Heroin is less addictive that cigarettes because it hits the neurological pathways slower?

this makes no sense?

you see a much higher drug dependency in heroin users than cigarette users, why? its a powerful opiate the effects are much stronger,
nicotine hits the system quicker? so that makes it more addictive? people chase the effects and well being from drugs not the instant feeling of being on something, and the statement itself is debatable since heroin can be injected straight into the bloodstream as well as smoked (isn't the bloodstream where the nicotine is needed not the brain) the only sort of drugs that effect the mind neurologically are psychedelics from my understanding, drugs like LSD really are biologically harmless but effect the pathways in the brain, i guess that report doesn't actually go into the hundreds of cannabis psychosis cases that happen everywhere otherwise it might be rated a little higher on the list.

I think its pretty hard to get hooked on cigarettes unless you smoke solid for 1 month its not an enjoyable experience at first, heroin is the complete opposite and the withdrawal symptoms are hell.

If your are in a position to take heroin for the first time and you do it, im afraid thats pretty much the end of the road for you iv seen it first hand.

Here's the full list:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/drug-ranking.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2563/25633101.jpg

Interesting to see where they placed steroids, considering they can cause cancer, heart disease, roid rage and other major health problems.

its a bit funny that solvent abuse is so far down since
"More than one person a week dies from volatile solvent abuse."

i think thats a little more dangerous than any speed addiction fuels, guess its been pushed down because of
"the drug's ill effects on society" which doesn't actually make a drug more dangerous, just the buffoons using it.

Guys, what you are demonstrating is the exact reason why the list and a shake up of peoples perceptions of substance use/abuse are so important.

You cant say 'steroids' cause this that and the other, they are a group of very different and specific drugs, with wildly varying risks and effects.

Solvents, LSD, Ecstasy. Yes they are all substances with social and individual impact, but when looked at objectively, cause a tiny fraction of the harm to the public in general that Alcohol and Cigarrette related illness do.
80,000 deaths a year directly attributed to cigarrette smoking per year. Then there are those deaths in which it is a contributory factor.

Someone goes to 'AA' and they get support from friends and family. Someone on methodone gets called a 'junky' and neighbours hide the silverware.

Its all perception. here in the UK, our national health system is stretched to breaking point. Waiting lists that stretch for YEARS, nurses quitting, over worked and underpaid, and bed shortages at an alltime high.

The vast majority of the illness that is causing this nightmare is SELF INFLICTED through lifestyle choices that involve LEGAL narcotics, yet we all 'tut tut' at people who's choice of 'poison' causes less of an impact to our daily lives than the 'respectable' established alternatives.

If a drug hit the streets tomorrow that was a potent carcigen, highly addictive, that damaged the heart and lungs of not only the user, but all those in their physical presence, and was guaranteed to claim 80,000 lives minimum per year, would it be 'legal' and available to 16 year olds in corner shops throughout the country?

Now clearly, prohibition is not the answer, and never has been, but part of how we deal with narcotics MUST bring alcohol and tobacco into the discussion on the same playing field, or else we start the process from a foundation of bias and hypocrisy, and we will be doomed to make the same mistakes all over again.

The genie is out of the bottle so to speak regarding alcohol in its acceptance in societies and tax revenues it feeds governments and employment it gives to tens of thousands in the production, distribution and sale of the stuff. As far as ‘drugs’ goes it would be political suicide to legalise class A drugs like heroin and the like. The status quo isn’t perfect and many people are acutely aware of the damage booze causes users and society in general. IYO where should we go from here, legalise the lot and make a fat wad of money from it, or keep a firm hand trying to keep out of the country/off the streets?

Oh I told a porky about my drug use, I’ve chewed coca leaves (primary ingredient of cocaine I think) trekking in the Peruvian Andes at 5000M, its used my locals to relieve altitude sickness, hunger and cold. Did nothing for me, still freezing cold, craved a big mac and was still light headed.

I think the answer lies in decriminilisation of the use/possession of any and all drugs. If a 'user' is not in fear of being arrested for their actions, they are more likely to cooperate with police in regards to bad dealers/dangerous cutting practices. This would in turn lead to more organ grinders being taken down, and less time spent by the police chasing monkeys.
Dealers/importers/smugglers are where the efforts need to be put. The 'addict' is just the symptom. Treating the symptom is good for political rallies and placating daily mail readers, but does nothing to tackle the cause.
A common misconception of Holland is that hard drugs are 'legal', they are not. They are decriminalised, and doctors treat addicts, they do not sit as moral judges. more people die from methodone than from heroine. 'Clean' safely cut heroin of a specific strength can be used by the addict for many years with much less risk than methodone. If doctors could prescribe such heroin and if the recipients were monitored and given auxiliary support to quit (we offer this to smokers on the NHS), then suddenly their is no need to steal for your fix, suddenly you dont have people dropping dead because some psycho cut his merchandise with rat poison.
Would the tax money it took to set up the support be more than is spent by police in dealing with the crimes of the desperate and addicted? Would such a scheme send a message of 'heroin is not dangerous?' to the kids of today?
Course not.

As for the 'genie being out the bottle' in regards to alcohol, so it is with hard drugs. Lets not forget we fought a war to secure control of Hong Kongs poppy fields, and the use of opiates is as rooted in human culture as the fermentation of fruit.
Why trust one drug and not the other?
My contention is to trust neither, but to afford the same support to addicts, and control measures for all drugs across the board.

If class A's were legal it would remove the stigma attached to use of it to some extent, instead of isolating drug users and expelling them from society, people could get help and support naturally although this is happy la la land talk in all respect and addiction will still have to be fueled somehow.
You cant really legalize something like that IMO it will just lead to people who wouldn't normally do things to try things, socially acceptable drug addiction will just have people mixing with others who are venerable or uneducated like at party's etc unless drug awareness is rammed into children's skulls from age 5 and i don't think the government has the time, money, knowledge to control such substances. not for a couple of melenia anyway.

I would like to see drugs legalised, cut out the middle men, governments could buy direct from the cartels. have the drugs prepared safely in registered labs, make them cheaper/safer/less stigma (if there is anyway, once upon a time maybe!) for users to buy, in theory could reduce crime. i do not give one thought if morons want to put garbage in their bodys, i only care about the society my daughter will grow up in and improving it. but really, i'm not sure whats for the best.