Posted by alan on September 10, 1998, at 17:37:25
In reply to Re: Addiction, posted by Paul on September 10, 1998, at 16:39:35
> This is a good philosophical question. I once read a newspaper article written by a doctor who was treating a heroin addict of many years. The addict hated his father, and harbored violent thoughts. When his father died, he quit doing heroin. As long as he was high on heroin, his violent urges were suppressed; without his father around, he no longer needed a fix to suppress rage. In a utilitarian sense, his addiction was a good thing. I think we should always question our assumptions about what it means to be "normal" when it comes to addiction, because it always depends on the context.Perhaps it was a good thing that that individual was addicted to heroin, altho I like to think there are better ways of dealing with rage. My question, andI hope for some enlightenment, is what constitutes addiction versus, say a bad habit or an inordinate affection for Haagen-Dazs or a mere withdrawl syndrome? Is there a really clear 'scientific' category here? (Doe it matter?)
poster:alan
thread:590
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/19980901/msgs/596.html