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

[Asparagus_Prince]

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.

I don't think we're really disagreeing on anything. I don't think.

Let me ask you this: If an actor refers to himself as an "addict" at the beginning of a TV ad, doesn't that send the message to "non-addict" viewers that it is ok to use that word to describe other addicts?

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

I think my issue goes beyond addiction and is more about labels. I don't like them. I hate telling people I am an "atheist". So often I get responses like: "So, you think we just came from nothing?" and immediately it is demonstrated that that person has a completely different view of that word.

Socialist, pacifist, conservative, Christian, alcoholic... people hear labels like this so differently.

If I lived in the old west I would cringe hearing people being called "Lungers". I would be the one saying: "Shut up! They have tuberculosis!" lol. And I'd probably be shot for it.

 

[December Flower]

I think my issue goes beyond addiction and is more about labels. I don't like them. I hate telling people I am an "atheist". So often I get responses like: "So, you think we just came from nothing?" and immediately it is demonstrated that that person has a completely different view of that word.

Socialist, pacifist, conservative, Christian, alcoholic... people hear labels like this so differently.

If I lived in the old west I would cringe hearing people being called "Lungers". I would be the one saying: "Shut up! They have tuberculosis!" lol. And I'd probably be shot for it.

Since there are almost no true Atheists, you could go for the truth and say ignostic/agnostic,
you don't know (and you don't care [ignostic]) - many people use the term Atheist wrong,
an Atheist would believe with a determination behind it that there is no God whatsoever, just like a Christian would believe in Jehova - for some reason, Christians can deal easier with agnosticism, if you say "there is a chance your God exists, I just don't care either way" it's usually fine.

How can anyone be a determined believer in that, truly? Just because God lets people suffer?
But how do you know the suffering is not part of the learning experience?
Our minds are so small and the universe is so ridiculously huge, if there was something as a creature resembling a God, we would simply not comprehend it.

Atheism is a statement in itself: "I believe your God(or any God) does not exist". This can be hurtful for certain believers, you metaphorically spit on their God by saying it, or so they will interpret it. Just say agnostic, it's probably closer to the truth.
You don't know there is no God, so don't pretend you do know that all the lives of believers are in worship of nothing. It hurts them, don't state it like that.

It's like an attack for them, I think you can understand that. I would, personally refrain from using that word. I've been using agnostic for years, and I've never had a problem with fanatics, because I can tell each and every one "Yeah, you might be correct"

I'm not touching American definitions of "Socialist", "Conservative", etc with a 20-foot-pole.

 

[Asparagus_Prince]

I would, personally refrain from using that word. I've been using agnostic for years, and I've never had a problem with fanatics, because I can tell each and every one "Yeah, you might be correct"

Yeah, I hear you. I actually do avoid the word "atheist" these days. But I don't like the word "agnostic" either. I am an introvert in real life so I avoid the topic of religion unless someone is really inquisitive.

I'm not touching American definitions of "Socialist", "Conservative", etc with a 20-foot-pole.

lol... can't blame you.

I lived in Australia for many years and I rarely heard the words socialist or conservative. In comparison to America, anyway.

 

[December Flower]

Yeah, I hear you. I actually do avoid the word "atheist" these days. But I don't like the word "agnostic" either. I am an introvert in real life so I avoid the topic of religion unless someone is really inquisitive.



lol... can't blame you.

I lived in Australia for many years and I rarely heard the words socialist or conservative. In comparison to America, anyway.

Ignostic is nice and underused. You just don't care either way.
I think that's probably true for many of us "unbelievers"

 

[deficiT]

BDD ----> DC

 

[Robi]

my aunts addicted to cantaloupe, all mellons actually.I call her name, cantaloopy, mellon head, sweet cheeks, waltonmellon(her married name) she detests being labeled, i said auntie you need to slow down, youre an addict, so now, i see her crunching on celery, sucking the juice(she has barrets esophagus) im having a hard time labeling her...oh i know a crunch whore, dunno can be addicted to anything,but is feels good not to be needing and a wanting, void filling, pleased with simple lifes offerings, but mmmhn,being labeled an addict is true i suppose but learning that nothing or any drug will define me or my potential, to thrive or ingrow

 

[Eenepep]

What do you think is a good way to define the word "addict"?
My general definition of the word "addict" isn't only one who is addicted to drugs; an "addict" is a person who has an addictive personality. A drug addict is a sub-category of the word "addict". Usually people who say they are addicts, in an NA meeting for example, are referring to themselves as drug addicts. There are alcoholics who say they are only alcoholics, yet technically speaking, they are addicts; they are addicted to alcohol. These certain alcoholics don't look at the general term of the word itself, an addict. An addict is a person who is addicted to one, or many, things. The word "addict" doesn't only refer to a person who is addicted to drugs.

