Is Addiction a Positive or Negative Human Trait
" Now this is an excellent definition: "An addict continues what ever they are addicted too even if they do not want to." To which the nub of the problem is: "addiction in NO way contributes to a community. Instead it consumes time and resources of not only the addict but those caught in her/his lies." I really don't think someone's life falling apart or self-damage is an issue if the person still wants to continue that activity - I would not class that as a negative addiction. It might appear to an onlooker as a negative, but if the person enjoys it then that's not for the onlooker to decide. People should be allowed to follow whatever life-philosophy they want, regardless of it's perceived negative effects upon themselves. Help is only help when it's asked for, otherwise it's just meddling. The line then is - when, exactly, does an addiction start to negatively effect people beyond the addictee: Is someone refusing to do the washing up because they are in the middle of a boss-fight considered 'negatively effecting those around the addictee'? - Or should the person asking them to wash-up just be more patient? Is someone stealing money to buy drugs negatively effecting those around them? - Or should drugs just be more affordable if that's the only negative effecting the addictee? Is someone who buys a new car every year negatively effecting the natural resources of the world? - Or are they helping the economy? As you can see, even this excellent definition is still prone to problematic definition, even though it's the best yet mentioned. I think personality problems are the biggest negatives with addiction, ie: the inability to be 'reasoned' with. It is in this road to 'reasoning' where, we, as a society, could do better ourselves. We cannot simply deem addiction as automatically negative, we should only be applying the negative where the negative is 'without a doubt' applicable for reason of 'reason'. |
|
|
An addiction is negative by definition.
An 'addiction' is often confused with 'having addictive properties' I love video games. I play them as much as I can, but I still know that I have to wake up every morning to go to work. I know I have to spend time with my girlfriend, do chores, etc... I often sacrifice some hours from my sleep to stay up late and game, this could be attributed as an addictive property. It's harmful and I'm really only hurting myself. Would you say I'm addicted to video games? By definition, I would say no... I don't stop at nothing to play games, I don't NEED games for my body/mind to function. I won't have a painful detox if you take me away from them. But shit, all I wanna do is play games. How about another common one, weed I'll smoke a nice fat joint after work and usually a few more during the evening. Gateway drug? Nope, never tried anything else. Have responsibilities that evening? Joint will wait until after. Got a bad cough and/or cold? I'll wait a day or two before smoking. That being said, I LOVE smoking pot. If I am bored, and without weed, I'll be grabbing my phone and trying to get some. I look forward to smoking one after a long day at work. Would you say I'm addicted? I don't think so. I enjoy it greatly and wouldn't give it up just because someone told me to. But am I letting it affect my life in negative ways? Outside my wallet, and my health (which is minor, won't get into this) it doesn't. (Besides, I don't drink very often, and weed is cheaper than booze) <--- (I'm in Canada, I know it gets very expensive in the USA) So basically, you have to adhere to the definition. An addiction is negative but I think the phrase "addicted to" is used very loosely, and very often doesn't apply well with the topic at hand. The Russell Wilson Era
|
|
" I have a serious issue with psychologists and culture in general. Who is anyone to say whats good or bad for you? If you would prefer one activity over another, it seems immoral to me to dictate that something is 'wrong' with you. Its a matter of one person attempting to control another, hidden underneath layers of deception or fabricated judgements which are purely arbitrary. Id go so far to even argue the freedom to commit suicide or take large risks with ones own health. (so long as it doesn't cause real harm to others) In my opinion, and i use the word opinion here in modesty as i believe this as a self evident FACT, addiction is not a 'problem' for anyone. It is merely a word used as a tool to manipulate people into behaving in the way they think they should. For years i searched for deep truths. A thousand revelations. At the very edge...the ability to think itself dissolves away.Thinking in human language is the problem. Any separation from 'the whole truth' is incomplete.My incomplete concepts may add to your 'whole truth', accept it or think about it
|
|
|
I endorse the previous two posts wholeheartedly.
Weed, particularly, is a very important substance for this debate: Weed is termed as a 'drug'. 'Drugs' are used as a collective term when negativising addiction. As is seen in this thread, even by me, people will say 'the scourge of drug addiction' etc etc etc. However, weed is not physically addictive. And only partially mentally addictive (much like if you always have cornflakes for breakfast, then, one day, you have none left for that morning, you get upset. Not ragingly destructively upset, but your routine is damaged, so you mildly rage internally about it until you get some more). And this is where the 'control' aspects of addiction terminology are most evident. It's very cunning and most unkind, but the secret of weed control is purely psychological propaganda. Honest to good folk hear the word 'drug' and will associate weed with the word 'drug'. Honest to good folk hear the phrase 'drug addiction' and associate this with crime and degredation. Weed automatically, by osmosis, becomes associative with 'addiction', even though everyone, in the know, knows full well it's not. Masterful Machiavellian politics. |
|
|
.
Last edited by skinnay#1438 on Jan 10, 2015, 6:59:27 AM
|
|
|
Ah, computer games and marijuana.
Now that's what I call a good evening. The Russell Wilson Era
|
|
|
It is ok to have an "addictive" or interesting partner. Unless of course, that partner is crack cocaine, because as you know, crack is whack, kids.
//go next
|
|
|
While I agree that people should have the freedom to do as they please to a large extent, I have personally witnessed actual addiction take my mother (and others in my family) to the brink of death, and it very much affects those around them. The goal wasn't and often isn't to coerce someone to be socially acceptable or do what is "proper," but people can honestly become so mixed up in a problem like alcohol abuse that they literally spiral out of control and suck in all of those that care about them or even those just around. Not just emotionally but financially and in many other ways as well. If you're living with the person and they suddenly stop going to work and don't pay any bills or buy any food it becomes a serious crisis, one that reaches far beyond just "affecting" other people.
So, I think there are most certainly cases where people are so dysfunctional that they need "help" whether they ask for it or not*, even if it involves others dictating what is or isn't proper or correct for that person. Real life demands that we follow at least some rules and do what is desired by others at least some of the time. *I'll concede that the person needs to admit and feel there is a problem for any real progress to be made, so an argument could be made that the person will always be asking for help. I am merely stating that sometimes meddling is also a necessity, and not negative by default. Just some thoughts. Team Won
|
|
" Very well put The Russell Wilson Era
|
|
|
My addiction to PoE is healthy, no really it is. Now where was that main vein at
Don't forget to drink your milk 👌
|
|
