Müller & Schumann's (M&S's) newly proposed framework for non-addictive psychoactive substances claims the adaptive and beneficial effects of psychoactive drug use are often categorically denied. However, they make no reference to the seminal and controversial work of Bill Glasser, who was the first person to forward the notion of “positive addiction” (Glasser Reference Glasser1976). According to Glasser, positive addictions must be new rewarding activities (such as exercise) that produce increased feelings of self-efficacy.
Glasser argued that such activities should be (1) noncompetitive and needing about an hour a day; (2) easy, so no mental effort is required; (3) easy to be done alone, and not dependent on people; (4) having some physical, mental, or spiritual value; (5) something that, if persisted in, leads to resulting improvement; and (6) something that involves no self-criticism. However, Griffiths (Reference Griffiths1996) questioned whether the positive addictions (and the criteria for them) that Glasser outlined were “addictions” at all. Furthermore, the types of rewarding activity that M&S outlined in relation to non-addictive drug use appear to meet many of Glasser's criteria for “positive addiction.”
Perhaps because of the early pioneering work of Glasser and others, there is now a growing movement suggesting a number of behaviors are potentially addictive, including many behaviors that do not involve the ingestion of a drug. These include activities as diverse as gambling, overeating, sex, exercise, video-game playing, love, Internet use, and work (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2005a; Orford Reference Orford2001; Sussman et al. Reference Sussman, Lisha and Griffiths2011). In fact, there have been an increasing number of research studies over the last few decades suggesting that a wide range of substance and process addictions may serve similar functions (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2005a; Shaffer et al. Reference Shaffer, LaPlante, LaBrie, Kidman, Donato and Stanton2004). Taking a much wider conceptualization of addiction, M&S's framework also provides adaptational and functional reasons most potentially addictive behaviors do not develop beyond strong liking and healthy enthusiasm.
Griffiths (Reference Griffiths1996) also argued that an individual gained many potential benefits when engaging in potentially addictive behaviors, including: (1) reliable changes of mood and subjective experience (e.g., escape); (2) mood enhancement, including the positive experience of pleasure, excitement, relaxation, and so forth; (3) disinhibition of behavior aiding sociability (e.g., sexual behavior); (4) coping strategy (e.g., stress reduction) for vulnerabilities (e.g., insults, injuries, social anxiety, fear, tension, and so on); (5) strategy for threatening, rebelling, revenging, and so forth; and (6) source of identity and/or meaning of life. Griffiths argued that from the individual's perspective, the engagement in potentially addictive behavior served a useful purpose in her personal life. M&S incorporated much of this reasoning into their argument when developing their framework for non-addictive drug use.
A recent comprehensive review by Sussman et al. (Reference Sussman, Lisha and Griffiths2011) examined 11 such potential chemical and behavioral addictions, including their prevalence and co-occurrence (i.e., tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, eating, gambling, Internet, love, sex, exercise, work, and shopping). Depending on various assumptions they made, Sussman et al. (Reference Sussman, Lisha and Griffiths2011) asserted that anywhere from 15% to 61% of the U.S. adult population suffers from maladaptive signs of an addictive disorder at any one time during a 12-month period. However, M&S's framework and empirical evidence not only provide additional support of the utility of non-addictive drug use, but also demonstrate it could easily be applied to other potentially addictive (non-chemical) behaviors such as gambling, exercise, and work. As M&S rightly point out, epidemiological data show that the most individuals who take drugs are not addicts and will never become addicted – this is also the case with behaviors that are potentially addictive.
M&S argue that “the general ‘paradox of drug reward’ may be resolved at the dose-response level: In a low- to medium-dose range, the drug effect is not toxic in the sense of being an immediate threat to life. In the range of medium to low doses, therefore, a role for drugs in functional adaptation can reasonably be considered” (sect. 2, para. 2). Here, it is worth noting the work of Larkin and Griffiths (Reference Larkin and Griffiths2004), who examined “risky but rewarding behaviors” such as taking drugs like Ecstasy and participating in bungee jumping. Their aim was to illuminate from the user's perspective of what it means to take risks for pleasure in our culture. Their analysis focused on the manner in which these people made sense of their initiation and maintenance experiences and the means by which they understood and made sense of risk.
In particular, Larkin and Griffiths drew attention to the distinctions between their participants' rational and contextual reconstructions of risky decisions. These distinctions indicated that both Ecstasy users and bungee jumpers were able to draw upon a complex cultural and relational understanding of risk and pleasure and were therefore able to deal quite effectively with the contradictory experience of taking “nonvolitional” action. Most of the participants had a positive, appetitive, and willful orientation towards risk.
Much of Griffiths and colleagues' research examining a whole range of behavioral addictions such as gambling (e.g., Griffiths Reference Griffiths and Plante2006), video game playing (Griffiths Reference Griffiths, Willoughby and Wood2008), Internet use (Widyanto & Griffiths Reference Widyanto and Griffiths2006), sex (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2001), work (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2005b), and exercise (Allegre et al. Reference Allegre, Souville, Therme and Griffiths2006) suggests that the main functional reason for engaging in potentially addictive behaviors is for their positive effects on mental mood states for those engaging in the activity.
I hope this brief commentary shows that M&S's framework for non-addictive drug use has potentially far-reaching implications outside of the chemical addictions field and perhaps provides more unifying evidence that the commonalities between chemical and behavioral addictions are more similar than different. In conclusion, I argue M&S's model may unexpectedly hold utility not only for non-addictive use of drugs, but also for non-addictive use of other potentially addictive behaviors (e.g., gambling, sex, work, exercise, video-game playing, and more).
