One of my friends has decided to stop smoking pot, it seems.
He made a post in his journal that today is his first day without marijuana. He added, "So far, I've cried at random twice, and my stomach keeps attacking my insides with lovely pains of ow-ness."
Doesn't that sound like an addict going through withdrawal to you? It certainly does to me. And yet...people claim that marijuana isn't addictive.
Then again, I personally have felt that I was addicted to drugs that my doctors gave me that were supposedly "not habit-forming." So really, when does one's use of a substance become an addiction?
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I went through withdrawl when weaning myself off medications that my doctors also claimed were "not habit forming".
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think there is a difference between physiological addiction and psychological addiction, too.
Something may be described as non-addictive just because it's not physiologically addicting, but it might well be psychologically addictive.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah. You can get addicted to anything, even cellphones or internet forums.
*twitches*
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
What Belle said.
IMO, a person's use of a substance becomes an addiction at the point that it negatively interferes with relationships and responsibilities in the person's life. When the substance becomes more important than those relationships and responsibilities, it's an addiction.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
ketchupqueen: Yes! I once couldn't afford to get my prescription refilled for a few days, and during that time, I didn't sleep. At all. I ended up calling my doctor, and it went something like this:
Me: I'm very disturbed by this medication you gave me. I think I'm addicted to it. Doctor: That's impossible. It's not habit-forming. Me: Well, I haven't been able to take it for a few days, and in that time, I haven't slept. I've been up for three days straight. That's disturbing. Doctor: Take your medication. Me: I don't want to continue taking something that has this kind of effect on me. Doctor: It won't have that effect as long as you keep taking it.
...
I stayed on it for months after that before finally weaning myself off of it without consulting him.
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yep. There was a time when I would describe myself as being addicted to the internet, after dinner I would sit down and immediately power up my laptop, go online, read forums, chat on AIM, and keep it up until bedtime.
My husband told me he felt like he wasn't part of my life anymore, and it became an issue in my marriage. Like jeni said, when it was interfering in my life and my relationships, then it became an addiction and a problem.
So now you know why I no longer have AIM and why I don't frequent hatrack in the evenings. Which reminds me, it's time to go cook dinner.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: He made a post in his journal that today is his first day without marijuana. He added, "So far, I've cried at random twice, and my stomach keeps attacking my insides with lovely pains of ow-ness."
Doesn't that sound like an addict going through withdrawal to you? It certainly does to me. And yet...people claim that marijuana isn't addictive.
It's also one person's anecdotal evidence, which he can't really be sure is due to his quitting marijuana. I've known a lot of people who smoked pot and quit, and I've never heard of any of them crying at random because of it. For the stomach thing, is he remembering to eat? I did know somebody who smoked so regularly that when she quit it killed her appetite. She was so used to getting the munchies from smoking that when she didn't smoke she didn't really feel hungry, until her stomach hurt from not eating.
I'm not saying it is or isn't addictive. Just that one guy feeling bad the day after he quit doesn't constitute a medical study.
--Enigmatic
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not saying it does. I'm not saying that the drug itself is or isn't addictive, but I'm saying that in his particular case, it sounds a lot like an addiction.
-pH
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Fair enough. It was your "And yet... people claim that marijuana isn't addictive" that made me post, as that sounds like you were trying to use your friend to prove a larger case.
The fact that I myself get addicted to things that "aren't addictive" is one of the big reasons I never smoked pot, despite having a lot of stoner friends in high school and at some of my jobs. I think there should be a distinction between "addictive" and "habit-forming" though. Pretty much anything good/enjoyable is habit forming.
--Enigmatic
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
There's definitely addiction involved in smoking marijuana, but it is NOT physiological. Period. It's a mental (and sometimes social) construct. A lot of people don't understand that psychological addictions can be just as hard to get over as physiological ones. I also remember reading a study (I don't remember where, but I'll look for it) that showed that psychological addictions have their roots in the physiological: namely, your body enters certain moods when feeding the addiction that release certain chemicals into your bloodstream, thereby CREATING a physiological addiction.
It could also be habit. If you have a daily routine for waking up in the morning, it probably feels weird to disrupt it.
