Why are drugs so addicting?

[bigrash]

To start it off, I just want to say that the reason why I question it is because I've never taken any drugs(illegal anyways). Most of all my friends like to experiment here and there and none of them are way too serious about it. I'm at a point in my life where I passed the stage of starting to experiment, so I guess I'll never find out myself, and I don't want to find out the hard way.

So why is it so addicting? I'm just curious here. Why is it that's it's so hard to stop? The same question goes for alcohol also. We all know that too much of it is never good, so why do some of us keep doing it anyways? Even though I've never done any drug use, I was a very heavy drinker once. But I stoped once I realized that it was harming me.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to stop something that they know is so harmful to them

 

[Vadatajs]

There are 2 types of addictions, physical and psychological. When you get addicted to a drug and its effect weakens as you take it, that is physical. Your body is becoming accustomed to having the drug in your system. One must then take more to get the same effect from the drug in question. This is the psychological aspect--the desire to get the effect from the drug in question. It can also become a habit (pretty much the same a psychological addiction, but there are some fine differences: pyschological addiction is when you THINK you NEED the drug and the habit is purely the act of taking the drug), which is purely psychological, but very difficult to break. Once the physical addiction is over the habit can remain. Just ask anybody who is trying to quit smoking. Nicotine replacement (ala the patch) helps with the physical aspect, but the psycological component is up to the smoker in question. Let's say somebody always has a cigarette after meals for a few years. They smoke regularly, but always after eating. If they try to quit, they still feel they want a cigarette after eating due to habit. The act of eating is like Pavlov ringing the bell before feeding his dog.

 

[yellowperil]

Just my observation but most people who take drugs do not get addicted to them. It's those with a propensity for addictive behaviors that really get sucked into it.

 

[CyrixMII333]

If they weren't so addictive, they wouldn't be a drug, would they?
BEst thing is don't start, they tell you it bad, so it bad period, nuff said.

 

[Vadatajs]

<< Just my observation but most people who take drugs do not get addicted to them. It's those with a propensity for addictive behaviors that really get sucked into it. >>



That is true to a point, but the propensity for addictive behaviors can be largely environmental.

 

[pulse8]

<< If they weren't so addictive, they wouldn't be a drug, would they?
BEst thing is don't start, they tell you it bad, so it bad period, nuff said. >>



Not all drugs are addictive. The reason most drugs do become addictive, however, is because your body forms a physical dependency on the chemical that the drug is providing. When it doesn't get that, it craves it and thus forming the addiction.

 

[yellowperil]

<<

<< Just my observation but most people who take drugs do not get addicted to them. It's those with a propensity for addictive behaviors that really get sucked into it. >>



That is true to a point, but the propensity for addictive behaviors can be largely environmental. >>


I was referring to both, actually. Whether someone's 'addictive personality' comes from his/her genes or is learned, my point is that the addiction is the person, not the drug.

 

[DDCSpeed]

I dont know....hold up....i gotta shoot up ok thats was a stupid joke. But ur brain gets addicted to the drugs and makes all the decisions for u and in a way u are not in control of your body.

 

[notfred]

<< If they weren't so addictive, they wouldn't be a drug, would they?
BEst thing is don't start, they tell you it bad, so it bad period, nuff said. >>



I swear you're the dumbest person on this board.



<< drug (drg)
n.

1. a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. >>



Hmm, doesn't look like something HAS to be addicting to be a drug, does it?

And yes, you should always do what "they" tell you, nuff said.

 

[Bitek]

agreed...:disgust:

 

[tcsenter]

<< I was referring to both, actually. Whether someone's 'addictive personality' comes from his/her genes or is learned, my point is that the addiction is the person, not the drug >>

Actually, it is both, more or less, depending upon the individual and the substance.

You have to keep in mind that everything is controlled on a chemical level. Our urges, desires, thoughts, reactions, and inhibitions are chemical. When you get hungry, you have an urge to eat. When you get thirsty, you have an urge to drink, and those are chemical messengers stimulating certain areas of the brain that send us strong signals to react in some way. That's how the brain works.

