Most addictive Drug - Opinions

[rocksmokinmachine]

SWIM couldn't say for sure which is his worse addiction, but polysubstance use springs to mind. Try having a horrendus heroin, crack and benzo habit. Not forgetting the fact he is an alcoholic. Not nice. All except the crack having EXTREMELY painful withdrawal symptoms, and crack is one of the most psychologically addictive drugs out there.

SWIM has never really had a problem with amphetamines, methamphetamine is pratically non-existent in western europe but it its use is spreading, mainly what goes around is very impure amphetamine sulphate, which isn't really up to much. And with all the government propaghanda at the minute about how dangerous methamphetamine is, creating yet another negative stigma I can't really see it taking a hold, at least not for the time being.

[bcubed]

Originally Posted by OccularFantasm

I don't even particularly enjoy drinking anymore, so i rarely do.

Interesting how people say "well getting drunk (or whatever particular drug effect) sucks balls TO ME, so NO ONE is enjoying themselves." SWIM finds alcohol to be (by a fairly wide margin) the most euphoric drug out there (though he's never IV'd heroin, so perhaps that might equal/surpass it). It's also the most reinforcing drug (read: >>sex) for SWIM: even as young as 11, SWIM recalls spending much of his free time drinking or planning ways to get at alcohol when it wasn't available.

If it were addictive as you say, would colleges across the country not be spewing out an insatiable amount of addicts. I mean, a lot of drinking takes place there, usually on many successive occasions. These people never went through terrible bits of withdrawal. Now lets say all these people were doing cocaine for example, many people would find it difficult to stop, whereas with alcohol, most just stop.

Might you have just proved the fallacy of the WOD propoganda that unfettered access to addictive drugs=nation of fiends? I recall reading about the US Army being concerned in Vietnam that they'd be bringing home dope fiends, but when the stress of the war zone disappeared, most opiate users discontinued use (the exceptions were usually addicted PRIOR to Vietnam service).

Also, search other threads. There are some dealing with addiction, and what is and what is not addiction. I don't want to get too off-topic here.

I'd think the "gold standard" of addiction would be tolerance, rebound effect, and withdrawl. Alcohol meets all three.

Accept that drugs offer differing rewards to different users. SWIM's first alcohol use summarized: "Blackout, get sick, recover, think OMG where can I get some more?"

SWIM's first opium use: "Meh...I'm a slightly warmer, happier, sleepier and queasier version of myself...overrated."

(Actually SWIM was a bit pissed off, as from all the bad (good?) press, he expected to have his reward system thoroughly rocked.)

Reputation Comments on this post:

good post

[OccularFantasm]

I do not see the relevance of tolerance to addiction. Mushrooms and acid give you a tolerance, yet this if anything gives them much less addiction potential, despite the intense euphoria, far superior to that of alcohol. Also, I did not say drinking sucks balls to me. I used to drink, but the hangover in the morning wasn't usually worth the fuzzy night beforehand. I simply do not enjoy it enough to counteract the hangover the next morning. Swim will have a few drinks now and again though, just never enough to get real drunk. In fact, most of the fun seemed to be sneaking around when swim was younger.

Also, opium is more rewarding to the brain than opium if you are at ease at all, the only reason for alcohol to be more rewarding is if the goal is not euphoria but avoiding whats going on or their responsibilities. But, like has been said before, the desired result drives how rewarding each drug is, and proves why there is such a variance in preference in different substances.

As to somehow thinking swim was supporting the war on drugs, swim just doesn't understand. swim am the most anti-cop anti wod person i know. Swim does know for a fact however, that if any large random group of people was split into two and each administered continual doses of different drugs, the rate of addiction in each group would be different given the addiction potential of each drug. Lets say one half of this group is given alcohol, one of the least addictive substances on the planet, and the other group given lets say heroin. Lets say the study lasts 30 days. Are you trying to tell me that people wont be able to stop on the alcohol side, because none of them would be experiencing withdrawal, or are you saying the people who were given the heroin would have no trouble up and stopping, and none of them went through withdrawal? I am not saying everyone is going to be hopelessly addicted, but it is ridiculous to have the point of view you have on opiates as well as the view you have on alcohol. They simply don't match up. If opiates are as nonaddictive as you say, than alcohol in your opinion can be nothing but totally nonaddictive. Hopefully I am interpreting what you mean wrongly, because if i am right in my interpretation, then it makes no sense to me.


