posted 07-19-2001 15:19         

quote:

---

Originally posted by zippy:
Seonaid and fenomas, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g...

(feel free to add the next line, in classic penIs fashion)

---

posted 07-20-2001 13:14            

Firstly, I agree that you guys are both talking out your asses worse than a couple of nuns discussing BJ technique. I don't think you need to be addicted to something to discuss the topic, but be clear about what you're talking about. There are two popular definitions of addiction floating around: 1)There's a chemical imbalance in your brain that makes you want to do it, and 2) you know it's bad for you but you do it anyway. The former assumes knowledge of the addict's brain chemistry, the latter assumes knowledge of their behavior and what's "bad" for them. I don't think either definition is more correct, nor are they mutually exclusive, they're just useful in different circumstances.

OK, so take the example of heroin. Let's say you use heroin once a week. The heroin connects to happy-juice receptors in your brain and makes you feel good. At some point during your use, those happy-juice receptors will stop accepting seratonin, which will make you feel shitty when you're not on heroin. Right there, you're an addict, by the first definition. Doesn't matter if you try to quit and fail, or try to quit and succeed. You're addicted because your brain chemistry has been altered in a way that makes you want to do heroin, no matter what your morals, beliefs, etc.

Now take the case of marijuana. Government-funded research aside, pretty much everyone seems to agree that pot isn't physically addictive, meaning that quitting pot doesn't directly block the happy-juice receptors. So the only way it's going to fit the first definition of addiction (brain change that makes you want to keep doing it) is if a psychological association causes the brain chemistry change. Is this possible? Sure, scientists have tracked sharp drops in seratonin from people trying to quit eating chocolate, trying to quit shopping, and so forth. Does it happen with pot? Dunno, but for some people, almost certainly. As for the second definition, the person who described her husband spending 2/3 of their remaining money on pot would seem to fall into that category.

Now a few words on all this "addictive personality" stuff. I think that, if that term has any use at all, it's misleading, because it's an over-generalization. People have tendencies to addiction to specific chemicals and behaviors, not addictive or not-addictive personalities in general. Furthermore, anybody can become addicted to chemicals that are powerful enough - if you snort coke five days in a row, I guarantee you you'll have at least a mild physical addiction, even if you dislike coke and don't enjoy the effect.

And finally, a note on Jimbo's holier-than-thou ramblings. You seem to be arguing a straw man through this whole thread, and what it boils down to when I read it is "I am very unsympathetic towards addicts." Okay, fair enough; is that because you've never been addicted to anything, or because you're uncomfortable with an addiction you have now?

posted 07-20-2001 18:11            

quote:

---

Is this possible? Sure, scientists have tracked sharp drops in seratonin from people trying to quit eating chocolate, trying to quit shopping, and so forth. Does it happen with pot?

---

:: sigh ::

So is "shopping", then, an "addictive substance?" If the answer is "yes", then I will agree that by that definition, sure, pot is "addictive."

My primary point is that if you use such a broad definition of "addiction", you've watered the word down to the point of utter meaninglessness.

My secondary point is that all this wailing about alteration of brain chemistry as something beyond human control is begging the question of free will vs. determinism - where do you draw the line? Strictly speaking, free will is an illusion, and EVERYTHING directly alters you and your brain physically. But does it make sense to view the world that way? Hell no.

quote:

---

Okay, fair enough; is that because you've never been addicted to anything, or because you're uncomfortable with an addiction you have now?

---

::drawling:: Well gee Weis, I dunno - are RPG's "addictive"? I've certainly made poor decisions about how much sleep I should get before work based on not wanting to stop playing an RPG. I'd be willing to bet that if somebody wanted to stick electrodes in my head, they'd see a definite pattern in serotonin uptakes based on whether I was playing RPGs or not... considering that serotonin uptake IS a symptom of enjoying what you're doing.

Does that qualify RPGs as "addictive?" If so, yes... I've been "addicted."

I haven't been arguing a straw man, I've been arguing that nobody seems to want to agree on a popular definition of "addictive" that is meaningful in determining danger of using a substance that is not, using the MEDICAL definition, addictive. All of the soft, fuzzy "psychologically addictive" definitions that people like to use are absolutely meaningless when talking about a substance as opposed to an individual person, because they apply as well to shopping, gambling, or cake as they do to marijuana - and you can't very well say "you shouldn't shop, shopping's addictive."

Whether I am "sympathetic" towards addicts or not actually has no bearing on what I've REALLY been trying to get across, which is the fact that the term "psychologically addictive" is meaningless when applied to anything other than an individual.

Thanks lots for making me out to be a "holier-than-thou" prig, though. Really.

posted 07-21-2001 10:49            

"It is now 8 hours before I need to go to work, but I am engrossed in this game."

"It is now 6 hours before I need to go to work, I should go to bed. I know my ability will suffer in proportion to the amount of sleep I miss."

