Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere along the line here, but am I right in saying an "addiction" (psychological addiction, not physical) is simply a weakness of the mind, a wanting of something, be it drugs or anything else to the point that person would rather partake in that habit than the alternative, whatever that alternative may be. But where is the line between simply wanting something, (ie. the last piece of cake) and being addicted to the cake?

As I'm sure many of you know years ago it was common practice for doctors to give placebo pills of some sort to people, particularly children. This more often than not "cured" the patients illness.

This phenomenon can also by giving people "placebo" drugs, ie. a gelcap of melatonin, and convincing that person that it is a drug, ie MDMA. If you manage to convince them, to make them truly believe that the pill is MDMA then more often than not that person will get "high."

The purpose of the last two paragraphs is to demonstrate the weakness of the human mind. Now, back to addiction.

When a person is "addicted" to a substance, that person is obviously going to aware of their desire of the aforementioned substance. They think to themselves "I'm addicted to this. I need it." When they do this, they give in, surrender to their want. In this state of mind, they will find it impossible to not give in to their habit.

On the other hand, if that same person takes for example, an AA program. The centerpiece of AA Let Go and Let God. Surrender your self, believe that there is a god capable of freeing you from your addiction. If you truly believe this, then you will be free. Why? Because you're creating a higher power in your mind than the addiction. Instead of it being just you vs your addiction you add a new player, one greater than both of you. God.

Now, the question I ask you is this - is your addiction any more real than your God?





Hope you could make sense of all that.

No. I would have been just as ignorant though before i went through it myself.

1) Long term use of chemicals does actually change the chemistry of the brain. Alos, it almost becomes a conditioned response that the addict is eventually unable to control. However this varies in person to person. I did different drugs for 7 or so years continually, and never got addicted until I tried heroin. Some is genetically programmed.

2) Much like the aforementioned, ploacebos do NOT always work. They depend on the patient and how strong their belief is in it. Even if their belief is strong, they might still not experience a placebo effect. So no- this is not an effective addiction treatment method.

3) Many of the people who attend NA (like myself) do not buy into the whole religious aspect of the treatment. Its also pretty important to point out that NA/AA is a SUPPORT program for people whove already quit using drugs, and are tryiong to CONTINUE staying sober by sharing experiences with other addicts and reassurances.

I've much more too say, but frankly im much too tired to spend any more time discussing something that I deal with every fucking day. Its not even a novelty anymore.


CaspeR

Don't be naive, many drugs (opiates/opioids) will manipulate your brains reward centers, the things that tell you its a positive and fulfilling choice to eat, get sleep, have sex, and in this case shoot dope. These are set chemical functions, that aren't so easily altered with "willpower" and "mind-trickery".

hes a witch!

ironicly i read a news report not too long ago, about half of US doctors use placebo to their advantage. but you know, not with the sugar pill, instead with something else but telling you the patient it'll fix your problem...


yea, kinda disturbing....

__________________
the road of excess leads to the palace of madness

But with opiates, physical addiction comes into play. Your body physically wants it and will go through withdrawals if it doesn't get it (however severe depends on the case). That's the extent of the physical addiction. What you're saying is merely how the brain reacts to anything as pleasurable as opiates, but it's so dangerous because with withdrawals, people are less likely to stop using them, so it seems more "addictive" when it's technically not.

If you want to look at it in a therapeutic sense, then consider this: will preaching stop a person from partaking in an addiction? No, it never has and never will, and usually it simply drives a person further into his or her respective addiction. Addicts know more than anyone else the mortal burden of their affliction(s), and experience the effects thereof rather than merely acknowledge them.

In a medical sense, if you prefer, addiction is genetic.

Biological.

Physical.

Berating an addict for an addiction is like punching a baby for being born ugly. Can some overcome it? Of course, but not without a tremendous struggle that has as part of the disease the tendency for an individual to relapse. If you're really concerned about the behavior of an addict of any persuasion, then I would highly suggest that you first seek to understand the nature of the disease rather than equate it to a matter of mere self-control. Alcoholism a prime example, and addiction in general, is a terminal illness that can only be fought like any other terminal disease: lifetime treatment with bouts of remission and reappearance almost guaranteed. While an addict might be responsible for the initial environmental conditions that triggered the disease, he or she is no more responsible for the appearance of the disease than the average American is responsible for cancer (which is triggered by environmental conditions but is truly a genetic disorder).