posted 07-07-2001 20:50            

Seriously - it does no fucking good to externalize responsibility for anything. But if you can't see that for yourself, I'm not entirely sure how I can explain it to you so that you will.

posted 07-08-2001 18:14            

I think your term "pathologically dependent" is a very apt one, and I get where you're coming from. But to say that someone with this sort of problem simply hasn't the resolve to change their lives-- They presumably don't, but that's not the whole of the problem.

After all, if quitting was as simple as gathering the nerve, then all that talk about alcoholics never being "cured" would be bullshit. Because a completely reformed alcoholic is a long way past the physical effects of his addiction. So why can one drink send him back into behavior years into his past? (And we know from evidence that such things happen) The answer, as near as I can tell, is psychological addiction.

Damn it, where is cyd?

posted 07-08-2001 21:16            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
You're obviously not an addictive personality.. neither am I.

---

posted 07-09-2001 05:36         

Physical:
When a “normal” person watches a beautiful sunset their brain generates “pleasure chemicals” in response. It has been suggested that alcoholic brains are not as accomplished in developing these “pleasure chemicals”. Therefore, the alcoholic goes through life experiencing a more mundane existence then their non-alcoholic counter parts.

Psychological:
When the alcoholic gets their hands on a chemical (booze) that promotes a increase in these “pleasure chemicals”, they are much more likely to come back for more. So, really what happens is that alcoholic drinks to feel what they perceive to be “normal”. A alcoholic is never cured, daily abstinence is their only reprieve.

posted 07-09-2001 09:44            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
WTF!

---

posted 07-09-2001 09:41            

quote:

---

Originally posted by marcel:
People can become addicted to anything that makes them feel good (or better)... pot is ... a great escapist drug. If there are things in your life that you find unpleasant to deal with, pot will temporally relieve the burden.

---

Agree with you 100% - this is restating the same concept I've been putting forth. People can be pathologically dependent on ESCAPING THEIR LIFE, and if they are so dependent, marijuana's a numero uno way to do it - extremely safe, very little in the way of physical consequences, very little in the way of undesirable side effects OTHER than the escapism.

Point is, the ESCAPE is what they're "addicted" to - not the marijuana.

An alcohol addict is addicted to alcohol - even heroin won't keep him from getting the DT's. He may or may not also be "addicted" to the escape that alcohol provides - which other drugs may or may not do as good a job of providing.

My point is, ADDICTION IS NOT THE SAME AS DEPENDENCE ON ESCAPE. You can be pathologically dependent on escaping your own personal reality - but you CANNOT be addicted to marijuana itself, and you CANNOT logically put the marijuana at fault - it's only a means to an end.

Confusing these issues is a large part of the raison d'etre of the "War On Drugs" - by confusing drug addiction with escape dependence, people get the retarded-ass idea that all they have to do to turn a burnout into a productive citizen is outlaw a drug. THIS IS NOT THE CASE - being a burnout is not a RESULT of abusing any particular drug - with the possible exception of ADDICTIVE drugs that the person can't overcome their physical dependency on - it's a ROOT CAUSE of abusing any particular drug.

posted 07-10-2001 08:55            

What it boils down to is this: if you're not in control of your own brain, who the fuck is? There is no point - none - in bemoaning "oh, I am not in control of this thing that is 'addicting' me."

People say things like that because they rationalize that it absolves them of blame - but what it really does is admit defeat. Fuck that, ya cheese-eating surrender monkeys - everything you do is a decision you make.

Hell, even if you ARE physically addicted to a substance - say alcohol - when you take that drink because you don't want the DT's and you don't want to sober up, that's not "something that I just have to do", that's a decision you made. Inside your own brain, you decided that you would rather have another drink than face the DT's and sobriety - it's not something your addiction "made" you do, it's YOUR CHOICE that the easy-but-ultimately-bad path was preferable to the hard-but-ultimately-good path.

And you know what? You need to either be COMFORTABLE with the decisions you make, or MAKE DIFFERENT DECISIONS. There is NEVER a good reason to bemoan your fate and say "but it's not my fault" - if you took that drink, feel GOOD about taking that drink. If you decide taking another is a bad idea, DON'T take it - and feel GOOD about that, even if it hurts, because either way IT'S THE DECISION YOU MADE.

