Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

dancesafe.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#141

Post by nebulousthree »

stillbourne wrote: post #110
pas wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is it a load of rubbish? it's inconclusive. it seems there's no strong independent evidence either for or against the strong addiction model.

Science operates on a system of checks and balances, not a free speech model. If your paper can't pass peer review then your paper is what is clinically referred to as bullshit. Now there are people who bypass the system of checks and balances by publishing on pay to play journals but scientist came up with a solution to that too, Impact Factor. They took all the journals and rated them by how much of the content tha…

Checks and balances are a perpetual game of cat and mouse. While yes, they do raise the barrier of entry, it doesn't account for nepotism or favouritism, which would be the equivalent of lifting the ribbon to let someone through. It can go so far as to make legitimate attempts at entry unreasonably difficult or downright impossible, making the paper publish only papers pushed through a rigged system that appears on the surface to be of value. It is only through time or by investigation that it is found that a paper reputation is increasingly fraudulent.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#142

Post by MavisBacon »

pyrophane wrote: post #111
pas wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is it a load of rubbish? it's inconclusive. it seems there's no strong independent evidence either for or against the strong addiction model.

I assume it is more the author's response to the headline of this article, which treats the conclusions of the experiment as robustly proven fact.

Right. Not really the thinking of someone concerned with science, which is frustrating as a harm reductionist who has recognized that lack of serious logic and reason are the biggest enemy of the movement. It can begin to look like hedonism to the outsider otherwise

Also frustrating considering how bloated their staff seems to be and how much they seem to want to be viewed as scientific, and this is perhaps the most visible harm reduction org in the states.

https://dancesafe.org/dancesafe-national/

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#143

Post by denton-scratch »

throwaway1492 wrote: post #123
denton-scratch wrote: post #80

The author's contention is that "addiction" is a result of circumstances, not of substances. He cites a rat study, and that's about it. I don't think that's correct. I do think that addiction results from circumstances, and it's impossible to quit if the circumstances are wrong; but depending on the substance, withdrawal can mean life-threatening seizures. Suggesting that the primary (author implies "sole") cause of…

My only encounter with drugs (pain killers) for the past 10 years was fentanyl as part of colonoscopy. That was no joke. Just one dose had noticeable effects for a few days later. I felt fucking great waking up from that colonoscopy but man, the day or two after sucked.

Wow, fentanyl for a colonoscopy?

I've had three. They'd usually offer NO2 or diazepam, but only if you have someone to take you home. Which I didn't. So I've never had drugs for a colonoscopy.

It's an unpleasant, uncomfortable experience, makes me groan out loud, but I wouldn't describe it as painful.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#144

Post by pcthrowaway »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #58
xrd wrote: post #13

I've got a friend who recently was hospitalized for fentanyl addiction. Twenty years ago he was my first investor in my first startup. He was the guy that taught me about mediation. He was the first vegetarian I knew. He owned four cab licenses in Portland. Then Uber came in and shredded his retirement plan. The cab company forced him out so he wouldn't even capitalize on the partial ownership of the land they owned.…

My family member died from his addiction and I'm still angry at him. He made several decades of selfish, disastrous choices. He had every advantage in the world and squandered it all. I'm angry we don't do more to fight these drugs. Drug dealing is very much a violent crime, it killed my cousin. The popular culture that celebrates drugs and dealers. Plenty of blame all around but central is the person who decides to…

> He had every advantage in the world and squandered it all.

I don't believe people get on addictive drugs and squander their lives when they truly have "every advantage in the world". I've been to rehab and recovery programs and I haven't a single person for whom this was the case.

Usually when people say this, they're talking about privileged people who outwardly seem like they have everything they need to succeed. But they have demons: depression, bipolar disorder, mental health, trauma, chronic pain. What's worse, other people are often unwilling acknowledge those demons, and say things like "you have every advantage in the world" which can just make them feel more isolated.

This can lead people to seek relief however they can get it.

I'm sorry for your family member and for you and your family; but for anyone reading this with a loved one struggling with similar issues, know that helping them can sometimes require willingness to understand them first.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#145

Post by niemandhier »

Nowado wrote: post #14
niemandhier wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are drugs that cause neural rewireing in animals after a single use e.g. cocaine. If you have a stable social group and a fulfilled life you will probably not become dependant on thc, you should still avoid crack.

Everything causes neural rewiring in animals after a single use. That's what experience is. This sentence says nothing.

Ok here is a lot to unpack.

1rst. Yes single use cocain in animals causes unusual neuroplasticity, we can prove it. Citation: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.5898... Favorite quotes: "For the first time, it has been demonstrated that a single low dose of cocaine, which can cause no locomotor behavioral and brain metabolic changes, can induce structural damage." "It is essential to alert the population even against the consumption of low doses of cocaine."

