From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the discussion/talk page for article: Addiction.

[edit] Topics from 2004

[edit] Psychological addiction

The term "psychological addiction" does not have a medical precedent, and should be classified under the Casual Addiction subheading (as that seems to refer to misuse of the term addiction). Psychological addiction IS NOT a form of addiction. The dictionary definition of addiction is "Addiction is a strong dependence on a drug typified by three factors: 1) severe withdrawal symptoms; 2) tolerance to a given dose, or the need for more and more of the substance; and 3) the loss of control.". Addiction is a medical term designating the continued and increased use of a drug to avoid withdrawl symptoms, NOT simply a habitual behavior. This needs to be emphasized in the article. DryGrain 23:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

---

In this case how would you explain Cocaine Addiction? -WebDome

---

The problem is that the dictionary definition of addiction is not exactly the same as the medical definition. Cocaine addiction meets (3) in the dictionary definition rather clearly. The way it meets (1) is through the withdrawal symptom of depression. It doesn't really meet (2) at all. And yet clearly individuals can addict to cocaine use. Psychological addiction, casual addiction, etc. are all attempts to define the term so that it meets the various types of addictive behavior. When you get down to the medical issues, one big issue is that sedative addiction is a very different animal from opioid addiction...different parts of the brain...different disease course...different treatments...etc. I'm removing the word "craving" from the entry only because craving doesn't exist in some forms of addiction (such as sedative addiction). Hope that's acceptable. Drgitlow 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The DSM-IV criteria for dependence is probably a more precise guide for this term than a dictionary definition.

---

Decades ago, addiction was a pharmacological term that clearly referred to the use of a tolerance-inducing drug in sufficient quantity as to cause tolerance (the requirement that greater dosages of a given drug be used to produce an identical effect as time passes). That pharmacological term called drug resistance. Ex. resistance to antibiotics in infection treatment. Any drug is "tolerance - inducing" over the period of time, tollerance in other words is adaptation. It has nothing to do with addiction.WebDome

With that definition, humans (and indeed all mammals) can be addicted to various drugs quite quickly. Wrong, The term addiction derives from the Latin word addicere, which means "to sentence".WebDome

Almost at the same time, a lay definition of addiction developed. This definition referred to individuals who continued to use a given drug despite their own best interest. This latter definition is now thought of as a disease state by the medical community.

This passage has a lot of gaps and lack of knowledge. - WebDome

---

The link on "Opponent Process" goes to a page on color theory. I don't know the first thing about an opponent process related to adrenaline rushes, to know where to put a link, or remove that link (despite majoring in psych as an undergrad)... but it's still incongrous. User:Johndodd

---

The phrase, "in the last few decades," used in this document, tends to drift with the reader through time, each year pointing further away from its origninally intended target. I hope an informed someone will replace this phrase with something more specific before the reference becomes misleading. --joshuarr

---

Cannabis addiction ? You must be on crack.

Says the pot-head.

Are you sure about addictiveness of Nitrous_Oxide ? --Taw

---

Physical symptoms of withdrawal and physiological addictiveness are two different things. Short-term problems with caffeine withdrawal are caused mostly by blood presure deregulation.Any substance that affects blood presure can be substituded for caffeine to fix it. --Taw

---

Sorry about the Nitrous Oxide thing, looked up some more info, turns out it's really only psychologically addictive :/ I was wondering about the Cannabis Addiction on that page myself, but didn't remove it. --Hyrax

That is called seeking behavior, a concept not yet discussed in this article. It is related to the reinforcing properties of a drug. Which are all related to the concepts described herein variously as addiction and dependence. Cannibas is listed in some places as behaviorally addictive. It also has been shown to be associated with withdrawal symptoms. And the tolerence properties of cannibas are related to the canabinoid profile of a particular stash. THC-d9 typical of finer kind-bud has a different tolerance profile than schwag genotypes with higher concentrations of cannabidol and/or cannabidiol.

And have you ever measured the increase in cortisol in your blood, an increase in blood pressure, or an increase in body temperature in the hours and days without cannibas after a few days or weeks of regular use? NIH has, maybe not in your body, but in the body of plenty of monkeys and other primates like us. Withdrawal in some people, after certain dosage levels, results in measurable increases of mid-brain anxiety reactions.

Seeking behavior, reinforcing properties, tolerance, withdrawal, and continued use regardless apparent harm and beyond any potential therapeutic benefit -- all of these things have been repeatedly documented in some regular marijuana users. The campaign to legalize it is no reason to blind ourselves to the medicine we are practicing on ourselves.

