The most important thing for people to understand is that everyone is different, and different people can have very different experiences with the exact same substance. Some people can smoke cigarettes on the weekend for years and never get addicted, which sounds insane to someone like me who couldn't go for more than a hour without a cigarette for twenty years and went through hell for 6 months to finally quit. But I can binge cocaine for weeks on end (in college it was meth) and then stop when I get bored (or my nose hurts) and suffer no withdrawal beyond occasional thoughts of "it would be nice to get high!". Yet other people end up in rehab for using far less than I have. I drink absurd amounts of caffeine every day and will get a mild headache sometimes if I skip it, and I thought this was normal until a friend quit caffeine and described it the way I would describe quitting nicotine! It's all over the map.
Wild variation is the norm, but a lot of our public health messaging and "conventional wisdom" ignores this entirely.
I just had a discussion with a friend about this last week.
Some people (we call it addictive personalities, not sure if there’s a better term) seem to get hooked almost right away. Others, can stop whenever they want with little trouble.
The problem is that you don’t know which of those possibilities applies to you without trying it, and then it’s too late. Since my immediate family members have had issues with substances, I assume I would be one of the people with a problem.
That’s the message I’m trying to pass along to the next generation too. You might not have a problem, but you won’t know if you do until it’s too late.
There's even hard data on this with regards to alcohol and cocaine that show that some people are predisposed to have a higher risk of addiction. With alcohol we know it's at least partially hereditary, so people with histories of alcohol abuse in their families are often told to be extra careful. I would love to see more research on this and even the ability to give individuals info on their own risk levels.
The only thing that seems to be near-universally dangerous in terms of addiction are opioids. But even still, most people who try heroin or get prescribed oxycodone never become addicted.
Are people who take antidepressants addicted? The reason I am asking is that opiates can be used as such.
> Opiates promote goal-directed behavior.
> Interestingly, the mechanism of antidepressant action for ketamine may not even involve NMDAR blockage and may instead involve modulation of other CNS binding sites, such as being an agonist (activator) of opioid receptors.
I can see how opiates would help with anxiety and depression, especially for people who do not experience euphoria from it, just enough calmness... which does not actually go away after 2 weeks as it does with benzodiazepines, or without the cognitive deficits.
If you look at online forums (/r/TherapeuticKetamine) for depressed patients taking doctor prescribed ketamine you notice a few things:
1) Dose escalation as tolerance builds. Either through increased dosages or attempting another ROA like rectal to temporarily increase bioavailability.
2) Patients are usually upset if they don't have a dissociative experience.
3) Many patients wish that they could afford IV treatments and to do them much more often.
4) Many patients claim that oral and intranasal ketamine doesn't work for them despite studies showing that it does work well. Obviously oral ketamine won't cause the rather extreme disassociation of IV ketamine.
All the signs are there. And yes you are right about the euphoria. I have experienced it but it's not a topic that often comes up. People are more interested in talking about the woo woo stuff.
The same moderator runs all the ketamine subreddits -- even those where people are addicted and sharing advice on how to get high. Sort of a bias / conflict of interest, right?
It doesn't always get a ton of notice when addiction is brought up but addiction to anabolics is an interesting phenomena in itself.
I started using anabolics years ago and slowly added more compounds over time. It eventually got to the point where I started to experience increasingly negative sides that I had trouble managing so would add further pharmaceuticals to the stack to mitigate the side effects of the anabolics.
What is interesting about anabolic use is that if abused for long enough or heavily enough (blast and cruise) going back to a state of non anabolics is actually difficult and can come with months/years of hormone / neurosteroid deficiency as you attempt to restart your HPTA. This is why most people are on replacement doses of testosterone for life after dabbling in this area which is interesting in terms of your typical reformed addict = quitting sense.
To save someone else a search, HPTA is, according to Wikipedia:
The hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis (HPG axis) refers to the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, and gonadal glands as if these individual endocrine glands were a single entity. Because these glands often act in concert, physiologists and endocrinologists find it convenient and descriptive to speak of them as a single system.
The worst of the bunch is tobacco. The effect is basically nothing, but it hurts ones health and wallet.
I've done cocaine, marijuana, mdma, speed, xtc pills, and some research chemicals. Protips: don't smoke, and never combine any two drugs. If you really want a certain substance, do at least the first session with someone sober to keep an eye on you. Never accept drugs from strangers and don't give in to peer pressure (which can be pretty tough at times when self-confidence is lacking).
I disagree. As an addict (weed, alcohol, cocaine, and tobacco if you go that way), cocaine is much harder to quit than tobacco.
But actually, telling that drug X is harder to quit that drug Y is a lie. For each person, each drug will be different.
Maybe you struggle with tobacco, but that does not mean that its the worst. There's no worst, they're all equally bad.
The measure of "harder to quit" actually takes into account more than ones physical ability to actually give something up, all else equal. Social acceptance, availability, the time horizon for negative health impacts, and money all count toward how hard something is to quit.
Nicotine is actually the hardest thing to quit when taking into account all of the factors that lead to continued use in the face of adverse consequences. It's everywhere, a large number of people do it, it's relatively inexpensive in comparison to other vices, the time horizon for negative impacts is VERY long, and it's in general socially acceptable (depending on where you live).
I've never tried tobacco, but I did try nicotine last year after seeing it discussed in ADHD circles. Noticed no effect (beyond perhaps a mild caffeine-esque sensation early on) but forced myself to try it for a few weeks. The "cloud" aspect was amusing, but I forgot about the experiment months ago and have suffered not a jot for it since. Different strokes for different folks, because apparently it's usually one of the most addictive things going, yet I'd consider caffeine or sugar to be more so than whatever nicotine was doing for me.
IIRC Tobacco has MAOI-inhibitors that help amplify the addictive/pleasurable properties of nicotine. So if you just consumed nicotine through gum/patch/old-school vape juice it would be more "difficult" to get addicted to it.
I used to smoke as a teenager, but I found it effortless to quit and never once considered smoking once I reached adulthood. At the same time my mother has tried to stop smoking countless times, and even now -- with COPD, requiring oxygen supplementation, and unable sometimes to make it up a short flight of stairs -- she still hasn't been able to quit despite trying many times. Weird how that works.
(Also weird: she hid her smoking from us, though obviously everyone knew she smoked. She always smoked holed up in her bathroom. I suppose I always knew where I could steal a few cigarettes!)
Guess its just a matter of experience and perspective, because for me tobacco is the "best" due its lack of any effect on you mentally, even if it is pricey and bad for you. Though I guess Sugar is probably a bit better and has pretty much the same consequences.
