What does an addiction feel like?

[goldberry]

I think being able to detach from our "feelings" is a wonderful skill and I wish I were better at it.  Who cares how I "really feel" about drinking. It's stupid for ME and I'm not doing it.  Why analyze it to death? 

 

This may work for you and for people like you.  It doesn't work for everyone.  For some, if they refuse to confront the feelings they will never be able to get control of the problem. 

 

Also, learning about how some addictions affect the brain, the concept of it being a "choice" no longer fits the facts.  When your brain is altered, are your "choices" the same as someone whose brain is normal and healthy?  There is a wide scale of what choices are really available.

[TranquilMind]

This may work for you and for people like you.  It doesn't work for everyone.  For some, if they refuse to confront the feelings they will never be able to get control of the problem. 

 

Also, learning about how some addictions affect the brain, the concept of it being a "choice" no longer fits the facts.  When your brain is altered, are your "choices" the same as someone whose brain is normal and healthy?  There is a wide scale of what choices are really available.

I'm a big believer in ignoring stuff and it will go away.  Analyzing your childhood and how you feel about everything will drive you nuts.  Occasional flashes of insight happen anyway, when you live long enough.  You incorporate the wisdom of the lesson and move on. 

 

I'm a pretty happy person, overall, and I'm getting up there in age.  When I make wise decisions, things go better.  When I don't, they suck. It's really that simple.  The brain will fix itself if you have inflicted stuff on it, to a large degree. It is indeed a choice for a long, long time, until you create the difficult habit to break.  We need to take responsiblity for that to change anything. 

 

My mom was a very happy person with a crappy background.  It worked for her all her life.  I'm running with it.

[fairfarmhand]

 

 

 

 

Personally, I'm not bothered if people call it a habit, coping mechanism, or addiction, but it is a pathway ingrained in my brain that - without outside help - would lead to negative consequences for me and those around me. It isn't as destructive as my parents alcoholism, but I think that is more to having support in my life than the fact it is a non-consumable. I think limiting addiction to drugs demonizes those drugs and addicts (and having had family denied methadone he used as a painkiller for advanced stage cancer because hospital staff viewed him as a drug addict, this demonization can affect everyone and even those who are addicted do not deserve that) and dismisses how powerful our brain is in finding ways for us to cope in the worst environments even to our own and others detriment and only through acknowledging that do I think we will have real support and change for people.

 

Oh goodness. I don't care if a late stage cancer patient IS addicted to morphine or whatever pain meds he or she needs. They are hurting, give them medicine. It seems cruel to withhold them for that reason.

 

That's something totally different than someone using them who is in normal health.

 

 

[fraidycat]

That's something totally different than someone using them who is in normal health.

What is "normal health", though? Just physical? Or does it include mental and emotional health as well? Because most drug users aren't using because they feel their life is all sunshine and rainbows, no matter what we observe from the outside.

 

Not that I'm advocating anyone to use drugs illegally, but how can we (as lay people) quantify who is or is not of "normal health" and justify who should get the meds vs. not.

[goldberry]

What is "normal health", though? Just physical? Or does it include mental and emotional health as well? Because most drug users aren't using because they feel their life is all sunshine and rainbows, no matter what we observe from the outside.

 

Not that I'm advocating anyone to use drugs, but how can we (as lay people) quantify who is or is not of "normal health" and justify who should get the meds vs. not.

 

I think terminal illness qualifies for meds under any circumstances.

 

ETA, also have a mom who takes methodone for moderate to severe arthritis in pretty much every joint in her body.  She has had arthritis for about 30 years.  She wouldn't be moving without methadone.  It allows her to keep functioning and actually makes her less "goofy" than other drugs.

[TranquilMind]

Oh goodness. I don't care if a late stage cancer patient IS addicted to morphine or whatever pain meds he or she needs. They are hurting, give them medicine. It seems cruel to withhold them for that reason.

 

That's something totally different than someone using them who is in normal health.

Sure, that's entirely different!

Those (unkind name) people at the hospital when one of my relatives was dying brought this up..."Well, she might get addicted, and we can't have that!"

 

Ugh.  The stupidity.  Who cares. 

[fraidycat]

I think terminal illness qualifies for meds under any circumstances.

