I would not argue that the withdrawal symptoms may be less impactful. The effect on health of some substances may take longer to become apparent than more rapidly acting ones but the consequences of the more subtle deterioration of things like excess sugar may be as bad as those that occur more rapidly say with ICE and their spread through larger population bases may actually be a bigger burden financially and health wise to us all.
Tobacco is very hard to kick as is alcohol, withdrawal is much more likely to be milder than say heroin or ICE but they are perhaps just as addictive. Sugar certainly impacts the pleasure/reward centres of the brain and why perhaps it is hard to kick the craving.
This is the point about dependency, your body adapts to the drug and then if you donât take it the adaptation gives you physical problems. There is much more to heroin dependence than neurotransmitter stimulation or the lack thereof. A person in heroin (or any opiate) withdrawal suffers a whole series of serious physical problems, they can be very sick indeed depending on the size of their habit. The yen is not just neurological and psychological it is also physical.
Sugar does not produce physical dependence so the mechanism, symptoms and consequences of withdrawal are not in the same class as opiates.
The withdrawal symptoms from heroin, ICE, and even alcohol can be deadly. Does that make them more, less or the same when it comes to addiction potential than any other thing that we can become addicted to. Of course some people will happily go through life taking a small amount of sugar, alcohol, food, as will some who smoke, some who will socially use drugs such as E but otherwise donât require a dose. Then there are addictions to behaviours such as gambling, cleaning among other OCD behaviours, smoking and so on. But when something affects the brain in such a way that the desire to use it becomes habitual then it is possible to call it addictive.
As the topic started out the question was "Is sugar as addictive as cocaine or heroin " not whether it was easier or perhaps better put less dangerous to withdraw from itâs use. As to sugar âdependencyâ maybe you do become dependent. Just you are less likely to suffer horrendous symptoms on ceasing to use it. This would be similar for any number of things we may consume or do, whatever was the addiction or perhaps habit forming causing agent it is. Sugar like other substances, and activities such as sex, affects the limbic centre of the brain, dopamine is part of the process as regards the ârewardâ pathways of the brain so you do things that give âpleasureâ. Cocaine, Marijuana and similar impact the dopamine production of the brain in much more aggressive ways than food does (sugar is a food albeit poor in nutrition other than calories).
Removal of sugar from a diet highly loaded does in some produce physical side effects though they are only usually minor in nature. Iâm still not sure it is addiction with consuming sugar in excess but it sure can be a very bad habit.
There is a particular meaning to âdependencyâ in this context. In the case of opiates it involves tolerance. That is the process of your body adjusting to the effects of the drug by altering your metabolism. This is how opiate abusers can take very high doses that would kill a naĂŻve user. It is also why withdrawal is so harmful as the metabolism must re-adjust to the absence of the drug and the process is not pretty. Sugar does not produce physical tolerance and you do not get physical withdrawal symptoms. Sugar may do all sorts of things but not that.
This is not quite the same question as the original one posed. Most of this thread has been thrashing about how many meanings that question might have. I am saying that in the sense of physical dependency sugar is not as addictive as heroin.
It is perhaps the difficulty of defining addiction as it has been argued for sometime about what is addiction. However to perhaps look at a study that took some of the expected signs the following may add some debate as to whether sugar makes us respond in similar ways but we just donât have the same life threatening outcomes from sugar:
At what point do you consider something to be addictive, then? I merely stated that coffee and sugar - along with pretty much everything you eat, drink, or think - have an effect on the brain. This is in common with your statement that âHeroin and ICE can and do cause changes in the brainâ.
While it is not something for me, many people meditate. Why? Because it changes how their brain operates! So does counselling; psychology; a sit down and a chat with a friendâŠ
As someone who has been on serious pain medication for an extended period, I was aware at the time that I had a physical dependence on that medication. When I decided that it was no longer right for me, and took myself off the stuff, I did so very cautiously and slowly.
That physical dependence is very different to addiction, and I suspect you are confusing the two.
Try going without any sugar for a few days and see how you feel. And again, there is a difference between dependency and addiction. And your body needs glucose to survive - although it generally does quite well at manufacturing it from carbohydrates. How is that not a physical dependence?
The worst drug of dependence in our society is alcohol. Its effects on a personâs health and mental faculties - both short and long term - are extremely well known. Its effects on society as a whole are absolutely terrible. Why is it not banned, then? Oh yeah, the US tried that and created an entire criminal class from nothing. We have learned absolutely zero from that lesson, in trying to criminalise drugs rather than address the underlying causes of addiction.
Citation needed.
Those terms - I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
When you canât go without. When your need is so great that youâll lie, cheat, and steal from your own parents or children. When the changes in your brain are such that you literally cannot go without, without getting serious physical withdrawal symptoms, and please dont try to equate sugar and coffee withdrawal with Heroin or ICE withdrawal. Never yet saw anyone in coffee withdrawal need a benzodiazepine to help them. If they do, they have more issues than a lack of coffee.
I will say this now as my final comment in this thread: heroin is most definitely more addictive than sugar. Ask any psych nurse who worked in drug and alcohol rehab.
I donât think anybody imagines a user puking and shaking, pain ripping through their body, filling their pants with diarrhoea, lying begging for their next hit of sugar. But thatâs what happens during severe opiate withdrawal.
Nobody has observed that those who enjoy sugar go on increasing their dose to the point where if a non-addicted person took the same dose it would stop their respiration and kill them within minutes. But that is how opiate tolerance works.
If that is so why is this thread going on and on, why donât we just say the two are different? The premise of the question is intriguing to a degree because of its ambiguity. What is addiction? What is dependence and how are the two related? Can either or both be used to accurately describe the effect of sugar on the human body?
There are similarities in that some people develop a sugar craving and take too much even when they know it is bad for them. There are differences in that (as described above) sugar does not produce withdrawal and tolerance like heroin.
So I am going to invoke Sodâs Law (Section 17b) which says:
âIn internet forums the degree of interest is inversely proportional to the intensity of argument over semanticsâ
The issue has been covered well here, so Iâll close this thread for now. CHOICEâs involvement in food regulation and health issues mean that itâs been valuable to have a discussion around sugar and the serious problems it can cause. However, the direct comparison to hardcore drugs, while emotive, seems to be a bridge too far in many regards. Thanks to all those who shared their thoughts.
