Should a person be considered an addict ...

[wildhorses]

if they are a contributing member of society? Why or why not. Discuss.
:popcorn::beer:

[Bassic]

1. Being an addict has nothing to do with your contribution to society

There are many addictions which will interfere with one's ability to contribute and to function, but others will not.

[wildhorses]

3. what is your definition of an addict?

Where do you draw the line?

[Bassic]

7. Well, whenever you absolutely need something on a regular basis, whether

a substance, a certain type or behavior, whatever, that is in some way destructive to yourself, I think you're an addict. I, for example, am addicted to nicotine.

[billyskank]

11. Does it have to be destructive?

I hear of people being addicted to exercise, for example.

[wildhorses]

12. could not the overuse of exercise be destructive to the person

as in: they use exercise as a mean to escape from developing personal and meaningful relationships:shrug:

[Bassic]

14. Well in this case, occupying one's time with exercice is simply

the means to get to one's ends. The exercice itself is not destructive, it is the persons fear of engagement that is.

[wildhorses]

20. aren't all addictions merely an excuse to hide...

the "fear of engagement":shrug:

[billyskank]

22. I used to be addicted to nicotine

I don't think I was hiding from anything. I just kept on feeling a need to smoke another ciggie.

[Bassic]

28. I agree,

That's how I feel about it.

[wildhorses]

32. okay, let's go with that line of reasoning...

in the need of smoking said ciggie could not your time have been better used in the pursuit of contributing to society:shrug:

[billyskank]

34. All ten minutes of it?

Why the need to redefine addiction in terms of societal or destructive effect? You and bassic are both doing this. What's going on? Addiction is mere compulsion.

[Bassic]

40. That is true I think.

I was just adding other elements for the sake of arguing. The fact is that while the very base of an addiction is compulsion, it is it's ultimately destructive effect which makes people classify it as an addiction, in most cases anyway.

[wildhorses]

42. I dunno...it just struck me on the way home...perhaps

a couple of conversations between friends has got me to thinking...

1. People at work who smoke...take more breaks than those who don't.

2. the term "addictive personality"

[Bassic]

45. Taking breaks is good.

Unless you're spending half the day smoking. It allows you to clear your head.

[Bassic]

37. Can contribution to society be quantified in that way?

I am of the opinion that it can not. Even the best of us has to take a break once in a while.

[wildhorses]

46. taking a break is one thing but, the pursuit of cigs is

a CONSTANT...constantly on the lookout for buying them, making sure you have all the accoutremments such as lighters, ashtrays. Rearranging your schedule to make sure you GET the cigarette. The THINKING about the last cigarette...the NEXT cigaretter, making sure you don't RUN OUT of cigarettes etc....the whole lifestyle is VERY time consuming and therefore cost INEFFECTIVE, a drain on production and a DRAIN on society as the cost of healthcare SOARS trying to care for people ravaged by the damage done by their little 10 minute "habit"...

[Bassic]

48. When you compress it all into three lines of text is does seem exhausting

but in reality it is no more time consuming or stressful than making sure you've got enough to eat in the house. At leas to me it's not.

[wildhorses]

51. remember we are talking about when it becomes addictive

not just smoking every now and then


this is the thing about addiction...of anything...it is ALL consuming....it becomes the person

[Bassic]

54. Well I'm quite addicted to nicotine, and it doesen't work that way for me

I always considered nicotine addiction to be destructive only because of the obisous health implications. Yes it has happened that I've been irritable because I didn't have smokes, but all in all, I really don't spend all my time thinking about it. Like I said, to me it's the same thing as making sure I have enough food. And the same goes for pretty much all of the smokers I know.

[wildhorses]

62. well, maybe so...perhaps you can smoke on the job and

therefore "going to smoke" is not this HUGE production like it is where I work:shrug:

[Bassic]

64. Huge production? I just head outside, have a smoke and come back in.

And nobody gives a rats ass. Do they give smokers trouble where you work?

[wildhorses]

71. I work in a hospital...about 300 beds, 7 stories.

We went "smoke-free" February 14th of this year. It is no longer allowed anywhere on the property. Smokers now have to "clock out" and leave the premises in order to indulge...

