example: a drug addict alcoholic who discovers god and turns a teetotaler gay bashing abortion hating new born Christian.
Is replacing addictions the rule or the exception?
This is more about habits than addiction. Replacing a habit is easier than removing one, but that’s not to say there’s no other way!
Maybe? You gotta spend that saved time somewhere 😉
My issue with this argument is that it feels defeatist and misunderstands why people try to get off addiction. Getting clean isn’t done for the sake of being clean, it’s about *harm reduction." Do some people replace amphetamine abuse with TV Bing watching? Probably. But does that mean that those people were better off using hard drugs and that they shouldn’t even try because they’ll “always be addicted to something?” Fuck no.
it’s not true. i was a heavy smoker and quit and didn’t replace it. it was tough. the temptation for a smoke took like 5 to 10 years to disappear.
i never drank much alcohol, but decided to quit that too, after i realized i hadn’t had a drink in several months and wanted to see where it’s going.
i know several others who quit one thing or another and didn’t replace it. replacing can be a coping mechanism though. if you replace with something that’s more easy to quit, it’s a good way out.
You are not an addict. This is right up there with “why don’t homeless people just buy a house”.
e: eternal september started early it looks like
Does it hurt to use your brain?
Being a heavy smoker, they certainly were
Being addicted to something isn’t what being an addict is.
Oh well, then please fucking inform me what is cause I’ve been misleading myself for a damn long time
I doubt you’re being genuine here, but I’ll try.
Cigarettes are a good example of an addictive substance, it messes with your brain chemistry after a while making it harder to quit. That’s an addiction, it works that way for pretty much everyone. I used to smoke too, the difference between me and an addict is I could have one cigarette today and never have one again easily, whereas an addict would not be able to stop at one and would have to work a long time to quit again if they ever even could.
I hope some day you can gather up enough empathy to get that. But I doubt that too given your reply above.
I’m not sure if the distinction is what you think it is?
I think I could have a cigarette right now and then not have another. But at the peak of my smoking I think I would have to have another. I think normal people can become addicts if they become dependent on a substance, and I think addicts can cease to be so, though it is very difficult, more so for some substances than others. Unless I’m misunderstanding you
So you’re saying that addicts fall back into addictions more easily than the general populace does?
Usually way more easily, and usually just being aware of it isn’t enough.
Bro, I’ve been a polydrug addict for 16+ years now and regularly teach others about harm reduction.
I’m not gonna say I’m the most knowledgeable person you’re going to find on this subject, But I reckon I’ve got my fair share of knowledge.
So tell me about this empathy I don’t have, for you know, addicts.
Please feel free to type as much as you need and I will read it.
Bro, why don’t you just like stop?
(Said with heavy sarcasm and love from someone with ADHD who has endured being told to “Why don’t you just focus” countless times - also, addiction is a common comorbidity with ADHD, woo)
Hello sibling, I love you as well.
Shall we go look at squirrels?
Also, just remember, we have shiny Pokémon in real life, if nothing else we have albino specimens.
We can combine our love of squirrels and shiny if we can find it albino squirrel!!
I’m not even being facetious or anything. I really wanna find an albino squirrel in the wild now
Have you ever seen a black squirrel? They’re tiny and super cute!
You’re definitely splitting hairs with the definition here. You might be correct, but there’s also a good chance that OP didn’t use the terminology correctly either and that the answer given is exactly what they are asking about.
They aren’t my definitions.
Noted.
The concept of addiction as a brain disease has been challenged in recent times. Its better to think of it as a learning disorder that can be corrected over time. AA and NA have also shaped public opinion on alcoholics and addicts with ideas that are not based on science.
Science hasn’t really been winning that fight either, though. Has it.
The concept of addiction as a brain disease has been challenged in recent times
Because we didn’t know shit when it was described like that in layman’s terms when it was described…
Nobody studying it thought it was a literal disease you could catch.
AA and NA have also shaped public opinion on alcoholics and addicts with ideas that are not based on science.
One of AA’s founders had LSD as a huge factor in his recovery and initial program. When he died (or just left) the other guy took all the LSD out and replaced it with Jesus.
LSD breaks your brains pattern recognition, thats what happens when you “trip” things don’t look like they should and you look at things with a new perspective. That’s why the original program worked with addiction and people got to stop going to meeting eventually
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism/
This tho…
Its better to think of it as a learning disorder that can be corrected over time.
