What Does “Addiction” Mean, in Your Opinion?

[Nous]

Studies can be and are manipulated, and are subject to agendas. Whether it's real or manufactured, the so-called "opioid crisis" and "opioid epidemic" is a bandwagon that politicians and medical professionals, not to mention the media, are jumping on.

I gave you information based on personal, real life, real world experiences. So, if this is going to become a cross-examination with what I detect is a sarcastic tone, I'm out.

I don't have a clue as to how someone can rationally reject the findings of a well-controlled scientific experiment, in favor of what someone else told one, or one's own "experience" with a drug.

 

[Nous]

It increases over time, but you would see a fluctation in medication usage.

By what method did you determine that?

But that revision seems to be based on the assumption that there is some objective difference between "someone [who] is addicted to something" and "a person that is not addicted". Does it not?

Yes, behavior for instance.

And by what objective method does one measure that alleged objective difference in behavior?

 

[Koldo]

By what method did you determine that?

Talking to people ?
I have met many people afflicted by this condition. In my line of work I happen to meet with many people past their 60s.

And by what objective method does one measure that alleged objective difference in behavior?

As I have said, if there is no underlying physical cause to a behavior that looks like an addiction, then it is either an addiction or some other mental condition.

 

[david-david]

I did a search for the term “addict” in thread titles here, and found some 14 threads started during the last year with titles containing the words “addicted” or “addiction”. These terms are commonly used, and I would like for you to be as specific as you can about what you mean by such terms.

First, does “addiction” exist in some objective sense, or is that term (and/or the concept of “to be 'addicted' to”) ultimately subjective and/or undefinable?

If you believe that “addiction” or to be “addicted” to a substance is objective in some sense, then how does one determine that one is “addicted” to that substance or has an “addiction” to that substance?

Let's say that a person takes a substance Z every day for at least 2 weeks. Is that person “addicted” to that substance (or, alternatively, does not person have an “addiction”)? Are there some substances that one cannot be “addicted” to or for which a person cannot have an “addiction” under any circumstances? If so, what is distinguishes those substances that one can be “addicted” to and the substances that one cannot?

I broke my big toe earlier this year in a silly accident. It was somewhat painful. I took a substance every day for about 2 weeks, which was longer than I was originally intending to take that substance. Was I “addicted” to it, or, alternatively, did I have an “addiction”? If not, why not?

For many decades in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM provided “diagnostic criteria” for 2 “substance use” mental disorders--Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence. It only required a single symptom for a person to be diagnosed with a Substance Abuse disorders; one of the symptoms that would satisfy the diagnostic criterion for a Substance Abuse disorder was “legal problems”. Many, many people were diagnosed with and “treated” for having a cannabis substance abuse disorder merely on the basis of having been arrested for possession, regardless of how responsibly the person may have used marijuana.

In the most recent iteration of the DSM, the “legal problem” criterion was dropped, and the distinction between substance abuse and substance dependence was eliminated, replaced with a single mental disorder called Substance Use Disorder. “Craving” a substance is added as a possible symptom. The manual contains essentially no discussion of what the concept of pathological “craving” of a substance is supposed to mean.

The DSM-5 says that a Substance Use Disorder entails “clinically significant” impairment or distress as manifested by at least two of the following “symptoms” occurring within a 12-month period. The clinician can specify 3 categories of severity where two or three symptoms indicate a “mild” substance use disorder, “moderate” for four or five symptoms, and “severe” in cases of 6 or more symptoms.

1. Use of a substance leading to failure to fulfill obligations at work, school or home.
2. Use of a substance in situations that may be physically hazardous.
3. Continued use despite it causing or exacerbating social or interpersonal problems.
4. Tolerance (the need for increased amounts of substance to achieve the desired effect or a diminished effect from the same amount).
5. Withdrawal (development of substance specific syndrome due to the cessation of use).
6. The substance is used more or for a longer period than was originally intended.
7. There is persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to reduce use of a substance.
8. Significant time spent obtaining, using or recovering from the effects of a substance.
9. Decreased social, occupational, or recreational activities due to substance use.
10. Continued use despite subsequent physical/psychological problems.
11. Craving the substance.

So, do you use the term “addiction” as a synonym or colloquialism for a substance use mental disorder? Is to be “addicted” to a substance just to have the behaviors denoted by 2 or more of the above criteria? If so, does it matter which two? You might notice that several of these “symptoms” are difficult to distinguish as denoting distinct behaviors or phenomena. For instance, 1 and 9 seem to me to be just different words to describe something that is essentially the same.

You might also notice the perennial problem with DSM diagnostic criteria, namely the absence of anything that is quantifiable or that can be objectively determined, which is the fundamental requirement for a designation to be used for scientific purposes.

Please also notice that, regardless of the fact that the APA only “recognizes” substance use disorders for certain substances, one can easily satisfy the criteria by use of at least a variety of other substances, especially other psychoactive substances such as those prescribed as treatment for mental disorders. For instance, one of the most common adverse effects of antidepressants is impotence and/or decreased libido. This symptom undoubtedly causes some degree of distress in most people, and/or, in many cases, be the source of “interpersonal problems” with the person's spouse or partner, or cause the person to date less, thus meeting the criteria for numbers 9, 10, and/or 3.

“Irritability” is another quite common effect of antidepressants (and other psychiatric drugs), which alone should satisfy at least 2 of the above criteria for a substance use disorder.

It is also well-documented that after taking antidepressants for 2 weeks or longer, discontinuation causes an increased incidence of "relapse". The neurological correlations of this are fairly well understood and have been demonstrated in animals. Therefore, this syndrome and its effects, or the desire or efforts to avoid such effects, could easily satisfy 2 or more of the above criteria. Many other psychiatric drugs are known to produce withdrawal syndromes upon discontinuation.

Thus, if your concept of “addiction” or to be “addicted” to a substance is synonymous with Substance Use Disorder, then, in order to be consistent, it would seem that one is likewise referring to what happens almost invariably with the taking of psychiatric drugs that are prescribed to millions of people around the world (especially in the US).

Anyway, my questions here are above.

Maybe before answering this or seeking to answer this, the person should ask, is that 'thing' which that person is supposedly or could be 'addicted' to harmful in any way and if yes, in what way is it harmful? Because I can be 'addicted' to getting up out of bed and not wanting to stay in for too long just as I could be 'addicted' to staying in bed for longer than I might if I got out of bed.


I mean, the term 'addiction' is a pretty serious word that debilitates many individuals and families. But if a 'definition' of having that word being inappropriately used is being 'discussed' over, then it would be a discussion of root words and such rather than the harms they can cause in real life.


There is another 'addiction' many don't discuss but might be worse than the other 'addictions'. And that is 'violence'. Violence can be an 'addiction'.


Uprooting it from the roots before it becomes wild growth can be preventive which would alleviate any future 'preemptive' necessity.

So we should understand that 'addiction' is a man made 'disease'. Without these current man made 'things' such as drugs, riches, fames, needing to keep up with the Joneses, glory, etc.... there would be very little 'addiction'.

 

[Nous]

Talking to people ?
I have met many people afflicted by this condition. In my line of work I happen to meet with many people past their 60s.



As I have said, if there is no underlying physical cause to a behavior that looks like an addiction, then it is either an addiction or some other mental condition.

So you can't specify any objective method of measurement by which to determine whether a person has an “addiction” or is “addicted to” any substance. Right?

 

[Nous]

So we should understand that 'addiction' is a man made 'disease'. Without these current man made 'things' such as drugs, riches, fames, needing to keep up with the Joneses, glory, etc.... there would be very little 'addiction'.

Of course, poppies are not man-made plants.

There is another 'addiction' many don't discuss but might be worse than the other 'addictions'. And that is 'violence'. Violence can be an 'addiction'.

Would you say that male lions are “addicted to” violence? I'm pretty sure the average male lion engages in more killing and injury to others than the average modern human does.

 

[Koldo]

So you can't specify any objective method of measurement by which to determine whether a person has an “addiction” or is “addicted to” any substance. Right?

Isn't what I proposed in the last post objective enough ?

 

[Nous]

Isn't what I proposed in the last post objective enough ?

No, one person sitting across on the other side of a desk from someone else, and asking vague questions and the other person giving vague answers is not performing an objective measurement on that person's body. It seems to me it shouldn't be necessary to say that.

 

[Koldo]

No, one person sitting across on the other side of a desk from someone else, and asking vague questions and the other person giving vague answers is not performing an objective measurement on that person's body. It seems to me it shouldn't be necessary to say that.