Also, on the part you mention about people who used heroine during their term of service in Vietnam, I would imagine some people simply stopped when they came back in an effort to distance themselves from anything that would remind them of their stint out there. If a lot of their term included heroin use, I would imagine the pleasant downer qualities would be tarnished by post traumatic memories the feelings of acute intoxication may provide.



Also, physical addiction has nothing to do with the desire to use something. For example, if you want a drink after 3 glasses of liquor, this is from desire and not addiction. When your a smoker and you haven't had a cigarette in 12 hours, and you crave a cigarette, knowing it will not provide any euphoria or inebriation, but will cease the physical withdrawal symptoms; that is physical addiction.


Also bcubed, try gabapentin (nuerontin). It is very similar in its depressant actions to heroin, but gives much more euphoria, although tolerance develops to the euphoria, just not the sedation. This, in swims opinion, will give you that reward you socks off feelings you craved but were denied with opium. Do watch out though as it is addictive much the same way benzos are, and in roughly the same time-frame.

Alcohol is addictive, its just it is the same level of addiction potential as sugar. You have to overtly abuse it for years, and if you don't stop, eventually it will kill you. If you do abuse it to the point where your body is starting to take damage, going cold turkey will also kill you, as any diabetic will tell you. Therefore I think it would only be appropriate for alcohol to be considered just as dangerous and addictive as sugar, and far far less less addictive than benzos, opiates, and amphetamines. Also, much the same way as sugar, a physical addiction to alcohol can only be sustained from a prestanding psychological addiction, which some people like to call decades of irresponsible fun as it makes them feel better apparently.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by OccularFantasm

I'm not sure what you want me to clarify. Do you want me to explain how sugar can kill you, or alcohol, or do you mean how do i think it takes years to become addicted to alcohol. I'd be glad to clarify anything you like if would please make the question more specific.

Sorry I meant to put years in italics. Why do you think it takes years to become addicted to alcohol.

[OccularFantasm]

Swim finds alcohol to only be addictive then from experience. Swim does think if one is going to become psychologically addicted, or dependent on alcohol, it will probably be pretty quick, it depends on how the user reacts to the intoxication, but for the amount of time for physical withdrawal to take place, a much longer span of time is needed. Although a hangover can mimic some symptoms of withdrawal, although usually not quite as severe, this is not withdrawal. It will however hamper the strength of the headache while experiencing a hangover, but this is due to its anagelsic effects and not to stopping withdrawal. When swim was younger, he used to fancy drinking much more than he does now, in retrospect probably just because he tried it before weed, but nonetheless it was fun. Swim ended up drinking pretty constantly for the better part of a year, probably 6-9 months constant, after at least a year of binge drinking on weekends. People tried to tell me I was an alcoholic, but I laughed at them as this was not the case. I stopped drinking for 6 months purely out of spite, to show them that I was in fact not addicted and completely under control. I did not taper off or anything, I just decided that I didn't feel like it anymore, not if it was gong to keep drawing attention to myself especially. So I didn't drink anything and did not have any psychical withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. And note this was after drinking every morning and afternoon and night, it wasn't like once a week or anything. Given that that heavy of drinking can occur, and the cold turkey abstinence causing no withdrawal symptoms, mingled with the fact of so many people saying how it is addictive and provides these symptoms after longer term use, I arrived at my answer. I suppose I could just be some freak example, but it seems very unlikely. Also, I have experienced withdrawal form several other substances before, so I know that withdrawal symptoms did not occur but were not recognized. Also the drinking was primarily vodka and Jack Daniels; not sure if thats relevant, but just in case I'll put it out there. If anyone out there has had contradictory experience I would really love to hear it, or even a similar story. I also wonder if the majority of people when they try to stop if it is usually after a very long time.

