There's a reason why people tend to hit rock bottom before they finally kick their drug addiction. If they don't have the means, they will attempt to find it. Your logic is flawed, and only serves to disproportionately impair the poor while bolstering the very industry you fight.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't fight, and I am pretty sure the focus is too reduce new users. How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Youve never been poor

[–] stonedemoman -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?

Tobacco, the main ingredient in cigarettes, is more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than tobacco alone.

Also, I would be inclined towards believing that the habit is mostly spread through peers. Price as a barrier to entry wouldn't be effective at preventing peer pressure if they're your first supplier.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

To clarify, the addictiveness of nicotine ≠ the addictiveness of tobacco. Even aside from the additives used by the tobacco industry, tobacco naturally contains an array of MAO inhibitors and other compounds that work in harmony with nicotine causing it to be far more addictive than nicotine itself. Pure nicotine is much farther down the scale of addictiveness, classed as a "weak reinforcer" in studies.

If you are interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading the studies and posts by Maryka Quik, director of the Neurodegenerative Diseases Program at SRI International. I first found out about her in an interesting article published in Scientific American — LINK.

[–] stonedemoman 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay thanks, but we are talking about tobacco. I understand that I messed up the terminology, but why are you replying this to me and not the one that is denying it?

Edit: Wait...you do know that cigarettes contain tobacco right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

…why are you replying this to me and not the one that is denying it?

I repied to you because of your reply to Jake_Farm. Jake_Farm stated:

How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?

To which you responded:

It's more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than nicotine alone.

By inference you are claiming that nicotine is more addictive than meth and I'm just pointing out that isn't correct — you can't use tobacco and nicotine interchangeably in discussions, whether talking about addictiveness, harm, or just about any aspect of their short and long terms effects. The addictiveness is drastically different, the cardiovascular effects are vastly different, the effects on lung function are vastly different.

To your credit, the overall conversation is about tobacco and I should have clarified that my point applies to everyone in this conversation who is talking about nicotine and tobacco in the same breath.

[–] stonedemoman 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I definitely flubbed the terms, but if you extrapolate what I'm saying it should be obvious I was talking about tobacco. And I feel like the people in this conversation are so eager to hate on me that they'll just incorrectly use this as evidence that I'm wrong lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No hate or downvotes from me, sorry if it seems that way. Perhaps it's my current mood or imagination, but the Lemmy crowd seems a bit more reactionary and prone to strongly worded dismissive comments than Reddit.

I'm also seeing a lot more downvoting of comments here that don't seem all that controversial. I'd rather hear why someone disagrees with a post than the rush to silently downvote, but I can't control that either. People are wound up these days.

[–] stonedemoman 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I completely agree. This is not even a subject that I'm particularly educated on and I'm still waiting for a single substantiated defeator for my opinions on the topic to change my mind.

Then you look at the downvotes and you'd think that you missed a comment that disproved your statement(s).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I call bullshit on that. Not to meantion the danger of meth is the physically damage it causes starting from the very first dose.

[–] stonedemoman 1 points 1 year ago

One of the most well-known studies, by Nutt et al. [12] in the UK, ranked tobacco third in dependence, following heroin and cocaine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797716/

You call bullshit on scientific study?