Why is it that the most addictive substances are also the most dangerous? Shouldn’t those two factors be independent?
In: Chemistry
There’s no ELI5 to be had because your premise is false. The factors are independent.
Caffeine and nicotine are 2 of the most widely consumed and addictive substances known to man, yet are not very dangerous, especially compared to other stimulants. On the other hand, Zolpidem (aka ambien) is highly addictive, even to the level of benzos in humans, but is much less dangerous and much harder to OD on.
Your title’s (false) assumption primarily stems from reporting bias. If a substance is addictive but not dangerous, it won’t make big waves in the media—e.g. caffeine. Similarly, if it’s dangerous but not addictive, people will rarely use it and instead opt for a safer (or more addictive) alternative. Take benzene & toluene, one of which is a carcinogen and the other is very neurotoxic. Why would you ever huff those when you could huff the much safer and more widely available whippets?
Substances that are both dangerous and addictive are the ones you see terrible statistics about on the news people because their addictive potential means people won’t stop using them despite the terrible consequences. But that doesn’t mean non-addictive-but-dangerous and safe-but-addictive substances don’t exist.
A good analogy is the electromagnetic spectrum. People who remember their high school physics know that visible light is but a tiny fraction of all the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that exist. But for a man without that knowledge, he only sees visible light and will assume that’s all there is.
Latest Answers