> Are you implying that by smoking I caused irreversible changes to my brain
Yes. Once an addict, always an addict. ('Irreversible changes to a brain' are quite common. You remember having smoked, for example...) More importantly, this was something emphasized before, and so it is irrelevant to bring it up as a supposed counterexample.
While permanent changes to a brain are a thing, I don't think being addicted to smoking means you are addicted to drinking so I don't follow the "logic." You're stating that nicotine is not addictive unless you were previously addicted to nicotine in the presence of MAOIs, in which case nicotine on its own is addictive now?
I fail to understand how nicotine on its own would satisfy an addictive craving created by a different chemical or combination of chemicals, if it isn't addictive itself.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean about a previously emphasized counterexample either. Could you elaborate?
> I fail to understand how nicotine on its own would satisfy an addictive craving created by a different chemical or combination of chemicals, if it isn't addictive itself.
It's pretty hard to get addicted to nicotine patches, if you never smoked.
I suspect that if I took up nicotine patches now, years after quitting nicotine (e-cigs), it would be similarly difficult - but not impossible - to get addicted.
I don't see this as an argument that nicotine is not addictive - just that different routes of administration are more or less addictive, similar to IV vs. oral opiate use.
Yes. Once an addict, always an addict. ('Irreversible changes to a brain' are quite common. You remember having smoked, for example...) More importantly, this was something emphasized before, and so it is irrelevant to bring it up as a supposed counterexample.