Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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