Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

substance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 166 posts

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#61

Post by jalanb »

RickHull wrote: post #46

I take issue with the headline, and I didn't see any support for it in the article -- that people simply grow out of addiction. Treatment or not, we can call that process of reducing one's addictive behaviors growth , but I don't think you can find any addicts -- former or otherwise -- their families, or addiction treatment specialists, who would call that process simple .

Actually, speaking as a former addict, I would call it simple.

Damned hard, fucking painful, betimes hopeless, ..., but the most consistent memory from my early recovery was the simplicity of the process. There really was only one thing important: stay clean.

In my own case I aimed for staying clean for 2 years. And for those two years that was not "the most important thing", it was the only thing that mattered. Other factors helped too (supportive family was next most important), but I think I would not now be clean without the simplicity of that bright line rule of 2 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#62

Post by wuliwong »

lnanek2 wrote: post #15
pessimizer wrote: post #8

This can't be true if we're still going to use the (useless) metaphor of demonic possession to describe every aspect of substance abuse.

I've seen some ministries report a 50% success rate re curing addiction for people who join. So social recovery forms of drug treatment are very successful and might include things like exorcism and whatnot as part of belonging to the flock, I suppose. Sure, we know from science and Occam's razor that devils and gods probably don't exist, but that doesn't mean participating doesn't show proven benefits. Although the…

The problem with using Occam's razor to disprove the existence of some sort of god or spirit of the universe is that there isn't any explanation. Remember it's "the simplest explanation is usual correct." We really don't have any explanation, ultimately as to origins or what is really happening at a fundamental level. What are photons? What are electrons? What is space-time? This pesky big bang thing. And then you have Goedel's incompleteness theorems which basically tell us that no amount of math or logic will ever fully explain this universe. While there may not be some old fella with a big white beard floating around in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, I tend to think the actual "truth" is far crazier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_the...

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#63

Post by Mz »

DanBC wrote: post #57
Mz wrote: post #11

FYI: I don't entirely agree with this article. But I posted it in part because I seriously loathe the AA "disease" model. My dad drank heavily when he was in the army. He fought in the front lines of two wars. I think he did it at least in part so he could sleep because alcohol helps suppress dreams (and, thus, also nightmares). About four years after he left the army, he swore off alcohol and basically never touched…

> At some point in there, it was not unusual for me to have two doubles with dinner -- the equivalent to four drinks. So I imagine I could have been classified as an alcoholic at that time. But when I got some answers and started getting healthier, I was happy to stop drinking. 2 glasses of whisky a day is not healthy but it's not alcoholism. This is a bit tricky to describe but I'll do my best: let's assume you had…

That's interesting. If you or anyone else wants to do the math, the only thing I tolerate okay is Kahlua. So I was generally having either mudslides at Applebee's or Kahlua Cappuccino at Red Lobster (often with an extra shot -- two drinks with an extra shot each is four shots of alcohol).

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahl%C3%BAa:

Since 2004, the alcohol content of Kahlúa is 20.0% (21.5% alc. is still available only in Ohio[citation needed]); earlier versions had 26.5%.

This would have been around 2001-2002 in California. So, you should use the 26.5% figure. I don't know what a "shot" is considered to be. I mean as a standard measure. I assume there is a standard measure of "shot" though. So what would 2-4 shots of Kahlua a day be? Is that "alcoholic"?

Just curious. I never thought of myself as an alcoholic. I was clear I did this because it knocked back the extreme physical pain I was in at a time when pain killers did little or nothing for me and doctors weren't being especially helpful. I just wanted to hurt less and I wanted to SLEEP. So, I would have a drink with dinner or before bedtime, because nothing else was doing a helluva lot for me.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#64

Post by BigChiefSmokem »

0x420 wrote: post #43

As someone who struggled with cocaine, heroin and prescription opioid addictions throughout my teenage years, this resonates with me quite a bit, but I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions the author is drawing. I got clean with no help either - and yet, many years later, I still consider myself "in recovery." I view my recovery as a never-ending process; even though I haven't touched the substances themselves…

You don't have answer this but I have to ask, did you find some other less severe addiction to cope - like marijuana for example? I ask because, well, your username.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#65

Post by enraged_camel »

betenoire wrote: post #54
pessimizer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demons don't exist, and their mythical properties are ascribed to real addictions. Addictions may not be incurable, they may not be uncontrollable, they may not require exorcism by an expert, they may not have been induced by sin or fed by it, Jesus may not be the answer, etc. edit: really? Happy to accept the downvotes on this one.

Again, it's a metaphor. You know, like "I'm so hungry I could eat a unicorn" But unicorns don't exist you say!

Well, they might exist depending on what you are on. :)

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#66

Post by sterlingross »

From my experience and observations, most people don't grow out of being addicted, they simply shift their focus of addiction.

This often goes unnoticed because there are many people who are addicted to things that the majority of society wouldn't consider an addiction. One might give up an "unhealthy" addiction for a socially acceptable one. Or their unhealthy addiction may simply shift, from one substance to another, or one activity to another, or one interest to another.

