From: jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:26:36 GMT
Organization: The Dow Chemical Company
Originator: jsue@mars.ncsa.uiuc.edu

I have been following the last few parts of this discussion:

>>My point was that the nature of at least some addictions is "I can stop
>>whenever I want to enough.  For the time being, I don't want to stop that
>>badly."

>
>You are attempting to define addiction as a voluntary thing, and as I
>understand it, it is not, regardless of how it started.
>
>If you -can- stop, then by definition, you are not addicted. If you
>cannot, then you are. 
>

While in college I spend a couple of years assisting in research on
abusive/compulsive behaviors for a professor.  Some of these ideas seem
to hit -close- to the mark of what addiction is, but others miss it
completely.  (BTW, I do not work in the health profession in any capacity,
these views are merely the ideas I have gleaned from my work in college).

Addiction may be thought of more as a "loss of control" than of
completely involuntary action.  Yes, some compulsive behaviors do
completely take over some people's lives, but others are only a minor
nuisance.  These are two different ends of the spectrum of this type
of behavior.  Also, some addictions are *psychological* addictions
while others are *physical*.  In other words, will your *body*
reactive severely (convulsions, pain) when the substance is taken
away? (physical addiction - not all are that severe, others merely cause
anxiety, irratability, etc.)  A psychological addiction is more where
you depend on something (e.g., a substance) in order to perform some
activity(ies) or handle daily life.

I do believe that it is absolutely wrong to state "If you can stop,
then by definition, you are not addicted.  If you cannot, then you
are."  If these two arguments were true, then alcoholics would be
called *cured* and not *recovering*.

A more discerning mark of addiction would be:  When you do this
activity, can you stop before doing it too much?  Ie., do you control it
or does it control you?

Also mentioned (thought not captured here) was a statment that went
something like "I was able to stop smoking, therefore cigarettes must
not be as addicting as others would have us believe." (I have
*severely* paraphrased this, hope I didn't butcher it too much.)
Again, if you were to have a cigarette, would you be able to easily stop
after only one?  two?

BTW, you may well be able to stop after only one or two.  This could
mean that you were never addicted to cigarettes.  However this should
not be taken to mean that cigarettes are not addicting.  Often there are
both physical *and* psychological aspects to addictions, and not everyone
will have the same physical reaction to a given substance.  (For example,
some people are prone to physical addiction from chocolate - in a very
*severe* sense - while most people seem to just really like (or dislike)
it.)

There's a really good book on this topic called "From Chocolate to Morphine".
It's been awhile since I've seen this book so I don't remember the author
or publisher's name (actually, the title may not be 100% correct either).
However it was published in the 1984-85 timeframe.  Very interesting reading.


Jeff






-- 
Jeffrey L. Sue   Internet:  jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu
VMScluster Systems Manager,                     (All opinions are mine)
Research Technical Support              (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)
The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI