Most addictive Drug - Opinions

[wearestardust]

I think you are right in that everybody's system is different; therefore for one opiates are most addictive, and for another, BZDs.
Cocaine addiction is largely psychological; the physical side is not really a factor when compared with the other two types of drug noted here, which are both incredibly physically addicting, though not quite to the extent of alcohol or nicotine, the 'legal' ones, responsible for more deaths than all the other drugs of addiction put together.
As I mentioned above, I had a terrible time releasing myself from the plague of opiate and BZD addiction and would presume that most people would also find that this is the case.
I think this thread could go on for ever given the differences between people.
However I do consider that the legal drugs so common in our societies are proably most difficult; they certainly cause much more harm to the user. Now that we are aware of the dangers involved with marijuana use and cocaine use with regard to cardio-vascular problems, you may think that use of these may decrease.It doesn't seem to have sunk in yet though.
Pure opiates are relatively benign, and caus very little physical damage. BZDs are simply terribly addictive both physically and psychologically. WDs from these drugs are life threatening, unlike opiates.
Never having used ketamine, I would not know, but have heard stories about difficulties in stopping once the user has developed a regular usage pattern.
WAS

[moda00]

Interesting points, Niteflight. I would agree that assessments of most addictive are often related to personality type and preference, as well as availability. Swim found that she could use coke and crack daily for some time and then got off it and has not looked back- no withdrawals, cravings, hasn't touched it since deciding to stop. Opiates, on the other hand, were a battle- trying to get clean for months and months (I believe it was over a year) and finally she was able to come off, but with methadone maintenance, and she did relapse a few times- still can't be around the stuff. It was the most intense ordeal of her life. That said, she knows two people, both of whom have tried heroin, who had no desire to do it regularly, but on the other hand become addicted to cocaine or crack. One of these women got to a very bad place physically, and really damaged her health as well as many relationships and destroyed her credit. She is now sober for three months, but it has been a 3+ year battle. The other friend went through three inpatient programs, moved away, and just recently resumed using both crack and powder, so her battle is not yet over. While heroin and cocaine are considered the "hard" drugs or the "worst" drugs by many people, many substances, legal or illegal can definitely cause problems. And while heroin and cocaine addictions are not necessarily pharmacologically similar, the idea of addiction is the same, and the effects just as destructive.

People are said to have addictive personalities, but interestingly enough, swim has found that this has not held true for her. When she started using, she smoked weed daily and drank alcohol near daily, often alone. Eventually she stopped using both without problems. She also is prescribed methylphenidate etc. for her sleep disorder and finds no urge to misuse it, and has also had benzos around without problems. Of course she knows she is at greater risk for dependence having experienced it before, and she is very careful about any potentially addictive substance. But she knows that some things have not been problematic, whereas, for her, heroin could still become a problem and she knows it is not worth it to tempt it.

Swim hasn't tried ketamine yet but is fascinated by the concept of an addictive psychedelic. She loves psychedelics, but does them perhaps once every few months, sometimes more in the summer and less in the winter, but has never felt the desire to take psychedelics very often, and I think most people feel the same way. But ketamine sounds interesting in this regard. She has definitely heard people discuss it and get "the look," the look one might get in their eyes when reminiscing about an addictive drug of choice.. But every substance's addictive potential, while certainly somewhat measurable by research in terms of risks, statistics, etc., is really determined by the individual using it.

[OccularFantasm]

as for a psychological addiction i would have to say weed or mushrooms. Swim was addicted to cigs for a long time, but in the end weed will get you high everytime where a cigarette will fail.

for a pure physical addiction swim would have to say cocaine is harder although after a few days there is no more addiction, there is one after initial dosage.

opiate withdrawl last longer with quite unpleasantness. Addiction doesn't come immediately however so it wont be my number one.


SWIM thinks the most powerful combonatio of mental and physical addiction is Neurontin (Gabapenten). The Euphoria level is off the charts, and swimhas also never seen a drug develop such a quick tolerence. Swim finds it works stronger than opiates with similar effects. Also anyone who has gone through cold turkey withdrawl form this know exactly what swim is talkin bout.