Müller & Schumann's (M&S's) newly proposed framework for non-addictive psychoactive substances claims the adaptive and beneficial effects of psychoactive drug use are often categorically denied. However, they make no reference to the seminal and controversial work of Bill Glasser, who was the first person to forward the notion of “positive addiction” (Glasser Reference Glasser1976). According to Glasser, positive addictions must be new rewarding activities (such as exercise) that produce increased feelings of self-efficacy.
Glasser argued that such activities should be (1) noncompetitive and needing about an hour a day; (2) easy, so no mental effort is required; (3) easy to be done alone, and not dependent on people; (4) having some physical, mental, or spiritual value; (5) something that, if persisted in, leads to resulting improvement; and (6) something that involves no self-criticism. However, Griffiths (Reference Griffiths1996) questioned whether the positive addictions (and the criteria for them) that Glasser outlined were “addictions” at all. Furthermore, the types of rewarding activity that M&S outlined in relation to non-addictive drug use appear to meet many of Glasser's criteria for “positive addiction.”
Perhaps because of the early pioneering work of Glasser and others, there is now a growing movement suggesting a number of behaviors are potentially addictive, including many behaviors that do not involve the ingestion of a drug. These include activities as diverse as gambling, overeating, sex, exercise, video-game playing, love, Internet use, and work (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2005a; Orford Reference Orford2001; Sussman et al. Reference Sussman, Lisha and Griffiths2011). In fact, there have been an increasing number of research studies over the last few decades suggesting that a wide range of substance and process addictions may serve similar functions (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2005a; Shaffer et al. Reference Shaffer, LaPlante, LaBrie, Kidman, Donato and Stanton2004). Taking a much wider conceptualization of addiction, M&S's framework also provides adaptational and functional reasons most potentially addictive behaviors do not develop beyond strong liking and healthy enthusiasm.
Griffiths (Reference Griffiths1996) also argued that an individual gained many potential benefits when engaging in potentially addictive behaviors, including: (1) reliable changes of mood and subjective experience (e.g., escape); (2) mood enhancement, including the positive experience of pleasure, excitement, relaxation, and so forth; (3) disinhibition of behavior aiding sociability (e.g., sexual behavior); (4) coping strategy (e.g., stress reduction) for vulnerabilities (e.g., insults, injuries, social anxiety, fear, tension, and so on); (5) strategy for threatening, rebelling, revenging, and so forth; and (6) source of identity and/or meaning of life. Griffiths argued that from the individual's perspective, the engagement in potentially addictive behavior served a useful purpose in her personal life. M&S incorporated much of this reasoning into their argument when developing their framework for non-addictive drug use.
A recent comprehensive review by Sussman et al. (Reference Sussman, Lisha and Griffiths2011) examined 11 such potential chemical and behavioral addictions, including their prevalence and co-occurrence (i.e., tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, eating, gambling, Internet, love, sex, exercise, work, and shopping). Depending on various assumptions they made, Sussman et al. (Reference Sussman, Lisha and Griffiths2011) asserted that anywhere from 15% to 61% of the U.S. adult population suffers from maladaptive signs of an addictive disorder at any one time during a 12-month period. However, M&S's framework and empirical evidence not only provide additional support of the utility of non-addictive drug use, but also demonstrate it could easily be applied to other potentially addictive (non-chemical) behaviors such as gambling, exercise, and work. As M&S rightly point out, epidemiological data show that the most individuals who take drugs are not addicts and will never become addicted – this is also the case with behaviors that are potentially addictive.
M&S argue that “the general ‘paradox of drug reward’ may be resolved at the dose-response level: In a low- to medium-dose range, the drug effect is not toxic in the sense of being an immediate threat to life. In the range of medium to low doses, therefore, a role for drugs in functional adaptation can reasonably be considered” (sect. 2, para. 2). Here, it is worth noting the work of Larkin and Griffiths (Reference Larkin and Griffiths2004), who examined “risky but rewarding behaviors” such as taking drugs like Ecstasy and participating in bungee jumping. Their aim was to illuminate from the user's perspective of what it means to take risks for pleasure in our culture. Their analysis focused on the manner in which these people made sense of their initiation and maintenance experiences and the means by which they understood and made sense of risk.
In particular, Larkin and Griffiths drew attention to the distinctions between their participants' rational and contextual reconstructions of risky decisions. These distinctions indicated that both Ecstasy users and bungee jumpers were able to draw upon a complex cultural and relational understanding of risk and pleasure and were therefore able to deal quite effectively with the contradictory experience of taking “nonvolitional” action. Most of the participants had a positive, appetitive, and willful orientation towards risk.
Much of Griffiths and colleagues' research examining a whole range of behavioral addictions such as gambling (e.g., Griffiths Reference Griffiths and Plante2006), video game playing (Griffiths Reference Griffiths, Willoughby and Wood2008), Internet use (Widyanto & Griffiths Reference Widyanto and Griffiths2006), sex (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2001), work (Griffiths Reference Griffiths2005b), and exercise (Allegre et al. Reference Allegre, Souville, Therme and Griffiths2006) suggests that the main functional reason for engaging in potentially addictive behaviors is for their positive effects on mental mood states for those engaging in the activity.
I hope this brief commentary shows that M&S's framework for non-addictive drug use has potentially far-reaching implications outside of the chemical addictions field and perhaps provides more unifying evidence that the commonalities between chemical and behavioral addictions are more similar than different. In conclusion, I argue M&S's model may unexpectedly hold utility not only for non-addictive use of drugs, but also for non-addictive use of other potentially addictive behaviors (e.g., gambling, sex, work, exercise, video-game playing, and more).