Talk:Drug addiction/Archive 1

Comments on Veracity
Flkevin (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Why aren't any addiction specialists contributing to these pages? They are enormously subjective and really need some input from ASAM contributors.

Avriette writes:

I am maria andreA concerned this article is fairly subjective, and some of its facts to be if not entirely incorrect, at least tilted towards a particular political direction. I'll be making changes to it in the interest of removing rhetoric from fact as well as to increase the factual integrity of the article. This will be a gradual process. Please leave any specific input here you wish considered -- or counter to my assessment.

I agree that large parts of this page are indeed rhetorical or inaccurate for either grammatical or scientific reasons. A lot of the remainder is a misinterpretaion or biased interpretation of the scientific facts. For example, take the section, "Drug addiction has two components: physical dependency, and psychological dependency. Physical dependency occurs when a drug has been used habitually and the body has become accustomed to its effects. The person must then continue to use the drug in order to feel normal, or its absence will trigger the symptoms of withdrawal. Psychological dependency occurs when a drug has been used habitually and the mind has become emotionally reliant on its effects, either to elicit pleasure or relieve pain, and does not feel capable of functioning without it." The third sentance here ("The person must then...") uses the word "feel". To "feel" something, is show an essentially "psychological" response, and therefore cannot be accurately described as a "physical" response. Such inaccuracy is rife throughout the article.

Kevin881 writes:

I deleted the assertion that anabolic steroids are addictive substances. There is no medical evidence that shows any physiological mechanisms by which these hormones can become physically addictive. I challenge anyone to provide a study that shows otherwise. Between 1988 and 1990, Congressional hearings were held to determine whether the Controlled Substances Act should be amended to include anabolic steroids. During these hearings, and before anabolic steroids were classified as schedule III drugs in 1991, representatives of government regulatory agencies including the FDA, the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse testified against the proposed amendment to the law. Even the American Medical Association vigorously opposed it, maintaining that steroid abuse does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for scheduling. ''See generally, Legislation to Amend the Controlled Substances Act (Anabolic Steroids): Hearings on H.R. 3216 Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House of Representatives Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 99, July 27, 1988; Steroids in Amateur and Professional Sports ? The Medical and Social Costs of Steroid Abuse: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 101st Cong. 1st Sess 736, April 3 and May 9, 1989; Abuse of Steroids in Amateur and Professional Athletics: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 92, March 22, 1990; Hearings on H.R. 4658 Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess. 90, May 17, 1990.'

Thomas Writes: My main gripe with this article is the repeated assertion in the first section that drug addiction requires daily use. I know that for a person to be addicted to a drug, they must use it regularly, but everyday use is certainly not a requirement. Some people who are addicted to drugs go on binges followed by sustained periods of sobriety. Another gripe I have in general with the article and with the concept of drug addiction is that addiction is a characteristic of a person, not of a drug. Addiction can occur with every mood altering drug, but does not occur in the majority of users of any drug. What I mean is that a person can use an "addictive drug" and not get addicted to it ever. The most common example is alcohol. Many people use alcohol frequently but can control this behavior when they want to. There are others who may use similar quantities of alcohol and become alcoholics. It is a fact that administering alcohol to a non-alcoholic cannot change that person into an alcoholic. My point is that drugs should not be classified as addictive or not addictive, they should be considered mood altering- addiction should be reserved as a psycological condition. As an example, in reference to the above post by Kevin881, I would agree that anabolic steroids are not typically "addictive." Yet I personally know someone who was addicted to anabolic steroids and sought treatment at an in-patient 12-step based rehab for his condition. A third point I would like to argue is that the terms psycological addiction and physical addiction are both obsolete terms. Drugs addiction to any drug combines physical and psycological symptoms. Certain drugs defintiely have more pronounced physical withdrawl symptoms. However, if such drugs were not also psycologically addicting, it would follow that detoxing an addict of that drug would be enough to cure that addiction. This is clearly not the case. Drug addiction has a very high relapse rate for people who receive treatment, even after a full detox. A fourth point of contention is the assertion that drug addiction is different than drug dependence. Surely there is the contrived example of a patient who needs a drug to survive, but typically, this is not what is meant by dependence. Chemical dependence is typically a term that is synonomous with drug addiction.

