Addiction - are all of the studies flawed?

vinylmesh wrote: »

I would think it was to avoid the removal of the (not very noticeable) high. Perhaps smokers grow so accustomed they see their nicotinated state as "normal".



Don't take this too seriously but, are you calling me a liar ?

Most natural highs are not strong enough to be overtly noticeable.But they still affect our behaviour. The same goes for nicotine.

He's not.
It doesn't take long before there is no high at all from it. There may be initially, even more so with smoking/inhalation due to monoxides causing oxygen deprivation euphoria.

There is only the relief from the withdrawal symptoms.

How can you set aside the issues of Overdosing and Addiction?
frequent use of phrases such as "many drugs are overstated", "Outright demonizing them is not the way forward.", "But yes, I do think people take heroin to induce pleasant sensations",

The overall impressions of the posts individually and overall is that JC feels dangers are overstated and that other issues than " Overdosing and Addiction" can be discussed about heroin by "setting aside Overdosing and Addiction" which gives the impression that Boston has responded to, the main point being Boston says "it's not surprising you feel the dangers are over stated,"

Which is pretty much a major theme of JC posts.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't think it's reading between the lines, I think it's following the entire thread carefully that gave me my conclusion about that particular statement.

Two of us have the opposite conclusion.

In fact many of JC's posts are capabable of more than one interpretation

Beruthiel wrote: »

Originally Posted by JC 2K3
So, addictiveness and overdosing aside. What would you see to be the main problems with heroin?

Addictiveness and overdosing

Can I ask why you are so against the use of substances to alter brain chemistry in order to induce pleasant sensations?

Are you suggesting that people take Heroin to induce pleasant sensations?
If not, please clarify that, because as your comments stands, they are not at all clear.

Is it use of english, or pushing the envelope?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

They're the closest thing to "spiritual" that I've ever experienced, although, somewhat paradoxially, they're one of the main things that confirmed to me that "spirituality" and the supernatural don't exist in any conventional sense.

They've been extremely enlightening to me in teaching me how my mind works, and how much more there is to reality than a sober state of mind, how deep our perception really goes etc.

I'm quite firmly of the opinion that they had a very large influence in the development of religion, and that primitive artwork, which is generally associated with early religions, was heavily influenced by their effects (for example, the intricate, spirally patterns in Celtic artwork).

In relation to their use in whatever the modern conventional pursuit of spirituality is though, I don't know because I have little interest in it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055622185
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61335312&postcount=28

watty wrote: »

He's not.
It doesn't take long before there is no high at all from it. There may be initially, even more so with smoking/inhalation due to monoxides causing oxygen deprivation euphoria.

There is only the relief from the withdrawal symptoms.

See, I would be inclined to agree with you there, but nicotine seems to actually increase reward system sensitivity.
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n6/abs/1300905a.html

Rather i think because the high is so mild to begin with, people can very quickly grow accustomed to it and begin to see that level of highness as normal.

Jumpy wrote: »

Everyone seems to be focusing on physical addiction here. The mental addiction which is the coping mechanism of most very serious addicts is the parts that destroys lives.
People get over the physical addictions, but end up going right back on it to cover whatever is wrong with their life. I wish there were a lot less focus on physical addictions and more focus on the reason why a specific addict is an addict.

They do?

Afaik withdrawals haven't been mentioned in the last few pages. I was talking about the neuroscience behind the psychological addiction of drugs. Drug affects your reward system and makes you feel good, you enjoy feeling good and seek out the drug again. This is called psychological addiction and is true for every addictive drug from caffeine and alcohol right up to crack and heroin.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "physical addiction".

Painkillers (opiates specifically) are a perfect example. Some people say they are less addictive when pure. Bull****.

Who ever said that?

Safer, yes. Less addictive, no.

vinylmesh wrote: »

Drug affects your reward system and makes you feel good, you enjoy feeling good and seek out the drug again. This is called psychological addiction and is true for every addictive drug from caffeine and alcohol right up to crack and heroin.

Yes, if you want to get into the scientific detail of exactly what drugs do. But it has very little to do with addiction.
Its very difficult to explain but I know that there are a good few people who are reading this post and know exactly what I mean. You can explain it off in whichever way you want to try to prove you know something about it, but when you have had to watch it happen to someone you get to understand it a little more.

