05-23-2009, 10:21 AM
There are two points that are being made in this thread, though not stated as clearly as they should be.
The first is that things are not addictive, rather some people are addicts. It is true that some things, nicotine, alcohol, computers, extreme sports, gambling, whatever, are harder to give up than other things, like cannabis or potato chips. However, I don't think anything is inherently addicting except in the context of an individual who is an addict, perhaps by the mechanisms Greg was suggesting. For instance, nicotine is generally considered more addictive than heroin. Yet, post-Surgeon General's report, many tens of thousands have quit smoking. So why should it be a surprise that people can quit heroin, video games, coffee or anything else? As several people pointed out, that depends on the individual, their motivations, their support network and so on.
The second point is that there is some hidden morality play here which does not have to accepted. Should we believe that a person has a problem being addicted if they are comfortable with their habit/addiction and they are not impaired by it? I like my coffee in the morning. I don't think I'm addicted but I don't want to even contemplate giving it up. Is it bad for me? Well, gosh, it could be, speeding up my heart rate and all that. But I am very comfortable in my habituation/addiction to coffee. And everyone says, oh well, it's just coffee, we all know what that is. What about nastier stuff like heroin, the classic addiction substance? Shouldn't those addicts be controlled even if we have to jail them? Well, there is a morality play here. Addiction to opiates is common, particularly in relation to medical treatments. In both in medical settings and through counseling and support, many quit opiates and other highly physically addicting substances. However, many others, such as post-operative patients, shed their opiate dependency readily even if they are in discomfort doing so. However, by one chance or another, some people end up taking a small amount daily and go about their lives normally. It's good to know that the primary medical consequence of a well-managed heroin addiction is constipation. Morphine used to be commonly prescribed for tightening the bowels. The addiction is a physiological consequence that does not have, as I understand it, significant medical consequences. These folks are commonly labeled "blue collar addicts" and may well like to get rid of their addiction, but for whatever reason are comfortable where they are. So are they bad people? Should they be jailed for their well-managed addiction? Should they be forced to get rid of their addiction simply because they are addicted?
Perhaps we need to rethink our concepts of addiction a bit. We should see the pathological side of addiction more in the sense of personal and social impairment rather than whether some activity or substance is considered psychologically or physically habituating or addicting. Some folks are pursuing what they consider a more pure life and wish to remove anything considered addicting from their lives. That is certainly one quest a person can make and feel pride in their accomplishment. Others may be comfortable and functional with their habits or addictions. I like my coffee and I'll grow my own to get it! Others may feel that their habit or addiction is a trade-off that they are willing to make. They feel the good and the bad balance out positively for them in their situation.
In the end, much of what we think about addiction depends on how we value individual responsibility and our tolerance of people different from ourselves. Addiction is a fact about people not about substances or activities.
(Worked as a master's level clinical psychologist for several years in the 70's - sans thesis as it was Nixon's recession and I needed a job - until I got smart and went back to engineering where I belonged).
Pete
The first is that things are not addictive, rather some people are addicts. It is true that some things, nicotine, alcohol, computers, extreme sports, gambling, whatever, are harder to give up than other things, like cannabis or potato chips. However, I don't think anything is inherently addicting except in the context of an individual who is an addict, perhaps by the mechanisms Greg was suggesting. For instance, nicotine is generally considered more addictive than heroin. Yet, post-Surgeon General's report, many tens of thousands have quit smoking. So why should it be a surprise that people can quit heroin, video games, coffee or anything else? As several people pointed out, that depends on the individual, their motivations, their support network and so on.
The second point is that there is some hidden morality play here which does not have to accepted. Should we believe that a person has a problem being addicted if they are comfortable with their habit/addiction and they are not impaired by it? I like my coffee in the morning. I don't think I'm addicted but I don't want to even contemplate giving it up. Is it bad for me? Well, gosh, it could be, speeding up my heart rate and all that. But I am very comfortable in my habituation/addiction to coffee. And everyone says, oh well, it's just coffee, we all know what that is. What about nastier stuff like heroin, the classic addiction substance? Shouldn't those addicts be controlled even if we have to jail them? Well, there is a morality play here. Addiction to opiates is common, particularly in relation to medical treatments. In both in medical settings and through counseling and support, many quit opiates and other highly physically addicting substances. However, many others, such as post-operative patients, shed their opiate dependency readily even if they are in discomfort doing so. However, by one chance or another, some people end up taking a small amount daily and go about their lives normally. It's good to know that the primary medical consequence of a well-managed heroin addiction is constipation. Morphine used to be commonly prescribed for tightening the bowels. The addiction is a physiological consequence that does not have, as I understand it, significant medical consequences. These folks are commonly labeled "blue collar addicts" and may well like to get rid of their addiction, but for whatever reason are comfortable where they are. So are they bad people? Should they be jailed for their well-managed addiction? Should they be forced to get rid of their addiction simply because they are addicted?
Perhaps we need to rethink our concepts of addiction a bit. We should see the pathological side of addiction more in the sense of personal and social impairment rather than whether some activity or substance is considered psychologically or physically habituating or addicting. Some folks are pursuing what they consider a more pure life and wish to remove anything considered addicting from their lives. That is certainly one quest a person can make and feel pride in their accomplishment. Others may be comfortable and functional with their habits or addictions. I like my coffee and I'll grow my own to get it! Others may feel that their habit or addiction is a trade-off that they are willing to make. They feel the good and the bad balance out positively for them in their situation.
In the end, much of what we think about addiction depends on how we value individual responsibility and our tolerance of people different from ourselves. Addiction is a fact about people not about substances or activities.
(Worked as a master's level clinical psychologist for several years in the 70's - sans thesis as it was Nixon's recession and I needed a job - until I got smart and went back to engineering where I belonged).
Pete