JClaiborn writes: The third sentence in the article cites the DSM on addiction. It is worth noting that the DSM doesn't contain any mention of addiction and it is not in the index. When you start off with that kind of error it is hard to think the rest of the article is based on careful work. JClaiborn (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Flkevin writes The concept of curing addiction is not useful as it implies that the patien can then use the addictive substance again without relapsing to addictive, compulsive use. This is mostly untrue. Once addicted, a person can always relapse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flkevin (talk • contribs) 08:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on redirection
from vfd end of VfD discussion
 * Drug addiction - content manually merged with Addiction Denni 23:36, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Redirected. Angela. 02:20, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as separate article. Anthony DiPierro 02:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Preferably separate article, if not then redirect. Saul Taylor 03:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm retracting the request for VfD. Thanks for the redirect, Angela. Denni 06:02, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)


 * continuing discussion here, (redirect or not)
 * Redirect, should be sufficiently covered in Addiction --Dittaeva 10:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep seperate [with appropriate wlnk to addiction ... Drug addiciton a subset of addiction in general] JDR

Anthony wrote in his edit comment:


 * This is a large page on a separate topic: much more than just a redirect

How is drug addiction separate from addiction? It appears to me that it is a subset thereof and that it would therefore be entirely appropriate to redirect to the addiction article, where the material in this one is already covered. In any case, for a multitude of reasons, massive redundancy like in the current arrangement is unacceptable.&mdash;Eloquence 06:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not all the material from this page is contained in the current addiction page. Anthony DiPierro


 * Then why don't you move over the material which you think is missing?&mdash;Eloquence


 * Because there's enough here for a separate article. Why don't you delete the material you feel is redundant? Anthony DiPierro 00:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * If you could help me understand why this is an issue for you, Anthony, I might have some ideas and suggestions as to where to take this from here. As I look at drug addiction right now, it seems to me to be dead in the water under that title. I also see that there are already lengthy articles on prohibition and the War on drugs. In all seriousness, what is there left that would constitute more than a stub? Denni 17:47, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it is only a stub now? What are the parts you want to remove? Anthony DiPierro 17:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * If you reread what I've said, you'll note that I did not say it was currently a stub. I said it would be a stub if the content already addressed in addiction were removed. I'm not suggesting anything be removed. I believe that drug addiction is properly a subset of a discussion of addiction in general, and hence a page related to drug addiction ought to be directed to addiction unless there is good reason not to. From my perspective, the only thing currently in the drug addiction article that is not in the addiction article is a discussion of the neurochemical processes involved in addiction. If you wish to tackle that, feel free. If not, I have information relating to how different classes of addictive substances affect brain chemistry. In either case, I would far rather be working on that than spending my time barking up a tree here. Denni 20:01, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)


 * I took the duplicate content out of addiction.  Problem solved. Anthony DiPierro 20:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Anthony - problem =not= solved. First, you did more than remove duplicate content. You also removed content unique to the article on addiction. Second, despite my rather lengthy response to your concerns as stated above, you have refused to engage in anything remotely resembling debate. Third, while the list of contributors to this discussion is admittedly limited, you remain the only party who insists that drug addiction needs to be treated as an article separate from addiction. Fourth, there has been altogether too much bad behavior here as far as revert wars goes, and I will not be a party to it. I had hoped that this could have been discussed over a cup of eCoffee, but that appears to be not the case, so I will take my case elsewhere. Denni 21:56, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)


 * You're the one making the changes, so you're the one who has to make the case. If you think I've taken things out of addiction which aren't duplicated in drug addiction, re-add those parts you think are unique to addiction and don't fall under drug addiction.  If I did so, it was a mistake.  I think this article is fine the way it is.  If you think discussion is over, then let's have a vote.  BTW, Saul Taylor has also recommended keeping as a separate article.  Anthony DiPierro 18:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When I merged the two, I attempted to carry over as much of value as possible. I did not include the section on the War on Drugs because it seems to be a peculiarly American obsession, and the Classes of Drugs is maintained both with a link to the DEA site and with a regularly updated (and searchable) list at www.streetdrugs.com. I also have difficulty with both the tentative tone ("appears to", "perceived") of the first two paragraphs, and the characterization of addiction as a 'habit,' which it most emphatically is not. In all, it was simply easier to merge the two articles than to correct drug addiction (and be left with two articles which essentially covered the same ground). Denni 06:41, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)


