Study: Oreo Cookies As Addictive As Cocaine

[tomBitonti]

It's worth noting that cocaine does not cause physiological dependence or withdrawal and its addiction is purely psychological in nature. It's a very dangerous drug, but not for the same reasons as, say, alcohol or heroin. Addictiveness does not equate to the potential for harm.

Obviously oreos are less dangerous.

I'm finding conflicting information about whether cocaine (I looked up heroin, too) is physically addictive.

Lots of references describe it as physically addictive, although, in the sense of the "body getting used to it's presence". I presume there are other more definite physical dependencies, with a more concrete physiological effect, that is meant.

Ok, did some more searching, and it seems that some sites are too loosely using the term "physical dependence". The more detailed sites (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence, and http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001522.htm) do a much better job.

I suspect a part of the fuzziness is because the definition will affect diagnosis codes, with a direct link to heath care and insurance issues. Lots of vested interests pushing the definition one way or another.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Ahnehnois]

Unfortunately, to most readers, "purely psychological" implies that the issue is of the mind, not of the physical brain - that it is somehow an issue of willpower rather than brain chemistry.

Well, it's both. Even addictions to things other than drugs like gambling and pornography are mediated by neurotransmitter activity in the brain. My definition of "purely psychological" includes the neurosciences, but I suppose that you're right that it could be taken to mean something else.

You aren't missing that much, honestly.

Newman-O's are better.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm finding conflicting information about whether cocaine (I looked up heroin, too) is physically addictive.

It's very addictive, but not in the same way as substances that cause a withdrawal syndrome. Alcoholics can die of seizures without their regular drink, so they'll drink even when they're not enjoying it and they don't get much of a "buzz" anymore, just out of fear. That doesn't happen with cocaine; people use cocaine for the high.

The point I was getting at is that "addictiveness" and "dangerousness" are often conflated, which I think is a problem. Some drugs of abuse are marginally addictive or not addictive at all (marijuana and psychedelics, for instance). However, there still may be some dangers. Conversely, many things are extremely addictive, but not all that dangerous. Like caffeine, or Oreos.

Cocaine is very dangerous, but this is because it causes psychotic behavior and can stop your heart, and because it's illegal and the business surrounding it is violent and corrupt, and because people tend to use it in the most unsafe ways possible; by injecting or inhaling a purified isolate. Used in its natural form, the coca leaf, it's harmless and is a popular form of tea in some South American countries. Its mechanism of action is very similar to Ritalin, which is given to children on a widespread basis and is (debatably) safe if used as directed.

I just think it's important that people understand the facts about these things, good and bad. Even if it were objectively true that Oreos were more addictive, the relative dangerousness is determined largely by other factors.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

And yet what takes more lives in America? Coke or, say, problems related to obesity?

 

[Ahnehnois]

And yet what takes more lives in America? Coke or, say, problems related to obesity?

Somehow, I suspect that not many deaths are directly attributable to excess Oreo consumption.

But you're not wrong; on a public health level, recreational drugs do a lot less harm than recreational foods.

 

[Umbran]

It's very addictive, but not in the same way as substances that cause a withdrawal syndrome.

There is a difference between how cocaine and, say, alcohol affect the human body. But "withdrawal syndrome" is just "collection of symptoms associated with withdrawal". And cocaine has such:

(wikipedia isn't the end-all-be-all of medicine, but will serve)
"After taking cocaine on a regular basis, the user will almost inevitably become addicted. When the drug is discontinued immediately, the user will experience what has come to be known as a "crash" along with a number of other cocaine withdrawal symptoms, including paranoia, depression, exhaustion, anxiety, itching, mood swings, irritability, fatigue, insomnia, an intense craving for more cocaine, and in some cases nausea and vomiting. Some cocaine users also report having similar symptoms to schizophrenia patients and feel that their mind is lost. Some users also report formication: a feeling of a crawling sensation on the skin also known as "coke bugs". These symptoms can last for weeks or, in some cases, months."

This isn't just because you aren't getting high, but because cocaine changes the chemistry of the reward centers of the brain. Without the drug, there are repercussions until you re-adapt to its absence.

Other drugs make changes in other areas of brain and body chemistry that have other results - the line between "physical" and "psychological" dependence is not about whether you have withdrawal, but what kind of symptoms are included in the withdrawal.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Somehow, I suspect that not many deaths are directly attributable to excess Oreo consumption.

But you're not wrong; on a public health level, recreational drugs do a lot less harm than recreational foods.

Oreos could be considered a gateway food, though. Something sweet and addictive could easily lead to folks trying other sweet - and terrible for them - foods. Mayhap these are addictive as well. Oreos are not the only problem but they're certainly dangerous in their own right.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

Obviously the only reasonable solution is to ban Oreos and imprison the users.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

And the pushers. Dirty grocery store bastards!

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

And the pushers. Dirty grocery store bastards!

I know, right?
How dare they expect people to use personal judgement and responsibility in food selection and consumption!
What we need is a bloated, tax payer funded gov't bureaucracy/program to decide for people what they should eat and how much.
Oh wait...