Talk:Addiction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Middle striatal reward pathway

Regarding the paragraph that begins "The middle striatal reward pathway...", some questions:

• Is "(from earlier in the circuit...)" supposed to be a clarification of "receives presynaptic input" for nontechnical readers? I think anyone who needs that clarified will have given up before reaching this point. Also, is "these earlier in the circuit cells" grammatically correct?

• The same question about "Cells that are said to respond..." If this is supposed to be providing a definition of the phrase "cells that respond to" as used in the previous sentence, I don't think the definition is correct. (Surely the expression of receptors is not sufficient to say the cell responds to the associated agonist!)

• Do "many believe that there are more neurotransmitters involved" within the middle striatal reward pathway, or do they believe that other pathways, which use other neurotransmitters, contribute to addiction?

I don't dare edit anything because I'm not a neuroscientist (but I'm married to one).

Cjoev 22:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

i changed a lot of that section- ugh, forgot to sign in AGAIN. i always do that. anyway- the name is now "neurobiological basis" instead of "physiological basis." i hope it contains much of the same information, but clarified and with some reference to larger anatomical regions (not just "dopamine cells.") i want to put in more stuff about the orbitofrontal cortex- there is comorbidity of impulse control disorders and addiction, and chronic drug users have shown poor performance on lab-constructed tests of inhibition as well as hypoactivity in that region. essentially, the "bad brakes" may be just as important as the strong driving force from the reward regions. Amutepiggy 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro

hi. i made some major changes to the intro. i don't think the opponent process theory of addiction holds enough water in the medical community to be mentioned in the very beginning of the article. i've worked in an addiction lab for 2 years and the only time i remember that one coming up is in my intro psych class. also, chemical dependence, habit-forming, and addiction: NOT the same, NOT interchangable. i thought it was a better start to give a loose definition, but bring up the split in the research community of whether it is appropriate to confine the definition to drugs or to include behavior like sex or eating. my PI is of the former school- she gets so mad about it! Amutepiggy 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro is too long. Could the paragraphs below the first be put into a section called something like "History and Definitions", below the contents table? Long articles like this one seem a lot more readable when there's a contents table right below the first paragraph. --Kiwibird 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

i tossed a bunch of stuff from the intro. i thought much of it was covered elsewhere in the article. if it's missed, it can be reverted!Amutepiggy 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm says quitting smoking was harder than quitting drugs? I have read his autobiography and he says that once his family told him to start praying and stop eating pork and smoking, he never smoked again in his life.

the intro SUCKS. It's not grammatically correct and "morbidity" isn't a good word to use to describe the consequences of addiction. Many people are addicted to things before they even affect them negativcely in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

-I removed "morbidity" --you had a good point there, however, I suggest you make simple corrections where you see fit rather than make general statements that add little to improving the article. Anthronify 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever (recently) changed the intro to two sentences rather than two pages should get an award for courage, brevity, and common-sense. Finally, some stepped up (I wish it were me). Anthronify 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The intro of a few weeks ago seemed almost near-perfect, but now it is getting muddy again. The second sentence is pure torture... direct or indirect brain stimulation, I don't care, (stimulation is an argument in itself for some of those "abused" substances) but why even bring this component into the encyclopedic definition of addiction? If I don't hear any reasons worthy of discussion within a few days, I'll just copy/paste the previous intro so that we can all start over on a clean slate. Anthronify 02:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Article is inaccessible to casual readers. Intro needs to be shorter and more concise

---

Can dependence lead to addiction? If so, that fact should be included G33K 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Dependence, addiction, correlation, causation, terminology, nomenclature, -- this topic is confusing to the average encyclopedia user. I hope we can take a step above the fray and try to deliver proper word usage while at the same time explaining the problems and issues facing such usage today. I see attempts at this in the article, but collectively it tends to confuse the average encyclopedia user rather than inform. Anthronify 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Just for perspective, I have always thought of addiction as The inability to stop something you desire to stop.

