Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
for example, pizza fingers, heniz hula hoops, masturbation etc
the smell of germolene
biting the middle knuckle on my left hand
tagging music correctly
buying multipacks of beans
The drug delivery system of cigarettes to the brain is insanely good
Nicotine to brain nuclei receptors in 12 seconds
STOP DELETING MY THREADS
folding my ears inwards when they're cold
rubbing my ears against my girlfriend's ears
those 5p strawb sweets
and, as above, biting the skin on the edge of my nails
Lemme hear ya say, "get out, cunt!
Shortbread — it's not like a gotta have it all the time, or even that I miss it in the ten months of the year that do not immediately follow on from Christmas, but if there's some in the house, I've gotta be eating it.
Tapping my feet whilst listening to music while I'm on the bus/train.
Thomas Szasz denies that addiction is a psychiatric problem. In many of his works, he argues that addiction is a choice, and that a drug addict is one who simply prefers a socially taboo substance rather than, say, a low risk lifestyle. In Our Right to Drugs, Szasz cites the biography of Malcolm X to corroborate his economic views towards addiction: Malcolm claimed that quitting cigarettes was harder than shaking his heroin addiction. Szasz postulates that humans always have a choice, and it is foolish to call someone an 'addict' just because they prefer a drug induced euphoria to a more popular and socially welcome lifestyle.
Professor John Booth Davies at the University of Strathclyde has argued in his book The Myth of Addiction that 'people take drugs because they want to and because it makes sense for them to do so given the choices available' as opposed to the view that 'they are compelled to by the pharmacology of the drugs they take'. He uses an adaptation of attribution theory (what he calls the theory of functional attributions) to argue that the statement 'I am addicted to drugs' is functional, rather than veridical. Stanton Peele has put forward similar views.
Experimentally, Bruce K. Alexander used the classic experiment of Rat Park to show that 'addicted' behaviour in rats only occurred when the rats had no other options. When other options and behavioural opportunities were put in place, the rats soon showed far more complex behaviours.
Lacks original contribution. Needs an introduction and conclusion.
I think psychological addiction is really just the same thing as pharmacological addiction, only without the external substance. The very things that cause 'addiction' are endogenous in your brain to begin with and doing something that causes their release repeatedly strengthens the synaptic connection in much the same way getting addicted to something like xanax or an antidepressant would. So in extreme cases, I'd say psychological addiction is equal to if not greater than pharmacological addiction.
What this chap up there is spouting though I have no idea ^ fuck semantics, I want science.
but then goes on to deny, more controversially, that there is any physiological basis to addiction.
and probably doesn't match my (totally uninformed) views on the matter. I just prefer to be reductionist on these things. Heroin, so I've heard, is awesome. Why would anyone who's started taking it, and discovered for themselves how awesome it really is, want to stop (ceteris paribus)? That's not addiction, it's just common sense: keep doing things that make you feel good.