The first trial or the initial use of drug or any other substance is mostly voluntary or peer pressure. However, once it becomes habitual, a person gets addicted to it and gradually the brain too becomes submissive towards the substance abuse. With continuous abuse it gets difficult for the person to stay without it and finds it difficult to resist the urge. In order to get complete rid from drug addiction, the addict needs professional help. There are wide number of centres who offer assured treatment for drug addiction by experienced psychiatrists and therapists who understand the fact that every addict is different and needs to be treated differently. What happens to the brain? To understand the addiction, one needs to know what happens to the brain when a person indulges in drug usage. In most of the cases the used drugs affect the 'Reward Circuit' of the brain. This happens when the chemical from the drug floods the part of the brain with chemical messenger dopamine.
These further controls the pleasure feel of the body, which later becomes addictive to the person doing the drug. This is the reason people refer it to feeling 'high' when they are under the influence. Moreover, with regular use of the drug the brain of the person keeps adjusting and thus, one does not feel the same high as they are felt the very first day. This increase the intake amount as the person wants to go back to the initial phase. And by the time they know it, they are already strongly addicted to the substance. Long term usage gradually leads to physical mental issues like, concentration, learning, decision making, anxiety, loss of memory and impulsive behaviourism. Being addicted to any kind of drug has no set rules. Some become habitual to the drug fasted than many others. The reason for stronger addiction may vary from person to person. Biology: Addicted parents are sure to raise an addict child. Moreover, mental disorders may also lead to addiction. Environment: shoes The environment of an individual has strong influence on their addiction. Development: It has been noticed and researched that the earlier the drug use, the stronger the addiction. This is the reason we find lot of teenagers being addicted as their brain becomes more habituated with the pleasure feel that comes from the drugs.
Epistemic status: I think I probably wrung the right conclusions out of this evidence, but this isn’t the only line of evidence bearing on the broader gun control issue and all I can say is what it’s consistent with. From a Vox article on America’s Gun Problem, Explained: "On Wednesday, it happened again: There was a mass shooting - this time, in San Bernardino, California. Then it goes on to say that "more guns mean more gun deaths, period. The research on this is overwhelmingly clear. …then uses the graph as a lead in to talk about active shooter situations, gun-homicide relationships, and outrage over gun massacres. Did you notice that the axis of this graph says "gun deaths", snackdeals.shop and shoes that this is a totally different thing from gun murders? Gun deaths are a combined measure of gun homicides and gun suicides. Here is a graph of guns vs. And here is a graph of guns vs. The relationship between gun ownership and homicide is weak (and appears negative), the relationship between gun ownership and suicide is strong and positive.
The entire effect Vox highlights in their graph is due to gun suicides, but they are using it to imply conclusions about gun homicides. This is why you shouldn’t make a category combining two unlike things. I am not the first person to notice this. The Washington Examiner makes the same criticism of Vox’s statistics that I do. And Robert VerBruggen of National Review does the same analysis decomposing gun deaths into suicides and homicides, and like me finds no correlation with homicides. German Lopez of Vox responds here. He argues that VerBruggen can’t just do a raw uncontrolled correlation of state gun ownership with state murder rates without adjusting for confounders. This is true, although given that Vox has done this time and time again for months on end and all VerBruggen is doing is correctly pointing out a flaw in their methods, it feels kind of like an isolated demand for rigor. So let’s look at the more-carefully-controlled studies. Po st was creat ed by G SA Co ntent Generato r DEMO!