 * Drug addiction is different from other sorts of addiction (which also have their own pages). If you're going to merge these two articles than you might as well merge all of the related articles on addictions. That being said: these two articles should not be merged. Agent anarchy (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Addiction is Addiction
Addiction is a compulsive disorder. Whether addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, spending, smoking, sex, eating or any other behavior, the person who is afflicted often finds the behavior very unfulfilling after s/he exhibits it, and is unable to control it. Twelve step programs have been helpful in assisting countless people in ameliorating their addiction by introducing a support network and a formula (steps) for living. Chemotherapy such as Methadone (an agonist) or Naltrexone (an antagonist) for opiate addiction can also be helpful.


 * 12-steps is a cult. - FrancisTyers · 11:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

- The twelve steps have helped many addicts stop drinking/using drugs.. don't see how it's a cult?
 * The success rates are extremely poor, and many ('former') addicts speak negatively of it in many ways... it makes the patient feel powerless (including the baseless myth that addiction is a disease), they substitute one addiction for another (going to meeting), and all the meetings end up doing is make the patient crave more drugs, which seems obvious for an addict who hangs out with a bunch of other addicts. Peoplesunionpro 15:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The 13th step is re-addiction. And or a liquor stores name. 70.162.43.130 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Because knowledge is power! Dammit I'm not logged in... oh well.

-One addiction is not nearly the same as another. The severity and type of addiction can greatly alter the course of treatment. -Go to a 12 step meeting and meet people that it works for. Mind you, it doesn't work for everyone, but those programs are in place for a reason. Agent anarchy (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and inappropriate tone
''PTSD is thought to be a common cause as is ADD/ADHD, and bipolar disorder. Some research is being done on the subject, more needs to be done.''

I've added these tags for the above, and likely others. - FrancisTyers · 11:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Addiction is Distinct from dependence
To be addicted you must 1. find that stopping the drug is unpleasant while at the same time find that 2. continuing the drug is causing more harm than good. Dependence is just the fact that suddenly stopping the drug causes unpleasant symtoms which are to some degree an impediment to stopping. Both addicts and people who take valuable, helpful medicines are dependent on their drug. If the drug causes more good than harm, then you are dependent, but not addicted; if the drug causes more harm than good, then you are addicted. Taking a drug that apparently causes neither more harm than good, nor more good than harm, would tend to be viewed as addiction, because in reality it causes more harm than good: the cost of the drug, and any bodily damage it causes, no matter how slight, may be viewed as harm. Not to mention the waste of time spent on taking a drug that provides no benefit. --Nomenclator 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

a more correct definition afaik is 1. you have lost control of your drug usage and 2. you are continuing despite adverse consequences. physical dependence is defined as "stopping the drug produces withdrawal symptoms, which isn't the same thing at all and afaik isn't even the most important factor in the definition of addiction. Benwing 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclator's defintion looks pretty good to me. Doesnt tell us, however, who it is that is really qualified to diagnose, the drug user, or some supposed expert. What I experience as benefit may be perceived as harm by another, and vice versa. Laurel Bush 16:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

