formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Apr 26, 2013 11:25:01 GMT -5
The thing I'm thinking is that there are different levels of addiction depending on how much you use. A drug could be not very addictive when you are a light user but be extremely addictive if you are a heavy user or full blown addict, while another drug could be medium level addictive at all levels of use. This would explain the paradox of the vast numbers of people who drink but never become alcoholics, even though alcohol is considered very addictive.
For example, for a couple of years, I was drinking to excess nearly every weekend and having a drink or two during the week. Then I had one of those 'aha' moments, realised I was going down a dangerous road and pretty much stopped drinking without any hint of withdrawal. But with stuff like meth and heroin, you don't hear of people using for years and years without dramatic increases in their usage. Then again, it would be pretty hard to gather data on such things, and people who use those drugs aren't going to have the same personalities or circumstances as someone who has a glass of wine every once in a while.
|
|
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 26, 2013 11:38:34 GMT -5
I remember a study on the percentage of users who became actual addicts to several drugs, including nicotine and alcohol. The trouble with that study was it didn't take into account the number of people who actually used the substance in question. High numbers of those using a given substance dilute the percentages, so studies not adjusting for that factor don't accurately indicate the addiction potential. Most people won't even try heroin. More will try cocaine, and even more will try crack, but these will be folks who are willing to try almost anything. The average person won't touch any of the three. To get an accurate percentage would require a lot of adjustments to be worth bothering with. I don't know of a study that's gone deep enough to really be completely viable.
|
|
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 26, 2013 11:52:19 GMT -5
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. Actually, "reinforcement" is a psychology term. It has to do with the perceptions of (in the case of addiction) the user. If the user finds the results of using a given drug to be pleasurable, that will reinforce the user's drive to use again. If, on the other hand, a user were to find a given drug to produce feeling that were unpleasant, that person would not be likely to wish to use that particular drug again.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:13:39 GMT -5
The thing I'm thinking is that there are different levels of addiction depending on how much you use. of course. but addictiveness is also independent of those variables. you have to drink a lot of caffeine to develop a habit. you don't have to take much smack. but the real message here, for me, is that someone who is a casual user is going to know that, and mitigate the risks by taking an amount that will not cause addiction. only something like 13% (the highest number of any drug) of heroin users this year will be habitual heroin users next year. people seem to think it is closer to 100%, and it just isn't.A drug could be not very addictive when you are a light user but be extremely addictive if you are a heavy user or full blown addict, while another drug could be medium level addictive at all levels of use. This would explain the paradox of the vast numbers of people who drink but never become alcoholics, even though alcohol is considered very addictive. this is precisely true. most people know not to go on another drinking binge the morning of a hangover. that is a recipe for disaster. most people have a couple of drinks at a party, and if they have a couple too many, they pay the piper and get back to work. this is what separates the addict from the casual user.
For example, for a couple of years, I was drinking to excess nearly every weekend and having a drink or two during the week. Then I had one of those 'aha' moments, realised I was going down a dangerous road and pretty much stopped drinking without any hint of withdrawal. But with stuff like meth and heroin, you don't hear of people using for years and years without dramatic increases in their usage. that is because it is unreported. why that is, i will leave up to you to explore.Then again, it would be pretty hard to gather data on such things, and people who use those drugs aren't going to have the same personalities or circumstances as someone who has a glass of wine every once in a while. the social acceptance of legal drugs means that people will be quite verbal about their problems with them. i will presume you can extrapolate from that last remark.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:16:29 GMT -5