Regardless of your perspective though, I'd say heroin is absolutely the worst
Sugar may not be a drug, but for some reason I had no trouble stopping smoking and have been unable in 40 years of life to quit overindulging in sugar despite many efforts to do so.
Define drug. One definition I found is "Drugs are substances that change a person's mental or physical state", which would included Sugar.
> It does not create addiction
It absolutely does. Not physically (or at least no more than any other substance, if you consume a massive amount of anything your body will become accustomed to it and you'll feel withdrawal symptoms), but nor is alcohol or a load of other "addictive" drugs
It may not be a 'drug' in the traditional sense, but you can still become very addicted, and it can still harm you. Sugar addiction may even be more dangerous to society because of how common it is.
Vaping is worse. Wrapped in a nebulous belief that it is probably a lot safer then the leaf form, it is mighty hard to give up. Mostly because you can vape anywhere and everywhere, constantly, making your body expect dopamine 24/7.
For some costumes, I have held an unlit cigar in my teeth. The effect for me is noticeable and strong, like caffeine but more so. I really liked it! Which is why I will never take up regular use of it.
A useful tool for what? I haven't used nicotine in a long time, but from what I recall the impact was basically zero unless I hadn't smoked in a while.
It’s a lot harder than you would think. I’m not a big drinker, not even a daily drinker, maybe once or twice per week.. and decided to do a month without drinking for fitness reasons.
After two weeks it was hard to resist the urge every time I’d see people drinking on a TV show, or at the airport, or with dinner at a restaurant. While it may not be a full blown addiction it made me realize I’m much closer to addiction than I’d like to admit.
Same here, I'm probably considered an alcoholic because of the ammount of liquour I drink per week/month but I can work out every single day and stay in great shape but come friday and saturday I do empty quite a few units. Stopping the weekend urge is hard.
Speaking as an addict in recovery, this definition is the most practically useful. It’s step 1 of every 12-step program.
If you really want to stop doing something, and are trying your hardest to not do that thing, and yet despite that desire you feel an overwhelming compulsion to do that thing, even though you rationally know the consequences for you or others will be bad - that’s addiction.
Or as I once put it to my daughter when she was a teen, “If you are making a choice that feels like an exercise of your own free will, and yet every single time without exception, you make the same choice - is it really free will?”
(I was trying to get her to reflect on her own weed usage. Almost a decade later she acknowledges her addiction).
> Speaking as an addict in recovery, this definition is the most practically useful. It’s step 1 of every 12-step program.
Note also that 12 step programs are pseudoscience/ineffective and are, when measured, no more or less successful at helping people beat addiction than not using a 12 step program, so take that endorsement with a grain of salt.
That's the thing: many things are both a) popular and b) seem to help.
These are not useful tools for scientifically measuring effectiveness, however. This is why we have clinical trials and things like double-blind studies.
There is an overarchingly popular human pastime that underlies these 12 step programs' philosophies that a majority of human beings on Earth believe will result in improving your life, but that doesn't make it true.
There are a few recent studies that clearly indicate we have barely scratched the surface in understanding both the neurological nature of addiction as well as the mechanisms by which programs like 12-steps work.
"We explore the impact that the molecular neurobiological basis of the 12 steps can have on Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) despite addiction risk gene polymorphisms... It begs the question as to whether "12 steps programs and fellowship" does induce neuroplasticity and continued dopamine D2 receptor proliferation despite carrying hypodopaminergic type polymorphisms"
I can only speak of my experience. I first found the fellowship 24 years ago. In that time I’ve seen hundreds of people come and go. Only 10 people I know who were around in 1998 are still in the program. Of those, 9 have been in successful recovery for many years (10 years for me after walking away for several years and relapsing). The tenth has a history of relapsing every few years. I’d call that a remarkable success rate. I have no idea what has become of all the hundreds that walked away from treatment. But I know for some it’s ended in death in full-blown addiction.
Your comment reflects a deep misunderstanding of the 12-step program, and one that many addicts also fail to grasp. That is that the belief that addiction is curable. It isn’t. It’s a lifelong condition which therefore requires lifelong treatment. Much like diabetes. Diabetes treatments can be incredibly successful - but only for as long as you continue to strictly adhere to the care regimen. The elements of that care regime are not optional, and are required no matter how healthy or fit you may feel at any given moment. That’s because you’ll always be a diabetic. Failure to accept that fundamental aspect of the disease can be fatal.
In measuring the success rate of diabetic treatment do you include the measurement of those that have stopped treatment?
The 12-steps are not teleological. There is no cure. Only remission, and in remission a clear mind and the possibility of a healthy and serene life.
I get why 12-steps can rub people the wrong way. The “god” aspect. I won’t go into all that here because it would literally be an hours long discussion. Suffice to say that the program can work for atheists too. I know because I was one (I consider myself agnostic these days).
> That is that the belief that addiction is curable. It isn’t. It’s a lifelong condition which therefore requires lifelong treatment.
This concept is at odds with modern psychiatric medicine and scientific inquiry, and is likely objectively false, yet persists as a core tenet of 12 step programs, seemingly beyond debate.
"In individuals who are vulnerable to addiction, repetitive exposure to the agent induces long-lasting neuroadaptative changes that further promote drug-seeking behaviors and ultimately lead to persistent and uncontrolled patterns of use that constitute addiction. These neuroadaptive changes are the bases for tolerance, craving, and withdrawal and lead to a motivational shift.3 Motivation to drug-seeking behavior is initially driven by impulsivity and positive reward. In contrast, compulsivity and negative affect dominate the terminal stages of the pathology. Addictions are in a sense “end-stage” diagnoses because at the time diagnosis is made potentially irreversible neuroadaptative change have occurred—changes that were preventable at an early point of the trajectory of the illness."
Two key things are pointed out here: 1. not everyone is vulnerable to addiction, and 2. "addiction" as understood behaviourally, is an "end-stage" diagnosis of possible irreversible neuroadaptative changes".
Forgot to add this in my other response (where I addressed effectiveness).
With respect to your characterisation of 12-steps as pseudoscience, I can only state that it’s a program designed to change your thinking and by so doing, trigger neurological changes or divert previously default responses. In that sense it’s in the same category as the many and varied approaches used in the field of psychology (eg CBT, DBT etc). Is psychology a pseudoscience in your view?
For someone who has made a lot of absolute claims, you have not provided any references to back up your claims. Here's a recent study that directly refutes your claim.
