4 ms·

> It's rather simplistic to view opiates as mere depressants. They also create euphoria. Perhaps for some people that is true. I was given a strong does of op

> It's rather simplistic to view opiates as mere depressants. They also create euphoria. Perhaps for some people that is true. I was given a strong does of opiates for pain at a hospital before and I did not find the experience either pleasant or euphoric. That level of numbness and loss of motor control was actually a dreadful and even fearful experience. It really made me question which was worse between that experience and the pain it relieved. > I also don't think you'll find everyone is equally at risk from stimulant addiction in the way you describe Are there exceptions?

Nursie 8y ago
Different stimulants have different methods of action on the various receptors in the brain. As such they have very varying addiction profiles. I think the blanket statement "Stimulants are physically addictive" is wrong (some, like MDMA or exotics like methiopropamine have a fairly low addiction rate), and the idea that somehow depressants as a class don't have this property is bizarre. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "They require a modification to behavior to be addictive". If you take opiates for a while, you're likely to become physically addicted as the receptors in your brain start to regulate differently due to the presence of the drug. If you take crack cocaine for a while, you'll likely become physically addicted (or at least dependent) in a very similar way (though with very different withdrawal effects).
- austincheney 8y ago
  I can accept bizarre. I think it is safe to say all drugs modify the physiology of the user in some way. The difference is if that change to the body is what induces a craving for more from a cellular level. There is no indication that depressants, as a class, achieve addiction purely in response to cell modification. You mention cocaine versus opiates. A major difference there is that cocaine doesn't require repeated use to be addictive. It is immediately addictive and may result in drug addiction even many years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_dependence#Risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_dependence#Risk Opiates are not immediately physically addictive. It takes repeated dosage for addiction to set in. Typically this is a result of pathological changes resulting in a combination of modified neuron-physiology and adjusted behavior. For depressants to be addictive it seems there must be some manner of behavioral persistence that drives the user to continue consumption in addition to physiological adjustments. If the drug is not immediately addictive the user must then use it repeatedly to build addiction. There has been research that indicates this is the pattern of addiction for cigarette use even though the primary drug present is nicotine, which is a physically addictive stimulant. While nicotine is physically addictive not everybody who smokes cigarettes becomes a dedicated smoker. It takes more than the physical addiction to nicotine. This has been identified by research as well, and much of that research indicates it is a combination of certain demographics and personality profiles that most likely triggers cigarette addiction. This research indicates these individuals are identifiable and their degree of addiction prevalence is predictable. While cigarettes are not depressants the point illustrates the difference between a purely physically addictive quality and actual addiction in practice.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    I don't think that section in wikipedia, or the paper it comes from, says what you think it says. It certainly doesn't claim that a single use is addictive, only gives the rates of continued use (to the point of dependency) a certain number of years after the first dose. I imagine one could come up with similar numbers for opiates. Further, you've contradicted your own point in your spiel about nicotine. I really don't think your ideas are supportable. (edit: in fact you can find figures for the percentage of people who, having tried heroin once, go on to develop dependency - it's around 23%, far higher than for cocaine.)
    - austincheney 8y ago
      > Further, you've contradicted your own point in your spiel about nicotine. How so? I stated that it isn't the nicotine or its addictive effects that make cigarettes addictive even though research indicates nicotine is universally addictive. A cigarette is not nicotine. > I really don't think your ideas are supportable. There is sufficient medical research to dictate whether or not these ideas are valid. The question I am trying to raise is to what degree behavioral medicine is more a factor in this than physical medicine, but I honestly feel you are deliberately ignoring this to prove some point.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        You started out declaring that 'depressants' are not physically addictive in the same way stimulants are which is a huge, huge generalisation across many disaparate chemical families with different types of actions. Then you said a particular stimulant is not physically addictive without additional behaviours, contradicting your earlier point. You also made some weird claims about cocaine. > The question I am trying to raise is to what degree behavioral medicine is more a factor in this than physical medicine, Well that didn't come across at all in your earlier posts, and I think you probably have a lot more reading to do.
        austincheney 8y ago
        > Then you said a particular stimulant is not physically addictive without additional behaviours I very clearly did not say that and expounded on it in pretty good detail. Again, cigarettes are not nicotine.

