1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

Proof nicotine is more addicting than heroin

Discussion in 'Heroin' started by drug-bot, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. drug-bot

    drug-bot Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    805
    Messages:
    452
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    from U.S.A.
    ^ numbers are in order from left to right and are suppose to be under the corresponding headline, but the`computer messed
    it up. for an example; nicotine- withdrawl 6, reinforcement 4, tolerance 5, dependance 3, intoxication 2.
    http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.txt

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/28809.html



    I used this analogy else where but after due consideration decided to repeat it (not word for word).-
    even though nicotine is more addicting, its not associated with crime, because I believe its because its legal and cheap. heroin is illegal and therefore expensive due to the black market, if it were legal and cheap people would be able to function on it (work, not steal, family life). heres some proof- methadone is a mu opiate agonist just like heroin, and people on methadone work and can carry on with normal life, so theres no pharmocological reason why heroin addicts also couldnt. the only thing would be heroin addicts would have to dose 3-4x's a day instead of once as with methadone (which wouldnt be a problem if legal cheap and pure).

    the purpose of this thread is to challenge conventional wisdom, not to encourage heroin use as its very addictive, (also its very expensive, impure, and of unknown purity; thanks to the war on drugs). heroin addiction is very painful (physically and psycologically), swim knows from personal experience. think twice before using, and if you still want to think again; but if your determined to use read throughout this forum as well as other sites for harm reduction info.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2008
  2. Swimster

    Swimster Palladium Member

    Reputation Points:
    302
    Messages:
    768
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    from U.S.A.
    dude, dont forget phisical withdraws and also the long duration and sedation of Heroin.
     
  3. drug-bot

    drug-bot Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    805
    Messages:
    452
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    from U.S.A.
    I didnt forget, at the bottom swim wrote about the painfulness of withdrawl in bold. he didnt under estimate its addictivness and withdrawls, he only showed evidence that nicotine is more addictive, as in more people by percentage get addicted to it .

    as for sedation, one can take a dose that takes away withdrawls without making a person nod (slang for sedation), its called a matiance dose, I use to do this alot if he had to go to work or had an important engagement, were he didnt want to be sedated; or when he was low on cash. heroins like anthing else you can have enough beers to feel relaxed or have enough to get wasted and black out. it depends on doses, it works this way for every substance, including heroin.
     
  4. NeuroChi

    NeuroChi is not his mind Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    4,934
    Messages:
    3,780
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    from earth
    The major argument I have heard is that the percent of users who get addicted to tobacco is greater than the percent of users who get addicted to heroin. I have no source at the moment.

    As far as the chart by Dr. Jack E. Henningfield, I'd like to know what studies he performed.

    Withdrawal from a serious alcohol, cocaine, or heroin addiction can result in death. This is not true for nicotine. Why it was rated the highest is unclear to me.
     
  5. drug-bot

    drug-bot Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    805
    Messages:
    452
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    from U.S.A.
    1. one can only die from alcohol withdrawl not cocaine or heroin withdrawl.

    2.swims not sure, possibly the relapse rate or rate of relapse befoe detox was completed.if swim can find any info more on the study i'll post it.

    drug-bot added 435 Minutes and 24 Seconds later...
    just got home from work and found this-
    still cant find what methods he used in that study but found another one he did as well as one from another doctor.,
    swim also found this very valuable nugget Jack E. Henningfield and Benowitz used
    -
    http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm

    and the web site I got the original chart might have mis-quoted 'Higher score indicates greater effect', either way the charts are conflicting, its all confusing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2008
  6. Coconut

    Coconut Gold Member

    Reputation Points:
    1,878
    Messages:
    1,254
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    from earth
    Alcohol, benzodiazepine and barbiturate withdrawal can kill by delirium tremens. By what mechanism do cocaine and heroin withdrawal result in death?
     
  7. NeuroChi

    NeuroChi is not his mind Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    4,934
    Messages:
    3,780
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    from earth
    I should have been more specific. Children born of mothers who abused cocaine or heroin must be detoxified gradually otherwise they risk heart complications and possible death. A close friend of mine and children's aid worker has much more knowledge on the subject.

    For adults, this is much less common, but still possible. I do not know the specific mechanism by which it happens.
     
