I spoke with a rehab specialist and he mentioned that since cannabis is oil based, there is no physical withdrawal symptoms as there are with other opioid products. This is due to taking weeks to get cannabis out of your system. Thus, it is often argued that it is not physically addictive but rather psychologically addictive.
Forgive my ignorance, but I’ve never been clear on the distinction between “psychologically addictive” and “physiologically addictive”. Surely anything that produces a measurable dependency and withdrawal is just addictive?
This distinction seems rooted in mind-body dualism, further driving my skepticism.
Yes. This distinction drives me up a wall. The way I see it, all addictive substances are psychologically addictive[0]. Some are also physically addictive.
Addiction, by definition, is a psychological phenomenon. For recreational drugs, it's the only thing that keeps you using even when the net effect is harmful to your life.
It's really annoying to see people say things like, "It's only psychologically addictive" as if that's somehow less perilous than the alternative, or easier to overcome if you want to stop.
Most alcoholics have a hard time quitting not just because of the DTs (not that I'm dismissing those!), but because it's bloody hard to break that habit! The yearning for a drink is incredibly strong, long after you've detoxed. The physical withdrawal from alcohol can be managed over just a few days. The psychological withdrawal from it is typically a long-term journey with plenty of opportunities for relapse. Same with heroin. Kicking it is no fun, that's for sure. But once you've done your 30 days or whatever, the physical part is over. The real challenge is just beginning.
[0] Okay, I supposed there are addictions that are purely physical. Some blood pressure medications, for example. I ignore these, because "addiction" is probably not the right term for them. "Dependence" better suits therapies that you really do need to continue, or taper when it's time to stop.
I still don’t understand the distinction between “physical” and “psychological”, especially when the thing being manipulated by the drug is the central nervous system.
Surely psychological phenomena are also physical ones, insofar as they are seated in the brain and the rest of the body? Do you have an example of a pure case of “psychological addiction”? The only thing I can think of is the social aspect of consuming the drug. But then, I can think of a great number of activities that, when removed, cause “withdrawal” in the form of longing for the social interaction, none of which fit the common-sense definition of “addiction”.
So I’m left to conclude that this distinction is a false one. For the purposes of things we generally consider to be drugs, the only possible kind of addiction physiological.
I'm with you here. I think talking about both is important but its a false dichotomy.
I would classify "psychologically addictive" as something that makes a little voice in my head go "do that thing again" and is mainly driven by the speed at which an action(drug or not) receives a physiological response in my body. If I take a hit of a weed vape I feel it so fast that my psychological addiction gets triggered more easily. Whereas when I eat a weed edible the response takes so long that the little voice in my head doesn't say, "eat another one". Unless I eat one every day then that little voice becomes stronger over time.
I can do either of those things one time and only experience the acute withdrawal.
I would classify "physical addiction" as a habit where cessation causes a lengthy (not acute) withdrawal period, caused by some type of brain changes like receptor degrowth because of over-agonization or whatever. I think we qualify ones that have worse withdrawal as more physically addictive. As some have already pointed out, alcohol withdrawal can make you dead and opiate withdrawal can make you wish you were, so we consider these very physically addictive. THC withdrawals exist, but they are so minor when compared to death or opiate-withdrawal hell that we consider it not very physically addictive.
An extreme example: Someone could spike my coffee with opiates every day for a year without me knowing, slowly increasing the dose so I'm not too messed up. I would be physically addicted but have no psychological addiction.
That’s fair. I cringe at the linguistic abuse that is “physiological vs psychological”, if that’s how we’re defining things, but I guess that’s “just” semantics. [0]
To reiterate an important point you make: if we’re going with those definitions, then the only difference between the two is one of quantity. In both cases, physiological effects of the drug are driving the addiction, mediated by behaviors that emerge in response to changes in physiology. So again, the qualitative difference is only the one that emerges from a vast difference in quantity.
I’d also insist that we recognize some of the very-physiological withdrawal symptoms experienced by at least some cannabis users, e.g. sleep disruption…
[0] Part of my reason for asking this question initially is because I’m convinced this is not mere semantics, but rather a linguistic game that people play to argue that cannabis has zero meaningful addictive potential. I find that to be disingenuous.
