Reply #25: Physical harm, emotional harm, etc.

[SPKrazy]

Having worked in the addiction treatment field for 10 years or so before doing purely mental health, I would have to say that something is a problem, when the person doing it says it is. Then if they can't quit, then they can't quit and need some kind of help.

It isn't always physical harm. My gawdess, if that were the case, then all we would see is really low bottom drunks and addicts, but in fact people are able to get help in earlier stages of their respective addictions despite the fact that there is little "technology" that has ever been developed to help addicts when I can think of computer software desensitizing programs that could be developed to help addicts who are at high risk. For example, crack addicts tend to have solidly measurable physiological responses to seeing their drug of choice. They have extreme reactions of a psychophysiological nature. I would venture to guess that all addicts of whatever brand of drug or activity that they are addicted to have measurable responses. If you could hook people up to blood pressure, pulse rate, and galvanic skin response reactions, you could do a great deal to help them deal with the reactions they are having to just seeing the drug or pictures of it or of people using it or doing it.

EEG biofeedback would offer even more possibilities and there are some people using that for relapse prevention, but I'm talking much less expensive equipment and measurement devices that are simpler.

All right, I'm off topic again.

I would guess the Buddha would say attachment is first and foremost, emotional and or spiritual in nature, right?

attachment = addiction for all practical purposes in many cases.

Why would someone have to wait until they had physical harm before they realized they had a problem?

Honestly, and no offense to you, but that makes no sense in light of the little we know about addiction to categorize defining it that way.