Submitted by Tom - June 25, 2007 at 2:19 pm -050068.33.156.221
@ ZippyDSMlee

I agree with you that the chemical changes that go on in the brains of gamblers and other people with similar addictive obsessions are as powerful as the physical addictions that accompany many drugs.

There are notable differences, though. First, many physically addictive substances have non-physical addictive properties that cause the brain to do certain things chemically much like a gambling compulsion would. These are in addition to the physical addictions.

Second, if you take a person and put him in front of a slot machine then it's not very likely that he'll end up a gambling addict. If you take that same person and have him start shooting heroin the odds of him becoming addicted are a lot higher.

There's no doubt that certain people are predisposed to becoming addicted to activities like gambling, TV or gaming but there's still no comparison with people who are predisposed to become addicted to something that is chemically and physically addictive.

Reply

By posting comments on this Web site you agree to abide by the Comments Policy.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This image is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. The letters in the picture are all UPPER-CASE.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 07/24/08 at 01:45pm
Dark Sovereign: A fitting metaphor lumi
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:21am
lumi: their own. Looks like they're arguing with ghosts...
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:20am
lumi: Ooh, and to prove the validity of their arguments, they've deleted all the comments from the gamers/outsiders, and just left
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:20am
lumi: Wow...there's worse invective and vitriol on that first feminist site's comments than in most gaming forums I've read...
Posted 07/24/08 at 11:19am
SimonBob: You guys can read the feminist blogs? One of 'em has over 1400 comments -- my browser locks up when I try to load the page!
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:49am
M. Carusi: That's probably the message to describe hardcore feminism in general. :P
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:35am
Tom90deg: Meh, it seems like most of the comments are "I'm right, and it you don't agree with me, you're a girl-hating masonogystic pig!"
Posted 07/24/08 at 10:30am
M. Carusi: Those comment walls on the feminist blogs complaining about FP are generating some hilarious content.
Posted 07/24/08 at 08:48am
E. Zachary Knight: @ lunatic, What you see is what you get. Once a comment gets pushed off it is gone forever.
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Login or register to post shouts