  8. unema

    unema Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    77
    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    from U.S.A.
    Hmm, good find but odd. I can smoke 1-10 cigs a day, 25 days out of a month then go a few weeks without one and sometime longer and never get any real physical w/d from it. I noticed one time I was getting agitated fairly quickly but that was only for a day, so...I do w/d bad kicking H though :(
     
  9. dongiovanni

    dongiovanni Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    5
    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    from U.K.
    I find this topic a little disturbing. Swim's been a heavy smoker for nearly a decade (15-25 a day) and has great trouble quitting, mainly because he's lazy and hedonistic. I have also messed around a little with injecting H, and finds that after a night of hitting it, he feels shattered, and while he doesn't feel the desperation to head back out and score some more right away, he can feel how easy it would be to slip. Comparing a relatively benign chemical such as nicotine (benign in the sense that the really negative physical effects tend to be very long term, such as cancer) with a harsh, rough, amazing and euphoric chemical such as H is ridiculous and irresponsible.
     
  10. Absu

    Absu Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    0
    Messages:
    15
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    35 y/o from armenia

    Actually the only withdrawals that can result in death are those of alcohol and benzodeazepines or however u spell it in english benzodeacepinas lol.

    Absu added 2 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...


    benign? lol no man, tobacoo kills WAY WAY WAY more people than H around the world every year, it is actually the drug that causes more deaths per year, its going to kill you, buy chantix, now! it makes quitting a walk in the park, really. I hope this helps :)
    And speaking of hedonistic u start taking the treatment and keep smoking for 15 more days so u can really enjoy those last ciggies ^^
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2008
  11. dongiovanni

    dongiovanni Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    5
    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    from U.K.
    What are you, on the chantix payroll or something? Besides, swim drinks heavily and takes stupid risks with drugs. I also have a pessimistic streak that makes him think it unlikely that he will live long enough to die from smoking.
    More people die from smoking than heroin because more people smoke than do heroin. I wonder what the life expectency of a heavy, daily heroin user is?
    Besides, dying isn't the issue here.
     
  12. Rightnow289

    Rightnow289 Palladium Member

    Reputation Points:
    1,264
    Messages:
    1,632
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    from earth
    Actually if there were as many heroin users as there are tobacco users it still would not kill as many people as cigarettes. For example you cant die from passive smoking of heroin now can you?
     
  13. teddybearpicnics

    teddybearpicnics Titanium Member

    Reputation Points:
    227
    Messages:
    198
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    30 y/o from U.S.A.
    swim hates this saying, nicotine is more addicting than heroin..okay no, I has gone many days without a cig, and just gets irritated, but if he goes without dope, it's fucking hell...i can't even type about this...lame
    .teddy
     
  14. dongiovanni

    dongiovanni Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    5
    Messages:
    7
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    from U.K.
    It depends if you're smoking heroin or not, doesn't it? Besides, it's riskier to drive a car or cross a street than it is to passively smoke. What a non-argument. What about the fact that you have to work pretty damn hard to die from a nicotine overdose? Sure, you may get lung cancer and decrease your life expectancy by 5 or 10 years, but that's not the same as ODing at 20 years old.
     
  15. mickey_bee

    mickey_bee Gold Member

    Reputation Points:
    2,357
    Messages:
    1,000
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    from U.K.
    I dunno about that man.....if you compare lifetime smokers to lifetime heroin users.......well the cause of death for most 'lifetime' heroin users is overdose. It comes with the territory. Entirely due to its illegality of course, but that's the world we live in.

    If you were talking about a society where prescription heroin was available for addicts.....(like the UK before the American war on drugs persuaded a switch to methadone), then I'd agree with you 100%.

    mickey_bee added 4 Minutes and 30 Seconds later...

    Sorry for the double post, but yeah, I have to agree entirely, statements like :eek:'cigarettes are more addictive than heroin':eek: are like tabloid headlines, and make me want to shoot........
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2008
  16. teddybearpicnics

    teddybearpicnics Titanium Member

    Reputation Points:
    227
    Messages:
    198
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    30 y/o from U.S.A.
    yeah...agreed. there have been many days where I has had enough for either bags or smokes, and guess what he took.
    .teddy
     
  17. Rightnow289

    Rightnow289 Palladium Member

    Reputation Points:
    1,264
    Messages:
    1,632
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    from earth
    Heroin overdose is only existent because of it's illegality which leads to a
    wide range of purity. If heroin were legal more people would die of nicotine than heroin IJHO. You can get lung cancer from smoking as early as 30 years old. The difference between the 2 is smoking gives you a slow and agonising death whereas a heroin overdose will kill you rather quickly.