..."The inability to stop something you desire to stop" is perhaps an oversimplification. Ambivalence derived from some sort of conflict seems to be a big issue with those that are perceived to be struggling with addiction. The conflict can be both an attraction to the euphoric effects of the object, yet a simultaneous repulsion to negative consequences of its usage. There might be a spreadsheet of advantages and disadvantages in the mind of the addict which may paralize one from moving away from an equilibrium (or status quo) that one has convinced oneself of being thoroughly stuck in. Anthronify 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is of course opinion and original research. Just adding it to stimulate the minds of others. HighInBC 15:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• My two cents, and I speak of 100% irrefutable experience, is that the disease of addiction is progressive, incurable and fatal. Period. Well with drug addiction anyway. I haven't read the entire article yet, but if the above three characteristics aren't included then the entire article should be completely deleted. J-Dog 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Incurable? Addicts have gone clean, not most, but some. HighInBC 13:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If addiction is a disease that is progressive, incurable, and fatal then all of those "spontaneous permanent remissions" (--using the disease venacular) were a result of divine intervention or just bad theory? What if addiction is the compulsion to use because of the user's misguided attempts at "happiness" or euphoria (or reduction of pain, anxiety, depression, etc.) in spite of the subsequent negative consequences. This might explain an addict's obsession to want to moderate --not so much the usage (of course), but moderation of the negative consequences. A pattern that can continue to everybody's consternation for a great deal of time.Anthronify 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

---When addiction is called, "a disease that is progressive, incurable, and fatal", it means that an addict is an addict for life (incurable) and without proper treatment they may die from their disease (fatal). When an addict stops using, they are not cured, the disease is only in remission. Were they to start using again, the disease may kill them. Many diseases are incurable and fatal without the proper treatment. Diabetes can be fatal, but with the proper treatment, a diabetic can live a long, productive life despite having an incurable, fatal disease. Addiction is no different.

Addiction may be different from other diseases in that in involves the willful participation in an act known to be potentially harmful by society, but thats a different argument. That the disease is "progressive, incurable, and fatal," is the medically accepted definition of addiction endorsed by the AMA.71.192.41.250 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an over-simplification of the brain. If we could 'fix' a diabetic such that their insulin production was normal without drugs, diabetes would not be considered incurable. No one is born an addict and nothing irreversible takes place in the brain that we are aware of. Thus, addiction, with treatment, should not be incurable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Much of the discussion here is fascinating. I'm happy to help out. The American Society of Addiction Medicine, the specialty organization for MD/DO's who work in this field, obviously has a definition of Addiction. Its definition has been accepted by other relevant specialties in the medical community (pain medicine and so forth). While your discussion makes it clear that this is only one definition, it is the working definition used by medical specialists who treat this disorder on a daily basis. If that's the definition that you'd like here, I'm happy to provide it.Drgitlow 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this article and have to say I find the subject conceptually fascinating. I'm an economist who dabbles a little in philosophy, and have very little familiarity with psychology or medicine. However, I thought I might offer one or two rambling reflections on this subject!

• A good definition of addiction must imply harm. Otherwise we're all trivially addicted to oxygen, water etc.
• Time is a more important factor than it might seem. Much of what we think of as addictive behaviour involves a judgement that an individual is 'irrationally' seeking pleasure, relief etc. now at the cost of significant harm later. Thus ascribing addiction will very often involve ethical judgements about intertemporal rationality. I wonder if the basis for such judgements has been given much thought. A couple of further points on this subject. First, society's attitude to the 'timing of pleasure' is strongly influenced by economics and religion. As Marx, Weber and others so astutely pointed out, the rise of capitalism was associated with an emerging ideology surrounding the value of postponing consumption, pleasure etc. for future benefit. This is often also associated with Protestant values. I wonder if protestant, capitalist societies are more likely to classify a greater number of people as 'addicts' if they don't conform with prevailing social and economic values. Second, if we take a neoclassical economics view of human behaviour, can addicts usefully viewed as individuals exhibiting behaviour with unusually high discount rates (for time preference)?!
• It might be possible to take a 'public choice approach' to those who classify and treat addicts. What are their sectional interests? And how might these sectional interests pursue their goals? A simple hypothesis might be that pharmaceutical companies would seek both to widen the overall defintion(s) of addiction, whilst also subdividing that into as many sub-categories as possible. This rent seeking behaviour would maximise the potential for monopoly rents on treatments. The same may also apply to the commercial or bureaucratic interests in providing other 'therapies'. Such hypotheses might be usefully tested empirically.--Nmcmurdo 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On your first point, while I agree that addiction tend to imply harm, oxygen and water are things that we can NEVER do without. Refined sugar, on the other hand, is could certainly qualify as addictive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV??

I'm concerned about the lack of a NPOV in the section describing different models of addiction. Each entry describes a given model (e.g. disease, genetic, etc.) but only the disease model has notation concerning what critics of the model believe. If we are to be neutral about this, either that sentence should be removed OR each of the models should have a sentence describing what critics of the model believe. I've updated the disease section but have left the sentence in pending a consensus here. Any thoughts? Drgitlow 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tricky, some forms of addiction are easier to document than others. This may be due to several reasons, incuding the possiblity of on type being more real, or perhaps for other reasons. I say be bold, but check your facts as you progress. Thanks! HighInBC 13:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unmentioned treatment - pharmacological extinction

Hello, all. I'm hopping over from the discussion on the Alcoholism article trying to figure out the best way to summarize what you have here for those reading our article. I'm glad to see that you have a very well organized and informed article over here.

