Talk:Addiction/Archive 1

Psychological addiction
The term "psychological addiction" does not have a medical precedent, and should be classified under the Casual Addiction subheading (as that seems to refer to misuse of the term addiction). Psychological addiction IS NOT a form of addiction. The dictionary definition of addiction is "Addiction is a strong dependence on a drug typified by three factors: 1) severe withdrawal symptoms; 2) tolerance to a given dose, or the need for more and more of the substance; and 3) the loss of control.". Addiction is a medical term designating the continued and increased use of a drug to avoid withdrawl symptoms, NOT simply a habitual behavior. This needs to be emphasized in the article. DryGrain 23:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC) --- In this case how would you explain Cocaine Addiction? -WebDome

The problem is that the dictionary definition of addiction is not exactly the same as the medical definition. Cocaine addiction meets (3) in the dictionary definition rather clearly. The way it meets (1) is through the withdrawal symptom of depression. It doesn't really meet (2) at all. And yet clearly individuals can addict to cocaine use. Psychological addiction, casual addiction, etc. are all attempts to define the term so that it meets the various types of addictive behavior. When you get down to the medical issues, one big issue is that sedative addiction is a very different animal from opioid addiction...different parts of the brain...different disease course...different treatments...etc. I'm removing the word "craving" from the entry only because craving doesn't exist in some forms of addiction (such as sedative addiction). Hope that's acceptable. Drgitlow 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The DSM-IV criteria for dependence is probably a more precise guide for this term than a dictionary definition.

Decades ago, addiction was a pharmacological term that clearly referred to the use of a tolerance-inducing drug in sufficient quantity as to cause tolerance (the requirement that greater dosages of a given drug be used to produce an identical effect as time passes). That pharmacological term called drug resistance. Ex. resistance to antibiotics in infection treatment. Any drug is "tolerance - inducing" over the period of time, tollerance in other words is adaptation. It has nothing to do with addiction.WebDome

With that definition, humans (and indeed all mammals) can be addicted to various drugs quite quickly. Wrong, The term addiction derives from the Latin word addicere, which means "to sentence".WebDome

Almost at the same time, a lay definition of addiction developed. This definition referred to individuals who continued to use a given drug despite their own best interest. This latter definition is now thought of as a disease state by the medical community.

This passage has a lot of gaps and lack of knowledge. - WebDome

The link on "Opponent Process" goes to a page on color theory. I don't know the first thing about an opponent process related to adrenaline rushes, to know where to put a link, or remove that link (despite majoring in psych as an undergrad)... but it's still incongrous. User:Johndodd

The phrase, "in the last few decades," used in this document, tends to drift with the reader through time, each year pointing further away from its origninally intended target. I hope an informed someone will replace this phrase with something more specific before the reference becomes misleading. --joshuarr


 * Point taken. Correction made. Denni 20:29, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

Cannabis addiction ? You must be on crack.
 * Says the pot-head.

Are you sure about addictiveness of Nitrous_Oxide ? --Taw

Physical symptoms of withdrawal and physiological addictiveness are two different things. Short-term problems with caffeine withdrawal are caused mostly by blood presure deregulation.Any substance that affects blood presure can be substituded for caffeine to fix it. --Taw
 * Yes and no. This caution from a New Zealand government agency demonstrates that cutting coffee out of your routine is about more than just a few days of being cranky. "An individual withdrawing from caffeine because of a chronic toxic overdose may experience symptoms of withdrawal including headache, nausea, nervousness, reduced alertness and depressed mood. These symptoms are most acute during the first 20-48 hours, but they may persist for as long as 7 days. Discontinuation of caffeine at even a moderate intake can lead to these symptoms. There is also a danger of developing dependence by having that cup of coffee for the headache caused by caffeine withdrawal." Medsafe Denni 20:29, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

Sorry about the Nitrous Oxide thing, looked up some more info, turns out it's really only psychologically addictive :/ I was wondering about the Cannabis Addiction on that page myself, but didn't remove it. --Hyrax