All addictive drugs manipulate the dopaminergic system, that is they cause dopamine to be released or increase its concentration by blocking its re-uptake. Dopamine is a very important "feel good" neurotransmitter (chemical) that is part of our natural system of reward/pleasure/reinforcement. The more dopamine that is released or the longer it persists, the "better" you feel, to a point.

The classic reward/pleasure/reinforcement area of the brain that is associated with clinical dependence is the nucleus accumbens shell. Drugs which affect an increase of dopamine in this area are highly addictive. Drugs like heroin and amphetamines cause a large increase of dopamine levels that is far greater than what the brain would normally get through 'natural' pleasure/reward stimulus.

If the key neurotrasmitters involved in these systems could somehow just return to 'normal' balances after this increase in dopamine begins to resolve, addiction wouldn't be such a problem. But, it doesn't. Most drugs not only cause the release of certain neurotrasmitters (like dopamine), but will actually block the action of other neurotrasmitters that are important in managing the whole system. So, the result is a refractory deficit of 'normal' brain chemicals for some time after the drug wears off. There are dozens, hundreds, of chemicals involved in these processes, and while a particular drug may only influence a few key chemicals directly, many others are affected indirectly. I am simplifying this for understanding, but I don't believe to the point of inaccuracy.

There have been more than casual links identified between certain genes and addiction potential for alcoholism. In essence, some people have genes which cause certain areas of the brain to be influenced by alcohol far more than those without the gene. Normally, alcohol is not a highly addictive substance, and so prolonged use would be necessary for dependence to develop. In persons with this gene, changes occur in their brain after a few exposures to alcohol that would normally only be found in persons who have been exposed to prolonged use of alcohol.

Some drugs affect other key neurotransmitter systems affecting memory, concentration, and mood. Ravers are finding this out with alarming frequency, unfortunately, because the consequences of prolonged ecstacy type drugs can permanently damage the seritonin system. Seritonin is an important neurotransmitter that is linked with a host of disorders including anxiety, depression, chronic fatigue, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, idiopathic pain, hypertension, and migraine headaches. Numerous examples exist of college aged persons who have permantly damaged their natural seritonin 'balance' due to prolonged ecstacy use. I've heard one describe it as having a bad hang-over, for the rest of your life.

The bottom line is, there is no such beast as a "safe" recreational drug, nor is it likely there ever will be. Anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise is a bona fide idiot. There are risks, and those risks increase with the frequency or prolongness of use. Typically, the brain will restore its 'normal' balances within a few hours after the affects of cocaine, heroine, amphetamines, etc. wear-off, and excluding overdose or the rare reaction, there is no harm done. But, frequent, persistent or prolonged use can permanently alter or damage the brain.

This is no different than if I hit you with a stick. You will bruise, but it will go away. If I wait a few weeks before hitting you again, same thing will occur. But, if I continue to hit you with a stick in the same spot every few minutes, over and over again, I will eventually cause permanent damage.

 

[MikeO]

<< I swear you're the dumbest person on this board. >>



You noticed that too huh?

 

[ttn1]

The funny thing is that people need to use a little common sense here.

Physically addictive drugs, like cocaine, heroine, caffiene and nicotine, cause real physical withdrawal symptoms when someone using them stops using. Psychological addictions are usually created because you like the way something makes you feel. If someone is addicted to shopping, exercising or marijuana, they are psychologically addicted.

As for "street" drugs, I always looked at this from a logical standpoint. Do I really want something that was cooked up in a dirty basement and sold on a street corner in my body. The people that do this amaze me. They think it is disgusting to drink out of someone else's glass, but give them a dirty needle or some distilled rat poison and they are good to go.

ttn1

 

[tweakmm]

<<
I swear you're the dumbest person on this board.
>>


i second this...

 

[tcsenter]

<< If someone is addicted to shopping, exercising or marijuana, they are psychologically addicted. >>

Ah, but its not that simple! With those activities (gambling, sex, shopping, FOOD, etc.) which people have become habituated to, they experience the release of the SAME "feel good" neurotransmitters as someone who slapped-on a nicotine patch or snorts some heroin (the preferred method today). Granted, they don't receive nearly the same 'dose' as chemical substances would stimulate, and the precise pathway/feedback system is slightly different, but those 'natural' feel good chemicals do stimulate the same 'reward/reinforcement' areas of the brain. It is the psychological addictions that are most difficult to break.