Is just fundamentally wrong on a lot of levels, and also offensive but I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean it to be intentionally.
Nobody studying it thought it was a literal disease you could catch.
Yes they do. A person’s genetics can predisposition them towards alcoholism. That means you can get it, or at least the predisposition for it from your parents upon birth.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-use-disorder/genetics-alcohol-use-disorder
What makes that a brain disease?
Do you know what any of these words mean?
A genetic disorder is often considered a disease.
Yay harm reduction!
Wow.
It is not true I am seven years sober. I have not replaced it with anything. The always an addict thing, is more knowing that I can’t moderate. So I know I can’t go out drinking and just have a couple of drinks, it will lead back to a path of addiction.
I had zero understanding of just how strong alcoholism could be, until I switched metabolisms, from vata-metabolism to pitta-metabolism ( read Frawley’s “Ayurvedic Healing” and Frawley & Kozak’s “Yoga for Your TYPE” books, to understand the different metabolisms, & how they alter one’s life ).
In pure pitta-metabolism, alcohol-craving was ferrocious.
( it took me a dozen years to break from vata to pitta metabolism, btw: it isn’ something easily accomplished.
The “obesity epidemic”, however, is really a kapha-metabolism epidemic, which White prejudice won’t tolerate to be labeled correctly:
obesity’s the symptom, not the cause. )
If I ever get locked back in pure-pitta, I’ll have to never have any alcohol to drink, EVER, while in it.
Currently I’m in a mixed metabolism, so it isn’t lethally-dangerous to me, but it still munges meditation-capability, so I don’t bother wasting money on it for that reason.
_ /\ _
What
I think you almost certainly paid a charlatan dearly for this information.
Recovery is a personal journey. I’m sure for some it is a constant pressure to be managed, and for others it disappears beyond the horizon of time.
Something to consider is the did the circumstances change where the addiction spawned? You can’t expect someone to not be wet when they are barely keeping their head above water.
Soldiers in Vietnam abused hard drugs to cope with being drafted to fight a war. Getting shot at, constant danger of the unknown and unseen enemy. I couldn’t imagine the stress.
when those same people came home a good portion did not continue using. For some reason, being safe secure and surrounded by loved ones makes people less prone to use drugs.
I’d say you don’t really stop being addict even when you stop the behaviour. You’r just an addict that has the addiction under control - for now.
Is it true that addicts never stop being addicts
No, although anyone is free to return to harmful behavior if they choose to do so.
they just replace their addiction?
No, but most therapy is based around cognitive behavioral therapy along with many different complementary treatments. CBT strengthens non-addictive behavior and weakens or disrupts (replaces?) addictive behavior. You trained your brain to be an addict so you learn and train it not to be an addict.
Not really true, it’s part of religious shame propaganda in 12 step programs to make you more susceptible to conversion.
Might be effective in the short term, but has many other negative psychological effects.
Secular rehab programs are equally or more effective, and require no such shame or disempowerment.
I’d say it’s closer to the rule than the exception, but is closer to the middle than either of them.
Yes, a lot of addicts - most, probably - just shift their addiction to something else (hopefully something healthier), but that’s in no way universal.
Add onto that… the waters get real muddy when you start defining addiction. Is it still addiction if it’s good for you? Like, if I can’t get through a week without some celery, would people even call me an addict? If I can’t start my day without a run, would anyone ever think to say I have a problem?
It’s the rule for people who can’t control it. Any addict who has realized it will tell you so… look up what Matthew Perry had to say, it got him anyway but he knew himself well enough to be brutally honest about it.
As with everything related to mental health, yea, it depends. Some people may be addicted to a single action - their brain may overblast happy brain chemicals specially in response to alcohol or some other substance. Other people might just get happy brain chemicals from any repeated action. Addiction is usually not substance specific and those people will merrily transfer their obsessions so for the majority of people addiction ends up being a lifelong game of finding a fixation that is minimally harmful… for others, not so much.
Brain chemistry be wack dog.
Not true in any meaningful way. Also quite reductive and probably even offensive?
People abuse various substances for all sorts of reasons.
The manner in which they might recover depends on their specific circumstances.
I don’t think so. I think we start being addicted when we have some serious trouble that we can’t deal with, and stop when that trouble is gone. Happened many times that way.