Yeah, I know it probably seems entirely too Zen for most of you, but it's the fucking TRUTH - everything you ever do is a DECISION you make, and there is just no point in being unhappy about your own decisions. Make the decision you WANT to make, and be happy about it when you do.

--------------------------------------------

posted 07-10-2001 09:32            

i have two things to add to that beautiful post

1) take that you fucking whiney nard!

posted 07-10-2001 17:26            

Jimbo-
That's all wonderful advice, if unrelated to zen, but it has nothing to do with whether or not drugs can be psychologically addictive. The charge is that a substance can produce a physiological change in the brain, changing the way you make decisions about whether or not to take that second drink. The clinical evidence would seem to support that charge. I got the point that you don't *respect* addicts, which is fine, but I don't see the point in denying that such a thing as addiction exists.

-----------------
On your second point, that doesn't make cake addictive, it makes it fattening. The issue isn't whether a recovering alcoholic who takes a drink will get intoxicated. The issue is whether he will get readdicted.

posted 07-10-2001 18:17            

As for cake: no, it's not simply fattening - it's possible to eat cake in moderation and not get fat. ABUSING cake, however, makes you pork out like Leann Rimes. Many people follow the "eating roller-coaster" where they bounce back and forth between eating healthy - and becoming physically healthy - and relapsing into not simply cake use, but cake ABUSE - and hence, getting fat.

Would not a tendency in former cake abusers to begin ABUSING cake again if they use it at all - the classic "diet yo-yo" pattern - mean that, by your "lapsed former addicts" standards?

If not, why not? How is a tendency to relapse into cake abuse any different than a tendency to relapse into being an alcoholic after the physiological addiction has been overcome? Where, precisely, do you draw this line?

I will repeat: every decision a person makes, for whatever reason, is that person's own decision. They may make poor decisions, or they may make good decisions, but no matter the decision, it belongs to them. The reasons they make that particular decision may vary, but it is, by definition, their own.

If you're a scrawny kid, a bigger bully can "make" you eat dirt by forcing it in your mouth - but he can't "make" you decide to eat dirt on your own. He can beat you, he can call you names, he can make you afraid - but if you pick up that dirt yourself and stuff it in your mouth, you are the one who decided to - not the bully. You may have decided to do so in order to avoid another beating - but it's still your own decision.

posted 07-10-2001 18:34            

One place i think your wrong Jimbo is the Cigarettes. I have pretty strong will power, and have tried to quit numerous times. Granted i always made up some lame rationalization as to why i wanted to relapse but still there some forign thing inside me that WANTS the cigarette, that was never there before i started smoking. So you can call it addiction or external rationalization but regardless its there and it wasn't before. So explain that for me.

posted 07-10-2001 18:49            

as for peter's problem with cravings for cigs, i think jimbo would claim that the introduction of cigs into peter's system has allowed him to enjoy something that he didnt know he could beforehand. perhaps peter's brain really likes this new thing and so causes him to have cravings. but it's still peter's decision as to whether he will acknowledge that craving or not and he demonstrates repeatedly by relapsing that he has an addictive personality, one which chooses to give in rather than fight the good fight and stop smoking

posted 07-10-2001 19:06            

It sounds like we two are probably the least knowledgeable and competent to talk about addiction. But I'm willing to keep going if you are.

You missed the point of what I said about cake. If I'm a fatass, and then I lay off the twinkies and work down to my fighting weight, and then I have some cake and blimp up again, that makes cake *fattening*. If, however, I depend on cake and spend money on it I can't afford, and then I work myself to a cake-free state, but then I relapse, have some cake, and suddenly depend on it as I did before, then that would seem to make cake *addictive*. Weight gain is a matter of metabolism, and beside the point.

Notice that in the second example, it needn't be cake. People say that an alcoholic can be clean for years, and if he takes one drink he'll be as hooked again as he ever was. Is it true? I don't know, but the issue doesn't seem to be one of contention. That's whay I mean by addictive. Does the same thing happen with cake? I kind of doubt it, but I really dunno.

