Quote:

---

zouden said:
I said Asian countries, not Asian-Americans. The difference is that "Asian-American" includes people who are of mixed decent, and Filipinos, who aren't Asian. But anyway, I'm sorry for saying it's virtually unheard of, as it's obvious that alcoholism does exist in Asia.
I've always understood that the lack of alcohol dehydrogenase in Asian people - particularly from North Asia - results in a much higher level of acetaldehyde in their blood (Asian Flush) and this reduces the dopamine response to alcohol and results in a much lower propensity to alcoholism. The same is true for women, but less pronounced. The opposite is also true: people with an over expression of alcohol dehydrogenase are more capable of developing alcoholism. There's also a genetic link in a dopamine receptor mutation. The end result is the statistic that only 30% of Caucasians are actually capable of developing addiction to alcohol, and if the rate of alcohol consumption was similar to that of other drugs (which it is not) then we would see this born out. As is it, the enormous consumption of alcohol skews the figures, but from a physiological point of view, alcohol is not considered a particularly addictive drug, and in any case, treatments like disulfiram and naltrexone are very effective at fighting alcoholism.

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:
What's DARE?

---

Quote:

---

Alcohol addiction is very rare. Only about 30% of the Caucasian population are capable of getting addicted, because it requires a genetic predisposition. Alcoholism is unheard of in Asian countries for the same reason.
So the majority of people are at least capable of using alcohol responsibly.

---

Quote:

---

But nicotine, heroin, meth etc - very easy to get addicted to, very difficult to just enjoy responsibly. This is why I think they should be illegal.

---

Quote:

---

it stars saddam said:
In my opinion, all drugs should be legal and available to the public. I feel that the individual should have the right to choose for himself whether or not to use chemicals to alter his consciousness or destroy himself.

---

Quote:

---

That's how I see it. You're put on this earth with loads of drugs, but you cannot use them because someone said it's illegal to put into your body. The fuck is up with that?

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:
I said Asian countries, not Asian-Americans. The difference is that "Asian-American" includes people who are of mixed decent, and Filipinos, who aren't Asian. But anyway, I'm sorry for saying it's virtually unheard of, as it's obvious that alcoholism does exist in Asia.
I've always understood that the lack of alcohol dehydrogenase in Asian people - particularly from North Asia - results in a much higher level of acetaldehyde in their blood (Asian Flush) and this reduces the dopamine response to alcohol and results in a much lower propensity to alcoholism. The same is true for women, but less pronounced. The opposite is also true: people with an over expression of alcohol dehydrogenase are more capable of developing alcoholism. There's also a genetic link in a dopamine receptor mutation. The end result is the statistic that only 30% of Caucasians are actually capable of developing addiction to alcohol, and if the rate of alcohol consumption was similar to that of other drugs (which it is not) then we would see this born out. As is it, the enormous consumption of alcohol skews the figures, but from a physiological point of view, alcohol is not considered a particularly addictive drug, and in any case, treatments like disulfiram and naltrexone are very effective at fighting alcoholism.

---

Quote:

---

astronaut said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

zouden said:
Yes, but there's a big difference between drugs that are physiologically addictive (meth, heroin, cocaine, tobacco) and ones that aren't (psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, aspirin)

---

meth, cocaine and nicotine are psychologically addictive... for this reason no one is going to go into seizures that could possibly lead to death if they suddenly stop taking them.

Alcohol is one such drug however in which people may go into seizures if they stop taking it however I don't believe it should be illegal. Some people may get addicted. Others won't. To deny those who can use the drug moderately is wrong IMO.

---

You're misinformed, man. First off, just because a drug is psychologically addictive, doesn't mean that it can't be physically addictive as well. Meth, coke, cigs, and alcohol are all both psychologically and physically addictive. The criteria for physical addiction isn't seizures after quitting, it's physical withdrawal symptoms in general. All of these drugs have them, and all have the capacity to be habit-forming on a purely psychological level as well.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

astronaut said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

zouden said:
Yes, but there's a big difference between drugs that are physiologically addictive (meth, heroin, cocaine, tobacco) and ones that aren't (psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, aspirin)

---

meth, cocaine and nicotine are psychologically addictive... for this reason no one is going to go into seizures that could possibly lead to death if they suddenly stop taking them.

Alcohol is one such drug however in which people may go into seizures if they stop taking it however I don't believe it should be illegal. Some people may get addicted. Others won't. To deny those who can use the drug moderately is wrong IMO.