I have alcoholism in my family. When my Dad finally went into a 30 day in-patient treatment, I was still a sophomore in college. I was very much like you. An athlete (played D3 soccer), so I was working out, and in great shape, but wouldn't touch alcohol during the week - when I first got to college, my drinking was all done on the weekends. Then when I was of legal drinking age (US 21 years) then it started to creep into Thursday, then eventually I was drinking Wed-Sat, drying out Sunday and then cramming all my homework and studying into three days just to get ready for the weekend again.
One of the things they do is a screening. You fill out a long survey - How do you drink, when you drink? When do you drink? How often are you drinking, etc. I fill it out based on my current activity.
Counselor sits me down, and starts telling me that I'm not an alcoholic YET, but I'm clearly heading that way. I do abuse alcohol on a regular basis and these are the behaviors they look for and she basically told me if I continue doing what I doing? I will be there in a few years. I was 22 or 23 at the time. I kind of shrugged it off. Dad continued in and out of rehab while I continued doing what I was doing.
Then the wheels fell off for my Dad. Like really bad. Disappeared for a week, Mom couldn't find him, started getting worried. Found him in a shady hotel on the edge of town. He was trying to drink himself to death. We got there, got him into the psych ward and they forcibly detoxified him. He was basically under medical house arrest until he sobered up and vowed this was indeed the end.
I finally had a front row seat to see what my future was. My mom pulled me aside that Christmas in the midst of our entire extended family at my parents house celebrating. She grabs my arm and pulls me into a room, looks me dead in the eyes and says, "If you want to put someone you love through what your father just put our family through these last two years? Then keep drinking, keep partying and doing whatever you're doing." and then just walked away from me.
That was pretty much it. I decided a few weeks later to put a cap on it, I had a good run, but gambling with my future like that? No thanks. Been sober 14 years. Sure I have a beer here and there, but its only one (I'm a total lightweight now, so its no fun) and then that's it. And I never judge the people I'm around if they want to drink.
I would tell you what the nurse told me. It sounds like you do abuse alcohol, and you're heading down that road. Is your future predetermined? I don't think so, but it took a litany of close calls and the one major episode with my Dad to make me realize what was happening and change course before it was too late.
But people that drink I don't believe that it is only alcohol that is their demise.
There was probably whole range of feelings your father had that led him to that.
Cannot blame anyone but your father would be the only person that could explain it. Because people are so different and even if you think you know your father, there is bunch of emotions that are outside of anyone that can comprehend.
Well it is true also for EMO kids as we are ale separate entities struggling with life.
I've quit sugar for months at a time and found that 2-4 weeks was the most difficult spot for cravings, after which it eased off (though never went away).
I don't have experience with alcohol, though, and I hear it's higher on a scale of risks for physical dependencies than a lot of substances, so sugar may be a poor comparable.
For me (regular drinker feeling it was getting a little too regular) it took a couple of months dry to stop wanting a drink most days, then about another 7 months until I didn't miss it at all.
I'm only 14 months in though, and I don't assume I'm finished. YMMV obv.
For me, the urges for sugar and alcohol are very very similar. I've never had urges to binge either, but cutting either out completely after semi-consistent use does result in similar cravings. And I've noticed that my urge for both seems to be reduced if I choose to eat large meals at night instead.
I had to stop drinking because of a rabies vaccine. Even though I usually stick to a single beer and prefer it that way, I found it really hard. Alcohol is ingrained in our culture and habits. I felt the same as you.
In my mid twenties, I had two addictions - pornography and Marijuana.
The first was significantly harder to kick than the later. Maybe I'm merely a weak person, but I felt I slowly succumbed to these things after years of casual use and some major relational setbacks in my life post college. I got psychological help but was not encouraged to stop doing these things, just to practice moderation. Ultimately, I was forced by circumstance to have to stop and realized I was a lot happier. I think a lot of people don't want to acknowledge that they are addicted to stuff like this and rationalize it away.
I find myself thinking we should set up better societal guard rails about these things, but avoid making them illegal. Neither of these are hard addictions to kick anyway, but they do cost you a lot of time and money.
I took a contracting job where I'd travel for two or three weeks at a time, often working long hours. This would usually take me from a spot where weed was recreationally available and ubiqutous to impossible and impractice to get. The two vices ran together for me.
After sobering up while away, I realized how much of a drag these things had been on my well being and resolved to just give them up, or at least try.
I was addicted to pornography. The way I knew was by trying to stop for at least a week, if I could accomplish that, then it wouldn't be a problem. I couldn't make it past one day.
I thought, maybe access was the issue - so I deleted my browsers, and within a day was reinstalling them just to watch porn.
I was watching during classes, and I would go late to events just so I could finish watching a particular scene, or explore a pornstar's catalogue.
It was only after confiding in somebody that I realised how deep I had sunk (watching and paying for snuff and gore), and it was extremely tough to come out of that.
I still get the urge when opening a browser to muscle memory type in a site, and it's constant vigilance and self-discipline that has held me at bay, but the pull has never went away.
>The way I knew was by trying to stop for at least a week, if I could accomplish that, then it wouldn't be a problem.
Not being able to stop for a week shows you are an addict. But being able to stop for week doesn't really show you aren't one. Most addicts do quit for weeks or even months at a time.
> Not being able to stop for a week shows you are an addict. But being able to stop for week doesn't really show you aren't one. Most addicts do quit for weeks or even months at a time.
Correct. "Not doing $X anymore" doesn't mean you aren't an addict. "Being able to turn on/turn off doing $X" means you aren't an addict. If you haven't had a drink in years, but having a single one means that you now cannot do without the bottle, you're still an addict.
I've always said that there's no such thing as an ex-smoker; they're smokers who haven't smoked in a long time.
> I've always said that there's no such thing as an ex-smoker; they're smokers who haven't smoked in a long time.
This kind of absolutism may end up discouraging present-day smokers from trying to quit at all. It's also not necessarily true. Some people do go from being smokers to hating the sight/smell/thought of smoking.
I agree, but it's also worth noting sometimes the opposite can be true and it's more helpful for some people who don't want to smoke to drop the "ex-smoker" "quit" and similar language and start saying things like "I am not smoking at the moment" instead. It takes the pressure off and makes it seem like less of an all-or-nothing thing. And also means if you do mess up and have a cigarette, you've not failed, you've just had a cigarette and now you can go back to not smoking.
Not posting this to be contrarian, just on the off chance there's anyone reading this whose trying to quit and is looking for a new angle to try. If you can't quit, don't quit. Just don't smoke. This is what finally worked for me.