Swim could also imagine people putting thorazine on this list, for people with a desire to jus pass out.

[lexifer]

aside from nicotine, swim would say cocaine is pretty damn addictive. Swims first time was interrupted, right as swim was leaning over for a line, by none other than his mother who had come home from work early. swim was then inexperienced with drugs and was doing this line right on his dining room table rather than playing it safe and doing it in the bathroom even though his mom was supposed to be at work til 3 in the morning but came home at 11.

anyhow the point of this story is that after my mom screamed at me and hollered swim went to bed. longer story short, swim was up until 7 in the morning with nothing to come down on (swims mom flushed his 1/4 of buds) trying desperately to get to sleep, physically exausted, mentally wired, and unable to keep his eyes shut. all the while thinking of nothing but how he wished he had just one more line.

[Android]

• Crack addicts the users.....meth is a user preference
• Crack's influence in the brain compels the brain to need more crack.. . meth merely stimulates neural release of epinephrine... the user retains command of the brain..
• Crack's influence leads to physical deterioration by neglect. . . meth abuse is isolated to users with histories of abuse and physical neglect.
• Crack can easily change user from an Apple to an Orange....meth is quickly becoming America's number one drug of choice though only a tiniest fraction are known abusers, because they are abusers... of everything... and meth didn't change them .....nor did meth change the invisible majority of meth users such as your co-workers, doctors, lawyers, neighbors, etc. who enjoy the benefits of a wrongly targeted "friendly" without the slightest noticeable behavioral change except their alcoholism is cured, they're cholesterol levels are perfect, their blood pressure is perfect, and they're illness-free, not a sniffle, and they're aging process has slowed to a crawl simply by continuing their same healthy eating habits with occasional deep, rich, healthy, rejuvenating sleep that heals, unlike the average 8 hour a night sleep that does more damage than good and wastes half our short lives.

Only legal drugs are killing us by the thousands every second, so never be fooled by government propaganda... the government/industrial machine has only it's own interests at heart... We're all, you and I, everyone of us, expendable resources keeping the trade cycle in motion and the machine operational. ....not unlike cattle.. so I'll now offer a parting "moo" because it's back to the barn for me...

[killthepoor187]

In all the animal studies I've seen on addictiveness nicotine was always at the top.

SWIM has smoked fentanyl, crack, and meth and never developed any serious dependance. Personal psychology has a lot to do with it, I gather.

YMMV

[zera]

According to the household illicit drug use survey, the percent of people who have used heroin in their lifetime is 1.5%, and the percent using in the past month is .1%, a ratio of 15:1. For marijuana those numbers are 40.1% and 6.0% respectively, ration of 6.7:1. Thus the evidence inidicates that people who try marijuana are more likely to become regular users than people who try heroin. Now one can say that people who do become addicted to heroin certainly develop a stronger addiction, but I think it is hard to claim that heroin has a higher rate of addiction that marijuana.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k5n...66.htm#Tab1.8B

[bcubed]

SWIM would suggest that you define what you mean by "most addictive" a bit. Do you mean the easiest to develop a habit on, or the ones with the most severe, life-threatening W/Ds in the worst-case scenario?

Well before SWIM's time, but he's heard that those deeply addicted to the more powerful Barbiturates had it bad: those were the true "widowmakers" out there if timely medical attention was not received.

Of course, that's second-hand, so SWIM could be talking out his arse...

[Nagognog2]

Nope. Not out your arse. Barbs cause tolerance and addiction. And the withdrawls can be fatal if not handled medically. The BIG problem is that you need to take larger and larger doses to keep up with the tolerance - or you go into withdrawl. And while the tolerance keeps going up - the LD50 (lethal dose) does not keep going up, unlike opiates. So you eventually must take a fatal amount!

Yummy!

