Addictions Are Bullshit

I remember hearing the following quote from a co-worker (at the Casino, where I am a Count), and I'm pretty sure I heard it before from a fairly reputable source, probably someone having something to do with law enforcement or social work.

"Some drugs are so addictive that 1 in 10 people who take it once are permanently addicted from that moment on."

Anyways, there are variations in which drug is mentioned by name, usually heroin, but may include other drugs like crack, ecstacy, and meth. Sometimes it is said 1 in 10, sometimes 9 in 10, and sometimes it is claimed that 10 in 10, or 100% become addicted after one taste.

What?

Even the most legitimately scientific and factual instance of this quotation is still utter bullshit, and I'll tell you why:

People have free will.

You'd think that being addicted to something was a life sentence. You know what, I'm addicted to food. I can't live without it. I'm addicted to sleep. I'm addicted to the internet. (I also happen to be "mildly" addicted to caffein, but as a recovering anything-a-holic might tell you, there is no such thing as being mildly addicted.) And this is in the clinical sense. I'm not just using "addicted" in its rhetorical sense, like the tongue-in-cheek so-called "work-a-holic." I'm really addicted to the stuff that I feel compelled to do and partake of on a daily basis. That's the definition of addiction. It is a compulsion.

Now, the compulsion of addiction is not voluntary. In a word, it is involuntary. In two words, it is a physiological phenomenon. I don't feel hungry because I choose to. But what I can do is choose to eat. Well, I couldn't choose not to eat, or else I'd starve, but what I can choose is where, when, and what to eat.

This is how it is with addictions. You can't choose whether or not you want a cigarette, or another hit of heroin. You can only choose your response to the signal your body gives you.

A lot of people see addiction as dictating behavior. An addict can't help wanting, desiring, craving, therefore, the popular logic goes, they are not in control of their own responses. And some addicts like this line of reasoning. They even explain their feelings in terms of powerlessness and helplessness against the internal demon of addiction. This is a convenient line of reasoning for the addict, because it allows them to justify bad choices. Ultimately though, this line of reasoning is counterproductive to the addict, because it results in a cycle of believing that they are indeed powerless.

An addiction is a bad excuse for a poor choice of behavior.

The problem with our conception of addictions is that they are not real. They are a fabrication. Addictions do not exist, not in the popular sense. In the clinical sense, anything can be an addiction, and the definition ceases to be useful to someone fighting wrong behavior. You might just as well call them demons, because addictions are exactly as real as demons.

The reality of what is commonly called addictions is that it is a conflict of interest within the human body. It's a more extreme version of the conflicts we encounter every day, like when the alarm clock rings in the morning, and we feel compelled to sleep an extra half-hour, but we also feel compelled to get up and fix ourselves some breakfast (on account of being hungry).

The physical compulsions felt due to addictive substances, like nicotine, can seem powerful, especially when the means to satisfy them is so close to our grasp on the kitchen table. But the long-term desires that we have, like to avoid developing cancer, seem far away when it comes down to the moment. Despite the latter desire, the fact of the matter is that our body wants a cigarette now. But we can still refuse.

However, what I'm trying to say about addictions is that we are not slaves to our compulsions. Perhaps it would help to remind ourselves of this in our "moments of weakness". An addiction is never irresistable. An addiction can never get ahold of us completely, leaving us without free will.

Having an addiction is never a good excuse for any act. A reasonable excuse for smoking a cigarette might be that it makes you feel good, that you wanted to smoke it. However, in the bigger picture, a reasonable person could conclude that smoking cigarettes is not in their best interest, and therefore make the rational choice. It is, of course, equally rational to decide that one values the pleasure of the present moment over the lengthening of future moments. However, over time, and over the course of a series of present moments, it would seem that the pleasure added to each of these moments would never weigh up against the pleasure of a longer, healthier, happier life.

What I had hoped to do with this post was to at least begin to question the idea of the addict as a hopeless case. Of course, once you've tried a highly addictive drug, you are automatically addicted. But what it means to be addicted to a drug is a very different thing from automatically becoming a slave to it. To be addicted merely means that you will, from now on, have a physiological compulsion to acquire it again. But there is nothing supernatural about it. You are not condemned to a life in the gutter.