Interesting how close our timelines match up, minus the 11 years. Smoked from 14 to just before my 30th birthday, which was 6 months ago.
If I smell it in passing, it smells pretty disgusting. But if I spend the weekend at my parents (both heavy smokers), I quickly fall in love with the smell again and yearn for “one last cig”.
A big problem for me is that tobacco smoke very much smells like home - it’s what home smelled like growing up. And nothing takes you back like a strong, familiar scent.
> If you haven't had a drink in years, but having a single one means that you now cannot do without the bottle, you're still an addict.
Note that this belief is completely at odds with that of modern psychatric medicine, and is one of the core beliefs of most 12 step programs, which are ineffective pseudoscientific systems.
Well yeah, but if you're not sure, you can try it and introspect how you feel; if you're restless or start tweaking you're likely addicted to whatever you're trying to quit, as mentioned by the parent comment.
Addicts that quit for X amount of time and relapse KNOW they're addicted. They know that they need to be conscious at all times, and that even after decades they may relapse if they're not careful. This is where organizations like AA come in, offering support, coaching, goals and positive feedback for dealing with - in that case - alcoholism.
For me, a well-established habit can be different than addiction, but they're definitely related. What I look for is a) whether I'm using X to avoid discomfort, and b) whether using X helps create or sustain that discomfort.
As an example, I play casual computer games to take breaks. So popping open my current favorite can be a habit. But I've had friends addicted to WoW, such that they were spending enough time in it that it was making their lives worse. The more they played, the worse their personal problems got, causing them to seek more relief through WoW.
You are right. There is a spectrum between both. Since December, it has been harder than usual (nothing special, just too much stuff going on) and I use the net as an escape, but I think that I'm in this gray area where one must be alert. It is not addiction yet, but I should watch myself with a rather severe look and see if I can change the trend.
- OK, enough reddit for now, let's do something productive like work
- closes tab
- starting a compiler run
- ctrl-t types old.reddit.com
- my man, what are you doing there? bangs head
Were there withdrawal symptoms in your case? If so, what were they?
Years ago I read that withdrawal symptoms are an essential part of the definition of addiction, but probably "addiction" has become a somewhat broader concept since then. The article says you "might" also experience withdrawal symptoms, and I don't think I've heard of people addicted to gambling, for example, suffering from any specific withdrawal symptoms, though even quite mildly addictive drugs like coffee can have recognisable withdrawal symptoms.
EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that addiction requires withdrawal symptoms.
There’s a Reddit support group for recovering porn addicts, the stories over there are pretty interesting. One of the withdrawal symptoms mentioned is a total lack of interest in sex that they call “flatlining.”https://nofap.com/porn-addiction/
I couldn't sleep for the first few days because although my body was tired, my mind was expecting to watch some sort of carnal entertainment.
I also felt an uncomfortable rush of blood in my left temple everytime I wanted to indulge again, but that could be purely psychological, I don't know.
For these kind of problems, tech is not really a solution. So better talk to a registered psychologist or psychiatrist.
But on the tech side, for android users, 'Open TimeLimit' is a useful app. It's like an advanced app locker, with timers and stuff. It's FOSS and on Fdroid:
Edit: Make sure to disable the app when you go out etc. Because it might cause obstacles during emergencies. Depends on the way you set it up of course.
I used the method of X to quit smoking. I mean I smoked a lot less to begin with but it reached upto one or two everyday with disturbing consistency. I haven't smoked in around 3 years now.
My ancedotal evidence says yes. I've never had a porn problem (I'm a homosexual female, I'm not sure there's enough material for me to sustain a porn problem...), but I've had other psychological addictions and one interesting thing I've noticed is that if I take modafinil when I'm trying to break one that my cravings/desires are much less.
I think it's dopamine (as opposed to the other nts modafinil is theorized to work on) because a changing short half-life SNRI dose does nothing (so it's not serotonin or norepinephrine making the change), caffeine does nothing (so not adenosine), and histamine modifiers also do nothing.
That's interesting because that's the opposite effect to me - I used to smoke (still do rarely but try to avoid it) and when I took modafinil I often had a strong urge to chain-smoke, just like after a few drinks.
Makes sense. It's certainly a blessing not having enough material. My impression is this kind of addiction can get particularly depressing if you can look at yourself from the outside...
Oh believe me, there is definitely enough material for you to sustain a porn problem. OnlyFans alone can get you paying specific people to create content for you. It's infinite.
From the perspective of academic psychologists, this is true: "Substance use disorders (SUDs), as described in DSM-IV, are part of a class of disorders (substance-related disorders) that are “related to the taking of a drug of abuse (including alcohol)” [1 p. 175]. Although the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5 involves changes at multiple levels for SUDs, this basic definition remains unchanged [1,2]."
However, most likely readers of the article are likely unaware of the distinction (or may resist it), so the usage of the colloquial and informal definition of "drug" that excludes alcohol would help more people with alcohol use disorder find the article and learn about its main points.
I think the fact that they're grouped logically is enough, for the most part. It seems widely acknowledged that alcohol is not good for you, but there is a psychological distinction between doing shots at your local dive bar and a glass of Pinot with dinner. I think the spectrum of alcohol use is just broader than most other drugs except for maybe cannabis and psilocybin.
You're being downvoted even though you're absolutely right.
I'm assuming that arbitrary distinction makes it a lot easier to rationalize drinking alcohol while they stigmatize or demonize people who say, smoke weed or eat psychedelic mushrooms (or any other drug, really) in reasonable quantities, even if they are extremely productive members of society.
Right, and social constructs carry more weight in cultural/societal norms which is why I doubt anyone will ever say I'll have a glass of drugs with dinner tonight even though a lot of people know there isn't a technical, chemical distinction.
Nobody says "I'll smoke some drugs" either, closest thing you'll hear people say is that they're going to smoke some weed.
"Alcohol and drugs" is a harmful distinction when we're talking about substance use, abuse, or harm reduction because it automatically implies that alcohol is categorically different from (and less harmful than) other drugs, thus reinforcing the misinformation and antiquated beliefs.
I've had a couple of dreams where I'm chopping up lines even though its been almost a decade since I've done hard drugs. The dreams were very disorienting because they never go further than the prep before suddenly waking up. Like falling and never hitting the ground.
A huge part of addiction is the rituals surrounding the use of the addicting stimuli, not just the immediate gratification of the stimuli.
I recently watched a video of a decades long heroin addict describing his life. He said that he came home from rehab once and just the smell of heroin in his house was enough to make him nauseous and craving it.
