The history of the "gateway" argument demonstrates ANTZ are desperate

[Jman8]

I'm not trying to imply that nicotine makes people move on to harder stuff, I think the effect is mild enough that most peoples pleasure/reward responses wouldn't be altered too much by it. I also don't buy substance a (that stuff being legalized in more and more states now) being truly a gateway, we know that the substance itself isn't actually addictive, people don't have substance a withdrawals . But there are substances out there that are addictive in and of themselves. Those to me are where the gateway really lies.

The research / researchers you've cited are saying nicotine makes people move onto harder stuff, as post #148 points out in the last quote I provided (by Kandel). The exact statement was: E-cigarettes may be a gateway to both combustible cigarettes and illicit drugs.

There are two or three substances of the *other stuff* variety that I think of being addictive in and of themselves. Nicotine is challenging to see that way in today's world. 10 years ago, I don't think anyone here (or anywhere) would've thought there was a challenge to be made, but eCigs and the knowledge that comes with learning vaping and politics of vaping has greatly skewed that debate. To the point where leading researchers show up as either behind the times or having blatant political agenda.

Sugar strikes me as far more addictive than nicotine, and is seemingly a non-issue when it comes to 'protecting kids from the gateway effect.' In all honesty though, that paradigm (around sugar) may be changing right about now. I can foresee a day in the not too distant future where candy (or sugar) is researched and pronounced a gateway to illicit drugs. Based on similar agenda to what is currently occurring with nicotine / smoking / vaping.

I think gateway debate is greatly skewed by the illicit aspect and human judgments that go with that (or prejudice). It makes for difference of seeing user as criminal (deserving punishment) and/or patient deserving treatment. I find people in the know lean (heavily) towards treatment, but they aren't only people who are making decisions for how to handle things, nor does that perception generally hold the majority view as once an item is painted in negative light, it is challenging to change prejudices. I use smoking as prime example of what I speak here.

Besides the illicit prejudice at work is the lies. The lies we tell each other about these substances, and more importantly, the lies we tell ourselves. A substance such as sugar will greatly test this sort of deception, as nicotine already does, for neither is illegal, but both are in new paradigm where they could be (or already are) painted in such an awful (and highly deceptive) light, that the prejudice makes for what I call the true core of the gateway effect.

We ask users (noobs) to be their own, positive guides on the pathway that desires to use, and enjoy these substances. IOW, we as a society behave as incredibly immature gatekeepers.

 

[USMCotaku]

The thing is, the gateway effect would cause any rational person to lean towards treatment over punishment (of course I'm talking about for usage and not for crimes committed to obtain the substance for use, decriminalizing would help with that aspect).
The sugar is only partially a good example. Good because it does offer the pleasure/reward center of the brain a nice boost, bad because it isn't addictive in and of itself. People do become addicted, but those are examples of people with addictive personalities. Though in its pure form it's not as addictive as it is in a cigarette, nicotine is. As well as caffeine. They are pretty similar. Have you ever seen a brain scan of someone using caffeine? The effects in the brain are very similar to use of another substance once found in a popular soda... Substance c.
A rational person without an agenda could look at that study and see that if a substance that is addictive and targets the pleasure/reward center of the brain causes increased usage of a stronger substance, other stronger substances would likely increase that effect. Where that study becomes skewed is that any logical person should see that though nicotine does so in a controlled environment, the pleasure/reward effect is minor enough to not drive people towards other substances in real life application.
Sadly we seldom if ever have scientific study minus the agenda.... Someone is paying for that study to be done. We have to be able to sift the information and discern the good from the agenda, without tossing the whole study outright.
Sent with one hand, the other is busy vaping.

 

[Berylanna]

If the "other substance" was pleasureable and the mice were being trained to learn that, the mice taking a learning enhancer would learn faster. That does not prove nicotine is a gateway to addiction, given that we KNOW it is a gateway to learning. Their research boils down to "we gave mice a substance long-known to affect the brain, and, horrors, we could prove the brain was affected."

 

[Nate760]

The sugar is only partially a good example. Good because it does offer the pleasure/reward center of the brain a nice boost, bad because it isn't addictive in and of itself.

For someone in your line of work, you seem to have a rather dim understanding of what addiction actually is, and that it's not the same thing as dependence. Any activity done to excess that results in a continual pattern of self-harm satisfies the clinical definition of addiction. Chemical dependence is a completely different thing, and the two are not interchangeable terms.

 

[USMCotaku]

Short Definition of Addiction:

Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.

Sent with one hand, the other is busy vaping.

 

[USMCotaku]

The substances we are discussing directly affect the brain reward function, so I think I've got it, thanks
Sent with one hand, the other is busy vaping.

 

[Jman8]

The thing is, the gateway effect would cause any rational person to lean towards treatment over punishment (of course I'm talking about for usage and not for crimes committed to obtain the substance for use, decriminalizing would help with that aspect).
The sugar is only partially a good example. Good because it does offer the pleasure/reward center of the brain a nice boost, bad because it isn't addictive in and of itself. People do become addicted, but those are examples of people with addictive personalities. Though in its pure form it's not as addictive as it is in a cigarette, nicotine is. As well as caffeine. They are pretty similar. Have you ever seen a brain scan of someone using caffeine? The effects in the brain are very similar to use of another substance once found in a popular soda... Substance c.

