quick question about getting addicted.

[clone]

ive cut for 2 days so mine get like 3 drops of blood what causes the brain to feel like you need to go deeper i can only imagine it but i wouldnt do it now it just sounds so painful
just would like to know what causes people to feel like they need to go deep? greater relief? or does it just progress over time?
thank to all replies. :)

[Lily of the Valley]

Some people claim that after cutting for a bit, the brain becomes more used to the endorphins released, so going deeper is needed to get more of them. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. For as long as I was a cutter, I don't recall progressively getting deeper and deeper because I wasn't getting the relief of the endorphins anymore.

~Maggot

[clone]

thats intresting

[NightFighter]

I think Laura is right.
On top of that i think you begin to care less and less about the damage you are causing to yourself so at the point you previously would have said 'stop' you just keep going.

[Sapphire]

I found that the stronger the addiction was, the worse my cutting had to be. Basically, I got to the point where only a few scratches wasn't enough and I had to do it more/deeper to get the same relief.

[clone]

cutting seems to be A LOT like drugs addicting the need for more for longer periods of time... i geuss drugs have the same effect from all those health videos.

[Lily of the Valley]

Drugs and cutting aren't comparable. I can say this completely and utterly from personal experience with both - drug addiction and long-term cutting - that they're nowhere near the same.

~Maggot

[clone]

ohh sorry if that was offending havnt done drugs as far as i know.

[Lily of the Valley]

ohh sorry if that was offending havnt done drugs as far as i know.Oh, no, not offended at all. I was just clarifying. I've only ever done weed, but I accidentally got addicted to Effexor. I took it like I was supposed to and all, but my body got addicted for whatever reason. So, unlike a lot of teenagers, I know what actual addiction actually feels like. It's pretty commonly misunderstood among teenagers, I think. =/

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

All addictions are similar in the course that they take.

[Lily of the Valley]

All addictions are similar in the course that they take.Actually, seeing as my addiction wasn't from an increase in dosage or anything of the sort, it doesn't take the same course. Not to mention that just because a person needs a deeper cut to get the release they want, that doesn't mean they're addicted. That means their body is used to the endorphins. But tolerance and addiction are two different things, although they do tend to coexist.

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

Actually, seeing as my addiction wasn't from an increase in dosage or anything of the sort, it doesn't take the same course. Not to mention that just because a person needs a deeper cut to get the release they want, that doesn't mean they're addicted. That means their body is used to the endorphins. But tolerance and addiction are two different things, although they do tend to coexist.

~Maggot
I said that the course of addictions are all similiar. Never did I say they were the same.

[Lily of the Valley]

I said that the course of addictions are all similiar. Never did I say they were the same.And I pointed out that my addiction wasn't even remotely similar to others'. I took the pills, I got addicted and very, very sick.

And I also pointed out that your reference to addictions during this conversation is irrelevant anyway, since just because a person cuts more to achieve the same effect, that doesn't mean they're addicted. A person may develop a bit of an alcohol tolerance over time and need to drink more to get buzzed, but that doesn't mean they're addicted. Just means their body has built up a tolerance.

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

And I pointed out that my addiction wasn't even remotely similar to others'. I took the pills, I got addicted and very, very sick.

And I also pointed out that your reference to addictions during this conversation is irrelevant anyway, since just because a person cuts more to achieve the same effect, that doesn't mean they're addicted. A person may develop a bit of an alcohol tolerance over time and need to drink more to get buzzed, but that doesn't mean they're addicted. Just means their body has built up a tolerance.

~MaggotI never said that everyone who builds up a tolerance to something is addicted.
But I would argue that everyone who is addicted to something has built up a bit of a tolerance to it.

I said that through the course of my addiction to cutting, the cuts got deeper and happened more often.
I have seen others go through the same with cutting.
My other addiction followed the same pattern too despite being very different.
Alcoholics and drug addicts have described a similar pattern (not the same, but similar) to the one I have been through twice.

You were on Effexor which, believe it or not, is not actually an addictive drug. Your body builds a dependency on it and that is why you experienced the horrendous withdrawal symptoms. Not because you were addicted.

