"Cold turkey" and "tapering off" get talked about like a debate with one right answer. The honest answer is that both work, and the research on which is better is closer than most people expect.
Several large trials comparing the two approaches have found that quitting abruptly, on a set date, with no cigarettes at all from that point forward, tends to produce slightly higher long-term success rates than gradually cutting down. The theory is that a clean break avoids the constant negotiating that comes with "just a few today," where the goalposts move every time willpower dips.
That does not mean tapering is a bad choice. Some people genuinely do better easing their nicotine intake down over one or two weeks before a quit date, especially if the idea of stopping completely tomorrow feels so overwhelming that it stops them from starting at all. A tapering plan that actually has a hard end date, and sticks to it, can still work.
The version of tapering that tends to fail is the open-ended one. Cutting down "as much as you can" with no fixed quit date in sight often turns into smoking fewer cigarettes indefinitely, never actually reaching zero. Your brain adapts to whatever the new lower number is, and it stops feeling like progress toward quitting and starts feeling like a new steady state.
If you are choosing between the two, ask yourself one question: does having a clear line in the sand help you, or does it make you shut down before you even try? If a firm date motivates you, cold turkey has the stronger track record. If it feels paralyzing, a short tapering period, with a real end date attached to it, is still a legitimate plan.
Either way, the method matters less than what supports it. Having a specific date, a reason you wrote down for yourself, and a plan for the first few days of cravings is what actually predicts whether either approach works.