[Psych0naut]

Benzodiazepines, barbiturates and alcohol all cause physical addiction which can be fatal if one doesn't taper down slowly.
Benzodiazepines cause physical addiction faster than barbiturates, but the withdrawls from barbiturates are more intense.
Though withdrawl from opiates and opioids isn't lethal, it can be hell physically, the fentanyl analogues are certainly the worst/
They are much more physically addictive than the other opioids and makes ones tolerance rise a lot quicker in comparisson to other opioids, so ones has to take much higher dose, which makes one even more physically addicted.

[Henfer]

as swim father was in psychiatry and he was addicted to diazepam, and swim saw him suffer and also, his father told him the stories of people who suffered even more because of benzos, and some even dying. some because of the withdrawal itself, and some by suicide because they didn't want to live further without it.

barbiturates aren't used today really much, but benzo's are, they're very easy to get legally.

swim's father always said he can't sleep and this disturbs him severely, and seconds later he was sleeping, waking up after some minutes, not even knowing he slept, and continued to tell everyone he just can't sleep anymore.

after the long, intense withdrawal, and as he's clean today and stays miles away from benzo's, he says after long-time diazepam usage he can remember that he slept alot, but the sleep was not restorative.

swim knows people personally going through or went through withdrawal of meth (this more a psychic thing, but people who are clean for YEARS still get that shiny look in the eyes if they see it). it's hard but not deadly, on the other side, the drug is (on the long term). swim's seen people on withdrawal from opiates, they look like walking dead for days, but the hardest part is over after some days (at least for your body) or weeks.

swim had a withdrawal ordered by himself, to get away from codeine. it's hard and really painful. still, he can't overcome the psychic need for it, but limits it to only now and then. it's not deadly and you can get through with force of will. swim's got no experience with alcohol addiction - he knows no one who is and he doesn't like alcohol anyway.

so from all things swim knows and has seen or experienced himself, diazepam (or maybe benzos in general) have the hardest withdrawal, and it's just that easy to get into addiction - it's feeling nice and great, frees you from anxiety, you can get it cheap & legally very easy from certain doctors, and it's not even seen as a real problem by most people, so you'll also get used to the thinking you're not using a drug. after long term use, as seen on his father, you'll become so dumbed that you don't even realize your own state (read the sleeping thing^^).

so even if swim did not experience this on his own body - you can imagine that it was a drama big time on his family.
benzos are important, but are so easy to abuse. swim took some once from his father, and he could understand why he got addicted. it felt so good, too good for swim.

so today swim's an on-off-opiates user, once in a month or so, same goes for LSD which is the one drug in swim's life that had a real positve effect on him.... but, if you'd ask swim, he wouldn't want to miss his experiences either. maybe this is a LSD thing, but swim learnt to live and be happy.

so, in total most dangerous addiction that still exists today would be benzos. nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man also. alcohol has a extremely strong, life-long lasting addiction, but it takes longer to get really addicted (compared to opiates, you can be physically addicted after 1-2 weeks of daily usage).

hell, swim's even addicted to caffeine. this takes a long and high dosage use, hence most people get addicted through coffee and don't even realize it. withdrawal is short but hefty, with VERY strong headache, pain in general, dizziness, nausea, dismotivation, sick feeling, but luckily it lasts only 1-2 days and gets weaker pretty fast. swim went through it two times with success, and countless times without.

[VincentVan]

The most addictive substance uh?
What a perverse curiosity. It reminds me of a sentence in "The naked lunch" in which William Burroughs writes that he feels sure that soon somebody will invent a substance that if taken just once will cause agonizing lifelong abstinence and withdrawal symptoms on the unfortunate addict.
But then Burroughs was a pessimist, and not much of a writer either.

We are all born "addicted" to several things ,and the very experience of,( or resistence to), abstinence symptoms from things like food, or like love, make us more interesting (and maybe better) human beings.
People have died or committed suicide because they could not stand the pain of withdrawal from a land or a country to which they could' nt return.
SWIM has recently experienced the pangs of withdrawal from love and he says that if love and time helped him to rid himself of opiates addiction, no amount of opiates or time will rid him of the symptoms of this more subtle addiction.