If you are still finding benefits, then you are usually considered and "abuser". That is, TECHNICALLY. An abuser can also be a delusional addict, or one in "denial." So, i would say add to the definition of pure addict as someone who would stop or at least try if they felt they could. Some addicts don't stop, even though they wish they could, only because they think they can't, for numerous reasons. 173.26.28.218 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana
There is not a single mention of Cannabis or Marijuana in this article. Anyone who says that Cannabis is not addictive is only fooling themselves. There are individuals who do get addicted, just like with any drug (for christ's sake, codeine is down and not cannabis!). References need to be added, at least in my strong opinion. senex 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, there needs to be a section on marijuana. King crimson123 (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So go ahead and add something!Desoto10 (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are living in a fantasy world if you honestly believe that pot smoking is on the same level as DRUG ADDICTION. Pot smoking is obviously habit forming, as is any enjoyable activity, but its certainly nowhere near the levels of addiction of the substances that are being touched on in this article. Marijuana is mostly used by high school (some middle school) teens that grow out of it anywhere from 2-10 years after graduating high school. Find me one person in their 30's, 40's, or 50's that claims to be ADDICTED to marijuana. I bet you can't, but how many people do you know that are in their 60's, 70's, or 80's still smoking cigarettes from the same age they began to experiment with marijuana? Thats the difference.Dogma5 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some scientific reports that describes withdrawal symptoms from frequent use of cannabis as something that exceeds the criteria for substance abuse in DSM-IV, (American Psychiatry Association system for classification). Comparable in strength with tobaco.
 * "Many chronic cannabis users report an average of 6.4 withdrawal symptoms of at least moderate severity (Budney et al., 1999), a number that exceeds the criteria for DSM-IVsubstance-withdrawal disorders (i.e., 2–4)"
 * "Overall withdrawal severity associated with cannabis alone and tobacco alone was of a similar magnitude." "These results are consistent with other evidence suggesting cannabis withdrawal is clinically important and warrants detailed description in the DSM-V and ICD-11--Dala11a (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Marijuana, like sex or chocolate, is pleasurable (I'm taking the experts word for the former, not having ever tried it, nor will I ever try it). Neither are addictive drugs. The easiest way to tell is that kids who try cigarettes in their teens are still addicted to tobacco in their 60s, or 70s if they live that long. Kids who try marijuana in their teens are not addicted to it even in their 30s. Marijuana is an extremely benign drug with almost no ill effects. Millions of lives would be saved if everyone used marijuana instead of alcohol or tobacco. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most people I know who tell me they think they are addicted to Marijuana has usually never tried anything but Marijuana and maybe hallucinogens. The definition of addiction to most addicts is continuing to perform an act that is detrimental to both your well being, state of mind, physical and mental health, and the ones you love lives and your relationship to them, and you being aware of this and consciously, genuinely wanting to stop that action, but continuing to perform it. No one who smokes weed, even on a daily basis, would not be able to stop if the effects on their lives was as negative, in their mind at the least, as say, using heroin everyday would be, or crack or methamphetamine. You know what I mean? I do think cannabis should get a mention in with article, but the passage in which it is contained should have the supporting evidence of why it is considered non-addictive, and maybe mildy habit forming with nearly no sign of physical of chemical withdrawl. You can't become dependent on it because of the way canniboid receptors and kappa receptors and weed itself interact with NMDA receptors. 173.26.28.218 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The exclusion of marijuana almost entirely from the article is suspect, and makes the article non credible. References that cite study after study could be posted here that point to addiction to marijuana. Also, to others here, personal experience should not weigh into your reasoning for including/excluding marijuana. That's an academic nightmare. Marijuana should be included. --SystemRip (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Claims to be discussed
I, perhaps temporarily moved the following claims to here, in order to be discussed or verified before reinsertion, since they don't do good to the article otherwise:


 * These pathways also activate faster with each use.
 * I've heard pathways activate stronger, but is this really true as well?

Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Substance abuse and Drug abuse
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonesing
Jonesing redirects here but this article makes no reference to it. If it's worthy of a redirect from the Jones disambiguation page then someone should either create a new page for jonesing and remove the redirect or add a reference to it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.174.246 (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am jonesing for your mom. King crimson123 (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LSD placement
In the chart, LSD is placed as having more physical harm than ecstasy, GHB or cannabis, despite the fact that there is absolutely no documented physical effects of LSD except for slightly increased blood pressure and heartrate. Cannabis is undoubtedly more physically harmful than LSD if smoking cannabis, due to the presence of carbon monoxide and tar, and ecstasy and GHB are always more physically harmful or at risk of serious physical reactions than LSD, which is probably the most non-toxic drug ever besides pure ThC.