I can't help but notice that you don't mention the strong evidence for a neurochemical basis of opioid addiction posed by the work performed on alcoholism in Finland (alcohol releases endorphin, an opioid). The short version is that they discovered that continuation of normal drug taking habits (alcohol and opiates, but not nicotine) while taking an opioid antagonist results in a loss of interest in the drug taking habits over time. This effect persists indefinitely after the patient stops taking the opioid antagonists unless the person starts taking their addictive drug without the antagonist again, in which case the addiction is re-established. This has resulted in a treatment called pharmacological extinction, which has been demonstrated to work for alcohol, heroin, opium, and endorpine encouraged behaviors like gambling and overeating.

I'm not going to give you a song and dance, but I will provide a few links that you can use to verify this process. I'm also available to answer questions. Invited Interview from the Oxford Journal of Medicine on the use of Naltrexone to treat alcoholism
Links and Resources ContrAl Clinics references
ContrAl Clinics Results

Robert Rapplean 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Free will

I find the paragraph using the argument around the absence of "free will" illogical, uncorrect, and not really contributing to the subject. Discussing free will on it's own page is fine, but the presented argument can be used to make every mental process or behavioral activity seamingly meaningless. It is not of special importance to addiction in any way. In addition, it can hardly be presented as generally accepted view of the matter at all. So I think it should be taken out of the article. A short reference to the problem of free will is fine, however.

David Andel 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the issue of free will's involvment in addiction is ill defined and really a different subject. HighInBC 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, removed and added free will to the section "see also". David Andel 07:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom Hinton

The reference to Tom Hinton (under "Casual Addiction") seems a bit oblique. Is he a well known MySpace addict? I don't get the reference. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I can't find anything that relates.

Sourcing

The section on psychological addiction seems to come from http://experts.about.com/e/p/ps/Psychological_addiction.htm, either that, or that webpage took from us, but it does not say "sections of this page are reprinted from wikipedia". --71.34.12.223 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

removed from the article

In Economics, addiction is a term used to designate calculating the elasticity of addictive goods and determining how income and consumption (economics) effect future consumption

Mushin^talk 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Soiland health external link

There's an external link to Shelton on Fasting and Addiction which seems to be a chapter from The Hygenic System Vol III: Fasting and sunbathing by Herbert M. Shelton printed in the 60s. It's a fairly POV essay that doesn't seem to correspond to any documented findings we have in the article. I've never heard of either Sheldon or The Hygenic System, but wondered if i was just ignorant and this is in fact a famous book whose recommendations are being used to great success all over the world (or just provides historical interest for readers). --Siobhan Hansa 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Questionable Statements

I believe these are untrue. They definitely shouldn't go in without a reference.

Some of the highly addictive drugs (hard drugs), such as cocaine, induce relatively little physical dependence.

It has been proved recently that most addictions are really just psychological. By saying you have a disorder addiction, you just are making an indirect excuse to get attention or you enjoy it too much.

--Elplatt 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Language, Grammar and Style

The article needs to be edited thoroughly. Some parts, particularly the introduction, are awkward and very poorly written. The poor use of the English language will hinder the reader's understanding of the concepts and, quite frankly, cause the reader to question not only the validity of what he is reading, but also the source itself [Wikipedia].

External links

This link:

• The CAGE Questionnaire Alcohol and Drug Guide, Free assessment tools for alcoholism

Was added by User:Johnmac, who (according to his talk page is the owner of the site). In keeping with our conflict of interest guidelines I've moved the post here for consideration by other editors.

Personally I don't think it comes up to the standard of the other links we have added (except the addictioninfo one - should that one even be there?). -- Siobhan Hansa 12:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Links needed

This article needs to have links to articles on: dysfunctional families family systems theory addictive personality personality disorders mental illness

Mental illness and dysfunctional families underlie much of the drug addiction in America because the kids come out of dysfunctional homes and have suffered abuse which leads to mental illness, but they put drugs on top of the problems because it feels good. Detox them and then the hard work of psychotherapy begins, as we hope Britney Spears is learning. rumjal 09:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Terminology and usage

IMHO this article would benefit from a major tidy up along the line of distinguishing between (a) physical/psychological DEPENDENCE and (b) ADDICTION, which is characterised by addictive/destructive behaviour, whether destructive to self or others. The two terms are used interchangeably in this article, which leads to muddled thinking. 'A' precedes 'B'. Petlif 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Experiential Model

An unregistered user added information on Stanton Peele's experiential model. I'm tempted to remove it because as far as I can tell, Peele's writing is scientifically unfounded, but because he is a published author on the subject I left it in. Anyone have thoughts on the subject? --Elplatt 18:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Heading

"Terminology and usage of Narcotics, guys giving oral, and gay porn" I am not sure that this title is completely appropriate.

