4 ms·

Yet, nicotine don't destroy families and make people lose their jobs (unless they smoke it for many years), so there is a real difference in the consequences fo

by gnaffle 13y ago

Yet, nicotine don't destroy families and make people lose their jobs (unless they smoke it for many years), so there is a real difference in the consequences for the people who do get addicted to alcohol or the harder drugs. So grading drugs on a simple "danger scale" isn't very helpful.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> Yet, nicotine don't destroy families and make people lose their jobs (unless they smoke it for many years) That's a pretty big "unless". As for the immediate effects, nicotine is easier to come by - you don't have to go to a sketchy dealer in an alley to pay an outrageous markup to get your cigarette fix. Also, heroin doesn't have this effect either, contrary to popular belief. Look up the success rates of diacetylmorphine maintenance programs - programs in which chronic drug users are given a steady supply pure, uncut heroin (ie, no fiberglass/etc.). These people are able to hold steady jobs while using heroin only at night, the same way a habitual drinker might have a shot of whiskey every night. The incidence rate of negative social externalities (such as crime) has actually dropped for people who are enrolled in such programs.
- waps 13y ago
  Ever since I was 8 I've seen both of these camps every now and then. One side claiming drugs are extremely evil and you can never touch them even once. Other side claiming that any kind of addiction is perfectly fine to indulge in, some of them even if it hurts others to varying degrees. These were long stupid discussions, and like every 8 year old, I was on the side of "why not ?". And then, you know, you start studying, never giving it a second thought. And then I visited a "home" (a prison, really) for the mentally ill (where they keep addicts here, perhaps that should be mentally ill and criminal), and had a few (mandatory - grmbl) talks with them to see and analyse their reaction patterns (lots of paper writing after the visit). They had an addict that had only arived the day before, which we had to talk to. There was no more doubt after that in my mind. Cocaine heroin and other opiate addictions are indeed evil itself. You get addicted and overdose, or you lose interest. If you get addicted. Either that kills you, or it leaves you addicted, attempting to cure yourself. Even if you manage to "cure" yourself (not really possible, but yes you can learn not to touch the drug, you can't learn not to crave it), you will leave with a seriously handicapped brain, and nowhere near the emotional control you had before you started on the drug. The fresh arrivals in the clinic, fresh off the drug, are ready to kill, or rape themselves, and worse just for one more ml of the drug (a fact they claim is frequently exploited by prostitution and crime). Yes alcohol addiction is bad. Especially the medical effects are not fun. Psychologically they're not much fun either. However to claim that an alcohol addict is anywhere near the same level of addiction/danger as an opiate addict is insanity, and only illustrates your complete lack of experience on the subject. And nicotine addicts detoxing are downright pleasant people, in firm control of their emotions, nothing at all like recovering opiate addicts. And these numbers ... they're not going to convince anyone who's ever worked with these people. If they claim any opiate is harmless, or even on par with alcoholism, then there's quite simply something very wrong with your measurements.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > However to claim that an alcohol addict is anywhere near the same level of addiction/danger as an opiate addict is insanity, and only illustrates your complete lack of experience on the subject I tend to avoid responding to comments which include ad-hominem attacks as a rule, but your comment is so emotional that I'll make an exception here. Drug use and its effects on both the brain and society are a subject I studied and worked with for several years. I'm not going to bother enumerating my "credentials" here; I'm just going to state flatly that your accusation is unfounded. Alcohol withdrawal is one of the only forms of withdrawal that can be fatal[0]. Heroin withdrawal can be fatal in certain circumstances, but has far fewer fatalities per incidence (ie, normalized for number of patients) than alcohol. > Cocaine heroin and other opiate addictions are indeed evil itself. You get addicted and overdose, or you lose interest. 1) Cocaine is not an opiate 2) Most (more than 50%) of habitual users of cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin do not meet DSM criteria for addiction[1]. One cannot simply claim that all users are addicted; this statement is medically false. > And then I visited a "home" (a prison, really) for the mentally ill Here, you are confusing P(A|B) and P(B|A). This is a common mistake. What you are not observing are all of the people who use these substances without problems. Of course if you visit a prison, you're going to find criminals. If you visit an ICU, you will find people who are critically ill. > The fresh arrivals in the clinic, fresh off the drug, are ready to kill, or rape themselves, and worse just for one more ml of the drug (a fact they claim is frequently exploited by prostitution and crime). This statement actually supports my assertion about diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. If you do a little digging into how these programs operate, you will see what I mean. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delerium_tremens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delerium_tremens [1]Can't find an online copy of the academic paper in which I first read this statistic (in print) at the moment, but it's cited in a lot of places - most addiction specialists are familiar with the statistic. > Other side claiming that any kind of addiction is perfectly fine to indulge in, some of them even if it hurts others to varying degrees This is a straw man. Nobody argues that. Some people do argue that some people use drugs without any dependence issues and without harming other people. That, however, is a very different argument from what you present. > And these numbers ... they're not going to convince anyone who's ever worked with these people. No numbers are ever going to convince people who make their judgments based on emotional reactions, as you seem to have. However, there is a reason that modern addiction treatments, which are far more successful, involve harm-reduction and maintenance-based approaches.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  The main reason for nicotines damage is because people smoke it. If you compare a nicotine user who doesn't smoke to a meth user who doesn't smoke, I think you'll find that it's very obvious that the consequences of nicotine addiction are very different, and has nothing whatsoever to do with _how_ people get nicotine or other drugs.