And not to bash your friend, but it could also just as easily be an exaggeration.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If you're taking medication for a problem, how do you know that the withdrawal symptoms aren't due to the symptoms you already have re-emerging? I've tried to go off my antidepressants in the past, and I lose my appetite, cry, and have trouble sleeping. Withdrawal symptoms or the depression coming back?
Actually, I suspect it's the latter since I feel great for the first two or three days after stopping the medication, and then I feel terrible.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Did he smoke it with tobacco? It's probably that that's ****ing him over, not the pot.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
He smoked it by itself.
-pH
edit: Words missing! Go team Pearce!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Marijuana increases appetite, decreases nausea, and many people use it when they're feeling stressed to "mellow out". I think that could probably account for all the symptoms your friend is describing- not actual withdrawl symptoms, but lack of something that they're used to affecting their normal processes of eating and dealing with stress.
Incidentally, this is all hypothetical on my part. I've known a lot of people who've used marijuana, some medicinally, some habitually, but never used it myself. My knowledge is second-hand.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
My knowledge is first-hand. I dropped it like a bad habit (which, not coincidentally, it was) and never thought about doing it again afterwards.
I don't have an addictive personality though.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: You can get addicted to anything, even ...internet forums.
Tell me about it! I've got a Hatrack monkey on my back!
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Marijuana withdrawal definitely CAN occur. It's a medical fact. It isn't life-threatening but can involve depression, irritability, nausea, poor appetite, tremors. Unusual dreams can persist for a week or more.
I have to disagree that medical/psychiatric drugs that cause sypmtoms after cessation meet the criteria for withdrawal and therefore are habit forming. That isn't necessarily the case at all. For example, let's take certain blood pressure pills. You stop them suddenly, the blood pressure can skyrocket and go higher than ever. It can become serious enough to need hospitalization. Was the person addicted to the drug? No, of course not. It simply isn't safe to stop certain drugs cold-turkey and without the advice of a doctor. That includes many psychiatric drugs. Stop them quickly, have problems. Stop them slowly, less problems. Most drugs do not fit criteria for habit-forming/addiction potential and then the whole idea of withdrawal with those drugs is a moot point.
quote:Me: I don't want to continue taking something that has this kind of effect on me. Doctor: It won't have that effect as long as you keep taking it.
I'd have to agree with the doctor. You can't judge how helpful/useful/safe a medication is by stopping it cold turkey to see what it does to you. That is useless information unless you think the drug is about to stop being manufactured.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I think there should be a distinction between "addictive" and "habit-forming" though. Pretty much anything good/enjoyable is habit forming.
And anything good/enjoyable can also become an addiction. I'm honestly not sure what the technical difference between addictive and habit forming is. To me it seems that people use term addiction in two ways, to mean a habit that can't be stopped, or as a negative connotation of "habit forming".
I don't see a difference between the two. Both can be negative or positive or devoid of positive or negative consequences. Brushing our teeth is a habit. Most would call it positive. Maybe someone has an addiction to brushing their teeth. Is this a bad addiction? Maybe it depends to what extent this addiction is. Maybe they do it so much their gums bleed every day.
I'd definitely say i'm addicted to gambling. Poker in particular. I don't know if I could quit playing poker if I had to. I look forward to playing poker every week. I love going down to Atlantic City, and if I don't do either for a while i miss it and yearn to play again. I play online poker regularly also. I can sit at a poker table for 8-10 straight hours and still not want to get up. But I'm also a good poker player. And while I lose on specific occasions I'm significantly up overall and mostly win. So is this an addiction? Is it a "bad" one? If week after week i lost hundreds of dollars would it be any worse of an addiction? Would you be talking to me and telling me I need to stop?
I guess my question is, is an addiction negative because of the consequences or because the act or state of being addicted to something is negative in and of itself?
I looked up addiction and here's what it said:
quote:to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively
So anyway, i personally don't think there's a difference between addiction and habit forming, unless we want to make one ourselves. And then that brings up too many issues of morality and subjective judgment.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'd just like to chime in and say that i don't think Strider is completely objective (obviously) when he speaks about his poker "addiciton"
I *know* he could give it up if he had too, because i know what he's calling "possibly defined as addicted" is really just "really, really loves to do it."