Changes are much more pronounced in long term exposed animals, please work through the publications originating from the grant for "Cocaine-induced neuroplasticity: a new role for TGF beta signaling" Link: https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-DA037257-02

2nd. Memory is devilish complicated, but AFAIK the current state of knowledge is that short term memory ( which I normally would expect to be the main memory for a single incidence trial) is not due to anatomical changes in the actual neurons, but a complicated mix of neurotransmitters, spiking, vestibules etc.

So saying that every interaction leads to a measurable change in the brain matter is most probably wrong.

Please read: https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/17...

To verify that.

So summarizing: No not "Everything causes neural rewiring", and yes my sentence had quite a lot of content, but normally people stop listening when I start quoting studies in a conversation.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#146

Post by Nowado »

niemandhier wrote: post #145
Nowado wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything causes neural rewiring in animals after a single use. That's what experience is. This sentence says nothing.

Ok here is a lot to unpack. 1rst. Yes single use cocain in animals causes unusual neuroplasticity, we can prove it. Citation: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.5898... Favorite quotes: "For the first time, it has been demonstrated that a single low dose of cocaine, which can cause no locomotor behavioral and brain metabolic changes, can induce structural damage." "It is essential to alert the po…

Those are very different sentences and that difference makes them hold some content. Especially content like numerical values and limitations, making the whole thing waaaaaay less binary (which was the issue with the original one).

I went through abstracts of papers 1 and 3 ('long term exposure to cocaine induces neuroplasticity' isn't exactly controversial). The issue isn't with those papers, but in difference between them and 'cause neural rewireing'.

It's the difference you're also well aware of, because in 'summary' you put my exact quote quoting you in form of 'Everything causes neural rewiring' while on the way there you decided to argue against position that 'every interaction leads to a measurable change in the brain matter'. Those are different statements, unless there's some standard explaining that 'neural rewiring' refers to a specific level of changes that I'm simply not familiar with.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#147

Post by stillbourne »

nebulousthree wrote: post #141
stillbourne wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science operates on a system of checks and balances, not a free speech model. If your paper can't pass peer review then your paper is what is clinically referred to as bullshit. Now there are people who bypass the system of checks and balances by publishing on pay to play journals but scientist came up with a solution to that too, Impact Factor. They took all the journals and rated them by how much of the content tha…

Checks and balances are a perpetual game of cat and mouse. While yes, they do raise the barrier of entry, it doesn't account for nepotism or favouritism, which would be the equivalent of lifting the ribbon to let someone through. It can go so far as to make legitimate attempts at entry unreasonably difficult or downright impossible, making the paper publish only papers pushed through a rigged system that appears on t…

Yes, and we even have a system for that. Retraction. https://retractionwatch.com/

I'm not saying the system is perfect but it works over time.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#148

Post by achenet »

version_five wrote: post #72

Just want to mention my experience quitting smoking (which is notably hard, but I have no point of reference having not used other drugs). Physical addition is easy. With nicotine there are not really strong symptoms anyway, irritability mainly and inability to focus. I know other drugs are worse but in principle, battling withdrawl is not that tough, people are good at physical hardships. For nicotine it's a few day…

I also quit smoking. I recommend the book "The Easy Way to Quit Smoking" by Allen Carr, which basically spends a like a hundred pages explaining that no, smoking isn't fun, at all, you've just been brainwashed to think it is, but really life is much nicer without it. Focus on enjoying your freedom from a completely useless vice :)

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#149

Post by reducesuffering »

civilitty wrote: post #85
quacked wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously he doesn't mean that, there's an enormous body of media and art that glamorizes drug dealing and using. It stretches across ethnicity and class. It begins with alcohol and weed, stretches into cocaine and hallucinogens, and from there gets into the heavy drugs. If the only input into drug addiction was the modern medical industry over-prescribing opioids, the landscape of modern drug use would look very dif…

Does any recent media actually glorify the drugs that are causing the worst problems right now? I watch a lot of TV but have less exposure to popular music so I'm genuinely unsure. There's plenty of alcohol, weed, cocaine, and hallucinogens, I'll give you that, but they're not gateways to opioid addiction. Breaking Bad glorifying the manufacture and sale of meth is the only except I can think of - Oxy, fentanyl, and…

> Oxy, fentanyl, and p2p meth aren't exactly the drugs musicians and Hollywood turn to as a lyrical/plot device.

Oxy is hugely glamorized in rap music. Drinking "lean" / cough syrup and doing Percocet pills. Future song "Molly Percocet". The Weeknd's record label is called XO for Ecstasy / Oxy.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#150

Post by pstuart »

stan_kirdey wrote: post #49
pstuart wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should not treat drug addiction as a crime -- it's a medical condition and should be addressed in that context. That said, we need to find a way to institutionalize and treat those that have become non-functional from their addiction(s). And that power needs to be wielded with extreme transparency and accountability.

"we should not treat drug addiction as a crime" - I don't think anyone is saying otherwise

The comment I was responding to was talking about it in the context of "correctional facilities". Likewise, the continued war on drugs literally makes addicts into criminals.
Post reply on HN