I tried to sort out the growth of taxonomy from addiction to dependence but addiction is still used in medical settings and in popular settings. There is a lot more that needs to be done to get this up to par, but maybe these latest edits will make it somewhat more interesting to someone with deep professional knowledge of the topic. This article can never say what is addiction and what is dependence, it can only site multiple and conflicting standards of various professional associations. And those discussions have been plagued for years by conflicting political interests that at times have interfered with users' genuine need to know about the substances we choose to self-titrate. Chocolate bar 08:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Psychological addiction is still addiction... if you NEED something to keep functioning even though it's harmful to you in the long run, that's addiction. Psychological addiction is just as real as physical addiction.

In fact, it involves the same neural mechanisms. Because it's the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Why is there a dispute over the existance of Cocaine addiction?

We know cocaine addiction exists. The difficulty is getting it to fit into the overall "addiction" rubric. For example, individuals with cocaine addiction don't have an objectively measurable physical withdrawal as they do from alcohol. But they do have significant depressive symptoms. They don't generally build up significant tolerance as they do with both sedatives and opioids. They do have ongoing use of the drug despite their best interests, however. Drgitlow 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

By limiting a definition of addiction to just the physical realm, the essence of the real consequences of addiction is lost. Addiction is both physical and psychological and the impact of both is consequential and real. Even the psychological component of addiction has biological factors. Addiction in the brain is comprised of neural pathways that have been changed, created or damaged by some substance (or some activity). The brain begins to rely on the substance or activity to release the natural chemicals in the brain. Once a "user" ceases use of the substance or activity, the release of natural chemicals is compromised--sometimes stopped completely--and the craving for the drug (followed by obsession and compulsion) ensues.

Though the physical withdrawal is often more pronounced and certainly uncomfortable in the short-term, it's the long-term psychological impact that keeps people returning to drug use. While the physical components of drug addiction are relatively short lived (a week at most), the biological changes made in the brain can last up to two years with some drugs. Check out a review of PET scans done on monkeys and humans using methamphetamine. Dopamine levels do not return to pre-use levels until about 18 months of full abstinence from the drug. Cocaine has similar impacts dopamine production and functioning.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogriz (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Symbiotic Addictions

What I have come to believe is a gross oversight of the mental health profession is the recognition that not all addictions are dysfunctional. Thus I have added the definition chart at the beginning. Another gross oversight that I feel that the mental health profession has failed to recognize is the condition I have labeled Mass Behavior Addiction. Under the dysfunctional section of this category, I feel that many cults and totalitarian systems could be classified. Comments?

Scott April 18, 2004

Scott, your construct of addictions is well on the way to being what could be a useful rhetoric for explaining addiction theory. But, in as much is it is what you believe it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia, or encyclopedias in general, summarize what has been widely discussed in society. The ideas of symbiotic addictions versus disfunctional addictions are interesting, but they do not reflect the vast study of addiction by practitioners and by academies. Right or wrong, an encyclopedia article needs to first explore what has been done then review that information in the light of critical theories if those theories have some wide basis in popular discourse.

If you can find support in literature for how symbiosis is accepted as a view of addiction, that should be included, but I am somewhat familiar with literature on addiction and can't readily find that. The Social Norms Model is widely used for several areas of study and education that overlap with addiction - it is used somewhat in college alcohol abuse prevention education, for example, but it is more common to sociology than to addiciction medicine or addiction theory. Maybe you could summarize the origins and assumptions of social norms modeling in a new article on social norms model, which could provide a theoretical and practical basis for including the concept in this article. ----

Scott, I think I see where you are going and I have to disagree with you. Addiction is ALWAYS unhealthy and dysfunctional. The premise of addiction--as I understand it--is that it is both compulsion and obsession work together, causing life consequences. All humans have elements of both--there are things we do compulsively and things we obsess over. Its when these two things act in concert that life consequences arise. Drinking a beer a day may be habitual, but does not--by itself--qualify as either compulsive and obsessive. Example: every day at 4:30, a man looks at his watch and begins thinking about the cold beer in the fridge he will be able to enjoy in 45 minutes. At 5:15, he walks in the house, opens the fridge and opens the beer. Next day, same exact scenario at 4:30. However, this day, his kid has a t-ball game he is coaching. He remembers this, skips the beer and heads to t-ball. For a number of reasons he does not ever get that beer and his night goes along as planned--no internal discomfort and no external consequences. This is not addiction--this is a social normed habit. If instead, however, this man did not get the beer after work or after t-ball, was thinking and obsessing about the beer all night instead of paying attention to t-ball, got into a fight with his wife due to his higher than normal anxiety, etc. He would have experienced some consequences due to his obsession and unmet compulsion. My guess is that guy number two would have popped that beer as soon as he got the chance--whenever that may have been--in order to curb the increasing compulsion to drink.