I would like to clarify too before i get a retort about it form someone, is that people can become dependent on alcohol very quickly, and dependence I believe to be the primary reason why people have trouble with abstinence form any substance. Swim for example, is dependent on weed. Swim knows weed is not addictive, and has never experienced withdrawal symptoms form it, but he finds it much easier to control his PTSD, OCD, and racing thoughts than without it. This is what swim would consider a psychological addiction, and is how I think many alcoholics become physically addicted to alcohol. If this need was not there, it just seems unlikely to swim that one would continue to drink that much for that long, as no matter how enjoyable it is, the experience would become at least slightly dull and boring. I suppose the only way to differentiate for some drinkers if it is dependence or addiction, would be to see if a differnt substance of some kind removes the discomfiture created by alcohol abstinence. Dependence and addiction can often be confused as both can cause great feelings of panic disorder and anxiety; and anxiety in and of itself can create psychical symptoms: such as headache, lethargy, depression, rage, chills, and even vomiting. Many of these symptoms are also symptoms of physical withdrawal, and since many alcoholics if not all are dependent, the ability to decipher would seem impossible, especially since in the long term alcohol can become physically addictive. This is why I wold say only by trying a different substance, can one determine if it is a coping and stress problem, or if it is a substance problem. Much of the time people will say it is the drinking itself that is the problem, but I would argue it is the underlying anxiety or whatever the issue may be, that is the real cause. And as swim has said before, he is dependent on weed, so perhaps so long as the dependence is broken or at least changed to a different substance, many of these symptoms might not show themselves after abstinence to alcohol. If symptoms do not persist, so long as drinking has no exceeded one or more years, it seems that it would be dependency related, however if they do persist, it is much more likely to be a physical addiction by that point, or the other substance hasn't effectively quelled the underlying issue. for example some people use the alcohol to avoid responsibilities, other to lower anxiety so they can do things, other for depression etc. If the replacement substance effectively alleviates whatever those symptoms might be, I think the number of people who think they are physically addicted to alcohol would be lessened, as I feel some of these people confuse the two things. As I said before though, I am not trying to say this is the case for all, merely some, and is not an attack to anyone on this board, just a proposed theory.

An exception to my idea would probably be the sick and the elderly. These two groups could plausibly get addicted faster and easier than healthy non-geriatric people, as both the sick and elderly tend to react more sensitively to many substances.

I think this is a logical argument for my statement, if any flaws are found or discovered, I would very much enjoy to hear them, as well as any comments really, and I will provide any type of response necessary. A theory isn't much good unless it can stand up to objective criticism. Given my user CP it seems a lot of people like my intuitiveness or hate what I have to say on this particular issue, but like I said before, I am not attacking anyone or boasting lies as facts, and am willing to debate any part of what I say. So please ask me about whatever part you don't like or agree with before just giving me a bad rep, although it doesn't really matter to me, it just seems contradictory to what the rep system is there for. If I refuse to answer, or answer only around the question, or just yell, then by all means give me a bad rep 'til the cows come home. I just thought I'd mention it seeing as it has become quite common place. Within the political threads it makes sense because at least those are matters of opinion, this is just open discussion. So i guess my point is even if you just go straight to the bad rep button, at least post a reply on the thread expressing your ideas on how parts of my idea are wrong, as I find nothing more interesting than others views as it gives me a more complete picture to work with.

[zera]

Money.

Swim will do anything for it. He typically spends 40+ hours a week trying to get a hold of it only to completely blow through his stash every weekend. And no matter much he has its never enough, swim hears about guys whose tolerance is so high that they have to get 1,000 times as much as the average user just to keep up with their expenses.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Funny and pretty true as well.

[Nagognog2]

I'd throw my vote at benzodiazepines. Not only does addiction set in with only two weeks of medically prescribed usage - requiring gradual withdrawl - but the withdrawl (without medical supervison) can be fatal.

And to think they used to hand this stuff out like gumdrops at a dentist's office.

[rocksmokinmachine]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

I'd throw my vote at benzodiazepines. Not only does addiction set in with only two weeks of medically prescribed usage - requiring gradual withdrawl - but the withdrawl (without medical supervison) can be fatal.

And to think they used to hand this stuff out like gumdrops at a dentist's office.

I couldn't agree more nag, SWIM has been there, a straight rattle. SWIM suffered seizures, foamed at the mouth on many occasions. Was constantly shaking, twitching and having involentary muscle spasms. Not to mention the constant stress, extreme anxiety and months upon months of insomnia. This is truly painful.

Alcohol is actually very very similar to benzo withdrawal in many ways as are barbituates, and to think..some people were actualy saying alcohol is not addictive in this thread. Laughable.

Look up delerium tremors and then tell me alcohol is not physically addictive.

[machine_elf]

The most profoundly addicting and dangerous substances go as follows,

For psychological dependence : Things which act centrally on Dopamine (methamphetamine, cocaine)

For physical dependence : Things acting centrally on GABA (ethyl alcohol, barbiturates, benzodiazepines)


As for opiates, they aren't particularly dangerous and as such play backseat to things like barbs which can kill you if you stop taking them.

