Agreed, Cigarette smoking is usually a frequency habit. For arguments sake, a pack a day is 20 cigarettes in the 16 hours you are awake, that means the smell/taste/sight is always around.
1) Nicotine, while addictive is nowhere near as addictive as the other chemicals put into cigarettes to keep them burning. I smoked cigarettes for 3 years before picking up cigars. While it would take a research team to find what is in a cigarette, I can tell you what is in my cigars, aged tobacco leaves. I smoked less and less cigarettes as time went on (about 3 weeks). I have been without cigarettes for a year and currently smoke cigars once to twice a week.
2) Cigars, while some can be stupidly expensive, are relatively cheap. One of my favorite cigars is about $5 a stick, at 3 sticks, that's $15 a week. I am sure that is cheaper than your current cost. You can also find "mistakes" for as low as $1.(I do realize that is my current cost, and while weening myself off of cigarettes, it was more expensive.)
3) I thought that as well, though I found that once I proved to myself that I had willpower to quit cigarettes, it was much easier to maintain, and even lose weight.
4) Don't spend more on food if you don't need more, put it towards savings.
5) I love smoking cigars. Sitting down after a long day with your favorite drink and a cigar is incredibly relaxing. The best part is, it is not addicting. I have gone weeks without needing to smoke.
6) I think this is an excellent alternative. It makes smoking a true luxury, not an addiction. When the time comes, you can stop for 9 months and pick it back up if you want to, not because you need to.
7) The human body is incredibly resilient. Although, anything in excess will destroy it. 20 cigarettes in a 16 hour period for 10 years, killer. 150 cigars a year (slightly more than the number of cigarettes consumed in a week) is not excess. While I can't say it is helping my health, I can say I am still able to hike, climb, run and swim.
8) As you lessen your dependency on cigarettes, you will have these oral and manual cravings less, though you will still see me twirling a paperclip in my mouth from time to time.
I hope this comes as some help.
EDIT: It just clicked after finishing my thought.
I was thrown off by all the comments about the robot and its behavior. This is more about the comparison of behavior-executor vs. utility-maximizer, not the robot. EDIT:
Perhaps I am missing the final direction of this conversation, but I think the intelligence involved in the example has mapped the terrain and failing to update the map once it has been seen to not be correct.
Correct, the robot is designed to shoot its laser at blue things.
The robot is failing at nothing. It is doing exactly as programmed. The laser, on the other hand, is failing to eliminate the blue object, as what is expected when the laser is shot at something. Now that this experiment has been conducted and the map has been found to be wrong, correct the map. It is no longer a Blue-Minimizing Robot, it is a Blue-Targeting-and-Shooting Robot. The result of the laser shot is variable.
The discussion has mapped it as a Blue-Minimizing Robot, it is not, as proven by this experiment. If this were to be made such, more programming would have to be implemented in-case of the laser not having the intended effect. Being there is not a way of altering the programming, there is no way of changing the terrain, so the map must be changed.