[Lily of the Valley]

I said that through the course of my addiction to cutting, the cuts got deeper and happened more often.
I have seen others go through the same with cutting.
My other addiction followed the same pattern too despite being very different.
Alcoholics and drug addicts have described a similar pattern (not the same, but similar) to the one I have been through twice.Translation: Since my two "addictions" (lawlz) were the same, therefore all others are at least similar.You were on Effexor which, believe it or not, is not actually an addictive drug. Your body builds a dependency on it and that is why you experienced the horrendous withdrawal symptoms. Not because you were addicted.addiction: the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

I was physically addicted to a drug that caused severe trauma when I ceased taking it for even a day.

http://www.drugsno.com/effexor.htm

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

Translation: Since my two "addictions" (lawlz) were the same, therefore all others are at least similar.Stop being immature.
You clearly understand less about addictions than you would like to believe.

addiction: the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

I was physically addicted to a drug that caused severe trauma when I ceased taking it for even a day.

http://www.drugsno.com/effexor.htm

~MaggotYour body was dependent on the drug. You were not addicted.

And to illustrate my point, here is a quote from the webpage you gave.Antidepressant withdrawal effects do not indicate addiction, but are rather the results of the brain attempting to reach neurochemical stability.Try reading your own sources before you post them :P

[Lily of the Valley]

Stop being immature.
You clearly understand less about addictions than you would like to believe.Lolwut. As a cutter from the age of about 12, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.Your body was dependent on the drug. You were not addicted.

And to illustrate my point, here is a quote from the webpage you gave.Try reading your own sources before you post them :PMedical dictionary: "Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control."

And I was about to say something here, but I got distracted by my kitten and totally forgot. BUT I BET IT WAS IMPORTANT.

~Maggot

[SingASadSong4408]

It depends for each person. Some people just need that sting a slight cut will give, but others may feel the need to go deeper, draw more blood. Either way, please, try to stop. It may seem like a good way to release pain, but it's really not, hon, it's really not. I know, I was a cutter for the longest time, and now, looking back on it, so much could have been done that helped pain go away easier. If you ever need to talk, I'm here :)

[Sapphire]

Lolwut. As a cutter from the age of about 12, I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about.I didn't say that you knew nothing about self harm. I said that you clearly know less about addictions than you think you do.

Medical dictionary: "Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control."

And I was about to say something here, but I got distracted by my kitten and totally forgot. BUT I BET IT WAS IMPORTANT.

~MaggotIf anti-depressants were addictive then what you have been saying in this thread would be valid...

The sentence from the drug look up (http://www.drugsno.com/effexor.htm) is much more relevant and persuasive than that dictionary entry since it is about the specific drug in question.
But...if you want to continue this then take a peep at the following.Addiction/dependence is a syndrome in which the hallmark is a compulsive pattern of drug use. Most authorities do not regard antidepressants as causing addiction but this has been challenged. This debate is explored drawing on case reports and related clinical and pharmacological data. An extensive literature review identified 21 English language case reports of antidepressant addiction (DSM-IV 'substance dependence' criteria) published since 1963. Sixteen involved tranylcypromine or amineptine and may reflect their dopaminergic and stimulant properties. Subject characteristics included male sex (14/21), personality problems (10/21) and prior substance misuse (14/21). Withdrawal or discontinuation symptoms have long been recognized with antidepressants but other features of addiction such as tolerance and compulsive use are exceptionally rare. Common clinical problems are patients taking subtherapeutic dosages and prematurely stopping antidepressants. The pharmacodynamic profiles of most antidepressants and the absence of acute 'desirable' effects make addiction theoretically unlikely. It is concluded that, with the exception of tranylcypromine and amineptine, antidepressants do not have a clinically significant liability to cause addiction. Tranylcypromine and amineptine should be avoided in those with a history of substance misuse. Patients prescribed other antidepressants should be told that they are not addictive.

http://biopsychiatry.com/addictionp.htm

Antidepressants are not considered addictive. They do not create cravings nor are they associated with drug-seeking behavior. Although people sometimes refer to the symptoms they experience when stopping an antidepressant too rapidly -- such as fatigue, nausea and dizziness -- as withdrawal, it is not considered a true withdrawal syndrome. These flu-like symptoms are more accurately referred to as discontinuation syndrome (http://depression.about.com/od/depressionmedication1/qt/discontinuation.htm).

http://depression.about.com/od/withdrawal/f/addictive.htm

Antidepressant drugs don't cause the addictions that you get with tranquillisers, alcohol or nicotine, in the sense that:


You don't need to keep increasing the dose to get the same effect
You won't find yourself craving them if you stop taking them

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/depression/antidepressants.aspx

[clone]

horrible thing happened today i'm not going to be cutting inless in years urge gets greater info. in my other post.

