| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"ta" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2007 10:14:57 PM |
| Object: |
Question on Addictions |
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
.
|
|
| User: "BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 01:33:28 PM |
|
|
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
All life is drug.
Everything you touch smell feel taste see hear experience effects your
psyche.
The intensity of experience you may not notice as you arrange life to
produce good effect.
Example.
Honour.
Honour can be marketed. Very nice drug.
You go to home of old aged pensioner lady living alone to paint room.
You have choice.
Drugs available.
1. Rip off the old bat.
2. Slop it on any old how.
3. Honour.
4. Pride of workmanship.
Pride of workmanship is spin off from honour.
You would not go to shop and buy "Rip off the old bat" or "Slop it on any
old how" if it cost money as drug.
And yet human select these choice free of charge and have drug feeling to go
with it.
If you could buy "Honour" - you would.
Human that select bad feeling are stupid human.
Damage psyche. Make ugly.
Pleasure is intense feeling - but is only feeling like pain.
Love, sadness, kindness and others are human feeling.
Heroin is chemical.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott H nospam" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 12:14:07 AM |
|
|
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sammybaby" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 06:22:27 AM |
|
|
Scott H skrev:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
I don't think that works. If they start selling human endorphins on
street corners, perhaps they have, it might very well lead to the same
problems.
Human Growth hormone, for example, is not good when used by weight
lifters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 09:40:29 AM |
|
|
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
So heroin is physically harmful because it's . . . . physically
harmful?
Aspirin is synthetic and recently invented, but relatively harmless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 10:32:40 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
So heroin is physically harmful because it's . . . . physically
harmful?
Aspirin is synthetic and recently invented, but relatively harmless.
Really though everything is harmfull to us if we overdo it. Damn it
even chocolate!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 10:17:49 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
So heroin is physically harmful because it's . . . . physically
harmful?
Aspirin is synthetic and recently invented, but relatively harmless.
The problem in general is that addictive substances are
addictive---meaning that they effect changes in how your body works
which are permanent unless you get de-toxified. If you could use just
a litle heroin, it probably wouldn't have any serious bad effects. But
your body chemistry adjusts itself so you need more and more just to
avoid extreme discomfort.
Sex is pretty much self-limiting; at some point parts are going to get
painful if overused. There is something called sex addiction, but I
don't get exactly what that would be like, or how it is different from
being a young male....memories, memories....
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 12:14:48 PM |
|
|
tg wrote:
ta wrote:
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
So heroin is physically harmful because it's . . . . physically
harmful?
Aspirin is synthetic and recently invented, but relatively harmless.
The problem in general is that addictive substances are
addictive---meaning that they effect changes in how your body works
which are permanent unless you get de-toxified.
Are we addicted to the substance called heroin, or are we addicted to
the chemicals in the brain that create pleasure, and heroin, like sex,
is really just one of the many triggers to inducing the pleasure?
For example, when someone repeatedly compliments us or makes us feel
good in some way, that triggers chemicals to be released in the brain
and we become "addicted" to that person (they become our friend or we
date them or marry them etc.). Should they shun us or stop doing things
that make us feel good, then the addiction is removed and we seek out
other triggers.
If you could use just
a litle heroin, it probably wouldn't have any serious bad effects. But
your body chemistry adjusts itself so you need more and more just to
avoid extreme discomfort.
I think heroin creates similar effects in the brain to sex. I've never
done heroin, so I can't make the comparison from first-hand experience
(perhaps a bad choice of phrasing there). But I imagine the pleasure
that heroin supplies to be similar to that of orgasm, hence my question
-- why does one method of activating those pleasure-inducing chemicals
harm us, but not the other.
Clearly heroin has a much powerful addicting effect than sex, but I
wonder why. Perhaps the question is better served in biochemistry or
neuroscience forum, I don't know. I'm just curious how two things that
creates similar or identical chemical reactions in our brain can be so
different. (and I admit that the flaw here may be in my assumption that
the reactions in the brain are identical).
Sex is pretty much self-limiting; at some point parts are going to get
painful if overused. There is something called sex addiction, but I
don't get exactly what that would be like, or how it is different from
being a young male....memories, memories....
(laugh)
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 01:11:44 PM |
|
|
ta wrote:
tg wrote:
ta wrote:
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
So heroin is physically harmful because it's . . . . physically
harmful?
Aspirin is synthetic and recently invented, but relatively harmless.
The problem in general is that addictive substances are
addictive---meaning that they effect changes in how your body works
which are permanent unless you get de-toxified.
