3 ms·
Yeah, this is a major omission and it is also why you see so many functional addicts who don't think they have a problem. Also it means that who is considered
by Mezzie 5y ago
Yeah, this is a major omission and it is also why you see so many functional addicts who don't think they have a problem.
Also it means that who is considered an 'addict' is partially socially constructed: Some people have jobs that will randomly drug test for weed, so if they smoke daily and lose their job, they're addicts, but since my job is remote and doesn't care, I could be high as a kite most nights and not be an 'addict' since it didn't cause issues.
- leetcrew 5y agoI mean yeah, different jobs come with different obligations. showing up high to a construction site is a problem in a way that being high during your shift at a dispensary is not. I dunno if that's "socially constructed"; it seems like a very real safety issue to me. it's unfortunate that we can't test for acute cannabis intoxication the way we can with alcohol, but I'm sure we'll get there in time. more generally, I would push back on the idea that someone isn't experiencing consequences just because they manage to hold a job. spending all your nonworking time intoxicated is not usually the path to a fulfilling personal life. the consequences are there whether the person sees them or not.