P.S.: I hope it’s obvious to everyone that I’m not bashing cannabis use in general. Hell, I appreciate the occasional joint.
It's not that you will die but your body will react adversely. Like with alcohol if you quit cold turkey you can get tremors and seizures. Even with caffeine you get brain fog and hardcore headaches.
Basically with hard chemical dependence there will be some kind of adverse body reaction. With marijuana that doesn't exist or is so vanishingly small that you don't feel anything.
I believe it is rather established that cannabis has withdrawal symptoms in the form of sleep and mood impairments. That would qualify cannabis as physiologically addictive, as indeed would be any drug with physical withdrawal symptoms.
Granted, they may be lesser than other drugs, but they are still there.
Ok there are symptoms but my understanding is for many people they're negligible. Also I'd be interested to see the symptoms related to actual chemical dependency on marijuana-specific chemicals, versus generic withdrawal symptoms from denial of expected dopamine release, which you could get by changing how you game, work out, have sex, eat, whatever.
I don't think anyone has ever died because they stopped smoking tobacco. Is tobacco not "physically addictive"? If it's not, this only underscores the point that physically/psychologically addictive distinction is not all that useful. And if it is, that only underscores your explanation isn't a very good explanation of the differences.
> Forgive my ignorance, but I’ve never been clear on the distinction between “psychologically addictive” and “physiologically addictive”.
Quit cigs/caffeine and you'll be irritable and nothing much else... maybe constipated for the first days? Quit heroin and you will likely stop to function, your brain needs it. Same as alcohol, real alcoholics don't stop cold turkey or they will likely die, their body needs it. As the substances have replaced their natural counterparts which the body has forgot how to make.
I should have been more clear: Physical addiction is when sickness, pain or impairment demands that you get your fix or possibly die. Example: "...benzodiazepines can kill you. This type of withdrawal can cause seizures, which increase your risk of life-threatening harm. It can also cause psychosis, which alters your perception of reality."
When an individual, who has chronically misused alcohol, suddenly stops or drastically reduces, they can experience a combination of withdrawal symptoms—both physical and emotional—that can range from mild to severe, and in rare cases, can be life-threatening."
Psychological addiction: "...Psychological dependence on drugs or alcohol is the emotional, motivational, and mental addictive qualities that come with substance abuse. ..."
It's an overused distinction - but certain drugs when used over long periods of time result in such large biochemical changes to the human body that if they are suddenly withdrawn, the person may experience various medical emergency situations that require hospitalization (delirium tremens with alcohol, seizures with benzodiazepines, dehydration due to vomiting and diarrhea with opiates).
These extreme physical effects are seen at the upper end of abuse limits, and the majority of people who legitimately suffer from addiction don't need round-the-clock medical care if they quit - and even those who do can generally avoid such problems if they go through a tapering-off process over the period of about a month.
While I'm not an expert, it's probable some things directly cause addiction by modifying something in your brain, while others don't do it directly with the chemicals but by other means
The divide is probably clearer with non-drug addictions, like gambling. Gambling isn't some drug that modifies chemicals in your brain and makes you addicted, and yet some people are addicted to gambling.
It's possible some drugs function like gambling, where they don't actually modify chemicals in your brain to make you addicted, but you can get addicted anyways, psychologically
this is an emotionally charged topic and people are often not very precise with terminology when discussing it. so I can understand why you would be confused just from reading a couple articles and comment sections.
> This distinction seems rooted in mind-body dualism, further driving my skepticism.
this does not really make sense though, and opioid withdrawal is a good example to demonstrate why. people who abruptly stop consuming opioids usually get symptoms that are similar to a bad cold or flu. it's not just "in their head"; they literally have snot pouring out of their nose and sweat uncontrollably for days. this is typically what people mean by "physiological addiction". sometimes it is also called "dependence" to distinguish long-term pain management patients from addicts. btw, most common recreational drugs cause some degree of withdrawal, but it's often not significant enough to notice.
in the short term, drug with significant withdrawal symptoms are especially difficult to stop consuming for any length of time. but it doesn't take that long for the body to return to homeostasis. a couple weeks is typical, but it might take up to a year in extreme cases.
the learning (ie, what you might call "psychological addiction") never quite goes away though. this is why addicts must be extremely cautious, if not abstain entirely, for the rest of their lives.
