[finn4life]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Aug 29 2012, 17:48)

QUOTE

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, Aug 29 2012, 08:48) I am saying (please read my previous posts and sources)  in a nutshell that smoking creates an addiction then withdrawal symptoms make the smoker irritated with higher stress levels and having a cigarette brings the stress levels back down to normal levels. So if you didn't smoke you would feel how you feel after having a cigarette all the time. So basically, you are saying that smoking has no psychoactive effects - that it doesn't release serotonin or relieve stress, it only causes the withdrawal symptoms to subside. That is your whole contention.

I am saying that cigarettes increase stress through withdrawal symptoms because the addiction is not being satisfied you are correct on what i said, then when you have a cigarette your body releases serotonin and dopamine but those releases only bring your stress levels back down to where they would be if you didn't have the addiction.
So it is psychoactive because it does change chemicals in the brain which alleviates stress, but that stress is caused by withdrawal symptoms.

My understanding of Psycho-Active is that it causes a chemical change in the brain, correct me if i'm wrong and provide me with a better definition accompanied by a source.

QUOTE

QUOTE Again I state if you are going to debate this find.counter sources against what I have already posted. You want a source to say that cigarettes relax you? I thought it was common knowledge and that finding scientific literature that specifically states that fact would be a huge waste of time, but fine, here you go: "Nicotine extends duration of pleasant effects of dopamine"

Alright good, you finally found an article to support your "common knowledge" claim (which isn't quite so common according to my sources), it is from 2002 however and new research has come out since.
But ignoring how old it is i didn't see anything mentioning that it brings stress levels lower that if you did not smoke, it just mentions that it lowers stress levels, those heightened stress levels were caused by smoking.

QUOTE

What's more, nicotine itself is not addictive, it's the other compounds in tobacco that are addictive - and as such, produce the withdrawal effects. Logic dictates that if you were to consume nicotine on it's own, you would get the serotonin and dopamine releasing effects (and thus stress relief) without the withdrawals even being present - how can you suggest that the only effects of nicotine come from something that isn't even found in nicotine itself? Furthermore, how in your mind is it even possible to become addicted to something that has no psychoactive effects? Why would your body crave nicotine if it wasn't being significantly relaxed by it?

There is some debate on whether or not nicotine in itself is addictive, the other chemicals definitely do have a role to play in the addiction as well, but we are not talking about Nicotine on its own, we are talking in the context of cigarettes and smoking.

As for the Psychoactive effects i already stated what my understanding of that was

QUOTE

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Aug 29 2012, 13:44) QUOTE Yeah, why people don't just lift weights while at work or out with their friends is beyond me. Not sure what you mean by that, but you could go ahead and head to a gym. Would be a lot better for your overall health than lighting up a cigarette. Right, but you can't head to a gym whenever you're stressed. People get stressed at work, at the pub, at friends' houses, while running errands etc. were you really suggesting that someone can replace cigarettes with exercise?

This is highly subjective and purely opinion but i would say that replacing cigarettes with exercise can help to a point, the exercise will help you feel more relaxed at all times and often these stressful situations may not be nearly as bad if you are less stressed in general.

So whilst you can't just go for a jog or lift some weights while you're at work, you may feel less stressed because of exercising regularly and when things do get stressful you might be able to keep on top of things because your stress hasn't reached its threshold because your stress is lower on average.

Edit: Meh i am slightly confused, and nobody seems to be providing their own sources (besides 1 article from 2002) or reading mine which state that having a cigarette makes you feel better but if you didn't smoke you would feel that level of relaxation all the time.
I am not returning here, besides which it is totally off-topic and it's a pointless debate since again like i mentioned i am a bit confused now as to what Mike and Melchoir's points are concerning psychoactive effects.

My sources say that cigarettes bring your stress down to a level at which they would be if you didn't smoke i don't see what psychoactive effects have to do with it since that seems to be the truth in my view until melchoir can find these sources that are apparently "a waste of time" yet i spent my time finding my own.

By the way, I am not trying to say there are no psychoactive effects.
Let hearsay be hearsay.
Bye.

This post has been edited by finn4life on Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 04:04

[Mike Tequeli]

QUOTE (finn4life @ Wednesday, Aug 29 2012, 10:41)

I am saying that cigarettes increase stress through withdrawal symptoms because the addiction is not being satisfied you are correct on what i said, then when you have a cigarette your body releases serotonin and dopamine but those releases only bring your stress levels back down to where they would be if you didn't have the addiction. So it is psychoactive because it does change chemicals in the brain which alleviates stress, but that stress is caused by withdrawal symptoms. My understanding of Psycho-Active is that it causes a chemical change in the brain, correct me if i'm wrong and provide me with a better definition accompanied by a source.

This is complete nonsense. Nicotine is a mild psychoactive stimulant, and you are suggesting that the only effect cigarettes have on people is on addicts because it brings them back to feeling normal. It's mind boggling to see someone hide behind various barely related articles while being so blatantly ignorant. If anything it is the addicts who don't feel the effect of smoking as much in terms of psychoactivity, cigarette smokers don't experience a cigarette in the same way that a nonsmoker would.

You couldn't be further off the mark and even the most basic levels of research would show this.

I am not a smoker, therefore I don't have withdrawal symptoms related to smoking in any way. When I have a cigarette there is a noticeable albeit mild effect from the nicotine, if I were using snuff or packing dip or something like that (snuff isn't easily available and dip is a nasty habit) then there would be a much more substantial psychoactive effect. Go actually smoke a cigarette or two, inhale properly and then let us know about how cigarettes don't actually do anything.