---

[edit] One Definition of Addiction

I moved this table from the article to the talk page for several reasons. One is that it was set up as a 334 pixel chart, which forces the Wikipedia namespace out of bounds for any user using 600X800 resolution. Tables resolve best when set up as a percentage of the window, as was the chart contributed April 14.

Color selection is a subjective choice, but the new chart colors seemed bold and intrusive, rather than simple and leading into the table, as they were on the April 14 chart. Most internet page layout guides recommend use of one or two colors, but three colors might tend to be distracting rather than tend to contribute to readibility.

Beyond these layout problems, this chart has logical problems. "Not all medical practitioners agree on what comprises addiction or dependency." is redundant in that a more precise review of evolving differences in addiction medicine, and the organizations involved in addiction medicine, was already a part of the article.

"One definition of addiction" is not attributed to any organization of behavioral medicine practitioners, any addiction medicine society, or even an academic source. Obviously, being "one definition" does not assure it is not one person's definition, or that it is a widely accepted definition. Since definitions of addiciton can only be opinion, an encyclopedic article on addiction should first summarize the opinions of practitioners working professionally in the field. "Mass Behavioral Addictions" appears to be an idiosyncratic concept - the phrase gets exactly zero hits as a unique phrase on Google, so it might not belong in an encyclopedic article on the current science and popular literature related to addiction. That said, the information is interesting, and might be attributed to a source, but ScottPerry would do well to name a source. If some source can be cited to support the concept of general/disfunctional and symbiotic addictions, as described in a table, the article would be more reflective of current knowledge if it does not override the summary of addiction definitions drawn on standard medical approaches. I say that because the layout would better serve readers effort to see the world through the encyclopedia if space attributed to various ideas in the article were proportional to the amount of discussion and literature the supports the various concepts. Talbiano

The following is the table and introduction as was posted by StevePerry:

Not all medical practitioners agree on what comprises addiction or dependency. One definition of addiction, which breaks down the term into nine sybtypes of addiction is as follows:

---

I've moved the paragraph on the "social norms model", added by Scottperry, here. The information contained in it may have a place in the article, if properly integrated, but it doesn't belong in a section of explanations for addiction. Perhaps someone can add a section on addiction education.

"The social norms model is often employed in educational efforts intended to demonstrate, especially to student populations, that self-administration of psychoactive substances is not a normative behavior. Educators often employ the social norms model in attempts to demonstrate that those who frequently use alcohol or other psycho-active substances in ways that pose the threat of physical harm are a minority, and that the majority of a social group approaches the use of potentially harmful substances with caution and moderation."

Defenestration 05:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Addiction article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Addiction}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a linkbot but I was wondering whether Consumerism constitute Addiction? If so, whether someone with experience in Wikipedia would consider adding that page with the category? from new user Dlwl (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2005

[edit] is addictionalternatives.com commercial?

is addictionalternatives.com commercial? — Johnjosephbachir 04:18, 4 February 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it is a portal to several sites, not all of which are working properly, and seems to be mainly advertising one doctor's services. I've gone ahead and removed the link. — mjb 02:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overeating and binge eating

Clicking on the first of the above leads to the latter - surely they are different things (even in common parlance) - ie "eating possibly continuously at one level or another leading to obesity", and "stop-start eating", to put it very simplistically? They may overlap, but two things are involved. — 212.85.6.26 12:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I changed the link to just point to a Wiktionary definition, and I changed the overeating article to be a stub rather than a redirect. You can do these things too; just make the changes that you think need to be made. That's what the wikis are all about. — mjb 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes the question is a matter of techncial nicities (sp? - one of those words which looks wrong whichever way it is spelt), and/or the question poser (in this case me) does not know enough about the topic to do it justice. And sometimes the question poser perfers to deal with other ways of developing Wikipedia. The two areas should be cross-referred anyway. 212.85.6.26 1 September.

[edit] Definitions and citations

There are many statements made in this article about what addiction is, and precious few citations or qualifications. Every statement is made as if it were indisputable fact. Yet in the past century, these definitions have evolved considerably. Even in the past few decades there has been significant shifts in thinking about addiction, dependence, drug abuse, and so on.

The "Diverse explanations" section seems to be quite closely related to defining addiction and explaining the divergent points of view; it should be much closer to the beginning of the article.