Because those are all pretty new phenomena, so the literature and treatment culture around them are scarce. Whereas drug and alcohol rehab has been effectively an industry for decades (or even centuries - the Salvation Army was founded in 1865...).
Also, as others have said, the societal impact of substance abuse are often much more visible, directly measurable, and immediately felt.
They don't cause the severe dysfunction found in substance abuse. Opioid addiction for example is among the ugliest things in existence. Video games, gambling, social media addictions are all bad but not to the same degree.
Social media addiction can lead to severe mental health issues, eating disorders, depression, and even suicide.
Video game addiction often leads to children and adults completely destroying their professional or academic lives. In many cases, a child grows up to find a balance between working just enough to afford their videogame habbit.
I have read stories of an adult who was so addicted to a simple cellphone game that they were compulsively telling lies to create more game time and ultimately destroyed all of their social relationships and lost their job. All of that dysfunction stems from their brain's addiction to the rush of progress bars, levelling up, victory screens, and success chimes.
Not all people are wired the same. A lot of brains are hopelessly addicted to these two categories of stimuli and I feel you dismiss them a bit too carelessly.
I remember a time where I was playing a phone game to get some sleep (the mindless stimulation works for my brain, which has hyperactivity issues). There were time-limited events that gave bonuses for completion. One of the things I distinctly remember was that there were teams you could join, followed by team vs team competition for rewards at the end of the week. Competitive teams then had minimum floors of activity... It became like a job to keep track of your own contribution for... for... some bonuses at the end of the week? I remember becoming disappointed/unhappy that the game was asking more from me than I wanted to give (10-30 min of playing before being calm enough to sleep) and quitting. Now I only play phone games without a team/online component, like the stupid merge games or bubble games.
I grow concerned with the increase in addiction research among technology companies. The language is disguised as user retention, engagement, social, gamification, etc.
I do not have a solution to this problem and it is a problem that I myself would contribute to if I was trying to design an app that people would use. Greater addiction mechanisms trend toward wider market adoption which leads to a higher value for shareholders. The current system of incentives to a company makes this focus inevitable.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. If the game has a timer anywhere, it's a deliberate habit-forming design. They're spaced reward schedules intended to make you come back.
The job-like feeling is real. Before they even realize it, people start organizing their own schedules around some stupid phone game. Setting alarms to wake up at 3 AM because that's when the timer resets and they can play again.
I don't dispute any of that. I once fell into the mobile game trap myself, it's really bad. I've posted many times here on HN about how these games are deliberately designed to form habits in players and I think they should be illegal.
The thing is I've personally seen opioid addicts do literally anything for a drug. Not for pleasure, just to avoid the pain of abstinence. One guy killed his own mother because she tried to cut off his access to the drugs, he ended up homeless and reduced to crime and was eventually arrested and forced to undergo treatment. The power of these substances cannot be underestimated. As bad as predatory video games are, I'm convinced opioids are worse.
Indeed. I have experience at a neurology practice, I suppose it has skewed what "severe" addiction means to me.
Benzodiazepines addiction is severe as well. Not as bad as opioids but still pretty bad. I've seen patients get violent because a doctor didn't want to renew their prescription for their own good.
> They don't cause the severe dysfunction found in substance abuse.
Big disagree. I'm not going to say opioid addiction isn't a worse thing, but I watched a friend fail out of college because he played WoW all day every day. For a whole year he barely left his room. It definitely wasn't healthy.
I remember at one point I was playing Everquest all night in high school. My friend had an account and let me use it when he was sleeping, so I'd play from 9:00pm to 6:00am, then go to school, then repeat. I hardly ever slept, which was definitely not healthy. There's a reason they called it Evercrack.
I don't know about that. I know that anecdotes != empirical data, but, anecdotally, I've seen video games and gambling destroy several peoples careers, relationships, etc.
One dorm-mate was kicked out of college because he spent ALL of his time playing WoW (World of Warcraft) and failed all of his classes. (Side note: I remember being scared to go near that game from hearing so many similar stories at the time.) I've known many people who remain unemployed and do nothing but play video games.
It's interesting that for some people, the pursuit of real-life activities is a fair opportunity cost of spending time on a computer (I won't claim I'm not one of them). Has there ever in history been a diversion that is able to keep people inside their homes for months on end?
Why is the computer activity the "diversion" while "real-life activity" the thing diverted from? The computer is only an extension of the human user. It can be used for almost any purpose.
If you want an addiction that no one ever talks about, addiction to money would be a big one. That's seen more or less as a virtue in our society though.
Getting blasted by/constantly engaging with tweets all day and endless scrolling on Instagram/TikTok/Facebook are just "things that people do" nowadays. I've seen countless couples on dates where they spend a great deal of their time using their phones instead of talking to each other, for example.
My inner curmudgeon remembers when my parents would scold me for spending all of my time on the computer when 56K was all the rage. I was mostly writing websites, looking at PC parts, and browsing Slashdot, mind, but spending all night after school doing it instead of hanging out with friends (that I didn't have or want; I was aggressively bullied back then) was abnormal and concerned them.
Yes, ok. But such an article with such a title should at least mention them I think. Otherwise some people keep thinking it is normal spending hours daily on social media, or checking their phone 50 times a day. We should speak up and say that it is NOT normal.
It may be a writing constraint or decision by the editor to keep the article focused on alcohol and drug use, as addiction to "video games, porn and social media" may have different treatment approaches or signs of addiction (and would thus significant broaden the article's scope), though I agree with your last two sentences.
For example, consider the criteria used to describe the signs of addiction: "You need an increasing amount of alcohol or drugs to feel a buzz or high. You feel an urgency to get the first drink or drug of the day. You experience a loss of interest in other activities and an increased desire to get ‘high’ or ‘buzzed’. You try to quit or cut down on the use of alcohol or drugs but can’t. You will do almost anything to get the drug or alcohol."
You might feel an urge for these other addictive habits at the start of the day; experience a loss of interest in other activities; and try to cut down but can't. For the pull to experience an "increasing amount" of the activity for a high, that is plausible for porn (for some users, it's a want for more extreme content), but less so for video games and social media. It's also not immediately obvious—especially when compared to drugs and alcohol—that a user of video games, porn, or social media would "do almost anything" to satisfy the urge.
The bottom line is that these behaviours, while addicting, have significant differences when compared to alcohol and drugs. Speaking from past writing experience, these would require the article to significantly broaden its scope, which may not have been possible due to editorial constraints (e.g. word count). It's also plausible that the original article may have been, "The first steps to respond to a potential alcohol or drug addiction," but the editor shortened it to a catchier "How to know if you're addicted."
