The Word "Addict". How Do You Define It? Or Hear It?

[Nurse Ratched]

Hi @Pumpkin2021,

Interesting question, thanks for raising it. You identify as having an addiction but then also question if you are? In this online-forum context, It would be up to you to decide if your use is making your life unmanageable. It's a really difficult question to answer without more details. It would depend on how you define being 'addicted' or having an 'addiction' or what type of model you prescribe to.

Personally, I wouldn't ever ask for a diagnosis from an online forum, but as a thought experiment, I'll give some input.

In the offline world, if you would want to be diagnosed then you would need to consult a trained clinician. If they used the Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10, then it might be difficult as they don't differentiate between 'dependence' and 'addiction' or 'just liking'. If the clinician were to use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th edition (DSM-5), then you wouldn't find out if you're 'addicted' but rather how severe your substance use disorder is because a clinician would diagnose the severity or how much of a problem it is based on how many of the 11 symptoms are identified.

Many possibilities, but I do hope you are able to cope in the meantime.

Cool post and enlightening. I'm actually doing quite well in my life. Finally. Better late than never I suppose. I was , no question, addicted to pharm opioids from my 20's to my 50's. I was prescribed some for an injury in the 80's and I instantly knew I was in trouble. Anxiety and depression melted away and I was finally able to breathe easier and go on with all my adulting duties. But.....since I never had legit pain I couldn't get them prescribed. So i bought from friends, stole from friends and family ( just their pills not any other possessions ) and tried to con Dr.s all the time to hook me up. A few fell for it....most didn't. I was unquestionably addicted ( more mentally than physically) Only reason I escaped dependence as I couldn't source enough. Money or availability kept me from a constant supply. But I thought about them daily. Was obsessed with pain pills. Thought they were the only medicine in the whole world that could make me feel like a complete human being.

After many years of stupid decisions, legal problems, several rock bottoms, and several outpatient therapies I finally decided to buckle up, quit all of it and live my life the way I always wanted too. Damn shame I was also a senior citizen by this time, but hey, like I said better late than never. But the anxiety and depression was still there so now I'm like okay now what do I do. AD's weren't enough and neither was weed. They both actually made me feel worse. I heard about kratom and decided to give it a whirl. It helped, I stayed away from pills, restructured my life, and I can honestly say I got a second chance. But I suppose I am still addicted to a substance that has the power to ease my anxiety and depression and have justified it as being better than being addicted to the lifestyle and behaviors that I was practicing.

And by the way, welcome to Bluelight.

 

[Imaginarium]

Thanks for the welcome!

Sounds like quite the experience, but I'm glad you're feeling better adjusted and regulated. In this non-clinical setting, I think regardless of whether you're addicted or dependent, you sound much better off. Semantics definitely does matter in many instances, but here I'm just glad your anxiety and depression are being managed and hope they continue to through a consistent and safe supply.

 

[deficiT]

Addiction doesn't need to be a problem.

"ad·dic·tion | \ ə-ˈdik-shən : a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms (such as anxiety, irritability, tremors, or nausea) upon withdrawal or abstinence : the state of being addicted"

Whoops.

Sounds like you're a lot a bit wrong though.

People can't just willy nilly have their own concept of how things function, after all, words are not just these things you can use however you want and interpret the meaning either which way.

There is no room for subjectivity in linguistics.

 

[Pickledlemons]

But there's no room for interpretation. I could as well ask about everyone's individual definition of ice cream, but I think we're going to meet a similar result,
only that with addiction most people have next to 0 knowledge, and everyone knows ice cream. Maybe that's the "fun" part, but I'm the wrong guy to understand "fun".

Yeah I've reached the point where I'm just confused. There is no room for interpretation.
But whatever, call a shovel a rocket launcher and we'll see. It won't launch rockets, that's for sure, but you do have the option to pretend.

To paraphrase that: I don't think you will get anywhere with that premise. What addiction means has already been defined over and over, and I'm not sure how people's "opinions" matter in that situation. Is the shovel a rocket launcher, just because multiple people think it's a rocket launcher?

I think you are overthinking it. Anybody can read from a dictionary. I interpreted this more as a personal question. Probably better for drug culture... but anyway. In 99% of cases on this forum I just say dependence because its more accurate but in RL I might say I'm addicted to suboxone or coffee even though a doctor might say it differently.

We all learn to talk using context, and since every one of us learns with different examples, we have slightly different ideas about what words mean, even if we agree on definitions. You could say a bit of information is always lost in translation, even if we speak the same language. lol.

