I think folks here are just trying to help you out, nster. Our view comes from experience and the neurological make up of our brains. To come to grips with the concept of never having "just one" is one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome on ones quit journey. I think Philip Seymour Hoffman's three little kids might agree. It was pointed out just yesterday how Curt Schilling has struggled with the concept since the late 90's. Your position has been proven false repeatedly which is the reasoning behind the negativity you've encountered. Your point of view kills people, KTC saves lives. What's it going to be?
I understand and thank you sincerely.
My skull has become jelly red mush from banging it so hard against the brick wall so I can't continue to do it: if people cannot understand the words I write, then I should probably resign my career as a freelance writer and go bag groceries.
If you were to reread my posts, I do not give any kind of arguments that ppl like Hoffman would NOT see their death with just 'one more'. Quite the opposite. I do not think that anyone still struggling with an addiction should ever dare to take just 'one more'. And I agree, that will always lead to failure.
The main point I was making is that I, PERSONALLY (meaning you do not have to agree) is that being an addict is actually a title we give ourselves and embrace: it's an identity. It is why addicts can never have 'just one'. Because they have embraced the identity of BEING an addict.
I, as a Christian, believe that I am not an addict. I believe I am a sinner who has been redeemed with the blood my Savior shed for me on a cross. I believe Him when he says that what I believe will be. I believe if I tell myself I am an addict, then I am an addict, and that is a person who is indeed without hope of ever being completely 'cured', as you folks have asserted that you believe. I believe I am a human, a man, created by God, who has struggled through several different addictions, addictive and destructive behaviors and attitudes and other deadly perils.
I believe that Chirst when He says that anything is possible for God. So I believe that when you folks declare being cured from an addiction, or outgrowing is an addiction, is impossible, that that is not always true. I believe it is possible. I believe it is in God's hands, but if we do not believe it is possible, it will never come to be.
Let it be known, then, we believe different things and that is perfectly okay. It is still legal and a good thing for me to quite chewing tobacco, a deadly and cancerous addictive substance, if I so choose. Simply because I do not agree with your philosophy does not mean I should continue using tobacco. It also does not mean that I will end up using tobacco again simply because I do not embrace an identity that declares me to be an addict.
It also does not mean that I should not be allowed to post roll if I so choose, which moderators continue to delete: let it be known that I have and that it is never approved. Obviously, my posting to roll is not to gain support from your community (which has shown me nothing but contempt) but more an accountability display and stating honestly and publicly that I have not used tobacco for 31 days DESPITE not embracing an identity as an addict. I understand this would mean more after 5 years and not 31 days but, alas, I am not in control of the space time continuum.
And for the final record: if an individual has embraced an identity as an addict, then they should NEVER try and take just 'one more'. I thought that was pretty clear in my posts but apparently, it was not.
Good day, gentlemen.