Criticism

The last paragraph in the Criticism section seems out of place, isn't cited, and addresses the reader directly. Even if it were cited and the perspective were addressed, it may better fit under a Criticism section of the Opiates page. LtBonzai 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

last paragraph in Criticism

The last paragraph that I just deleted was not cited, out of place, and based on opinion. It stated in part, "...opiates should not be used in a short term manner unless you need more pain in your life." Opiates have long been used to treat pain of varied severity. When used under a doctor's supervision and in the amount properly prescribed, opiates are a medical necessity to treat pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.41.250 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Drug addiction

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Drug_abuse_mess for discussion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• That link is broken--I don't seen any dialog at all about the merger. The merger prompt should be removed. Phobophile (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Should this be better referenced?

First, let me point out that I am not a Wikipedia editor. I'm just a user. I look things up and hope to find the facts I need. Today I needed this article, and I'm afraid it let me down. The entirety of this article is filled with claims made in the passive voice that are not documented. I feel more like I'm reading self-help propaganda than an actual discussion of addiction. One glaring example is:

Psychological dependence does not have to be limited only to substances; even activities and behavioral patterns can be considered addictions, if they become uncontrollable, e.g. gambling, Internet addiction, computer addiction, sexual addiction / pornography addiction, eating, self-harm, vandalism or work addiction.

Well, yes, my sock color preference "can be considered" an addiction if the person doing the considering is sufficiently silly. But in this case, who is doing the considering? Is it the medical industry? The psychological industry? Twelve-step gurus? When someone tells me, "Excessive Internet usage isn't an addiction, it's just a bad habit," I'm not going to pull out Wikipedia as my source to argue with them, but I would hope that I could find a source here.

Eating disorders are complicated pathological mental illnesses and thus are not the same as addictions described in this article. Eating disorders, which some argue are not addictions at all, are driven by a multitude of factors, most of which are highly different than the factors behind addictions described in this article.

"Which some argue" holds different weight if the "some" who are doing the arguing are medical and mental health professionals than if they are my grandmother and her knitting circle. Who is doing the arguing here? For example, the first question that comes to my mind is, why would eating disorders receive this paragraph of disclaimer while some even more questionable "addictions" such as Internet addiction or pornography addiction slide by as though they were non-controversial? I don't expect a Wikipedia article to play out that whole debate, but if someone is going to single something out like that, shouldn't there be documentation?

Clinical leaders in recent years have attempted to tailor intervention approaches to specific influences that affect addictive behavior, using therapeutic interviews in an effort to discover factors that led a person to embrace unhealthy, addictive sources of pleasure or relief from pain.

Again, who are these "clinical leaders"? Too much of this article seems to me to be designed to set forth a "final word" on addiction as though that word came from the article itself. But I don't want Wikipedia to be my expert source. I want it to be my encyclopediac overview from which I can locate my expert sources.

Levi Bryant has criticized the term and concept of addiction as counterproductive in psychotherapy as it defines a patient's identity and makes it harder to become a non-addict. "The signifier 'addict' doesn't simply describe what I am, but initiates a way of relating to myself that informs how I relate to others."

Where does this quote come from? Did Mr. Bryant type it himself directly into the article, or did someone else copy it from another source and simply fail to cite it? In conclusion, I find this article to be too full of unsourced statements, vague references to "some people," and opinion masquerading as fact to be much use as an encyclopedia article. Sanctuary Seventeen (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

downregulation can be classically conditioned?

"Downregulation can be classically conditioned. If a behavior consistently occurs in the same environment or contingently with a particular cue, the brain will adjust to the presence of the conditioned cues by decreasing the number of available receptors in the absence of the behavior. It is thought that many drug overdoses are not the result of a user taking a higher dose than is typical, but rather that the user is administering the same dose in a new environment."

Is there a reference for this statement?