Addict was never offensive for me growing up, maybe it was because I got started with drug use from so young that I was desensitized to it. I did however hate the word 'druggie,' it was the one I felt defined me by my drug use

 

[December Flower]

"ad·dic·tion | \ ə-ˈdik-shən : a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms (such as anxiety, irritability, tremors, or nausea) upon withdrawal or abstinence : the state of being addicted"

Whoops.

Sounds like you're a lot a bit wrong though.

People can't just willy nilly have their own concept of how things function, after all, words are not just these things you can use however you want and interpret the meaning either which way.

There is no room for subjectivity in linguistics.

Umm. Just because something is harmful, doesn't mean it's a problem. Just because coffee damages my heart over time, doesn't mean it hinders me from functioniong, you understand? It's the opposite. So even though the substance is harmful to a certain degree, I can use it to help myself through the day. Not that I drink much coffee, it's the opposite, that was just an example.

+ could we maybe agree on definitons from medical pages, not webster?
Because this is ridiculous, and describes dependance mostly, which you should know. It does say "typically", but in fact most addictions are not "drug addictions", but to other things like sex, sports, gambling, etc, so "typically" they would not cause withdrawal. w/e thinkin too much.

The rest of what you said is true, even though you were trying to mock me with it.
Except the part about subjectivity and linguistics, I never even fucking said anything like that. I said there's no wiggle room in the definition of words, in this case addict, because it's pretty damned well defined - and yes, a medical term is usually defined very precisely, so .. I mean sure you could define it differently, but that would be simply incorrect. Addiction is the compulsive behaviour for specific or even non-specific stimuli, not the withdrawal/dependance end of the spectrum.
There's a lot of wiggle room in a word like "Smurbleprap" or "God" or silly shit like that, sure

Also this is not fucking poetry, who says "addict" and means baseball bat?

I think you are overthinking it. Anybody can read from a dictionary. I interpreted this more as a personal question. Probably better for drug culture... but anyway. In 99% of cases on this forum I just say dependence because its more accurate but in RL I might say I'm addicted to suboxone or coffee even though a doctor might say it differently.

We all learn to talk using context, and since every one of us learns with different examples, we have slightly different ideas about what words mean, even if we agree on definitions. You could say a bit of information is always lost in translation, even if we speak the same language. lol.

Addict was never offensive for me growing up, maybe it was because I got started with drug use from so young that I was desensitized to it. I did however hate the word 'druggie,' it was the one I felt defined me by my drug use

I'm overthinking everything, just ignore it.
It's just that there was never any context given, just the word,
and there's really no wiggle room without any context whatsoever,
it's just the fucking word, i.e the disease.

I doubt I will really get the point, anyways
You guys wanna make up some definitions of addiction,
and that is fun or interesting, and I'm spoiling the fun.
I have understood that much, so I'll just leave it at that and say sorry.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

In my opinion, using the word 'addict' (i.e. calling someone an 'addict') is stigmatizing, discriminatory, perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and creates barriers to health and social services.

I tend to agree.

Although I could argue that addicts use the word to describe themselves perhaps as much as it used towards them.

Just this morning I saw a TV add that started with someone saying "I'm an addict". Followed up by "But that doesn't define me". Something about that feels like an oxymoron to me.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

Did you read the OP?

It was asking what does it mean to you and how does that differ from what it means to other people.

Yeah, that's where I was getting at. I don't mind people defining it "by the book" either. But I was talking about the word addict specially, not the word addiction. I think each word has different nuances. Yes, by the book we can define addiction. And then therefore say addict means "one who suffers from addiction".

But I guess I was more interested in where peoples' minds go. That's whyI also asked how you "hear it". You may know it's wrong for your mind to go to a certain place, but hey... let's have an honest conversation.

If 3-4 years ago someone asked me what I thought of the word, I probably would have said anyone that reaches or semi-routinely physical dependence to the point you have WDs. So... if you can use any drug in moderation without ever reaching that point, you're probably not an addict.

More recently I would have said: If your habits (drug habits, presumably) are causing problems in your life, and the habit continues, then you're an addict.

But now I think I should move away from that line of thinking, too. Because how do you define problem?

I just know that the word bugs me. I've never been to an AA meeting, but I know I'd struggle to say "I'm an alcoholic". It comes across as such a concrete label, like I'm an alcoholic the same exact way as the person sitting next to me.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

Sure there's room for interpretation. A shovel might not be a rocket launcher, but you'll find it's perfectly capable of launching rocks.

I think there's room for interpretation, too. That is, if we all agree that sometimes perception is reality, even though those perceptions should be challenged.