    So no you don't have to work damn hard to die from smoking
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2008
  18. Dickon

    Dickon Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    4,449
    Messages:
    1,378
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    from U.K.
    In a hypothetical dream a clam said to a doughnut "mlac mlac", and the doughnut replied in loganberry jamese (which is a difficult language, somewhat akin to Reverse Polish), and I do my best to translate what was said....but caveat lector.....

    I read the first post on this thread yesterday, and was initially determined to write a scathing reply ridiculing the stupidity of researchers in the medical field, but this morning I read the article and I realized that there was a grain of truth in what was said.

    However, let's look at the numbers, but before we do so I'm going to add explicitly the definitions given in the first link of the original post.


    Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

    Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

    Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

    Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

    Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.


    I shall mention in passing the inadequacy of these definitions but leave it at that. Let's look at Withdrawals to begin with. Is it just me or is it overly convenient, or falsely elegant that we have a list of substances with the "scores on the doors" (don't worry, it's a quiz show) 6,5,4,3,2,1 respectively? Yep, in my guise as master scather, disparager, castigator and general pooh-pooher of the idiotic and fatuous I shall begin here. Let us reason from within, and begin with Alcohol getting a score of 3. I have used all of these substances on a daily basis for reasonable (or should I say unreasonable lengths of time) and the two I'd say I got the least withdrawals from were alcohol and marijuana. Now I've used alcohol to semi-serious excess, and I've definitely had a desire to use it, and I've clock watched for 12 noon, which was nearly always the earliest I allowed myself a drink. I've got itchy, but I'd have to say, for me, no withdrawal. The point of this is to say that a score of 3 must imply we are talking about long-term alcohol use. Alcohol, like benzodiazepines is lenient in that a few months daily use is unlikely to establish bad physical addiction. [Do not try this experimentally. I'm speaking from personal experience of being able to stop benzos cold turkey with little or no withdrawal after 2-3 months of use. I stopped fairly painlessly after 6 months use too, but I have fitted out when stopping cold turkey after longer use. Looking back what I did was dangerous and stupid. But I was young and stupid then, not old and stupid like now. I've found the longer-acting benzos that I used (temazepam, diazepam, chlordiazepoxide) more "forgiving" than the likes of midazolam and especially alprazolam, that to my mind (I initially wrote wind, a good typo!) seem very addictive]. If alcohol is to have a withdrawal, then because it's the only drug on the list that has a potentially fatal withdrawal, surely it should, on one rating be top of the heap? Alcohol withdrawal may be the most dangerous, but is it the most unpleasant if properly managed? I'd guess not, basing my experience on one case of serious alcohol withdrawal I partially witnessed in rehab. There was some kind of crisis (the guy in question had been drinking of the order of 2 bottles of vodka a day for 20-30 years, so we are talking serious alcoholism), and he had to go to hospital, but he came back, and after a short time seemed not too bad. By way of comparison most of the alcoholics seemed to experience no externally noticeable withdrawals, and if medicated at all were given a few days of benzos. Alcoholism to the point of withdrawal (and I don't mean shakes the next day), requires dedication to the cause.

    It's a shame benzos and barbiturates aren't covered here. It would give us a clue as to the mindset of the author. OK so let's look at the 5,4,3 part of the ordering "heroin, cocaine, alcohol", and mutter and splutter about comparing apples and oranges. A crack comedown is not comparable with heroin withdrawal. A bad crack comedown is in terms of its immediate intensity (tautologically speaking!) bad. I'd all but cry even if I had heroin and curse that I'd bought "brown" instead of (as well as) "white"! Heroin barely touched a crack comedown for me. But a few hours later that insanity was gone; but do we factor that low grade next day "I want a pipe of crack, I'm listless" into the withdrawals? Probably not, that will be part of habituation more. However we score this how does it compare to 7-10 nights or more with little or no sleep and every second of the clock seeing like an eternity. I think in some sense the "heroin, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, marijuana" scoring 5,4,3,2,1 is fine.

