I feel like the definition should just be "Addiction can be defined as a persistent, compulsive need to use a substance".
Surely one can be addicted even if it doesn't have negative consequences right?
Surely one can be addicted even if it doesn't have negative consequences right?
I don't know whether it's useful, but it suits the definition. We do enjoy this coffee, we do drink it regularly, and we do crave it when we don't have it.
I'd say addiction sums it up.
maybe exercise would have been a better example. there are people who damage themselves through compulsive overtraining, but there is often a compulsive element to moderate exercise. a person with a solid 5x1hr/week regimen will often feel bad if they miss a day and be very reluctant to do so. but this is not a bad thing at all; it is a very healthy habit.
Also it means that who is considered an 'addict' is partially socially constructed: Some people have jobs that will randomly drug test for weed, so if they smoke daily and lose their job, they're addicts, but since my job is remote and doesn't care, I could be high as a kite most nights and not be an 'addict' since it didn't cause issues.
more generally, I would push back on the idea that someone isn't experiencing consequences just because they manage to hold a job. spending all your nonworking time intoxicated is not usually the path to a fulfilling personal life. the consequences are there whether the person sees them or not.
People are also addicted to porn, gambling, to sports (the 'hyperfit'), or to doing nothing, etc. Activities / experiences / behaviours are addictive, which shows that it is not as simple as just a physiological response to various substances.
I have an addictive personality. I have to watch my routines since I fall into ruts very easily, just about anything I do can do it.