You are nitpicking. Not every article about addictions and drugs needs to read like a disclaimer. Mentioning phone and social media addiction here is certainly not going to change anyone's mind - people tend to ignore facts that don't fit their worldviews.
Is it just me or it's actually hard to find an answer "how to know if you're addicted" in the article?
I skimmed the article and thought I found it when I got to the section titled "Key points – How to know if you’re addicted", in the middle of the article; but again this section didn't give a list of things to look out for...
The problem is that this definition does not help with the identification process. For instance, any use of drug is arguably not compulsive as the effect often brings pleasure/reward and is often premeditated. "I'm tired, let me get a coffee". So, by simple rationalization, any addict can come to the conclusion that their behavior is not compulsive. Anyone who has the wherewithal to introspect and realize where this need for coffee came from does not need this definition as they already have the ability to differentiate addiction versus genuine desire/want.
> despite the negative consequences to you or others.
If I keep consuming coffee when I'm tired despite the negative consequences, I could be addicted to it. All desires are "genuine" but many desires are harmful to yourself or to others. If that doesn't prevent you from indulging, you should analyze it and probably try to stop.
I guess, but if there truly are zero negative consequences, it's not really a problem that needs to be solved. I have a compulsion to have one or two cups of coffee every morning. is it useful to describe myself as a coffee addict?
> is it useful to describe myself as a coffee addict?
I don't know whether it's useful, but it suits the definition.
We do enjoy this coffee, we do drink it regularly, and we do crave it when we don't have it.
I disagree. word definitions are not handed to us by god; we get to choose useful ones. to me, the "negative consequences" bit is what makes "addiction" more specific than "habit", which can be of bad, neutral, or even good quality.
maybe exercise would have been a better example. there are people who damage themselves through compulsive overtraining, but there is often a compulsive element to moderate exercise. a person with a solid 5x1hr/week regimen will often feel bad if they miss a day and be very reluctant to do so. but this is not a bad thing at all; it is a very healthy habit.
Yeah, this is a major omission and it is also why you see so many functional addicts who don't think they have a problem.
Also it means that who is considered an 'addict' is partially socially constructed: Some people have jobs that will randomly drug test for weed, so if they smoke daily and lose their job, they're addicts, but since my job is remote and doesn't care, I could be high as a kite most nights and not be an 'addict' since it didn't cause issues.
I mean yeah, different jobs come with different obligations. showing up high to a construction site is a problem in a way that being high during your shift at a dispensary is not. I dunno if that's "socially constructed"; it seems like a very real safety issue to me. it's unfortunate that we can't test for acute cannabis intoxication the way we can with alcohol, but I'm sure we'll get there in time.
more generally, I would push back on the idea that someone isn't experiencing consequences just because they manage to hold a job. spending all your nonworking time intoxicated is not usually the path to a fulfilling personal life. the consequences are there whether the person sees them or not.
People are also addicted to porn, gambling, to sports (the 'hyperfit'), or to doing nothing, etc. Activities / experiences / behaviours are addictive, which shows that it is not as simple as just a physiological response to various substances.
I have an addictive personality. I have to watch my routines since I fall into ruts very easily, just about anything I do can do it.
How do you define that though? My cannabis use is certainly persistent, but is it compulsive? Maybe I'm just in denial, but it's hard for me to say. I've certainly stopped many times, but find I enjoy life less sober, so I end up smoking again. When does partaking in an activity you enjoy become an addiction? I feel like my urge to read late at night has caused me more problems than my marijuana use because of the many sleepless nights it's caused.
That's interesting, but suppose I like to drink a couple cups of coffee per day. It helps me get my brain active in the morning, and avoid the afternoon slump.
Are there negative consequences to me or others? Not that I can identify. The literature has no good study that suggests any long-term health problems with coffee consumption.
But I will feel out of sorts if I suddenly stop. I'll be fine again after a few days. But it seems certain there is a chemical dependence. This does not fit your definition of addiction, but it seems odd to claim that my daily coffee consumption is not, at the least, a light addiction?
From a writing perspective, a critique with the article's structure is that the sub-heading "What to do" comes first before the list of questions to ask yourself.
It's placed under "Reflect on urges and motivation," with the points:
"Do you recognise your feelings and behaviour in any of the signs below?
"-You need an increasing amount of alcohol or drugs to feel a buzz or high.
-You feel an urgency to get the first drink or drug of the day.
-You experience a loss of interest in other activities and an increased desire to get ‘high’ or ‘buzzed’.
-You try to quit or cut down on the use of alcohol or drugs but can’t.
-You will do almost anything to get the drug or alcohol."
This segment is particularly more difficult to find at the first glance, as it's in the middle of the broader "What to do" section, versus at the start or end of the section. These points of the article may have been a more suitable fit under the emphasized "Key points" section.
I’d like to throw this out there to see what comes back; has anyone thought about coding and development being an addiction?
In my experience, it has fit all of the characteristics of a deeply addictive loop… There’s a strong period of hard effort for variable reward - and much of the time that reward is just the dang thing compiling.
I know without a doubt I’ve hurt myself doing this more than I should and am currently struggling with the potential long term benefit vs. the current pains.
I would agree with this, but I think for me it's more of an undiagnosed ADHD thing, where I have periods of fabulous productivity where I'm up all night for days riding an endless wave of dopamine, and then other times where it's weeks of feeling stalled and unmotivated even when the next steps should be fairly clear.
I think this viewpoint is really interesting, especially when one considers how massively incentivized this addiction is (by way of high-paying jobs with generally-great benefits and working environments).
I have more than a passing interest in neuroscience and psychology and I’m still on the fence a bit but truthfully I do think most descriptions of addiction make my relationship with my phone at least in the realm of applying the addict label. There’s the idea in neuroscience of not liking a behavior but still doing it compulsively with a unconscious hope of repeating a high that becomes harder and harder to access as tolerance builds up. I find myself with my phone in my hand as though by magic sometimes. And yes, I’m writing my comment on my phone right now.
personally I think everyone's addicted to their phones, or at best has a horrible habit of being on their phones. I used to be the standard modern person, phone always in hand and finding something to do. Over the years I put in work to change that, and now I generally go to my phone if I need it, rather than being on it by default and finding something to do with it. It's incredibly liberating. IMO The experience of using a phone is incredibly cheap and shallow compared to almost anything else you can do, even watching the same videos but on a proper tv or monitor.