10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A term I can't find here

What is the term for when you have been taking a drug for a while and it starts to have less of an effect on you, but you aren't necessarily dependent or addicted to it? —67.193.45.183 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word you are looking for is "tolerance". 67.180.174.213 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychological vs physical

What the hell is with all this "psychological vs physical addiction" nonsense? I defy you to cite me a paper written within the last five years in a respectable journal that makes this spurious distinction. There is none. There is physical DEPENDENCE, which is a legitimate scientific term and is still used, but trying to pretend there are two different kinds of addiction is missing the entire point of neuroscience. Drugs have physical effects. Some of those are on different parts of the brain than others. Trying to lump some of those effects but not others arbitrarily into two categories is frankly unscientific tosh. This page needs a rewrite by someone who has actually taken a single class in addiction whether on a pharmacology or psychology degree. 160.62.4.10 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, the world is still secretly full of dualists. Our very language reflects dualism; people don't grasp that our mind IS our brain. Behaviour effects changes in our brain just as drugs do. —142.68.239.5 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You defy me to cite a paper? Who talks like that? Ok, fine, a quick Google Scholar search will give you a lot of leads, but I think this one should work: Johnson, B. (2003), "Psychological Addiction, Physical Addiction, Addictive Character, and Addictive Personality Disorder: A Nosology of Addictive Disorders" (w), Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, 11 (1), PEP Web: 135–160, retrieved 2008-09-03. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there are people with other points of view. -- Piquan (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

History section

The article states the word 'addiction' first appeared in 1906. This is not true, Shakespeare used it in Henry V (and possibly coined it?). I will make the appropriate changes. —82.39.247.21 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote intro

18-Aug-2008: I saw the rewrite-article tag, so I shortened the long intro that had been a shaggy-dog story (which read like "surprise, there's another meaning of addiction" yada-yada). I listed some common addictions up front, to quickly summarize the total meaning:

The term "addiction" is used in many contexts to describe an obsession, compulsion, or excessive physical dependence, such as: drug addiction, alcoholism, compulsive overeating, problem gambling, computer addiction, etc.

Note that currently, only a relative handful of people are actively revising major articles on Wikipedia, so any major improvements typically will come slowly. WikiProjects are a means to make coordinated changes in a faster, organized way. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic-year headers

18-Aug-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. Then, I unscrambled the rat's nest of jumbled topics putting them into date order spanning the 5 years (such fun). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

APA

The article is more than once stating American Psychological Association where as far as I can tell the context suggests American Psychiatric Association? EverSince (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Recovery

Should "Recovery movement" wikilink to Recovery model, or are the two somewhat different? The latter has tended to neglect the addiction aspect (partly my fault) but doens't have to I assume. EverSince (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiaholics

What about Wikiaholics and Wikiaddiction? :-)

9IDLGT3IET (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about love? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.159.62 (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychological Dependency

Beneath this paragraph are another two paragraphs that read as follows:

A person who is Physically dependent, but not psychologically dependent can have their dose slowly dropped until they are no longer dependent. However, if that person is psychologically dependent, they are still at serious risk for relapse into abuse and subsequent physical dependence.

Psychological dependence does not have to be limited only to substances; even activities and behavioral patterns can be considered addictions, if they become uncontrollable, e.g. gambling, Internet addiction, computer addiction, sexual addiction / pornography addiction, reading, eating, self-harm, vandalism, drug addiction or work addiction.

Not only do these paragraphs not meet Wikipedia standards, but they also contain independent research and non-fact-based discussion. --70.44.70.194 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just passing by, but...

The addiction page is currently an article about World of Warcraft, and I doubt it's supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.133.34 (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

criteria addiction

Caretti, Craparo and La Barbera (2005) recently proposed a new definition of addiction. The authors states that addiction is “a syndromic condition characterized by a recurrent and reiterated search for pleasure derived from a specific dependence behavior, associated with abuse, craving, clinically significant stress, and compulsive dependence actions despite the possible negative consequences” (p. 17); they also discuss how the severity of addiction could be assessed considering the impact of obsessivity, impulsivity and compulsivity in generating and sustaining the dependence behaviors. The new rationale for the diagnosis of Addiction is described by the following criteria (La Barbera, Caretti, Craparo, 2005):

ADDICTION A. Persistent and recurrent behaviors of addiction. The behaviors are maladaptive and lead to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by five (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period: with at least two by (1), whose one is (c), two by (2) and one by (3). 1) Obsessivity a) recurrent thoughts and images about the experience of dependence, or ideas related to dependence (e.g. being totally absorbed in mentally reliving experiences of dependence happened in the past, fantasizing or planning about the future behaviours and experiences of dependence); b) the dependence thoughts or the images are intrusive and cause inappropriate tension and arousal, as well as clinically significant anxiety and discomfort; c) the subject is aware that dependence thoughts and images are produced by the mind, and they are not provoked by external stimuli. 2) Impulsivity a) restlessness, anxiety, irritability or distress when it’s not possible to enact the dependence behaviour; b) recurrent failure in resisting the inappropriate desires of dependence and self-regulating the impulses to enact the behavior of dependence. 3) Compulsivity a) the person feels obliged to enact repeatedly the dependence behavior, even against his or her own will, despite the negative consequences. b) the coercive addictive behaviours and actions are finalized to avoid or prevent states of mental and physic pain, or to alleviate a disphoric mood (e.g. feelings of irritability, impotence, guilt or shame).

