What Does “Addiction” Mean, in Your Opinion?

[Nous]

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.

 

[Cacotopia]

Loving something else more than living your life, and the "love" is quite destructive.

 

[Jumi]

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?

Was the use longer than you wanted to or did the pain last 2 weeks? Did you get chills, other physical symptoms or recurring thoughts about making excuses to continue it's use?

 

[YmirGF]

There are many forms of addiction however. There is primarily physical and psychological addiction issues that vary with addiction object to addiction object. With OCD you can become addicted to given behaviors.

To answer your question, as someone who is on day 12 of smoking cessation, addiction is becoming a slave to something you may have once enjoyed but soon require to remain calm, cool and collected. Withdrawal from any form of addiction will cause symptoms of anxiety of varying intensity and other irrational behavior. The individual is addicted when they cannot consciously do without the object of their fixation for an extended length of time without precipitating withdrawal symptoms.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you believe that “addiction” or to be “addicted” to a substance is objective in some sense..

I do not think its objective. I think the primary indicator should be #7 on that DSM list "persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to reduce use of a substance." Even so you have to hope that psychological professionals care about you and have brains.

Which items on the DSM list could not be grammatically applied to water? There could be situations in which water would fit all nine.

 

[Altfish]

Can't do without

 

[sun rise]

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?

Addiction can be both physical and thus measurable and psychological.

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?

The criteria you quote later on.

For many decades in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM provided “diagnostic criteria” for 2 “substance use” mental disorders--Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence.

I see no need for the scare quotes around diagnostic criteria. They are diagnostic criteria.

“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.

Have you ever experienced craving something, wanting something very strongly? Because you're writing as someone who has no idea what that's about.

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.

Those make a lot of sense to me. Some of those are objective, an outside observer can see them. Some are internal such as desire and craving.

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.

Psychology is a soft science, not a hard science in this area. You want it to be a hard science with laboratory tests and so forth. That's an active area of exploration such as reported here Emotion detection from EEG recordings - IEEE Conference Publication

Also, hormone levels such as dopamine can be measured and compared with levels after a drug is no longer being taken. Criteria such as that should be at some time added to the DSM once it's been more fully explored.

 

[Spiderman]

When drugs became my higher power, my obsession, and something I would steal to get, I became powerless over an addiction

 

[PureX]

I define addiction mainly by the inability to control one's interaction with the object to which we ascribe it. I became addicted to alcohol when I was no longer able to control my use of it. I could not set an amount and then stop drinking when I reached that amount. There are all sorts of reason why this occurs and they vary from object to object, and person to person. But I think the common characteristic is the loss of control.

 

[columbus]

Can't do without

Won't do without seems a better 3 word description.

"Refuse to do without", despite strong evidence that it's messing up your happiness.


I have a bunch of seriously overweight relatives who seem unable to reduce their calorie intake. They'll stop eating anything with a vitamin or fiber to protect their chocolate or whatever. It's a "diet".

That's an addiction.
IMNSHO
Tom

 

[Cooky]

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.

The etymological root of "addiction" is the Latin "addicere", which means: "to assign".

We all assign ourselves the addiction of our choice, whether we want to admit it or not. Also, one addiction can be replaced by a more pleasurable one if one is found.

...But if we are "addicted" to something, like sweets, shopping, making money, drugs or religion, it is because that is the most pleasurable thing to us.

 

[Cooky]

Sometimes, people find pleasure in something society, as a whole, vocally rejects. In these cases, people will be arrested, diagnosed and often ridiculed. In other sub-circles, they may be praised and accepted.

Ultimately, what is or is not an addiction is entirely subjective, depending on what the larger societal whole designates as either acceptable, productive human behavior, or not.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Speaking as a clinician you all are right, but here is the curve ball what about those who are "functional addicts?"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

The sine qua non of addiction is engaging repetitively and compulsively in self-destructive behavior. It is not limited to substance abuse. For example, some are addicted to gambling, some to shopping, and some to sex.

 

[tayla]

What Does “Addiction” Mean, in Your Opinion?

I think the APA DSM categorization is adequate.

 

[Nous]

For everyone here who has claimed, suggested or otherwise believes that “addiction” exists in some objective sense, how does one quantify what supposedly constitutes the condition of "addiction"? Note that not one of the "symptoms" listed in the DSM's diagnostic criteria for Substance Use Disorder entails anything quantifiable or objectively determinable.

 

[Koldo]

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.

I would say that to have an addiction is to feel the need to do something and experience major distress when you can't. And even so only when what you are doing has caused your need in the first place. For instance, if the act of smoking has caused the need to smoke then it is an addiction. If, on the other hand, you feel the need to use drugs to handle your pain, then it is not an addiction.

 

[Nous]

I would say that to have an addiction is to feel the need to do something and experience major distress when you can't. And even so only when what you are doing has caused your need in the first place. For instance, if the act of smoking has caused the need to smoke then it is an addiction. If, on the other hand, you feel the need to use drugs to handle your pain, then it is not an addiction.

Huh? Why does "the need to smoke" (I presume tobacco) constitute an "addiction," but "the need to use to drugs to handle your pain" doesn't?

 

[Koldo]

Huh? Why does "the need to smoke" (I presume tobacco) constitute an "addiction," but "the need to use to drugs to handle your pain" doesn't?

I don't consider it an addiction if you need to make use of a substance because of an underlying reason that would otherwise prevent you from having a fulfilling life.
For instance, living in pain is generally a major impediment to have a fulfulling life, and therefore making use of drugs that reduce your pain is not something I would label an addiction even if you consistely make use of them. On the other hand, if the substance in question has created the underlying reason, such as the craving for tobacco, then I would call it an addiction because in this case the underlying reason is, in a sense, the substance in itself.

 

[Nous]

I don't consider it an addiction if you need to make use of a substance because of an underlying reason that would otherwise prevent you from having a fulfilling life.
For instance, living in pain is generally a major impediment to have a fulfulling life, and therefore making use of drugs that reduce your pain is not something I would label an addiction even if you consistely make use of them. On the other hand, if the substance in question has created the underlying reason, such as the craving for tobacco, then I would call it an addiction because in this case the underlying reason is, in a sense, the substance in itself.

Well, what about the case where a person needs (or believes he needs) one pill every 4 hours in order to avoid having pain, and a few days later needs 2 such pills every 4 hours in order to avoid having pain, and a few days after that needs 3 pills every 4 hours in order to avoid having pain, etc., etc.?