching" is literally something abusers say. That's not trying to get clarification- the real reasons for the terminology have been spelled out to you in terms a little kid could understand. You're just out here trying to meet a word count or someshit.

And you do realize that it's not EASY to quit smoking, right? I just explained that it IS easier to quit hard drugs. That's not just me, look that shit up. Look at the statistics. It's because of the reasons I already listed that you just glossed over- and this is DESPITE it being EASIER to get treatment for nicotine addiction, because nicotine isn't illegal and you aren't criminalized for having it in your system.

Look- heroine is an opiod. I've BEEN addicted to opiods, and I've been addicted to nicotine. I'm not snorting pills anymore, but I'm still smoking. And that's pretty common. Very few people master the art of doing one drug at a time. You admitted to having never been addicted to either.

Addictive personality disorder isn't some made-up bullshit to get people to not have wilpower- that doesn't make any goddamn sense. If you have APD, you have to have MORE willpower than a neurotypical person. A neurotypical person can get over the DTs- and be done with it. People do it all the time. People do drugs at parties, and they don't get addicted. But if you have NPD? You have that craving for the rest of your life. A neurotypical person has to fight it off once, get through the chemical dependency, and then go on with their life and look back at that time as, "that crazy phase I went through." Someone like me? I have to wake up EVERY DAY and do that. Over. And over. And over.

And what you learn in rehab, is that you just have to be that strong. You have to. Every day, you have to wake up, and you have to tell yourself- "I don't need it. I can go without it today. I just have to get through this next 24 hours."

And then you do that until you die. Because that's how your brain is wired. That's just your life now, and you fight through it- every fucking day.

Survivors- of addiction, of assault, of rape, of battle- have more willpower than neurotypical people can comprehend. We've got monsters on our backs and in our streets that you people can't even see. We're not VICTIMS of these things because we CONQUERED them. We SURVIVED them. Not everyone has.

And it's not your business, or ours, to judge other people by the monsters that we can't see. You don't know what someone else is fighting, so would it KILL you not to be a dick about it?

 

[CandiCame]

He says "feminists and SJWs" like he thinks that there are no male sexual assault survivors. Those folks are something else.

 

[CandiCame]

The more I read it the less sense it makes. Like this dude doesn't think misers are rich. What the fuck did he think a Christmas Carol was about? Did he think Scrooge was broke as shit and they just tortured him for no reason?

Edit: They being ghosts. Didn't clarify that and apparently some folks need shit spelled out for them.

 

[CandiCame]

Also, if you genuinely want to know, we DON'T spend more on opiod rehab than nicotine rehab. It's a lot easier to get into a smoking cessation class than it is something like NA or a full immersion clinic. BECAUSE of the war on drugs.

We decided that opiods were criminalized- so you have to pay for that shit if you want good treatment. An immersion program, like a decent one, is the cost of a car. It's like $6000-$10,000. You have to pay that shit. Uncle Sam doesn't pay it- even if you're court ordered to do it. Because you will be. Because you're not a person with a mental health issue- you're a CRIMINAL. Even if it's a cheap-ass government program, a $1000 detox (plus court costs)- that's YOU paying the government, not the government paying you. It's a fucking money game.

If you want to quit, you NEED rehab. You can't really do it on your own (or with shitty community programs like methodone and NA- look at the numbers. Their relapse rates are really pretty close to 100%, just like trying to quit yourself.) And that shit is EXPENSIVE. The war on drugs has made the government a fortune in court costs and rehab, as well as supplied slave labor for the prison industrial complex. It needs to change. We need real change in this area.

And while you're in there, you're in there- it's about like being in jail. And they jack up the prices on EVERYTHING at the center- even the shit you HAVE to get, like the nicotine gum (or you can try to smoke in the bathroom by the vent, like a lot of folks did, but you had to smuggle your cigs in and it was a pain in the ass).

On the flip side, smoking is harder to quit- but PROFOUNDLY cheaper. Because it's not criminalized, and therefore the government can't FORCE you into rehab for it, communities often offer free cessation classes- but they don't work. Because, again, it's an addiction, and the only thing that will work is complete immersion where it's literally taken from you and you change your whole lifestyle. All those classes do is tell you how to do that, they don't force you to, because they legally can't. You didn't break a law so you didn't give up your autonomy. Doctors and councilors are not legally allowed to take away an addictive substance as a punishment because it violates the ADA- so if it's legal, it's going to be harder to kick.

There probably are $10,000 smoking cessation clinics SOMEWHERE that are just located a million miles away from anything, and you have someone drop you off, and it's a no-smoking on the premises place, but like... I'm not gonna pay that just to put down the pack of smokes. I don't know that a lot of people would.

And then you get out, and you're right back in a society where it's legal, where you can walk into a gas station and get a fix.

I genuinely don't know how to quit smoking, or I would have done it years ago.

 

[Generic_chick]

...

And while you're in there, you're in there- it's about like being in jail. And they jack up the prices on EVERYTHING at the center- even the shit you HAVE to get, like the nicotine gum (or you can try to smoke in the bathroom by the vent, like a lot of folks did, but you had to smuggle your cigs in and it was a pain in the ass).

Clearly you feel strongly about this and I shouldn't joke, but that's because cigarettes come in square boxes. Ovals are much more pleasant to put in your ass.

...
I genuinely don't know how to quit smoking, or I would have done it years ago.

Like you said earlier, you just have to do. Every day. Over and over.