4 ms·

It's possible that many heroin addicts have "holes" in their life that they fill, but it's also pretty much a certainty that if you take a random person and unw

It's possible that many heroin addicts have "holes" in their life that they fill, but it's also pretty much a certainty that if you take a random person and unwittingly feed them heroin for awhile telling them it's harmless, they're going to have withdrawal symptoms if they stop. What point are you even making here? You know there's a difference between physical dependence and addiction, right? Someone who isn't a heroin addict can easily stop taking it if they are weaned off. And heroin addicts relapse all the time after physical withdrawals have subsided.

CPLX 8y ago
> Someone who isn't a heroin addict can easily stop taking it if they are weaned off. That's a bit dubious as a blanket statement. Perhaps you're creating a distinction without a difference? My point pretty much sums to "addictive things are addictive" Yes, addiction is more nuanced than that, some people are exposed to addictive things and don't get hooked. But it seems like people in this thread are trying to advance this idea: addiction = addictive thing + preexisting problem Therefore, the solution is to get rid of that preexisting problem and voila, addiction is fixed. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm sticking with the idea that certain substances, or technologies, are inherently likely to create habits and dependency in most humans who are exposed to them. I count social media and heroin in that category.
- __blockcipher__ 8y ago
  >Perhaps you're creating a distinction without a difference? There is certainly a difference. Your body, physically, will be fine without heroin. But emotionally, you feel empty without it, and as soon as some emotional trauma - stress, sadness, fear or despair rears its head, you relapse. I guess you could argue that emotional need is no different than physical need, but I don't think that's quite the point you're trying to make

CPLX 8y ago

> Someone who isn't a heroin addict can easily stop taking it if they are weaned off. That's a bit dubious as a blanket statement. Perhaps you're creating a distinction without a difference? My point pretty much sums to "addictive things are addictive" Yes, addiction is more nuanced than that, some people are exposed to addictive things and don't get hooked. But it seems like people in this thread are trying to advance this idea: addiction = addictive thing + preexisting problem Therefore, the solution is to get rid of that preexisting problem and voila, addiction is fixed. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm sticking with the idea that certain substances, or technologies, are inherently likely to create habits and dependency in most humans who are exposed to them. I count social media and heroin in that category.

__blockcipher__ 8y ago
>Perhaps you're creating a distinction without a difference? There is certainly a difference. Your body, physically, will be fine without heroin. But emotionally, you feel empty without it, and as soon as some emotional trauma - stress, sadness, fear or despair rears its head, you relapse. I guess you could argue that emotional need is no different than physical need, but I don't think that's quite the point you're trying to make