[Handle]

Crack! Physical dependence is not the only category, you must ask, 1 What can first cause the most pleasure -crack hands down 2What leads to the biggest cravings -again it's crack 3 What can cause the fastest and most powerful disruption within a very short time? It doesn't matter if physically you can 'get over it' because how many crackies or coke fiends do you know that will hold out long enough to rack up even a week off the stuff.
Yeah, heroin will mess you up big time in the long term, and long long after quitting will still make you sick physically, but I don't know anyone who first tried heroin then went on a sudden 3 day binge as happens with coke.
I guess the worst of both worlds is meth, because it has all the mental effects and more except it also causes huge physical dependence, if it is withdrawn the overwhelming mental and physical depression is irresistable.
I say, you have to look at the mental side of things, it doesn't matter if you can get over coke quickly as Burroughs says, that may be true, and it doesn't matter if heroin makes you sweat and vomit if you go without, the real question is, in a world where any desperate person finds both readily available, who has a better chance of trying to quit, and who has a better chance of going 'down the mine' as they say.
I have seen, peaceful, predictable regular as clockwork heroin using communities go to shit on coke, that stuff is just so cravemakin'. I've seen people survive fairly normal on heroin for years, then start with coke and become a penniless, skinny as shit paranoid wreck, where their only thought is how to get more coke. Jesus, at least when you shoot smack you get about 3 hours of peace, rest, and you aren't always a desperate depraved seeker of it who talks of nothing but, but coke does precisely the opposite, and reduces your whole consciousness to a tip of a pin, aiming solely at the next hit.
SWIM felt that on crack, and shooting coke, in a way SWIM never felt with heroin.
With heroin, the body stuff is just like the enforcer, like if you forget why you take the stuff then the horrible debilitating cramps and agony remind you. You get more because you are desperate to stop the pain, but if you can get medicine to stop the pain, you eventually wise up and take that instead. At least with heroin there are quite a few that want to stop, but crackies and coke fiends almost never want to stop, even without physical pain pushing them they still only think of one thing and just drift on for years, and become completely indifferent to absolutely everything else.

With heroin, Muirner is actually right, it has been found that opiates and endorphins are involved in the levels of serotonin in the brain, and depression can result from insufficient endorphins, even if serotonin levels are high.

[Antidote]

SWIM feels like he has a good background on this subject, having tried most every drug that would be considered addictive, save for a few holdouts, namely heroin and a few common scripts.

In his experience, ketamine is by far the most addictive drug SWIM has come across. The reasons for this are many and varied. First and foremost, the inherently addictive nature of ketamine is undeniable., and is increased in strength by the properties of the drug.

To elaborate... ketamine is a drug one can do recreationally on a regular basis, and still function in a relatively normal manner. SWIM can sleep on ketamine after a night of partying, and has a huge appetite following the come-down, if you can call it that. Contrast this with other drugs traditionally considered the most addictive... Methamphetamine for example. It is hard to live a "normal" life as a frequent user of meth. One's sleep patterns are constantly messed up; comedowns rule out any and all productivity, and poor diet compounds all of these problems. Looking back on his years of drug use, if SWIM's drug of choice was meth, he can't imagine that he would be half as pleasant as it is now.

This is why SWIM doesn't believe meth and it's stimulant cohorts are really all that addictive, at least not to a person with good sense and a good head on their shoulders. His experiences with it have never left him wanting more; quite the opposite in fact. The negative effects of it are enough motive to stay away.

Ketamine has never had quite so many downsides, and is a lot more meaningful, more fun, and yes, much harder to stay away from than any other common party drugs for SWIM... in many respects, he's happy for that fact.

[Handle]