 

ETA, also have a mom who takes methodone for moderate to severe arthritis in pretty much every joint in her body. She has had arthritis for about 30 years. She wouldn't be moving without methadone. It allows her to keep functioning and actually makes her less "goofy" than other drugs.

I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I was trying to figure out *who else* qualifies as "drug-worthy" vs. "normal healthy" (whatever that is).

 

I should have said not advocating for "illegal drug" usage. I will edit my post to hopefully be clearer.

[goldberry]

But fraidy, you'd be surprised how the general attitude affects these choices.  My FIL had end stage cancer.  He didn't want to take methadone because it's a "drug user's drug".  When he finally took it, it helped him *so much*.  He said, "Well, that was stupid of me." for waiting so long.

 

But it's not just him really, it's a general attitude and lack of education about drug use.

[8circles]

Ok. But who of us didn't quit while getting pregnant or at least while knowingly pregnant?

 

We do it because it is best for the baby, and deal with a headache.

Ummm..... Me? One or two cups of coffee a day is perfectly safe during pregnancy. So are small amounts of alcohol, BTW.

[fairfarmhand]

What is "normal health", though? Just physical? Or does it include mental and emotional health as well? Because most drug users aren't using because they feel their life is all sunshine and rainbows, no matter what we observe from the outside.

 

Not that I'm advocating anyone to use drugs illegally, but how can we (as lay people) quantify who is or is not of "normal health" and justify who should get the meds vs. not.

 

Actually, I should have stated "those with non-terminal illnesses"

 

Sorry bout that.

[fairfarmhand]

But fraidy, you'd be surprised how the general attitude affects these choices.  My FIL had end stage cancer.  He didn't want to take methadone because it's a "drug user's drug".  When he finally took it, it helped him *so much*.  He said, "Well, that was stupid of me." for waiting so long.

 

But it's not just him really, it's a general attitude and lack of education about drug use.

 

Isn't that sad?

 

MY fil has late stage cancer and was in terrible pain for a long time until they got the right meds. I told my dh I didn't give flying fig if his dad(who is a preacher and one of the most solid Christians I've ever known) WAS addicted to morphine. So freaking what?

 

He (my fil) also has hesitated mentioning that he and his wife get their healthcare through ACA. The people they know would be scandalized.

"

[momof4babes]

I find the differing perspectives in this thread interesting.

 

I struggle with my thoughts on addiction.

 

I am a former smoker who has gone back to it several times over the years. My husband has dealt with alcohol and pain pill addiction.

 

On smoking vs pain pills/heavy alcohol use...

Smoking has nothing on them. Quitting smoking does not put you at risk of seizures, it does not make you vomit, or have the shakes.

There are some very real, and even dangerous withdrawal symptoms with many addictions.

 

Smoking is more mental than anything. Yes, you may physically feel a bit tired for the first while, and have the knee jerk reaction to smoke when you usually would, but that's about it. The mental addiction is when you feel like you are depriving yourself.

 

I am the person who would feel panicked if I only had 4-5 smokes left in my pack.

I was the smoker who had to smoke first thing in the morning,and last thing at night. As much as I hated smoking, I still felt the relief of going out and having a smoke. It was my break, and my only time to myself.

 

Yet,I'm also the person that has quit cold turkey 2 times, for years at a time. Once I Made the decision to quit, I stuck it out, knowing that it would become my new normal.

 

The mindset that you have while quitting is probably the most important thing. I actually think that all the talk of how hard it is, is detrimental to those trying to quit. All of the quit smoking commercials drove me nuts for the first while. Allen Carrs book "easy way" is a great resource.

 

All that said, I'm still an addict. Each of the times I started again, I was just going to have one.

Once when having a few drinks at a wedding, once when dealing with a stressful family issue.

Once I had that one, it was just like riding a bike.

Starting slowly again, but still ending up as a full time smoker for a year each time.

 

I also have to really watch myself with time on the Internet. I could read threads, and interesting articles for hours to the detriment of other things.

Even books that I can't put down, and get crabby when I'm forced to stop reading.

Is this an addiction? Not physical,but mentally?

 

My husband injured himself badly before we had kids. He was taking pain pills prescribed to him and ended up liking how they made him feel. Once the prescription was gone, he was seeking them elsewhere. It continued to spiral out of control, until he knew it had to stop. He tried to quit, and found himself horribly sick, with shakes and chills. He had to go to detox, and then an away rehab program. He hasn't touched them since.