B. Thoughts or behaviors related to the addiction occur frequently and repeatedly during the day, and they significantly interfere with normal habits, social functioning, activities and relationships. C. Thoughts and behaviors of addiction do not occur only during a maniac episode or in reason of a general medical condition.

Inside this work we propose a further teorical elaboration of Addictions on the basis of our researches about alexythimic, traumatic and dissociative aspects common to many different addictive behaviors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.27.208 (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Casual addiction

There's a section in this article marked "Casual Addiction." However, no references are provided in that section, and -- though I'm not a psychologist -- I'm a somewhat skeptical whether that's a valid scientific term. (Actually I tried to flag this yesterday but it probably wasnt a great idea to place a "" tag within a section heading :) ) Thanks --71.111.205.22 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction

I tried to copyedit some clarity, verifiablity and neutrality into this section but in the end I decided to remove it completely:
Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction
Understanding the reward circuit is critical in understanding addiction. The National Institute on Drug Abuse describes the reward circuit as a process that “links together a number of brain structures that control and regulate our ability to feel pleasure.” Feeling pleasure motivates us to repeat behaviors. In essence, the reward circuit has evolved within us to reward and encourage our natural behaviors that help ensure our survival, like eating and reproducing. Each time the reward system is stimulated the brain takes specific note of the activity. The more we engage in a pleasurable act the more we learn to repeat it, eventually without even thinking about it. The problem with illicit drugs is that they not only activate the reward circuit, they hijack it, producing more pleasurable feelings than our brains could possibly produce on their own. All illegal drugs target the brain’s reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a specific neurotransmitter found in areas of the brain related to emotion, cognition, motivation, and specifically pleasure. Drugs over stimulate this system releasing anywhere from two to ten times the amount of dopamine as any natural reward. The pleasure felt from drug use then dwarfs that felt from naturally rewarding behaviors such as food, music, or sex, and explains why drugs are more addictive than these naturally rewarding acts. This powerful reward motivates people to take drugs again and again by producing the euphoric feelings sought by addicts. As humans we are wired to repeat actions by associating them with reward. This is ultimately, as NIDA describes, what “drive[s] the compulsive drug abuse that marks addiction.”
It was either removing it or plastering {{fact}} tags all over it. The paragraph is an inaccurate oversimplification of facts. It also jumps to conclusions without any source or ref. Not encyclopedic at all. It has been added to three articles (Addiction, Drug addiction, and Reward system) by what appears to be an SPA editor. Any comments? Yintaɳ  08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Abortion addiction

Certain pro-life activists have highlighted the phenomenon of abortion addictions in certain women as evidence that abortion is very often not a choice, but rather that it is much closer to the status of a social pathology. It might a good thing if we could a least have a stub on this matter. [1] ADM (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request Comment, St. Augustine's conversion

After spending time following the Article page Augustine of Hippo and Confessions (St. Augustine) and following the History of The Conversion of Saint Augustine in his original Confessions and references to his many writings as Bishop of Hippo, I discovered he went from an addict to being completely cured.

His steps on this journey show he stumbled upon the key to this. I'v used this study in my work situation to good effect.

The study and research would be my own original research and not entrable on a wikipedia article page, but then original confessions and steps themselves would be free of copyright.

I'v written on the talk pages of both article pages to this effect.

Anyone out there thinks like me or want to challenge me or my words?

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Having "computer addiction" in the beginning of the article is deceiving !

Since it is not sure if to include it as an addiction. Putting it in the same line as gambling addiction is problematic... Talgalili (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Positive / Negative addictions

Just added {{fact}} x 4. Would like too see citations on the concept of positive and negative addictions. Martinor (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Redir/disambig

Most of this page is redundant to other, better referenced articles. Does anybody object if I cut out the "Behavioral addiction" piece into its own article, and then disambiguate? --Arcadian (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My gut instinct is this was not a good move. I wouldn't dice up an important topic into a separate low level articles that each read like a medical journal. --MarsRover (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Exercise Addiction

The types of behavioral addiction could be greatly expanded on, like exercise addiction and the biological & psychological factors play their own adjacent roles.--Vkraft (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

SciAm resource

From Talk:Epigenetics ...