 * Note that cannabis is listed as behaviorally addictive. It certainly can be that, and when a regular user can't get it, s/he goes through all the classic withdrawal symptoms. (Have you never scraped your pipe to bare metal, or torched that screen just one more time?) Denni


 * That is called seeking behavior, a concept not yet discussed in this article. It is related to the reinforcing properties of a drug. Which are all related to the concepts described herein variously as addiction and dependence. Cannibas is listed in some places as behaviorally addictive. It also has been shown to be associated with withdrawal symptoms. And the tolerence properties of cannibas are related to the canabinoid profile of a particular stash. THC-d9 typical of finer kind-bud has a different tolerance profile than schwag genotypes with higher concentrations of cannabidol and/or cannabidiol.
 * And have you ever measured the increase in cortisol in your blood, an increase in blood pressure, or an increase in body temperature in the hours and days without cannibas after a few days or weeks of regular use? NIH has, maybe not in your body, but in the body of plenty of monkeys and other primates like us. Withdrawal in some people, after certain dosage levels, results in measurable increases of mid-brain anxiety reactions.


 * Seeking behavior, reinforcing properties, tolerance, withdrawal, and continued use regardless apparent harm and beyond any potential therapeutic benefit -- all of these things have been repeatedly documented in some regular marijuana users. The campaign to legalize it is no reason to blind ourselves to the medicine we are practicing on ourselves.
 * I tried to sort out the growth of taxonomy from addiction to dependence but addiction is still used in medical settings and in popular settings. There is a lot more that needs to be done to get this up to par, but maybe these latest edits will make it somewhat more interesting to someone with deep professional knowledge of the topic. This article can never say what is addiction and what is dependence, it can only site multiple and conflicting standards of various professional associations. And those discussions have been plagued for years by conflicting political interests that at times have interfered with users' genuine need to know about the substances we choose to self-titrate. Chocolate bar 08:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Psychological addiction is still addiction... if you NEED something to keep functioning even though it's harmful to you in the long run, that's addiction. Psychological addiction is just as real as physical addiction.
 * In fact, it involves the same neural mechanisms. Because it's the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a dispute over the existance of Cocaine addiction?


 * For the same reason there's still a dispute over the Earth's roundness - there are always people who cannot let go of pet ideas. Denni


 * We know cocaine addiction exists. The difficulty is getting it to fit into the overall "addiction" rubric. For example, individuals with cocaine addiction don't have an objectively measurable physical withdrawal as they do from alcohol. But they do have significant depressive symptoms. They don't generally build up significant tolerance as they do with both sedatives and opioids. They do have ongoing use of the drug despite their best interests, however. Drgitlow 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By limiting a definition of addiction to just the physical realm, the essence of the real consequences of addiction is lost. Addiction is both physical and psychological and the impact of both is consequential and real. Even the psychological component of addiction has biological factors. Addiction in the brain is comprised of neural pathways that have been changed, created or damaged by some substance (or some activity). The brain begins to rely on the substance or activity to release the natural chemicals in the brain. Once a "user" ceases use of the substance or activity, the release of natural chemicals is compromised--sometimes stopped completely--and the craving for the drug (followed by obsession and compulsion) ensues.

Though the physical withdrawal is often more pronounced and certainly uncomfortable in the short-term, it's the long-term psychological impact that keeps people returning to drug use. While the physical components of drug addiction are relatively short lived (a week at most), the biological changes made in the brain can last up to two years with some drugs. Check out a review of PET scans done on monkeys and humans using methamphetamine. Dopamine levels do not return to pre-use levels until about 18 months of full abstinence from the drug. Cocaine has similar impacts dopamine production and functioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogriz (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Symbiotic Addictions
What I have come to believe is a gross oversight of the mental health profession is the recognition that not all addictions are dysfunctional. Thus I have added the definition chart at the beginning. Another gross oversight that I feel that the mental health profession has failed to recognize is the condition I have labeled Mass Behavior Addiction. Under the dysfunctional section of this category, I feel that many cults and totalitarian systems could be classified. Comments?

Scott April 18, 2004

Scott, your construct of addictions is well on the way to being what could be a useful rhetoric for explaining addiction theory. But, in as much is it is what you believe it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia, or encyclopedias in general, summarize what has been widely discussed in society. The ideas of symbiotic addictions versus disfunctional addictions are interesting, but they do not reflect the vast study of addiction by practitioners and by academies. Right or wrong, an encyclopedia article needs to first explore what has been done then review that information in the light of critical theories if those theories have some wide basis in popular discourse.

If you can find support in literature for how symbiosis is accepted as a view of addiction, that should be included, but I am somewhat familiar with literature on addiction and can't readily find that. The Social Norms Model is widely used for several areas of study and education that overlap with addiction - it is used somewhat in college alcohol abuse prevention education, for example, but it is more common to sociology than to addiciction medicine or addiction theory. Maybe you could summarize the origins and assumptions of social norms modeling in a new article on social norms model, which could provide a theoretical and practical basis for including the concept in this article.

Scott, I think I see where you are going and I have to disagree with you. Addiction is ALWAYS unhealthy and dysfunctional. The premise of addiction--as I understand it--is that it is both compulsion and obsession work together, causing life consequences. All humans have elements of both--there are things we do compulsively and things we obsess over. Its when these two things act in concert that life consequences arise. Drinking a beer a day may be habitual, but does not--by itself--qualify as either compulsive and obsessive. Example: every day at 4:30, a man looks at his watch and begins thinking about the cold beer in the fridge he will be able to enjoy in 45 minutes. At 5:15, he walks in the house, opens the fridge and opens the beer. Next day, same exact scenario at 4:30. However, this day, his kid has a t-ball game he is coaching. He remembers this, skips the beer and heads to t-ball. For a number of reasons he does not ever get that beer and his night goes along as planned--no internal discomfort and no external consequences. This is not addiction--this is a social normed habit. If instead, however, this man did not get the beer after work or after t-ball, was thinking and obsessing about the beer all night instead of paying attention to t-ball, got into a fight with his wife due to his higher than normal anxiety, etc. He would have experienced some consequences due to his obsession and unmet compulsion. My guess is that guy number two would have popped that beer as soon as he got the chance--whenever that may have been--in order to curb the increasing compulsion to drink.

One Definition of Addiction
I moved this table from the article to the talk page for several reasons. One is that it was set up as a 334 pixel chart, which forces the Wikipedia namespace out of bounds for any user using 600X800 resolution. Tables resolve best when set up as a percentage of the window, as was the chart contributed April 14.

Color selection is a subjective choice, but the new chart colors seemed bold and intrusive, rather than simple and leading into the table, as they were on the April 14 chart. Most internet page layout guides recommend use of one or two colors, but three colors might tend to be distracting rather than tend to contribute to readibility.

Beyond these layout problems, this chart has logical problems. "Not all medical practitioners agree on what comprises addiction or dependency." is redundant in that a more precise review of evolving differences in addiction medicine, and the organizations involved in addiction medicine, was already a part of the article.

"One definition of addiction" is not attributed to any organization of behavioral medicine practitioners, any addiction medicine society, or even an academic source. Obviously, being "one definition" does not assure it is not one person's definition, or that it is a widely accepted definition. Since definitions of addiciton can only be opinion, an encyclopedic article on addiction should first summarize the opinions of practitioners working professionally in the field. "Mass Behavioral Addictions" appears to be an idiosyncratic concept - the phrase gets exactly zero hits as a unique phrase on Google, so it might not belong in an encyclopedic article on the current science and popular literature related to addiction. That said, the information is interesting, and might be attributed to a source, but ScottPerry would do well to name a source. If some source can be cited to support the concept of general/disfunctional and symbiotic addictions, as described in a table, the article would be more reflective of current knowledge if it does not override the summary of addiction definitions drawn on standard medical approaches. I say that because the layout would better serve readers effort to see the world through the encyclopedia if space attributed to various ideas in the article were proportional to the amount of discussion and literature the supports the various concepts. Talbiano

The following is the table and introduction as was posted by StevePerry:

Not all medical practitioners agree on what comprises addiction or dependency. One definition of addiction, which breaks down the term into nine sybtypes of addiction is as follows:

I've moved the paragraph on the "social norms model", added by Scottperry, here. The information contained in it may have a place in the article, if properly integrated, but it doesn't belong in a section of explanations for addiction. Perhaps someone can add a section on addiction education.

"The social norms model is often employed in educational efforts intended to demonstrate, especially to student populations, that self-administration of psychoactive substances is not a normative behavior. Educators often employ the social norms model in attempts to demonstrate that those who frequently use alcohol or other psycho-active substances in ways that pose the threat of physical harm are a minority, and that the majority of a social group approaches the use of potentially harmful substances with caution and moderation."

Defenestration 05:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Addiction article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 10:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a linkbot but I was wondering whether Consumerism constitute Addiction? If so, whether someone with experience in Wikipedia would consider adding that page with the category? from new user User:Dlwl (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

is addictionalternatives.com commercial?
is addictionalternatives.com commercial? &mdash; Johnjosephbachir 04:18, 4 February 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like it is a portal to several sites, not all of which are working properly, and seems to be mainly advertising one doctor's services. I've gone ahead and removed the link. &mdash; mjb 02:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Overeating and binge eating
Clicking on the first of the above leads to the latter - surely they are different things (even in common parlance) - ie "eating possibly continuously at one level or another leading to obesity", and "stop-start eating", to put it very simplistically? They may overlap, but two things are involved. &mdash; 212.85.6.26 12:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. I changed the link to just point to a Wiktionary definition, and I changed the overeating article to be a stub rather than a redirect. You can do these things too; just make the changes that you think need to be made. That's what the wikis are all about. &mdash; mjb 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes the question is a matter of techncial nicities (sp? - one of those words which looks wrong whichever way it is spelt), and/or the question poser (in this case me) does not know enough about the topic to do it justice. And sometimes the question poser perfers to deal with other ways of developing Wikipedia. The two areas should be cross-referred anyway. 212.85.6.26 1 September.

Definitions and citations
There are many statements made in this article about what addiction is, and precious few citations or qualifications. Every statement is made as if it were indisputable fact. Yet in the past century, these definitions have evolved considerably. Even in the past few decades there has been significant shifts in thinking about addiction, dependence, drug abuse, and so on.


 * Addiction is an uncontrollable compulsion to repeat a behavior regardless of its consequences. &mdash; Why is this not qualified? For example, "addiction is widely regarded in current medical practice to be &#8230;"
 * Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm"; if there is no harm to the patient or another party, there is no addiction. &mdash; citation please
 * the primary attribute of an addictive drug is its ability to induce euphoria while causing harm. &mdash; What is the criteria for determining whether harm was caused by the drug?
 * Addictions can theoretically form for any rewarding behavior, but typically only do so in individuals with emotional, social, or psychological dysfunctions &mdash; omg; citation please.
 * There is also a lesser known situation called pseudo-addiction &mdash; citation please; if it's lesser-known, all the more reason to be careful not to misrepresent how widely-held this notion is.
 * Not all doctors do agree on what addiction or dependency is &mdash; this should be an introductory statement and examples of the variety of views should follow; why is it buried?
 * Nicotine is considered by many to be the most addictive substance in the world, although there has been no way found to determine this. &mdash; possibly a contentious statement; citation please.
 * Caffeine, ingested by more than 80% of human adults, is the most popular psychoactive substance in the world. &mdash; citations for stats please (not that I don't believe this particular statement).
 * Early editions of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders described addiction as a physical dependency to a substance that resulted in withdrawal symptoms in its absence. Recent editions, including DSM-IV, have moved toward a diagnostic instrument that classifies such conditions as dependency, rather than addiction. &mdash; here's some citations (sort of), but why is this under "Methods of care"?
 * ...in addition to the adoption and twin studies that have been well replicated, much of the medical community is satisfied that addiction is in part genetically moderated.&mdash; Well replicated studies with no citation? If anyone knows, please add a cite.

The "Diverse explanations" section seems to be quite closely related to defining addiction and explaining the divergent points of view; it should be much closer to the beginning of the article.

Addictions can also be formed due to opponent process reactions … Because of opponent process[,] criminal behavior, running, stealing, violence, acting, test taking can become habit forming. &mdash; Is the term 'habit-forming' (it should be hyphenated, I believe) meant to be synonymous with 'addictive'? I think many would consider a 'habit' to be much less extreme than an 'addiction', no?

Those are the main points that I see in need of cleanup. Can some of the people more invested in the current content of this article attempt to address some of these points? It is doubtful that I will have time to research them in the near term. I have, however, been working on getting a lot of definitions and citations into the drug abuse article. Thanks. &mdash; mjb 02:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * changed the bit about the habit- i'm a stickler for keeping addiction to mean drug/alcohol addiction, though i am trying to keep my POV out a here as much as i can bear it. still, "habit-forming" is not the same as addiction, whether you include behaviors or not.


 * i'm starting to go through and find some info to back up some of the claims you listed. i always have trouble figuring out how to format citations- should they just go in the same section? Amutepiggy 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that some highly addictive drugs (so-called hard drugs), such as cocaine, induce relatively little physical dependence, whilst other drugs (so-called soft drugs) such as magic mushrooms and peyote are not normally considered to give rise to any significant degree of addiction or dependence, Here you say the same thing about both drugs wich is "such as conaine induce relatively Little physical dependence" and "are not normally considered to give rise to any significant degree of addiction or dependance" so what are you trying to say, drugs arn't addictive? I was confused by that, you might want to clarify or word it better.

I agree with the comments here.. Why are anti-depressants excluded as being addictive in the article. If a drug causes negative effects in a user when they do not have the drug in sufficient titer in their body, is that not addiction? I don't understand how one can exclude them from the definition of being addictive. The drug companies do not want this to be part of the characterization of the drug. The psychological neurological dependency on the drug is what defines the "addiction". Now if a diabetic does not take insulin properly they will ultimately be at risk, but the effects are not "directly" neurological, rather the low blood sugar causes "general" effects that can lead to coma and death. In the case of anti-depressants the effects of withdrawal, ie. low titer, are DIRECTLY neurological,. this is a very important aspect of the article as the anti-depressants are commonly used, and the langague used by doctors as suggested by drug companies are clearly intended to minimize concerns about dependency, and effects of withdrawal, and anything that would suggest that some of these drugs are ADDICTIVE...  This is a very important part of definition and the current article takes the anti-depressants out of this sphere,, not sure this is accurate or correct or responsible..

Levi Bryant
We might consider completely redoing the "criticism" section as it would appear to be a bit of shameless promotion with the entirety of the paragraph copied verbatim from his website. As well, there are only 108 hits via Yahoo! -Eleuthero 07:32, 19 December 2005


 * 18-Aug-2008: (3 years later) Which Levi? I can't show "shameless promotion" but I can say the blogger Levi Bryant (larvalsubjects on WordPress) was shocked to be considered an addiction expert from that criticism section (also paraphrased on other websites); in May 2007 blogger Levi reported telling a famous men's magazine (in 2006) to instead interview a published expert who had worked with addicts:


 * Levi Bryant: "How, you might ask, did I come to be ranked alongside the illustrious Thomas Szasz and to be credited with a cogent criticism of contemporary treatments of addiction? All of this came from this post on the Lacan list on yahoogroups back in 2003, coupled with my article "The Absent Third" and "Social Sciences and Apres Coup". I referred the journalist to Rik Loose, who is a Lacanian analyst that’s actually worked with addicts and published on these matters. It’s a brave new world."


 * (From his blog May 2007: larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/category/spurious/)

I am removing the 3-year-old unsourced mention of "Levi Bryant" opinions, so at least the blogger won't be accused of this unfounded expertise from a Wikipedia article. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)