Wait. How did you end up with that from what I have said ?

 

[Nous]

Wait. How did you end up with that from what I have said ?

You said, "As I have said, if there is no underlying physical cause to a behavior that looks like an addiction, then it is either an addiction or some other mental condition." Mental disorders (i.e., the "some other mental condition" you referred to) are diagnosed by someone asking vague questions of someone and getting vague answers, not by performing objective biological measurements. None of primary mental disorders are defined according to objective, biological criteria.

 

[Koldo]

You said, "As I have said, if there is no underlying physical cause to a behavior that looks like an addiction, then it is either an addiction or some other mental condition." Mental disorders (i.e., the "some other mental condition" you referred to) are diagnosed by someone asking vague questions of someone and getting vague answers, not by performing objective biological measurements. None of primary mental disorders are defined according to objective, biological criteria.

I disagree with the vagueness you assert but yes, the lack of biological measurements when it comes down to diagnosis is the nature of the beast.

Honestly though if the requirement, that you have set, to be objective is to have a biological measurement then I don't see the point of your topic at all.

 

[Nous]

I disagree with the vagueness you assert but yes, the lack of biological measurements when it comes down to diagnosis is the nature of the beast.

Honestly though if the requirement, that you have set, to be objective is to have a biological measurement then I don't see the point of your topic at all.

(1) It is a fact that no primary mental disorder in the DSM is defined on the basis of objective biological criteria.

(2) The "point" of my pointing that it requires a objective biological measurement in order to logically claim that "addiction" is an objective disorder is that there is no other way to establish that "addiction" is an objective disorder short of determining its presence or absence by way of an objective biological measurement. That is just the empirical method.

 

[Koldo]

(1) It is a fact that no primary mental disorder in the DSM is defined on the basis of objective biological criteria.

(2) The "point" of my pointing that it requires a objective biological measurement in order to logically claim that "addiction" is an objective disorder is that there is no other way to establish that "addiction" is an objective disorder short of determining its presence or absence by way of an objective biological measurement. That is just the empirical method.

I dont think anyone came into this topic thinking they could use some sort of thermometer to measure addiction.

For instance, there is no objective way, in the sense you are using the word objective at least, to measure the pain you are experiencing at any given time. You will be merely exhibiting behavior compatible with the experience of pain. And most of the time that is good enough to state that you are objectively experiencing pain. Your requirements are your requirements and no one else's.

 

[Nous]

For instance, there is no objective way, in the sense you are using the word objective at least, to measure the pain you are experiencing at any given time.

Actually, pain is something that all humans experience as long as they are conscious and have nociception. Both criteria can be determined objectively. That's quite different than any primary mental disorder. What would even be the alleged behavior that everyone has in common by which to determine the presence or absence of an addiction mental disorder?

 

[Koldo]

Actually, pain is something that all humans experience as long as they are conscious and have nociception. Both criteria can be determined objectively. That's quite different than any primary mental disorder. What would even be the alleged behavior that everyone has in common by which to determine the presence or absence of an addiction mental disorder?

Entertain me then.
How would you objectively measure someone's pain ?
Explain it step by step.

 

[Nous]

How would you objectively measure someone's pain ?

This is what I said:

"Actually, pain is something that all humans experience as long as they are conscious and have nociception. Both criteria can be determined objectively. That's quite different than any primary mental disorder."

 

[Koldo]

This is what I said:

"Actually, pain is something that all humans experience as long as they are conscious and have nociception. Both criteria can be determined objectively. That's quite different than any primary mental disorder."

And I said: Explain it step by step.

Let's see if your assessment that pain can be objectively measured is correct.

 

[Nous]

And I said: Explain it step by step.

Let's see if your assessment that pain can be objectively measured is correct.

Obviously you need to read my post again in order to discern what I said can be objectively determined.

 

[Koldo]

Obviously you need to read my post again in order to discern what I said can be objectively determined.

Clarify then: Can you objectively whether someone is experiencing pain ? If not then you didn't refute what I have said. My point stands.

 

[Nous]

Clarify then: Can you objectively whether someone is experiencing pain ? If not then you didn't refute what I have said. My point stands.

Huh? How does it help you to argue anything for someone else to be unable to objectively determine another person is experiencing pain? Can you spell "straw man"?