This seems to be a scientifically way of saying, "people differ."
Plenty of people drink moderately, whenever they want to, and have no desire to increase dosage or frequency. Others drink "too much" (who's def?) but basically keep it together. Others completely phuck up their lives.
Some drugs are more addictive than others, but the addictive potential of the user is an undeniable variable.
Hell, some people completely ruin their lives on something like gambling, which involves no outside chemicals at all (though the data's pretty clear that problem gamblers undergo the same sort of nerotransmitter responses that addicts do, too.)
Of course, a completely non-addictive person would have pitifully low experiences of pleasure for anything, and thus, little drive to do anything, be it addictive or beneficial. Probably not very valuable to anyone. (LOL think of the two Kirks )
You can´t say an addiction would be necessary to feel joy, that´s the opposite of your elaborated opinion in your post.
If some need to have drugs to feel the same joy in life than others do without and this is a physical and hereditary issue, as well as a undenieable success story of mother natures multitude of phenotypes, then we have no right in
judging them or denying the use of their habit for themselves.
When a non-addictice phenyotype has no understanding in the needs of others and is judging and discrediting them, he might be given a lesson in tolerance.
Funny, SWIM has never been the impulsive type -- in fact he's the over-cautious type, except when it comes to dopaminergic substances. He knows someone else who uses lots of coke and is EXTREMELY cautious/nonambitious, as well as having anxiety disorder. So much for hypotheses...
Edit -- SWIM suspects they may eventually discover that both impulsive/ambitious and over-cautious types gravitate toward cocaine, and it's the middle-of-the-road folks who don't. The error is in looking at things with biochemical blinders on, i.e. not taking into account the complexity of human behavior.
there´re many ratios that have to be important, betweeen the catecholamines et al., like it is with the hormones.
So maybe the active/impulsive phenotype might benefit from simply an altered ratio of -say noradrenaline to dopamine, or a down-regulation of a receptors or upregulation, induced by e.g. cocaine (remember ads(h)?), it´s all a close guess, at best, but it works and this has always been the case in the medicine of neuroendocrinology.
Nicaine, could you elaborate what a lack of dopamine has to do with anxiety and impulsiveness?
As I see it, this study is dedicated to those, which simply try to get their dopamine by drugs, because they´re lacking it naturally.
So maybe an impusive or brave behaviour that ought to get a reward, is sought after by cocaine-use, if it doesn´t and vice versa, a anxious, depressed feeling could be elevated or eliminated, by the rise of dopamine and
alleviated by the simulation or stimualtion,or both, of an drug-induced altered state of mind.
And this simply is the principle of various anti-depressant medication and analeptics, which in fact is nearly the same, everyone saying differnt is bullshitting.
well SWIM has bad anxiety and kinda of a ocd, like he worries and is too self conscious all the time. when he does cocaine (good cocaine) he feels great a nice high but really just happy and calm, then since he does only small amount his comedown is never bad or nearly unbearable.
SWIM truely believes hes always had a below average level of dopamine in his system, SWIM would take OxyContins but never like his peers insufflating half an 80 or a whole or MORE 0_o small doses would make SWIM feel happy and normal to where he could go on his day. but thats another thread and another tale of SWIMs adventures.
totally agree it depends on te person, theres so many of us that are so different for a reason