> Addiction can be defined as a persistent, compulsive need to use a substance, despite the negative consequences to you or others.

If that describes you, you likely have an addiction.

The problem is that this definition does not help with the identification process. For instance, any use of drug is arguably not compulsive as the effect often brings pleasure/reward and is often premeditated. "I'm tired, let me get a coffee". So, by simple rationalization, any addict can come to the conclusion that their behavior is not compulsive. Anyone who has the wherewithal to introspect and realize where this need for coffee came from does not need this definition as they already have the ability to differentiate addiction versus genuine desire/want.

> despite the negative consequences to you or others.

If I keep consuming coffee when I'm tired despite the negative consequences, I could be addicted to it. All desires are "genuine" but many desires are harmful to yourself or to others. If that doesn't prevent you from indulging, you should analyze it and probably try to stop.

I feel like the definition should just be "Addiction can be defined as a persistent, compulsive need to use a substance".

Surely one can be addicted even if it doesn't have negative consequences right?

I guess, but if there truly are zero negative consequences, it's not really a problem that needs to be solved. I have a compulsion to have one or two cups of coffee every morning. is it useful to describe myself as a coffee addict?

> is it useful to describe myself as a coffee addict?

I don't know whether it's useful, but it suits the definition. We do enjoy this coffee, we do drink it regularly, and we do crave it when we don't have it.

I'd say addiction sums it up.

I disagree. word definitions are not handed to us by god; we get to choose useful ones. to me, the "negative consequences" bit is what makes "addiction" more specific than "habit", which can be of bad, neutral, or even good quality.

maybe exercise would have been a better example. there are people who damage themselves through compulsive overtraining, but there is often a compulsive element to moderate exercise. a person with a solid 5x1hr/week regimen will often feel bad if they miss a day and be very reluctant to do so. but this is not a bad thing at all; it is a very healthy habit.

By that definition, I must be addicted to oxygen, food, water, and a number of other substances.

Yeah, this is a major omission and it is also why you see so many functional addicts who don't think they have a problem.

Also it means that who is considered an 'addict' is partially socially constructed: Some people have jobs that will randomly drug test for weed, so if they smoke daily and lose their job, they're addicts, but since my job is remote and doesn't care, I could be high as a kite most nights and not be an 'addict' since it didn't cause issues.

I mean yeah, different jobs come with different obligations. showing up high to a construction site is a problem in a way that being high during your shift at a dispensary is not. I dunno if that's "socially constructed"; it seems like a very real safety issue to me. it's unfortunate that we can't test for acute cannabis intoxication the way we can with alcohol, but I'm sure we'll get there in time.

more generally, I would push back on the idea that someone isn't experiencing consequences just because they manage to hold a job. spending all your nonworking time intoxicated is not usually the path to a fulfilling personal life. the consequences are there whether the person sees them or not.

I agree, but it's still not a good definition.

People are also addicted to porn, gambling, to sports (the 'hyperfit'), or to doing nothing, etc. Activities / experiences / behaviours are addictive, which shows that it is not as simple as just a physiological response to various substances.

I have an addictive personality. I have to watch my routines since I fall into ruts very easily, just about anything I do can do it.

How do you define that though? My cannabis use is certainly persistent, but is it compulsive? Maybe I'm just in denial, but it's hard for me to say. I've certainly stopped many times, but find I enjoy life less sober, so I end up smoking again. When does partaking in an activity you enjoy become an addiction? I feel like my urge to read late at night has caused me more problems than my marijuana use because of the many sleepless nights it's caused.

>When does partaking in an activity you enjoy become an addiction?

When the activity is a consciousness altering chemical and you compulsively use it despite the negative consequences to you or others.

That's interesting, but suppose I like to drink a couple cups of coffee per day. It helps me get my brain active in the morning, and avoid the afternoon slump.

Are there negative consequences to me or others? Not that I can identify. The literature has no good study that suggests any long-term health problems with coffee consumption.

But I will feel out of sorts if I suddenly stop. I'll be fine again after a few days. But it seems certain there is a chemical dependence. This does not fit your definition of addiction, but it seems odd to claim that my daily coffee consumption is not, at the least, a light addiction?

Ok but define persistent, compulsive, negative, and it's not just for substances

From a writing perspective, a critique with the article's structure is that the sub-heading "What to do" comes first before the list of questions to ask yourself.

It's placed under "Reflect on urges and motivation," with the points:

"Do you recognise your feelings and behaviour in any of the signs below?

"-You need an increasing amount of alcohol or drugs to feel a buzz or high.

-You feel an urgency to get the first drink or drug of the day.

-You experience a loss of interest in other activities and an increased desire to get ‘high’ or ‘buzzed’.

-You try to quit or cut down on the use of alcohol or drugs but can’t.

-You will do almost anything to get the drug or alcohol."

This segment is particularly more difficult to find at the first glance, as it's in the middle of the broader "What to do" section, versus at the start or end of the section. These points of the article may have been a more suitable fit under the emphasized "Key points" section.

The author lists them pretty clearly towards the middle of the article.