I remember a study on the percentage of users who became actual addicts to several drugs, including nicotine and alcohol. The trouble with that study was it didn't take into account the number of people who actually used the substance in question. High numbers of those using a given substance dilute the percentages, so studies not adjusting for that factor don't accurately indicate the addiction potential. Most people won't even try heroin. More will try cocaine, and even more will try crack, but these will be folks who are willing to try almost anything. The average person won't touch any of the three. To get an accurate percentage would require a lot of adjustments to be worth bothering with. I don't know of a study that's gone deep enough to really be completely viable. i would posit that a fair number of people who try heroin don't care if they become addicted or not, or are willing to take that risk. i am not passing judgement here, but i am saying that this no doubt skews the results. i think that is part of what you are saying above. people who are afraid of being addicted won't even try it. but i can tell you, here and now, that i have tried coke, and didn't find it very interesting, let alone habit forming- even though it is apparently more addictive than anything out there other than heroin.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:17:29 GMT -5
reinforcement is "enabling". it is how likely you are to encounter the drug when you are trying to quit. Actually, "reinforcement" is a psychology term. It has to do with the perceptions of (in the case of addiction) the user. If the user finds the results of using a given drug to be pleasurable, that will reinforce the user's drive to use again. If, on the other hand, a user were to find a given drug to produce feeling that were unpleasant, that person would not be likely to wish to use that particular drug again. really? what term am i thinking of, then, mmhmm. i know that is part of the addictive cycle, as well.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:19:35 GMT -5
I think "enabling" probably works, dj.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:23:33 GMT -5
I think "enabling" probably works, dj. i am looking for a wider term than that, mmhmm. enabling refers to people immediately associated with the addict. the term i am thinking of has to do with societal acceptance. IE- showing drunks and smokers as alternatively cuddly and cool in Hollywood in the 50's.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:23:43 GMT -5
I remember a study on the percentage of users who became actual addicts to several drugs, including nicotine and alcohol. The trouble with that study was it didn't take into account the number of people who actually used the substance in question. High numbers of those using a given substance dilute the percentages, so studies not adjusting for that factor don't accurately indicate the addiction potential. Most people won't even try heroin. More will try cocaine, and even more will try crack, but these will be folks who are willing to try almost anything. The average person won't touch any of the three. To get an accurate percentage would require a lot of adjustments to be worth bothering with. I don't know of a study that's gone deep enough to really be completely viable. i would posit that a fair number of people who try heroin don't care if they become addicted or not, or are willing to take that risk. i am not passing judgement here, but i am saying that this no doubt skews the results. i think that is part of what you are saying above. people who are afraid of being addicted won't even try it. but i can tell you, here and now, that i have tried coke, and didn't find it very interesting, let alone habit forming- even though it is apparently more addictive than anything out there other than heroin. If I remember correctly, the study I was talking about had addiction to heroin at about 25% for all those who had used the drug at all. Cocaine had a higher percentage than heroin, and nicotine was the highest ... in the 90% range. Contrary to popular belief, everyone who tries heroin doesn't become addicted, but someone who WOULD try heroin is more likely to have a problem than someone who would drink a glass of wine with a meal.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:27:08 GMT -5
shit. the quote function isn't working again.
when i was living in the city, i rode my bike to work. i also smoked after work. i got to the point where i was puffing about half a pack a day. one night, i was cooking dinner, and i coughed up a black "thing". it was so gross, that i quit right there and then.
but i know most people can't give it up that easily.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:29:09 GMT -5
I think "enabling" probably works, dj. i am looking for a wider term than that, mmhmm. enabling refers to people immediately associated with the addict. the term i am thinking of has to do with societal acceptance. IE- showing drunks and smokers as alternatively cuddly and cool in Hollywood in the 50's. Hmm. Social influence might be applicable, as might conformity. Enabling can also be used in a societal sense, as opposed to only in an individual sense.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:31:05 GMT -5
i am looking for a wider term than that, mmhmm. enabling refers to people immediately associated with the addict. the term i am thinking of has to do with societal acceptance. IE- showing drunks and smokers as alternatively cuddly and cool in Hollywood in the 50's. Hmm. Social influence might be applicable, as might conformity. Enabling can also be used in a societal sense, as opposed to only in an individual sense. i guess so. i just never use the term that way. do you?
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:32:28 GMT -5
I don't use it much, at all, dj, but I've seen it used that way in professionally written articles and journals.
|
|
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 26, 2013 12:36:04 GMT -5
I don't use it much, at all, dj, but I've seen it used that way in professionally written articles and journals. thanks. i will expand my usage to include societal influence.
|
|