Submitted 7 months ago by vestmoria@linux.community to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
example: a drug addict alcoholic who discovers god and turns a teetotaler gay bashing abortion hating new born Christian.
Is replacing addictions the rule or the exception?
Not really true, it’s part of religious shame propaganda in 12 step programs to make you more susceptible to conversion.
Might be effective in the short term, but has many other negative psychological effects.
Secular rehab programs are equally or more effective, and require no such shame or disempowerment.
Addict/alcoholic 11 years sober. I got sober at a rehab and stayed sober through Alcoholics Anonymous. First, there’s a difference between chemical dependence and addiction. Often these things go hand in hand. Chemical dependence means your body will go through withdrawals if you stop taking in the substance. Something like weed has no chemical dependence aspect, but you can still be addicted to it. Heroin and alcohol can have heavy chemical dependence, and you can be addicted to those.
What AA teaches is not that alcohol is bad. Alcohol is a solution to the problem, but the solution no longer works. The base problem is I wanted to change the way I feel. AA creates a new way to change the way you feel in a healthy way.
If you look at it from that aspect, what you’re replacing is how you change how you feel. Personally, between ADHD and addiction, I very much display addictive behaviors to other things. Whether that’s hyperfixation or addiction, I’m not sure.
What I do know, is that I have no moderation to mind and mood altering substances. If they came out with a miracle pill and said, take one and your addiction will be gone forever, I’d ask for 2.
Something like weed has no chemical dependence aspect, but you can still be addicted to it.
Marijuana is physically addictive as well as mentally, especially the ultra strong stuff we have today like THC vape pens, or dab. Anyone who has used marijuana daily for a decent amount of time and then quit can attest to the physical withdrawal symptoms.
That’s very possible. I haven’t done in-depth research on it.
i think it’s less withdrawal and more your body flushing out all the cannabinoids, as well as going from smoking daily to not at all is a massive shift in body chemistry. that may have symptoms associated but may not necessarily be withdrawal, although that line can be blurry
It is not true I am seven years sober. I have not replaced it with anything. The always an addict thing, is more knowing that I can’t moderate. So I know I can’t go out drinking and just have a couple of drinks, it will lead back to a path of addiction.
There’s generally a reason why people turn to excessive drug use in the first place, which is usually unhappiness paired with a feeling of worthlessness, of not being needed.
When you’re then addicted, it can be difficult to build up self-worth, because you may not be able to function in society at all, but also because of the stigma on drug addiction. And once you go on withdrawal, unhappiness will settle in.
This makes it so difficult to get away from an addiction in the first place, and can also mean that people quickly fall for a different addiction.
But of course, it’s not a law of nature that addicts will always be addicts. With sufficient support to eliminate those root causes, and to keep them accountable, it is possible to get away from an addiction.
I’d say you don’t really stop being addict even when you stop the behaviour. You’r just an addict that has the addiction under control - for now.
Recovery is a personal journey. I’m sure for some it is a constant pressure to be managed, and for others it disappears beyond the horizon of time.
Something to consider is the did the circumstances change where the addiction spawned? You can’t expect someone to not be wet when they are barely keeping their head above water.
Soldiers in Vietnam abused hard drugs to cope with being drafted to fight a war. Getting shot at, constant danger of the unknown and unseen enemy. I couldn’t imagine the stress.
when those same people came home a good portion did not continue using. For some reason, being safe secure and surrounded by loved ones makes people less prone to use drugs.
it’s not true. i was a heavy smoker and quit and didn’t replace it. it was tough. the temptation for a smoke took like 5 to 10 years to disappear.
i never drank much alcohol, but decided to quit that too, after i realized i hadn’t had a drink in several months and wanted to see where it’s going.
i know several others who quit one thing or another and didnpt replace it. replacing can be a coping mechanism though. if you replace with something that’s more easy to quit, it’s a good way out.
You are not an addict. This is right up there with “why don’t homeless people just buy a house”.
Being a heavy smoker, they certainly were
Does it hurt to use your brain?
It’s the rule for people who can’t control it. Any addict who has realized it will tell you so… look up what Matthew Perry had to say, it got him anyway but he knew himself well enough to be brutally honest about it.
As with everything related to mental health, yea, it depends. Some people may be addicted to a single action - their brain may overblast happy brain chemicals specially in response to alcohol or some other substance. Other people might just get happy brain chemicals from any repeated action. Addiction is usually not substance specific and those people will merrily transfer their obsessions so for the majority of people addiction ends up being a lifelong game of finding a fixation that is minimally harmful… for others, not so much.
Brain chemistry be wack dog.
Is it true that addicts never stop being addicts
No
they just replace their addiction?
No, but most therapy is based around cognitive behavioral therapy along with many different complementary treatments. CBT strengthens non-addictive behavior and weakens or disrupts addictive behavior. You trained your brain to be an addict so you learn and train it not to be an addict.