Funny you say that. Gas[oline] huffers, glue sniffers, and people who use gaseous inhalants like butane and CFC's/HFC's, let's put them all to oone side as a separate issue because nitrous oxide is not like them. It is an NMDA antagonist, just like PCP and ketamine. Everyone knows how addictive that shit is, that's why some [not me] took to calling it 'hippy crack', well the reason is it's incredibly, irresistably morish, and people fight over it like babies. They hog it, can't get enough, some love it so much they seal themselves up in cars with big stolen tanks of it and suffocate [sad but true], so who knows, maybe ketamine feels that way to some people too. I'm pretty ignorant about the stuff, SWIM only tried it once and it was pretty wacky, flattened everything out to cartoonish,2d paperlike layers of background and foreground, and made everything feel like a video game [which, funnily enoough, is how laughing gas made SWIM feel years ago when he got it for legit reasons] while the physical effects, including disruption caused and comedown, were minimal.
So I can sort of see your point there, the easier something is to hide, well it strips away the disincentives that deter most people from heavy use, which is why, crazily enough, a kid can use heroin in his bedroom with less of a chance of getting caught than if he smoked marijuana!!! Yes, the subtle, creeping, insidious drugs are more dangerous than the overt, time consuming [as in you have to set aside a whole day/weekend/whatever to accommodate the chaos that goes with them] , smackintheface type drugs, which make it plain for all to see yer on 'em.
Sometimes the worst drugs also happen to be the ones most often incorporated as a crutch into seemingly ordinary lives.

[Panthers007]

One must take into consideration the psychological make-up of the individual. Some can shoot heroin and walk away - but never be able to quit smoking tobacco. There are many variations on this, of course. So I'd venture that the most addictive drug is the one that you - the individual - have the hardest time putting down and walking away from.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good point

[Handle]

Hmm, several very good comments there, particularly the idea that the most addictive drug is your own personal room 101...the thing most specific and relevant to your own perceived shortcomings or desires. So maybe someone who has suffered a terrible trauma will always stay with opiates as they are safe [psychologicallY] and predictable. But a nervous, agoraphobic introvert may feel that simple ecstacy is the ultimate crutch, that overcomes all the unwanted traits of their personality. I know I'm simplifying here, but it's a good point.
Second -fentanyl, wow, that surprises me. I have never, never seen anyone use it in real life, so I can't really talk. Everyone knows it's made out to be one of the super strongs, up there with etorphine in some respects, well starting simply with dose, but most of the reports I've read said it was good for pain but not for a high. JUst too overwhelming or something...I find that really interesting. This is the first time I've heard of someone who says they felt it was addictive. I wonder if SWIY started using it legitimately, or something, because then it would make sense that something so powerful would of course rebound on you with nasty effects when withdrawn.
Still, many people's first time snorting heroin is just a headache with no euphoria, even for people who had previously used weak opiates. So, maybe its just a matter of tuning in to a higher level of effects, then you feel you can't live without it.
Finally, think about it, heroin costs a minimum fifty bucks, its illegal, easy to get ripped off, and you have to wait incessantly even if you do have a friend. But cigarettes are available to every adult for ten bucks on every street corner. Not only that, you don't need to seek out a dingy back alley to find people shooting nicotine, out in public they blow it in your face, not to mention product placements and advertising. How can you walk away from something that surrounds you, is so accessible and to a great extent [except LA] accepted!?

[juanathan]

i read the title of this post and i thought it meant "most addictive drug: opinions"

but i guess they could be, they aren't drugs but a strong opinion about something to the point of close-mindedness alters your perception of the reality of the situation much like a drug. ...just in a completely different way

many american lawmakers are addicted to the idea that there are no benefits of drug use

Reputation Comments on this post:

thankyou, good point

[Psych0naut]

As already mentioned, it differs with each person and their personal makeup. SWIM did all of the most addictive drugs; nicotine, alcohol, IV/smoked heroin, IV/smoked cocaine and methamphetamine. Alcohol, methamphetamine and cocaine via any MOA are both drugs SWIM dislikes, he has only used the latter just to know the experience, but finds it dysphoric, and alcohol is rubbish in his opinion as well(hangovers from hell!). Methamhetamine gives one of the best highs there is in SWIMs opinion, but the crash and horrible hangover deter him from further use. Only nicotine and heroin remain. SWIM doesn't crave nicotine and has quit smoking for a while, but anytime he gets wasted he just can't stop smoking. Also, in social situations it's sometimes hard to abstain as well, and SWIM recides to the cigarette on some occasions, bur very rarely. Heroin is the worst of all in his experience, it just stays in the back of his mind, that lovely warm comforteable feeling of total relaxation and tranquility, that little piece of heaven.... He even stays away from that one as well, but abstaining is difficult, and he can see how addictive it is to people in a worse situation than he is, who is in the best situation he could wish for, honestly.

