3 ms·

I understand. The PubMed link says nothing about psychedelics though, which is the subject of this thread. It's merely stating the difference between substance

• giantg2 5y ago
  You can form a psychological dependence to a substance that does not produce a physical dependence. It seems there's an irreconcilable difference in the definitions of addiction that we are using. I think those reading have enough info to view the arguments and make up their minds.
  • cassianoleal 5y ago
    > You can form a psychological dependence to a substance that does not produce a physical dependence. Yes, I understand that. Do you have any actual evidence that this happens with psychedelics though? My personal experiences have shown me a very different picture. After a trip I don't want to touch the thing with a long pole for days or weeks, and that's the same I've seen with other people, including some heavy party-goers who are definitely addicted chemically and/or psychologically to many other substances and habits. Sure, those are anecdotes, but so far I haven't seen evidence to the contrary of them. You haven't provided me with any either, except that Addiction Center article with no science backing. They sell addiction treatment, so it's in their business interest that more addiction exists or is purported to exist. Note that I'm not assuming malice on their side. It's probably more likely that given the lack of evidence either way, they decided to lean towards the more conservative side, which also aligns with their business.