In a previous post I wrote about the starting points of addiction. One who has a genetic predisposition, combined with some form of mental or emotional issue, is a prime candidate. There are those in the field who have gone so far as to say, "No genetics - no addiction."
With all of this, a working definition of addiction may be something like, "Use of a substance or behavior in the face of negative consequences." If there are no negative consequences, then there is no addiction. But, be careful here. Denial is a big part of addictive behavior, so the addict is not usually aware of the negative consequences, even as said consequences are destroying their lives.
It should be noted that the addiction process plays out in different ways in individuals. Those who work in the field view addictions through a number of prisms.
SUBSTANCE ADDICTION v. PROCESS ADDICTION
The nature of substance addiction would seem to be obvious: it's an addiction to some chemical. Alcohol and tobacco are probably the most common, and for adults they are legal and easy to obtain. Meth is not legal, but it is fairly easy to obtain. Heroin - cocaine - chocolate. Chocolate, y'say? If one has a compulsion to use it, and that one is diabetic, and that one can't stop it even in the face of escalating negative health consequences, then there is an addiction.
Ecstasy is one of the "club drugs", and the question about whether it is addictive is still out. Marijuana seems to have no inherent addictive qualities, but now we move to the second of these categories, "process addiction."
Process addiction is habitual repetition of some action. The action ay involve a substance, or it may not, but the substance is not the point of the addiction. While marijuana has no inherently narcotic chemical, if one is in the habit of firing up some herb at, say, two in the afternoon, and starts blowing off appointments and putting relationships at risk to light up at two every afternoon, then, although there is no chemical addiction, there is, most certainly, an addiction.
Running? Jogging? It is, to be sure, a process. Can it be addictive? If so, could we argue that there is such a thing as a good addiction? My answer would be yes, and no.
Running, or other types of exercise, is not inherently addictive. It would be difficult to think of a negative health consequence that comes from running. But, there is a type of runner, and I'm guessing you've seen them. They're everywhere. If it's a nice, 55 degree day, they're out in their Spandex and running shoes on their route. If it's 35 degrees and there is a wind-driven rain, they're still out on the same route, same Spandex. . .if it's 95 degrees, same route, same Spandex. No trainer in the world, no doctor around would recommend running is such adverse conditions. Maybe Stephen Covey would, but he wrote a lot of stuff on subjects about which he knew nothing. There are indoor tracks around, there are indoor malls to walk, but not for these people. They must do the same route same time every day, or they think their day is a failure, despite the obvious health risk to which they subject themselves. That's addiction.
Eating disorders present special issues. Those addicted to alcohol or meth can quit, and if they would control their addiction, they must quit. But no one can just stop eating. Rethinking one's relationship with food is critical.
And, no, there is no good addiction. The reason is that addicts cross the line into addiction at the point where they have surrendered their freedom to do something or to not do it.
More on the subject later. A second prism is attraction v. aversion addictions. Thanks for hanging out!
No comments:
Post a Comment