What Is Addiction?
Dean
So I was reading a thread on addiction started by David, and I had some thoughts on it. And I thought about it, and said some things. Then I looked at those thoughts and I thought, "damn, that's pretty fuckin' raw shit there Dean, you shouldn't show that to just anyone."
Then I thought, "No, yeah you should."
So here's what I think on the subject of addiction:
I'll tell you what I think true addiction is. I speak as an addict. My addictions are alcohol and nicotine. And writing. And other things.
Addiction is I think a chemical thing. I truly believe that. It's chasing of the rush of pleasure. But of course we all chase the rush of pleasure. So it's deeper.
It's the chasing of the rush of pleasure to the point of destruction. To the point where you'll destroy yourself or destroy others, maybe slowly or maybe quickly.
Can you be addicted to non-physical things? Yes. Can you be "addicted to love?" Yes. Yes. I think women in particular are prone to that particular addiction, although men can get it too. Can you become addicted to power? Yes. I think men in particular are prone to that addiction, though women often get it too, especially in their own uniquely feminine ways.
But ultimately, addiction is that insidious point when the source of your pleasure becomes more important than healthy things.
I've been there. Embarassingly so and not in the distant past either. When the need for the buzz exceeded everything. Where I could see the destruction I was wreaking upon my wife and child and I continued anyway because the high was more important.
I can't tell you the shame I have in realizing that's where I was. Where I could even see the physical toll it was taking on my body and my soul, and still said, "fuck it, fuck everything, I just want more, I need to numb out the other shit that's bugging me and I need more of this pleasure. It makes the bad go away and makes everything else feel good."
That's when you're to the point of addiction my friend. When you consciously or unconsciously are making that destructive choice.
And the point of salavation? Where you have that moment of clarity when you realize that's what you're doing, and decide you must put a stop to it.
And the point of damnation? When you have that moment of clarity and realize that's what you're doing--and say "fuck it" and keep doing it anyway.
That is the choice between salvation and damnation, I truly believe.
Hanging by a thread? I've been there.
So. Maybe you're reading this and you're not an addict. Maybe you don't quite get it. That's okay. Maybe you even condemn it. That's okay too. No, it really is. You who condemn it, you have an important role. Sometimes you're assholes, but where would the world be if it weren't for the assholes who say "cut that shit out?"
If no one was ever a hard-ass, this world would be a pretty pitiful place.
But maybe you're reading this and you're slowly, suddenly, in that creepingly hair-raising way realizing that you're an addict. Maybe just maybe. If that's so, then you should realize that doesn't make you inferior, that doesn't make you bad. But it does mean you ought to be asking yourself a fairly important question. One I hope you'll think hard about:
Do you want to live?
1 Corinthians 6:12
Because if it isn't medical, then the whole "addiction is a disease" idea isn't quite the right way to go about viewing or treating it, but then I personally don't view it as wholly psychological, either.
Another point in passing: Awhile back, I had done a list of good &bad psychological qualities, among which was an idea that one should have "The ability to maintain by willpower the idea that life has meaning", especially in the presence of short-term pain. I was thinking here primarily of suicidal thinking.
And yet, here we have an obverse [?] situation: Keeping the idea that life has meaning in the presence of short-term pleasure, but also by willpower. I suppose there is a connection between the automaticity of suicidal ideation to that of addiction, too- but I'll need more thought on that. You're making me update my list, Dean. :-)
Nevertheless, when I say it's chemical I do mean that. Because I think the distinction of "physical vs. psychological" is inherently flawed. The mind is a physical thing. This is why I do believe you can become addicted to things that aren't really drugs--power, unhealthy relationships, gambling, etc. It's the endorphin rush, the craving for intense pleasure and the escape from the unpleasant or that which you fear, that really drives addiction.
But yes, I do believe there is an unconscious suicidal ideation in a whole lot of addiction.
I mean, in the end, what are smokers really doing to themselves? And don't they all, at this point, know perfectly well that they're destroying themselves? Yet they still do it anyway.