"Addiction can be defined as a persistent, compulsive need to use a substance, despite the negative consequences to you or others."
What about things that are beneficial but unclear if they're healthy? Staying up late on the computer but then taking a sedative to fall asleep immediately so that you don't spend an hour staring at the ceiling. You get more sleep, but you're probably addicted to the sleeping pills. Without them, you don't get enough rest.
Sleeping pills may be better than getting no sleep at all, but cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTi) may be a better treatment approach than medication [0]. A problem with sleeping pills is that they reduce sleep quality, so you aren't as well-rested versus sleeping without them. From an interview with Matthew Walker, a professor of neuroscience and psychology [1]:
"The quality of sleep that you have when you’re on these drugs is not the same as normal, naturalistic sleep. They’re classified as “sedative hypnotics,” so the drugs actually just sedate you — and sedation is not sleep."
[...] "They don’t tend to increase sleep much beyond placebos. People may be fooled into thinking that they’re getting more sleep, but actually they’re not. This was not my conclusion — it was a committee of experts, who reviewed 65 separate drug placebo studies, and their conclusion was simple: There was no objective benefit of sleeping pills beyond placebo. Their summary was that the impact of sleeping pills was small, and of questionable clinical importance.
"And my third problem: They are associated with a higher risk of death and cancer.
"About that last point, in your book you do raise the possibility that it’s not sleeping pills that’s causing those things — it’s whatever is causing you to have trouble sleeping, which weakens your immune system.
"Yeah, I think that would be the counterargument, and I think it’s a very reasonable one at this stage. But I think an equally reasonable, equally tenable explanation is that they do shorten your life and increase your risk of cancer. The answer is we just don’t know which of those two things it is.”
How are they measuring sleep quality? I've been taking benadryl before bed because of allergies, and I am definitely sedated but my metrics as far as quantified sleep seem good. Heart rate drop, movement "deep sleep". Are they measuring brain activity? What is the metric?
It looks like the interview excerpt refers to the following passage in the book "Why We Sleep" by the interviewee Matthew Walker:
"The irony is that many individuals experience only a slight increase in “sleep” from these medications, and the benefit is more subjective than objective. A recent team of leading medical doctors and researchers examined all published studies to date on newer forms of sedative sleeping pills that most people take. They considered sixty-five separate drug-placebo studies, encompassing almost 4,500 individuals. Overall, participants subjectively felt they fell asleep faster and slept more soundly with fewer awakenings, relative to the placebo. But that’s not what the actual sleep recordings showed. There was no difference in how soundly the individuals slept. Both the placebo and the sleeping pills reduced the time it took people to fall asleep (between ten and thirty minutes), but the change was not statistically different between the two. In other words, there was no objective benefit of these sleeping pills beyond that which a placebo offered.
"Summarizing the findings, the committee stated that sleeping pills only produced “slight improvements in subjective and polysomnographic sleep latency”—that is, the time it takes to fall asleep. The committee concluded the report by stating that the effect of current sleeping medications was “rather small and of questionable clinical importance."
The study cited for this passage on the book is a meta-analysis (or a study of multiple studies, as you might already be aware) [0]. The relevant excerpt from the study is: "All 13 studies included comparisons of at least one of our primary outcomes. Ten studies (22 comparisons) assessed polysomnographic sleep latency and seven (11 comparisons) assessed subjective sleep latency. The eight remaining secondary outcomes appeared in fewer studies: four studies (seven comparisons) assessed subjective total sleep time, two (two comparisons) assessed total polysomnographic sleep time, four (six comparisons) assessed subjective number of awakenings, three (four comparisons) assessed polysomnographic number of awakenings, two (four comparisons) assessed subjective sleep quality, three (five comparisons) assessed sleep efficiency, three (three comparisons) assessed polysomnographic waking after sleep onset, and one (one comparison) assessed subjective waking after sleep onset."
Polysomnography is defined as followed by the Mayo Clinic [1]: "Polysomnography, also called a sleep study, is a comprehensive test used to diagnose sleep disorders. Polysomnography records your brain waves, the oxygen level in your blood, heart rate and breathing, as well as eye and leg movements during the study."
TL;DR: It looks like the meta-analysis of multiple studies, included studies that examined "brain waves, the oxygen level in your blood, heart rate and breathing, as well as eye and leg movements during the study."
It looks like Benadryl and other sedating antihistamines count as sleeping pills. The interviewee Walker appears to be referring to a passage from the book he wrote (mentioned in another comment I wrote in this thread), which references a study called "Effectiveness of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics in treatment of adult insomnia: meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration." [0]
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, non-benzodiazepine hypnotics include antihistamines: "Hypnotic agents (nonbenzodiazepines) include chloral hydrate, some sedating antidepressants, and sedating antihistamines, such as diphenhydramine (Benadryl) and hydroxyzine (Atarax)." [1]
Nice article but who is "you" here? It's very difficult to define who is addicted. In the case of sugar addiction, it is the sugar loving microorganisms that live inside the body. It is not the conscious mind who is addicted. And these microorganisms can control the behavior of the host, that is, the body, like making you go to where sweets are sold without you knowing it. I don't know how but these organisms have direct access to the motor nerveous system and can do things and make decisions without (or before) conscious mind realizes it. So the way we become aware of the hot surface we touched accidentally only after we retract our arm, we become aware of some decisions only after executing them to satisfy the desires of the microorganisms, our symbionts. So I'm sure addiction is not a mind issue but a gut issue.
> Addiction can be defined as a persistent, compulsive need to use a substance, despite the negative consequences to you or others.
This is a really poor definition, because you can be addicted to things that have no negative consequences to you, and you still don't want to do them.
Just started Urge: Our History Of Addiction yesterday!
I am doing a sober February this month as an exercise in contemplating my own addictions and for the pure sake of challenge. No beer, no marijuana, etc. Not even caffeine! Caffeine is much harder for me than any other.
With alcohol, its not so much about the urge to drink when you stop, but how bad your withdrawal symptoms are.
I pretty much gave up in my mid thirties when I stopped for two weeks to deal with some life admin and found myself in withdrawal.
I've had a few spells off the wagon since, but now realise something is properly broken in me. Even small amounts of alcohol trigger hideous hangovers and anxiety. The only counter is to drink again.
Were you drinking all day every day? I have a glass or two of bourbon most nights and can do a week break with no sign of withdrawal. Alcohol is definitely very addictive, but you do have to go pretty hard to get withdrawals.
