Drug War

[YT2095]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

"the same cannot be said for smokers"

 

Why not?

 

If you're going to say it's because "many users quit then resume their habit", wouldn't that also be the other side of "a good many junk users when quit, Stay quit"? (The inference being that 'a good many' staying quit suggests not all of them manage it).

 

Not all smokers who quit resume smoking, so you might just as easily say "a good many cig users when quit, Stay quit".

 

the incidence of re-habituation is greater amongst the smokers than junkies. for reasons already outlined.

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

the incidence of re-habituation is greater amongst the smokers than junkies. for reasons already outlined.

According to...?

 

I see a conversation about how that might work, but I don't see any figures, links to studies, or corroborative sources.

 

[edit] Citing someone further up the thread...? Come on.

[Radical Edward]

Yep, I suspect that a good number of junk uses do stay quit. However do they do so in their old circle of junkie friends? (who may well still be on it). Smoking is a different matter, because as you have pointed out already, it is socially acceptable and really easy, in those moments of stress or whatever just just light up. There is no need for fumbling around behind dirty sheds with a syringe, a candle, a teaspoon and a length of rubber tubing.

 

Alot of the problems of reoccurence, could also be due to the reasons that they stop as well, so there will be obvious psychological factors to it too. Some people smoke and enjoy it, Some hate it but can't stop BEcAUSE THEY will RIP OFF YOUR HEAD!!!!

[YT2095]

Sayo, if you can`t see it yourself when logic alone plainly dictates that is case, then a 10 min google search wouldn`t go amis, as I`m sure you wouldn`t credit my anecdotal evidence of this or the JAMA research

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

Sayo, if you can`t see it yourself when logic alone plainly dictates that is case, then a 10 min google search wouldn`t go amis, as I`m sure you wouldn`t credit my anecdotal evidence of this or the JAMA research

"Find evidence to support my case yourself if you can't just take my word for it."

 

I don't think so.

 

BTW, before you get too involved in arguing this point to the death, note that I was talking about the logic employed in the post, and not the actual content.

[YT2095]

ok, fine, have it your way *sigh*

 

http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact09.html

http://www.wellnessnet.com/stopsmoking-article-7.htm

http://www.jeliowa.org/know_addiction.asp

http://reason.com/0306/fe.js.h.shtml

 

say when you`ve had enough

 

http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=article&ID=1275

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1642.htm

 

read em and weep sunshine, I`ve called your card

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

ok, fine, have it your way *sigh*

That's more like it, ta

I'll have a look at these later on.

 

read em and weep sunshine, I`ve called your card

What card? I didn't say you were wrong.

 

BTW, before you get too involved in arguing this point to the death, note that I was talking about the logic employed in the post, and not the actual content.

[YT2095]

"BTW, before you get too involved in arguing this point to the death, note that I was talking about the logic employed in the post, and not the actual content."

 

was added AFTER I started my post

 

 

"[edit] Citing someone further up the thread...? Come on. "

 

yes, I was citing myself and the observational evidence that I provided

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

"BTW, before you get too involved in arguing this point to the death, note that I was talking about the logic employed in the post, and not the actual content."

 

was added AFTER I started my post

Neither here nor there because, as I mentioned, I did not actually say you were wrong.

 

"[edit] Citing someone further up the thread...? Come on. "

yes, I was citing myself and the observational evidence that I provided

I'm really at a loss for words on that one

[YT2095]

Wow, the great sayo at a loss for words, LOL, now that`s GOTTA BE a 1`st

 

seriously though, I picked those links as they seemed to be the most appropriate pop ups for the subject, I`ve not even looked at them myself yet, so there MAY be writings to the contrary, but positive of the surity of this info, that I may freely take chance in the certainty that the majority will be in support of my point (as asked for).

I remain unbiased

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

Wow, the great sayo at a loss for words, LOL, now that`s GOTTA BE a 1`st

Damn

 

seriously though, I picked those links as they seemed to be the most appropriate pop ups for the subject, I`ve not even looked at them myself yet, so there MAY be writings to the contrary, but positive of the surity of this info, that I may freely take chance in the certainty that the majority will be in support of my point (as asked for).

I remain unbiased

 

Ummmmm. Ah. That explains a thing or two.

 

The position: "a good many junk users when quit, Stay quit. the same cannot be said for smokers".

 

So what we're looking for ideally is some comparative study between the quitting rates for a narcotic, opiate or what have you, and the quitting rates for nicotine.

 

 

http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html

Doesn't support the position, unless you subscribe to the notion that overall rate of quitting success (and subsequent re-addictions) is directly related to average degree of dependency, which requires vastly more evidence.

 

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact09.html

Does not support the position as it does not even mention heroin. Does include some interesting info though: Twenty per cent or less of those who embark on a course of treatment succeed in abstaining for as long as a year, while only around 3 per cent succeed in quitting using willpower alone.[7] Most smokers take several attempts to quit before they finally succeed.

Take that last sentence for instance. Does it mean that most smokers end up quitting for good? Or are the words "[Most smokers] who try [take...]" missing from the sentence?

 

http://www.wellnessnet.com/stopsmoking-article-7.htm

Whut? That doesn't contrast nicotine and heroin, it compares them.

 

http://www.jeliowa.org/know_addiction.asp

Well this article says that heroin is less instantly addictive than nicotine. Big surprise. What it doesn't compare are successful quitter rates for heroin and nicotine, so again - does not support the position.

It's also heavily biased against smoking as a concept to the (worrying) extent that it ignores the fact it's saying "hey kids, heroin is more preferable than nicotine. Go nuts!"