    Now, then here we come to the bone of contention. Above heroin withdrawal we have nicotine withdrawal with a score of 6. I have just emerged from a methadone withdrawal, which some readers will probably know is documented in more than a little detail in the "Screaming in the night air" thread (in recovery and addiction > opiate addiction). I think there is a general consensus that a methadone withdrawal is about a 5-6 to heroin's 5, but I would defy anyone in good conscience to read that thread, look me in the eye and say "Dickon, that was maybe a less than pleasant experience. However I quit smoking the other month, and trust me my withdrawal symptoms were far worse than yours".

    I was a 40 a day smoker, and when I quit finally I was smoking 60-80 a day. Comparable to or worse than caffeine and marijuana: yes definitely. Comparable to or worse than alcohol or cocaine: there is a point to be made, if you're going to claim nicotine has withdrawal symptoms at all. It IS hard to quit, don't get me wrong, but to claim it is in re withdrawal symptoms comparable to opiates is fatuous in the extreme. It's wrong. If I were MrG, I'd do a long line of "Ha ha"s in ever increasing size. It's not just wrong, it's really wrong. It's so wrong as to derail the credibility of the author, in my opinion at least.

    Please note that what I've said so far does not refute the claim that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. The strength of this claim I now see rests on the "fact" (if we believe the research) that of people who try heroin only x % become addicted, but of those who try nicotine y% become addicted, where y>x. In this sense the claim is plausible, and puts no constraints on the severity of withdrawal symptoms.

    Right let's skip through the other categories, as this post is already turning into one of my longer numbers. Reinforcement next. Cocaine. Let me quote a less than perfect section of wiki under "cocaine dependence". Sources are not given, and the grammar leaves a little to be desired but I've seen this information before, so I'm inclined to believe it: -

    One study showed that a rhesus monkey named Brekke, provided with a mechanism of cocaine self-administration, preferred the drug over food that was in the cage. This happens even when the monkeys are starving. Female monkeys with offspring will abandon their young upon being introduced to cocaine, and in a few cases, mothers killed their offspring. In all cases, a monkey aggressively protected the apparatus which delivered the cocaine, and in most cases, fights to the death between monkeys occurred to secure access to cocaine. The monkeys who self-administered cocaine, did virtually nothing else. Complete disregard for food, sex, sleep, water, hygiene, offspring, and life in general was always the case for those monkeys addicted to cocaine [this was then contrasted with the more normal behaviour if the cocaine was replaced with heroin].

    This behaviour (remember the definition of reinforcement is for animals too) get's a 3. Alcohol get's a 6, heroin a 5 and nicotine a 4. Go figure [If this is true, I'm never standing in the way of a man returning for a second pint at the pub. Not only will I be killed, but most likely my child and wife will be too]. If we're going to unpick this rainbow, cocaine is a 6 on reinforcement. Everything else pales into insignificance. Of the top of my head I'd place nicotine second, heroin third, then caffeine or alcohol, and finally Mary Jane. Again, giving cocaine a 3 here shows either a set of criteria to define reinforcement that fly in the face of normal usage and common sense, or results that for whatever reason are simply wrong.

    The rest of the numbers do not, by my reckoning, fly in the face of common sense. Heroin is the most prone to tolerance. It's not unreasonable to put nicotine next (compare the little effect smoking 80 a day has for a smoker compared to one puff for a non-smoker).

    It's a thought provoking idea, but I am not yet convinced we've got very good axes for comparison. I'd love to know how other people with experience of daily use of all or some of the above substances rate them subjectively by the above criteria, or sub-divide them/clarify them/explain them better. Without some-such even subjective scorings would be rather arbitrary.

    Excuse the rambling, but hope it was interesting or intelligible at least.

    Dickon
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2017
  19. doggy_hat

    doggy_hat Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    172
    Messages:
    268
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Why is nicotine withdrawal rated so high? When people are quiting cigarettes they just think "Damn, I could really use a cigarette right now." 1000 times a day. If people get more serious withdrawals than that from nicotine, I've never heard of that.
     
  20. Euthanatos93420

    Euthanatos93420 Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    649
    Messages:
    1,249
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    from U.S.A.
    Have you ever been addicted to nicotine? I fucks with your head. It's on par with crack cocaine. That's a gross understatement of the level of psychological addiction that nicotine causes.