Not true in any meaningful way. Also quite reductive and probably even offensive?
People abuse various substances for all sorts of reasons.
The manner in which they might recover depends on their specific circumstances.
Maybe? You gotta spend that saved time somewhere 😉
My issue with this argument is that it feels defeatist and misunderstands why people try to get off addiction. Getting clean isn’t done for the sake of being clean, it’s about *harm reduction." Do some people replace amphetamine abuse with TV Bing watching? Probably. But does that mean that those people were better off using hard drugs and that they shouldn’t even try because they’ll “always be addicted to something?” Fuck no.
Have you ever been an addict?
I don’t think so. I think we start being addicted when we have some serious trouble that we can’t deal with, and stop when that trouble is gone. Happened many times that way.
No. It’s not true.
As a general consensus, it is true that addicts are always addicts (who are hopefully recovering), but it isn’t the case that they always replace it with another addiction.
They usually do something else, yes, and they can get way into whatever just like anyone, but not for long, or more than anyone else.
Most people who stop drinking and drugs just find other interests and things to do.
I had zero understanding of just how strong alcoholism could be, until I switched metabolisms, from vata-metabolism to pitta-metabolism ( read Frawley’s “Ayurvedic Healing” and Frawley & Kozak’s “Yoga for Your TYPE” books, to understand the different metabolisms, & how they alter one’s life ).
In pure pitta-metabolism, alcohol-craving was ferrocious.
( it took me a dozen years to break from vata to pitta metabolism, btw: it isn’ something easily accomplished.
The “obesity epidemic”, however, is really a kapha-metabolism epidemic, which White prejudice won’t tolerate to be labeled correctly:
obesity’s the symptom, not the cause. )
If I ever get locked back in pure-pitta, I’ll have to never have any alcohol to drink, EVER, while in it.
Currently I’m in a mixed metabolism, so it isn’t lethally-dangerous to me, but it still munges meditation-capability, so I don’t bother wasting money on it for that reason.
_ /\ _
What
I think you almost certainly paid a charlatan dearly for this information.
As an addict myself I can say basically yes. Not always to that extreme, think of the smoker who starts eating more. Maybe you get into marathon running? Well that’s just a hobby, right? Maybe or maybe it’s filling that gap alcohol used to fill. It’s hard to say. When you break it down, from my experience, addicts are filling some kind of hole with drugs, so when you take the drugs out most people want to fill that hole. For the short time I was in AA 90% people chained smoked and only drank coffee or soda, the 10% who didn’t found Jesus.
So can some addicts get by without something else, yea probably. But for most, ultimately the hole will be filled, just hope it’s with something positive. For alot of us, it’s just a different drug to be honest.
This is more about habits than addiction. Replacing a habit is easier than removing one, but that's not to say there's no other way!
I quit smoking, probably 4 years ago now. It is really not an ongoing concern. Even running into other smokers it’s mostly a sense of revulsion than anything
It was tougher the first time I tried to quit, and I started up after a year or two that time. The second time (the one that stuck) I had more going in favor of quitting. More cardio (makes it very apparent what it is costing you), minor health scare (mouth was melting; ultimately a combination of factors including smoking,drinking very strong limeade, and using non sensitive toothpaste), and having first kid soon (don’t want to be smoking around my kids). Thankfully it stuck that second time. It sucks in the first several weeks, but it gets easier with time, and it helps the more reasons you have to not smoke
I’d say it’s closer to the rule than the exception, but is closer to the middle than either of them.
Yes, a lot of addicts - most, probably - just shift their addiction to something else (hopefully something healthier), but the waters get real muddied when you start defining addiction. Is it still addiction if it’s good for you? Like, if I can’t get through a day without some celery, would people even call me an addict? If I can’t start my day without a run, would anyone ever think to say I have a problem?
Rule
Wow.
Whirling_Cloudburst@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The concept of addiction as a brain disease has been challenged in recent times. Its better to think of it as a learning disorder that can be corrected over time. AA and NA have also shaped public opinion on alcoholics and addicts with ideas that are not based on science.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Because we didn’t know shit when it was described like that in layman’s terms when it was described…
Nobody studying it thought it was a literal disease you could catch.
One of AA’s founders had LSD as a huge factor in his recovery and initial program. When he died (or just left) the other guy took all the LSD out and replaced it with Jesus.
LSD breaks your brains pattern recognition, thats what happens when you “trip” things don’t look like they should and you look at things with a new perspective. That’s why the original program worked with addiction and people got to stop going to meeting eventually
scientificamerican.com/…/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoh…
This tho…
Is just fundamentally wrong on a lot of levels, and also offensive but I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean it to be intentionally.
Anticorp@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yes they do. A person’s genetics can predisposition them towards alcoholism.
niaaa.nih.gov/…/genetics-alcohol-use-disorder
Naja_Kaouthia@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yay harm reduction!
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Science hasn’t really been winning that fight either, though. Has it.