Are we addicted to the substance called heroin, or are we addicted to
the chemicals in the brain that create pleasure, and heroin, like sex,
is really just one of the many triggers to inducing the pleasure?
For example, when someone repeatedly compliments us or makes us feel
good in some way, that triggers chemicals to be released in the brain
and we become "addicted" to that person (they become our friend or we
date them or marry them etc.). Should they shun us or stop doing things
that make us feel good, then the addiction is removed and we seek out
other triggers.
If you could use just
a litle heroin, it probably wouldn't have any serious bad effects. But
your body chemistry adjusts itself so you need more and more just to
avoid extreme discomfort.
I think heroin creates similar effects in the brain to sex. I've never
done heroin, so I can't make the comparison from first-hand experience
(perhaps a bad choice of phrasing there). But I imagine the pleasure
that heroin supplies to be similar to that of orgasm, hence my question
-- why does one method of activating those pleasure-inducing chemicals
harm us, but not the other.
Clearly heroin has a much powerful addicting effect than sex, but I
wonder why. Perhaps the question is better served in biochemistry or
neuroscience forum, I don't know. I'm just curious how two things that
creates similar or identical chemical reactions in our brain can be so
different. (and I admit that the flaw here may be in my assumption that
the reactions in the brain are identical).
You can probably look this up pretty easily---I don't remember which
things get triggered by which. But the nature of addiction is that
there's a 'normal' level of serotonin or dopamine or whatever, and the
[heroin] boosts that or enhances receptors or whatever. After a while,
your body stops producing the chemical on its own, or the receptors get
burned out, and you require the [heroin] just to maintain the
previously 'normal' level.
I think the difference with sex is that you can only get the 'natural'
amount of chemical with each orgasm---you don't burn out the cells that
produce or receive the chemicals because they are designed to work at
that level.
I am a nicotine addict, recovering for over 25 years. I still get
cravings from second-hand smoke sometimes. Scary.
-tg
Sex is pretty much self-limiting; at some point parts are going to get
painful if overused. There is something called sex addiction, but I
don't get exactly what that would be like, or how it is different from
being a young male....memories, memories....
(laugh)
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 02:30:52 PM |
|
|
tg wrote:
ta wrote:
tg wrote:
ta wrote:
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
So heroin is physically harmful because it's . . . . physically
harmful?
Aspirin is synthetic and recently invented, but relatively harmless.
The problem in general is that addictive substances are
addictive---meaning that they effect changes in how your body works
which are permanent unless you get de-toxified.
Are we addicted to the substance called heroin, or are we addicted to
the chemicals in the brain that create pleasure, and heroin, like sex,
is really just one of the many triggers to inducing the pleasure?
For example, when someone repeatedly compliments us or makes us feel
good in some way, that triggers chemicals to be released in the brain
and we become "addicted" to that person (they become our friend or we
date them or marry them etc.). Should they shun us or stop doing things
that make us feel good, then the addiction is removed and we seek out
other triggers.
If you could use just
a litle heroin, it probably wouldn't have any serious bad effects. But
your body chemistry adjusts itself so you need more and more just to
avoid extreme discomfort.
I think heroin creates similar effects in the brain to sex. I've never
done heroin, so I can't make the comparison from first-hand experience
(perhaps a bad choice of phrasing there). But I imagine the pleasure
that heroin supplies to be similar to that of orgasm, hence my question
-- why does one method of activating those pleasure-inducing chemicals
harm us, but not the other.
Clearly heroin has a much powerful addicting effect than sex, but I
wonder why. Perhaps the question is better served in biochemistry or
neuroscience forum, I don't know. I'm just curious how two things that
creates similar or identical chemical reactions in our brain can be so
different. (and I admit that the flaw here may be in my assumption that
the reactions in the brain are identical).
You can probably look this up pretty easily---I don't remember which
things get triggered by which. But the nature of addiction is that
there's a 'normal' level of serotonin or dopamine or whatever, and the
[heroin] boosts that or enhances receptors or whatever. After a while,
your body stops producing the chemical on its own, or the receptors get
burned out, and you require the [heroin] just to maintain the
previously 'normal' level.
I think the difference with sex is that you can only get the 'natural'
amount of chemical with each orgasm---you don't burn out the cells that
produce or receive the chemicals because they are designed to work at
that level.
"Why is Heroin Addictive?
Addictive drugs have two things in common. They produce an initial
pleasurable effect followed by a rebound unpleasant effect. Heroin and
other opiates mimic certain chemicals that are present in the brain
(.e.g., endorphins and enkephalins) that block pain and induce a
feeling of pleasure. These chemicals are released in larger quantities
when we have sex, exercise, laugh or do enjoyable work (the "natural
highs").
