Re:Bleak New Estimates in Drug Epidemic: A Record 72,000 Ove...
by Nursie on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @05:39AM
(#17808266)
> Why? Blaming only the stimulus and simultaneously ignoring identified behaviors is not scientific.
Nobody's doing that. Nobody is ignoring that behavioural factors contribute to addiction.
But you are making weird unscientific claims and spouting utter nonsense like "it isn't the nicotine or its addictive effects that make cigarettes addictive"
I mean seriously, that's utter, utter nonsense that can't be dressed up scientifically in any way at all. Nicotine is highly addictive. Nicotine is addictive in cigarettes, in e-cigs, in snuss, chewing tobacco, gum, inhalers, patches, all forms that people take it. Yes, addiction to any of these has a social and psychological aspect as well as a variable physiological aspect depending on the individual.
But to claim that nicotine isn't what makes cigarettes addictive is so insanely far wrong that, really, it's just stupid and goes against the evidence on this subject.
> Everything you have said to me hinges on your claims of "obviousness" and emotional distress at broad categorization.
This is also wrong. I've pointed out that you are factually wrong in your categorisation of drugs into two groups, factually wrong in declaring that one group is magically instantly addictive and one not, I've explained to you that your ideas on cocaine were not only wrong but weren't supported by your source material.
The vast majority of what you have said has been just plain incorrect. This is not emotional distress - you just haven't got a clue, and you can't back up your weird assertions and distinctions with evidence.
What it seems like is that you empathise with addiction to stimulants, possibly having had experiences and addiction issues with them yourself. But you don't empathise with people who use what you call depressants. You're taking subjective judgements and unscientific ideas and trying to dress them up or justify them as scientific.
Nobody's doing that. Nobody is ignoring that behavioural factors contribute to addiction.
But you are making weird unscientific claims and spouting utter nonsense like "it isn't the nicotine or its addictive effects that make cigarettes addictive"
I mean seriously, that's utter, utter nonsense that can't be dressed up scientifically in any way at all. Nicotine is highly addictive. Nicotine is addictive in cigarettes, in e-cigs, in snuss, chewing tobacco, gum, inhalers, patches, all forms that people take it. Yes, addiction to any of these has a social and psychological aspect as well as a variable physiological aspect depending on the individual.
But to claim that nicotine isn't what makes cigarettes addictive is so insanely far wrong that, really, it's just stupid and goes against the evidence on this subject.
> Everything you have said to me hinges on your claims of "obviousness" and emotional distress at broad categorization.
This is also wrong. I've pointed out that you are factually wrong in your categorisation of drugs into two groups, factually wrong in declaring that one group is magically instantly addictive and one not, I've explained to you that your ideas on cocaine were not only wrong but weren't supported by your source material.
The vast majority of what you have said has been just plain incorrect. This is not emotional distress - you just haven't got a clue, and you can't back up your weird assertions and distinctions with evidence.
What it seems like is that you empathise with addiction to stimulants, possibly having had experiences and addiction issues with them yourself. But you don't empathise with people who use what you call depressants. You're taking subjective judgements and unscientific ideas and trying to dress them up or justify them as scientific.