I disagree with this. I see sugar as the most addictive substance around. I currently know zero people who never have sugar. And I know plenty of people, myself included, who ingest sugar daily. I've seen people cut back on sugar, and have enormous problems doing so, and others who have cut back and it not be all that challenging. I currently know zero people who never have sugar. I realize some 'scientific experts' may have differing opinions and do feel there is a debate to be had here. I do not accept it as scientific fact that sugar is not an addictive substance, even while a study or ten may suggest that. Just like a study, or ten, can suggest that nicotine is not all that addictive. How many accept that as fact even while studies have suggested something to challenge their beliefs?

Sadly we seldom if ever have scientific study minus the agenda.... Someone is paying for that study to be done. We have to be able to sift the information and discern the good from the agenda, without tossing the whole study outright.

With the links you provided earlier, I saw agenda. It is clear to anyone paying attention that anti-nicotine and tobacco zealots (ANTZ, for short) have a story they want to tell regarding nicotine and addiction. That story says that this particular substance may lead to use of illicit drugs and that adults ought to be very concerned with how available nicotine is in society. IMO, these same type of people could tell very similar story with sugar, leading to use of illicit drugs and the need for society to fully control, and highly tax, the distribution of sugar in all forms, everywhere. I would say the agenda is obvious to many, and you don't need to be a vaper to see that.

The gateway argument when accepted without critical debate allows for the control narrative to seem plausible as it is very accurate to say that a person who tries substance a MAY try substance B. When a critical thinker comes along to question or challenge that narrative, then the zealot argues that things will quickly spiral out of (their) control unless we heed their wisdom and allow their research to be well funded, and their job security to be guaranteed.

 

[Nate760]

Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations.

I just.....no words.

 

[Jman8]

Short Definition of Addiction:

Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.

From this definition, it is challenging, or even impossible, to say that a substance, in and of itself, is addictive.

And plausible to argue that every substance and human behavior contributes to brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry that may manifest as dysfunction.

 

[USMCotaku]

Apparently you have a problem with spiritual manifestations in the definition? While I agree with it being in there (they don't say personal demons for nothing), even if you take that phrase out it still holds true to the conversation
Sent with one hand, the other is busy vaping.

 

[Nate760]

The substances we are discussing directly affect the brain reward function, so I think I've got it, thanks.

No, you really don't. Endorphins and epinephrine are secreted whenever you do something pleasurable. Psychotropic substances merely provide an alternative means of triggering that same secretion and, in some cases, intensifying it. This is basic neuroscience and has nothing to do with addiction or dependence.

 

[Nate760]

Apparently you have a problem with spiritual manifestations in the definition?

Yes, I do reject out of hand the scientific validity of any definition that refers to events in the spirit world.

 

[USMCotaku]

From this definition, it is challenging, or even impossible, to say that a substance, in and of itself, is addictive.



And plausible to argue that every substance and human behavior contributes to brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry that may manifest as dysfunction.

Any substance CAN, which is why we have tv shows like My Strange Addiction..... However, those substances don't specifically target that part of the brain, which is why those types of addictions are far more rare, and the substances that do so have far more prevalent addiction numbers

 

[USMCotaku]

Yes, I do reject out of hand the scientific validity of any definition that refers to events in the spirit world.

Afflictions of the spirit doesn't necessarily mean of/from the spirit world

 

[USMCotaku]

No, you really don't. Endorphins and epinephrine are secreted whenever you do something pleasurable. Psychotropic substances merely provide an alternative means of triggering that same secretion and, in some cases, intensifying it. This is basic neuroscience and has nothing to do with addiction or dependence.

The unnatural triggering of those functions would be why they are so good at creating addiction. I don't for a second believe you can't see the correlation

 

[Jman8]

Yes, I do reject out of hand the scientific validity of any definition that refers to events in the spirit world.

Perhaps your version of science is, on the whole, invalid?

Or prejudice. We are in the 'spirit world.' Or spirits in the material world.

If you choose to respond to this, which I do think is relevant to the discussion at hand, I will likely carry over further discussion in PM.

 

[Nate760]

Afflictions of the spirit doesn't necessarily mean of/from the spirit world

I have to go now, my chi is being afflicted by bad karma, or something.

 

[Jman8]

Any substance CAN, which is why we have tv shows like My Strange Addiction..... However, those substances don't specifically target that part of the brain, which is why those types of addictions are far more rare, and the substances that do so have far more prevalent addiction numbers

Again, the addiction to sugar is the most prevalent one I am aware of. Addiction to work is up there as well. I see that one occur daily and is arguably a gateway to a whole lot of other addictions. "I worked today, so of course I'm going to sit down and relax with _____________ (fill blank in with any number of substances / behaviors).

The ones we are otherwise discussing in this thread are 'prevalent' in a way that equals hyped up emotional storytelling.

 

[USMCotaku]

Says someone who doesn't fully grasp what spiritual means. There are atheists who are still spiritual people
Sent with one hand, the other is busy vaping.

 

[Nate760]

Perhaps your version of science is, on the whole, invalid?

There are no "versions" of science. Science is a mode of inquiry whereby empirical means are used to differentiate the true from the untrue.