Heroin and other opiate drugs produce these same good feelings.
However, unlike the "endogenous opiates" that we produce ourselves, a
tolerance is built up to heroin and similar drugs so that it takes more
and more to get the pleasurable feeling. When the person fails to take
the drugs, unpleasant withdrawal symptoms occur.
These brain cells represent a simplified way of looking at the BRAIN'S
REWARD SYSTEM. On the left we see the various drives and needs of the
body; sex, hunger, thirst and friendship. When these drives are
satisfied, or when pain is relieved, a signal is sent to certain brain
cells (the "monitor cell" on the left) which manufacture a chemical
substance that signals reward. When these "monitor cells" have been
stimulated, a signal is sent to the tip where a small amount of this
reward chemical is released. The chemical (or neurotransmitter) then
reaches and stimulates the reward center, causing a feeling of
well-being.
Heroin produces as artificial feeling of pleasure. This is like having
counterfeit money which will fit into the slot machine. When the drug
comes in, it stimulates the reward center. This short circuits the
survival mechanism, because the reward center cell can't tell the
difference between the drug and the natural messenger.
The result is a dependence on the immediate, fast, predictable drug
which, at the same time, short circuits interests in and the motivation
to make life's normal rewards work."
http://www.amsa.org/resource/natlinit/heroin.cfm
I don't know how they can distinguish between "real" pleasure and
"artificial" pleasure. Pleasure is pleasure -- neither one is more real
than the other. The feeling is the same.
I am a nicotine addict, recovering for over 25 years. I still get
cravings from second-hand smoke sometimes. Scary.
-tg
I've been off the cigs for about 9 years now -- can't stand to be
around it. In fact, it makes me physically ill.
Sex is pretty much self-limiting; at some point parts are going to get
painful if overused. There is something called sex addiction, but I
don't get exactly what that would be like, or how it is different from
being a young male....memories, memories....
(laugh)
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "ta" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 02:51:46 PM |
|
|
ta wrote:
tg wrote:
ta wrote:
tg wrote:
ta wrote:
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168575297.041406.124950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
So heroin is physically harmful because it's . . . . physically
harmful?
Aspirin is synthetic and recently invented, but relatively harmless.
The problem in general is that addictive substances are
addictive---meaning that they effect changes in how your body works
which are permanent unless you get de-toxified.
Are we addicted to the substance called heroin, or are we addicted to
the chemicals in the brain that create pleasure, and heroin, like sex,
is really just one of the many triggers to inducing the pleasure?
For example, when someone repeatedly compliments us or makes us feel
good in some way, that triggers chemicals to be released in the brain
and we become "addicted" to that person (they become our friend or we
date them or marry them etc.). Should they shun us or stop doing things
that make us feel good, then the addiction is removed and we seek out
other triggers.
If you could use just
a litle heroin, it probably wouldn't have any serious bad effects. But
your body chemistry adjusts itself so you need more and more just to
avoid extreme discomfort.
I think heroin creates similar effects in the brain to sex. I've never
done heroin, so I can't make the comparison from first-hand experience
(perhaps a bad choice of phrasing there). But I imagine the pleasure
that heroin supplies to be similar to that of orgasm, hence my question
-- why does one method of activating those pleasure-inducing chemicals
harm us, but not the other.
Clearly heroin has a much powerful addicting effect than sex, but I
wonder why. Perhaps the question is better served in biochemistry or
neuroscience forum, I don't know. I'm just curious how two things that
creates similar or identical chemical reactions in our brain can be so
different. (and I admit that the flaw here may be in my assumption that
the reactions in the brain are identical).
You can probably look this up pretty easily---I don't remember which
things get triggered by which. But the nature of addiction is that
there's a 'normal' level of serotonin or dopamine or whatever, and the
[heroin] boosts that or enhances receptors or whatever. After a while,
your body stops producing the chemical on its own, or the receptors get
burned out, and you require the [heroin] just to maintain the
previously 'normal' level.
I think the difference with sex is that you can only get the 'natural'
amount of chemical with each orgasm---you don't burn out the cells that
produce or receive the chemicals because they are designed to work at
that level.
"Why is Heroin Addictive?
Addictive drugs have two things in common. They produce an initial
pleasurable effect followed by a rebound unpleasant effect. Heroin and
other opiates mimic certain chemicals that are present in the brain
(.e.g., endorphins and enkephalins) that block pain and induce a
feeling of pleasure. These chemicals are released in larger quantities
when we have sex, exercise, laugh or do enjoyable work (the "natural
highs").