For instance, i would be angry and aggressive and upset if someone asked me to stop singing ever again. But if there was a valid reason? "you could go mute!" etc., i mean, i could do it. I'm not addicted to singing, i just love to sing. Same with Greg (Strider) he loves to play poker, but i know him and if there was a truly genuinely good reason why he needed to stop, i know he would.
Then again, he brought up that there are quizzes out there for you to take to see if you're addicted to gambling -- if you answer three questions out of like, twenty, in the positive, then you're addicted? He probably answered about 14 yes, and he's not addicted. He's just not! I mean, to be addicted to something, imho, is to have is consume your life to the point where you can't really function without doing the thing. Because you've gotten yourself to a place where your mental well-being or your physical health RELIES on the thing. And i think that's where the distinction lies.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
These would be, if they're actual symptoms or anything, they're the most serious I've ever heard of medically or anecdotally.
And for giving up a regular habit involving a mind-altering substance? That doesn't sound like anything serious.
It's too bad your friend had a rough day though. That's not fun no matter what else is going on.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I was wondering this myself. Personally, I think marijuana is "psychologically addictive" (whatever that means) but in a different way than other psychologically addictive drugs. Most psychological (and physical) addictions are when you notice you are doing a lot more than you thought you would, like rolling every week instead of every few months. Marijuana addiction is where you do not notice how much you are doing until something triggers a self-examination process, at which point you promptly cut back or quit if warranted.
Physically most drugs, psychoactive or not, will have withdrawal symptoms after an abrupt end to long-term use. Straddling the line are stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamine. I think of those addictions as psychological but I certainly had a physical withdrawal symptom, extreme fatigue, when I stopped doing coke every day. On the other hand it only lasted a few days and resembled nothing so much as a smooth but extended comedown.
I do not consider marijuana addiction to be a "real" addiction. ("Marijuana is not a drug! Ever sucked ---- for marijuana?") Lots of people do get mild withdrawal symptoms. When I went on a pot hiatus mine consisted of increased consumption of everything else, mainly, and a loss of apetite that may have been more the fault of the stimulants. No one whores themselves out for pot.
I keep wondering if I was addicted to cocaine or not. On one hand I said I would stop for three or four days when there was a miniscule but non-zero chance of getting a drug test, and I never did. On the other hand when I lost my last job I knew I would need to pay rent, so I stopped doing it every day without really making a conscious effort. Also my good dealer got busted and it was just too much effort to actually leave the house to find it. I could argue it either way, and if I was not addicted certainly I abused it at a time.
I have two criteria for a drug to be capable of causing a "real" addiction. First, it must be capable of producing the intended effect at some reasonable dose every day. You can eat mushrooms every day for a week or more but after day four they pretty much stop working. Second, it must not be a drug that makes me laugh when I hear of someone whining about theirs or another's addiction to it. Thus, marijuana, volatile solvents, and anticholinergics are all disqualified. What remains? Cocaine, amphetamines, SSRIs and other anti-depressants, dissociatives, narcotics, alcohol, GABAergics (benzodiazepines, barbiturates, etc.), with cocaine and mild speed use being by far the easiest to cope with.
Personally I feel that calling something an addicition is just a way of excusing one or more actions of the "addict". The "addict" is not always the one making the excuse either; often it is friends or family who do not want to believe that the person would do such a horrible thing so it must be the drugs. I think that is a crock of bullshit; drugs do not bring out anything that did not already exist. In the two and a half years of taking drugs that some (most) parts of society frown upon, I have learned it is a lot easier to just agree with them when they bring up the a-word. This is usually not the response they are expecting, so there is a decent chance they will realize you enjoy it. Sometimes, if they actually have a valid complaint (you pawned my baby for drug money!) they will address that rather than being one half of a pointless circle-jerk over definitions, assumptions, values, and priorities.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I'm honestly not sure what the technical difference between addictive and habit forming is. To me it seems that people use term addiction in two ways, to mean a habit that can't be stopped, or as a negative connotation of "habit forming".
FWIW, there is no clearcut, standardized defintion of "addiction" in the medical profession. The word is not even mentioned in the DSM-IV. This is surprising to most physicians, I think -- I certainly would not have known it if my spouse wasn't doing research in the field.