It's interesting to try it this way. Did it in the past with alcohol because I was curious how long it take to eliminate the urge (regardless of strength) to drink. Got through two months without any drinks and I'm not sure that the urge ever really went away. But I got used to tamping it down.
That's interesting. I've suspected it was two things:
1. Some chemical addiction - hard to understand but may contribute to the "urge"
2. Some component of taste - in other words, I like the taste of bourbon. I don't really care to be drunk but it obviously happens sometimes. But the goal is not to be drunk but instead to enjoy the taste of bourbon. I'm sure that desire manifests itself chemically in the body as well. Yet, I think of them as different pathways to the outcome.
So day to day, what I feel like I'm fighting is the desire to taste something I really enjoy, rather than the desire to be drunk, if that distinction makes sense.
I do understand the need to taste something you really enjoy… but that is what every meal is for (I always try to eat nice things… eating should be a happy moment!)
With no social pressure, on my own I very seldom buy alcohol or keep it around. I don't think about it. I don't want for it, on occasion I'll have a few drinks and once in a great while a few too many drinks but it's not something I really care about one way or the other.
I've seen many people not like this. Alcohol is a central part of their life even if they aren't "drunks".
Club soda got me off them (this is before fizzy water became a trendy drink). Turns out my craving was mostly for the carbonation bite, not the sugar.
Seltzer water didn't work. The missing minerals make it taste super weird to my palate. Had to be club soda (or sparkling mineral water, but that was too expensive for me to have often at the time).
This isn't a good test because addiction is a dynamic situation. One can not simply remove the offending substance from their life for X days and confirm they are not addicted.
Persistent and compulsive is key to understanding how it works.
One of the most common addictions now is cellphone addiction. But especially since the pandemic it's hard to do anything without a cell phone. You need your QR codes everywhere for testing or showing you're tested, show your vaccinations, check in to restaurants, etc.
Internet browsing on the phone is also less of a pleasant experience, versus with a desktop web browser.
Reddit for mobile is deliberately designed to make you use the app that I wish not to use (you often can't expand threads without moving to the app); YouTube ad blocking is much clunkier, versus seamless on a desktop browser; and it's more difficult to navigate (e.g. there are more taps to use the "find in page" function, versus Ctrl/Cmd+F on desktop).
It also helps that I've deliberately made the apps on the phone less engaging to use (I've avoided TikTok, and configured remaining social media apps like Instagram to avoid subscribing to content that is too interesting or designed to capture attention, so there is far less of a pull to use them).
Shoes that link to fitness trackers already exist. A quick Google reveals shoes with integrated bluetooth speakers, and shoes for the blind (not sure what those do, but I gather it does involve electronics).
I think "cellphone addiction" isn't really a thing, the phone is just a means to an end. It's going to be what's happening on the phone, be it games or social media.
Except the tests you have to scan a QR to register, get the result by email etc.
Sure it's "possible" but then you have to take a photo of all QRs of all the test centers you might want to use, register for those at home, go there, go home to print the email. Rinse and repeat every day.
So you could do that and waste 3h a day doing it, or you carry a phone.
The registration in restaurants a lot of restaurants don't accept paper registration anymore either.
Fortunately have never had to show a test or a vaccine pass on a phone. Boy am I glad I’ve been living in England these last few years if that’s becoming normalised!
I serve Kambo (which is the poisonous secretion derived from a particular Amazonian tree frog) to people. It has been my savior for breaking out of addictive patterns. It's definitely not for everyone (not just considering the contraindications; it's an extremely rough experience in general). It can feel like a physiological and psychological "reset" (note, only speaking anecdotally as there is not a lot of proper research around it). Quite a breath of fresh air after being in a rut or just looking to make changes in your life.
Yah... I won't try to paint a pretty picture of it, but that article (as well as any other "alternative treatment" on wikipedia) portrays it pretty negatively. There definitely have been a couple of studies and papers (on both kambo and on some of the individual constituent peptides in the secretion), but the article states otherwise. In the traditional context, Kambo wouldn't ever be called a "cleanse". Traditionally, it's used by a few Amazonian tribes to remove what they call "panema" (which is essentially bad luck, mostly in regards to hunting. Not being able to bring back food has consequences for the community), to increase strength and stamina, and as sort of a "vaccine" (immunity booster). The "removal of toxins" or whatever is a hard western woo spin on it.
Many readers will not include alcohol in the group drugs, so it needs to be mentioned explicitly, even though it actually is part of the "drugs" group.
Recently gave cannabis a break. Been using for years as a medical user. If flower, I would smoke < 0.3g a day. If vape, maybe 5-10 hits. Barely any compared to so many others
Felt like I wasn't anywhere near overdoing it, but when looking at cannabis withdraw symptoms... can confirm. Certainly had a problem.
I found it hard to regulate but easy to quit. I was probably smoking more than you from the sound of it, but I found myself smoking more during the work day when I started working from home, tried to put some limits on it and then found myself breaking the rules. So I stopped cold, worst of it was probably the desire to smoke while winding down, more of a craving than a compulsion though and no physical symptoms.
I’m similar I think. I generally smoke similar amounts daily.
I’ve taken a break a few times now and aside from some weird dreams initially and my eyes being less dry, I didn’t really notice much. I took a 2 month break not too long ago and the only benefit I found was from “doing something” - ie a mental boost from setting a goal and accomplishing it.
I’ve only ever used weed to relax when all the other stressors in my life are under control, which might have something to do with it.
Ive occasionally taken breaks but I think I didn't do it long enough.
This time at like day 3-4 I was triumphantly saying there was no withdrawals, but for some reason I was unusually angry.
I dont deny anger, I almost denied that I was angry. Normally I absorb the emotion and analyze why I was this way. I couldn't really do that, I couldn't really justify why I was angry. I even woke up angry with no apparent cause.
The next day I lost control and raised my voice out of anger for a moment. Something I generally don't do. I tried questioning this anger again but found no answers. I believe at this time I still didn't believe cannabis was addictive or for that matter I was having withdrawals. Let alone this was just the beginning.
Took over a week for problems to really peak.
The bigger problem, I was using medically... without it... that original problem also started to come back. Just making it all that much worse.
Withdrawal symptoms usually last a few weeks for me. Head over to reddit.com/r/leaves if you need support for quitting.
I've struggled with this a lot over the years. I'll quit for 6 months, get rid of all my paraphernalia then find myself starting up again. I keep telling myself that I'll use it more responsibly this time, but then I end up doing it every day.
Wild variation is the norm, but a lot of our public health messaging and "conventional wisdom" ignores this entirely.