Heroin and other opiate drugs produce these same good feelings.
However, unlike the "endogenous opiates" that we produce ourselves, a
tolerance is built up to heroin and similar drugs so that it takes more
and more to get the pleasurable feeling. When the person fails to take
the drugs, unpleasant withdrawal symptoms occur.
These brain cells represent a simplified way of looking at the BRAIN'S
REWARD SYSTEM. On the left we see the various drives and needs of the
body; sex, hunger, thirst and friendship. When these drives are
satisfied, or when pain is relieved, a signal is sent to certain brain
cells (the "monitor cell" on the left) which manufacture a chemical
substance that signals reward. When these "monitor cells" have been
stimulated, a signal is sent to the tip where a small amount of this
reward chemical is released. The chemical (or neurotransmitter) then
reaches and stimulates the reward center, causing a feeling of
well-being.
Heroin produces as artificial feeling of pleasure. This is like having
counterfeit money which will fit into the slot machine. When the drug
comes in, it stimulates the reward center. This short circuits the
survival mechanism, because the reward center cell can't tell the
difference between the drug and the natural messenger.
The result is a dependence on the immediate, fast, predictable drug
which, at the same time, short circuits interests in and the motivation
to make life's normal rewards work."
http://www.amsa.org/resource/natlinit/heroin.cfm
Also interesting . . . animated even. So it's the abnormally high
amount of dopamine that the body must produce that throws the whole
system off. (I suppose I could have dug around a bit before asking the
question)
"This animation shows what happens to dopamine transmission when an
opiate drug such as heroin or morphine enters the brain's reward
pathway.
The opiate, shown in red, binds to opiate receptors on another neuron,
shown here at the right. (The reason that some neurons have special
receptors for opiates is probably that there are naturally occuring
opiates in the brain.)
This causes the amount of dopamine in the synaptic clefts in the reward
pathway to increase dramatically, as shown in the close-up of the
synaptic cleft to the left.
Researchers are still not sure exactly how opiate drugs cause this
increase in dopamine, but one theory says that when the opiate binds to
the receptors on the third neuron shown, that neuron releases less
GABA, which is a neurotransmitter that inhibits dopamine. (If there is
less GABA, therefore, there is more dopamine.)
The increase in dopamine results in feelings of intense pleasure for
the person taking the opiate drug.
Unfortunately, prolonged opiate use may cause the brain to adapt, so it
comes to depend on the presence of the drug just to function normally.
Then, if the person stops using the drug, he or she experiences the
opposite of pleasure--anxiety, irritability, and low mood. The
immediate, worst symptoms are called withdrawal.
Opiate withdrawal has physical symptoms as well as psychological ones;
these include nausea, chills, cramps, and sweating.
Even long after the person has stopped using opiates, brain
abnormalities can persist, causing feelings of discomfort and craving
for more of the drug to relieve these feelings."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/animation/opi-anim2-main.html
I don't know how they can distinguish between "real" pleasure and
"artificial" pleasure. Pleasure is pleasure -- neither one is more real
than the other. The feeling is the same.
I am a nicotine addict, recovering for over 25 years. I still get
cravings from second-hand smoke sometimes. Scary.
-tg
I've been off the cigs for about 9 years now -- can't stand to be
around it. In fact, it makes me physically ill.
Sex is pretty much self-limiting; at some point parts are going to get
painful if overused. There is something called sex addiction, but I
don't get exactly what that would be like, or how it is different from
being a young male....memories, memories....
(laugh)
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 11:54:18 AM |
|
|
Scott H wrote:
"ta" <padlrnc@nc.rr.com> wrote...
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
We evolved to enjoy sex as a natural pleasure. Heroin is synthetic, recently
invented, and destructive.
Heroin is addictive but it is not particularly toxic, destructive, or
dangerous. It is just an slightly different form of morphine, and in
fact is rapidly converted to morphine by the body.
The harm blamed on heroin is almost entirely due to the fact that it is
illegal. Studies of heroin toxicity or overdose are confounded by the
presence of contaminants and the fact that the user had typically
ingested other drugs; e.g., from emedicine:
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1003.htm
* Patients often co-ingest other psychoactive substances, such as
alcohol, benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines, and other opiates.
* Furthermore, street heroin is commonly contaminated or diluted with
substances having clinical and toxic effects of their own. These include
alkaloids, cocaine, amphetamines, quinine, quinidine, chloroquine,
phenobarbital, lidocaine, benzocaine, tetracaine, caffeine,
methaqualone, fentanyl, and other opiates.
* Street samples have produced strychnine and arsenic poisoning.