The more I've observed addiction the more I've realized that we are all addicts. I am addicted to water, yoga, meditation, HN, reddit, coding, etc. I've even come to realize that we are actually addicted to certain types of thoughts or ways of thinking. Addiction to "negative" thoughts is what results in "unhealthy" behavior.

I am currently addicted to observing myself for potential patterns of addiction and have gone so far as to create a simple app [1] that in a way takes control of the decision process away from myself. It produces a simple "yes" / "no" response and I'll ask it throughout the day if I realize I have a choice to make. "Do I go to yoga today?" -> "No".

The process of giving up control of my decisions was unnerving at first, but the more I practice it, the more peaceful I have become.

[1] http://www.holyspiritsays.com

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#67

Post by wuliwong »

gph wrote: post #41
andyl wrote: post #17

Yet another HN article that minimizes the perception that drugs can cause harm. Yes it is true that most people grow out of addiction. But many do not. In my circle I count four dead, many more damaged by drugs.

I don't think the point was to minimize the negative impact of drugs. The point was that our understanding and treatment of addiction is flawed, and we need to change that perception so we can really help those with addiction. You're reading your own bias into this article.

I disagree, this author is clearly trying to make the case that the idea that addiction being "progressive" is wrong. That is definitely minimizing addiction.

A perfectly reasonable counter to his arguments is the possibility that the data isn't terribly accurate. The data concerning people "classified as addicts" vs the hypothetical set of data for "actual addicts" might look very different (could we actually obtain this). The problem of classifying addicts or even really defining the term is very open as of now. Using datasets for addicts with the same confidence as datasets concerning those suffering from breast cancer for instance is foolish. The gray area as to whether someone does or does not have breast cancer is very small when compared to that same gray area with addiction.

My own experience shows that there are addicts who never get better, progressively get worse and tend to die very sad deaths. My family is riddled with this type of addict. The possibility that the author is not suffering from the exact same condition that my family members are afflicted with is not really considered. He spends one or two sentences describing how bad his addiction was as proof to the contrary but this is just shirking the real issue of identification. So yes, I think through the author's narrow-minded approach they are indeed treading dangerously on minimizing addiction and the "negative impact of drugs."

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#68

Post by DanBC »

Mz wrote: post #63
DanBC wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point in there, it was not unusual for me to have two doubles with dinner -- the equivalent to four drinks. So I imagine I could have been classified as an alcoholic at that time. But when I got some answers and started getting healthier, I was happy to stop drinking. 2 glasses of whisky a day is not healthy but it's not alcoholism. This is a bit tricky to describe but I'll do my best: let's assume you had…

That's interesting. If you or anyone else wants to do the math, the only thing I tolerate okay is Kahlua. So I was generally having either mudslides at Applebee's or Kahlua Cappuccino at Red Lobster (often with an extra shot -- two drinks with an extra shot each is four shots of alcohol). According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahl%C3%BAa : Since 2004, the alcohol content of Kahlúa is 20.0% (21.5% alc. i…

I was using Wikipedia to get the size of a US shot of 89 for a double and 44 ml for a single.

The sum to get UK units is:

Serving size in litres * ABV value

So 44 ml * 4 shots * 26.5 abv / 1000 conversion from ml gives 4.5 units per day.

A doctor (and obviously I am not a doctor) might ask you to cut back a bit, but that level of drinking is normal.

Did you feel urges to drink other than those shots? Did you experience bad things from alcohol but continue drinking? Did you find it hard to stop? I think some of these things would have been used to assess whether it was problem drinking or not.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#69

Post by elliottcarlson »

0x420 wrote: post #43

As someone who struggled with cocaine, heroin and prescription opioid addictions throughout my teenage years, this resonates with me quite a bit, but I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions the author is drawing. I got clean with no help either - and yet, many years later, I still consider myself "in recovery." I view my recovery as a never-ending process; even though I haven't touched the substances themselves…

Every one will have a different experience, and some people will need more help than others. I was a meth addict (but was also a frequent abuser of a large variety of other substances) and quit cold turkey during a cross country bus ride to the east coast. Ever since then I have been clean, and only take part in drinking alcohol. That first year was insanely hard, and the mere thought of meth would make my hands clammy, as if my body was still wanting it. I have no problems now with restraint, and I can be around people doing drugs and can easily sit back with no temptations. I didn't need NA or AA, but as you said, they still have some merit and may be the necessary crutch that some people require to get out of the hole.

Re: Most People with Addiction Simply Grow Out of It

#70

Post by LordKano »

pessimizer wrote: post #33
sp332 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. That's why it's a metaphor and not a real demon. It's just as scary as a demon because it feels like you can't control your actions.

Demons don't exist, and their mythical properties are ascribed to real addictions. Addictions may not be incurable, they may not be uncontrollable, they may not require exorcism by an expert, they may not have been induced by sin or fed by it, Jesus may not be the answer, etc. edit: really? Happy to accept the downvotes on this one.

Demons don't exist

That's what the demons want you to think.

Post reply on HN