Addictions can also be formed due to opponent process reactions … Because of opponent process[,] criminal behavior, running, stealing, violence, acting, test taking can become habit forming. — Is the term 'habit-forming' (it should be hyphenated, I believe) meant to be synonymous with 'addictive'? I think many would consider a 'habit' to be much less extreme than an 'addiction', no?

Those are the main points that I see in need of cleanup. Can some of the people more invested in the current content of this article attempt to address some of these points? It is doubtful that I will have time to research them in the near term. I have, however, been working on getting a lot of definitions and citations into the drug abuse article. Thanks. — mjb 02:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

changed the bit about the habit- i'm a stickler for keeping addiction to mean drug/alcohol addiction, though i am trying to keep my POV out a here as much as i can bear it. still, "habit-forming" is not the same as addiction, whether you include behaviors or not.

i'm starting to go through and find some info to back up some of the claims you listed. i always have trouble figuring out how to format citations- should they just go in the same section? Amutepiggy 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that some highly addictive drugs (so-called hard drugs), such as cocaine, induce relatively little physical dependence, whilst other drugs (so-called soft drugs) such as magic mushrooms and peyote are not normally considered to give rise to any significant degree of addiction or dependence, Here you say the same thing about both drugs wich is "such as conaine induce relatively Little physical dependence" and "are not normally considered to give rise to any significant degree of addiction or dependance" so what are you trying to say, drugs arn't addictive? I was confused by that, you might want to clarify or word it better.

I agree with the comments here.. Why are anti-depressants excluded as being addictive in the article. If a drug causes negative effects in a user when they do not have the drug in sufficient titer in their body, is that not addiction? I don't understand how one can exclude them from the definition of being addictive. The drug companies do not want this to be part of the characterization of the drug. The psychological neurological dependency on the drug is what defines the "addiction". Now if a diabetic does not take insulin properly they will ultimately be at risk, but the effects are not "directly" neurological, rather the low blood sugar causes "general" effects that can lead to coma and death. In the case of anti-depressants the effects of withdrawal, ie. low titer, are DIRECTLY neurological,. this is a very important aspect of the article as the anti-depressants are commonly used, and the langague used by doctors as suggested by drug companies are clearly intended to minimize concerns about dependency, and effects of withdrawal, and anything that would suggest that some of these drugs are ADDICTIVE... This is a very important part of definition and the current article takes the anti-depressants out of this sphere,, not sure this is accurate or correct or responsible..

[edit] Levi Bryant

We might consider completely redoing the "criticism" section as it would appear to be a bit of shameless promotion with the entirety of the paragraph copied verbatim from his website. As well, there are only 108 hits via Yahoo! -Eleuthero 07:32, 19 December 2005

18-Aug-2008: (3 years later) Which Levi? I can't show "shameless promotion" but I can say the blogger Levi Bryant (larvalsubjects on WordPress) was shocked to be considered an addiction expert from that criticism section (also paraphrased on other websites); in May 2007 blogger Levi reported telling a famous men's magazine (in 2006) to instead interview a published expert who had worked with addicts:

Levi Bryant: "How, you might ask, did I come to be ranked alongside the illustrious Thomas Szasz and to be credited with a cogent criticism of contemporary treatments of addiction? All of this came from this post on the Lacan list on yahoogroups back in 2003, coupled with my article "The Absent Third" and "Social Sciences and Apres Coup". I referred the journalist to Rik Loose, who is a Lacanian analyst that’s actually worked with addicts and published on these matters. It’s a brave new world."

(From his blog May 2007: larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/category/spurious/)

I am removing the 3-year-old unsourced mention of "Levi Bryant" opinions, so at least the blogger won't be accused of this unfounded expertise from a Wikipedia article. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2006

[edit] Middle striatal reward pathway

Regarding the paragraph that begins "The middle striatal reward pathway...", some questions:

I don't dare edit anything because I'm not a neuroscientist (but I'm married to one).