* Other substances commonly used to increase the bulk of a street
sample include talc, dextrose, flour, and mannitol."
It takes something like 40-50 times the typical dose for a fatal
overdose of heroin or any narcotic. Addicts develop a tolerance and
need much more of the drug to get an effect, but they also develop an
equal tolerance to overdose. What are reported as heroin overdose
deaths are almost always the result of combinations with alcohol or
other drugs, contaminants, uncertainties in the dose of street drugs,
and/or intermittent users misjudging their tolerance. See the data and
studies below.
For comparison, 15 grams of acetaminophen (Tylenol), which is about 20
times the typical dose, can destroy the liver and result in a fatal
overdose (PDR). Chronic long-term ingestion of even standard doses of
acetaminophen results in kidney or liver damage in some patients.
Physicians Desk Reference (morphine IV):
Usual dosage 2-10 mg/70 kg body weight
LD50 (sc) in mice: 500 mg/kg (34,000 mg if translated to 150-lb human)
Drs. Lawrence Kolb and A.G. Du Mez, U. S. Public Health Service: Fatal
IV heroin dose in Monkeys: 7-8 mg/kg weight (about 500 mg if translated
to human)
CU reference: "On this basis, it would take 500 milligrams or more (50
New York City bags) to kill an unaddicted human adult."
Addicts have tolerated up to 1800 mg without ill effects.
Also see:
_Licit and Illicit Drugs_. EM Brecher and the Editors of Consumer
Reports. Mount Vernon, NY: Consumers Union.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
(This book was written with the collaboration of a score of doctors
and scientists who are experts in the field, including Dr. Alfred
Lindesmith, one of the most distinguished addiction scholars in history.)
"Almost all the deleterious effects ordinarily attributed to the
opiates, indeed, appear to be the effects of the narcotics laws
instead." (Chap. 4)
"Individuals may take morphine or some other opiate for twenty years or
more without showing intellectual or moral deterioration." (Chap. 4)
"Organic deterioration...is unknown with opiates." (Chap. 4)
"There is thus general agreement throughout the medical and psychiatric
literature that the overall effects of opium, morphine, and heroin on
the addict's mind and body under conditions of low price and ready
availability are on the whole amazingly bland." (Chap. 4)
"Dr. George B. Wallace summed up both studies [in Philadelphia and
Bellevue Hospital in New York City]:
'It was shown that continued taking of opium or any of its derivatives
resulted in no measurable organic damage. The addict when not deprived
of his opium showed no abnormal behavior which distinguished him from a
non-addict.'
'Since these studies appeared,' Dr. Harris Isbell, director of the
Public Health Service's Addiction Research Center in Lexington, pointed
out in 1958, 'it has not been possible to maintain that addiction to
morphine causes marked physical deterioration per se.'" (Chap. 4)
--George B. Wallace, "The Rehabilitation of the Drug Addict," Journal of
Educational Sociology, 4 (1931): 347, quoted in Daniel M. Wilner and
Gene G. Kassebaum, eds., Narcotics (New York: Blakiston Div.,
McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. xix-xx.
--Harris Isbell, in Narcotic Drug Addiction Problems (Bethesda, Md.:
National Institute of Mental Health, 1958), U.S. Public Health Service
Publication No. 1050.
"...taking of narcotics results in no measurable organic damage."
Monson, M. C.. The dirty little secret behind our drug laws. (Reason,
November 1980, p. 51). Reprinted in Drugs, Volume 3. (Boca Raton, Fla:
Social Issues Resources Series, Inc., 1980), Article No. 19.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
14 Jan 2007 08:46:24 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
All addictions contain the potential to be destructive, including sex
addiction. It depends on the severity of the addiction. The severity of
an addiction can be dictated by what one prefers over all other things,
what rings your bell, in synergy with personal psychological profile...
your poison, so to speak. Although, pharmeocologically, herion has the
potential to be very addictive, someone may try it a few times (though,
I wouldn't recommend it) but not get hooked because they may find that
they prefer sex and become hooked on that instead. Or they might prefer
chocolate. Addiction is about filling that empty hole in ones soul. How
big that hole is and what level of personal insight one has and whether
they're taking healthier measures to deal with this existential
problem; these factors effect whether any kind of addiction becomes
severe and the type of addiction dictates in what way they become
destructive. People can become addicted to so many things. The author
of Reqiem For A Dream talked in an interview about how a major
addiction in developed countries is the addiction to success. This
addiction is a great exemplar of the nature of addiction in itself, for
ultimately the hole that all addicts are trying to fill is the void
created by unacceptance of oneself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 10:55:49 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
During the past 130 million years, flowering plants have colonized
practically every habitat on earth, from arid deserts, boggy meadows
and windswept alpine summits, to sun-baked grasslands, lush rain
forests and wave-battered rocky shores. They have replaced most of the
ancient ferns and seed plants that dinosaurs subsisted on, and
developed a complex and fascinating relationship with insects and
mammals.
