djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2013 18:36:33 GMT -5
In a perfect world, smoking would be illegal wherever shared responsibility existed for healthcare. But tobacco growers established their businesses in good faith, kicking them to the curb would divest them of their livelihoods, there was a time when hemp was considered such an essential crop that it was illegal to NOT grow it. then the tobacco and beer barons took over, and the result is that hemp is now a class 1 narcotic. can you forgive me for thinking that these folks would just be getting their comeuppance if the situation were reversed? not that i don't see your short view of history, mind you.and banning cigarettes won't have enough of a positive effect to offset that. And whether this view is "ethically consistent" in your eyes: don't know; don't care. oh i believe that you don't care what i think. but i don't imagine for a second that you don't care about being consistent, as it is closely related to integrity. i have yet to meet a poster that didn't care about that. but go ahead, tell me i am wrong. Moreover, I'm not the "prohibition side of the argument". I'm the side of the argument that considers drug use unacceptable. and you propose to maintain this unacceptability by making consuming them a criminal act, right? sorry, but i don't think that there is much light between that position and what i am terming prohibition.I'll consider any reasonable, non-experimental proposal for reducing drug use whose costs are comparable to what we spend on dealing with drugs now. I don't want to open Pandora's Box. you don't like experiments. not very scientific, eh?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Apr 23, 2013 19:26:17 GMT -5
Marijuana can be used responsibly. So, to a degree, can cocaine, or morphine, or demerol, or any number of others. That doesn't mean they are used responsibly. There is no difference. Can you prove that the proportion of frequent hard drug users that use but never become full blown addicts is the same as the rather large percentage of people who frequently drink but never become alcoholics?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 23, 2013 19:42:38 GMT -5
Marijuana can be used responsibly. So, to a degree, can cocaine, or morphine, or demerol, or any number of others. That doesn't mean they are used responsibly. There is no difference. Can you prove that the proportion of frequent hard drug users that use but never become full blown addicts is the same as the rather large percentage of people who frequently drink but never become alcoholics? Why would I wish to prove something I didn't claim, formerroomate?
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,752
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Apr 23, 2013 19:52:51 GMT -5
do the ladies on the board care if rohypnol is legalized? i realize our "drug war" is a losing fight.....but it doesnt have to be closing our borders....and i mean closing them, would help the drug war immensely then we just have to find and eradicate our domestic producers if no product...the drug war disappears or as close as possible to endingYou do realize that Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) is nothing more than a benzodiazepine, right? While that particular one is illegal in the US, there are a good number of legal drugs that are used as "date rape" drugs far more often than Rohypnol. I take a benzo for my anxiety, and someone could definitely use the same medication to drug someone. Oh, and ketamine is a legal and somewhat essential drug, it just so happens to be abused.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2013 21:47:40 GMT -5
'These folks' are centuries removed from the 'tobacco and beer barons'. And hemp has jumped between legal and illegal so many times in the US, it's a bad joke.
I value consistency. Even so, it isn't an end unto itself.
I've said I'm amenable to decriminalizing hard drugs if the costs of rehabilitation programs are reasonable. If you want to call that 'prohibition', it's no skin off my nose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2013 22:12:01 GMT -5
Marijuana can be used responsibly. So, to a degree, can cocaine, or morphine, or demerol, or any number of others. That doesn't mean they are used responsibly. There is no difference. Can you prove that the proportion of frequent hard drug users that use but never become full blown addicts is the same as the rather large percentage of people who frequently drink but never become alcoholics? "hard drugs" lacks a definition. you can divide "drugs" into three categories: hallucinogens, depressants, and stimulants. next we turn to the term "addictive", which is also abused in common speech to the point where it doesn't comport well to the clinical definition, which is that one must experience severe physical withdrawl. there are a list of symptoms associated with that which include nausea, vomiting, inability to sleep, chills, and a host of psychiatric symptoms as well, including paranoia. hallucinogens and stimulants are mostly considered non-addictive or mildly addictive by the clinical standard. the depressants including alcohol, morphine and it's derivatives, and the synthetic equivalents to morphine are all highly addictive. this would be a good time to point out that even though depressants are highly addictive, few people who use them become addicted. personally, i don't find depressants interesting at all, so i couldn't care less what their legal status is. but that is just me, i am sure.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2013 22:13:59 GMT -5
'These folks' are centuries removed from the 'tobacco and beer barons'. And hemp has jumped between legal and illegal so many times in the US, it's a bad joke. is that true? that is not how i remember it. i thought it was always legal until the 20th century.I value consistency. Even so, it isn't an end unto itself. what is?I've said I'm amenable to decriminalizing hard drugs if the costs of rehabilitation programs are reasonable. If you want to call that 'prohibition', it's no skin off my nose. they are more reasonable than incarceration. is it group hug time?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 24, 2013 0:15:08 GMT -5
The marijuana documentary "The Union" starts with a detailed history.