Addiction is simply an easier way to escape from problems than by actually dealing with them. Some people dont even know they have significant issues but feel better when they are medicated, so they associate the feeling with the drug or action (gambling, online etc are included in this). Absolutely no one but the addicted person can help recover from an addiction as it is them that needs to deal with the underlying problem. That is not to say that they dont need background care and support, but dont think you can bring someone back with drugs or severe psychotherapy. That person has to want to.
I personally dont give a toss about what medicine or science thinks about the reasons for addiction.

Jumpy wrote: »

Addiction is simply an easier way to escape from problems than by actually dealing with them. Some people dont even know they have significant issues but feel better when they are medicated, so they associate the feeling with the drug or action (gambling, online etc are included in this). Absolutely no one but the addicted person can help recover from an addiction as it is them that needs to deal with the underlying problem. That is not to say that they dont need background care and support, but dont think you can bring someone back with drugs or severe psychotherapy. That person has to want to.

I don't entirely dissagree with you. The point I was trying to make is that people think "hard" drugs like heroin have some sort of inherant quality that makes their addiction different from "soft" drugs like cannabis. People think that there's a special type of addiction for "hard" drugs that doesn't exist with "soft" drugs. This is nothing more than stoner propaganda. Obviously heroin is a lot more addictive than cannabis, but people who go on about "physical addiction" being the difference between heroin and cannabis are talking pure shite.

Studies on animals are flawed to begin with because animals are slaves to their emotions in a way that humans are not. We have incredibly well developed brains compared to rats. Over-riding instinct for long-term gain is something which people do on a daily basis. It's what seperates us from animals. Even survival (the most basic instinct of all) is sucessfully over-ridden by the 1million people worldwide who commit suicide each year (most extreme example i could think of).

My original point on the first page was that the "disease theory" of addiction tends to ignore the fact that humans can very easily act independantly of their emotions if they see it as worth it in the long run.
In general, nowhere near enough attention is drawn to the majority of people who take drugs and don't become addicted. I think it is by looking at these people, and comparing them to the addicted that we could begin to work out a working model of addiction, and probably help an awful lot of people by providing advice on how to avoid it.

And yes, I would assume an awful lot of addicts don't really want to give up, but go along with a half-hearted effort because of pressure from family/friends. If these already-doomed attempts were included in studies it would surely skew the figures.
One question though. Do you think habitual smokers have underlying problems?

JC 2K3 wrote: »

If disease theory is incorrect, then this means addiction potential can be possibly curbed with regulation, and obviously the risk of overdosing would be greatly reduced too.

How does that follow?

I can see no useful connection between these three issues.

The risk of overdose depends on the drug and only indirectly it's availability due to regulation, in that illegal/Banned makes it more expensive to get enough to overdose on.

There are various theories about addiction, and some aspects of "disease theory" may be correct in some circumstances, that is not much to do with overdosing nor regulation.

Addiction potential is nothing to do with regulation, but person and type of drug.

Regulation is related to perceived risk to health and minors of materials. There is also a very strong argument that even a Paradise Drug* or Euphoria Machine* with NO physical side effects of health or withdrawal (Mental or Physical) would need careful regulation and only be available to Adults (if at all).

Perhaps you don't understand the purpose of regulation? It's not to be mean and spoil selfish "fun". It's primarily to protect society and secondarily the individual.

Use of "recreational drugs" is a very selfish act. Apart from health risk, regulation (in a non-drugs, general sense) is to protect society from the selfishness and greed of some individuals.

Addiction is a major problem with drugs. Health issues, both direct and indirect (drug driving, operating machinery, 2nd hand passive smoking, effluent contamination) is a major issue. Sometimes these can obscure other issues.

Pro-Drugs lobby tend to try an argue that the "xyz drug" doesn't kill people, or is not so dangerous, or isn't really addictive, or that Education on how to take it is the key, or that if it was purer or legal that the problems would go away or are overstated.

The fact is that Drug users have a distorted view of what is normal and think the problem is that non-drug users are just not educated enough about drugs.

Well maybe some non-users are perfectly educated and just are not so selfish and also want to something more worthwhile with their time.


(* I think future addiction research and research on effects of "recreational drugs" of various kinds of effects, will in fact show that anything with a significant effect will encourage a dependency and greater distortion of judgement to have more time on the "high" of whatever nature, that drug or machine on Mind affecting power can't be without negative consequences).