[wearestardust]

Definitely cigarettes. But if we are confining ourselves to pharmaceuticals then in SWIWAS' 30 years of benzo use for his anxiety/panic disorder, then never again would I get scripted for lorazepam. The WDs are the worst, even after a short course, and it is so 'more-ish' that the normal diazepam substitution method just leaves one feeling cold and as if there are no benzos getting into the system. In the early 1980s lorazepam was almost removed from the market for this very reason, and Wyeth, at the time the sole patent-holder, were being sued L,R,&C for failing to make the dangers of stopping clear in the Patient Info Leaflet. The worst effects were to be seen in more elderly people who were on the small dose of 1mg tabs tds. Alprazolam and bromazepam both also have the reputation of being difficult to quit. The former is being phased out altogether in the UK. Bromazepam 'went' in 2003. Out of the 38 true benzos, only 9 are now available for British doctors to prescribe on the Health Service, though most may still be procured by Private Prescription. Two benzos have been recently upgraded (although still in Class 'C') from Schedule IV to Sched.III - flunitrazepam and temazepam. And midazolam is available only as an injection in a hospital setting with a maximum dosage of 20mg/day. Throughout the rest of Europe it is available in tablet form, branded 'Flormidal'.
However, I must agree that lorazepam, whether Trapax, Ativan, Loraz or whatever brand, normally prescribed in 2.5mg tablets tds, is well due for deletion. No other benzo grasps you so quickly and tightly, and as for those WDs, one can suffer the most outrageous seizures even on relatively low doses.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well written & informative post.

[Handle]

As said before, I think it depends on your definition. If you want, hardest to quit, well nicotine is right up there because it's affordable, legal and available. But what about those other factors like cravings after first use [crack] pain of withdrawal [heroin] or long term recidivism [meth] but when you add up on meth, compare say heroin, you will eventually get addicted, but I don't know anyone who goes on a three day binge after their first use of heroin, but with the smokable stimulants, this is very common.
But then meth gets an edge over crack because it causes much more severe physical WD's after a much longer time compared to crack. So while they are both as hard to "want" to quit, nevertheless meth has more kick, more punishment if you do decide to quit. So meth has just as much physical "enforcement" as heroin does, to keep you in the habit, and punish you if you quit, however it also has this sudden binge/craving effect observed with crack. Now when you add to that the fact that meth has equal physical effects to crack, yet is also longer lasting, much longer lasting, then the disruption in the life it causes skyrockets, because it interferes with sleep much more than crack does. And remember, the more it separates you from society, the more it funnels you down the addiction pathway. So, actually, the disruption it causes in your life actually increases the likelihood that you will be marginalised and more at risk of drug use, and so if you started with meth, it will push your life in the direction that you will continue with meth. And it effects more neurotransmitters than coke too, so that means the mental depression and upset will be worse too.
So, yes, although nicotine might be so pervasive it's hard to escape, the point is I think you should factor in disruption as part of defining addiction. Because heroin addicts can maintain much more normal functioning due to fewer psychiatric side effects, less sleep disruption, etc. But with meth, people continue either because of, or in spite of the disruption it causes, while their lives disintegrate, and not just their lifestyles, [cause heroin ruins your lifestyle] but also your body, brain and mind.
Heroin does way less damage than meth. That is a fact. Even street heroin is less damaging than pure meth, because the damage meth does is inherent to it's function, so that with meth, the damage [due mainly to vasoconstriction] is an inescapable part of getting high with it.

All I'm saying is, add up strength, length, WD's, inherent toxicity, lifestyle damage, brain damage, organ damage, disruption to normal biological rhythms, risk of mental illness, instant binges and recidivism, related crime and violence, I think meth wins as the most addictive drug.

I know what you're all thinking, you're thinking "Yes but this is not about the worst drug, it's about the most addictive drug". But I say, look at the stuff like crime and disruption, if a drug can cause so much of that, yet simultaneously exhibit high numbers of dedicated users, who forsake family, money health sleep freedom everything for this drug, then it must be very addictive. And you can tick heroin for many of these things, but at least heroin addicts in some countries can find some level of stability, even with crime or health problems, they settle into the drug use, but can be accessible to help because they are still thinking fairly straight and only acting criminally to support their habit, but you can get through to many of them. But with meth, you can't reach them, they are so wacked out, and their crazy criminal behaviour is due to the drug itself, and the sleep deprivation, you reach no equilibrium with it, between use and stability, indeed it is the complete opposite of that, it represents total chaos and insanity. So they are driven further and further from normal society, like I know many heroin addicts who maintained some semblance of quiet lives, but meth is o violent, so crazy, it pushes you down that road and so it's very hard to come back out. Because it strips away all those structures of normality and stability, especially the most simple one: sleep.
I said to someone, I'm not sure all the madness attributed to meth is just meth, I think someone without meth if they missed that much sleep, they would go crazy too.
But sleeplessness is another unavoidable pitfall of meth use. You can't deny that one.
Nicotine you can tick off for recidivism and inherent toxicity, and "dedication" while addicted, however it does not cause all the behaviour or lifestyle disruption, sure, it might be hard to keep smoking in LA now, but mainly, smoking tobacco does not shunt you into a life where no other option exists. You see, the disruption a drug causes does not just make it "bad", it also makes it more addictive because you are forced into that life more and more, and all your other options fade away.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good summary