Cjoev 22:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

i changed a lot of that section- ugh, forgot to sign in AGAIN. i always do that. anyway- the name is now "neurobiological basis" instead of "physiological basis." i hope it contains much of the same information, but clarified and with some reference to larger anatomical regions (not just "dopamine cells.") i want to put in more stuff about the orbitofrontal cortex- there is comorbidity of impulse control disorders and addiction, and chronic drug users have shown poor performance on lab-constructed tests of inhibition as well as hypoactivity in that region. essentially, the "bad brakes" may be just as important as the strong driving force from the reward regions. Amutepiggy 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The intro

hi. i made some major changes to the intro. i don't think the opponent process theory of addiction holds enough water in the medical community to be mentioned in the very beginning of the article. i've worked in an addiction lab for 2 years and the only time i remember that one coming up is in my intro psych class. also, chemical dependence, habit-forming, and addiction: NOT the same, NOT interchangable. i thought it was a better start to give a loose definition, but bring up the split in the research community of whether it is appropriate to confine the definition to drugs or to include behavior like sex or eating. my PI is of the former school- she gets so mad about it! Amutepiggy 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro is too long. Could the paragraphs below the first be put into a section called something like "History and Definitions", below the contents table? Long articles like this one seem a lot more readable when there's a contents table right below the first paragraph. --Kiwibird 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

i tossed a bunch of stuff from the intro. i thought much of it was covered elsewhere in the article. if it's missed, it can be reverted!Amutepiggy 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm says quitting smoking was harder than quitting drugs? I have read his autobiography and he says that once his family told him to start praying and stop eating pork and smoking, he never smoked again in his life.

the intro SUCKS. It's not grammatically correct and "morbidity" isn't a good word to use to describe the consequences of addiction. Many people are addicted to things before they even affect them negativcely in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

-I removed "morbidity" --you had a good point there, however, I suggest you make simple corrections where you see fit rather than make general statements that add little to improving the article. Anthronify 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever (recently) changed the intro to two sentences rather than two pages should get an award for courage, brevity, and common-sense. Finally, some stepped up (I wish it were me). Anthronify 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The intro of a few weeks ago seemed almost near-perfect, but now it is getting muddy again. The second sentence is pure torture... direct or indirect brain stimulation, I don't care, (stimulation is an argument in itself for some of those "abused" substances) but why even bring this component into the encyclopedic definition of addiction? If I don't hear any reasons worthy of discussion within a few days, I'll just copy/paste the previous intro so that we can all start over on a clean slate. Anthronify 02:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Article is inaccessible to casual readers. Intro needs to be shorter and more concise

---

Can dependence lead to addiction? If so, that fact should be included G33K 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Dependence, addiction, correlation, causation, terminology, nomenclature, -- this topic is confusing to the average encyclopedia user. I hope we can take a step above the fray and try to deliver proper word usage while at the same time explaining the problems and issues facing such usage today. I see attempts at this in the article, but collectively it tends to confuse the average encyclopedia user rather than inform. Anthronify 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 2 cents

Just for perspective, I have always thought of addiction as The inability to stop something you desire to stop.

..."The inability to stop something you desire to stop" is perhaps an oversimplification. Ambivalence derived from some sort of conflict seems to be a big issue with those that are perceived to be struggling with addiction. The conflict can be both an attraction to the euphoric effects of the object, yet a simultaneous repulsion to negative consequences of its usage. There might be a spreadsheet of advantages and disadvantages in the mind of the addict which may paralize one from moving away from an equilibrium (or status quo) that one has convinced oneself of being thoroughly stuck in. Anthronify 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is of course opinion and original research. Just adding it to stimulate the minds of others. HighInBC 15:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Incurable? Addicts have gone clean, not most, but some. HighInBC 13:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If addiction is a disease that is progressive, incurable, and fatal then all of those "spontaneous permanent remissions" (--using the disease venacular) were a result of divine intervention or just bad theory? What if addiction is the compulsion to use because of the user's misguided attempts at "happiness" or euphoria (or reduction of pain, anxiety, depression, etc.) in spite of the subsequent negative consequences. This might explain an addict's obsession to want to moderate --not so much the usage (of course), but moderation of the negative consequences. A pattern that can continue to everybody's consternation for a great deal of time.Anthronify 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

---When addiction is called, "a disease that is progressive, incurable, and fatal", it means that an addict is an addict for life (incurable) and without proper treatment they may die from their disease (fatal). When an addict stops using, they are not cured, the disease is only in remission. Were they to start using again, the disease may kill them. Many diseases are incurable and fatal without the proper treatment. Diabetes can be fatal, but with the proper treatment, a diabetic can live a long, productive life despite having an incurable, fatal disease. Addiction is no different.