[Bassic]

73. Really? Wow.

In hospitals where I live, they can still go out and smoke, they just can't stay right next to the doors. And that goes for both the patients and the employees.

They have, however, banned smoking by anyone, anywhere on school property (any school in the province).

[Bassic]

13. I think so yes, because otherwise everything becomes an addiction.

We're all addicted to sleep and food for example.

[billyskank]

16. I think food, sleep and oxygen are not addictions because

of their necessity. Here I am referring to true necessity, in that without them you will die, rather than the 'necessity' of an addict for the object of his/her addiction.

[Bassic]

18. Well, I agree, but since we have to put the line somewhere,

I think that destructive behaviors would be addictions. Something that is usually not destructive, like gaming for example, can become destructive if the person neglects important aspects of their life for, like getting a job for example. Work, can also become destructive, if you neglect the rest of your life for it.


A behavior becomes an addiction if it is destructive, and you can't easily stop yourself from doing it, IMHO.

[billyskank]

21. So

gaming is not an addiction if it has not yet caused a problem in ones life?

I take a simpler view: I would consider it an addiction if the gamer simply cannot give it up, regardless of whether it has yet caused harm or not.

[Bassic]

25. The point is that gaming can become an addiction, but is not necessarily

an addiction. Just like drinking may or may not be an addiction. If for example a person enjoys to go to the casino once in a while to play poker, that's not an addiction. It becomes an addiction when you can't stop doing it and you're blowing away loads of money.

[billyskank]

31. What about a rich person who Can't Stop Drinking?

Say they can easily afford to blow away the money, and they have an indestructible liver. Imagine that their drinking cannot harm them at all, and yet they still Can't Stop Doing It. Is that not still an addiction?

Wikipedia says: "addiction is an uncontrollable compulsion to repeat a behavior regardless of its consequences. A person who is addicted is sometimes called an addict."

dictionary.com says: "compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance," and: "The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something."

Webster's says: "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." (my emphasis)

Oxford says: "the fact or condition of being addicted." :eyes: For 'addicted,' says: "1 physically dependent on a particular substance. 2 devoted to a particular interest or activity."

Only one of these definitions mentions the requirement of harmfulness.

[Bassic]

36. Regardless of having an indestructible liver

that rich person's addiction to alcohol is bound to have negative consequences on his friends and relatives. That's harmful in my book.

As for dictionnary definitions, I agree that most of them don't talk about destructive behaviour, but I was making the case for my own definition of it.

[billyskank]

38. Why?

A word means what it means. If you reserve the right to define your own specific meaning of it then the only possible result of that is confusion.

[Bassic]

41. My specific meaning, as you call it

is merely an extrapolation based on obervation of the peonomenon. Would people even pay attention to addiction if it was not destructive?

[wildhorses]

94. perhaps a better word to use is "connotation"

thanks so much for everything you have said in this thread billyskank...you have great insight and I appreciate hearing your opinions:hug:

[Bassic]

97. I agree with wildhorses

This thread rocks.

[wildhorses]

23. ok, for the sake of this discussion, let us go with that definition:

A behavior becomes an addiction if it is destructive, and you can't easily stop yourself from doing it.

That being said should we as a society care about this "addiction" if it does NOT interfere with your contribution to society?

[Bassic]

27. Well, there are different levels to that question.

Should the whole of society give a crap about it? I don't think so, that just can't happen. However, I do think that ressoures must be made available to addicts as part of a health-care program.

[wildhorses]

39. okay, let's go with that line of reasoning...

(and I agree with you)

should addicts be given resources in our peninturary system?

and by resources I am assuming that you are referring to stopping the addiction NOT enabling the addiction to continue:P

[Bassic]

44. You assume correctly.

And I believe that they should be provided with such services. While some people are behind bars for heinous crimes, I think that prisoners who wish to kick an addiction or a bad habit should have acess to the necessary ressources. This, of course is especially true of prisnoners who are supposed to get out (which is the great majority). I think that anything we can do to help them change their situations and reduce the likeliness of committing other crimes is worth it. I know it won't work every time, but still.