[Lisa J]

Addiction is very much an individual thing, thats why people often use many different drugs for months or even years before one of them becomes a problem and they have developed an addiction. Addiction is more about attitude and behavior than dependency on an actual substance, if you spend every last penny on your drug, or beg, borrow and steel from family and friends to get your drug, or steal from shops, cars, homes etc or sell your body to get your drug - THEN YOU ARE A DRUG ADDICT.
It does not matter whether the substance is physically addictive or not, if a person needs to behave this way to get their drug of choice they have an addiction, pure and simple.
SWIM needs to take large amounts of fentanyl on a daily basis, SWIM is dependent on fentanyl not addicted to it because SWIM has a regular supply for next to nothing from her GP. SWIM can go about her life in a perfectly normal way because she doesn't have to worry about either getting the drug or funding it's use.
Several months ago SWIM went through a nasty marriage breakup and started using heroin to take the stress away, although the physical dependency was the same SWIM'S behavior had to change to ensure she didn't go without heroin, this meant recklessly spending savings and putting herself in dangerous places, situations in order to score. SWIM begged and borrowed but didn't steal or sell her body, but only because SWIM got help before it went that far.
Addiction is about how the need for a drug makes you think and behave, it is not about the physical dependency.
Almost anything could make an individual behave that way and most people are capable of becoming addicts.

[wearestardust]

Big problem with amphetamines and cocaine is that there is no recognised medical treatment for coming off, as I found during my stay at a private rehab clinic last year. No medication except perhaps a week or two on low-dose benzodiazepines to lessen any of the more anxiety-inducing WDs. Having not used a stimulant since his heart attack caused by crack cocaine acouple of years ago, SWIWAS wouldn't know much more except that he went into overdrive on heroin and benzos for a long time afterwards as self-medication. Worked, though. No clinic would do what he did; and ended up having to be treated for dependence on opiates and those life-threatening benzos. BTW it was a specialist addictions doctor who was being quoted, ie 'nobody ever died from opiate WD'.

[Handle]

If opiate withdrawals truly could kill, then it would be like a "thing", an issue that people know about. Just having them when you die is like having a stomach upset when you get run over.

If it was more than just coincidence, then there would be many recognised cases that people would be aware of, just as we are aware with barbiturates, even some official sources warn people, for their own safety, not to abruptly stop barbs even if they are addicted. Because there are noted, documented cases of deadly withdrawals, but these are not known, either to users or the medical community, to stem directly from opiate discontinuation. If they were, patients would be warned about them, IV heroin and other opiate addicts have been around for more than a century now, it would be a solid link established by now if it really was the case, but I don't think it is.

I only mention this because if people include "deadly wd's" as aprt of the case for saying opiates are the most addictive because you could die if you try to quit, well, that's not true.

I'm not attributing such claims to you, saving jenni B, but I'm just trying to justify why I wrote this post refuting the "opiates can kill quitters" idea. I think you'd need more than just saying "It could happen, people die from lots of things, you don't know every case in history", I don't think that's enough of a basis to keep up saying something if there is no more than one or two anecdotal cases that may or may not be coincidental about people who died while abstaining from opiate addiction. Even if true, [as I have never read a first hand case like that] it doesn't prove the wd's killed them if you can't show a clear pattern of such deaths occurring.

I also think it's important in a thread like this because people should be given facts about drugs according to the best knowledge we have available. What if someone felt ready to quit and they had the mindset that wanted to do it cold turkey, no methadone or whatever. Well then it would be no good to come to a forum like this seeking good info, and get scared off by an idea that might not be right. From a harm minimisation view, we should try to stick to the best amasssed knowledge we have and can agree on, rather than appeal to random chance that someone once might have died in a particular way.

