You started out declaring that 'depressants' are not physically addictive in the same way stimulants are which is a huge, huge generalisation across many disaparate chemical families with different types of actions. Then you said a particular stimulant is not physically addictive without additional behaviours, contradicting your earlier point. You also made some weird claims about cocaine.
> The question I am trying to raise is to what degree behavioral medicine is more a factor in this than physical medicine,
Well that didn't come across at all in your earlier posts, and I think you probably have a lot more reading to do.
> I very clearly did not say that and expounded on it in pretty good detail. Again, cigarettes are not nicotine.
But that is the main addictive chemical within them, and you tried to make some sort of distinction that it was unusual that addiction was dependent on circumstance for cigarettes and nicotine as compared to other things you consider, wrongly, to be immediately addictive. You also said this -
> it isn't the nicotine or its addictive effects that make cigarettes addictive
Which is just bollocks.
I'm not disputing that there are behavioural and personal differences in drug response, that much is immediately obvious in that some people get addicted while others don't, and that people have preferences for different drugs.
It's your wide categorising and weird ideas about addiction that are unsupported.
Honestly I think I'm done here. You've got some very strange views which really aren't valid.
In science nothing is obvious and everything is open to scrutiny. Obvious is synonymous with oblivious or foolishness.
> Which is just bollocks.
Why? Blaming only the stimulus and simultaneously ignoring identified behaviors is not scientific. There is more to addiction than that. It also suggests the addict isn't not an important part of addressing or curing addiction.
> It's your wide categorising and weird ideas about addiction that are unsupported.
Everything you have said to me hinges on your claims of "obviousness" and emotional distress at broad categorization. Unfortunately, you don't describe either in any meaningful way.
> Why? Blaming only the stimulus and simultaneously ignoring identified behaviors is not scientific.
Nobody's doing that. Nobody is ignoring that behavioural factors contribute to addiction.
But you are making weird unscientific claims and spouting utter nonsense like "it isn't the nicotine or its addictive effects that make cigarettes addictive"
I mean seriously, that's utter, utter nonsense that can't be dressed up scientifically in any way at all. Nicotine is highly addictive. Nicotine is addictive in cigarettes, in e-cigs, in snuss, chewing tobacco, gum, inhalers, patches, all forms that people take it. Yes, addiction to any of these has a social and psychological aspect as well as a variable physiological aspect depending on the individual.
But to claim that nicotine isn't what makes cigarettes addictive is so insanely far wrong that, really, it's just stupid and goes against the evidence on this subject.
> Everything you have said to me hinges on your claims of "obviousness" and emotional distress at broad categorization.
This is also wrong. I've pointed out that you are factually wrong in your categorisation of drugs into two groups, factually wrong in declaring that one group is magically instantly addictive and one not, I've explained to you that your ideas on cocaine were not only wrong but weren't supported by your source material.
The vast majority of what you have said has been just plain incorrect. This is not emotional distress - you just haven't got a clue, and you can't back up your weird assertions and distinctions with evidence.
What it seems like is that you empathise with addiction to stimulants, possibly having had experiences and addiction issues with them yourself. But you don't empathise with people who use what you call depressants. You're taking subjective judgements and unscientific ideas and trying to dress them up or justify them as scientific.
> The question I am trying to raise is to what degree behavioral medicine is more a factor in this than physical medicine,
Well that didn't come across at all in your earlier posts, and I think you probably have a lot more reading to do.