• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

fine line between being in control and having an addiction

floozy_from_da_mall

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
28
Where does one draw the line between "being in control" and having an addiction?

Does "being in control" mean:
1. only having it on weekends
2. only having it in special events
3. being ABLE to say no ANYTIME
4. only in small quantities (regardless of frequency)

So my question is I guess when does one become an addict?
 
no.3.
when the drug isn't what dictates what you do or whatever youll be geting up to.
 
Being in control is definately no. 3 no arguement. If you can't say no at any time for any reason you are not in control.

That means resisting that free pill your mate offered you because your on a break. Not having a few lines because it doesn't count on special events.

Being in control is when you say your not getting on it this weekend you don't and you resist all temptaions. You can say no at anytime.
 
There is your definition of control, and everyone else's definition of control. Only you will know when you've lost control. Have a look at how it's affecting the people around said potential addict for clues...
 
I can honestly say I was addicted to meth when I only ever used on the weekend, so I don't think it is number 1.
 
Not being able to say no at all times doesn't always mean you're addicted, but you're definitely not fully in control so the path to addiction is open. It's possible to hold down a full time job (and perform well at it), as well as having a good social life and lots of friends, while still not being able to say no in certain circumstances. The distinction between not being in control and being addicted is that the former may not have an adverse effect on your life yet. Key word being yet - if your circumstances change but you still can't resist, that's when you could start getting into problems.

So I'd say number 3 defines it, but with a progressive grey area in between the two extremes.

Hope that made sense... :)
 
My opinion is #3. When you can say no because you don't feel like it, and not say yes because you need it. (Does that make any sense at all? :()
 
Mean Girl said:
There is your definition of control, and everyone else's definition of control. Only you will know when you've lost control. Have a look at how it's affecting the people around said potential addict for clues...

I agree but would you say that for a lot of people who are in denial (and I know there are a lot of people who are in denial), by the time they realise that they've lost control, they're already in much deeper shit than they thought?

Sometimes it's the people around them who realise first that they have lost control.
 
I think the crux of being an addict is being in denial. I would say usually when someone realises they are out of control they are well and truly down the path of addiction. Ignoring the indicators is when someone has gone too far already.

#3 is most accurate.
 
Addiction by definition is:


Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.

The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.
An instance of this: had an addiction for fast cars.
 
I have an addiction to drugs, my girl friend and making music. ;)

It depends on whether an addiction is causing more harm than good that is important.

If any drug is causing a lifestyle change for the worse and you cannot break the habit. Then its a dangerous addiction.

For me that dangerous addiction is meth.
 
I agree with #3.

I know people that go out every weekend and unless they're tkaing stuff they're not happy. even though it's only a weekend thing they're addicted as the yNEED it to have a good time out.

Being able to say no and follow through on it is important. Not overstepping your rules is important too (i've only done it on 2 occasions but 'punished' myself by not touching stuff for a couple of months after on both occasions)
 
i dunno all i can say is that i consider myself a drug addict, not addicted to any one drug at this point except nicotine, however i have been addicted to speed and weed, however i shake individual drug addictions by using alternatives, for this reason i accept that i am addicted to drugs in general.

the line i draw however is when i reflect on how this effects my life, however if i can juggle this dependance with the rest of my life not suffering i dont mind.
 
Addiction is not black and white, it is a grey scale.

Most of the people on bluelight are at least 50% addicted to drugs in my opinion.

A true test of your addiction:

Get your favorite drugs, (eg. pills), and buy a decent amount (eg. 10) and leave them in your room for 1 year without touching them (or any other pills you come accross). If you get cravings to take them you have a drug problem, and if you take them, you have a drug addiction.

Most of the people reading this could not pass this test.

POP A PILL AND SPREAD THE LOVE...
 
^^ hah a true test? i dont really think so... i believe in indulgence, im young and i like to party, i take pills and/or meth semi-regularly, if id average it out.. id guesstimate that i take a pills and/or meth once a fortnight.

i know im not addicted, how do i know? well simple.. i dont have evil twitches when i have a weekend off =D
 
I agree with Leprechaun 100%.

If your addicted for the right reasons, then there is no problem because usually you can break the habit when you need to. If you’re addicted for the wrong reasons then it's always harder to stop it, because usually you won’t want to stop because there is nothing to stop for.

I think if your living your life normally and doing your usual day to day things, you may be addicted, but you still have control which makes your addiction curable.
 
i think that the true test is a subjective one.

if you can honestly say that you can go without your drug of choice for a period of time, say, one month, that's one thing. if you can actually go without it for that period of time, it serves as a reasonably good indicator that you're not addicted.

speaking from experience, it's extremely easy to say that you can go without your drug of choice for a month. it's when you actually try to go without out and don't succeed that you may find it's worthwhile considering that you may be addicted.

i also think that the notion of "periodic addiction" is relevent. Let's say you're having work worries and take pills a bit more regularly than normal. that's one thing, and by most standards, that ok (ie: most members of society take out their work stresses out in some form or another). but it's when your work issues subside and you continue to use at that quantity that you need to consider the issue. i guess that's kinda what i understand leprecheun and montoman to say.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Beat said:
A true test of your addiction:

Get your favorite drugs, (eg. pills), and buy a decent amount (eg. 10) and leave them in your room for 1 year without touching them (or any other pills you come accross). If you get cravings to take them you have a drug problem, and if you take them, you have a drug addiction.
What would be harder for a lot of people would be to take those stashed pills or whatever, put them in your pocket next time you go out or something, and spend the night with people where everyone takes drugs except you. If you can keep the stuff in your pocket then you pass the test.

But if you really have to test yourself to know for sure then you're probably not totally in control anyway.
 
Top