The DSM-IV does define "abuse" and "dependence" by certain criteria, but not "addiction" per se. Many clinicians use "dependence" as synonymous with "addiction," but that is a bit of hand-waving, in my opinion.
That is, we seem to want to cover things under the "addiction" umbrella which would not qualify as dependence, and vice versa (as alluded to by Theaca above). When a term is that slippery, I think very precise definitions are in order. And, note that the editors of the DSM-IV did not define "addiction" for specific reasons.
[ October 06, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Strider, I wouldn't call you addicted unless playing poker was adversely affecting your relationships and responsibilities. If you were losing money you didn't have and still didn't stop, I'd call you addicted. If you stopped paying attention to your relationships to people except as they related to poker, I'd call you addicted.
My brother, btw, takes the same pleasure in it you do, and wins more often than he loses. It has paid for a number of vacations for him and his wife. I don't worry about him, because he's far more into his relationships and has a keen sense of responsibility.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Exactly!
I also brought up to him last night that he did stop playing poker when he was on a bit of a losing streak for awhile. And, yeah, he didn't like it and wished he was playing, but he wasn't frothing at the mouth or even complaining about the break at all.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Danzig:
quote:Personally I feel that calling something an addicition is just a way of excusing one or more actions of the "addict". The "addict" is not always the one making the excuse either; often it is friends or family who do not want to believe that the person would do such a horrible thing so it must be the drugs.
I agree, which is why Alanon exists -- and why, in many people's opnion, it works. It's comforting to think of addiction as a disease, but it is a thousand choices one right after the other, and the people around the addict are involved to greater or lesser degrees in those choices.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Strider, I wouldn't call you addicted unless playing poker was adversely affecting your relationships and responsibilities. If you were losing money you didn't have and still didn't stop, I'd call you addicted.
I agree with you. But the definition you are using for "addiction" in this case is NOT the dictionary definition. I was mostly just trying to make a point that this subject is difficult to talk about because we first have to understand what we mean by addiction. You say it would only be an addiction if it was negatively affecting my relationships and responsibilities. And I say that the only different between that and what is happening now, is that I win. So we're defining addiction by the end effects, which I personally don't agree with.
If I was addicted to sex, but this addiction positively affected my relationship, would you still consider it an addiction? One I should stop? I just don't like how we arbitrarily decide what is a bad addiction and what is fine. Addiction is addiction. If an addiction to something that has a negative affect is bad, then so should be an addiction to something that has a positive affect.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
You winning could still have a negative effect on your relationshisps -- you don't have to lose all the time to want to play all the time and take time away from friends and family, etc. Spending money you don't have wouldn't come into play, obviously, but it could still adversely affect your life. If all your free time was spent playing partypoker, or trying to find a real life game somewhere, or you were always gagging to get down to Atlantic City...just because you do well, doesn't mean you can't be addicted. At least...i don't think so
edit: also, i don't see how being addicted to sex wouldn't eventually have a negative effect. Of course, at first, wouldn't it be great? But then when the other partner wasn't interested for whatever reason -- where would you go to get your fix?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
hotfreesex(butdon'ttellmygirlfriend).com
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
We differ in belief of what addiction is. We could say that addiction could be a positive thing, but the social usage of the word does not imply that meaning. It can be used casually in a vaguely jocular way to mean anything someone really likes a lot. Or it can be used seriously to describe someone unable to control his urges for something. My definition and usage of the word is the latter, not the former. The former isn't to be taken very seriously, the latter, should be, much much so, IMO.
So, by my definition, it isn't possible to define an addiction except by its results, which are negative. An addiction to sex would only be an addiction if sex was more important than the relationships the person had, if it was more important than going to work or paying bills. Even if it had a positive immediate effect, it would still be an addiction because long term, it would reveal there was little or no actual love there. Relationships would degrade, responsibilities would fall by the wayside, and all would be lost to the idol sex had become.
Also, addiction to a thing doesn't mean that you have to stop to kill the addiction. Food addicts obviously can't just stop. The point is to not have the addicted substance be more important than what is truly good for the person. Is the line fuzzy? You bet. We're talking about human motivation, not cinder blocks.
All of which is my opinion, which may be worth a load of beans. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Danzig: But don't certain drugs that are DEFINITELY addictive take more to produce the same effect as you develop a tolerance for them?