Another analogy I thought of is overweight people. If I'm sitting on a park bench and my friend says "My God, look at that fat ass!" and I look up to only see one person that's maybe 3-4 stone overweight, I'll probably dismiss that person and assume there's someone extremely obese somewhere, that I haven't spotted yet. With weight we have different levels... overweight, nearly obese, obese, on and on.

I think about how people use "on the spectrum" to talk about different levels of autism. I like that. As opposed to lumping everyone together as simply "autistic".

I'm talking specifically about the word "addict". It's connotations, semantics, etc. Not the word "addiction". They are different types of nouns.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

Some people's addictions aren't too damaging. I know people that are addicted to online shopping. The sites where you bid on items ( junky chinese shit ) and get things for a few dollars. If you can afford to do that, without neglecting your household obligations, it's all good i guess.

So, in your opinion, such a person shouldn't be considered an "addict"?

What about someone that uses cocaine or Molly 2-3 times per month on weekends? Never really caused any problems. Well, maybe you caught one possession charge once. A problem, but your life didn't fall apart.

I know in a clinical assessment such a person would probably be labeled with a "substance use disorder" or something along those lines. Do most people basically consider that the same thing as "addict?"

 

[deficiT]

I think there's room for interpretation, too. That is, if we all agree that sometimes perception is reality, even though those perceptions should be challenged.

Another analogy I thought of is overweight people. If I'm sitting on a park bench and my friend says "My God, look at that fat ass!" and I look up to only see one person that's maybe 3-4 stone overweight, I'll probably dismiss that person and assume there's someone extremely obese somewhere, that I haven't spotted yet. With weight we have different levels... overweight, nearly obese, obese, on and on.

I think about how people use "on the spectrum" to talk about different levels of autism. I like that. As opposed to lumping everyone together as simply "autistic".

I'm talking specifically about the word "addict". It's connotations, semantics, etc. Not the word "addiction". They are different types of nouns.

Certainly there is a spectrum to addiction. Some people exhibit problematic behavior that causes them problems, but they are still able to live a relatively normal life. But others become completely and totally self destructive. Any time they touch any substance, it snowballs and plummets them downhill.

And at any time, people can progress across this spectrum. It isn't set in stone, and it is not true that "once an addict, always an addict". People change.

 

[OpiateKiller]

Certainly there is a spectrum to addiction. Some people exhibit problematic behavior that causes them problems, but they are still able to live a relatively normal life. But others become completely and totally self destructive. Any time they touch any substance, it snowballs and plummets them downhill.

And at any time, people can progress across this spectrum. It isn't set in stone, and it is not true that "once an addict, always an addict". People change.

I agree about the once an addict thing. I’ve definitely become more able to maintain opioid addiction over the years.

Doesn’t make it any easier when you don’t have money or the dealer isn’t available and you’re dope sick.

I do feel no other substance could cripple me the way heroin does. In fact I feel I could maintain being an alcoholic indefinitely

 

[OpiateKiller]

To me an addict is just a personality trait.

One of my favorite quotes is, “anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing, moderation is for cowards”

Cocaine and heroin are worth overdoing to me, hence the 11 rehab trips

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

I agree about the once an addict thing. I’ve definitely become more able to maintain opioid addiction over the years.

Do you agree because of what you've overcome? So you know it's possible for some?

Or do you believe anyone can overcome addiction and maintain it? That it's possible for any addict?

 

[Imaginarium]

Hi,

Thanks for the response.

I'm talking specifically about the word "addict". It's connotations, semantics, etc. Not the word "addiction". They are different types of nouns.

I note the differentiation, thanks for highlighting this. It might seem like semantics, but the use of language matters and can have real ramifications. There are several examples above that discuss "addiction", but I'll focus my reply on the use of 'addict' as a noun. In my opinion, using 'addict' is not recommended, and serves to perpetuate stigma.

When you argue

that addicts use the word to describe themselves perhaps as much as it used towards them

I respect people when they self-identify as an 'addict', especially if it gives them agency and language to articulate themselves. However, I still don't think using 'addict' to self-identify is serving others, especially those affected by the use of the word and other marginalised people who use drugs.

I would argue that calling someone else an 'addict' is not appropriate, as it has been empirically demonstrated to increase stigma (see Wakeman, 2019). There are strong arguments against using 'addict' as a noun. Further, the Associated Press took a huge step by changing its guidelines for journalists reporting on addiction (i.e. the way journalists and media refer to 'addicts'). The AP Stylebook (2017 edition) declares that “addict” should no longer be used as a noun and instead recommends using person-first language, such as “people with addiction”. See changing the narrative, for examples of how the way media represents drug use and addiction can be problematic.