 

By contrast, I take the same pills he started with for severe period pain. I take 8-10 every month to function. I have been taking them for 6 years, and will never become addicted to them. I don't like the feeling I get when I take a bit too much, I don't like feeling loopy.

Same drug, same physical addictive potential, different outcome.

 

He has also struggled with alcohol over the years.

The way our society views it makes it difficult for those who struggle. It's seen as a normal thing that everyone does, and it's everywhere.

You can't watch any sporting event, without many commercials glorifying it. You can't really watch any adult TV without seeing them. ( I personally think alcohol ads should go the way of the cigarette ad)

As an addict, this is hard to deal with.

I on the other hand don't like to drink, and could care less if I ever had another drink.

 

Do I have a less addictive personality than my husband? Do we simply have different preference of addiction?

Do our perceptions ( pleasure vs necessity) of substances indicate whether a person will become addicted?

 

 

I know all of this is about as clear as mud, but these are my thoughts on addiction.

[Bluegoat]

I think that a big part of it is that, aside from the physical craving or tension that builds up in relation to the chemical changes in the body, a lot of our thinking is actually not rational.  We think it is, but most of the time, a lot of it is more an intuitive sense of things.  It's really easy for us to make justifications or convince ourselves of things that are in fact, pretty much bull-pucky.  In fact often we don't even have to convince ourselves.

 

This is something I've noticed in all the really serious addicts I've known - long term addicts who often have multiple addictions - it goes beyond just the physical response, their ability to be rational about teh source of the problem, even to see it, becomes warped.  And I think that is not just something that is a per-requisit, but it actually develops in many cases as a result of the addiction.  Somehow the ability to be conscious about thought processes becomes compromised.

 

I think that a bad habit is in some ways similar, and can give some insight, but usually doesn't seem have quite the same mental effects.  For example I am defiantly physically addicted to caffeine, and i get a headache if I give it up, but I don't have any of the strong emotional effects from taking it or not taking it, and I don't have any bad effects on my life from either either.

 

I also think some people suffer the physical effects less.  My grandmother often smoked, just because people did and it was a social thing and I guess something to do, but she never had physical withdrawal symptoms and would not bother if there was any reason like she wanted to save money or she was feeling unwell or whatever, she didn't even think about it unless it was in front of her.

 

 

[Joanne]

http://www.joanneketch.com/SubstanceAbuseandRecoveryPages.en.html

 

Some thoughts in response to this thread:

 

1. Nicotine addiction is distinct and unique from other substances in the way nicotine effects the brain and body.

2. I try very hard to not trivialize addiction by over using the word (similar to the way "Nazi" gets mis-used.)

3. Building on #3, I do not believe "everyone is addicted to something" or that "everyone has a crutch."

4. Addiction is a disease - specifically a malfunctioning brain. Without adequate treatment, the disease progresses or the person relapses.

5. It is not caused by childhood, trauma, stress, etc although those things can exacerbate the progression or relapse.

6. Process (behavioral) addictions exist, and also have a *physiological* basis.

7. Addiction is not manifest (or overcome) due to willpower, strength, moral character. It is overcome when the *brain* has been sufficiently treated and changed to change the chemicals and neural structure.

 

[SporkUK]

With my family member, he literally went into hospital with a hospice doctor who had all the paperwork - including showing how this cancer was eating through his spine and sciatic nerve - to get treatment for another bout of pneumonia among other things and he was denied methadone by hospital staff because 'that's for addicts'. This happened multiple times to the point that he made everyone swear never to take him to hospital again. Many others suffered as he did because, as a wider society, the rhetoric is that those who use said stuff just need to buck up, just need to realize how bad it is and quit.  My partner, who has mechanical damage to his spine and several joints and is never not in pain, has been denied pain meds (and was once given sugar pills) even when he has recorded history with multiple surgeries for his issues because of this view - he just needs to toughen up and do without or he's just after the drugs. Our - meaning wider society - view of addiction hurts everyone. We cannot help people with addictions or anyone else who needs help with how things are now. Individually we can all see it is wrong but the wider system is set up to reinforce very damaging ideas. 