If it costs $25K to incarcerate a drug addict with an 80% recidivism rate post-incarceration, and $125K to rehabilitate a drug addict with a 30% recidivism rate post-rehabilitation, the former option is still less burdensome to the taxpayer ($125K effective vs. $180K effective).
Consistency is not an end unto itself. It has no intrinsic value; it has to serve some useful purpose. If I consistently adjust my clock by moving the minute hand clockwise, my choice isn't commendable simply because it's consistent.
I'm not willing to pull the rug out from under tobacco farmers just because there's inconsistency in which drugs are prohibited. I don't consider it "capricious favoritism". It's a matter of respecting a lawfully-established industry that operated in good faith for centuries. That legacy doesn't earn them carte blanche, but it's enough in my mind to justify keeping them on the legal side of a complete ban.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2013 0:59:32 GMT -5
The marijuana documentary "The Union" starts with a detailed history. thanks.If it costs $25K to incarcerate a drug addict with an 80% recidivism rate post-incarceration, and $125K to rehabilitate a drug addict with a 30% recidivism rate post-rehabilitation, the former option is still less burdensome to the taxpayer ($125K effective vs. $180K effective). whoa, man......too many numbers......heavy....... (i am kidding, Virgil. recidivism is high among the opiate community, and fairly low elsewhere. i have no idea what the exact rates are in either community- but i will say this- incarcerating sick people is about as sensible as trying to fix a watch with a crescent wrench).Consistency is not an end unto itself. i understood you. what IS an end unto itself, old friend? tolerance? leggos? gouda?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Apr 24, 2013 14:50:48 GMT -5
Can you prove that the proportion of frequent hard drug users that use but never become full blown addicts is the same as the rather large percentage of people who frequently drink but never become alcoholics? Why would I wish to prove something I didn't claim, formerroomate? I get the impression from your previous posts that you think alchohol is just as addictive and just as dangerous as any other drug. For example, I've read that the vast majority of people who try crack become hopelessly addicted by the third time they try it, but most people who drink don't become alchohoics, and most alcoholics are heavy drinkers for a good long time before they became full blown addicts. This sort of perception (true or not) is one reason why alcohol is legal and heroin and crack are not. If the vast majorty of people who recreationally use a drug become full blown addicts within a short time frame, that would be a good reason to outlaw it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 24, 2013 16:43:15 GMT -5
I don't know where you got that impression, formerroomate, because that's not what I said. Alcohol, however, is the one of all those that, if suddenly withdrawn from one who IS addicted to it, will kill that addict. Morphine won't do that. Crack won't do that. Alcohol will.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2013 21:12:26 GMT -5
Why would I wish to prove something I didn't claim, formerroomate? I get the impression from your previous posts that you think alchohol is just as addictive and just as dangerous as any other drug. . i think you might be mistaking mmhmm for me. alcohol is more addictive and dangerous than most illegal drugs, especially in quantity. in addition, the long term health affects of addiction are far worse than most illegal drugs. if you want me to substantiate that, i can. but you might start here, in a recent article by the relatively conservative and very well respected economist: www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harmfor those of you that don't like clicking links, the byline of the article is that alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 25, 2013 8:21:15 GMT -5
I get the impression from your previous posts that you think alchohol is just as addictive and just as dangerous as any other drug. . i think you might be mistaking mmhmm for me. alcohol is more addictive and dangerous than most illegal drugs, especially in quantity. in addition, the long term health affects of addiction are far worse than most illegal drugs. if you want me to substantiate that, i can. but you might start here, in a recent article by the relatively conservative and very well respected economist: www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harmfor those of you that don't like clicking links, the byline of the article is that alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack. The trouble is that your chart doesn't normalize by extent of usage. If we put "Chocolate" on there, it would score off the charts for its role in fattening up our kids, rotting our teeth, and clogging our arteries. Give me a chart of "harm per user" and I'll afford it some credence.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 11:49:28 GMT -5