[wildhorses]

82. I agree...I think we should be building more

rehab centers and less prisons

I also think we should have less laws, therefore: less laws would be broke, therefore: there would be less need for prisons...

[Bassic]

87. Well we should have less stupid laws, but most of those don't send you to

prison. Like the one that says that in the city I live in, you can't park your car in the street during winter time between 1 am and 7 am, even if the sky is crystal clear.

And yes, it did happen that on one such 30 celsius below 0 winter night, a zealous cop thought it was his duty to get out in the ridiculous cold and protect society against my depraved parking habits.

Not a fucking cloud in the sky mind you.


That's the kind of law that should go I think.

[wildhorses]

91. see...this is where that cop by his narrow interpretation of said

law allowed him the power to be judge and jury of YOUR actions...tsk tsk say I...


not too much of one for judging....is the wildhorses totally INFP all the way

[Bassic]

92. INFP? nt

[wildhorses]

95. sorry... I was referring to the Myers-Briggs Scale...

http://www.counseling.mtu.edu/Myers-Briggs.htm

Myers Briggs
Test Your Skills & Interests.
Find What You're Really Good At!
web.tickle.com

Myers Briggs
Discover your Myers Briggs Type
Take the test online now!
www.personalitydesk.com

[billyskank]

2. The popcorn indicates this is either a copycat

or flamebait. To answer the question, I would think that ones function in society or lack thereof has no standing on whether one is an addict or not.

:hi:

[wildhorses]

4. Hi ya billyskank!!

:hi:
the popcorn is cos I'm hungry:P

[billyskank]

5. And the beer is to wash down the popcorn, right?

:hug:

[wildhorses]

8. u got it!! goes together like peas and carrots!!

like wildhorses and billyskank:hug:

[billyskank]

10. Yay!!

:loveya:

[Deep13]

6. Is the person using drugs?

Your post does not say. What kind?

[wildhorses]

9. define drugs? nicotine is a drug...

I think though for this discussion let us talk about marijuana...
Should I change my opening statement?
What would you like to discuss?
Define addiction...

[Deep13]

19. You said "addict". That means drugs.

Not all drugs are addictive. Caffine seems to be as people who depend on it get headaches when not used. Nicotine is a drug and highly addictive.

I frankly do not know if joints, doobies, reefers, spleefs, blunts, fatties, wacky tobaccy, weed or grass is addictive or not. I know some develop a pyschological dependency, but that is not the same as an addiction.

Addiction is a physical dependency that results in physical withdrawal symptoms when drug usage is halted. Drugs I know to be addictive are cocaine, particularly in crack form, all narcotics (derived from opium), nicotine and methamphetamines. Meth is so addictive that an addict will likely die if he or she goes cold turkey.

[wildhorses]

24. why is the word "addict" dependent to the word "drug"?

Your first 2 statements seem to contradict each other. The word addict stands alone and does NOT always mean drugs. It could however mean "substance":shrug:

[Deep13]

30. "Substance" is a euphamism for "drug."

It is meant to include lawful drugs and especially alcohol for people who assume the term drug excludes such things in the context of addiction. Anyway, I don't see how someone can be an addict if he or she is not addicted to something.

[wildhorses]

35. please refer to MissMillie's post #15...

the thing is: as long as they are a "contibuting member of society"...

[Deep13]

49. That's not an addiction.

If stopping use does not cause physical withdrawal symptoms, it is not an addiction. I know colloquially people speak of psychological depedencies as addictions, but strickly speaking they are not. One may eat to control anxiety, but returning to a survival diet will not result in actual withdrawal symptoms (vomiting, nausea, chill, headaches, DTs). I have first hand experience of this. If I don't snack during the day, I get low blood sugar and my stomach becomes uncomfortable, but I do not get withdrawal symptoms.

If a person is physically addicted, that fact is true regardless of what else is going on in the persons life. Generally speaking, however, the dependence of an addictive drug is so powerful that the drug eventually becomes the focus of ones life. I know a prosecutor who was disbarred because he could not keep his nose out of the evidence room. Cocaine became more important than his health, family or career. I am sure the examples are endless.

[wildhorses]

52. let's ask MissMillie if food became the FOCUS of her life...

if it did, wouldn't you agree that it would then constitute an addiction?

"Generally speaking, however, the dependence of an addictive drug is so powerful that the drug eventually becomes the focus of ones life."


Can you not in this instance say that the word food=drug?

[Deep13]

58. No, that's not what a drug is.

If she or anyone with a bad habit is still able to function in the world and be a productive person, then the susbstance has not become the focus of the person's life. Making a living is. An alcoholic is all about drinking. He or she may hold down a job, but more and more it takes over. I'm not going to get fired or divorced or jailed because of overeating. I am not going to kill anyone in a car accident because of it.

Regardless, addiction is characterised by the presence of withdrawal symptoms upon cessation.

Drugs artificially change a person's chemistry. Food changes chemistry in that it causes stomach acid and insulin to be released and ultimately blood sugar to be raised, but that is just the normal function of digestion.

[wildhorses]

96. watch out using the word "symptom". It is NOT the same thing as

the word "sign"


symptoms are subjective...signs are objective


thanks for your contribution to this thread. You have given us "food" for thought:P:hug:

[MissMillie]

59. I still spend a considerable amount of time thinking about

what I'm going to eat in a given day. lol

I think it's a bit of an obsession. Maybe not so much that I can't work or have functional relationships, but an obsession nonetheless.

I wouldn't call it the FOCUS of my day, but it's a big part.

And not just what I'm going to eat today but: What's in my fridge? What should be in my fridge? What can I make with what's in my fridge? How would that taste? How will I feel after I eat it? (That question may sound odd to you, but there are some realities about my surgery that make that question very valid.) Do I even want to cook? If not, what restaurant should I go to? Will I find someone to go with or should I bring a book?

I think my reality is that while I'm smaller and healthier than I have been in years, my surgery changed my tummy. It didn't change my mind, and it didn't change my compulsion.

[Deep13]

66. I know what you mean.

I find eating is much easier than dealing with anxiety.

[MissMillie]

55. So your first-hand experience is that you're not addicted

but I wouldn't rule out that some people can be addicted to food, or even gambling. And yes, when they go without they do experience physical withdrawal. Maybe not the physical withdrawal you describe, but some form of physical withdrawal.

Do I go without food? No.

But addiction to food is different because you can't NOT eat.

The addiction lies in overeating, emotional eating, compulsive eating, etc. Maybe the proper term isn't "food addiction" but rather an eating disorder, but I still think physical withdrawal is often part of recovery for these people.

[Deep13]

65. "physical withdrawal is often part of recovery for these people"

Do they become sick to their stomachs, chilled and hallucinate?

I know in popular parlance the word addiction has come to mean pychological dependency such as with eating disorders, video games, kleptomania, nonaddictive drugs and even sex. Still, what it really means is a physical dependency on drugs that result in withdrawal symptoms if discontinued. I don't doubt that it is hard to control eating when one has an eating disorder, especially since one cannot simply quit. Nevertheless, while returning to a healthy diet may produce some unconfortable symptoms and cause anxieties to go unabated, it does not result in the severe symptoms of withdrawal. For example, meth addiction is so strong that a person who goes cold turkey will actually be killed by it.

Anyway, the original posted asked if a person can be an addict and still be productive. My answer is based on the fact that addiction has to do with physical dependence and not career performance. Caffiene might be addictive and if so millions of addicts functions fine every day inspite of it.

[MissMillie]

76. yes, for some people

I have heard gambling addicts describe a cold sweat, and nausea and even vomitting when they stopped gambling.

I probably won't describe this properly, but I'll try.

When gambling addict bets (slots, races, poker, etc), their brain chemistry behaves very much the same way as someone who uses cocaine or meth. Their brain chemistry shows the same kind of response as an addicts does when they get a fix. And when they go without their body behaves in the same manner as an addict who hasn't had a fix.

When your body gets used to that chemical high that a fix gives you, then it absolutely reacts physically when it doesn't get the fix.

As for my physical withdrawal from food addiction, I don't know that I've dealt with it. You see, I still eat, and I still eat until I'm full. It's just that the reality of my surgery is such that it takes much less food to make that happen. My brain still feels like it got its fix.

Wow... this is enlightening for me. Here, I thought I was in recovery. :scared:

[Deep13]

85. Well, maybe I'm mistaken, then. I'll look into it...

...when I get a chance.

[MissMillie]

15. I have always been a contributing member of society

I am also addicted to food.

Has my food addiction affected my contributions to society, either directly or indirectly? Probably. But I contribute nonetheless.

I've had a gastric bypass and have lost more than 100 lbs. and I am far more productive now than I ever have been. But I am still addicted to food. It is my drug of choice and probably always will be.

[wildhorses]

17. .......

:hug: thanks for sharing your comments. It is thought provoking...this thing about being a productive memeber and whether or not the addiction hinders the capability. Only your addiction could not be hidden from society so you could be "judged" on your abilities or lack thereof. What about the person who can hide their "addiction"? How can we tell that they are not contributing to the fullest of their ability and should we care if we CAN tell?

[MissMillie]

26. Well, I guess that would also depend on what you consider to be

a "contribution" to society.

I grappled with this a while ago:

One late afternoon when I was much younger and living at home w/ my parents, I was making arrangements to go out for the evening in Boston, some 60 miles from my home. The sky was getting dark and it looked like it was going to rain. I was worried because I needed new wiper blades and I didn't know how to put them in. I asked my Dad to help. He got pretty upset. Not that he didn't have time to do it, or that he didn't want to do it (he was concerned about my safety too). The fact is that he had done his chores for the day and had settled into his regular routine of having a few beers. He was afraid that he would go out to install the wiper blades, and they'd be different somehow and he'd struggle with them and that the neighbors would see and know that he was drunk.

My mom was telling me this, and she said to me, "haven't you ever noticed that about your dad? On the weekends he gets his chores done and then he gets drunk and falls asleep in front of the TV."

My dad has never had trouble holding down a job in his life--in fact for years he worked 2 full-time jobs. He has always been a loving person to his wife and kids and I could never say that his relationships with us were anything but functional, loving, supportive relationships.

But on the weekends, he lived to get loaded.

Does he contribute? Sure. Could he contribute more? Probably, but how much is "enough"?

[Bassic]

29. I've always figure that if you have a job and pay your taxes,

you're contributing to society, because the money that comes from your taxes is used to pay for social services and social programs. (Course I live in Canada, so the benefits we get from that are wuite tangible)

It may be a simplistic way of seeing things, but a fair one I think.

[MissMillie]

33. What about stay-at-home moms?

Are women (who are financially supported by their husbands) that stay home and raise children contributors to society?

:think:

(on edit: or men supported by their wives, for that matter)

[Bassic]

47. Well, yes, stay at home moms contribute highly to society.

The care that they can bring to their children is very valuable to both them and society in general. The more children that are brought up responsibly and lovingly, the better the adults they will become. Now I'm not saying that working moms can't peovide the same sort of care, but that is definitely a great contribution of the stay at home mom or dad.

[wildhorses]

53. Of course they are contributing members of society...

society is NOT synonymous with the word business...

[MissMillie]

63. thanks

I just wanted Bassic to see that the definition s/he gave was a little limiting. There are lots of people who do not have jobs and who do not pay directly pay taxes who do indeed contribute to society.

[Bassic]

68. It is limiting, I know that, and should have thought of housewives.

I just don't think of them very easily, because stay-at-home moms are not very common where I live. I should also add anybody who gives time to some organisations like the red cross or amnesty international.

Mea culpa

[MissMillie]

79. No need

:hug:

I even had to catch myself when I posted because I didn't even think (orginally) to include stay-at-home dads, hence the edit.

I think a lot of people tend to forget that not all jobs are payroll jobs. There's some pretty important work being done by people who never see a dime for it. I know that you know that, it just didn't show up when you posted, so I gave you the opportunity to re-examine your post.

What're friends for?

[Bassic]

80. Thanks for pointing it out to me

:hug:

[northzax]

43. of course

my general rule: ask yourself if you are addicted to something. if you have to think about it, you're probably on the slope. if you immediately rationalize, you're a junkie.

