Statistical analysis of addiction potential

[thegreenhand]

So we've all seen numbers like the ones in this table:

Screen-Shot-2020-12-10-at-7-09-29-PM hosted at ImgBB

Image Screen-Shot-2020-12-10-at-7-09-29-PM hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

source: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/pdf/r/1/adult_psychiatric_study_ch10_web.pdf

Percentages of adults who have use a given drug, and then also go on to abuse it. What I'm wondering, is how useful are these measures for determining the "abuse potential" of a drug? Finding a table of drugs vs. their abuse potential has proven very difficult, and I'm wondering why this is. Lack of funding or lack of usefulness?

 

[atara]

The greatest limitation of the charts is that they are confounded by user attitudes and prices. Users who view a drug as dangerous and use it rarely are less likely to become addicted than users who view it as safe and use it freely. Also, more expensive drugs are harder to become addicted to. So, for example, the fraction of marijuana users becoming clinically dependent is not that much lower than the same fraction of cocaine users. But people are afraid of cocaine addition and it is expensive, so many people use cocaine only a few times a year, while smoking weed every day is a meme. The most striking example of this effect is the extremely low frequency of abuse among prescription users of GHB (Xyrem) vis a vis the tendency for severe addictions to develop among people with easy access to recreational GHB.

The route of administration of a drug also affects the chance of addiction, being for roughly all drugs IV > inhalation > IM > rectal > snorting > sublingual >>> oral.

 

[RedRum OG]

Agree with above that there are many factors in use beyond desirability

The graph you posted is ok, but the ones with the "physical harm vs societal harm " types that used to be on wikipedia are at best laughable, at worst propaganda used to confuse squares .

The only people who understand how powerful the draw of certain drugs are are the people that do them. It's highly subjective

 

[thegreenhand]

The greatest limitation of the charts is that they are confounded by user attitudes and prices. Users who view a drug as dangerous and use it rarely are less likely to become addicted than users who view it as safe and use it freely. Also, more expensive drugs are harder to become addicted to. So, for example, the fraction of marijuana users becoming clinically dependent is not that much lower than the same fraction of cocaine users. But people are afraid of cocaine addition and it is expensive, so many people use cocaine only a few times a year, while smoking weed every day is a meme. The most striking example of this effect is the extremely low frequency of abuse among prescription users of GHB (Xyrem) vis a vis the tendency for severe addictions to develop among people with easy access to recreational GHB.

The route of administration of a drug also affects the chance of addiction, being for roughly all drugs IV > inhalation > IM > rectal > snorting > sublingual >>> oral.

those are all extremely good points. Obv some drugs just seem to be more addictive but idk how you can measure that in any accurate way

 

[thegreenhand]

Agree with above that there are many factors in use beyond desirability

The graph you posted is ok, but the ones with the "physical harm vs societal harm " types that used to be on wikipedia are at best laughable, at worst propaganda used to confuse squares .

The only people who understand how powerful the draw of certain drugs are are the people that do them. It's highly subjective

Yeah those charts are wack lol idk how they quantified those things but there’s no way it didn’t have a massive margin of error

 

[Bravoncius Roxford]

So we've all seen numbers like the ones in this table:

Screen-Shot-2020-12-10-at-7-09-29-PM hosted at ImgBB

Image Screen-Shot-2020-12-10-at-7-09-29-PM hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

source: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/pdf/r/1/adult_psychiatric_study_ch10_web.pdf

Percentages of adults who have use a given drug, and then also go on to abuse it. What I'm wondering, is how useful are these measures for determining the "abuse potential" of a drug? Finding a table of drugs vs. their abuse potential has proven very difficult, and I'm wondering why this is. Lack of funding or lack of usefulness?

I think that, at this point, it has been established that the opioid pathways are the common and "final" pathway of "liking" in the brain, and all drugs that produce pleasure activate Mu opioid receptors in the "hedonic hotspots" of the brain. Even stimulants like coke and meth are addictive because they increase beta-endorphin in these hedonic hotspots. When dopamine latches to D1 receptors in the shell of the nucleus accumbens, it creates a complex chemical cascade that triggers beta-endorphin release in these hedonic hotpots. Dopamine itself does not cause pleasure, but only increases your "wanting" for pleasure. Naltrexone, which is a potent Mu opioid receptor antagonist, blocks the euphoric effect of cocaine and amphetamines almost completely.

So you would expect the most addictive of all drugs to be drugs that directly activate Mu opioid receptors, with the most addictive ones being the most potent agonists of these receptors. So, you would expect heroin to be the most addictive drug ever, as it is not only potent for agonizing the Mu opioid receptors, but it also crosses the blood-brain barrier more effectively than other opioids, because the additon of an acetyl group to morphine makes the drug much more lipid-soluble(cellular membranes are mostly phospholipids, so lipid soluble drugs generally are more bioavalable than hydrosoluble drugs.)

 

[Eryximachus]

I've used every drug I can think of, even some of the exotic ones made by geek friends. I was a non-IV heroin addict for about 6 months and quit no problem save for a few nights of no sleep. I've been using 60mg per day of methamphetamine (orally) since June working non-stop trying to make up for huge losses incurred early on in Covid. I still do Cocaine sometimes (not on days when I'm on meth and maybe like 5 times since June), and in the good days before Covid I'd bring a bullet with me out every night I partied, which was at least once a week. And I'm 42. No strong desire for any of them and never have. Even the Heroin - and this was 20 years ago - was mostly my girlfriend. I just got hooked by accident really.

But the one thing I have been unable to quit are benzos. I had another business fail in late 2015 and got hooked. Been hooked since. Every time I get down to the tiniest of dose - I just can't think.

So, my personal opinion is method of use is likely a big factor, as well as personality. I don't even enjoy using meth. It makes me into a zombie who does nothing but put together incredible statistical and financial models allowing me to make more in the past 6 months than I ever have in my life, although after 3 months of losing a lot of money. But what I would give to be able to take a month off and get off that shit and everything.

Most people use drugs for a reason, and it's usually more utilitarian than we like to believe.

But genetic factors are definitely at play. Alcoholism is well-proven to have a strong genetic component. I imagine this is true for other drugs as well.

I'm up at 3am trying to finish a model for the risk of a bank collapsing. Tachycardia and high blood pressure erratically comes with meth for me. I hate it. But I don't make any mistakes, at least with math. I don't even feel "good" right now. I'm on this site because sometimes I just need to get away from excel and some proprietary applications. It's fucking COVID, and I feel like if I don't keep working I'll lose clients, lose money (and for me, the money is rolling in big time).

So yeah. I'm dubious.