As for what people "decide" to do, are you seriously trying to say that no person or substance can alter the decisions a person makes? I'll grant that a person can't make you decide to eat dirt, but experience shows that drugs can make you decide to do something far wackier. In high school, a buddy of mine who was coming down off a trip decided to try to hurdle this waist-high fence and wound up racking himself hard enough to turn blue. I think he would argue that the lsd affected his decision-making process at least a tiny bit.

So, if someone gets drunk and eats dirt, you can't say the beer "made" him do it-- but to say that it was solely his decision, and separate from the fact that he was shitfaced-- that's just ludicrous.

fen

posted 07-10-2001 20:49         

By the by... If anyone knows where I could get or order Gitanes (french ones), lemme know. Thanks a bunch!

posted 07-10-2001 21:02            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterWiggin:
One place i think your wrong Jimbo is the Cigarettes. I have pretty strong will power, and have tried to quit numerous times. Granted i always made up some lame rationalization as to why i wanted to relapse but still there some forign thing inside me that WANTS the cigarette, that was never there before i started smoking... so explain that for me.

---

Yes, you're addicted. It is, however, still your choice - and ENTIRELY your choice - to give in to the addiction or to overcome it.

posted 07-10-2001 21:41            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
You missed the point of what I said about cake. If I'm a fatass, and then I lay off the twinkies and work down to my fighting weight, and then I have some cake and blimp up again, that makes cake *fattening*.

---

No, I didn't miss the point. I'm assuming that 1. you never wanted to be a fatass the first time, and 2. you didn't want to become a fatass AGAIN the second time, but 3. after letting yourself start eating junk food, you began eating too damn much of it again even though you (see 2. above) didn't want to become a fatass again.

Are you seriously going to tell me there aren't overweight people who go through this cycle? I'd be willing to bet there are more cyclic fatasses (who don't want to be fatasses) than cyclic alcoholics (that don't want to be alcoholics).

quote:

---

If, however, I depend on cake and spend money on it I can't afford

---

Leave money out of it, unless you think rock stars and pro athletes can't be addicts.

quote:

---

and then I work myself to a cake-free state, but then I relapse, have some cake, and suddenly depend on it as I did before, then that would seem to make cake *addictive*.

---

Mmm hm. Again - assuming you don't want to be a fatass, and that eating too much cake will cause you to BECOME a fatass, if you 1. don't wanna be a fatass and 2. continue to eat too much cake anyway, does this not qualify?

The word "depend", again, carries unwanted connotations for this discussion. It would be more technically accurate to speak of "desire for [substance or behavior] being strong enough to cause subject to [make decisions] which lead to [strongly undesired consequences]." The [substance or behavior] could be cake, cocaine, gambling, or casual sex. The decisions, clearly, are to indulge in abusive usage patterns of the [substance or behavior]. The [strongly undesired consequences] could be becoming a lardass, losing money, losing valued relationships, etc.

There are two points I would like to make about all this:

• A desire for [substance or behavior] strong enough to cause subject to [make decisions] which lead to [strongly undesired consequences]" does not equate to the [substance or behavior] being "addictive."

  Nicotine is addictive - it produces physical withdrawal symptoms upon the addict's cessation of use of the substance, including shaking fits, heart palpitations, and more. Alcohol is addictive - addicts withdrawing from alcohol get the DT's. The list goes on and on.

  Marijuana, gambling, sex, cake, and street racing are NOT addictive. Cessation of use will NOT produce any medical syndrome associated with withdrawal in any subject, no matter HOW pathologically obsessed they are with the behavior or substance in question.

• Now that we've got all that straight - EVEN IN CASE OF ACTUAL ADDICTION, it is never productive for an individual to externalize responsibility for his or her own decisions. It is rational to feed an addiction and be happy about that choice. It is rational to FIGHT an addiction, and be happy with THAT choice. It is NOT, however, rational to feed an addiction and be UNHAPPY about that choice - or, for that matter, to fight it and be unhappy. The choice is, ultimately, yours to make - and if you aren't happy with the one you picked, you should have picked another one.