Do you think your definition is different from the way most people define it?
Yes. I'm an addict. When I say that, I am referring to myself having an "addictive personality". I am addicted to various types of drugs, and yes, I'm also addicted to alcohol. But not only that, I am addicted to the internet. I am addicted to good music, YouTube, lately got addicted to Twitch.TV, and various other things on the computer.

Is your definition consistent with how you hear the word? Honestly, even if you know it might be wrong, does your mind go to a presumptuous/wrong place when you hear the word?
Every time I hear someone else say that they are an addict, I know they are referring to themselves as a drug addict. There's no other reason to why this other party would say out loud that they are an addict.

Is there a line that's crossed in order to "earn" the title of addict?
To me, I believe that every single human is biologically born an "addict". [Not a drug addict, "per se"]! Everyone has their own addictions, some addictions can be good, for example: addicted to exercising, and of course there are addictions that are bad, for example: being addicted to mind altering substances. But also keep in mind, that one wouldn't know they are addicted to mind altering substances, unless they introduce themselves to the mind altering substances. I'm sure there are MANY people out there who don't do drugs, nor drink alcohol, yet they actually would easily become addicted. Their brain has that addictive personality, yet they haven't introduced that part of their brain to the mind altering substances.

And now let's talk about the term "drug addict": The line is crossed to being called an addict is when a person finds a substance that they really enjoy doing, and don't mind doing that same drug again at a future time. For example, for me, when I first tried opiates, I really enjoyed the feeling. Once the feeling went away, I thought to myself that I really enjoyed that, and I would like to do that again. [To me, that defined me to becoming an addict"]. I did the opiates again, and once they wore off, I thought to myself, "I really enjoyed that again, I cannot wait to do that again". Opiate addiction confirmed!

Can someone not be an addict right now, but be an addict a week from now?
Nope. Once I noticed that I am addicted to certain drugs, that implies that I will always be addicted to those certain drugs, no matter if they're in my system or not. There are currently no opiates present in my system now since I haven't done them for a few weeks. But this still means that I am an addict even though there are no drugs in my system.
Also keep note: There are certain mind altering substances that I really dislike. I don't like marijuana, because my heart rate and blood pressure increase dramatically. I don't know WHY tf that happens, but it happens and makes me feel very uncomfortable for hours at a time.
I've done ecstasy in the past, and I don't really "prefer" doing that substance. If you offer me that drug right now, I wouldn't want to do it. Yet if I was at a party with women that I like, then yes, I don't mind doing ecstasy at all! But as of right now, I don't prefer doing that substance, hence implying that I'm not addicted to ecstasy.

 

[JTemperance]

For reasons mostly having to do with luck and circumstance, I've been able to manage a drug habit relatively well in terms of functionality. [Knock on wood.... *rap rap rap*]

I can take some credit for exercising self-control when indulging would conflict with work or family obligations. But I don't kid myself I'm different from the guy who breaks into my storage locker, trying to turn my suitcase and clippers into a $5 bag.

But even if I don't lose face with the square world, I know in my heart I'm still an addict. It's kind of hard to deny when you can end up deathly sick as a result of some minor hiccup, like having a return flight delayed for 72hrs (as just happened to me). For me, the fact of physical dependence = the reality of addiction.

The situation is unusually stark with opiates, though, especially illicit ones. Despite getting drunk every single night for years, I could deny I was "really" an alcoholic since I never had shakes requiring a drink first thing in the morning.

With stimulants it also seems much easier to avoid defining your heavy use as an addiction, especially if you're still holding up pretty well. For addiction that's exclusively "psychological," addiction can't really be determined without using your level of functioning in life as an important metric.

But no matter how functional you are, there's still that little voice in the back of your head which says "You're getting addicted now." And that's an important metric, too....