Addiction may be different from other diseases in that in involves the willful participation in an act known to be potentially harmful by society, but thats a different argument. That the disease is "progressive, incurable, and fatal," is the medically accepted definition of addiction endorsed by the AMA.71.192.41.250 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an over-simplification of the brain. If we could 'fix' a diabetic such that their insulin production was normal without drugs, diabetes would not be considered incurable. No one is born an addict and nothing irreversible takes place in the brain that we are aware of. Thus, addiction, with treatment, should not be incurable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Much of the discussion here is fascinating. I'm happy to help out. The American Society of Addiction Medicine, the specialty organization for MD/DO's who work in this field, obviously has a definition of Addiction. Its definition has been accepted by other relevant specialties in the medical community (pain medicine and so forth). While your discussion makes it clear that this is only one definition, it is the working definition used by medical specialists who treat this disorder on a daily basis. If that's the definition that you'd like here, I'm happy to provide it.Drgitlow 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this article and have to say I find the subject conceptually fascinating. I'm an economist who dabbles a little in philosophy, and have very little familiarity with psychology or medicine. However, I thought I might offer one or two rambling reflections on this subject!

A good definition of addiction must imply harm. Otherwise we're all trivially addicted to oxygen, water etc. Time is a more important factor than it might seem. Much of what we think of as addictive behaviour involves a judgement that an individual is 'irrationally' seeking pleasure, relief etc. now at the cost of significant harm later. Thus ascribing addiction will very often involve ethical judgements about intertemporal rationality. I wonder if the basis for such judgements has been given much thought. A couple of further points on this subject. First, society's attitude to the 'timing of pleasure' is strongly influenced by economics and religion. As Marx, Weber and others so astutely pointed out, the rise of capitalism was associated with an emerging ideology surrounding the value of postponing consumption, pleasure etc. for future benefit. This is often also associated with Protestant values. I wonder if protestant, capitalist societies are more likely to classify a greater number of people as 'addicts' if they don't conform with prevailing social and economic values. Second, if we take a neoclassical economics view of human behaviour, can addicts usefully viewed as individuals exhibiting behaviour with unusually high discount rates (for time preference)?! It might be possible to take a 'public choice approach' to those who classify and treat addicts. What are their sectional interests? And how might these sectional interests pursue their goals? A simple hypothesis might be that pharmaceutical companies would seek both to widen the overall defintion(s) of addiction, whilst also subdividing that into as many sub-categories as possible. This rent seeking behaviour would maximise the potential for monopoly rents on treatments. The same may also apply to the commercial or bureaucratic interests in providing other 'therapies'. Such hypotheses might be usefully tested empirically.--Nmcmurdo 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On your first point, while I agree that addiction tend to imply harm, oxygen and water are things that we can NEVER do without. Refined sugar, on the other hand, is could certainly qualify as addictive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV??

I'm concerned about the lack of a NPOV in the section describing different models of addiction. Each entry describes a given model (e.g. disease, genetic, etc.) but only the disease model has notation concerning what critics of the model believe. If we are to be neutral about this, either that sentence should be removed OR each of the models should have a sentence describing what critics of the model believe. I've updated the disease section but have left the sentence in pending a consensus here. Any thoughts? Drgitlow 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tricky, some forms of addiction are easier to document than others. This may be due to several reasons, incuding the possiblity of on type being more real, or perhaps for other reasons. I say be bold, but check your facts as you progress. Thanks! HighInBC 13:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unmentioned treatment - pharmacological extinction

Hello, all. I'm hopping over from the discussion on the Alcoholism article trying to figure out the best way to summarize what you have here for those reading our article. I'm glad to see that you have a very well organized and informed article over here.

I can't help but notice that you don't mention the strong evidence for a neurochemical basis of opioid addiction posed by the work performed on alcoholism in Finland (alcohol releases endorphin, an opioid). The short version is that they discovered that continuation of normal drug taking habits (alcohol and opiates, but not nicotine) while taking an opioid antagonist results in a loss of interest in the drug taking habits over time. This effect persists indefinitely after the patient stops taking the opioid antagonists unless the person starts taking their addictive drug without the antagonist again, in which case the addiction is re-established. This has resulted in a treatment called pharmacological extinction, which has been demonstrated to work for alcohol, heroin, opium, and endorpine encouraged behaviors like gambling and overeating.

I'm not going to give you a song and dance, but I will provide a few links that you can use to verify this process. I'm also available to answer questions. Invited Interview from the Oxford Journal of Medicine on the use of Naltrexone to treat alcoholism
Links and Resources ContrAl Clinics references
ContrAl Clinics Results

Robert Rapplean 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free will

I find the paragraph using the argument around the absence of "free will" illogical, uncorrect, and not really contributing to the subject. Discussing free will on it's own page is fine, but the presented argument can be used to make every mental process or behavioral activity seamingly meaningless. It is not of special importance to addiction in any way. In addition, it can hardly be presented as generally accepted view of the matter at all. So I think it should be taken out of the article. A short reference to the problem of free will is fine, however.