We are all addicted also to chemicals like oxygen or H2O and various vitamins, salts, minerals, sugars etc.
These chemicals are so essential to our very existence that access to them is considered a basic right of every human, however since no two human beings can be said to be identical who must decide what substances are a right of each and every single individual?
After all a diabetic can be said to be addicted to insulin and we are ready to recognize his right of access to the substance. Does it mean that a manic depressive has a right to antidepressives if lack of these substances (withdrawal from those substances) makes him suffer and prevents his organism to function appropriately?
It seems logical , and in fact most societies recognize this right to this category of people.
We know that the attractiveness and the pleasurable effects of opiates is due to their capability of binding to endorphine' s receptors on the cortex because of the molecular similarities between the two compounds.
We also know that because of various of syndroms and deficencies or even chronic conditions, some individuals(more than you would imagine) suffer from a reduced capability ,or in extreme cases a total incapacity at glandular level, to secrete these endogenous chemical compounds essential to the normal functioning of their organisms.
When some of these people try opiates for the first time they experience something akin to an epiphany: for the first time in their life they are able to feel "normal".
It´s like if for years or maybe for all their life they have been in a state of withdrawal from a substance they did' nt know.
Something like a diabetic in an hypoglycemic crisis experiencing insuline for the first time.
A man dying of thirst suddenly finding a fresh pool of clear water.
Do people who feel a deficency in the level of their endogenous (endorphinic)compounds have a right to access the exogenous equivalents?
It would seem logical , would' nt it?
But as we all know this is not the case.
The powers that rule our lives find it immoral, and mould public opinion so that a majoriy of citizens in the relevant countries will keep on thinking that killing can be morally acceptable but curing can be morally deplorable.

So, what is the most addictive substance known to man at the moment?
I' m not sure , but I think that different people will have different opinions on the subject and that they will all be right.
Waiting for this issue to be settled you can try a little intresting and healthy experiment by yourself:
Make a list of all the things (substances, situations, even persons) you know you are addicted to and then decide which ones are those that you feel you would miss the most.
Are they the ones essential to your phisical survival?
I, for exemple, know that I would miss oxigen less than I would miss my daughter.
But then again, no two human beings are the same.

VV.

" We don' t see things as they are. We see things the way we are"
(David Mitchell. " Number9 dream " )

Reputation Comments on this post:

very well expressed and at the same time a nice read!

[liquidsmurf]

VincentVan, thanks for your insights. You have pushed me to view the subject in a different way than i had before.

very powerful thoughts.

[VincentVan]

I'm happy to hear that Liquidsmurf,
these ideas however are not entirely mine, most of them come from the work of a philosophy professor called David Pearce.
If you are interested in this novel approach to drugs and the use mankind can make of them to better its condition and maybe (according to Pearce) restarting the evolutive process, you can check out his most famous work "The hedonistic imperative" at http://www.hedweb.com or try to google "paradise engineering".
Very interesting reading.

VV.

[Bio-Cellular Enigma]

Originally Posted by liquidsmurf

SWIM was wondering if there could be a general consensus on the most physically addictive substances?

If "drug seeking behavior" wasn't necessary for a drug to make that category, then multiple reuptake-inhibitor antidepressants like Effexor and Cymbalta probably top the charts. Certain of the newer SSRI's like Paxil aren't too far behind. Even very gradual tapering can be extremely nasty for some.Just hear-say, but SWIM told me Effexor withdrawal can be so bad that a few people literally can't come off it -- they're stuck on it for life. Likely due to dramatic, permanent changes in brain chemistry.

[bcubed]

benzos are important, but are so easy to abuse. swim took some once from his father, and he could understand why he got addicted. it felt so good, too good for swim.

swim's got no experience with alcohol addiction - he knows no one who is and he doesn't like alcohol anyway.

This just reminds SWIM that drugs often affect users in DRASTICALLY different ways, and that it's a big mistake to extrapolate from one user to another.

SWIM just used diazepam (Valium) in an Alcohol W/D, and had an opportunity to compare/contrast. It was a great W/D drug because, as SWIM mentioned to a friend, "It's such a BORING drug!" SWIM took 20mg to overcome symptoms, which left him slightly sedated. And--SWIM being SWIM--he decided to have a third to see what the high was like.