[sivispacem]

May I just add that any substance or activity that has a physiological or psychological effect has an addiction potential in terms of psychological addiction, but does not necessarily result in chemical dependence? There's little sense in the context of this argument getting hung up over the semantics of nicotine addiction because unless you are willing to caveat every mention of "addiction" with "chemical dependency" its entirely illogical to claim that nicotine is not addictive. In this discussion, addiction apparently refers to both habitual/psychological addiction and chemical dependency so if you wish to discuss semantics please explain what you are actually referring to.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 30 2012, 00:08)

May I just add that any substance or activity that has a physiological or psychological effect has an addiction potential in terms of psychological addiction, but does not necessarily result in chemical dependence? There's little sense in the context of this argument getting hung up over the semantics of nicotine addiction because unless you are willing to caveat every mention of "addiction" with "chemical dependency" its entirely illogical to claim that nicotine is not addictive. In this discussion, addiction apparently refers to both habitual/psychological addiction and chemical dependency so if you wish to discuss semantics please explain what you are actually referring to.

Nictoine, on it's own, does not cause physical withdrawal symptoms, that's the result of other properties in the tobacco. Given that, how can anyone contend that nicotine has no effect other than to relieve withdrawal symptoms? That was my point.

[Dimitri.]

Here in the UK, we have a nationalised health care system. While this has many pros which certainly outweigh the cons, one negative is that every tax payer has to fund it. In the young "Junk Food Generation", and with many children weighing more than their parents, I certainly worry about how much they will cost the taxpayer when the grow up from 'healthy' morbidly obese children to bed-bound morbidly obese adults.

[Mafia Drive Gunner]

Look, there will always be a demographic that puts strain on the healthcare system from time to time. The last one was the Baby Boomers, moving into old age in large numbers and dragging with them the ravages of age.

At the moment, it's looking like obese people will become that next demographic. But ignoring that for a second, lets see. Should we let people smoke, drink, eat as much as they like? It's their god given right to treat their body as they like, because the penalty is ultimately an untimely and painful death.

[TheJonesy]

I believe that choosing our way to live concerning lifestyles that are self-harming could only be approached as an ultimate, untouchable right so long as those who fall victim to the consequences are not going to defect those choices and blame the substances, individuals, and companies responsible for producing that which has been consumed. In other words, this concept of the pursuit of happiness holds true as long as people are completely capable of accepting their fault if hazards surface from the chosen lifestyle.

Though, since there are those who do not practice this, the health-driven opposition will always have a place.

[brownbear]

People are looking at this far too black and white. Most people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol do so for a reason, whether that be mental illness, depression, poverty or any number of other reasons. To deny these people health care is inhuman.

Let me put it this way,
We have well off, healthy 30 year old man, we'll call him Jim. Jim's life is going great, he has a family, he has a good job and he travels regularly, one day Jim goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with an early stage of throat cancer, he has a successful operation and all is well.

10 years later and all is not going well for Jim, he lost his job and subsequently his family left him. With most of his money gone he loses his house and moves into a drafty council flat, sinking into a deep depression he begins to drink and smoke heavily. After 3 years of neglect and addiction his throat cancer comes back worse, what's worse is that the government recently passed a bill to deny health care to addicts. Cold, ill and alone Jim drinks himself to death within a year.

[Irviding]

Exactly... that's the problem with this. There's no real solution and the only way to not be "cruel" is to just provide it to everyone. Still though, in my opinion based on how the government ALREADY bans things for being even the least bit harmful, it's hard to justify the legality of cigs and alcohol. Like the example I provided on another page, if I come out with some drug that alleviates symptoms of say, carpal tunnel syndrome, and it works as intended but has a side effect of causing stomach upset, the FDA could ban my product. But then what's with the double standard on cigarettes? Why are they allowed? That's the problem here and until we find out why/how to fix it there's no real way to change this.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Feb 17 2013, 09:31)

Exactly... that's the problem with this. There's no real solution and the only way to not be "cruel" is to just provide it to everyone. Still though, in my opinion based on how the government ALREADY bans things for being even the least bit harmful, it's hard to justify the legality of cigs and alcohol. Like the example I provided on another page, if I come out with some drug that alleviates symptoms of say, carpal tunnel syndrome, and it works as intended but has a side effect of causing stomach upset, the FDA could ban my product. But then what's with the double standard on cigarettes? Why are they allowed? That's the problem here and until we find out why/how to fix it there's no real way to change this.

The driving force behind all this dialogue seems to be that people have a responsibility to be healthy, I'm not sure where people get that idea. If a young professional exclusively eats fast food because she has no time to cook- or if a lonely thirty-something inhales big macs because he's depressed- should they be penalised; are they breaking some civil responsibility to be healthy despite the emotional "benefits" of their unhealthy lifestyle? If a war veteran uses heroin is he failing to meet that same civil obligation?

You're right, it is a double standard, but the government isn't some dictatorship who acts to keep health care costs down(?) the FDA is supposed to regulate foods and drugs not tell the populace what they can and can't have. Huge portions of the population drink and smoke (I'd say around 90% or more for alcohol and at least 15% for tobacco). While America was extremely puritanical (and it spread it to the rest of the west) people still drank and smoke, because of how tobacco was marketed, and obviously because it's fun, where as alcohol has always been a big part of European (and particularly anglican) culture:



So the wider population can't be told that they can't smoke or drink... isn't that part of the whole democracy thing?

It's weird, I occasionally hear people ranting about how druggies and smokers and boozers are "burdening" everyone else with their lifestyle, and while I can't disagree that they're right in my case (although they are very, very wrong in most cases, see my examples above) I just don't really care. It's probably shocking how much and how hard I drink, smoke and do drugs, and I'm probably going to rack up quite a few medical bills when I'm elderly, but good luck convincing me I should stop in order to save you money.