David Andel 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the issue of free will's involvment in addiction is ill defined and really a different subject. HighInBC 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, removed and added free will to the section "see also". David Andel 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Hinton

The reference to Tom Hinton (under "Casual Addiction") seems a bit oblique. Is he a well known MySpace addict? I don't get the reference. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I can't find anything that relates.

[edit] Sourcing

The section on psychological addiction seems to come from http://experts.about.com/e/p/ps/Psychological_addiction.htm, either that, or that webpage took from us, but it does not say "sections of this page are reprinted from wikipedia". --71.34.12.223 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed from the article

In Economics, addiction is a term used to designate calculating the elasticity of addictive goods and determining how income and consumption (economics) effect future consumption ^[1]

Mushin^talk 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soiland health external link

There's an external link to Shelton on Fasting and Addiction which seems to be a chapter from The Hygenic System Vol III: Fasting and sunbathing by Herbert M. Shelton printed in the 60s. It's a fairly POV essay that doesn't seem to correspond to any documented findings we have in the article. I've never heard of either Sheldon or The Hygenic System, but wondered if i was just ignorant and this is in fact a famous book whose recommendations are being used to great success all over the world (or just provides historical interest for readers). --Siobhan Hansa 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2007

[edit] Removed Questionable Statements

I believe these are untrue. They definitely shouldn't go in without a reference.

Some of the highly addictive drugs (hard drugs), such as cocaine, induce relatively little physical dependence.

It has been proved recently that most addictions are really just psychological. By saying you have a disorder addiction, you just are making an indirect excuse to get attention or you enjoy it too much.

--Elplatt 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language, Grammar and Style

The article needs to be edited thoroughly. Some parts, particularly the introduction, are awkward and very poorly written. The poor use of the English language will hinder the reader's understanding of the concepts and, quite frankly, cause the reader to question not only the validity of what he is reading, but also the source itself [Wikipedia].

[edit] External links

This link:

Was added by User:Johnmac, who (according to his talk page is the owner of the site). In keeping with our conflict of interest guidelines I've moved the post here for consideration by other editors.

Personally I don't think it comes up to the standard of the other links we have added (except the addictioninfo one - should that one even be there?). -- Siobhan Hansa 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links needed

This article needs to have links to articles on: dysfunctional families family systems theory addictive personality personality disorders mental illness

Mental illness and dysfunctional families underlie much of the drug addiction in America because the kids come out of dysfunctional homes and have suffered abuse which leads to mental illness, but they put drugs on top of the problems because it feels good. Detox them and then the hard work of psychotherapy begins, as we hope Britney Spears is learning. rumjal 09:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology and usage

IMHO this article would benefit from a major tidy up along the line of distinguishing between (a) physical/psychological DEPENDENCE and (b) ADDICTION, which is characterised by addictive/destructive behaviour, whether destructive to self or others. The two terms are used interchangeably in this article, which leads to muddled thinking. 'A' precedes 'B'. Petlif 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experiential Model

An unregistered user added information on Stanton Peele's experiential model. I'm tempted to remove it because as far as I can tell, Peele's writing is scientifically unfounded, but because he is a published author on the subject I left it in. Anyone have thoughts on the subject? --Elplatt 18:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Heading

"Terminology and usage of Narcotics, guys giving oral, and gay porn" I am not sure that this title is completely appropriate.

[edit] Criticism

The last paragraph in the Criticism section seems out of place, isn't cited, and addresses the reader directly. Even if it were cited and the perspective were addressed, it may better fit under a Criticism section of the Opiates page. LtBonzai 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] last paragraph in Criticism

The last paragraph that I just deleted was not cited, out of place, and based on opinion. It stated in part, "...opiates should not be used in a short term manner unless you need more pain in your life." Opiates have long been used to treat pain of varied severity. When used under a doctor's supervision and in the amount properly prescribed, opiates are a medical necessity to treat pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.41.250 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Drug addiction

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_abuse_mess for discussion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this be better referenced?

First, let me point out that I am not a Wikipedia editor. I'm just a user. I look things up and hope to find the facts I need. Today I needed this article, and I'm afraid it let me down. The entirety of this article is filled with claims made in the passive voice that are not documented. I feel more like I'm reading self-help propaganda than an actual discussion of addiction. One glaring example is:

Well, yes, my sock color preference "can be considered" an addiction if the person doing the considering is sufficiently silly. But in this case, who is doing the considering? Is it the medical industry? The psychological industry? Twelve-step gurus? When someone tells me, "Excessive Internet usage isn't an addiction, it's just a bad habit," I'm not going to pull out Wikipedia as my source to argue with them, but I would hope that I could find a source here.