I appreciate your example (and level-headedness, btw), but what are we to make of:
1. The fact that these behaviors are learned precisely in response to physiological changes (be it avoidance of withdrawal or chasing the high)
2. The fact that all the supposedly non-physically-addictive drugs like cannabis have well-documented withdrawal symptoms, like sleep dysfunction, that are very much physiological.
If your point is that the physiological withdrawal from heroin is worse than cannabis, then I don’t disagree. I just disagree with the premise that anything can be meaningfully addictive without having a measurable physiological effect. This includes things like gambling, in which the physiological effects are well-documented.
So I’m not so sure that the two forms of addiction can be so well separated. It seems to me that physiology is the mediator of behavior, here, which points back to the very definition of addiction.
I’m left to wonder why people insist on the relevance of this distinction. I don’t believe it’s only to make the point that cannabis is less bad than heroin, as nobody is seriously debating that. I instead get a strong whiff of semantic games.
severe withdrawal complicates the early stages of recovery and probably makes a relapse more impactful (just what I've observed; I'm not a doctor). but in general I agree, the distinction does not matter much within the context of addiction. detoxing is not the hardest part of recovery for most addicts. the hard part is usually "what to do instead" for the next n decades.
there is a useful distinction to be made between what I would call "addiction" and "dependence" though. this is why I included the example of PM patients in my initial comment. just like addicts, these people build tolerance and would experience severe withdrawal if their supply were abruptly cut off. the difference is that these people are (mostly, pill mills are a thing) not chasing a high for its own sake. their lives are actually improved by consuming opioids, and they would be just fine with an equally effective substitute.
to be clear, I am not implying PM patients are morally superior to opioid addicts in some way. the distinction is that addiction is intrinsically damaging to a person's quality of life. dependence is merely a tradeoff that may or may not be worth it.
>the hard part is usually "what to do instead" for the next n decades.
Agreed. And (as you've no-doubt guessed by now), I would argue that this second, harder phase of recovery has very little to do with addiction per se, in both it s mechanisms and coping strategies.
>there is a useful distinction to be made between what I would call "addiction" and "dependence" though.
I'd have to think about this a bit more, but even though I agree the distinction is practically useful for treatment, it's once again a distinction of degree rather than kind. In both cases, there is a physiological habituation to a substance that causes unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. Something analogous to the pleasure-seeking behavior of bona fide addicts is still there, I think, when you consider that drug-dependent people will consume a substance to "feel normal".
>dependence is merely a tradeoff that may or may not be worth it.
I'd quibble about merely, since the worm can turn mighty quick, and people are generally pretty bad at knowing how deep in the hole they are. But I take your general point.
> I'd have to think about this a bit more, but even though I agree the distinction is practically useful for treatment, it's once again a distinction of degree rather than kind. In both cases, there is a physiological habituation to a substance that causes unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. Something analogous to the pleasure-seeking behavior of bona fide addicts is still there, I think, when you consider that drug-dependent people will consume a substance to "feel normal".
I've mostly agreed with you up until here, but having known both heroin addicts and a few PM patients, I don't agree with this at all. while there is a significant minority of PM patients that are addicts in disguise, I genuinely don't believe most of them enjoy taking their prescription. at least in theory, the PM patient works with their doctor to find a dose that adequately manages their chronic pain while minimizing impairment and other unpleasant side effects like nausea and constipation. the addict seeks the highest dose they can get away with (not arousing suspicion of employer/family, being able to afford it, etc.). the intention behind the use is very different.
more generally, my working definition of addiction is something like this: a) inability or extreme difficulty in regulating b) an activity or use of a substance that c) negatively impacts one's health, interpersonal relationships, or other meaningful goals. the PM patient clearly satisfies b). but I would argue they don't satisfy a) if they are able to stick to what they've agreed with their doctor and haven't specifically chosen that doctor for being a total pushover. they don't satisfy c) at all: the drug is what allows them to participate in something like an ordinary life. in extreme cases, it is what allows them to exist at all.