i think you might be mistaking mmhmm for me. alcohol is more addictive and dangerous than most illegal drugs, especially in quantity. in addition, the long term health affects of addiction are far worse than most illegal drugs. if you want me to substantiate that, i can. but you might start here, in a recent article by the relatively conservative and very well respected economist: www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harmfor those of you that don't like clicking links, the byline of the article is that alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack. The trouble is that your chart doesn't normalize by extent of usage. If we put "Chocolate" on there, it would score off the charts for its role in fattening up our kids, rotting our teeth, and clogging our arteries. Give me a chart of "harm per user" and I'll afford it some credence. i am pretty sure the Lancet study was done on a "per drug" basis. isn't that the most relevant measure of harm? edit- if you don't like the Lancet study, why don't you post your own? i never suggested it was the only study out there. it isn't.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 25, 2013 12:05:54 GMT -5
The trouble is that your chart doesn't normalize by extent of usage. If we put "Chocolate" on there, it would score off the charts for its role in fattening up our kids, rotting our teeth, and clogging our arteries. Give me a chart of "harm per user" and I'll afford it some credence. i am pretty sure the Lancet study was done on a "per drug" basis. isn't that the most relevant measure of harm? The most relevant measure is how much harm is caused per drug user. If that's what the chart is showing, we'd have to believe that marijuana is at least twice as harmful as steroids, ecstasy, LSD, and magic mushrooms. Personally I'm guessing mushrooms are at the bottom of the chart because they're relatively uncommon, not because they're relatively harmless.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 12:08:07 GMT -5
Virgil- maybe you are right. see my edit. the article in the economist was the first one that came up on Google.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 25, 2013 12:10:33 GMT -5
Virgil- maybe you are right. see my edit. the article in the economist was the first one that came up on Google. Keep your link up. The data isn't invalid. It just isn't measuring what I want to know. If we can find a table somewhere else showing roughly how many people use each type of drug, then we can use that to normalize.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 12:13:06 GMT -5
Virgil- maybe you are right. see my edit. the article in the economist was the first one that came up on Google. Keep your link up. The data isn't invalid. It just isn't measuring what I want to know. If we can find a table somewhere else showing roughly how many people use each type of drug, then we can use that to normalize. this has a lot of information in it. take a while to ingest....ahem...digest it, and let me know if there are any further questions. edit: very few people use illegal drugs with the exception of pot. but i thought the question was about addictive potential.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 12:15:07 GMT -5
anyone here had a hangover?
does everyone who has had one know that is a withdrawl symptom?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 12:16:52 GMT -5
anyone here had a hangover? does everyone who has had one know that is a withdrawl symptom? That's why a shot or a bloody, the next morning, is the best cure.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 12:17:55 GMT -5
anyone here had a hangover? does everyone who has had one know that is a withdrawl symptom? That's why a shot or a bloody, the next morning, is the best cure. precisely.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 25, 2013 13:20:14 GMT -5
We tried banning alcohol once and the ban couldn't be enforced. We've kept it legal since then and the number of people who identify as "heavy drinkers" has never been higher (in Canada, at least). It supposedly costs the US $230 billion a year in damages. So I'm open to suggestions on how to get people to stop drinking themselves stupid.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 15:53:13 GMT -5
We tried banning alcohol once and the ban couldn't be enforced. We've kept it legal since then and the number of people who identify as "heavy drinkers" has never been higher (in Canada, at least). It supposedly costs the US $230 billion a year in damages. So I'm open to suggestions on how to get people to stop drinking themselves stupid. stigmatize and tax the hell out of it. use the funds to produce commercials showing people dying in ditches and in hospitals from the drug. iow, deglamorize it. addiction is not pretty. show it for what it is. it is not cool. it is not fun. it is stupid and dangerous.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 25, 2013 16:44:21 GMT -5
We tried banning alcohol once and the ban couldn't be enforced. We've kept it legal since then and the number of people who identify as "heavy drinkers" has never been higher (in Canada, at least). It supposedly costs the US $230 billion a year in damages. So I'm open to suggestions on how to get people to stop drinking themselves stupid. The last province to end prohibition in Canada was P.E.I. in 1948. The population of Canada around that time was 12.8 million residents. The population of Canada today is around 35 millions so of course you would have more 'heavy drinkers' today than say even 20 years ago (population 28 million).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 25, 2013 17:27:08 GMT -5
Commercials aren't allowed to show people drinking alcohol in Canada. I'm not sure if it's the same in the US.
And barring some of the beer commercials, which are the goofy Superbowl-type affairs, booze ads invariably show people drinking responsibly. "Grey Goose Vodka" on the Golf Channel, I've seen a hundred times. They'll show people golfing, then sitting down to a glass of "The world's best-tasting vodka."
Or there will be 30 second spots for Ontario vintners, who give a recipe and then suggest the perfect "Ontario wine" to go with it.