This is another thought-provoking essay you've written. I admire your struggle against the things that are working against you.
What am I addicted to? I've never smoked, and I don't drink nearly as much as I once did. Hmmm.... Reading? Reading blogs? Spectrums? Hmmm.... No, I have to say that mine is the worst addiction of all, i.e., sloth. I'm not doing _enough_ of the things I want to do. Hmmm....
What makes some people want that endorphin/adrenaline/etc rush more than others do?
There is some actual medical evidence for this.
For instance, among smokers who take it up in their twenties, there's a less pronounced addiction and an easier time of quitting [relatively speaking] compared to those who take it up in their teens. Towards the second point, certain social groups [african americans, asian americans, et al] have a lower incidence of heavy smokers overall, presumably because it isn't tolerated as well in those groups.
Aside from all that, I think that the people to study are the controlled users, especially among smokers. If we accept the idea that smoking is the most addictive substance [possible] then controlled users of tobacco are a curiousity to me.
Getting back to the medical model: There's one good reason to treat addictions as such, and thats money. When a disease model is embraced, there's more money made available for study and treatment. Thing is, I think it's the wrong way round for treating the problem itself.
I have some issue labeling all addictions as medical [sex addiction, for instance], and other issues labeling none of them as such. I think they lay at the neuropsychological crossing ground, myself. Addiction to "the Rush" might be more of an attraction to risk, for instance, which in turn could be an inheritable trait, and thus the origins could partially lay in neuropsychological development.
And there is one other crossover: Some research in Mental Health has shown an inherited tendency to misreplicate certain DNA sequences, esp. in relation to certain disorders [Bipolar, unipolar depressions, schizophrenia, etc]. It seems they misreplicate more or less randomly until a critical point is reached and the disorder unveils itself. [Here may also lie the relation of depression to cancer, BTW] I think we might eventually find that addictions have a relation to that inheritance as well, but that they don't evolve into full-blown disorders. Just a hunch, though.
"If no one was ever a hard-ass, this world would be a pretty pitiful place."
Absolutely true. And that's why I keep reading Dean's World, because you keep saying things like this.
One of the biggestt problems in studying addiction is that there are people who are not addicts who replicate some of the behavior of addicts.
How, for a simple example, do we tell an alcoholic from someone who simply drinks too much? Aside from the old, lame joke 'us drunks don't have to go to all those damned meetings', it's a pretty simple answer best described by two consecutive Texas Governors.
Ann Richards decided that drinking was ruining her life. In her attempts to stop she discovered that she needed (specialised) help and needed something to fill the need that she had tried to fill with drinking. She chose AA, the same choice I made. There are other choices that I claim no familiarity enough to judge their effectiveness.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, decided that drinking was ruining his life. In his attempt to stop drinking he discoved that he needed no such specialised help and that he already had what he needed, his faith.
Richards is an alcoholic, Bush was (is?) a drunk.
I contend that the state of the medical and psychological arts are not sufficiently advanced that we can really tell whether someone is an alcoholic or a drunk until we see the results of not drinking.
I'm fortunate enough to be a Texan. I'm also active in politics and AA. As such I have been close to both of these Texas Governors in small group settings of one sort or another. I can state with certainty that neither showed the symptoms of the dry drunk. After 18 years, ten months and 21 days (but who's counting?) I can recognise those symptoms across a a large room and so can Dean.
I contend that the distinction between a drunk and an alcoholic is equally valid in other possibly addictive behavior. and that the only way to make the distinction is from stopping the behavior and seeing the results.
I further contend that the various theories about the cause of addiction are somewhat interesting but are trivia. It doesn't really matter why I'm an alcoholic. What matters is that I am and what I'm doing about it.
Here is my prescription...if a particular behavior is repeated to the point of detriment, STOP THE BEHAVIOR! If, after a short time, a week or a month, say, you find yourself miserable or unable to keep from restarting, most likely it is an addiction. Then it's a matter of finding the particular recovery regimen that works for you.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.