I think the argument for the use of person-first language underlies your example below.

When you say

Just this morning I saw a TV add that started with someone saying "I'm an addict". Followed up by "But that doesn't define me". Something about that feels like an oxymoron to me

I can see how this could be read as an oxymoron. However, my reading of this example is that the person was reiterating what I suggested above; the need to use person-first language. In my reading of the example, they were saying that they are a person first, before the drug. They qualify this by saying that it (addict) "doesn't define me". This is exactly where the use of person-first language is needed. They could've used "a person with an addiction" or a "person with a substance use disorder" to clarify their point (and so it wouldn't be read as an oxymoron). The use of person-first language gives agency to a person. This is particularly important when we talk about a person, part of a marginalised population, who has been silenced and discriminated against by racist and oppressive drug policies.

In my opinion, changing our language is a crucial component of reducing stigma and improving the lives and health of people who are affected.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

However, my reading of this example is that the person was reiterating what I suggested above; the need to use person-first language. In my reading of the example,

Yeah, I hear you. It still doesn't feel quite right. To label yourself, and then talk about how that label doesn't define you. I get that, but it would seem easier to simply avoid the label in the first place.

they were saying that they are a person first, before the drug.

I think they should have said it your way, then.

 

[lovemissile66]

Personally speaking...I hate the word even though I am, in fact an addict. The word to me just reduces a person to one thing. And we all know we are many things. For example, some of us are assholes also! Or rocket scientists! It's just a reductive word to me. That, and junkie. Somehow I prefer junkie. Probably because right now I haven't washed my hair in a week...kicking, ya know. I have however
brushed my 8 teeth and washed my face. Mom would be so proud.

 

[Lil'LinaptkSix]

not sure if i can "define" addict but everyone is addicted to something. guess it is a person, place or thing that someone is maybe obsessed with?
on the other hand i hate it when it come from someones mouth. it is usually all tied up with distain in some fashion and i wanna chop.
i find it is sometimes not what is said as much as how it is said. i am an asshole and will analyze everything if it is called for. my egomania tells me that i can make changes. the scars are evidence to the contrary.
best

 

[Imaginarium]

Hi,

It still doesn't feel quite right. To label yourself, and then talk about how that label doesn't define you. I get that, but it would seem easier to simply avoid the label in the first place

Noting that you are referring to the example of someone using 'addict' as an identifier on an open, public platform (i.e. TV). Choosing when and where to use certain language and labels can help reduce stigma and discrimination towards people who use drugs, including those diagnosed with an SUD.

Some suggest that using 'addict' as a noun to label oneself could be appropriate in only a very limited set of specific contexts, such as mutual aid meetings. I disagree. Of course, people have their own agency and can self-identify as they please. However, in my opinion, the use of 'addict' as an identifier may potentially result in a decrease a persons’ own sense of hope and self-efficacy for change, diminishing the effectiveness of treatment. Despite my views, it's important that people engaging with persons with SUD (e.g. journalists interviewing persons with a SUD) ask the how they prefer to be identify.

To clarify, when you say

I think they should have said it your way, then.

This is not "my" way. It's an approach recommended by respected entities, such as the Recovery Research Institute and clinical experts (e.g. Sarah Wakeman). As mentioned in my previous post, the Associated Press Stylebook recommends person-first language for a range of medical illnesses, including SUD. The recommendations for using person-first language is based on research shows that identifying people as “addicts” elicits prejudice and stigma.

The use of person-first language empowers individuals by putting the individual first and one aspect of their personhood second.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

To Imaginarium,

I may be dense today because I don't have enough drugs in my system (lol), but I'm having trouble understanding what your view is. At the very beginning and end of your post you talk about how language/labels can empower and help reduce stigma. But in the middle you talk about how it can decrease a person's sense of hope, and that it elicits prejudice and stigma.

Are you saying that, in your view, it is best to avoid the word "addict". But, if a person prefers to self-identify that way, then we should respect that?

 

[Imaginarium]

Hi,

Thanks for the response. I'll clarify below.

My view is:

1. Using 'addict' as an identifier and label is not recommended;
2. I respect a person's agency and right to self-identify (e.g. as an 'addict'- who am I to prescribe how someone identifies);
3. While respecting the person, acknowledging that the use of 'addict' - including when used to self-identify in certain contexts - serves to perpetuate stigma and reinforce the public's assumptions and misconceptions about a marginalized group (e.g. people who use drugs; people with SUD); and
4. Using person-first language has been empirically demonstrated to be an effective approach to reducing stigma and discrimination.

I hope that clarifies things. If anything I mentioned above is unclear, let me know.