btw, I could also have chosen SSRIs as my example for dependence. I think the PM example is better for teasing apart addiction vs dependence, since there is a bit of overlap in reality. but SSRIs are interesting because they do not demonstrate the same tolerance building effect as other psychoactive drugs, nor are they (commonly) used recreationally. nevertheless, people do report fairly nasty withdrawal symptoms from abrupt cessation of SSRIs. you can google "ssri brain zaps" if you're curious.
tl;dr: addiction and dependence can look similar from the outside. one simple heuristic for distinguishing them is how the person behaves after acute withdrawal subsides. the addict will always feel the temptation to go back, and resisting that temptation is usually a lifelong struggle. the person who was merely dependent will stop and never look back if they find an alternate solution to their problem.
You're totally right and it's funny even the comments agreeing with you don't get your point. Humans love to categorize, you can't blame us for making them up most of the time.
And the mind-body dualism is still very much here to stay, culturally.
My interpretation is that physiologically addictive means actual physical changes, such as some receptor becoming downregulated and to feel something again you take the drug again. Whereas psychologically addictive could mean you need something for the identity you have or to cope with life experiences. For example I am physically addicted to nicotine but psychologically addicted to caffeine, I would describe it, since I get an actual craving for nicotine whereas caffeine well I like doing a lot of work and fitting into capitalism but I go weeks or months without thinking about it there's no mechanism in my body which tells me to take an energy drink although some people have it that way
Receptor modulation happens when you play video games, too, but I doubt anyone would claim they are “physiologically addictive”.
Again, this whole distinction is predicated on the idea that something can affect behavior without affecting the brain. I struggle to see how that is even possible.
All roads lead to rome right. But the brain doesn't have to be the first busstop. One avenue is via the gut, bacteria screaming for unhealthy food. Or just the old ghrelin, hunger hormone.
But on a more analytical approach, I just don't agree with your premise. There's a stark difference between the brains lowlevel mechanics such as serotonin receptor downregulation all the way to buying the brand in the supermarket that reminds you of your childhood. What I mean is it's not a mind-body dualism problem, rather, it's a scale problem. Does the mechanism that drives you to behave consist of individual molecules or cells, or unfathomably complex dynamic patterns of neurons firing across every region of your brain that constitute almost a religious reminder of who you are and what you desire. What I'm saying is is it the hardware or the software. That's physiological vs psychological. But if you wish you can turn any topic in the world into metaphysical philosophy, I just think we have a lot of textbooks in any hospital university library already on these topics that don't bring philosophy into it.
This isn’t metaphysics. I’d like to know what distinguishes physiological from psychological addiction. So far, the proposed mechanisms don’t hold up to scrutiny, since the proposed physiological mechanisms (e.g. serotonin modulation) are at play in psychological phenomena as well.
On a related note, I’m not sure what to tell you if you don’t see how espousing mind-body dualism can lead people to propose nonsensical distinctions, especially in medicine. I’d have expected a vehement defender of scientific medicine to agree with this.
Mind-body problem is metaphysics. I could ignore that part, but it would help if you strengthened that initial connection. Currently I'm experiencing a socratic style where I throw information and then it gets deconstructed but I don't have much to go off of. State your case why this seems rooted in the mind-body problem.
Otherwise I really like my scale argument and would like to see you deconstruct it, right above read it again if you feel like it, I don't think your argument that just because physiological mechanisms are "at play" in psychological ones defeats it.
Are you a nondualist? I've had that period so I can understand both sides, if you expand more on your viewpoints with some real detailed fleshing out rather than just deconstructing any incoming argument. Personally I have my criticisms of medicine, but can celebrate a lot of textbook content as true.
So now that you know I'm an ex-nondualist, maybe you can give my scale argument a reread and see if you accept it as a description of the phenomenon? So to be perfectly obvious, there's direct chemical reaction and implicit chemical reaction. I consider it a big difference to flood a bunch of molecules past the blood-brain barrier, versus experiencing something such as a video game and reacting to it.
And hey, I am in a period of my life where I definitely put precedence for the body and let the mind follow. Daily exercise in nature, oh boy that really improves my mind. Reason alone in a dark room did not get me far at all.