by gnaffle 13y ago

chimeracoder 13y ago

> Yet, nicotine don't destroy families and make people lose their jobs (unless they smoke it for many years) That's a pretty big "unless". As for the immediate effects, nicotine is easier to come by - you don't have to go to a sketchy dealer in an alley to pay an outrageous markup to get your cigarette fix. Also, heroin doesn't have this effect either, contrary to popular belief. Look up the success rates of diacetylmorphine maintenance programs - programs in which chronic drug users are given a steady supply pure, uncut heroin (ie, no fiberglass/etc.). These people are able to hold steady jobs while using heroin only at night, the same way a habitual drinker might have a shot of whiskey every night. The incidence rate of negative social externalities (such as crime) has actually dropped for people who are enrolled in such programs.

waps 13y ago
Ever since I was 8 I've seen both of these camps every now and then. One side claiming drugs are extremely evil and you can never touch them even once. Other side claiming that any kind of addiction is perfectly fine to indulge in, some of them even if it hurts others to varying degrees. These were long stupid discussions, and like every 8 year old, I was on the side of "why not ?". And then, you know, you start studying, never giving it a second thought. And then I visited a "home" (a prison, really) for the mentally ill (where they keep addicts here, perhaps that should be mentally ill and criminal), and had a few (mandatory - grmbl) talks with them to see and analyse their reaction patterns (lots of paper writing after the visit). They had an addict that had only arived the day before, which we had to talk to. There was no more doubt after that in my mind. Cocaine heroin and other opiate addictions are indeed evil itself. You get addicted and overdose, or you lose interest. If you get addicted. Either that kills you, or it leaves you addicted, attempting to cure yourself. Even if you manage to "cure" yourself (not really possible, but yes you can learn not to touch the drug, you can't learn not to crave it), you will leave with a seriously handicapped brain, and nowhere near the emotional control you had before you started on the drug. The fresh arrivals in the clinic, fresh off the drug, are ready to kill, or rape themselves, and worse just for one more ml of the drug (a fact they claim is frequently exploited by prostitution and crime). Yes alcohol addiction is bad. Especially the medical effects are not fun. Psychologically they're not much fun either. However to claim that an alcohol addict is anywhere near the same level of addiction/danger as an opiate addict is insanity, and only illustrates your complete lack of experience on the subject. And nicotine addicts detoxing are downright pleasant people, in firm control of their emotions, nothing at all like recovering opiate addicts. And these numbers ... they're not going to convince anyone who's ever worked with these people. If they claim any opiate is harmless, or even on par with alcoholism, then there's quite simply something very wrong with your measurements.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > However to claim that an alcohol addict is anywhere near the same level of addiction/danger as an opiate addict is insanity, and only illustrates your complete lack of experience on the subject I tend to avoid responding to comments which include ad-hominem attacks as a rule, but your comment is so emotional that I'll make an exception here. Drug use and its effects on both the brain and society are a subject I studied and worked with for several years. I'm not going to bother enumerating my "credentials" here; I'm just going to state flatly that your accusation is unfounded. Alcohol withdrawal is one of the only forms of withdrawal that can be fatal[0]. Heroin withdrawal can be fatal in certain circumstances, but has far fewer fatalities per incidence (ie, normalized for number of patients) than alcohol. > Cocaine heroin and other opiate addictions are indeed evil itself. You get addicted and overdose, or you lose interest. 1) Cocaine is not an opiate 2) Most (more than 50%) of habitual users of cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin do not meet DSM criteria for addiction[1]. One cannot simply claim that all users are addicted; this statement is medically false. > And then I visited a "home" (a prison, really) for the mentally ill Here, you are confusing P(A|B) and P(B|A). This is a common mistake. What you are not observing are all of the people who use these substances without problems. Of course if you visit a prison, you're going to find criminals. If you visit an ICU, you will find people who are critically ill. > The fresh arrivals in the clinic, fresh off the drug, are ready to kill, or rape themselves, and worse just for one more ml of the drug (a fact they claim is frequently exploited by prostitution and crime). This statement actually supports my assertion about diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. If you do a little digging into how these programs operate, you will see what I mean. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delerium_tremens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delerium_tremens [1]Can't find an online copy of the academic paper in which I first read this statistic (in print) at the moment, but it's cited in a lot of places - most addiction specialists are familiar with the statistic. > Other side claiming that any kind of addiction is perfectly fine to indulge in, some of them even if it hurts others to varying degrees This is a straw man. Nobody argues that. Some people do argue that some people use drugs without any dependence issues and without harming other people. That, however, is a very different argument from what you present. > And these numbers ... they're not going to convince anyone who's ever worked with these people. No numbers are ever going to convince people who make their judgments based on emotional reactions, as you seem to have. However, there is a reason that modern addiction treatments, which are far more successful, involve harm-reduction and maintenance-based approaches.
gnaffle 13y ago
The main reason for nicotines damage is because people smoke it. If you compare a nicotine user who doesn't smoke to a meth user who doesn't smoke, I think you'll find that it's very obvious that the consequences of nicotine addiction are very different, and has nothing whatsoever to do with _how_ people get nicotine or other drugs.