Basically, there wasn't one. Or, if an alcohol high could be compared to an orgasm, V would be somewhere between a sneeze and a hiccup. That's what made it great for SWIM's purposes: the tendency to "cheat the taper" when using alcohol to W/D was absent with V. SWIM has 20mg left over, and has a mind to just toss them (and if you knew what a shameless whore SWIM is W/R/T free pharms, this is unprecedented.)

So, I guess the lesson is:
1. Do one's research, but one never knows what will happen until one actually indulges.
2. Anytime SWIY does ANY drug (legal or illegal) he's taking a risk. Use sites such as this to make the risk as calculated as possible, but there's no guarentees with drugs (or life, for that matter).

[rxbandit]

i remember seeing in a book an addiction scale. ciggerettes and meth were tied at 100% herion was around 60% followed by the other named substances. not sure if the scale took into account mental addiction but it was definetely interesting

[VincentVan]

I am aware that air and food don' t quit fit the definition of addictive substances, but the point is just this: do the definition of addictive substance has any significance out of the pathology textbooks? Does' nt a definition of "substance necessary to the life of an individual" make more sense most of the times? It seems to me that such a definition would be much more useful to the understanding and even to the therapy of personalities (including the addictive ones), and specially to the overcoming of situations of estrangement , alienation, conflict and general unhappiness that often are at the base of the impulse to search for completeness and satisfation in any one substance.
Besides some people do use food as a drug, and some people even die because of its abuse/misuse, or at least seriously damage their physical and mental health.
Even though I agree that, as Gautama Siddharta taught, the least things one needs the freer he is, I am much less sure that it' s always best to renounce to all things that may give us satisfaction and/or pleasure, nor that some of the things that some individual may need are intrinsically better, or healthier, or more morally acceptable, than those needed by a different individual.
You may argue that what makes reprehensible the desires of a food obsessed obese, or a nimphomaniac, or an erotomaniac, is not the object of the desire (or the substance) per se but the quantity of it. However since it is now certain that the impulses that drive our quest for pleasurable sensations are directed ,if not dictated, by the peculiar mesh of interactions between neuroreceptors, neurotransmitters and neuroinhibitors that are as characteristic of an individual as the colour of his skin, to deem some "objects of desire" more "right" ,or morally and socially more acceptable than others , it probably constitute a form a racism.
Does the nimphomaniac really "need" all that sex or it' s just another form of addiction?
Why is my need for music better than my friend' s need to smoke cannabis, if the satisfaction we derive from these two very different things is comparable?
Is my brain better built? Should he be ashamed of the things he likes (needs) or of what he is?
The imbalances in the endorphine cycle of secrection and reception and the consequent mood and physical alterations, is what cause the physical "need" for opium derivates or analogues.
Admitedly the people in whom those imbalances are caused by a congenital syndrome are a pretty rare lot. Most , or even nearly all, of the people suffering from those symptoms , find themselves in this dire condition because their use of opiates has caused a temporary atrophy of the glands responsible for endorphine's secrection.
In any case this fact does not have any importance. The physical need is just as real, no matter how or where it came from. If there is one phrase more despicably moralist and shallow than "I told you so" it surely is " You looked for it"

To those who do not agree with my point of view I would like to suggest an interesting book by Robert Winston called " The human instinct", and since you are at it also its sequel "The human mind". And maybe even Daniel Dennet' s "Freedom evolves"; if afterwards you still are not convinced than go vote for George Bush.

"...what does it matter that I do not know what I want? I do know that I want it now."
( Theodore Dreiser. "Trilogy of desire" ).

VV.

[Henfer]

actually, something comes to swim's mind...

the most addictive state of mind for him is being high. may it be tripping, opiates, bud.

swim's addicted to being high, not to a certain substance....

[The_Secret_Life]

Swim understand the preference to clasify heroin as the most addictive drug. Because if you look at it from different angles, it really probably is so. Why do I say that, because there are heroin junkies that go on and off that smack their entire life. And a small segment (maybe not 50%, o.k.10%?) of lifetime heroin users that don't o.d. live a long time and lead fairly functional lives ---with periods of drama. So in a way, those it doesn't kill straight away face decades battling that addiction.

