I was under the impression psychologically addicting drugs must have some sort of higher ability to control the desires of the brain than other substances and that this was inherent in the drug itself.
Try to read my posts more carefully. I never said that was not the case, just that psychological addiction is not due
solely to the drug itself. Psychological addiction is complex and depends on the person and their unique brain; it is also not instantaneous for the vast majority of drugs. Just because one person, who used a drug for a short amount of time, didn't find it psychologically addictive does
not mean that drug is not psychologically addictive. If smoking was
only a physical dependence, it wouldn't be so hard for most people to quit, because the physical dependence it causes is really not that bad in relative terms.
I also never said tobacco warranted the top spot on a list of most addictive substances, I already explained in my earlier posts that "most addictive" is very hard to define.
Again, this is just my experience. I assumed that the thread was asking for input from the members here, not the input of an "expert", probably in this case some researcher whose usage of psychoactive substances goes no further than his coffee in the morning.
Just saying you are the only person I have ever met who has said that smoking is not psychologically addictive and is only a physical dependence and you have nothing to back that up with except for your own limited experience with it. And there are studies to back up what I am saying, like showing cravings for cigarettes depend more on mental factors than nicotine blood levels. If I was going to base my statements solely on my subjective experience I could say a number of highly addictive drugs are not addictive just because I used them and no trouble quitting. Smoking is not THAT great, and everyone knows it's harmful to one's health, I just don't think most people would smoke often enough to develop a physical dependence in the first place if they didn't get psychologically addicted.
Also it depends how one even separates "psychological addiction" and "physical dependence"? I don't really think they are that distinctly separate, since they are both due to real changes in the brain.
Which brings up an interesting question, what even is the definition of psychological addiction as opposed to physiological dependence?
The DSM-IV only differentiates between "dependence" with and without physiologic dependence (evidence of tolerance or
withdrawal). To be "dependent" aka "addicted", one must simply have 3 of the following:
- the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended
- there is desire or unsuccessful effort to cut down or control the use of the substance
- substantial time/effort is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance (for example,
chain-smoking, going outside for cigarettes when it's inconvenient, etc), or recover from its effects
- social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because
of substance use
- use of the substance is continued despite knowledge of physical or psychological harm caused or exacerbated by the substance
The WHO has a simpler definition: An overpowering desire or need to continue taking the drug and to obtain it; a tendency to increase the dose; a psychological (and sometimes a physical) dependence on the effects of the drug.
A particular substance is defined as "addictive" when a large percentage of the people who use it become addicted. It does not mean everyone who tries it gets addicted, that it's some foregone conclusion.
Now, if it's addictive to you or anyone else I believe you, but it's kind of difficult for me to believe that such a cheap, nasty buzz (that users regularly seem to condemn and dislike while continuing to do) is psychologically addicting more so than it is prone to physical withdrawal for someone who has done it for years and years and can't possibly be enjoying it anywhere near as much as they did when they started.
Something does not have to continue to make you feel great for you to be psychologically addicted. I think what you just said
supports the idea that smoking
is psychologically addictive.
As for the opiates part, I see nothing wrong with it. I've used opiates to ease the withdrawal from caffeine, benzos, SSRIs and Z drugs and have had no problems with it. There's no way you're going to be dependent on them by the time the withdrawal becomes tolerable. That idea of it being inherently bad is predicated on the assumption that nobody is going to have the self-control to stop themselves after the worst is over. Never been a problem for me but I guess everyone is different.
I'm not saying it's a horrible idea for
everyone, I just didn't think it was harm reduction to suggest people use one addictive and dependence-causing drug to help quit another, unless the drug being used was far less harmful than the one being quit - I don't feel opioids are any less harmful than smoking, just harmful in different ways. Yes if someone was using small amounts of a weak opioid, able to control their usage and able to only use it for a short time and was not definitely going to get mentally addicted to the opioid (which no one can know in advance), but that is not the case with many people, many just swap one addiction for another. When someone is quitting one drug they are very vulnerable to addiction to another drug. Again, just because
you did something and were ok does not mean it's a great idea for
everyone. Also a huge number of people on this forum have or have had problems with opioids, so I feel it could be especially problematic for a lot of us on here to use opioids to cope with quitting smoking or another drug.
ETA: Also BTW, it's nice to have a civil intelligent discussion about something that we don't agree on
That can be rare on the internet.