But if you feel like we're not getting anywhere or I'm not convincing then that's fine and you can ignore this
I read, interpreted and answered your comment much too hastily, and now I feel foolish. Please accept my sincerest apologies. In my defense, I can only point to the large number of posts that are frustratingly missing the point, and to the fact that I am regrettably not the most patient of persons.
Let me try again...
My response should have been something like "my question is less focused on the metaphysics, and more focused on what I think is an issue of logic, so I am happy to stick to the level of analysis of a university hospital textbook". It seems to be the case that people are attempting to partition the phenomenon of addiction into psychological vs physiological addiction. My issue is twofold:
1. I know of no substance that is well-established as being addictive that does not produce both (1) a physiological response at the time of consumption/engagement and (2) an unpleasant physiological withdrawal symptom of some kind. This notably includes drugs that are popularly described as being purely psychologically addictive, such as cannabis.
2. The psychological (i.e. cognitive and behavioral) patterns that we associate with addiction are driven, in a fairly direct manner, by the physiological responses to the presence and absence of the drug. Addicts return to drugs both to avoid physiological withdrawal symptoms and to pursue pleasurable physiological effects.
Together, these suggest a psychological effect of the drug that mediated by physiology. In all cases, the physiological phenomena are necessary. I am generally quite sensitive to arguments of emergence at a particular scale, but I don't see the necessity for it here. Can you be more precise? The closest you come to providing an example has to do with a "reminder of who you are and what you desire". I am also not-insensitive to higher-order explanations for behavior, including some from the psychoanalytical tradition, but I don't think these negate the causal chain outlined in point #2. Therefore, I don't see how psychological addiction can exist separately from physiology, except perhaps in the trivial case of categorizing psychology as a subset of or emergence from physiology. Certainly, I think, one does not encounter "psychological addiction" without also encountering its physiological counterpart, rendering the ontological distinction questionable. It is further made questionable by the prima facie dualist argument that subtends the psychological-vs-physiological distinction. Certainly, if this is not a dualist position, the argument is not immediately obvious to me, and I would be interested in hearing it.
Moreover, if you'll allow me to stray from the purely logical argument surrounding biology and psychology, my sense is that this dichotomy between physiological and psychological addiction is in large part a semantic game that serves to advance a certain political discourse. Invariably, it serves to argue that cannabis isn't "really" addictive by arguing that is withdrawal is qualitatively very different from that of, say, heroin. To this I can only say, "of course it is!" Nobody is really arguing that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin! But this is indeed the argument of scale; I might be convinced that the severity of cannabis' toxicity, intoxication and withdrawal is minor enough to warrant the drug's legality, but I still contend that for those who are addicted to cannabis, the same commingling of physiological state and behavior is at play.
And in case it needs to be said, of course the difference in degree that separates cannabis from heroin (and other "hard" drugs) is large enough to place the two in qualitatively different categories. Again, my point is that despite this, both produce their addictions in similar ways (roughly: the dopaminergic circuit), as is supported by the scientific literature.
Let's jump into a more structured analytical response using your neat presentation as help. I will exposit a psychoanalytical attempt to obfuscate the dependency on low-level chemical/mechanical action. I do this to kick the purely physiological chair that #2 stands on.
1) All substances produce a) physiological response and b)unpleasant withdrawal. Including substances described as purely psychological.
2) Psychological (cognitive and behavioral) addiction patterns are driven directly by physiological response to presence/absence of the drug. Addicts return to drugs to avoid physiological withdrawal, and pursue pleasurable physiological effects.
#1 and #2 gives #3
3) Emergent complexity not necessary, example needed, even from e g psychoanalytics, still wouldn't negate #2
#3 gives: Therefore, psychological cant exist apart from physiological, except if psychology subset of physiologically which we both agree is boring interpretation.
So why a distinction at all.
My first thought is practical. Does someone need acute help, a patient needing medicine to avoid serious harm? Categorise as physiological, give the medicine, time is of the essence! Does someone need a support group to process their emotions and discuss their situation with others going through the same thing? Psychological!
For these purposes, helping others in an almost economical way to have efficient hospitals, the dichotomy is useful. I, and the literature, you as well, consider physiological and psychological as interwoven. The question is how much and if the dichotomy should be there at all, where we disagree.