"Which some argue" holds different weight if the "some" who are doing the arguing are medical and mental health professionals than if they are my grandmother and her knitting circle. Who is doing the arguing here? For example, the first question that comes to my mind is, why would eating disorders receive this paragraph of disclaimer while some even more questionable "addictions" such as Internet addiction or pornography addiction slide by as though they were non-controversial? I don't expect a Wikipedia article to play out that whole debate, but if someone is going to single something out like that, shouldn't there be documentation?

Again, who are these "clinical leaders"? Too much of this article seems to me to be designed to set forth a "final word" on addiction as though that word came from the article itself. But I don't want Wikipedia to be my expert source. I want it to be my encyclopediac overview from which I can locate my expert sources.

Where does this quote come from? Did Mr. Bryant type it himself directly into the article, or did someone else copy it from another source and simply fail to cite it? In conclusion, I find this article to be too full of unsourced statements, vague references to "some people," and opinion masquerading as fact to be much use as an encyclopedia article. Sanctuary Seventeen (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics from 2008

[edit] downregulation can be classically conditioned?

"Downregulation can be classically conditioned. If a behavior consistently occurs in the same environment or contingently with a particular cue, the brain will adjust to the presence of the conditioned cues by decreasing the number of available receptors in the absence of the behavior. It is thought that many drug overdoses are not the result of a user taking a higher dose than is typical, but rather that the user is administering the same dose in a new environment."

Is there a reference for this statement?

10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A term I can't find here

What is the term for when you have been taking a drug for a while and it starts to have less of an effect on you, but you aren't necessarily dependent or addicted to it? —67.193.45.183 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word you are looking for is "tolerance". 67.180.174.213 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological vs physical

What the hell is with all this "psychological vs physical addiction" nonsense? I defy you to cite me a paper written within the last five years in a respectable journal that makes this spurious distinction. There is none. There is physical DEPENDENCE, which is a legitimate scientific term and is still used, but trying to pretend there are two different kinds of addiction is missing the entire point of neuroscience. Drugs have physical effects. Some of those are on different parts of the brain than others. Trying to lump some of those effects but not others arbitrarily into two categories is frankly unscientific tosh. This page needs a rewrite by someone who has actually taken a single class in addiction whether on a pharmacology or psychology degree. 160.62.4.10 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, the world is still secretly full of dualists. Our very language reflects dualism; people don't grasp that our mind IS our brain. Behaviour effects changes in our brain just as drugs do. —142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You defy me to cite a paper? Who talks like that? Ok, fine, a quick Google Scholar search will give you a lot of leads, but I think this one should work: Johnson, B. (2003), "Psychological Addiction, Physical Addiction, Addictive Character, and Addictive Personality Disorder: A Nosology of Addictive Disorders" (w), Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis (PEP Web) 11 (1): 135–160, http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=CJP.011.0135A, retrieved on 3 September 2008 . I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there are people with other points of view. -- Piquan (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section

The article states the word 'addiction' first appeared in 1906. This is not true, Shakespeare used it in Henry V (and possibly coined it?). I will make the appropriate changes. —82.39.247.21 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote intro

18-Aug-2008: I saw the rewrite-article tag, so I shortened the long intro that had been a shaggy-dog story (which read like "surprise, there's another meaning of addiction" yada-yada). I listed some common addictions up front, to quickly summarize the total meaning:

The term "addiction" is used in many contexts to describe an obsession, compulsion, or excessive physical dependence, such as: drug addiction, alcoholism, compulsive overeating, problem gambling, computer addiction, etc.

Note that currently, only a relative handful of people are actively revising major articles on Wikipedia, so any major improvements typically will come slowly. WikiProjects are a means to make coordinated changes in a faster, organized way. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retrofit topic-year headers

18-Aug-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. Then, I unscrambled the rat's nest of jumbled topics putting them into date order spanning the 5 years (such fun). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] APA

The article is more than once stating American Psychological Association where as far as I can tell the context suggests American Psychiatric Association? EverSince (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recovery

Should "Recovery movement" wikilink to Recovery model, or are the two somewhat different? The latter has tended to neglect the addiction aspect (partly my fault) but doens't have to I assume. EverSince (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiaholics

What about Wikiaholics and Wikiaddiction? :-)

9IDLGT3IET (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological Dependency

Beneath this paragraph are another two paragraphs that read as follows:

Not only do these paragraphs not meet Wikipedia standards, but they also contain independent research and non-fact-based discussion. --70.44.70.194 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)