During these countless centuries of time,
flowering plants have gradually
evolved all sorts of ingenious
protective devices to discourage
hungry herbivorous animals.
Leaves and stems have developed a variety of vicious spines and
stinging hairs (trichomes). In some plants, the dense covering of
silvery hairs may also provide other ecological advantages such as
solar reflection and insulation in arid environments.
But mechanical defenses, such as spines and trichomes, are of limited
value and probably would not deter all hungry herbivores, particularly
the chewing and sucking insects.
Therefore, plants have developed
a "chemical warfare," a defense
strategy based on a vast arsenal
of chemicals which are toxic or
distasteful to animals.
According to Daniel Janzen, noted authority of the Costa Rican rain
forest, developing seeds of the tropical liana Mucuna (including M.
urens and M. pruriens) are nearly free from seed predators. [These
vines produce the distinctive hamburger-shaped "sea beans" that drift
ashore on tropical beaches throughout the world.] In addition to a
dense covering of stinging trichomes, the pods of Mucuna are rich in
the potentially toxic amino acid L-dopa. [L-dopa, precursor of the
brain neurotransmitter dopamine, is given to patients suffering from
Parkinson's Disease.]
----------------------------------
Just as genetic variability and time
allow agricultural pests to tolerate
pesticides,
-----------------------------------
so can some herbivores circumvent a
plant's natural chemical defenses.
-----------------------------------
This "predatory pressure" has resulted in the evolution of an endless
array of complex plant molecules, from gums and terpenes to alkaloids
and phenolic compounds. For example, in nettles (Urtica species) the
sophisticated defense chemicals acetylcholine and histamine are
employed in an ingenious system of "injection hairs" strategically
placed throughout the plant. When we touch these plants, we may be
accidental casualties in a chemical warfare between plants and
herbivores that has waged through countless millennia.
One of the largest groups of chemical arsenals produced by plants are
the alkaloids. Many of these metabolic by-products are derived from
amino acids and include an enormous number of bitter, nitrogenous
compounds. According to R.F. Raffauf (Plant Alkaloids: A Guide To Their
Discovery and Distribution, 1996),
more than 10,000 different alkaloids
have been discovered in species
from over 300 plant families.
Alkaloids often contain one or more rings of carbon atoms, usually with
a nitrogen atom in the ring. The position of the nitrogen atom in the
carbon ring varies with different alkaloids and with different plant
families. In some alkaloids, such as mescaline, the nitrogen atom is
not within a carbon ring. In fact, it is the precise position of the
nitrogen atom that effects the properties of these alkaloids.
Although they undoubtedly existed
long before humans, some alkaloids
have remarkable structural similarities
with neurotransmitters in the central
nervous system of humans, including
dopamine, serotonin and acetylcholine.
The amazing effect of these alkaloids on humans has led to the
development of powerful pain-killer medications, spiritual drugs, and
serious addictions by people who are ignorant of the properties of
these powerful chemicals.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0703.htm
People have been using substances to lift their spirits for millennia.
Techniques for fermenting beer and related tipples are known from Egypt
and Sumeria 4000 years ago, and they soon spread across the inhabited
world. Coca leaves (the source of cocaine), tobacco, and caffeine were
also popular with ancient cultures.
Humans may even have an evolutionary pre-disposition to seek out
narcotics, even though they can be addictive and damaging. Some people
may have genes which make them more genetically prone to drug addiction
than others. Even some animals - jaguars, lemurs and bees, for example
- have a habit of getting high.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/drugs-alcohol
Certain similarities become apparent from reading these experiences of
Shamanic tribes with the entheogens: psilocybin, mescaline, ibotenic
acid and muscimol, DMT, and harmine with DMT. Ritual use of these
compounds usually involve a healer who must be experienced in the
entheogen's proper use. The experience can be healing, either on a
spiritual or physical level, although this distinction is not usually
made. With the entheogen, access to hidden knowledge is revealed;
usually in the form of a divination or vision. There is a feeling of
entering another realm, often referred to as the "spirit world", "upper
or lower world", or "otherworld". This may involve the perception of
other beings or spirits not of this world (Metzner 1998).
