Assume that an addictive drug had minimal bad effects from its administration, was cheap as dirt, and had no negative lifestyle associated with it.
Studies showed that addicts had the same life expectancy as non addicts.
Would you still oppose it on principal?
(yes this is inspired by the ecig threads where people point out nicotine is still addictive, much like caffeine).
I’m just curious.
Well by your definition it would seem I’m addicted to air, water and food.
I’m not sure you can be addicted by definition and have no negative consequences. What happens when this drug is unavailable for some reason. If the users cope just fine then I’d say their not addicted, and if they freak out when they can’t get it then there are negative consequences.
Caffeine actually comes pretty close to this. And no, I don’t oppose it.
I concede that by definition an addict is going to freak out if their drug is unavailable, however our modern world can easily remedy this issue. Tons of caffeine, nicotine, and alcoholics can find their drug of addiction available at many retailers. Even illegal drug addicts can easily find their drug for sale, with less stability of course.
Well if we’re talking the level of caffeine and nicotine I’m cool with it.
I’ve seen people get cranky without a cig or a cup of joe but they always seem able to cope.
I do, but it’s only a mild opposition. This is why I’ve made a point not to get addicted to even caffiene. If you took my tea away tomorrow, I’d be doing fine. Since there’s no terrible consequences with it (i.e. killing someone for a fix) I see no need to regulate drugs like this and pretty much think it’s up to the individual user if they want to become almost cripplingly dependent on their caffiene in the morning in order to feel good.
But I do reserve the right to feel a little smug and superior when I can skip caffiene in the morning and the person beside me moans and whines for 3 hours and complains the rest of the day about their achy head and bleary eyes.
I think being addicted to something isn’t a problem in and of itself, but rather the consequences of that addiction are where the problems come in.
So something like caffeine has low to non-existent consequences. I suppose you could cook up some sort of contrived situation where a caffeine-addicted mother chooses coffee over baby formula with their last dollar, but that kind of thing is unlikely.
However, with other substances, the consequences can be pretty high, both for the addict themselves in a direct sense, and for the greater society through the addict’s actions. Things like crack and heroin fall into this category in my view, because they both destroy the addict’s health, and they tend to cause the addicts to engage in behaviors and actions that are self-destructive and detrimental to the society at large.
Well, if it has minimal bad effects and no negative lifestyle associations, then it’s not an addiction. I would define an addition as something you take or do simply as a means to an end. It may have initially given you pleasure or relived pain, but now *merely the lack of it *causes displeasure and/or pain. And an *abnormal *pain. IOW humans are not addicted to food or air simply because without them it would be painful and eventually deadly. We require them in order for our bodies to function normally.
Unless you start taking an addictive substance like heroin, cocaine or nicotine etc. your body has absolutely no need or desire for these substances. Even once you do, the need varies between physical and/or psychological (comedian George Carlin gave the best description when asked how doing cocaine makes you feel?* ‘Like doing more cocaine!’*). And it isn’t just drugs, you can be addicted to a bad relationship or gambling etc., basically anything that effects your brain’s chemistry in an abnormal way.
So yes, I would say that by the accepted definition, addition is in and of itself a bad thing.
I never took up drinking coffee for the very specific reason I didn’t want to become addicted to it.
I’m glad I did too, because really, the rituals involved with drinking coffee seem like a big hassle.
Not be able to function at 100% before first morning’s coffee? No thanks!
Two cents here.
To me an “addiction” is more problematic if there is little upside when using and definite downside when not using.
If you know what I mean.
A slight downside to using addictive chemicals may be a reduced motivation to stimulate similar feelings through natural human behavior and interactions with others. I gave up most chemicals about 25 years ago and reduced my coffee to mostly mornings. I still use the nicotine. My productivity and creative energy has soared compared to where it was 25 years ago.
To me the issue is a lack of control. I love my coffee, but if I don’t get it, the only consequence is a mild headache. But a stronger addiction can overcome a persons will.
The negative impact is that not putting oneself in a position where the drug of choice is unavailable, or using it socially unacceptable, becomes a priority.
This thread is meaningless. An addiction is a habit that continues despite the negative effects on a person’s life, whether that be physical, personal, financial or a combination thereof. ETA: So yes, I would say that addiction by itself is a bad thing.
No matter how mild the consequences, and addict is less free than a non-addict.
I thought part of the definition of the word “addiction” was that it was something having an adverse affect on your life?
Pretty close…but, ow, that headache when you find yourself having no availability!
I think addiction is bad – and, yeah, the addiction to food and water and air is included here! – because it limits our freedom. It causes us always to have to maintain that logistical supply-line to the substance of dependence.
Add sleep to that list. 30 per cent of our lives, robbed from us! (Well, okay, dreaming is kinda cool…)
Also, historically, food and water have been used as weapons against populations. The “harmless” addiction to food was what Stalin used to kill millions.
But where would you put a caffeine addiction? The negative effects are due to not using it. I can’t think of any serious negative effects of actually using it.
Man, it seems like there are several different questions here. So let me answer each one differently.
Do you think addiction in and of itself is bad?
Yes. Ideally, a person should be free to make their own choices. Once an addiction sets in, they’re not really free anymore. Even if they choose the addiction, I’d still say that it’s by default bad. (It’s like saying “Would slavery be OK if people irrevocably chose whether to become a slave?” Most of us would still agree that it would be a bad thing.)
Would you still oppose it on principal?
Oppose it how? There are lots of ways to look at this opposition.
I would certainly oppose addiction in my own personal use. Using alcohol and caffeine as an example, I drink about 5 beers and 10 caffeinated drinks a week. I get some benefit from these drugs, but nowhere near the level that might rise to addiction.
I would certainly discourage other people from becoming addicted. Again, I just think it’s a bad idea. My kids would certainly be prevented from any addiction-level usage. (Though using alcohol as an example, I think it would actually be good for a kid to have some parentally supervised access to alcohol, like a quarter/half glass of wine with dinner. I think this can be used to teach healthy habits.)
Would I oppose it enough to ban or regulate it in a legal sense? You’d have to show me how either 1) the market is being manipulated to harm people or 2) how the people themselves are being harmed. I tend to support free markets, but I can see how an addictive substance would actually be contrary to the free market. Someone driven by addiction is no longer a rational participant in the market, so that alone might be enough for me to consider some kind of limitation.
Even if I wanted to oppose it legally, I could: 1) restrict advertising/marketing. 2) Set age limits to buy. 3) Require prescriptions to consume. 4) Outright ban. For something as harmless as the OP describes, 3 and 4 would probably be too severe, but I have a hard time believing anything is quite as innocent as the OP’s drug.
Then I wouldn’t call that an addiction at all. That is a physical dependency. The two can overlap but they are distinct concepts.