 

Personally, I've never known anything that gets better by ignoring or not talking about it. Silencing has only for me helped those who cause pain to others. People love to dismiss, tell people not to talk about the pain they are in. I am a survivor of child abuse, I was told repeatedly how I was not to talk about it, how no one was interested, that I was the problem, that I just need to be strong and get over it and 'be normal', that if I stopped talking about it it would stop hurting me. I internalized all of it and it led to me being abused by medical professionals and so many others because I learned it was a shame to me if something happened to me and it only made me self view myself that I needed my computer and my work to be a worthy person and that it would protect me as no one can hurt me through a screen. I avoided talking about it for years - and I woke up with painful nightmares, I would blurt the randomest stuff while I had flashback, random smells would send me into a panic that I tried to hide for years through gritted teeth and tears and more. I was constantly holding on to pain because I thought I would only get free of it if I tried to ignore it. 

 

I only actually started to break free of that pain when I openly admitted I am a survivor of child abuse, I spent my childhood living in fear of a violent death which means on bad nights I still stare at the light around the door feeling that sense of doom, and my PTSD and attachment to my computer is an understandable way that my brain has learned to try to help me survive and cope. Knowing and acknowledging my brain means I can get the support I need to work past. I spent hours earlier this week working up the courage to take one sip of mead -- I left home over a decade and that alcohol smell is still in my brain associated with pain. That one sip was a victory for me that I only got because I was open about it and got support from discussing it. I don't think I will ever really enjoy it, but relearning how to cope with it around and to not see it as a threat will give me more and only possible if I can talk about it. 

 

We have very strong evidence in animals on how environment affects addiction. Until we - as a wider society - view addiction as something beyond something we can control and power through, as something beyond a failure, we won't see how much pain our current environments cause people and how our brain works so hard to cope and survive in those environments. That is why threads where we can openly discuss what it feels like are good and important. Society tells me it is all about highs, but I have never felt that way. My brain associates my computer and work with normality, with safety, with survival, with hope, with being able to cope with threats that I sincerely believed would kill me (I still get surprised that I survived to adulthood), and the accomplishment that that was for me. I feel normal and like myself whereas I had to relearn as an adult to get that feeling elsewhere and only did when I could talk about and get support and set up my environment to help me do so. Not everyone can get that, many get the messages I spent my entire childhood hearing or worse - like my parents - have people actively cover up and/or support the destructive behaviour because talking about the harm was seen as a shame and a no-no to admit and get support. 

[flyingaway]

I never understood addiction either until I had problems with a prescription. It wasn't that my mind wanted it, but my body did. I was desperate for it, ransacking the medicine cupboard in the middle of the night, trying to find another pill or something like it even though I knew that wasn't possible. It was horrible and made me much, much more sympathetic to addictions. I had to be tapered off that medication over several weeks.

[Bluegoat]

As far as the issue of calling regular things addictions, I tend to think it is a bit like other kinds of mental illnesses.  A lot of people from time to time have these kinds of weird ideas or behaviors that seem to take hold in their minds, that are similar to what is seen in some mental illnesses.  they become a bit obsessional, or a bit paranoid, or whatever.  But they don't tip over into a more long term or extreme state, and they generally maintain some perspective on their behavior, and it doesn't have a strong negative effect on their lives.

 

When things go wonky in the brain, it isn't going to be totally different than when things go right, its working with the same sets of structures and chemicals and so on.

 

I tend to think of addiction as being similar.  Beyond just physical dependence which is related but not quite identical, its normal for human beings to develop particular sorts of behaviors with rewarding substances or activities.  Our bodies are made to respond that way for a good reason, its advantageous for our survival.  It's when the behaviors are no longer advantageous that we tend to think there is a problem.  That is usually because the benefits no longer outweigh the negative outcomes of the behavior. 

 

That could be for health reasons - whatever the benefits of smoking crack, the health and social effects are comparatively pretty bad, and very difficult to overcome.  With a drug that is doing something for us - controlling pain say, we make a judgement about the benefits vs the problems, and try in various ways to minimize the potential bad outcomes.  The same is true of behavior addictions - like abnormal control of diet, or gambling or video games, or porn addiction - they are a result of normal responses in the brain being used in ways that are damaging, in some cases they are actually purposefully manipulated to do so.  They become problem, an addiction, to the extent that they begin to affect a person's life negatively, and the seriousness is related to those effects, and the difficulty in overcoming them and any long-term after-effects.

 

This is why things like drinking coffee, even when there is chemical dependence, and a habit, aren't normally thought of addictions - they don't in most cases cause serious problems in people's lives. 

 

The complication I think is deciding which kinds of activities or substances are so prone to causing problems they need to be restricted, and how best to minimize the harm when addiction happens anyway.  And, of course, the nature of addiction is such that people often look at what is in fact a serious problem  for them (say alcoholism), and interpret it as something closer to coffee addiction.  And that is probably a little easier when a particular thing is seen as socially acceptable.

[TranquilMind]

Ummm..... Me? One or two cups of coffee a day is perfectly safe during pregnancy. So are small amounts of alcohol, BTW.

Well, when I gave birth, that was pretty forbidden, especially for those of us over 35 (and that amount is less than a mug...not an amount I was going to consume, as I am a big coffee drinker). 

 

Could be "generally safe" but not a good idea for me, and no one I knew at the time continued during pregnancy.  It just wasn't done in our circle of largely health nuts, I guess. 

[8circles]

Well, when I gave birth, that was pretty forbidden, especially for those of us over 35 (and that amount is less than a mug...not an amount I was going to consume, as I am a big coffee drinker). 

 

Could be "generally safe" but not a good idea for me, and no one I knew at the time continued during pregnancy.  It just wasn't done in our circle of largely health nuts, I guess. 

 

OK.  Im in my 40's and half-hippy.  Very few pregnant mothers in my different circles (across states & countries, church friends, homeschool friends, baseball friends, etc) gave up either coffee or alcohol 100% during pregnancy.

[ktgrok]

OK.  Im in my 40's and half-hippy.  Very few pregnant mothers in my different circles (across states & countries, church friends, homeschool friends, baseball friends, etc) gave up either coffee or alcohol 100% during pregnancy.

 

Yup, in crunchy circles here and nope, never gave up coffee. Just cut back. My 9 and 10lb babies don't seem stunted :)

[Word Nerd]

Over 35 here as well and was never told nor did I ever read that coffee was verboten during pregnancy. I didn't drink it anyway because the smell made me sick, but I didn't avoid caffeine entirely.

 

As for the notion that it's an exaggeration to refer to caffeine addiction as an addiction, research says otherwise.

http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/02/07/caffeine-really-is-a-drug

[TranquilMind]

OK.  Im in my 40's and half-hippy.  Very few pregnant mothers in my different circles (across states & countries, church friends, homeschool friends, baseball friends, etc) gave up either coffee or alcohol 100% during pregnancy.

double post

 

[fraidycat]

As far as the issue of calling regular things addictions, I tend to think it is a bit like other kinds of mental illnesses. A lot of people from time to time have these kinds of weird ideas or behaviors that seem to take hold in their minds, that are similar to what is seen in some mental illnesses. they become a bit obsessional, or a bit paranoid, or whatever. But they don't tip over into a more long term or extreme state, and they generally maintain some perspective on their behavior, and it doesn't have a strong negative effect on their lives.

 

When things go wonky in the brain, it isn't going to be totally different than when things go right, its working with the same sets of structures and chemicals and so on.

 

I tend to think of addiction as being similar. Beyond just physical dependence which is related but not quite identical, its normal for human beings to develop particular sorts of behaviors with rewarding substances or activities. Our bodies are made to respond that way for a good reason, its advantageous for our survival. It's when the behaviors are no longer advantageous that we tend to think there is a problem. That is usually because the benefits no longer outweigh the negative outcomes of the behavior.

 

That could be for health reasons - whatever the benefits of smoking crack, the health and social effects are comparatively pretty bad, and very difficult to overcome. With a drug that is doing something for us - controlling pain say, we make a judgement about the benefits vs the problems, and try in various ways to minimize the potential bad outcomes. The same is true of behavior addictions - like abnormal control of diet, or gambling or video games, or porn addiction - they are a result of normal responses in the brain being used in ways that are damaging, in some cases they are actually purposefully manipulated to do so. They become problem, an addiction, to the extent that they begin to affect a person's life negatively, and the seriousness is related to those effects, and the difficulty in overcoming them and any long-term after-effects.

 

This is why things like drinking coffee, even when there is chemical dependence, and a habit, aren't normally thought of addictions - they don't in most cases cause serious problems in people's lives.

 

The complication I think is deciding which kinds of activities or substances are so prone to causing problems they need to be restricted, and how best to minimize the harm when addiction happens anyway. And, of course, the nature of addiction is such that people often look at what is in fact a serious problem for them (say alcoholism), and interpret it as something closer to coffee addiction. And that is probably a little easier when a particular thing is seen as socially acceptable.

An addiction is an addiction, whether or not it is a problem or detrimental to one's life. It does not have to cause noticeable harm.

 

A physiological or psychological pattern is not dependent on our social structure. Of course we assign social values to acceptable vs. non-acceptable. There is also a continuum - not every person will be the same level of addicted/ or at all addicted to something. Some are terrible, life-altering, and incredibly harmful. Some equal a headache or bad mood when a the addict doesn't get their fix.

 

I find it incredibly unhelpful, even harmful, to write these things off as "not really addictions" until harm is caused or unless it's drugs and alcohol. Recognizing addictive behaviors and patterns to minor (normal, everybody does it) things may very well help the self-aware stay away from the harder stuff before it becomes a problem.

 

I encourage every person who reads this thread to educate themselves on dopamine and other hormones, the brain receptors, and how those receptors are affected or altered by various stimuli - including screens. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt.

[Joanne]

An addiction is an addiction, whether or not it is a problem or detrimental to one's life. It does not have to cause noticeable harm.

 

A physiological or psychological pattern is not dependent on our social structure. Of course we assign social values to acceptable vs. non-acceptable. There is also a continuum - not every person will be the same level of addicted/ or at all addicted to something. Some are terrible, life-altering, and incredibly harmful. Some equal a headache or bad mood when a the addict doesn't get their fix.

 

I find it incredibly unhelpful, even harmful, to write these things off as "not really addictions" until harm is caused or unless it's drugs and alcohol. Recognizing addictive behaviors and patterns to minor (normal, everybody does it) things may very well help the self-aware stay away from the harder stuff before it becomes a problem.

 

I encourage every person who reads this thread to educate themselves on dopamine and other hormones, the brain receptors, and how those receptors are affected or altered by various stimuli - including screens. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt.

To be fair to those of us who must use adopted clinical resources, "harm" is indeed criteria.

 

While I so cometely agree that recognizing negative patterns is essential - and brain chemistry can be involved - caffeine is excluded as a substance use disorder is the DSM.

 

"We" do not have sufficient resource or response to screen and game process addictions (yet).

 

I am not sure I can get behind your paragraph 3 in terms of substance abuse addiction.

[Sharon77]

I find it very hard to believe you've never had an addiction of any kind—not to caffeine, sugar, the Internet, or anything at all?

 Hi,

Sorry, I just got back on and saw that this thread got responses.

I don't think I am addicted to anything, but I guess I could be wrong.

No, I'm not addicted to anything. Including the internet as evidenced by my spotty presence on these boards. :)

[Sharon77]

Thank you for your responses. It's all so overwhelming to read so many vast experiences. I'm guessing I'm not going to be able to fully figure it out! :)

My heart grieves for people who struggle so much during life. Life is hard enough as it is!

I think there must be serious brain changes...now to figure out how not to pass it onto the next generation...

[Bluegoat]

An addiction is an addiction, whether or not it is a problem or detrimental to one's life. It does not have to cause noticeable harm.

 

A physiological or psychological pattern is not dependent on our social structure. Of course we assign social values to acceptable vs. non-acceptable. There is also a continuum - not every person will be the same level of addicted/ or at all addicted to something. Some are terrible, life-altering, and incredibly harmful. Some equal a headache or bad mood when a the addict doesn't get their fix.

 

I find it incredibly unhelpful, even harmful, to write these things off as "not really addictions" until harm is caused or unless it's drugs and alcohol. Recognizing addictive behaviors and patterns to minor (normal, everybody does it) things may very well help the self-aware stay away from the harder stuff before it becomes a problem.

 

I encourage every person who reads this thread to educate themselves on dopamine and other hormones, the brain receptors, and how those receptors are affected or altered by various stimuli - including screens. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt.

 

That is not generally how addiction is understood in the world of addictions counseling or managing addictive problems.  Within very specific contexts it can have a wider meaning such as research into chemical effects, but generally, when we talk about addiction in most contexts, that does not apply - we are talking about it as a physical and social problem. 

 

I am at the moment chemically addicted to caffeine.  If I stop cold turkey, I will have withdraw symptoms.  On the other hand, it has less effect on my health than many other things I do, it doesn't affect my life, I can easily give it up if i want to, and I don't even have much emotional attachment.  That is, there is no negative impact.  It's very difficult to describe something as  a pathology under those circumstances - its just a normal response of the body to a particular chemical. 

 

I'm not sure why you think I believe only drugs can be addictive - I am quite sure that we are at the moment looking down the barrel of a serious social problem with video game and internet addiction in the younger generations, and likely porn addiction as well.  There again is a physiological response that creates a significant problem for people and which they cannot in many cases overcome when they want to. 

 

The social context does make a difference to harm. People who are unable to overcome an addiction but are able to access or use in a way that does not create serious social problems are generally much better off, and can even lead totally normal lives in some cases.  That's little different than anyone else who takes a medication regularly to maintain a normal life, who we don't tend to call addicts at all though they are in fact chemically dependent.  I agree it is not a good idea to be blase about substance abuse on the basis that it can be managed effectively for some people, and general awareness about the possibility of addiction is a good thing, but calling every person who habitually has  a few cups of coffee an addict isn't going to convince people that addiction is something to be worried about.

[Tohru]

I'm addicted to the internet and am just now realizing how deeply it affects my life. Yes, I'm using now.

 

I've tried to stop, but how do you just stop using the internet? I have to use it for work. 

So how do you stop drinking when there is a liquor store around the corner? My friend drinks too much and too often, but she doesn't use the internet. Once she asked me, 'how can you sit there on the computer when you're house is a mess?' Her house is clean.

 

It is escape.

From what, I don't know. Maybe the current situation, the present moment, which isn't bad, but I'd have to look up and actually deal with the consequences of my internet addiction.

[Bluegoat]

....

 

While I so cometely agree that recognizing negative patterns is essential - and brain chemistry can be involved - caffeine is excluded as a substance use disorder is the DSM....

 

So, what is the basis of the exclusion?  Because it is true that people have physical effects from caffeine and it isn't food - what is it they consider to be missing?

[Joanne]

Thank you for your responses. It's all so overwhelming to read so many vast experiences. I'm guessing I'm not going to be able to fully figure it out! :)

My heart grieves for people who struggle so much during life. Life is hard enough as it is!

I think there must be serious brain changes...now to figure out how not to pass it onto the next generation...

You can't prevent the genetic predisposition. It is dangerous to think that you can model "moderation" because addiction is a disease, it isn't created by behavior but behavior (drinking, using) is the symptom of the disease.

 

Age of first use is an important factor of disease develment and to some degree parents can control that.

 

Claudia Black is a good author for family issues.

[Joanne]

So, what is the basis of the exclusion? Because it is true that people have physical effects from caffeine and it isn't food - what is it they consider to be missing?

Life impact.

 

My "addiction" to caffeine, for example, isn't life impacting.

[Joanne]

I'm addicted to the internet and am just now realizing how deeply it affects my life. Yes, I'm using now.

 

I've tried to stop, but how do you just stop using the internet? I have to use it for work.

So how do you stop drinking when there is a liquor store around the corner? My friend drinks too much and too often, but she doesn't use the internet. Once she asked me, 'how can you sit there on the computer when you're house is a mess?' Her house is clean.

 

It is escape.

From what, I don't know. Maybe the current situation, the present moment, which isn't bad, but I'd have to look up and actually deal with the consequences of my internet addiction.

Over use of the Internet is often a symptom of depression.

 

Proximity to behavior/alcohol can be a factor in triggers but effective and evidence based *treatment* will change the brain so that the triggers don't result in use.

[ondreeuh]

So, what is the basis of the exclusion?  Because it is true that people have physical effects from caffeine and it isn't food - what is it they consider to be missing?

 

Joanne said that caffeine was excluded from being an abused substance. I am assuming that this is a clinical perspective that looks at the need for treatment. No one goes to rehab for caffeine addiction, right? But it's a matter of semantics. Someone who takes lots of caffeine supplements can definitely have ill health effects and even die. I could argue that they are abusing caffeine. We all know people can become addicted to caffeine and have withdrawal symptoms - but it's not clinically treated the same way. I don't think people's caffeine addiction causes them to abuse the substance to the point that it causes harm (presumably people who abuse it do so for other reasons).