Epigenetics Offers New Clues to Mental Illness "Experience may contribute to mental illness in a surprising way: by causing "epigenetic" changes—ones that turn genes on or off without altering the genes themselves" Scientific American November 30, 2011 by Eric J. Nestler; excerpt ...

Studies in mice demonstrate a role for long-lasting epigenetic modifications in such disorders as addiction and depression. Epigenetic changes can also affect maternal behaviors in ways that reproduce the same behaviors in their offspring, even though the changes are not passed down through the germline.

99.181.134.134 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See Regulation of gene expression. 99.35.12.139 (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Every drug is the ‘deadliest drug,’ especially oxycodone vy Cassie Rodenberg Scientific American December 28, 2011

Internal links ...

• http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article1206405.ece
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000589/

99.181.147.68 (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

To improve this article you might want to consider including medical definition of what addiction is (i.e. the definition provided by the DSM). Also, you may want to include different theories of addiction, more comprehensive look at the different types of addiction, and treatment.

Dirkster07 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Addiction Vs. dependence

this article continues to confuse the difference between addiction and dependency. The DSM IV added to this confusion when the decided to lose the term addiction in place of Dependence. They, Hopefully, will be putting it back in with the next revision coming out soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.182.92 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Some changes

Hi folks, I have made some major changes to this page. More changes will be coming soon - I plan on adding in a section on the biological mechanisms, and a brief bit on cognitive theories relating to addiction. I am doing this for my MA psyc course, and your patience would be greatly appreciated. I will be done with this page by the middle of April, at which point should you choose to delete my work, that's ok... just please refrain from doing so before hand. Thank you for your cooperation. Dirkster07 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Dirkster07, I changed wording in few places. Other than that, all my edits were mostly "cosmetic" in nature, i.e. I made some major concepts bold, so they are easy to find and I used bullet points to make lists. Some pointers:

1. You could link some concepts to existing Wikipedia pages, so then you wouldn’t have to define them.
2. You could include some names of researchers working in this area, especially when you are talking about examples of some research.
3. You could consider to restating this sentence: “Individuals differ in the way by which they metabolize substances, such as alcohol, these positive reinforcing effects are predetermined.”
4. Since Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory is already defined and has its own Wikipedia page, you could probably make this section much shorter, because you do not need to define and explain this theory. You should probably just talk about its connection to addiction.

(Kasob (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

Addiction Edits

The introduction focuses on the negative aspects of addiction. Are there any positive aspects to include in your introduction? For instance, you might want to add a few sentences or a paragraph on withdrawal or the positive aspects of recovery. You might want to consider a paragraph about intervention as well and link the content to the internal wiki pages on intervention, withdrawal, and recovery. 66.78.127.215 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Substance Dependence - You might want to link to the DSM on Wikipedia and add a few sentences on what the DSM is (e.g., purpose, classification system, used by clinical psychologists and medical professions to diagnose and treat psychological / psychiatric disorders). This might provide a sauguay for a paragraph on the medical model of addiction treatment, which could allow you to present other / alternative treatments of addiction. 15015OakBriar (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Negative Affect - the discussion seems to imply 'drug addiction'. You might consider adding a sentence or two to discuss whether or not these findings can generalize to the other forms of addiction you mention above like sex addiction or perhaps gambling or even becoming a workaholic. 15015OakBriar (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Positive Affect - in the second paragraph, you may want to add a few sentences about crack cocaine and it's quick addictive potential. Addicts tend to spend the rest of their addiction trying to reach the intensity of pleasure (re: orgasmic) that they experienced during the first trip. There is research showing that crack activates certain pleasure areas of the brain. 15015OakBriar (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting paragraph on anhedonia. Seems to prove that there are physiological and psychological costs to a life of addiction. 15015OakBriar (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory - I think this section should be divided into two paragraphs (e.g., first paragraph defines the theory and describes pertinent linkages between variables and the outcome of addiction. A second paragraph to discuss significant findings that confirm the theory). It seems rushed and not as informative as it could be. 15015OakBriar (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Model of Impulsivity. Is this a two-factor model of addiction or does the model explain other behaviors as well? 15015OakBriar (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC). The last two sentences in this paragraph are not clear. Should family history moderate the relationship between RI and addiction. The relationship between poor decision-making and RI seems intuitive but does not predict / explain addictive behavior. So, this finding may not be relevant to this page. This paragraph took the longest to process and provide feedback on for me. This might be an indication that others might find it difficult to read or gain information from. You might consider revising it. 15015OakBriar (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent contributions! The page has much better content thanks to your knowledge in the field and contribution. Your reference section is awesome and very well documented. Please take my questions, recommendations, and very minor editorial changes in a spirit of making the Addiction page number one on Google search.15015OakBriar (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Positive/negative affect and substance use

"[...] Negative affect increase the likelihood of initiation of substance use", but at the same time "individuals high in positive affect are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, such as drug use". So who's more likely then who, exactly? Litawor (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I read the article, individuals with a negative affect that's higher than normal are more at risk than individuals with a normal or low negative affect. Those with either a high or low positive affect are more at risk than those with a normal affect.

