sort by best latest
Christin Sander says
Suppose this is correct what you said but then govt would earn even more taxes if it legalize selling drugs. Do not you think so.
That's my answer. I'm from VA, and smokes are about $4.50 a pack there. I live in NY and they're over $10. All taxes. They're making way too much money to ban them.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Teresa Pelka says
But still it is reason of heart diseases , lungs and mouth cancer. I have read somewhere that it even affect memory as well.
It doesn't qualify for a narcotic biochemically, this is my answer to the question. I don't defend smoking.
Actually, Nicotine is a narcotic. THC, the active substance in Marijuana, is an endocanabinoid competitor. Opiates are endorphin competitors. MDMA is a Serotonin competitor. Few narcotics are really neurotransmitter antagonists.
Mark Twain was a heavy smoker, son of a lung disease sufferer - against all odds on genetics and nicotine use, Twain lived quite a life.
I do not defend smoking. I'm happy without it myself. Some research results are exaggerated, I think. :)
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
Daniel M. Appel says
LSD is a serotonin antagonist; lithium is a potassium antagonist - one is a narcotic, the other is supposed to be therapy. These are actually only antagonists to endanger the nervous system. The effect might be not success.
Correct, but just because it is a therapy does not mean it is not narcotic. Many prescription drugs, like Lithium, Ambien, Percocet, etc, are also narcotics. A narcotic is any substance that alters perception or neurochemistry, not just antagonists.
@The Singularity, you say
'A narcotic is any substance that alters perception or neurochemistry, not just antagonists.'
Antagonists alter the natural chemistry. Many patients become dependent on 'legal therapies'. Why have antagonists?
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments