I've been giving this some thought since my earlier posts in this thread.

Except in cases where one is physically dependent on a substance and fear of withdrawal agony keeps you using(*), I think what is usually called "addiction" is a real thing but has the wrong name. I think we should be calling it "learned helplessness". And no, this condition does not excuse anything. If the dependency is all in the mind, one can think themselves out of it - but it will take as much effort to do so as thinking yourself into it did, in my experience.

(* don't just think hard drugs in this scenario, it could be prescription antidepressants if one has a natural serotonin deficiency or even cannabis if one has a natural cannabinoid deficiency, to name just two examples)

I call it "pain avoidance behavior theory" It explains the behaviors much better than "addiction theory" which after all, is only a not very well proven theory of behavior.


Pain avoidance: people choose to take certain substances to avoid pain, either mental or physical. They out of their choice, abuse the substance until it alters their physical chemistry. Then when they try to stop using, the altered chemistry, causes them MORE pain, and they are in a vicious circle/cycle. All through CHOICE.

I think that base on how their mind preceives something and HOW your body reacts to chemistery of mixing in your body that people all have different levels of their feeling of need. Hence some folfs can lay down cigs and walk away it's harded for others, but some of them can lay down coke with ease. Being addicted can't be your excuse but folks can be addicted to anything from drugs to weightlifting.

You've just shown you buy into the myth of addiction theory.

Addiction - A word given by the government/health officials for feeling happy so that you feel bad about yourself for ingesting a substance THEY deem bad for you.

The fact that an individual can say that shows the term is inherently misused in connection with the concept of chemical and human interaction.

The definition of addiction means you have a desire, like, penchant, following for a thing. Addiction can apply to anything for anyone. Everyone is an "addict" of some kind. But addict has nothing to do with choosing to use a chemical to such an extent that it alters your chemical physiology.

Pain avoidance is a theory I like. Having posted the question and reading the responses I am much now more comfortable with how I'm feeling about it all. I just spent five days last week in hospital after quitting smoking for a week and a half. I have Crohn's disease and not taking any of the super-powerful medications they prescribe for that. When they took me in, even morphine was not working for me. I was in bad shape.

So, medically, it's obvious the body knows when it needs a dose. I don't like taking it habitually without needing it.

Definitely if our culture and legal system didn't demonize the herb everyone would be much better off. I grew up where if I smoked it I would be kicked out of the house - so I was very cautious/fearful/guilty (being Catholic didn't help).

Although there is still a huge stigma in many cultures with weed, we're getting to the point where cannabis (or rather the chemicals or cannabinoids the scientists can isolate) are becoming an acceptable treatment. But of course big pharma wants their cut. Another topic for another thread.

Ohigho WHEN lifting weights certian chemicals are released in our bodies so while not in the amounts of induced drug dependance you can become addicted to releasing those chem.s in your body hence you become addicted to lifting weights. The same can be said for eatting chocolate or the calming effect of reading books. Chemicals are involved [inside your body] and humans can find themselves needing and wanting many things due to these chemicals hence they are addicted.

Great example of a person who thinks addiction theory is valid. However, it's not.

Your missing the point topcat, Im talking about meaning of words. As I said everyone can be called an addict but the perversion of the term in the last 100 years has helped create a fantastical approach to the topic. Look at the meaning of the words...essentially a decision or series of implicit decisions are made toward one specific thing. It means everything about behaviors and nothing about end results of biochemistry.

addicted (adj.)
1530s, "delivered over" by judicial sentence; pp. adjective from addict (v.). Modern sense of "dependent" is short for self-addicted "to give over or award (oneself) to someone or some practice" (1560s; exact phrase from c.1600); specialization to narcotics dependency is from c.1910.

addict (v.)
1530s (implied in addicted), from L. addictus, pp. of addicere "to deliver, award, yield; give assent, make over, sell," figuratively "to devote, consecrate; sacrifice, sell out, betray" from ad- "to" (see ad-) + dicere "say, declare" (see diction), but also "adjudge, allot." Earlier in English as an adjective, "delivered, devoted" (1520s).

Drugs are not evil. They are not magical. They are not sentient. Today "addict" has a negative connotation and is somehow treated like a disease yet I can't comprehend how a mental process in the form of decision making is a vector for a virus.

Addiction is a terrible term for something that comes down to a series of bad decisions leading to chemical reactions. You may say every drug seeker is a terrible chemist.