It can be dynamic and the one can reinforce the other, maybe even the inverse. Personally, my psychological aversion to being used by unethical companies made me quit nicotine pouches. So it's dynamic. Just a side exposition.
> Together, these suggest a psychological effect of the drug that mediated by physiology. In all cases, the physiological phenomena are necessary. I am generally quite sensitive to arguments of emergence at a particular scale, but I don't see the necessity for it here. Can you be more precise? The closest you come to providing an example has to do with a "reminder of who you are and what you desire". I am also not-insensitive to higher-order explanations for behavior, including some from the psychoanalytical tradition, but I don't think these negate the causal chain outlined in point #2.
Behavior is so complex. If someone read 2000 years worth of literature and behaves in the world inspired by everything from Alcibiades statesmanship to von Neumanns mathematical theorems, whatever one would do in the world hypothetically I would categorise that complex emergent behaviour as psychological, emergent, high level, thinking with words and symbols in highly patterned and reactive ways maybe even different states of consciousness and let's say some delusions like they're possessed by ancestral spirits. That's a VERY weird sentence but bear with me. That can not be understood at a physiological level except by god hypotethically, and psychologically primarily by their older wiser self retroactively, in a compressed descriptive way. So what does this have to do with #2. Well let's say that immense complexity drives them do a bunch of coke over and over, as a rational requirement to orate effectively in front of the populace or whatever. Like dictators have done, drugs for the right state of mind for diplomatic affairs or speeches. The meaning of this paragraph is to inundate you with an extreme example of a psychological driveforce to an addiction. Rather than the physiological craving, the dictator returns to the coke to fulfill their ambitions, perhaps. I don't know man I'm just trying to describe a complex motive, rather than "grug need crazy honey because body uncomfortable".
For a more normal example, let's say my dad dies and we would always drink vanilla tea. I keep returning to the vanilla tea PURELY out of psychological reasons, because I like crying to a new memory of dad each time. I digress this is not a drug with withdrawal.
Let's bring physiological into it. Me and dad would hypothetically always have a newcastle beer at Raulsons pub before he died. I am not interested in any other alcoholic beverage, at any other place, but I get so emotional over that Raulsons pub newcastle beer. It represents all the inside jokes, my towns history, my memories of dad, ponderings of existence, and frankly I wouldn't know what to do with myself if I don't have that psychological safe anchoring to such a stable haven at Raulsons pub with newcastle beer and dad maybe watching over me. It's so safe.
>It is further made questionable by the prima facie dualist argument that subtends the psychological-vs-physiological distinction. Certainly, if this is not a dualist position, the argument is not immediately obvious to me, and I would be interested in hearing it.
So I've only argued with psychological emergence from, partly physiological processes in the brain and body, but also psychological emergence from the rest of all the stuff that happens in the world, other humans, our history, our literature canon, their interactions, the ideas that influence our behaviour that could be even religious, even makes me think of superorganism minds and the mythologies we share in our subconscious, our social desires and so on. All this influences behaviour, if only a nudge when not primary motivation. This sometimes completely removes the physiological causal chain to become sure phenomenally present but causally meaningless. I believe in free will but not infinite willpower. Sometimes we get trapped, but sometimes it's just our mind or collective mind and interaction with the universe and its materials that completely stomps some pattern in the universe with lower causality-rank let's say and lets willpower win.
As for the dualism/nondualism I thought I could answer but I can't, I can't access the state I was in with just my mind to remember how to treat argumentative discussion. But you've already received your dose of philosophical mumbo jumbo, that I've had to resort to since I really actually suck at biology. Sorry. I don't know the inside of those textbooks in the library I just think they on an economical level can improve society and our health
I accept your difference in degree caveat.
All in all, my opinion rests on psychological and emotional complexity and it's emergent behavior. All my exposition I think defeats #2. Sometimes we require certain behaviors to remain sane or achieve our purpose. I agree that they interplay. I just think they are distinct phenomena, and that the categorisation serves a purpose.
Then for the political angle.
I have to sleep so I'll sum it up.