It sounds like this identifies three (overlapping) categories (high negative aspect, high positive affect, low positive affect) are at a higher risk than normal (i.e., individuals with no affective disorders, or a low negative affect but normal positive affect). It does not establish a total ordering, so there's no indication about whether (for instance) an individual with high positive and negative aspect is at higher risk than an individual with a low positive aspect. Presumably, there haven't been sufficient studies to determine a total ordering; such an ordering would be useful only in very limited circumstances.

It may be more clear if the section had a link to an article describing positive and negative affect; a reader not acquainted with these terms might have confusion about terms like "low positive affect". Curiously, a brief search didn't find such an article; Affect (psychology) only mentions it briefly. -- Piquan (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

addiction biology subsection leads to an article on a medical journal titled addiction biology and doesn't cover the subject

addiction biology subsection leads to an article on a medical journal titled addiction biology and doesn't cover the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.60.130.118 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done – I removed Addiction Biology from Biological mechanisms section. Senator2029 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See Also - a comprehensive list of addictions

Can a link to a comprehensive list of addictions be added to the "see also" section of this article? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture at top of page

Consider removing. The status of the subject as a 'possible addict' is speculative at best and libelous at worst. It adds nothing to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.100.69 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

FOSB etc.

While the FOSB stuff looks plausible, I think it's radically oversimplifying things to state that it is the mechanism of addiction, as if the matter was settled beyond doubt, and these massive text dumps go way beyond what's needed. At the moment, I think it can best be regarded as a hypothesis.

The current text dump is way too much, discounts all the other theories, and, I believe, doesn't meet the requitements of the WP:NPOV policy to balance and attribute statements.

What would make more sense, and would meet the WP:NPOV requirement, would be a statement on the lines of "Several researches, most notably Dr. X and Professor Y, have put forward the hypothesis that ...", to then describe the theory briefly, and then point the reader at the FOSB article for more detail. -- The Anome (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about our problems and make them go away.

Hi. My name's Hulk. I'm addicted to lying about my name.

Now that that's out of the way, I've been referred here by a concerned and angry citizen.

I can't see the point of singling out drug addiction as its own thing in the lead of an article about general addiction, especially before the part about the main topic. Can you?

Just another rewarding thing that people crave. I get that there's a specific subtopic article for it, and I'm not against Wikilinking it in the lead. Just should go with the others in Paragraph 2. Probably first in that list, since it's the most famous, but not bigger than addiction itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So should I take the silence to mean nobody else sees the point either? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Behavioral addiction and drug addiction are a dichotomy. Stop editing the lead sentence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Dichotomies are for opposites. There's a slight difference between compulsively seeking rewarding sex and compulsively seeking rewarding drugs, but only as much as between rewarding food and rewarding gambling. Not two different things.

I'll stop removing it from the lead when I get a more sensible reason to keep it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A drug isn't a natural reward. Added: I meant it's this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed "natural" and re-piped to the more encompassing reward system. Seem fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As for this, there's no mutual exclusivity. Plenty of people are addicted to drugs and gambling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Mutual exclusivity simply means no element belongs in both categories... In any event, it's fine with the current language. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Then we're mutually content. "Stimuli" works. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Definition

Current text hinges on a 1992 JAMA article. Perhaps PMID 22073026 would be more current? LeadSongDog come howl! 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding - didn't notice this until now.

All compulsions are pathologically reinforced behaviors, but the main difference between that paper and the characterizations used by the reviews in several sections of this article is that these reviews require that the behavior/drug be rewarding - i.e., activate the reward system, particularly the mesolimbic pathway/nucleus accumbens, in functional neuroimaging studies. The nucleus accumbens governs the response to positive reinforcement (the form of reinforcement that involves a reward), and it is there that ΔFosB overexpression has been shown to simultaneously occur with the appearance of addictive behavior and structural neurplasticity. It's a rather simple definition, but it actually has rather significant/profound implications for the neuropsychology and molecular neurobiology involving a drug or behavior. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)