I think that misses the point of the original post and reflects the many interpretations as to what "addictive" means.
Merriam-Webster definition of the word is two fold:
1) causing a strong and harmful need to regularly have.
2) "or" do something very enjoyable in a way that makes you want to do or have something again.
By that definition a substance or activity does not have to be addictive in the causation sense to nevertheless be addictive. Hence chocolate can be "addictive". Same with coffee. Same with pornography. Moreover, cocaine is not "addictive" to some people even though it fits the classical "causation" definition.
The real point is that no matter what the substance or behavior
if it cannot be controlled and is impacting one's ability to live a fulfilling life it needs treatment by definition.
To simply make the case that pot is not "addictive" seems to imply-whether you mean to or not-that it's a simple matter of decision and self control when in many case that is simply not true.
And it follows that the more pleasurable an activity is the stronger the urge to repeat and more likely to become "addictive". I assume you would agree there is such a thing as "sex addiction" even though sex is not in and of itself "addictive" by your definition.(see No. 1 above) As you are aware there are experts throughout the world who agree there is such a thing as an addiction to sex that has ruined men, women, families, etc. To convince one of these people that since sex is by itself not "addictive" all they have to do is to stop the destructive behavior is just hollow advice IMO.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2016 10:26AM by waterfield.