[Lily of the Valley]

I didn't say that you knew nothing about self harm. I said that you clearly know less about addictions than you think you do.

If anti-depressants were addictive then what you have been saying in this thread would be valid...

The sentence from the drug look up (http://www.drugsno.com/effexor.htm) is much more relevant and persuasive than that dictionary entry since it is about the specific drug in question.
But...if you want to continue this then take a peep at the following.Goddamn, I'm too lazy to read all that shit. D=

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

Goddamn, I'm too lazy to read all that shit. D=

~Maggot
The bits in bold are the important bits...but heyho, it's no skin off my nose.

[Lily of the Valley]

The bits in bold are the important bits...but heyho, it's no skin off my nose.Okay, so what you're saying is it's very rare to become addicted to anti-depressants, but still possible? Well, gee, way to prove me wrong.Most authorities do not regard antidepressants as causing addiction but this has been challengedWhy'd you bold the first part and not the second? Seems that that's the more important part.

To be honest, I can't remember very well what happened when I didn't take them. I was completely...out of it when I didn't. I couldn't even speak or think coherently, let alone do I really remember it. But if there is a difference between "dependence" and "addiction," it obviously isn't too great. Also, I took that definition from a medical dictionary, so yes, I'm willing to put my faith in that.

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

It is concluded that, with the exception of tranylcypromine and amineptine, antidepressants do not have a clinically significant liability to cause addiction.Need I really say anymore?

[Lily of the Valley]

Need I really say anymore?Did you miss the word "significant" in there? I never said it was very common. God knows it's not.

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

Did you miss the word "significant" in there? I never said it was very common. God knows it's not.

~Maggot
The word "significant", when used in a scientific article like the one the qoute is from, means "not down to chance".
If scientific findings are significant then they are reliable and not down to chance. If they are insignificant then they are unreliable and are down to chance.

So, when it says "antidepressants do not have a clinically significant liability to cause addiction." it means that there is no reliable evidence to make a causal relationship between anti-depressants and addiction.

If there is no scientifically reliable evidence to support anti-d's causing addiction, are you really likely to have been addicted to effexor?
No.

[Lily of the Valley]

The word "significant", when used in a scientific article like the one the qoute is from, means "not down to chance".
If scientific findings are significant then they are reliable and not down to chance. If they are insignificant then they are unreliable and are down to chance.

So, when it says "antidepressants do not have a clinically significant liability to cause addiction." it means that there is no reliable evidence to make a causal relationship between anti-depressants and addiction.

If there is no scientifically reliable evidence to support anti-d's causing addiction, are you really likely to have been addicted to effexor?
No.Ah, so the word "significant" now means something completely other than it did before, based on your word? Gotcha. Jesus Christ, where was I when they change the definition of "significant"? Even though, apparently, a medical dictionary on the word "addiction" is completely irrelevant and useless?

Fuck, man. ALL I KNEW WAS A LIE.

EDIT: Eh, forget it. I don't feel like bothering with this anymore. No point.

~Maggot

[Sapphire]

Ah, so the word "significant" now means something completely other than it did before, based on your word? Gotcha. Jesus Christ, where was I when they change the definition of "significant"? Even though, apparently, a medical dictionary on the word "addiction" is completely irrelevant and useless?

Fuck, man. ALL I KNEW WAS A LIE.

EDIT: Eh, forget it. I don't feel like bothering with this anymore. No point.

~Maggot
It isn't my definition. That is what everyone who studies a scientific subject is taught in their first year at uni.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
It is basic statistic terminology.

And I just said that the drug look up was more relevant and more persuasive because it was addressing the possibility of addiction to the specific drug you were on.
I didn't dispute the definition of addiction that you had given.