Nursie 8y ago

Different stimulants have different methods of action on the various receptors in the brain. As such they have very varying addiction profiles. I think the blanket statement "Stimulants are physically addictive" is wrong (some, like MDMA or exotics like methiopropamine have a fairly low addiction rate), and the idea that somehow depressants as a class don't have this property is bizarre. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "They require a modification to behavior to be addictive". If you take opiates for a while, you're likely to become physically addicted as the receptors in your brain start to regulate differently due to the presence of the drug. If you take crack cocaine for a while, you'll likely become physically addicted (or at least dependent) in a very similar way (though with very different withdrawal effects).

austincheney 8y ago
I can accept bizarre. I think it is safe to say all drugs modify the physiology of the user in some way. The difference is if that change to the body is what induces a craving for more from a cellular level. There is no indication that depressants, as a class, achieve addiction purely in response to cell modification. You mention cocaine versus opiates. A major difference there is that cocaine doesn't require repeated use to be addictive. It is immediately addictive and may result in drug addiction even many years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_dependence#Risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_dependence#Risk Opiates are not immediately physically addictive. It takes repeated dosage for addiction to set in. Typically this is a result of pathological changes resulting in a combination of modified neuron-physiology and adjusted behavior. For depressants to be addictive it seems there must be some manner of behavioral persistence that drives the user to continue consumption in addition to physiological adjustments. If the drug is not immediately addictive the user must then use it repeatedly to build addiction. There has been research that indicates this is the pattern of addiction for cigarette use even though the primary drug present is nicotine, which is a physically addictive stimulant. While nicotine is physically addictive not everybody who smokes cigarettes becomes a dedicated smoker. It takes more than the physical addiction to nicotine. This has been identified by research as well, and much of that research indicates it is a combination of certain demographics and personality profiles that most likely triggers cigarette addiction. This research indicates these individuals are identifiable and their degree of addiction prevalence is predictable. While cigarettes are not depressants the point illustrates the difference between a purely physically addictive quality and actual addiction in practice.
- Nursie 8y ago
  I don't think that section in wikipedia, or the paper it comes from, says what you think it says. It certainly doesn't claim that a single use is addictive, only gives the rates of continued use (to the point of dependency) a certain number of years after the first dose. I imagine one could come up with similar numbers for opiates. Further, you've contradicted your own point in your spiel about nicotine. I really don't think your ideas are supportable. (edit: in fact you can find figures for the percentage of people who, having tried heroin once, go on to develop dependency - it's around 23%, far higher than for cocaine.)
  - austincheney 8y ago
    > Further, you've contradicted your own point in your spiel about nicotine. How so? I stated that it isn't the nicotine or its addictive effects that make cigarettes addictive even though research indicates nicotine is universally addictive. A cigarette is not nicotine. > I really don't think your ideas are supportable. There is sufficient medical research to dictate whether or not these ideas are valid. The question I am trying to raise is to what degree behavioral medicine is more a factor in this than physical medicine, but I honestly feel you are deliberately ignoring this to prove some point.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      You started out declaring that 'depressants' are not physically addictive in the same way stimulants are which is a huge, huge generalisation across many disaparate chemical families with different types of actions. Then you said a particular stimulant is not physically addictive without additional behaviours, contradicting your earlier point. You also made some weird claims about cocaine. > The question I am trying to raise is to what degree behavioral medicine is more a factor in this than physical medicine, Well that didn't come across at all in your earlier posts, and I think you probably have a lot more reading to do.
      - austincheney 8y ago
        > Then you said a particular stimulant is not physically addictive without additional behaviours I very clearly did not say that and expounded on it in pretty good detail. Again, cigarettes are not nicotine.