The level of mind-altering a substance can achieve determines the extent of this effect. So THC is bound to be more addictive than -say- caffeine or melatonin supplements. That's not "demonizing". Your reflex to downplay the issue in order to defend the status of THC in society is - at least in part - responsible for the issues for people who suffer from an addiction to THC, since their fellow users will be the greatest sceptics if they are told one has gotten addicted. Yet not, because they can't fathom that weed might be a thing one can get addicted to, but because they don't want to jeopardize the legality of weed.

[–] pjhenry1216@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

You didn't spell out any reason why that's exceptional. You literally used working out as an example. At that point, any form of self-soothing is a mind altering addiction. Tapping your foot while waiting would fit that definition if exercise does.

There's nothing exceptional between being addicted to marijuana, just like fast food or gambling. It's purely habit, not the item itself. It's psychological, not physiological. Physiological addiction exists. That's why withdrawal is a thing for certain addictions and I don't just mean "aw, they're in a bad mood cause they stopped smoking weed" or "oh, they went on a diet so they're cranky."

Gambling isn't the core problem when someone is addicted to gambling. Theyre filling a void with the wrong thing. It's, again, something for emotional therapy. But it says nothing about marijuana.

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You make several good points, and apologize for omitting your crucial point. I agree that anything that provides some "effect" could become psychologically addicting (for example, you could become addicted to NSAIDs). And I agree that I downplay THC addiction due to my personal anecdotal experience. But I'm hesitant to believe that the THC (or cannabis, in general) is the root cause for the addiction, and not the human that uses it. Would we treat someone for THC addiction, specifically? Or would it be better to treat the habit-forming characteristics of said person?

[–] Norgur@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think searching for "The root cause" is moot. Imagine a car that has a construction flaw in the driver side door. A strut in the door breaks easily when rammed and forms a spike towards the driver. If you are driving this car, you are more likely to be injured in a crash than in a car that does not have this flaw, right? Yet, the "root cause" of your injury would not be the construction flaw, but the force applied to the door by the other vehicle. Now imagine fans of the car after this had lead to a tragic accident, telling everyone that it wasn't the flaw in the car, the driver of the other car should have been more careful. They are right, technically. Yet, denying the higher likelyhood of inflicting such an injury due to the specific characteristics of the car would be missing the point somewhat either, woudn't it? I think it's the same here.

We have to acknowledge that weed will be more likely to cause an addiction (not only of the habit variety) more easily than other things. Going off on the "but weed itself does not form addictions" bandwagon only belittles those who have an addiction from it from the perspective of the addicted themselves.

By that logic, nicotine is hardly addictive, neither is cocaine nor caffeine. When talking about addiction, we sometimes tend to only count the physical addiction formed by things like Heroin as "caused by the drug" and to blame psychological addictions on the user's psyche. That's what the war on drugs taught especially Americans. Yet, psychological addiction is the more prevalent type of addiction and it is way more likely to form - regardless of one's tendency to form addictions in the first place - in substances that get you high in some way.