Again waxing somewhat Zen, unhappiness is pointless - one has no true control over one's environment, only over one's decisions. Being unhappy about environmental factors beyond your control is silly, because they're beyond your control - so what point is there in fretting about them? Being unhappy about the decisions you make is equally silly - they ARE under your control, so if you're not happy with them, why continue making them? Instead make the decisions you'd like to make.

quote:

---

Notice that in the second example, it needn't be cake. People say that an alcoholic can be clean for years, and if he takes one drink he'll be as hooked again as he ever was. Is it true? I don't know, but the issue doesn't seem to be one of contention. That's whay I mean by addictive. Does the same thing happen with cake? I kind of doubt it, but I really dunno.

---

... and I'm telling you that many a dieter has "fallen off the wagon" and gotten themselves back to a bodily condition they were unhappy with because they relapsed from the healthy lifestyle they'd painstakingly cultivated ONE time... and it reminded them just how fucking TASTY a double whopper with cheese really is, and then they let their painstakingly erected healthy lifestyle unravel, and their waistline with it.

So would this make fast food "an addictive substance?"

quote:

---

I'll grant that a person can't make you decide to eat dirt, but experience shows that drugs can make you decide to do something far wackier. In high school, a buddy of mine who was coming down off a trip decided to try to hurdle this waist-high fence and wound up racking himself hard enough to turn blue. I think he would argue that the lsd affected his decision-making process at least a tiny bit.

---

You're throwing out straw men here - we weren't talking about intoxication, we were talking about addiction. Of course you can make yourself temporarily retarded by taking "recreational" dosages of various drugs - that's the whole point, isn't it? To make the world more interesting by making your own critical faculties function inefficiently?

That's the "escape" that I was talking about stoner burnouts craving, by the way. Point being, they crave the escape from reality the drug offers - NOT the drug itself. Anything that provides the desired escape from reality will do - the choice of actual vehicle is determined by availability, expense, safety and side effects. Marijuana usually ranks VERY high in the ranks of choices of these "escape artists" for precisely those reasons - it's relatively cheap, easy to find, safer than aspirin, and has few to no side effects.

quote:

---

So, if someone gets drunk and eats dirt, you can't say the beer "made" him do it-- but to say that it was solely his decision, and separate from the fact that he was shitfaced-- that's just ludicrous.

---

Straw man, straw man, straw man. We were discussing addiction, not intoxication - but if you want to go there, it's entirely his decision but you CAN'T separate the intoxication from the decision, because the intoxication was, at the moment, a PART of who he was.

I'm also going to note that alcohol can function as an impairer of normal inhibitions, but it does not actually implant desires or ideas in people's heads. A drunk won't go pick a fight unless, deep down, that drunk WANTED to pick fights even sober. If somebody's bi-curious, they might agree to sleep with a member of the same sex while drunk even though they would not have sober - but if they weren't bi-curious to start with, no amount of getting drunk will "make them" have gay sex.

Alcohol can simplify the intellectual process enough that complex inhibitive processes don't take place, but it can't implant a root impulse. See where I'm going with this?

posted 07-11-2001 03:04            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Again waxing somewhat Zen, unhappiness is pointless

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
It is NOT, however, rational to feed an addiction and be UNHAPPY about that choice

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Are you seriously going to tell me there aren't overweight people who go through this cycle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Straw man, straw man, straw man. We were discussing addiction, not intoxication

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Marijuana, gambling, sex, cake, and street racing are NOT addictive. Cessation of use will NOT produce any medical syndrome associated with withdrawal in any subject, no matter HOW pathologically obsessed they are with the behavior or substance in question.

---

For those of you keeping track at home, THIS is the only area where we officially disagree. Of course, I'd agree if you said those things aren't *physically* addictive. No-one said they were.

The issue is whether they are psychologically addictive. And your view, I believe, is that there is no such thing as psychological addiction, and my view is that there is. Is that all correct?

If this summary is correct, then I offer only one more opinion for now: that neither you nor I is competent to discuss whether such a thing as psychological addiction exists.

That said, you're a big poop-head. I'm really enjoying this argument- not often do you find someone who can argue rationally.