b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Addicted » Post 335554 | Search
This is a question Addicted

Cigarettes, gambling, porn and booze. What's your addiction? How low have you sunk and how have you tried to beat it?

Thanks to big-girl's-blouse for the suggestion

(, Thu 18 Dec 2008, 16:42)
Pages: Latest, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, ... 1

« Go Back

Here ya go...

fairly interesting i reckon....
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:03, 36 replies)
You're right, Nerdy.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:07, closed)
But I can't say whether it's interesting yet, as I have no idea what it is.

More information, if you please...
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:10, closed)

(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:12, closed)
What is there to explain?
Both axis are pretty clearly labelled!
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 19:03, closed)
Reasonably interesting, but doesn't make much sense
Surely each drug/substance should be a line/collection of points, rather than a circle?

i.e. if I have an arbitrary dependence level of '3' on tobacco (whatever that means), does it do me no harm as this graph seems to indicate?
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:13, closed)
I don't think that's what this means
They are a measure of how harmful the drug is (on average/to a normal person/similar disclaimer) plotted against how addictive they are.

Generally being drugs that are nearer the origin (the bottom left hand corner) are less 'bad' than ones in the top right. (Roughly speaking - the graph doesn't cover everything. If you added another axis called 'rapeyness' GHB would probably look worse)

So eating razorblades would be in the bottom right hand corner, because it isn't addictive, but is very deathy. I'm trying to think what would go in the top left. QOTW maybe.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:42, closed)
Oh, I see now
I was reading it as 'for a given dependence on a drug, how much harm does it do you'

Now I understand it, I'd query the relative placements of quite a few of the substances.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:47, closed)
I was reading it as
the more dependent you are on a given drug, the more self-harm you do...
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:57, closed)
You can't have a dependance of 3 on tobacco. the circles denote the area in which the points fall, so tobacco is about 2.2-2.4 on the dependance scale, and 1.1-1.2 or so on the physical harm scale.

The graph just shows how the different things relate to one another.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:43, closed)
That would only be true if the circles were different sizes.

And not circles.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:46, closed)
Can I have one from the top and any other five please Carol...

(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:14, closed)

(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:20, closed)
That is interesting.
Cheers for that!

So...Heroin more dependence-generating than cocaine but LESS physically harmful.

My tobacco and alcohol consumption are virtually identical in terms of what they do to me and how much I need them- but the alcohol is more harmful than the poisonsticks, though less addictive. And my occasional bong is better on either front.

I could go on for days- but then, being stoned and drunk and a nerd presented with a graph, that will happen.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:15, closed)
where is
lemsip and gravy on this chart?
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:21, closed)
Off the scale
I had a lemsip 2 years ago in February, and I'm only just starting to come down.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:41, closed)
Don't forget the brocolli...
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:41, closed)
Is that...
...Amy Winhouse's Xmas shopping list?
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:52, closed)
As far as I was aware, whilst heroin is cripplingly addictive it is actually one of the least physically damaging drugs you can take.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:06, closed)
it was my understanding
that it's the shit that gets mixed in that does the damage.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:10, closed)
Look at the Rolling Stones...

Methadone is also far more physically addictive than heroin, despite its placement on the graph.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:16, closed)
My understanding
Was quantity matters - less harmful than cocaine (fractionally), but you take more of it over time to get a reasonable kick.

I presume this graph is a snapshot of a newish users in reasonable levels of consumption (i.e, still a fair while before their bucket kicking commences).
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 16:18, closed)
...where is "clunge" on your list?
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:35, closed)
if you are getting any
... you won't be looking at the graph.

But it would score a 3.5/3.5 easily
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:23, closed)
Does this mean drugs are bad for you?
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:11, closed)
Has anyone else tried Khat.
Did bugger all but give me the raging horn and it tasted foul.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:43, closed)
I have
I concur - it does bugger all and you look and feel like a bell-end chewing on a mouthful of sticks.

Unless of course I was doing it wrong....

All the Somalis in Camden love it - there used to be a fellow who spent his days outside my brother's flat, nicknamed 'The Ghost'. He'd turn up in the morning with a carrier bag full of it, gobbing the residue into a second bag - all day, until carrier bag 1 was empty and carrier bag 2 was full, at which point he'd bugger off.

He did not appear to be having a good time in any way thoughout this procedure.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 14:15, closed)
We brewed it up and drank it.
There was a very slight feeling like taking amphetamine based slimming pills but mostly I just wanted to get my leg over.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 14:23, closed)
Base, or amphetamine sulphate is much better. Cheaper too. Coke is just boring.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 19:18, closed)
Is this
not a good thing?

As for taste - put it in something tasty?
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 16:22, closed)
I can't seem to see cake.

(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:47, closed)
*is a trained researcher
Who drew this up? How are the relative values arrived at? etc
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 14:56, closed)
Hang on....
where the fuck is craaaaaaack?
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 15:03, closed)
Where's this from?
How are the numbers arrived at? Just presented like that it means nothing and having had personal experience of many of those substances the graph looks a bit like bollocks. There's different kinds of addiction for different kinds of people, and then there's the mental effect, which is very hard to account for. Apparently LSD does less physical harm than alcohol, but take LSD every evening for a year and then compare your life with someone going to the pub every evening.. you'll be an emotional wreck most probably unable to take care of yourself physically - you'll probably have picked up a few more addictions just to cope. Also, most drug users agree that tobacco is far, far more addictive than coke, in my experience.
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 15:26, closed)
These pub expert threads always remind me of the Pathetic Sharks in Viz!
(, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 16:09, closed)
This chart is crap.
Where is World of Warcraft on there? No where do i see mention of silicon crack.
(, Wed 24 Dec 2008, 15:48, closed)

« Go Back

Pages: Latest, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, ... 1