William Burroughs comes to mind. Also swim had a roommate that was a heroin junkie and he was a engineer draftsman for years. Actually it was when he went on booze that he got in trouble or jail.

Most devasting drug I'd nominate crack. Meth seems to really be neck and neck. Maybe stronger but I've never come across it. I did live through the crack plague in Detroit. Crack takes people down really quick, not meaning o.d. but living in the gutter.

Swim met several heroin junkies that ended up in jail and with worse issues when they got on crack.

[Salvinorin A]

SWIM's dad used to be heavily addicted to cigarrettes. It took him will-power to get off of them (this was when things like gum and patches and programs weren't available to him). Just self-discipline is what it took <- what he said.

That was probably just him, as for meth, the only people SWIM knows that have kicked meth were forced too legally with rehab, but they never really quit from what SWIM sees. SWIM does not no one person who has actually stayed clean from meth once hooked. (then again, SWIM doesn't know THAT many people who do meth, maybe like 20-25+).

Sal-A

[cyndi]

Originally Posted by Salvinorin A

SWIM's dad used to be heavily addicted to cigarrettes. It took him will-power to get off of them (this was when things like gum and patches and programs weren't available to him). Just self-discipline is what it took <- what he said.

That was probably just him, as for meth, the only people SWIM knows that have kicked meth were forced too legally with rehab, but they never really quit from what SWIM sees. SWIM does not no one person who has actually stayed clean from meth once hooked. (then again, SWIM doesn't know THAT many people who do meth, maybe like 20-25+).

Sal-A

Swim was reading newsweek and an article from it on addiction said one of the worst addictions is meth and changes of kicking meth addiction is worse than beating terminal cancer. Nice eh? This swimmer has no old buds that kicked it and knows more than 25+++. One can abstain but to truly kick it, no not in swim's experience and yes usually is it because of legal intervention not that the user tries. Swim herself is trying but it is really hard. 1 month, where is my chip? Swim wishes she never tried it in the first place but what is done is done.

Oh on cigs again, hubby is having a really hard time with those. They are worse than any other addiction he has ever had. He keeps trying to quit and can't.

[OccularFantasm]

I don't understand what you mean if they were all legal look what would happen. The legality of drugs nowadays is just another bad effect. Bleach is legal, and it will kill you if ingested, yet it does not harm people other than those with that intention. Certain people have addictive personalities, or have some type of void int heir life in which they try and fill, but to say their current illegal status is good is just ill-conceived, which is to say I think you misunderstood the posts. For example, a certain amount of people feel depressed a lot, and these people sometimes want to end their life. There are many products out there in which will help these individuals reach success int heir goals, however it is ridiculous to think these substances should be banned because of a small minority of people. This goes the same for drugs. Some people can handle doing drugs, other can't handle the effects, and others have trouble moderating their use. As for the food is a drug thing, yes that is quite true. This is why there are so many very fat people around the world. Remember the last time you overate? Your stomach hurts or feels queasy, your quite lethargic, perhaps some indigestion. Why would these people continue to eat like such unless there was an addiction. Some foods like sugar can be physically addictive, while other people become dependent on eating. Usually there is a bit of overlap of these issues with obese people, but you see my point. That explains the addictive part, but the drug part is very clear. Meats contain chemicals that make you more aggressive, if you don't believe me find someone who tried that Atikins diet thing without all the proper vegetables and grains n shit, or just eat nothing but meat for 3 days. Grains on the other hand, have calming compounds in them, such as magnesium and omega fatty acids. Sugars tend to be brief stimulants and euphorics.