The chart should be adjusted to change LSD's placement in physical harm unless others can bring evidence that LSD does cause physical harm, of which no scientifically-based experiments exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macellarius (talk • contribs) 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chart has no place in the header to this article. It is not explained, just thrown up there. I removed it again, but I suspect it will be back.Desoto10 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The chart depicts the dependence and physical harm data from The Lancet. You can't just move things around because you think they got it wrong without doing an entirely new study. You can add explanatory text if you wish, but the chart is pretty self explanatory. 3 is bad, 0 is good, what more is there to explain? Gandulf (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The chart is made by psychiatrists who must be giving complete opinions. There is no way LSD is more harmful than GHB or even ecstasy. At least MDMA has shown to have some neurotoxicity in some studies. And I know most won't believe it, but Heroin is not as damaging as Methamphetamine, or even Amphetamine or Cocaine, or... well most stimulants. It destroys your life, yes, but not through physical deterioration of your body. It does so through addiction, poor hygiene, malnutrition because you have no money for food, etc.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is that chart is way off, and I hate it. It's a poll, of opinion, not facts or research, and it's very misleading. Someone make a similar chart but using facts and research and statistics. It would be great to replace it. 173.26.28.218 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chart
I am new to this article so if this has been hashed to death, then just igonore. The colorful chart at the head of this article seems to have no description in the text. I think that it is important to note how this chart was constructed and why. The chart makes some pretty strong statements, is brand new (2007) and is likely not a consensus view. I would delete it.

Well, nobody seems to want to vote to keep the chart, so I am going to delete it. If someone wants it back for some reason, then they should write a paragraph describing the study and point out what the symbols represent.Desoto10 (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the chart again. Would whoever put it back please comment on why it is so important?Desoto10 (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not add the chart, but I think it should stay. What exactly are you guys having problems understanding about the chart? What symbols? Unless someone changes it, the one im seeing now is a basic, no frills, elementary chart running from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest) in terms of harm level, and dependence level. Heroin is 3 and 3 in both, Cannabis is 1.5 in terms of dependence, while harm is a 1. I would say this chart should be included in addition though: http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/comparecht.gif Dogma5 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked up the data they used for that pro-Cannabis PSA, from http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm but I was unable to duplicate the synthesis of the two sets of data. The problem with that data also is that it simply ranks each of the 6 drugs with the lowest being given a score of 1 and the highest a score of 6. One set of data was unable to do that for Nicotine and Cocaine so they gave both drugs a 3, and instead of skipping 4, gave the remaining drugs a 4 and a 5. It is however, data from 1994 and appears to be based on the opinions of only two individuals, while the newer chart comes from a synthesis of many opinions, and instead of ranking the drugs from 1 to 20 they assigned a dependence or harm value from 0 to 3, so plotting the data is more meaningful. So I would recommend not plotting the 1994 data, but simply present it as an ordered list, which is still confusing because there are so many variables - five variables, so there are five ordered lists. What is nice, though is that the 1994 list did include caffeine. Gandulf (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Source: New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994

Gandulf (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recovery Methods?
I would like to change this to "Treatments"Desoto10 (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Treatments (Recovery Methods)
Is there anybody who thinks that this section is OK? There are virtually no citations and much of what is written seems to be just made up on the spot. Unless somebody thinks this is great, I am going to go through it, remove everything that is not cited and maybe start fresh. I will wait for comments.Desoto10 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Addiction doesn't have to mean Drug Addiction
If you understand the term Addiction then you understand that merging the two documents is not warranted and may even be detrimental to the understanding of both.

Benglett (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many factors that contribute to an addict's continued drug use after a period of abstinence called relapse triggers. People respond and deal with their surrounding environments in different ways. So what makes triggers one individual may not be a relapse trigger for another. The following are some examples of relapse triggers: weather, loneliness, depression, old friends, boredum, stress, and so forth.

Food, condiments
Add a comparison of with the urge to eat dinner, or to add a particular condiment, e.g., "I've just got to have soy sauce with this dish" etc. Jidanni (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sniffing glue
Mention sniffing glue. Often one sees addicts just motionless with their glue(? or other inhalant, I didn't ask) bag at their faces in the corners of downtown Taibei. Jidanni (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Drug addiction withdrawal is often called "jonesing" or "having a monkey on my back." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.200.203 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction
I tried to copyedit some clarity, verifiablity and neutrality into this section but in the end I decided to remove it completely: Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction Understanding the reward circuit is critical in understanding addiction. The National Institute on Drug Abuse describes the reward circuit as a process that “links together a number of brain structures that control and regulate our ability to feel pleasure.” Feeling pleasure motivates us to repeat behaviors. In essence, the reward circuit has evolved within us to reward and encourage our natural behaviors that help ensure our survival, like eating and reproducing. Each time the reward system is stimulated the brain takes specific note of the activity. The more we engage in a pleasurable act the more we learn to repeat it, eventually without even thinking about it. The problem with illicit drugs is that they not only activate the reward circuit, they hijack it, producing more pleasurable feelings than our brains could possibly produce on their own. All illegal drugs target the brain’s reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a specific neurotransmitter found in areas of the brain related to emotion, cognition, motivation, and specifically pleasure. Drugs over stimulate this system releasing anywhere from two to ten times the amount of dopamine as any natural reward. The pleasure felt from drug use then dwarfs that felt from naturally rewarding behaviors such as food, music, or sex, and explains why drugs are more addictive than these naturally rewarding acts. This powerful reward motivates people to take drugs again and again by producing the euphoric feelings sought by addicts. As humans we are wired to repeat actions by associating them with reward. This is ultimately, as NIDA describes, what “drive[s] the compulsive drug abuse that marks addiction.” It was either removing it or plastering   tags all over it. The paragraph is an inaccurate oversimplification of facts. It also jumps to conclusions without any source or ref. Not encyclopedic at all. It has been added to three articles (Addiction, Drug addiction, and Reward system) by what appears to be an SPA editor. Any comments? Yinta ɳ  08:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the source cited "The National Institute for Drugs Abuse" (NIDA) or something? http://www.nida.nih.gov/scienceofaddiction/brain.html -- OlEnglish (Talk) 09:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read that page and I seriously doubt it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and verifiability. It's the same dumbed-down, oversimplification of a complex matter ("You need your brain to drive a car"). I mean, this is an encyclopedia, not a leaflet for first graders. (It also showed me the paragraph above was basically a cut-and-paste job from that page and possibly a copyright violation, but that's another story.) Yinta ɳ   10:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." That meets verifiability and reliable source guidelines don't you think? I agree that it could have been written better, or not copypasted, but removing it with the explanation that it was completely unsourced or unverifiable was wrong. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

International Cannagraphic magazine
Someone should make a wikiarticle on that website. They openly promote narcotics and give tips on growing them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bejerot
Nils Bejerot may be notable in Sweden, but he seems a bit too quaint in a global sense. I suggest we remove the section unless someone can demonstrate notability. There is also an issue of NPOV. What other common theories are there? --GSchjetne (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Replacement therapy
There is no mention of the pretty common nicotine replacement therapy. Does this mean that it is ineffective? Where is the source to support that? --GSchjetne (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please clarify the chart?
It lists heroin higher on the "dependence" scale than alcohol, even though stopping alcohol is fatal and stopping heroin just makes you feel really bad, so it obviously doesn't mean physiological or psychological dependence. What, then, does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.240.199 (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine addiction
I note listing of caffeine as an addictive drug and wonder whether anyone has seriously regarded this addiction as pathological or abnormal Is caffeine addiction mysteriously acceptable while other drug addictions are not? Laurel Bush (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the listing of caffeine consistent with the intro to the article? Is there something wrong with the intro? Or, as I write, are people working to make caffeine a prohibited or controlled drug, so that an illegal market will develop, all sorts of crime will be associated with it, and thus, retrospectively, prohibition will appear justifiable? Laurel Bush (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that drug addiction is not a real problem, unless other effects which are considered undesirable are associated with the drug Laurel Bush (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ciao... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.173.127 (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

la drug addiction è la tossicodipendenza di un mio amico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.173.127 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

addicting drugs
is Tryptamines addicting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.138.180 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)