---

You're misinformed, man. First off, just because a drug is psychologically addictive, doesn't mean that it can't be physically addictive as well. Meth, coke, cigs, and alcohol are all both psychologically and physically addictive. The criteria for physical addiction isn't seizures after quitting, it's physical withdrawal symptoms in general. All of these drugs have them, and all have the capacity to be habit-forming on a purely psychological level as well.

---

I'm afraid you are the one who is misinformed and like most individuals do not fully understand the difference between psychologically addicting and physically addicting. Yes you may experience physical withdrawal symptoms however no matter how deep in addiction you run you will not run the risk of dying if you stop taking the substance.

Alcohol, heroin, xanax and ssri's all posses this risk. No matter how much of an addiction you have from meth, coke ect you will never die if you stop taking them.

---

Quote:

---

astronaut said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

astronaut said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:

Quote:

---

zouden said:
Yes, but there's a big difference between drugs that are physiologically addictive (meth, heroin, cocaine, tobacco) and ones that aren't (psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, aspirin)

---

meth, cocaine and nicotine are psychologically addictive... for this reason no one is going to go into seizures that could possibly lead to death if they suddenly stop taking them.

Alcohol is one such drug however in which people may go into seizures if they stop taking it however I don't believe it should be illegal. Some people may get addicted. Others won't. To deny those who can use the drug moderately is wrong IMO.

---

You're misinformed, man. First off, just because a drug is psychologically addictive, doesn't mean that it can't be physically addictive as well. Meth, coke, cigs, and alcohol are all both psychologically and physically addictive. The criteria for physical addiction isn't seizures after quitting, it's physical withdrawal symptoms in general. All of these drugs have them, and all have the capacity to be habit-forming on a purely psychological level as well.

---

I'm afraid you are the one who is misinformed and like most individuals do not fully understand the difference between psychologically addicting and physically addicting. Yes you may experience physical withdrawal symptoms however no matter how deep in addiction you run you will not run the risk of dying if you stop taking the substance.

Alcohol, heroin, xanax and ssri's all posses this risk. No matter how much of an addiction you have from meth, coke ect you will never die if you stop taking them.

---

These facts you cite are indeed correct, but I never denied that. I only cleared up the criteria for physiological addiction as it is defined by those in the field of Medicine, which you still don't seem to understand. The chance of dying to withdrawal is not a criteria for physiological addiction; becoming physically ill or otherwise impaired after quitting is sufficient.

---

Quote:

---

I simply hoped to make the connection that you run NO risk of dying from a psychological addiction.

---

Very true

Quote:

---

Utter fucking bullshit.

If a person can become addicted to food or sex, then they can also become addicted to alcohol.

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:

Quote:

---

Utter fucking bullshit.

If a person can become addicted to food or sex, then they can also become addicted to alcohol.

---

Please explain how one can become addicted to food or sex. "Really really liking something" is not addiction, and neither is "I'll die I can't get some food!".

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:
Please explain how one can become addicted to food or sex.

---

Quote:

---

astronaut said:
Psychological addiction can happen with anything, especially with rewarding things like sex and fast food.

---

Exactly

Quote:

---

Types of food addiction
Anorexia Nervosa is characterized by intense fear of gaining weight.
...
Bulimia Nervosa is described as binge eating and compensatory behavior to prevent weight gain.
...
Compulsive Overeaters use food inappropriately and eventually become addicted to it and lose control over the amount of food they eat.

---

Quote:

---

Psychological dependency is a dependency of the mind, and leads to psychological withdrawal symptoms (such as cravings, irritability, insomnia, depression, anorexia, etc). Addiction can in theory be derived from any rewarding behaviour, and is believed to be strongly associated with the dopaminergic system of the brain's reward system (as in the case of cocaine and amphetamines). Some claim that it is a habitual means to avoid undesired activity, but typically it is only so to a clinical level in individuals who have emotional, social, or psychological dysfunctions (psychological addiction is defined as such), replacing normal positive stimuli not otherwise attained (see Rat Park).

It is considered possible to be both psychologically and physically dependent at the same time. Some doctors make little distinction between the two types of addiction, since the result, substance abuse, is the same. However, the cause and characteristics of each of the two types of addiction is quite different, as is the type of treatment preferred.

Psychological dependence does not have to be limited only to substances; even activities and behavioural patterns can be considered addictions, if they become uncontrollable, e.g. gambling, Internet addiction, computer addiction, sexual addiction / pornography addiction, reading, eating, self-harm, vandalism or work addiction.

---