(02-21-2010, 05:50 PM)Questioner Wrote: To me, addiction is any time anything destructive or self-destructive is compulsively done. All just to try to escape conscious awareness of pain or unhappiness.
The central point is the anxious flight from presence with one's own life. At its core is a lack of compassion for one's own human suffering. Perhaps also fear that the pain will never end and consume all of one's self.
Any number of destructive actions or materials can be used. By this definition, it doesn't have to be the same thing each time for a person to be an addict. If the kid at the house took a different drug every day and never repeated one for a year, he'd still be an addict. By this definition, my folks were addicted to a cult: their mind-altering substance was misuse of the mind itself. They added clearly unhealthy ideas, so they didn't need to add unhealthy chemicals.
I agree with this definition. Where do we draw the line? To a lesser degree, aren't we all addicts to some degree? Haven't we all, on occasion, used a candy bar, a glass of wine, or a bowl of ice cream as comfort food? Sugar and caffeine are both highly addictive substances, but they aren't considered drugs in our society because they're relatively benign.
The only difference is the intensity. Drugs like heroin completely suppress life's catalyst, for a few hours of Nirvana. That's what it is, really...a suppression of catalyst. But then, other catalyst takes its place...a different kind of catalyst...the catalyst of dealing with the addiction itself, as well as having to deal with well-meaning loved ones, possibly jail or even death due to OD...etc.
It's still all catalyst and I don't think we really have the right to say that the person is running away from their problems...they just have new, different problems. They're making choices we don't agree with...but how are their choices any better or worse than anyone else's?
I guess the part I'm having trouble with is the idea of withholding service/love to anyone based on any sort of judgement of their life choices.
I contend that the real issue isn't whether the other-self is able to utilize our service or not...the real issue is whether we have enough wisdom to be of service without getting sucked into their downward spiral.
(02-21-2010, 06:16 PM)Peregrinus Wrote: I'm just saying, talking about quitting drugs while doing drugs is a fairly clear indicator of a lack of want and need.
Pot is considered a drug only because of political and economic propaganda. It's not even physically addictive at all, so I wouldn't classify it the same as meth or heroin. It's not even remotely in the same league!
Cigarettes, on the other hand, are quite addictive, but they're legal drugs. If he had lit up a cig instead of a j, would the reaction have been the same?
Cigs aren't in the same league either, because, even though they ultimately cause a slow, painful death, they aren't mind-altering so offer only a partial escape, at best.
The question is: By whose criteria do we get to judge whether someone is ready to change their life? How can we be sure we aren't injecting our own biases into the assessment? Someone whose dad died of lung cancer might have an intense reaction to cigarettes...But I really have never heard of anyone having experienced any intense trauma because of weed, so I contend that classification of weed along with meth/heroin/alcohol/crack is likely based on cultural conditioning, rather than its actual attributes.
I just don't see the kid lighting up a bowl as being relevant to whether he quits meth or not. What if he had had a beer instead of a bowl?
I'm not trying to be difficult...just trying to make a point about how we judge things.