 

http://reason.com/0306/fe.js.h.shtml

"Oooh we found an anomaly" is not the best premise for an article, but hey. The only bit I found in support of the position was:

"In one survey, 57 percent of drug users entering a Canadian treatment program said giving up their problem substance (not necessarily heroin) would be easier than giving up cigarettes" - but the fact that they said it doesn't mean that it's true.

 

http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=article&ID=1275

Not terribly detailed in the one place it mentions non-nicotine drugs.

 

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1642.htm

Does not deal with the comparison at all.

 

 

If I had claimed something like "nicotine is not addictive", you'd be laughing. I'll have that card back now please

 

As it happens though it was, like I said, the logic and not the content. Without evidence either way I'm not going to form an opinion on whether you're right or wrong.

[YT2095]

perhaps I underesstimated the 10 mins on Google thing, but the BMA and AMA recognise that nicotine is far more addictive, of that you may be sure (right or wrong, it`s certainly their stance on the matter).

and from anecdotal evidence and observational evidence, I can`t in good conscience disagree with them either.

but in the same breath, I would also say that I`de much rather be hooked on cigs than junk

contradictory or personal opinion? I`de go with personal opinion from my point of veiw, maybe it`s because the ill effects of cigs are not as imediate as those of junk? I dunno? but it sounds about good to me

[atinymonkey]

It might be opportune to point out that what I said was 'Nicotine is not more physically addictive than heroin'. I don't dispute that it's harder to quit, hence it's classification as 'more addictive'. If we weren't such lazy monkeys, we wouldn't pick up a cigarette when we got mild cravings. We might also do more exercise, clean our rooms more often, cut down on fatty foods etc as well. But we don't, and the habit is harder to break.

[Sayonara]

But:

More addictive != More difficult to stay off after quitting.

 

Which is the logical hole I was pointing out to begin with.

 

 

I'd rather be hooked on cigs too I think, and a large part of the problem might be the different way the drugs are perceived.

 

For instance, we all know one cig won't kill you. For most smokers the possible threat of cancer in 30 years or so is a bland one. However the idea of being hooked on heroin, suffering horrible withdrawals, and ending up as a grey corpse in a dumpster is a pretty effective deterrent, no matter how inaccurate.

[YT2095]

"If we weren't such lazy monkeys" your the only one with MONKEY in their Nick LOL

 

"We might also do more exercise, clean our rooms more often, cut down on fatty foods etc as well."

well yeah, BUT, where`s the fun in that!

[fafalone]

Inaccurate portrayals of heroin addicts and taking the minority of actual cases is indeed an "effective deterrant" aka "propaganda"

 

But we all know that diseases linked to smoking kill 500,000 people (that's 1370 per DAY and 57PER HOUR), per year in the United States... which is more than drug deaths, murder, car crashes, medical malpractice, and other medical illnesses COMBINED.

 

Everyone knows that, but continues to smoke year after year.

[Duke]

Nothing wrong with drugs whatsoever. If you know what they do to you and you still choose to do them then I think thats fine.

[atinymonkey]

fafalone said in post # :

Inaccurate portrayals of heroin addicts and taking the minority of actual cases is indeed an "effective deterrant" aka "propaganda"

 

But we all know that diseases linked to smoking kill 500,000 people (that's 1370 per DAY and 57PER HOUR), per year in the United States... which is more than drug deaths, murder, car crashes, medical malpractice, and other medical illnesses COMBINED.

 

Everyone knows that, but continues to smoke year after year.

 

Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like an argument to control the availability of cigarettes, to protect society from it’s own inherent weaknesses. Surely this is a homogeneous discussion? Where is the differentiation?

 

BTW, met any crack heads recently? Are they happy go lucky guys with a mischievous glint in their eye and a skip in their step?

[fafalone]

My case is that there should be no differentiation and the same policies should apply.

 

What do you think the nicotine culture would turn into if suddenly nicotine products weren't available at every store in the world?

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

My case is that there should be no differentiation and the same policies should apply.

 

What do you think the nicotine culture would turn into if suddenly nicotine products weren't available at every store in the world?

 

I don't see why the nicotene culture would take priority over the culture of any other kind of drug, given that it gives a lesser 'benefit', assuming the costs were the same.

[fafalone]

If I said,

 

"There is a highly addictive substance on our streets. One drop of it in its pure form would kill a person, and its most common method of delivery causes serious health problems and is responsible for thousands of deaths. Should we do something about it?"

 

What would be your answer to that question if you didn't already know I was talking about nicotine?

[YT2095]

and think of the .gov outcry if they totaly abolished cigs!, where would they get half their tax money from, the tax money pays for the NHS that they bitch and whine about constanly that SMOKERS are the main cause of thier workload, well hell yes, and we paid for it, LITERALY!

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

If I said,

 

"There is a highly addictive substance on our streets. One drop of it in its pure form would kill a person, and its most common method of delivery causes serious health problems and is responsible for thousands of deaths. Should we do something about it?"

 

What would be your answer to that question if you didn't already know I was talking about nicotine?

 

Make it illegal. Which would be my response if I knew you were talking about nicotene, which I did.

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

and think of the .gov outcry if they totaly abolished cigs!, where would they get half their tax money from, the tax money pays for the NHS that they bitch and whine about constanly that SMOKERS are the main cause of thier workload, well hell yes, and we paid for it, LITERALY!

 

Whut?

[fafalone]

He's refferring to the inevitable riots and massive loss of revenue for the government if cigarettes were made illegal.