"It is now *yawn* 4 hours before I need to go to work. I feel crappy about being up so late."

The problem here (as Jim already mentioned) is the broad definition of addiction. On one end of the scale, you have heroin and crack, where maybe 1 in 200 habitual users has the ability to just 'up and quit'. The rest suffer, because they cannot set up enough potential in their brain to make the decision to quit - to overcome the inherent need to keep using. Therefore, they 'choose' to keep using, but calling that a choice isn't really fair. Rats, buttons, laboratories, and overdoses, right?

On the other end, you have things like hummers, , marijuana, shopping, spicy chicken sandwiches, and french fries.

Do you actually have time to accept this act of fellatio, and not be late? Do you really NEED that camel hair sports jacket? Why did you buy it? You know french fries are bad for you, possibly one of the worst foods in existence. Why do you continually get the 'meal' instead of just the sandwich?

Essentially, the term addiction can be applied to any number of situations - and it attempts to assign the same level of 'stigma' (for lack of a better word... import? seriousness?) to each application.

Can you be addicted to marijuana? I guess according to the strict definition of 'addiction', you can. Is it the same as being 'addicted' to cocaine or heroin? Of course not. This is why people who support the legalization and use of marijuana take such offense at the application of 'addiction' to the use of marijuana. I'm addicted to sleep, free oxygen, proteins, carbs, sucrose, caffeine, etc. (And nicotine, but I will readily admit that I am a weak-willed little bitch when it comes to smokes. I know they're bad for me, but I can't seem to focus the willpower - this is my failing.)

-3

posted 07-21-2001 12:46            

The real reason it makes sense to distinguish between addiction and compulsion is because, due to the chemical properties which create a physiological withdrawal syndrome, you can properly call the substance itself addictive.

Heroin itself is addictive - even if you hate the shit, you're going to go through a withdrawal syndrome if you quit. If you don't like RPGs or cake or marijuana, though, nothing's going to happen to you when you quit.

posted 07-22-2001 00:08            

In addition to the reference to actual physiological dependency, there is the following: The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.

I think the real difference here lies in the chance of addiction upon use. For heroin, I'm assuming it's 99.5% or greater, while for shopping, RPGs, chocolate, or blowjobs, the numbers are lower.

The distinction, again, is in the difference between property of substance as opposed to property of self.

Unfortunately, psychology is more probabilities than science - there are no hard measurements for the psyche, like there are for physical substances. You can point to heroin (refined) or opium poppy plants and say with absolute certainty what properties they have. In order to even be called 'heroin', the substance has to meet predetermined standards and measures. There are no such clearly defined scales for the human mind, only case histories and precedent, essentially. One man's pastime could easily be a bona fide addiction for another, in my opinion. This is where the problem lies - judging EVERYONE by a few weak people. Case in point, prohibition. A few idiots in towns across America get in fights every saturday night, so the natural response is to declare this evil substance, alcohol, as contraband. Never mind the fact that the majority of the population uses it in moderation, or without harm to others.

Anyway, back to page 1: No, I don't personally think Marijuana is addictive, according to the standard interpretation of 'addiction'. Someone with no money and no pot might repeatedly (and loudly) lament that fact, but someone with no money and no cigarettes is damn sure gonna be scrounging for pennies, or selling blood, or some shit.

Now I want to REALLY editorialize. Fuck the damn Nanny State. I don't wear a seat belt. How does that hurt YOU, John Q Public? While I personally don't, some of friends enjoy an occasional toke. How does that hurt YOU, John Q Public? Etc etc etc.

Here in SC, the seat belt law was recently changed. Previously, it was considered a secondary offense, meaning a motorist could not be pulled over if a law enforcement official noticed he or she wasn't wearing a seat belt. One can only be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt if they were stopped for some other infraction.

This is funny, because late last year and earlier this year, SC ran a huge 'Click it or Ticket' campaign, which set up roadblocks and police checkpoints with the express intent of verifying that John Q Public did indeed have his seatbelt on. No seat belt = ticket.

Excuse me? POLICE FUCKING CHECK POINTS? I don't remember the Politburo pulling off some sort of time travel stunt and seizing power. Get the fuck out of my mostly law-abiding face, officer.

What's REALLY funny is the fact that the state AG said any tickets written as a result of this campaign would most likely be thrown out if the accused pressed it in court, because of the nature of the law.

Now that has changed. For children, not wearing a seat belt, or having the proper sort of car seat is now a primary offense for the motorist. Our illustrious POS liberal governer also made the statement 'Adults are next.'

Then he said 'Fast Food is next.'
Then he said 'Bungee jumping is next.'
Then he said 'Unprotected sex is next.'
Then he said... well ok, he didn't say those last three, but where do you draw the line?

Damn this is long, but I sort of got fired up here. =P Bottom line, I hold this to be true:

"Any action by a citizen that does not harm the person, property, or freedom of another citizen shall not be legislated away."

If only more lawmakers would adhere to this.