The Bailey's ads always have adults getting together and clicking glasses in a chalet. The producers avoid the appearance of drunkenness or heavy drinking like the plague. And as I say, nobody ever takes a drink. Advertising laws don't allow it. If people emulated the commercials, we'd all be stone cold sober.
I grew up watching "Concerned Children's Advertisers" PSA's through my Saturday morning cartoons. I must have seen a particularly graphic one set to the song "Feelin' Alright" three hundred times. It would be fair to say that 15% of all advertising I watched as a kid was directed at warding kids away from drugs and alcohol.
The problem is that nobody thinks they're going to be the one who "can't handle it". And by the time a problem develops, nobody wants to admit they were the one who turned out like the drunken losers in the PSAs.
It's true in terms of percentages, too. In 2011, 21.9% of Canadians were recorded as "heavy drinkers" by the CHA survey, with the highest concentration in the 19-24 demographic.
I had several friends who drank and smoked pot during high school.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Apr 25, 2013 18:01:24 GMT -5
But again, what percentage of frequent ( more than once a week) users of meth, crack, herion and other 'hard' drugs can use for years without becoming addicts? And how do those rates stack up to frequent consumers of alcohol?
It's not a fair comparison to just look at addicts or even heavy users. The real question is how likely are you to progress from light usage to heavy usage to full blown addiction. If users of drug A have a 90% chance of becoming an addict within a year while users of drug B have a 0.00002% chance of becoming an addict (not real numbers), then you have more of a reason to ban drug A, even if drug B is more harmful and harder to kick once you're addicted.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 25, 2013 18:08:55 GMT -5
But again, what percentage of frequent ( more than once a week) users of meth, crack, herion and other 'hard' drugs can use for years without becoming addicts? And how do those rates stack up to frequent consumers of alcohol? It's not a fair comparison to just look at addicts or even heavy users. The real question is how likely are you to progress from light usage to heavy usage to full blown addiction. If users of drug A have a 90% chance of becoming an addict within a year while users of drug B have a 0.00002% chance of becoming an addict (not real numbers), then you have more of a reason to ban drug A, even if drug B is more harmful and harder to kick once you're addicted. DJ's chart has smoking at the highest dependency but low toxicity, and alcohol at relatively low dependency but the highest toxicity. Heroin and cocaine both have high dependency and toxicity, but they're apparently not as addictive as cigarettes or as toxic as alcohol. "Tolerance" I'm guessing is the tendency to need more and more of the drug to get the same effect. Don't ask me what "reinforcement" is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 21:54:13 GMT -5
Commercials aren't allowed to show people drinking alcohol in Canada. I'm not sure if it's the same in the US.. i wasn't talking about that. more like wavering around and throwing up on their moms.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 21:58:01 GMT -5
But again, what percentage of frequent ( more than once a week) users of meth, crack, herion and other 'hard' drugs can use for years without becoming addicts? And how do those rates stack up to frequent consumers of alcohol? heroin and cocaine are considered more addictive than alcohol, but i believe they stand alone in that respect. every other widely used illegal drug is less addictive.It's not a fair comparison to just look at addicts or even heavy users. The real question is how likely are you to progress from light usage to heavy usage to full blown addiction. actually, that is not a very good question. i can discuss the reason why, if you would like. a better question is what the addictive potential from a drug is considering all other factors.If users of drug A have a 90% chance of becoming an addict within a year while users of drug B have a 0.00002% chance of becoming an addict (not real numbers), then you have more of a reason to ban drug A, even if drug B is more harmful and harder to kick once you're addicted. heroin is the worst, apparently. cocaine is quite a bit down the list. then there is a large group that contains alcohol and tobacco.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 25, 2013 21:58:57 GMT -5
But again, what percentage of frequent ( more than once a week) users of meth, crack, herion and other 'hard' drugs can use for years without becoming addicts? And how do those rates stack up to frequent consumers of alcohol? It's not a fair comparison to just look at addicts or even heavy users. The real question is how likely are you to progress from light usage to heavy usage to full blown addiction. If users of drug A have a 90% chance of becoming an addict within a year while users of drug B have a 0.00002% chance of becoming an addict (not real numbers), then you have more of a reason to ban drug A, even if drug B is more harmful and harder to kick once you're addicted. DJ's chart has smoking at the highest dependency but low toxicity, and alcohol at relatively low dependency but the highest toxicity. Heroin and cocaine both have high dependency and toxicity, but they're apparently not as addictive as cigarettes or as toxic as alcohol. "Tolerance" I'm guessing is the tendency to need more and more of the drug to get the same effect. Don't ask me what "reinforcement" is. reinforcement is "enabling". it is how likely you are to encounter the drug when you are trying to quit.
|
|