4 ms·

Totally agreed. I don't believe people are born predestined to become addicts; they may or may not have inherited a propensity for it, but circumstances are gen

Totally agreed. I don't believe people are born predestined to become addicts; they may or may not have inherited a propensity for it, but circumstances are generally what pushes someone push over the edge into full blown addiction. Viewing addiction as a moral failing rather than a maladaptive coping mechanism for a miserable existence and/or untreated mental illness is holding progress back.

katzgrau 5y ago
I'm not sure I agree. For many, the substance one is addicted to generally starts out as something seen as fun and enjoyable. Take alcohol, the most widely celebrated addictive toxin in the world. Stick with it for a bit, integrate into your life as a crutch (bad social skills, try drinking! need a way to relax, try drinking! bored, try drinking!) and eventually the effects of withdrawal keep you hooked. Even if you think you're not hooked, there's a chance you are. It's a slide that is very difficult to travel in the opposite direction on. Some people will certainly slide further down due to life circumstances, but that's not really the problem, is it? You can't eliminate the fact that life is eventually going to really suck at one time or another. The problem is that we allow companies to profit from addictive and usually harmful substances, and they are incentivized to keep people addicted. Alcohol, tobacco, and opiates - the root of an astounding amount of poor health, financial struggle, and early death among otherwise ordinary people. Addiction isn't a moral failing of the individual as much as it is one of society, but in my opinion, for different reasons. Think about it, there's real truth to it.
- thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
  Your entire 'real truth' doesn't even deal with the fact that many people can use substances without addiction, but some people absolutely cannot. So by your truth anyone who becomes an addict is weak. I see a moral failing here.
  - katzgrau 5y ago
    > many people can use substances without addiction My stance is that the majority of people regularly using some substance probably sit somewhere on the spectrum of addiction. Most people just never bother to quit, because it hasn't caused too much of an interference. Or if it has, they say they'll "cut back." Soon enough they're right back where they started. Addiction can exist in very subtle ways. It creeps up. It's also highly stigmatized, so nobody wants to admit that they're dependent on a substance. With the exception of caffeine of course. Most people will openly admit their addiction to caffeine.
    - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
      Yeah I mean addiction has a pretty concrete definition despite your enthusiasm that every use of 'substance' lies on a 'spectrum' and therefore you can't say anything at all about addiction because 'everyones addicted' to something to some degree? c'mon

katzgrau 5y ago

I'm not sure I agree. For many, the substance one is addicted to generally starts out as something seen as fun and enjoyable. Take alcohol, the most widely celebrated addictive toxin in the world. Stick with it for a bit, integrate into your life as a crutch (bad social skills, try drinking! need a way to relax, try drinking! bored, try drinking!) and eventually the effects of withdrawal keep you hooked. Even if you think you're not hooked, there's a chance you are. It's a slide that is very difficult to travel in the opposite direction on. Some people will certainly slide further down due to life circumstances, but that's not really the problem, is it? You can't eliminate the fact that life is eventually going to really suck at one time or another. The problem is that we allow companies to profit from addictive and usually harmful substances, and they are incentivized to keep people addicted. Alcohol, tobacco, and opiates - the root of an astounding amount of poor health, financial struggle, and early death among otherwise ordinary people. Addiction isn't a moral failing of the individual as much as it is one of society, but in my opinion, for different reasons. Think about it, there's real truth to it.

thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
Your entire 'real truth' doesn't even deal with the fact that many people can use substances without addiction, but some people absolutely cannot. So by your truth anyone who becomes an addict is weak. I see a moral failing here.
- katzgrau 5y ago
  > many people can use substances without addiction My stance is that the majority of people regularly using some substance probably sit somewhere on the spectrum of addiction. Most people just never bother to quit, because it hasn't caused too much of an interference. Or if it has, they say they'll "cut back." Soon enough they're right back where they started. Addiction can exist in very subtle ways. It creeps up. It's also highly stigmatized, so nobody wants to admit that they're dependent on a substance. With the exception of caffeine of course. Most people will openly admit their addiction to caffeine.
  - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
    Yeah I mean addiction has a pretty concrete definition despite your enthusiasm that every use of 'substance' lies on a 'spectrum' and therefore you can't say anything at all about addiction because 'everyones addicted' to something to some degree? c'mon