Removing the dichotomy can be good, as some sort of revolutionary resistance to macro scale oppressive structures. If the social effect of the categorisation is bad, then we unanimously decide our collective reality that it's untrue. A delusion, or truth, like good money or bad money. Will the categorisation serve us or not, micro or macro, long term or short term. If the DNA double helix was politically oppressive somehow, we could decide it's a bad model and move on, think of it like a spectrum string, a quantum unison with some other more accurate physical framework that doesn't use atoms but other concepts. We choose. I am aware of alcoholics not being taken seriously, as lacking willpower, I think that's bad and they need support, sometimes social support works sometimes it doesnt, scientific prototypes of various methods or regimens or even drugs are being tested for eventual widespread adoption to help the problem. So there are very real problems that aren't mumbo jumbo that could benefit or be damaged by local beliefs about what is the cause and what could help.
On micro scale I consider it useful, as in the example where help is provided quickly, right support for right person. Some people need to untangle a mess of words, emotions, and stories to change their behavior for a healthier life. Some people just need the right molecules right now or their body breaks.
I took this response as seriously as I could with the limited knowledge I have about the subject, since you responded so nicely. There is no energy at all for continuation though, haha. Nice talking. If you respond I would read it but can't respond in turn
Indeed, and so can smoking shortly before bed. Regular daily use can also suppress your ability to dream (or at least your ability to remember those dreams).
I've gone through periods where I smoke a relatively small amount of flower on a daily basis for months at a time, and then stop cold turkey, over a dozen or so times in my life. One thing I really enjoy about stopping cold turkey to take a tolerance break is that my dreams become profoundly vivid during the first week or so of withdrawal. I can often remember dreams vividly as if they occurred in waking life, for as long as two days after the night I dreamt, and with enough clarity to write them out in detail. I usually look forward to the experience.
Maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I actually enjoy the "come down" from individual smoke "sessions", and the "reset" I experience when stopping cold turkey. It feels refreshing in a way, not really sure how to describe it.
For sure. Head over to /r/leaves and you'll see others complaining about pretty gnarly symptoms when they quit. Cold sweats, loss of appetite, nausea, irritability, etc.
I know of plenty of people who have to fall asleep with the TV on, and if they turn off the TV before attempting to sleep, its massively disruptive to their sleep patterns.
I doubt anyone would argue that that's indicative of a physical addiction to the television, even as there are obviously "withdrawal" symptoms. Thus the grandparent's distinction between physical and psychological addiction.
"rehab specialist" typically means someone who was previously a client of a treatment center, perhaps with or perhaps without a certificate in counseling.
Source: my observations routinely interacting with numerous clients and employees (never a client nor employee myself) of more than a few treatment centers.
An Addictionologist is an M.D. with a specialty in addiction who can speak to the matter on a scientific basis.
I think this distinction really confuses the issue because the actual physiological changes that can make quitting cold turkey actually fatal for certain drugs at certain intensities can appear to be on a continuum if you're not looking at actual cells and organs.
I think a lot of what we understand as "psychological" addictions to drugs are just drugs where the addictive changes are limited to higher functioning portions of the brain. And our obsession with mind-body duality means we understand those differently.
> This is due to taking weeks to get cannabis out of your system.
I doubt it. It's not psychoactive weeks later.
I agree with the "psychologically addictive" vs "physically" though. (I think it's even simpler than that though - you're just addicted to the quick dopamine surge, same as another round of Counter Strike, sex, cupcake, whatever)
yep. this is part of the skepticism mentioned in the article--I have anxiety, depression, hot/cold flashes, appetite loss, sleep issues, and disgusting night sweats for a few days after I stop heavy use, but am often told it's all in my head. the reality is that our own cannabinoids do all kinds of things for our homeostasis that are not well understood. so asserting categorically that there is no physical withdrawal when you stop flooding your body with external cannabinoids is naive.
> I spoke with a rehab specialist and he mentioned that since cannabis is oil based, there is no physical withdrawal symptoms as there are with other opioid products.
Cannabis is not an opioid, and I don't think there is any indication that being oil-based has any impact on whether a substance has withdrawal symptoms. Also, while the substances of interest in cannabis may be in oils naturally and in the easiest extractions, they aren’t actually “oil-based”, anyway. So, whether it came from a rehab specialist or not, this seems to be multilayered misinformation.
