Hacker News Reader

Comment by extension | Hacker News Reader

Irrespective of observable physiological effects, any drug, or indeed anything that improves our quality of life is addictive. Addiction is part of the human condition and we're better off just accepting it and letting ourselves get hooked on things, subject to our own rationally chosen limits. Those choices should be based on the strength of the addiction and the benefits and risks of the addictive object. The chemical/psychological distinction is hardly important.

View on HN

> drug, or indeed anything that improves our quality of life is addictive.

There is a difference between using something (and getting used to it because it increases your quality of life) and a chemical addiction.

> The chemical/psychological distinction is hardly important.

There is a huge difference. If you are addicted to something it is pretty much a physiological effect on you.

I agree up to a point, but we know that psychological events cause physiological changes, not just vice-versa.

Simple example, the addiction of the adrenaline rush and dopamine release of extreme sports.

Often when people, and especially the media, say "addiction" they're actually referring to psychological dependence.

Most physiological addictions have a psychological component. As an example, I'm addicted to caffeine, but I'm also dependent on coffee as part of a morning routine. Smokers who are addicted to nicotine are often also dependent on the social aspects of being a smoker. It's often the psychological component that, long term, is the hardest to break.

The converse, however, is not true. A good example is so-called "Internet addiction" which should rightfully be called "Internet dependence", at best, because it has no physiological component.

To say that something like internet addiction has no physiological component is to vastly understate the power our brain has over the rest of our body. If your method of getting a dopamine rush is the internet (or world of warcraft, porn, gambling, etc), you are still going to get physiologically attached to that dopamine rush and will suffer negative physical reactions (poor mood, etc) if those things are taken away.

I've been waiting for a reason to go back to smoking

If your only reason for quitting smoking was because you dislike the concept of addiction, then I suspect you were never a smoker in the first place and are making this up.

Smoking is expensive, unhealthy, inconvenient, and stinky. That's why there's a big push to get people unaddicted to smoking, but not so much push to get people unaddicted from caffeine.

Actually, I was a smoker. On the addiction scale, I'd say very high which was part of the reason. I quit for health reasons mostly. It was also becoming more of an inconvenience.

Honestly, I liked smoking a lot (still do really). I disliked the addiction.

One of the most successful smoking cessation methods uses this very tactic to help people quit. Smokers already know that smoking is unhealthy, stinky, expensive and inconvenient. This doesn't help them quit. Convincing smokers that they are drug addicts seems to help more. It's easy to rationalize smelling bad, but very hard to rationalize a drug addiction.

"Quit Smoking the Easy Way" by Alan Carr

>"The chemical/psychological distinction is hardly important."

Yes, it is. In some cases, withdrawal can cause death.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com