I guess my point is is should not be up to anyone to judge anyone else on what they do, so long as it isn't interfering with everybody else. This type of mentality has run amok in our society and I hope this will help you understand why it is bad. I very much doubt any of these posts were supposed to make yo think fondly of the war on drugs. The war on drugs is a culture war and is very much evil. If you support the war on drugs you support (the real) terrorists, the people who think they can beat you down and kill you just for using some medicinal herbs and compounds. Please consider that anytime you even so much as hear war on drugs. There are many threads dealing with this in much greater detail, where I think you'll find only the occasional sucker thinks it is a good idea. Many times this will be an officer of the law, whom simply has some sort of disorder in which he cannot accept that he has been wrong-doing for so long, and can find much more comfort in just pretending what he does is just. Most people, and most officers for that matter, think the war on drugs is terrible, unmoral, inhumane, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.




Okay, now the part where I was talking about coke and alcohol. Cocaine you will get physical withdrawal symptoms very quickly, whereas with 3 shots of mezcal or whatever you prefer to drink, although a psychological need may arise, psychical dependence does not. This would qualify as desire and not withdrawal. An example would be say you've been smoking cigarettes for a while and you decide you don't like them anymore. You will still get physical withdrawal symptoms, even without desire. If you were to take 3 shots and you decided you didn't desire another drink, you wouldn't experience these same symptoms. This is not to say people with some sort of chemical imbalance who find alcohol helpful int heir self medication do not become dependent on it. these people could find comfort with alcohol, heroine, weed, anything, but this desire qualifies as dependence and not addiction, even if the substance chosen is addictive. If the substance was addictive, lets use heroin for this example, then there is the problem of addiction on top of dependence. Also, many times, dependence can lead to an addiction.

Money is not a drug, however it is addictive, which is ironic seeing as, at least in America, our currency isn't even related to gold or any other precious metal of commodity. In fact, we just print more money, much like the Germans at the end of WWII. Regardless of that though, it buys everything we could ever dream of getting addicted to, so therefore it can be reasoned that money is addictive.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Excellent Points

[rocksmokinmachine]

Originally Posted by OccularFantasm

Okay, now the part where I was talking about coke and alcohol. Cocaine you will get physical withdrawal symptoms very quickly.

No cocaine is not physically addictive. It is psychologically addictive. Lets clarify something;

Drugs that are physically addictive: Opiates, Benzodiazepines, barbituates and ALCOHOL.

Cocaine is psychologically addictive, you will not get 'ill' from not taking cocaine, just a very strong desire to do more. Aything can be addictive in this way.. sex, food, chocolate, coffee. Some more than others.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good Clarification, much needed

[OccularFantasm]

"The principle effects of cocaine are the result of its sympathetic action: cocaine prevents the re-uptake of dopamine and noradrenaline, which accumulate and stimulate neuronal receptors (Amin et al., 1990; Kloner et al., 1992). At the same time, the release of serotonin a "sedative" neurotransmitter, is inhibited (Derlet, 1989)."

So basically, even though there is a physical chemical imbalance created, clearly, there is no physical addiction. Just because things take place in your brain, doesn't make them psychological. Many people do become psychologically addicted to it, I will not deny, but even people whom do not like its effects can become addicted to it. This is impossible with alcohol. You have to drink constantly for years to become addicted.(See, even I admit it can eventually become addictive.) To say cocaine is not in any way physically addicting is just crazy talk. It is physically addictive in the same way many psychiatric medications are.


"Alcohol withdrawal is very similar to benzodiazepine and barbiturate withdrawal, have a look at the media to see one individuals disturbing account."
I would not look to the media for a reliable source of information about anything ever. Fact; there is a large amount of alcoholics in America. Fact; they watch tv. Fact; they feel sorry for themselves. Inference; It is no surprise the media has molded itself to its viewers. (This is mean, yeah, and not true for 100% of these people, yes, but sadly enough its how the media works.) Also, media likes to make all drugs look overly bad, or have you not noticed all the ridiculous anti-drug things around.


I do think i see the disagreement we have with the cocaine part at least. I could be mistaken, but i believe you have adapted psychological addiction to include physical chemical imbalances so long as they are located within the brain; whereas I still consider that physical even though it can cause some psychological effects. As there is no clearcut restriction on the definition of addiction or psychological addiction, it seems to be in the eye of the beholder. If I am right in assessing this difference, we are basically arguing, yet harboring the same viewpoint.