And as for meth addicts, take heart! A trial of modafinil showed some promise in alleviating some severe mental effects among ice quitters. For users who used 28 days of a month, those on modafinil cut back to 7-8 days per month during the trial, while the placebo group remained around the 22 days use per month mark when they tried to reduce.

So, having an effective pharmacotherapy available might eventually change the status of meth as [what I believe to be] one of the worst addictive drugs.

And Barrie Humphries was dirty!? To think -Dame Edna fucked up on pills, or mopping bloody track marks up with a doilie!

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Nicely written - patirnt, respectful & most of all true!
	Well-reasoned and argued points.

[samuraigecko]

SWIMs vote would also go with nicotine as has seemed to be the main trend so far.

Nicotine has been the ONLY drug SWIM has never been able to kick.

Sure benzo and barbituate class drugs have the potential to cause death but that is not to say that they are "more addictive" as the thread topic is actually about.

Opiate WD is horrible for sure. SWIM is going through that right now. But he still says the old cigarette is always going to be the most addictive to the masses.

1] statistically more people smoke than do any other 1 particular drug continuously.
2] cigerettes kill more people every year than any 1 drug
3] cigerettes are responsible for more health problems every year than any 1 drug.
4] cigerettes are legal and easily obtainable.
5] cigerettes lead to changes in mood which means changes in brain chemistry.

Nicotine is the most evil drug on the planet, yet it is SO socially acceptable.

just one opinion.

[Traumatized]

It really depends on the time frame in which one is speaking. Swim thinks that crystal meth is by far the most addicting substance around in the long term. Swim has never done heroin so swim cant comment on that one. In the short term swim thinks that crack cocaine is by far the most hard to put down once swim has started smoking it. Once swim has taken that first crack hit swim just cant stop jonesing for it and will not stop until it is all gone. Even though swim does not even like crack that much swim cant not get enough of it once swim has started. Crystal meth on the other hand swim can put down at any time and go for months on end with out doing it. Crystal meth never stops haunting swim how ever. Swim even has very vivid dreams about blowing out huge dense clouds of meth vapor. When swim wakes up swim is very disappointed to realize it was just a dream. After this point swim will not be at ease until swim acquires some meth. This has gone on for years and swim thinks it will never end. Swim used to hate meth until swim smoked it properly. Now swim can not live with out it. Its not the high as much as the joy of smoking it. There is just something about the huge vapor hits that come from meth that swim loves so much. Swim could smoke it all day and not even get high. Swim just loves that feeling of the vapor in swims lungs.

Reputation Comments on this post:

cool

[drab4]

Originally Posted by takak023

Of all the drugs in the world, wat do u guy dinks dat is the most additive drug and y??

I think that the drugs a person finds most addictive will depend on their genetics, and their situation

The only drug Swim ever had a really bad problem with was alcohol. Strangely enough, Swim did also go through a phase of problem use of mdma (using mdma all day every day for a period of many months). His alcohol use was over a much longer period though and was greatly harder to stop

Swim has used some of those drugs which are traditionally thought of as much more addictive than either of the above. He regularly smoked crack cocaine and heroin when younger, and although he found both drugs very "more-ish", he never really felt the urge to move to the needle and never had any major problems stopping either of those drugs. Alcohol was always there to console him, after all. I think this just goes to show that the most addictive drugs will vary from person to person

So the answer for Swim would be alcohol. I think the answers for others will vary greatly

[Niteflights]

I think no drug can be universally classified as the 'most addictive', but rather certain personality/neurochemical types will become addicted to certain effects that certain drugs induce. SWIM for one hates cocaine, it just makes him irritable and nervous with little euphoria.

I am surprised how little mention ketamine gets... for SWIM it was the only substance that approached an addiction and SWIM has had many.

It also strikes me that people like Lilly and Leary who had access to whatever they wanted for the entire lives ended up ranking ketamine at the top.

I think the reason heroin and cocaine always win the elections are their historic mystique and availability. Any worthy dealer offers these while ketamine historically was very esoteric and only available to a select few. Also the majority of people avoid drugs that expose them to their own psyche (psychedelics) while preferring more hedonistic euphoria. I think the minority of more introspective "spiritual" types tend to prefer the psychedelics. I think ketamine is aptly labelled psychedelic heroin.

It is a shame the rave abuse pandemic is tarnishing the fascinating substance much like the hippies did with LSD.

dive safe,
Andrei

Reputation Comments on this post:

thanks for your helpful and well thought out posts!