Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MrGate t1_j2epbtr wrote

Well there is 2 Types of addiction, Psychological Addiction which is the mental aspect of it. and the Physical aspect of Addiction like withdraws, the dopamine release etc.

We have ways to treat withdraws the main part of physical addiction, but what causes a lot of people to relaspe is the Psychological addiction.

Psychological addiction is so hard to treat, because it can literally become a personality trait of the persons life. and some people literally feel like they can't live or have a happy life without it.

Right now the best ways we have to treat the Psychological aspect is therapy, support groups like AA, NA, etc, and general family support and love.

I'm not sure we will ever see a full out cure to be honest, but i think the best route we could take is funding these treatment options for people who really do want help, and i know there is a lot of mixed feeling on this topic. but these centers that give out supplys and clean needles etc.

11

nauseacomaneci t1_j2eu0nf wrote

The idea that there are two types of addiction is not supported in the research or literature on addiction. It is true that there are both physiological & psychological aspects to some substance use disorders, but not all addictions come with withdrawal, for example.

The most current understanding of addiction is that it is a biopsychosocial disorder. Meaning there are biological, psychological, & sociological aspects to any addiction.

There is also a lot of conflicting research on the efficacy of AA & NA. While these programs saved my life, some research suggests that their success rate is much lower than previously thought & rather, it is AA/NA's dominance, & the paucity of other available treatment options that leads to its perceived efficacy.

I think looking for a "cure" is the incorrect approach, to be honest. It would make more sense to aim to mitigate the risk & predisposition of addiction while making biopsychosocial treatment modalities accessible & free.

source: 10 years of sobriety, working on Ph.D. in sociology & addiction studies

5

MrGate t1_j2fks5x wrote

i never meant all drugs had both components, and i dont wanna go into details on what i did in the past, but i dealt with physiological & psychological addictions seperatly before.

Even if the success rate is low, its still success is it not?

and yeah i agree on thinking their will never be a cure and my post went over there should be funding to provide these treatments and supplys to people.

1

seanmorris t1_j2erjla wrote

Chemical dependence is not addiction. If someone is not addicted they will have no problem being "sick" for a while while withdrawals happen.

Addiction shows itself in the actual decision the continue the chemical to push the withdrawals into the future. But chemical dependence, by itself, is not addiction.

0

nauseacomaneci t1_j2evy58 wrote

Correct. I am dependent on my antidepressants, & if I stopped taking them, I would experience unfun physiological symptoms, but I am not "addicted" to my antidepressants.

This difference between dependence & addiction led to some confusion during the first wave of the opioid crisis; many people were displaying the physiological symptoms of opioid dependence without the social or behavioral aspects that also need to be present to formally diagnose a substance use disorder. But this is a whole other can of worms, honestly!

2

NetflixAndZzzzzz t1_j2evxtl wrote

I kind of disagree. Maybe it's semantics, but when addicts choices are driven by chemical dependence, that's a vastly different "choice" than someone who's addicted to, for example ham sandwiches.

1

nauseacomaneci t1_j2eyrdd wrote

Except that there are neurological changes to the brain in people who are addicted to food that mirror those present when someone is addicted to a substance. The pathology creates neurological changes, not necessarily the substance itself. It is easier for us to accept chemical dependence as more legitimate only because of our social history with pharmaceuticals, but people with eating disorders, for example, display brain changes, too!

1

NetflixAndZzzzzz t1_j2f2qa2 wrote

I guess I want to clarify, I take no issue with treating eating disorders and other dangerous, addictive behaviors with the severity they deserve. Dying from anorexia isn't more of a failure of willpower than overdosing, or anything like that, and I'm not trying to gatekeep a psychological disease. I understand that's a fine line.

What I mean to suggest is that chemical dependence is absolutely the biggest factor driving addictive behavior in millions of people, and to say that addiction is just the psychological component feels inaccurate to me, and like it could be used as rhetoric to shift blame back onto users (which is often the discussion) as opposed to the pharmacological forces driving the behavior.

2

nauseacomaneci t1_j2fa8s8 wrote

Chemical dependence is a necessary but insufficient precondition for addiction. Addiction is a biopsychosocial disorder & one needs a particular constellation of biological, psychological, & sociological symptoms or risk factors to be diagnosed.

Anyone who says that addiction is purely biological, or purely psychological is missing part of the puzzle.

Being chemically dependent on something doesn't necessarily mean you're addicted to it.

Take the example I wrote about elsewhere in this thread. I am chemically dependent on my antidepressants. Meaning, if I stopped taking them, I would experience deleterious physical symptoms. However, I am not "addicted" to these medications as such, because, for one, I am not abusing them [I take them as prescribed], & taking these medications does not impact my ability to live my life or meet social or familial obligations, &c.

So, chemical dependence needs to be present to diagnose a substance use disorder, but chemical dependence on its own is insufficient in terms of meeting the criteria of substance use disorder.

Addiction & substance use disorder are different, too. Eating disorders are process/behavioral addictions, but not substance use disorders as there is no, well, substance involved per se.

1

NetflixAndZzzzzz t1_j2f0v5k wrote

Go to an NA meeting and explain to everyone that, because the structural changes in their neural pathways resemble those found in people with non-chemical dependencies, this means that chemical dependence to an addictive substance is not the primary impetus driving their addictive behavior.

0

nauseacomaneci t1_j2f1txw wrote

I would, except that is not what I said, nor was it the point of my comment. Your retrograde defensiveness over whose addiction is "real" clouded your ability to understand what I was trying to point out. Moreover, chemical dependence is not the only thing that drives addictive behavior, but I suspect you were not replying in good faith.

1

NetflixAndZzzzzz t1_j2f3lgz wrote

If someone is chemically dependent, but they abstain from using the chemical, are they addicted to it?

2

nauseacomaneci t1_j2fakxl wrote

It depends on why they are abstaining from the substance! I am copying my reply to your other comment as it is relevant here, too:

"Chemical dependence is a necessary but insufficient precondition for addiction. Addiction is a biopsychosocial disorder & one needs a particular constellation of biological, psychological, & sociological symptoms or risk factors to be diagnosed...
...Being chemically dependent on something doesn't necessarily mean you're addicted to it.
Take the example I wrote about elsewhere in this thread. I am chemically dependent on my antidepressants. Meaning, if I stopped taking them, I would experience deleterious physical symptoms. However, I am not "addicted" to these medications as such, because, for one, I am not abusing them [I take them as prescribed], & taking these medications does not impact my ability to live my life or meet social or familial obligations, &c.
So, chemical dependence needs to be present to diagnose a substance use disorder, but chemical dependence on its own is insufficient to meet the criteria of substance use disorder."

1

MrGate t1_j2fl2sl wrote

> chemical dependence

off personal expirence i'd have to disagree, i had chemical dependence on a drug i was prescribed, never really had a psychological, & sociological aspect to it. and it was hell getting off it.

just because you dont have the psychological, & sociological aspects does not mean its wont be hard and you can easily fail by taking another dose to get rid of the nasty withdraw feelings

1