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?
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.
The concept of addiction as a brain disease has been challenged in recent times
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.
AA and NA have also shaped public opinion on alcoholics and addicts with ideas that are not based on science.
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
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lsd-helps-to-treat-alcoholism/
This tho…
Its better to think of it as a learning disorder that can be corrected over time.
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.
Nobody studying it thought it was a literal disease you could catch.
Yes they do. A person’s genetics can predisposition them towards alcoholism. That means you can get it, or at least the predisposition for it from your parents upon birth.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-use-disorder/genetics-alcohol-use-disorder
What makes that a brain disease?
Do you know what any of these words mean?
A genetic disorder is often considered a disease.
Yay harm reduction!
Science hasn’t really been winning that fight either, though. Has it.
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.
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.
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.
Is it true that addicts never stop being addicts
No, although anyone is free to return to harmful behavior if they choose to do so.
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 (replaces?) addictive behavior. You trained your brain to be an addict so you learn and train it not to be an addict.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
_ /\ _
Wow.
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 that’s in no way universal.
Add onto that… the waters get real muddy when you start defining addiction. Is it still addiction if it’s good for you? Like, if I can’t get through a week 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?
