I was reading an article the other day that stated that Oreos are more addictive than Cocaine. How did they test this outrageous claim you ask? Oh the only way we know how; people working for the Christian Science Monitor at Connecticut College tested rats by giving one a plain rice cake and the other a delicious Oreo cookie. Then they watched to see which one was cause more of an addictive trait in the rats. They did this same test with cocaine and the rats spent just as much time with the cocaine as they did with the Oreo. They studied the rats brains to and noticed that the cookie sent more neurons spikes than the cocaine did so they can state that Oreos are more addictive than cocaine.
Ok I have a few problems with this test. One: No living thing is ever going to choose a rice cake over an Oreo! A rice cake tastes like nothing at all most living things would eat their own appendages than eat rice cakes for the rest of their lives so that part of the test is null and void. Two: When I eat an Oreo it doesn't make me high. It might make me feel better for a short amount of time but it will never rise me to the level that an opiate could take me. Addicts chase the high. They don't smoke more crack for the taste or wash it down with a giant glass of milk. Yes I could see the point that the cookie could give you something near the joy felt when you achieve the high of an opiate but not to the point that would cause you to go into a detox stage when you can't have it. I have know addicts and it's not really about the thing they are doing its the feeling of security they find within said substance. A cookie can never fill the same mental need that a drug does. If that were in fact true they would just give heroine addicts a sleeve of Oreos instead of clean needles.
One other thing that irks me is that I understand that rats are the closest thing to us to test things on but I don't think a rat understands why an Oreo or cocaine would be desirable. They only know eating, pooping, and staying alive. They have no need for a high. That is something that humans alone share. I know you are going to spout things off like how elephants have been know to make alcoholic like beverages in their trunks but to what end? We assume that it is to get drunk but we have no idea what the elephant is thinking he is going to do with that brew when it's ready. Maybe he uses it to spray on their cracked and bleeding skin to clean it? We don't really know and testing our own fears of being addicted to something like a freaking cookie on a rat does what exactly? Make us feel worse for eating a sugar wrapped in sugar? We know it's "bad" for us and we have been doing it for hundreds of years. Does that make it ok? No, I'm not saying it is, all I am saying is that I find it weird that we spend money on these kinds of tests that have no real application to life.
I'm sorry but I had to rant about how preposterous this study was to me.
Ok I have a few problems with this test. One: No living thing is ever going to choose a rice cake over an Oreo! A rice cake tastes like nothing at all most living things would eat their own appendages than eat rice cakes for the rest of their lives so that part of the test is null and void. Two: When I eat an Oreo it doesn't make me high. It might make me feel better for a short amount of time but it will never rise me to the level that an opiate could take me. Addicts chase the high. They don't smoke more crack for the taste or wash it down with a giant glass of milk. Yes I could see the point that the cookie could give you something near the joy felt when you achieve the high of an opiate but not to the point that would cause you to go into a detox stage when you can't have it. I have know addicts and it's not really about the thing they are doing its the feeling of security they find within said substance. A cookie can never fill the same mental need that a drug does. If that were in fact true they would just give heroine addicts a sleeve of Oreos instead of clean needles.
One other thing that irks me is that I understand that rats are the closest thing to us to test things on but I don't think a rat understands why an Oreo or cocaine would be desirable. They only know eating, pooping, and staying alive. They have no need for a high. That is something that humans alone share. I know you are going to spout things off like how elephants have been know to make alcoholic like beverages in their trunks but to what end? We assume that it is to get drunk but we have no idea what the elephant is thinking he is going to do with that brew when it's ready. Maybe he uses it to spray on their cracked and bleeding skin to clean it? We don't really know and testing our own fears of being addicted to something like a freaking cookie on a rat does what exactly? Make us feel worse for eating a sugar wrapped in sugar? We know it's "bad" for us and we have been doing it for hundreds of years. Does that make it ok? No, I'm not saying it is, all I am saying is that I find it weird that we spend money on these kinds of tests that have no real application to life.
I'm sorry but I had to rant about how preposterous this study was to me.