[wildhorses]

56. I agree with you on this....

moderation is the key

[Bassic]

70. In which case, it's not much of an addiction.

And so I also agree.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildhorses]

57. thank you for sharing MrsGrumpy...

my condolences to you. It must have been a horrible time.*hug*

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildhorses]

67. like ripples in the water, our actions affect (effect?) an ever

widening area. So many people in our "world" have been robbed of so much emotionally thanks to all our "addictions." It is truly one of the saddest things about life IMHO.

:hug: and :hug: your husband...if he asks why...maybe you could tell him about this thread. It might mean a great deal to him to see your written words...

[Bassic]

83. affect.

just confirming ;)

[wildhorses]

88. thanks

I thought so but, in the heat of discussion I can sometimes let my trying to communicate interfere with my grammar...if you know what I mean:P

[Bassic]

89. I know too well, my friend, too well. nt

[SteppingRazor]

61. Depends on your definition of addiction...

If a person uses illegal drugs and such use does not affect his/her job or relationships, then I hardly think you can call that person an addict.

[Deep13]

69. Does anyone know if grass is physically addictive?

I'm not suggesting it is good for people, but I am not aware that it is an actual addiction (though the escapism may cause psychological dependency.)

I know if I ever need cancer treatment, I would become a toker pretty quickly to control nausea.

[SteppingRazor]

72. No, it's not. Psychologically addictive, maybe...

but certainly not physical. I've never had an easier time quitting any substance.

[Bassic]

75. I agree. Also from experience. nt

[wildhorses]

74. your definition of physical is different from mine...

so I am thinking that by your standards it would NOT be considered physically addicting...whereas by my definition it would have the potential to be.

[SteppingRazor]

78. A physically addicting substance results in physical withdrawal symptoms..

when one is trying to quit. I've never known anyone to suffer withdrawal symptoms upon quitting marijuana.

[wildhorses]

84. there is a difference between

symptoms and signs...just sayin'


one person CAN have withdrawl symptoms while another person may not

however: nobody can have withdrawl signs unless everyone can have them...

it is all about measuring and establishing baselines and collecting data.


signs can be measured, symptoms can NOT

[wildhorses]

77. I concur....

and, I am not too concerned with "legality" of anything....another reason I think my user name suits me to a T:P

[MissMillie]

81. I wanted to thank you for a very good discussion

as well as those that are contributing to your thread.

This was a great exchange of ideas.

[wildhorses]

86. just goes to show you how the LOUNGE can exchange ideas

civilly as opposed to (shall we say it all together now)....G....D....



and thanks very much for your contributions:hug:

[Bassic]

90. Amen to that.

This is such a satisfying conversation, if only for the fact that nobody is trying to turn it into World War III.

Yay! :woohoo:

[wildhorses]

98. and have you noticed, the complete LACK of juvenile

name calling? It amazes me that LOUNGE threads can NOT be posted on "greatest" page. If it is voted and the mods deem it unworthy then I think they could use executive judgement and not post it but, if they agree with the voting then by all means put it on the "greatest" page so all the lost souls out there can see it too!!!

[Bassic]

99. Yeah, I completely agree with that.

But then that might attract some GD Flamers to the Lounge. :scared:

[Iniquitous Bunny]

93. Of course.

I used to be married to someone who has a very good job, is a decent person for the most part, but he was hooked on prescription drugs for years. He still could do his job very well, but was an unemotionally unavailable (and borderline abusive) partner.

[wildhorses]

100. so really he contributed to the business world but, he was

socially inept...


thanks for your comment...it makes me want to reconsider the phrase about being a contributing member of society...



seems like society and social would come from the same Latin(?) root word and I should therefore broaden my definiion of society to include how we behave and contribute socially...are you following me?

[Iniquitous Bunny]

101. Not socially inept.

Inept in being able to be truly intimate (emotionally) with another human being. He's fine with more surface relationships required for his work. Not fine for a marriage.

[wildhorses]

102. Yes, I understand but, in the end I am thinking that this is a loss

to a society of one (you). And therefore a loss to society as a whole....as it affected you and thus caused the ripple effect of which I spoke of upthread.

Thanks for your comments in this thread and for sharing your experiences.

:hug: