Why is it that the most addictive substances are also the most dangerous? Shouldn’t those two factors be independent?
In: Chemistry
Everything is dangerous if overconsumed. You can get water poisoning. This means that any and all addictions can hurt you, as part of addiction is the loss of self control.
However, the real danger of addiction is not entirely in the substance itself. Rather, it’s the loss of self-control. People prioritize the addiction over friends, family, and their own safety.
Addictive substances like alcohol, nicotine, or opiates are not intrinsically dangerous. You can just casually consume any of them.
Part of it may simply be that if a drug is so addictive, your body will continually ask you for more and more. Eventually you’ll reach a point of lethality that a lot of other less addictive things cant reach.
Also some things that are very very addictive like sugar or cigarettes aren’t as dangerous in an acute sense, but certainly can be so maybe that is just the lens we choose.
The addictiveness _is_ the danger. One will will overdo to a dangerous extent something that’s highly addictive. Hell, look at cigarettes.
I’m gonna flip the premise, because I see what you are saying, but I dont quite agree.
What I mean is the reverse is absolutely not true. The very most harmful substances, and practices for that matter, are not addictive. So the harm comes slowly over time, or else we would not have a chance to become addicted. You only get to drink bleach once or twice.
Whereas everything about smoking feels great in the moment. It improves your mood. Your chest opens up and makes breathing easy. You feel cool.
Meanwhile , the cancer or the emphysema takes thirty five years to develop, so you aren’t FEELING the harm. I think more people would quit if they could actually feel their heart muscle, dying or their lungs dissolving.
I am not an expert in this subject by any means but as cigarettes are likely to be brought up quite a lot, it’s worth noting that the addictive chemical (nicotine) is not the primary substance that causes long term damage and disease. As I said, not a expert so I’m not how common it is for other common addictions where the addictive agent is separate but packaged with a damage causing agent.
They are independent. Coffee is often referred to as the most addictive substance but it is very unlikely to kill you.
The deadliness of a substance and its addictiveness are independent. Plenty of poisons like cyanide and arsenic are far more deadly than any recreational drug, but not addictive. And caffeine is absolutely addictive but typically regarded as harmless in moderate doses. Drugs vary substantially in both addictiveness and harm per dose, with little direct relationship between the two.
Addictive drugs are considered the “most dangerous” not because they are more toxic than non-addictive or less-addictive drugs, but because of the addiction itself. People are far more likely to overdose or experience life problems due to addictive drugs than non-addictive ones.
Nicotine is not very dangerous by itself. It’s the combustion of the cigarette smoke and the additives that make it deadly.
That’s why products like nicotine pouches don’t have cancer warnings
We aren’t really designed to handle those kinds of things.
Things like heroin, crack, or whatever, just aren’t seen in nature, we never evolved to handle them. They essentially short circuit natural processes in our bodies. Other things like fat, salt, sugar, we evolved to crave because we definitely need them, but they were never plentiful. So we evolved to seek out the limited amounts around for our survival
It’s maybe kind of like saying if trees evolved to survive better when its warmer, why do they catch fire when it gets really hot?
Trees evolved to enjoy the right temperature on the planet they evolved on. Humans evolved to handle the environment they evolved in and do best there. Introducing harmful things like heroin, meth, huge amounts of booze, etc, is creating novel conditions that we were simply not built to handle well, because those conditions never existed until recently.
Arsenic and uranium are not addictive at all, and way more dangerous (do more direct damage) than heroin or nicotine.
The most addictive drugs are dangerous *just because* they are so addictive. I believe with heroin, it can simply overpower your mind and ruin your life – your health suffers largely from neglect. With nicotine / smoking, the damage is largely done by smoke inhalation / tar, and other foreign chemicals.
Sugar & junk food are very interesting to compare – mildly addictive, very low impact per dose. But the result is that they are consumed in vast quantities by lots of people, and ultimately do lots of damage “by inches.”
Latest Answers