Addiction is addiction. Whether you're addicted because you took a drug that your brain now depends on, or you've gotten used to doing something that makes you happy and your brain depends on the stimulus to make the happy juice, addiction is a physiological response. The effects on your brain are chemical. Your addiction is marked by the changes in thinking to seek and obtain your particular "high" in whatever form your brain needs, and you will experience withdrawal if you stop.

Some substances and activities are highly addictive, because they are designed to be. Marijuana is more potent than ever, and the experience of shopping for different strains and trying all the "flavors" is itself a little reward system.

People want to make distinctions between chemical addiction and psychological addiction, and there are differences, but addiction is addiction.

[–] catharticrespite@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you may be trivializing a pretty complex subject a bit too much

There is a major difference between our coloqual addictions (sugar, caffeine, our phones) and a substance use disorder. It's worth talking about where on that spectrum marijuana lies

For my part, I suspect that marijuana is much closer to the former than the latter.

I've worked with a lot of people in recovery over the years, and while some ex-stoners will tell you how hard it was for them to quit, anyone with a real habit will tell you quitting weed isn't anywhere near the same level as opiates, benzos, amphetamines, alcohol, or even nicotine

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

So addiction is a word so broad as to be practically meaningless, is what you’re saying.

Maybe start by not assuming everyone has normal brain chemistry. As someone whose brain couldn’t make “happy juice” on its own for years (I have a problem processing folate, which is an ingredient in a bunch of brain chemicals), if I hadn’t smoked weed before I found out what was wrong, I wouldn’t have lived long enough to do so.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I honestly have no idea what version of what I said you're arguing with.