I can't think of the name of the particular one I'm thinking of right now. Is it heroin? Yeah, I think it's opiates.
-pH
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
jeniwren: I am very wary about Al-Anon. Never read any of their literature, but they are patterned off AA and other 12-step programs, right? My parents worry about me and I did read a few of the NA pamphlets my mom picked up. (For her to read because she worries about me.) They seemed pretty silly. If I am powerless over my "addiction", then nothing I do is my fault or responsibility. So I can do whatever I want without feeling guilty about it.
Reading their site it appears I am correct. Step 12, inform others, says to me, "Tell them how the 12 Steps are the only way to stop their addiction, which of course you do have because it affects my life negatively." Sorry, I enjoyed my cocaine addiction, feel it may well have improved my life, and in any case am not responsible for anyone else's happiness. DXM addiction sucked but I quit when I decided I wanted to, and even DXM addiction was better than a meeting. As for alcohol, I am a drunkard and proud of it.
The main problem I have with *A programs is that in the literature I have read, and discussions with both legitimate members and people faking to avoid drug charges, is that it encourages members to define themselves by their addiction. I used to get a large part of my identity from my drug use, and still do as it is a part of my life, but to define yourself by the drugs you used to do? Come on, just quit if you don't like it anymore. Al-anon seems to take this one step further and defines its members by the drugs other people do.
Not to say all 12 steps are bad. 4 and 10 are excellent, and 5 should take out the God (non-religious? What?) and maybe other humans but on the whole is a great idea. But I did all of them on drugs, to a much greater extent than I ever did when I was sober for extended periods of time. I think drugs and sobriety can both be tools to repress our personal issues or to deal with them in constructive ways, and I have a huge problem with saying one always does this and only this one can do that. I mean, 4, 5, and 10 are good ideas even for a Mormon whose entire family has never touched a drop.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
pH: They do, but the tolerance grows at a much slower rate than that of psychedelics or MDMA. The rule for LSD is wait three days or double the dose. MDMA loses the magic even if taken once a week, unless you want to start eating twelve pills a day. Alcohol, cocaine, and heroin (or opium, my DOC), on the other hand, take a lot longer. Cocaine even levels off and alcohol takes forever to start.
jeniwren: I did not read your last post before writing my last, but I want to agree with it being unnecessary to quit something entirely to stop an addiction. I had an easy time quitting DXM entirely; I have no desire to ever use it again. I had an easy time heavily cutting back on my cocaine use/addiction. Running out of money will do it, at least for me. But I would have a hell of a time saying I will never do it again, because I still enjoy it. Not every day, that got boring. But New Year's Eve? Not saying I will, but am saying I want and plan to.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Danzig, I don't feel equal to answering your first response, other than to say that not everyone is able to just quit their addictions, or even to manage them as you appear to have done. I don't subscribe to the popular 12-Step notion that the 12 steps are the only way to quit an addiction. I also don't believe 'once an addict, always an addict'. I've just seen too many people give lie to those statements.
However, I have also known people who could not 'just quit'. Their lives were being destroyed by their choices, and though it was obviously excruciatingly painful for them, they could not stop. In two instances, they died as a result (IMO, a mercy). In others, I've seen totally transformed lives via the 12 Steps. That's the two ends of the spectrum with lots of stories in between. YMMV, obviously.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Danzig: Are you SURE that tolerance always grows more slowly for opiates, or is that just your experience? Because I always heard about people who are "chasing the dragon" or whatever based on their first use of the drug.
I agree that one doesn't need to stop using something entirely to get over an addiction, and I think compulsive overeaters are a very good example. And sex addicts, for that matter, since I doubt that most sex addicts spend the rest of their lives celibate.
-pH
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
jeniwren: Fair enough. I have my issues with the 12 Steps and think there is usually a better way, but on some level whatever works works. I just feel they do not work nearly as often or as well as their organization and everyone else claims.