Such similarity between rituals of these diverse entheogens leads one
to speculate as to a possible common evolutionary function of
entheogens. The symbiotic relationship that developed between these
plant and man may have led to the emergence of consciousness, language
and religion (Mckenna 1992). If so, then entheogenic plants may form
the missing link between the human mind and its place in nature. This
knowledge may facilitate an increased awareness and appreciation of the
world we continue to destroy, so that this behavior does not continue.
This would insure the knowledge of the richness and depth of these
plants be preserved for future generations to enjoy.
http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_945.html
Tale of the Peacock
Why does the peacock have such a beautiful tail? Darwin's theory of
sexual selection says that nature's extravagances -- like the peacock's
tail -- are advantages in the mating game. Marion Petrie, working with
peacocks, found that peahens choose their mates by the size and shape
of his tail. This makes sense in evolutionary terms -- the largest tail
would indicate a healthy bird and a better chance for healthy
offspring. From Evolution: "Why Sex?" Also featured: Geoffrey Miller,
Meredith Small.
At a singles cocktail party, the ending is often predictable. A female
may choose a male from several because he is attractive. But why does
she think he is good looking? Scientists, stumped by that question
throughout the animal kingdom, hypothesized that something more than
chemistry drives mate choice.
Looks are certainly important for the peacock, with his absurdly
bright, burdensome train that he shows off to attract a female.
Peahens often choose males for the quality of their trains -- the
quantity, size, and distribution of the colorful eyespots. Experiments
show that offspring of males with more eyespots are bigger at birth and
better at surviving in the wild than offspring of birds with fewer
eyespots.
This way of choosing a mate is just one type of sexual selection:
members of one sex mating in disproportionate numbers with members of
the opposite sex that possess some "showy" feature. It might be ornate
peacock plumage, large antlers on a deer, or a bird's particularly
melodious mating call. Another type of sexual selection is combat among
members of the same sex to choose an available mate.
But bigger is only better up to a point. If peacock trains become too
big or too colorful over time, they may no longer confer a selective
advantage. Exaggerated trains might attract a new kind of predator or
become too heavy to carry around. Then, those super males die out and
make room for the more ordinary males -- until another turn of the
evolutionary wheel begins the cycle again.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_09.html
A study published earlier this year in the journal Behavioural Ecology
shows that a male's plumage is a direct indicator of the strength of
his immune system; a signal to females of his internal workings.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0909_peacock.html
It can be argued that alcohol overindulgence constitutes a substantial
risk without a sufficient compensating benefit (Tonkin, 1987;
Greydanus, 1987). There is evidence to suggest that many youth have
not balanced the risks and benefits of alcohol use in ways that are in
their best interests (Fischhoff and Quadrel, in press).
For the purposes of this announcement, risk-taking behavior is defined
as daring to do something that has perceived benefit, but that is
actually dangerous, and in which the actor perceives a risk to
himself/herself. Acting without an awareness that a risk is involved,
acting without any expectation of benefit, or acting impulsively
without the calculus of potential harm is not considered to be risk
taking behavior. "Risk" means different things to different people,
and it may be influenced by a wide variety of factors (Konner, 1987;
Tversky and Kahneman, 1981; Slovic et al., 1982; Kahneman and Tversky,
1984).
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/pa-92-101.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 05:56:10 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
Huh wot? But it can be though can't it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
13 Jan 2007 02:41:52 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
One can be addict to both, and one can consume both without problems.
Basically the difference is, that heroin not only causes a positive
emotional state during consume, but as well a negative one (and even
physiological problems as a result of withdrawal once adaption has
taken place) following consume.
Due to that probability of addiction with side-effects like social
problems and drug-related crimes is much higher for heroin, than for
sex.
Another important difference is, that sex is commonly accepted and
heroin isn't, which means there are no social or legal regulations for
heroin: There is no culture of safe heroin consume, and most heroin
consumed is of much worse quality than what could be available - most
of the physical harm done is not caused immediately by heroin, but by
other chemicals.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DougC" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 06:36:38 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
The best sex is free. Heroin is very expensive. You don't need to go
shoplifting or stealing cars to get sex. Unless you are unusually
repulsive.
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kevirwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
12 Jan 2007 07:46:55 PM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
You're joking, right???
I was addicted to Southeast Asia heroin (meaning it was +99% pure) and
have had sex. I can say this about the two diverse subjects; when you
smoke H, you have no interest in sex...
K e v
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: Question on Addictions |
14 Jan 2007 09:11:47 AM |
|
|
ta wrote:
Why is heroin physically harmful but sex is not? In both cases, we're
just dealing with chemical reactions, right?
sex is harmful...in excess.
While talking with a sex addict, he once asked me if I thought sex was
a need? Sex a need?
It all revolves around what the word 'need' means to you. No sex, it is
not a life and death need. But yes, sex is a a basic, instinctual need
in most people that can disturb one's peace...even if gratified and as
well as if not gratified in. So it is hard to come to peace with sex,
no matter how you slice it. The best one can do is make sex somewhat
less peace disrupting.
Sex is crazy business for sure. I am always amazed each spring when I
take walks around a local lake that has a large duck population. I see
four male ducks surround a female to pin her down and take turns having
sex with her all the while biting the feathers off her neck and head.
They all seem to be driven and squawking loudly all the while. If they
were humans, the males would get 20 years in jail most likely for such
behavior. In any case, it is natures way ... with ducks at least.
Below is a snip on the subject of praying mantis sexual practice
(condensed) Or, skip this paragraph and get to my post if not
interested. But, this paragraph just illustrates that all species have
to deal with the same issues as humans more or less when it comes to
sex...craziness and peace disruption. As the Taoist say...fleas come
with the dog. so forget 100% peace if you are talking about
participating in sex and forget 100% peace as well if you are thinking
celibacy (unless you are dead to natures sex drive altogether.)
But celibates do have the 'possibility' of more peace than the sex
addict that gratifies all their desires. This possibility is so since
sexual stimulation produces chemicals in the brain and body, so the sex
addict is on a constant high, whereas the celibate is hopefully less
drugged up. But nature gives us some sex hype for free, so either way
we can get drunk from our own efforts or from outside sources that are
mostly beyond our control...the addict just helps nature with
manufacturing more drugs internally around the clock.
From : How to Want What You Have:
"People who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of sensual pleasure
find that the more pleasure they get, the more they want. Small,
ordinary pleasures soon lose their power to please and must be replaced
with more intense or exotic ones. Heedless sensualists usually meet a
bad end. They learn the hard way that their desires are relentless and
insatiable."
Written by Patrick O'Brian on the subject of Sexual Practices of the
Praying Mantis
Stephen watch the male mantis step cautiously towards the female
mantis. In three strides he was upon her; his legs gripped her
wing-covers; his antennae found hers and began to stroke them and
copulation began. After a few minutes the female moved her triangular
head pivoting it from left to right, then I there was a blur of
movements so rapid that for all his care and extreme attention he could
not follow them, and the males head was off, clamped there, a detached
lemon, under the crook of her green praying arms. She bit into it, and
the eye's glow went out; on her back the headless male continued to
copulate rather more strongly than before; all his inhibitions having
been removed. Ten minutes later the female took off three pieces of her
mate's long thorax and ate them with every appearance of appetite,
dropping a few crumbs in front of her. The male copulated on, still
firmly anchored by his back legs. Stephen thought to himself, "You do
not need a head, nor even a heart, to be all a female can require."
(end)
Animals are interesting to study when the subject turns to sex. we
sometimes think that we are the only ones crazed with such feelings.
for more on this subject check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality And yes, many animals
masturbate as well.
Being hyped up is a byproduct of sex. One goes with the other, so no
use beating yourself up over it. The nature of the beast with sex is to
get excited, so this is what makes it tougher addiction than food and
spending, as we can eat or spend and still be devoid of most of the
excitement from these areas if we wish. But in general, we cannot
participate in sexual activity without getting excited. In addition, it
takes a day or two for some of us to go back to normal from sex, so
this refractory period is another area to deal with whenever we get
hyped up sexually. Is this refractory period bad? No, it is just how
things are.
The problem with addicts, whether sexual addicts or otherwise, is they
overdo things to a point of pain - that is what's bad. In reality, sex
is never perfect and it always needs to be adjusted somewhat. And just
by being married is not a free pass to abusing sex stimuli all the
times either, as I have tendency to do. It is no different from
thinking you can drink all the time cause you own a whisky factory or
eat rich food all the time if you are a four star restaurant owner. All
our actions produce consequences and many of these actions will produce
consequences that destroy our peace if we are not mindful of them.
"Just as a life of virtue yields its own reward, a life of vice yields
its own punishment" - Plutarch
Perfection with sex? This is where most addicts fail. Where judgments
have to be made, mistakes can and will happen. Forget perfection - look
for direction. There are 3 directions we can take in life, we can get
better, get worse or stay the same. Sexual Compulsives Anonymous gives
us some guidelines: Is the activity placing unreasonable demands on my
time and energy, will it place me in legal jeopardy or endanger my
mental, physical or spiritual health?
Even Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews had sex on 'his, her or it's' mind
when God told the Hebrews.
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|