• aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I absolutely hate that argument, it would mean gambling addiction is not real. In other words: one of the most harmful addictions to public health is not an addiction by that definition, because there’s no “biological dependency”.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Because some fairweather leftists are so preoccupied with “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” that even talking about the problem got them very defensive, up to and including “people that get pulled into gambling and ruin their own lives and the lives of their families had it coming” very-leftist takes.

    • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      no biological dependency

      …which is a weird claim to make since gambling addiction is 50~70% genetic. The genetic factors have been known for a long time. Here’s a study from a decade ago in Nature where they compared addiction genes in rats with addiction genes in humans:

      Nature.com

      At the bottom of the page you can find other studies done on the links between genetics and gambling addiction. A lot of overlap with the genetics that make people more prone to alcohol and drug addiction.