I read a book on alcoholism written in the late eighties by some doctors championing AA. They called "alcoholics" diseased, and I suppose they are right depending on how physically dependent one must be to be considered an alcoholic. They urged the alcoholic (and the alcoholic's doctor) to refrain from narcotic painkillers, as they might end up "addicted". (Teetotallers, of course, only get a tolerance.) I cannot imagine a prescription painkiller dependence being worse than living in pain, and that suggestion (which I have seen in other pro-*A literature as well) is completely abhorrent to me.
pH: Positive. The high will never be like the first one, yes, but it will still be there. After smoking opium for a month, I quit cold turkey (and no withdrawal symptoms! ), with several highs better than the first. After eating mushrooms every other day for eight days, by the fourth time it barely did more than pot. Had I continued using, or used four times in four days, the effects would have been even less. That was my experience, but they work the same for everyone else. Opiate tolerance goes up quickly, no doubt, but not so quickly as to make long-term daily use pointless. People chase their first MDMA roll at least as much as their first heroin experience, from what I have seen and heard. MDMA is not really addictive, but if daily use worked it sure as hell would be. The feeling is at least as good as heroin.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Danzig, I've known years-clean addicts (I call them addicts because this is how they identify themselves, and not without reason. In their cases, they identify themselves that way because it helps keep them clean.) who relapsed as a result of prescription painkillers. It was devastating to them and their families. They got clean again, but said afterward that they'd rather have just bulled through the pain with Tylenol or something similar. Hindsight, and all that.
Like I said, if you're managing, great....it just doesn't work for everyone. As AA doesn't work for everyone.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I sort of see what you mean. If I had dependents and/or a straightedge wife (neither of which I am planning on) I might have a different perspective.
It is the self-identification as addicts that I do not understand. If I were to quit everything at 25, then started binging heavily at 35, I would call that two separate periods of addiction in my life, rather than calling myself an addict. I think after so many years (5 or 10) sober the label addict has no real value to the current person. They were an addict, but now they are not, even though they could be again in the future.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think after so many years (5 or 10) sober the label addict has no real value to the current person. They were an addict, but now they are not, even though they could be again in the future.
It has value to them if it helps remind them that they are vulnerable to relapse.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Ah. I would think knowing they used to be an addict would be reminder enough, but whatever works.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While I have never been a physical adict, I am pretty certain that that is not enough for everybody.
When you say "I used to be X", it's easy to think of it as something in your past only. "Been there, licked that." But referring to it as something that is ongoing, it is much easier to think of it as something that needs to constantly taken into consideration.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I tend to think of it as, "I used to do way too much coke, smoke too much pot, or use too many psychedelics, and I know I love narcotics, so I really need to watch myself because if it happened once it can happen again."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that's self-evidently the definition of the word 'addict', and you're avoiding using the word to label yourself for some reason.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Danzig, if that works better for you, cool. For some people, I think the label helps them realize how close to the edge they shouldn't go.
There's this story that I like about a business owner looking for a new delivery driver. The problem is that the route they'll be taking is over mountainous countryside, so he wants a really good driver. He interviews three guys. He takes them up to the worst part of the delivery route, and asks each of them how close to the edge they think they can drive while still keeping their load safe. The first one says he's a good enough driver, he can get within half a foot of the edge. The second says he's so good, he can get within 3 inches of the edge. The last one is quiet for a second, but says that he'd hate for anything bad to happen, so he would stay as far away from the edge as possible.
Obviously, he's the one who got the job. That addict label is pretty loaded, and for many, it helps them remember that they are best off staying as far away from the edge as possible, because the benefit far outweighs anything they might gain by skirting closer.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Oh, I think I am an addict. I just stopped caring about it a long time ago and am trying to get on with my life. But I still use, though far less frequently than I used to. And I used to be a DXM addict, then a cocaine addict, and now am just generally addicted to nonsobriety.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
DXM sounds like a very un-fun drug.
-pH
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I have nothing to input into the conversation (at least not just yet), but I wanted to say that I am glad to see Leonide and Strider posting again. You two are one of my favorite hatrack couples .
And its great that we have pH posting again, even if a terrible hurricane had to be the thing to get her to pop-in.
Edit: Though clicking on "view recent posts" reveals that they've been posting a lot more than I thought. I suppose I just don't read nearly as many threads as I used to...
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
(psst, Xav -- it was 2 1/2 years for us on Wednesday -- how 'bout that?)
(double psst -- you and Valentine ain't so bad yourselves )
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)