Addiction By Definition

Today is day 180. I went and saw my counselor yesterday. We discussed...among other things...the idea that the flip side of entitlement is responsibility. I thought of you when he said that! I certainly feel as if prayer is important in that it shifts my focus off of myself and onto God. Do you feel that God can do anything for us that he has not already done?Am I sober 180 days due to myself or did God play a part in this?

Speaking of flip sides, when you were a drunk, did god play a part in it?It's very common to bless god for deliverance but fail to blame him for being a total shit about other stuff.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yay, a 180° turn completed.Keep up the good work.

I'm not really sure that this captures the essence of what we mean when we talk about addiction. It strikes me that an intelligent person can manage many kinds of addiction such that it does not noticeably interfere with their daily lives; whilst still being addicted.The idea of adding in 'health' seems even less connected to what we're actually talking about when we say 'addict'. Many people engage in behaviours damaging to their health that we wouldn't consider addicted to anything. Many I'm missing your point. but it seems like you're equating 'addiction' with 'harmful consequence', but that's not what the word means.

It's okay if you define addiction as you have. But your argument is circular. If in fact, addiction is defined as an unmanageable habit, then folks that feel some compulsion to indulge in a non-harmful behavior, like say chewing sugarless gum, would indeed be addicted. But if we harm as a component, then by definition, such chewers would not be addicted. It is of course the lexicographers choice as to what any word means.

Not only that, but if you are still holding on, you can now call it six months! Nice!

But some meanings are better than others...I still don't get why you prefer the tautology that it's only an addiction when it causes life problems? How does that help? So what? I'm sure there are people who are addicted to chewing gum. Wouldn't understanding that more help us better understand addiction, in general? I'm totally addicted to nicotine and it's not causing any problems in my life, see Message 20. How does it help anyone to pretend that I'm not really addicted to it because there is no harm? How so? The definition you prefer is the one that is circular. See Message 9 and the thread that follows. It ends at Message 41 where you stopped replying.What's the point of this limited definition?I get that you don't want to talk about "oxygen addiction", I agree that's stupid, but I've already explained how that's different in Message 29 and Message 41.

Because we don't treat people for chewing sugarless gum for example? The other advantage, particularly when we are talking about alcohol or drug abuse is that patterns of destructive behavior are a lot more concrete a point than we get from comparing usage patterns, and a lot less deniable. In short, the harm causing aspect of addictions is an easily recognizable idea, and even someone who has a lower level of imbibing can be classified.Look this is not my definition. For example, here is a definition of alcoholism from an article in JAMA from 1992.301 Redirect

quote:

---

Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, and most notably denial ."

---

Some folks throughout each week but manage to cut themselves off at a level that allows them to live with others in their house without abusing them and to go to work the next morning. Other folks cannot.Some else already quoted a similar definition regarding drug dependency earlier in this thread.ABE: We've been through this. I pointed out that tobacco does have health effects. To which you responded something like, "Oh I did not know you meant that." Of course, I did mean exactly that. I understand that you may be vaping now. I don't know if that has health effects.In any event, my preferred definition is not circular. As I understand it, my definition is pretty much yours with an additional requirement that there be some harmful life consequence. My definition may be very open-ended, but it is not circular. I'd appreciate it if you could point out the circle in my definition.ABE: I did not say that his definition was circular. I said that his argument regarding why his definition was preferable was circular. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Addiction can be measured. That is the textbook definition...that the brain has become molded around the addiction.

Maybe we should!Well, treatment is a strong word, but we should at least be willing to help instead of pretending it's a non-issue. So, because it is easier and the alternative is difficult? That's lame and unconvincing. I don't care who invented it, you are the one who is pushing it. Really though, I'm talking about a more-encompassing definition for addiction and you are referencing a 25 year old definition of one particular addiction.Are you just arguing to arguing the definition of a word? Let me know, I'll drop it if that's the case. I could argue that the functional addict is even more addicted. So much that their sick mind realizes that it needs to maintain itself in order to keep the addiction, and is unwilling to allow "life problems" to interrupt that. These people need help just like the ones with life problems, and to pretend like its not really an addiction because there's no apparent harm is a serious disservice to many folks. I guess I'll go fish, then? How about a little quid pro quo? I gave you links. Right, but we've been passed that. "Having health effects" is not the same as "causing life problems". What if you found out that gum chewing was loosening people's teeth over the years and having health effects? Would you suddenly start classifying that as an addiction to treat? "It's only an addiction when it causes life problems", whether circular or not, is not a good working definition. Right, and I think that sucks. It's like if we didn't teach children how to cross the street until after they've been hit by a car.Why wait until people start harming themselves before you start trying to help them? Because it's easier? Pssh. Maybe its not the definition, itself, but instead like you said it is the argument for the definition. "It's not an addiction unless it causes life problems. Oh, that "addiction" isn't causing you life problems; well, then it's not really an addiction."Approaching whether or not something is an addiction by determining if it is harming the person leaves out a bunch of addictions that people could use help with. Now, regarding treatment, perhaps there are limited resources that would be better spent on harmful addictions. But that's not what we're doing here. And if people want help with their unharmful addictions, telling them that its not a True Addiction^TM is a terrible thing to say to them - and a serious disservice. It's immoral.Here's my definition of an addiction: a compulsion to act that manifests a false need. You have the urge to do something because your mind has been tricked into thinking that you need to do it when you really don't.Even when that is unharmful and/or doesn't cause life problems, it is still something we can address and help people with. Also, knowing more about unharmful addictions can only help us better understand the harmful ones. Waiting until people start harming themselves is a terrible approach. We don't wait to teach kids about the dangers of playing with fire until they start burning themselves. And we shouldn't delay helping adults understand addiction until it becomes a problem in their life.

What do you think is the issue?

Again, the issue is if the brains neuroplasticity has molded itself to support the addiction. Sugarless gum, for example, is nothing more than a habit. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the brains neuroplasticity molds itself around this habit. Not so with compulsive gambling(documented to have a higher suicide rate than heroin or methamphetamine) alcohol, drugs, text messaging, and compulsive pornographic addictions.

I think you are right. But more to the point, I think chewing that gum is rightly something to be ignored. New Cat's Eye seems to think it is wrong to ignore the plight of folks who like to chew sugarless gum, but it was my intention to pick something that really was not a problem. The whole point to the example is that the habit was without any appreciable consequences; i. e. a non-issue. If he is right that we ought to worry about those folks, then I picked a bad example. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I see your point. My point was that the consequences that determined whether a habit wass an addiction or not were entirely based on MRI technology. If the pattern of abberant brain dysfunction occurs, the verdict is that the habit---any habit---is thus an addiction regardless of the subjects opinion regarding consequences.This is day 186. I feel more mindful and in control of my destiny. Yes, I still have addictions to fight...ones that are discernable through brain imaging. The good news is that I know how to fight them. In a word...total sobriety, fueled by the four step awareness method.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Have we really connected all addictions to brain changes that can be revealed by an MRI scan? If so your definition is fine.