4 ms·

> Food, water, and air are likewise addictive This is a perverse usage. The physiological need for food, water, or air is innate; it arises from your body itse

> Food, water, and air are likewise addictive This is a perverse usage. The physiological need for food, water, or air is innate; it arises from your body itself, not the action of the external substance on your body. Additionally they do not induce the classical development of tolerance. Many people would hold that addiction itself is bad. Even if there are no other negative effects, there is the effect of dependence on the addictive substance and commensurate loss of independence (the addiction always occupies some mental space since you must always think about how you are going to satisfy it).

SilasX 8y ago
Okay, if I may rephrase the point in a less cheeky manner: It's not very informative that a substance is addictive in the sense that "you must use this every day or experience extreme negative side effects". You have to also look the cost of taking it and what it does to you when you use it. I have to constantly eat to stay alive? Manageable. I have to consume water and breathe air? Manageable. I have to inject 50 cents of insulin? Manageable. I have to absorb 50 cents of nicotine? Manageable. If I have to consume expensive amounts of crack, which also makes me homicidal? Okay, then that's a problem. I was objecting to the OP's criticism of the lingering nicotine addiction and usage as some kind of be-all end-all deal-breaker. No, it depends on the relative harm. If you go from "expensively sucking down toxic junk to get your nicotine fix every day" to "taking a cheap nicotine-only does everyday", that's not defeating the purpose of anything, and it's very much missing the point to dismiss it as "still being addicted to nicotine".
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  There's a difference between a physiological need, like consuming water and air, and a chemical dependence. > I have to constantly eat to stay alive? Manageable. I have to consume water and breathe air? Manageable. No matter where you go, the entirety of society is structured around the fact that all people need to eat, drink and breathe. > I have to inject 50 cents of insulin? Manageable. I have to absorb 50 cents of nicotine? Manageable. This is where the disconnect is. The cost of insulin dependence is not merely the cost of insulin itself. An insulin dependent person must always be aware of their blood sugar levels and diet. They must always be prepared for a situation in which they're away from their insulin supply. They must be prepared for an emergency or incapacitation due to complications with their condition and its treatment. There's a significant cognitive load that isn't accounted for by the fabric of society like the need for food is. Likewise, there's a psychological, social and occupational cost to nicotine addiction that isn't reflected in nicotine's price alone. This is why people are saying that chemical dependence is inherently bad: it's an inconvenience at best, a costly burden to most and a killer at worst.

SilasX 8y ago

Okay, if I may rephrase the point in a less cheeky manner: It's not very informative that a substance is addictive in the sense that "you must use this every day or experience extreme negative side effects". You have to also look the cost of taking it and what it does to you when you use it. I have to constantly eat to stay alive? Manageable. I have to consume water and breathe air? Manageable. I have to inject 50 cents of insulin? Manageable. I have to absorb 50 cents of nicotine? Manageable. If I have to consume expensive amounts of crack, which also makes me homicidal? Okay, then that's a problem. I was objecting to the OP's criticism of the lingering nicotine addiction and usage as some kind of be-all end-all deal-breaker. No, it depends on the relative harm. If you go from "expensively sucking down toxic junk to get your nicotine fix every day" to "taking a cheap nicotine-only does everyday", that's not defeating the purpose of anything, and it's very much missing the point to dismiss it as "still being addicted to nicotine".

darpa_escapee 8y ago
There's a difference between a physiological need, like consuming water and air, and a chemical dependence. > I have to constantly eat to stay alive? Manageable. I have to consume water and breathe air? Manageable. No matter where you go, the entirety of society is structured around the fact that all people need to eat, drink and breathe. > I have to inject 50 cents of insulin? Manageable. I have to absorb 50 cents of nicotine? Manageable. This is where the disconnect is. The cost of insulin dependence is not merely the cost of insulin itself. An insulin dependent person must always be aware of their blood sugar levels and diet. They must always be prepared for a situation in which they're away from their insulin supply. They must be prepared for an emergency or incapacitation due to complications with their condition and its treatment. There's a significant cognitive load that isn't accounted for by the fabric of society like the need for food is. Likewise, there's a psychological, social and occupational cost to nicotine addiction that isn't reflected in nicotine's price alone. This is why people are saying that chemical dependence is inherently bad: it's an inconvenience at best, a costly burden to most and a killer at worst.