Oh, and marijuana is physiologically addicting, no "feel good" drug isn't, really. But, like alcohol, it takes prolonged use to establish physical dependence.

 

[hungrypete]

One perspective
Sometimes it feels good to be wasted. Sometimes you want to feel good all day. When you're on drugs, especially harder ones, you can talk yourself into alot of things, like using the drug too much or sleeping with the wrong person, or lots of other much worse things. It's the happy/euphoric feeling that is psychologically addictive, and in the case of harder drugs it can also be chemically addictive.

 

[ttn1]

<< But, like alcohol, it takes prolonged use to establish physical dependence. >>



I disagree here. If you are going to be physically dependent to alcohol your body has to have the right switches. I drank, heavily, for 2-3 years and quit with no ill effects. The same for marijuana. Maybe this isn't your definition of prolonged use.

The definition of "physical" dependence has to be clearly defined.
I define it as having physical withdrawal symptoms. I had none with either alcohol or marijuana.

Psychological addictions are weakness IMHO. Everyone has them, but you need to try your best to control them. It's one thing to have sweats, shakes, terrible pain when coming off a "physical" addiction. It's another to say, "Boy I would like to do that today, although I know I shouldn't." Usually it is the result of depression or something along those lines. No will power.

ttn1

 

[Lucky]

prolonged use is not 2-3 years. Prolonged use is a decade, two decades.

And dont think because you were able to be it that that means that you are the norm, or that others will be able to do that without effects.

 

[ttn1]

Like I said just needed a clearer definition of prolonged use.

And if you use something for a decade its way more of a habit by then than an addiction.

I think of physical addiction, like caffiene. I drink very little caffiene, but I remember in college I was drinking alot of caffiene. When I quit that, that was hard. Nasty headaches and tired all the time. Went on for like 2 weeks, until the withdrawal symptoms subsided. That's what I consider physical addiction.

I still believe that society, at least in the US, is creating whining, weak people. Everyone wants a miracle drug to cure everything. It goes along with people blaming everyone else for their problems. Your father dies of lung cancer so you sue the tabacco company or you spill hot coffe in your lap and sue the fast food restaurant.

Using a drug, heavily, for 20 years and don't expect it to be hard to break the habit, your kidding yourself. Then again, if it is alcohol or something even harder, you won't live much longer anyway.

 

[Schlocemus]

They mimick neurotransmiters and therefore produce new pleasure seeking pathways within the brain itself; Drugs create new relationships between opposite poles of the brain that were not previously associated.

 

[tcsenter]

<< I still believe that society, at least in the US, is creating whining, weak people. Everyone wants a miracle drug to cure everything. It goes along with people blaming everyone else for their problems. Your father dies of lung cancer so you sue the tabacco company or you spill hot coffe in your lap and sue the fast food restaurant. >>

There is no question this plays a role in all this. We have a real 'indulgence' problem in this country, one which is not found in other countries, and its due to our rather prosperous and decadent life-styles.

We think that because we can do something, and we like to do it, means we should have as much of it as we can stand. And I agree that we should be allowed to have as much of it as we can stand in a free society, but that also means that if your overindulgence ends-up causing you some grief somewhere down the road, you and only you are to blame for it. You shouldn't expect government or the tax payers to get you out of the mess you created for yourself.

Not that public charity isn't a good thing, but in a free country the tax payers fund charitable things because we as a society WANT to or think its a beneficial thing, not because anyone has a RIGHT to it.

A friend of the family has smoked cigarettes and pipes (he gets tired of one, so he switches back and forth) since he was about 18, and he is now like 60 IIRC. But, he has never smoked more than 1 or 2 cigarettes a day (usually mid-day or in the evening), because in his generation, these were "pleasures" you only engaged in on occasion. The same was true for a fine brandy. One, if you were poor you couldn't afford more than an occasional "treat", and two you understood if you did something all the time it would no longer be an occasional "treat".

Of course, there have always been drunks and addicts, and people without any self-restraint whatsoever.