IDK, it's not really relevant to my point I don't think. It sounds bad to me too but you're not going to argue an addict into believing they're addicted, even if they are. My understanding of gambling addiction isn't that sophisticated but I think that sort of use still puts them firmly in the minor leagues of use.
Anyway though an essential mechanism of addictions is that they are dynamic. You can interview large groups of users of any drug (and also probably gambling) who will attest to its benefits in their lives. Even if they are currently correct, some of them will later become full blown addicts. It doesn't mean they were wrong at the time, just maybe overly confident about why it suits their lives.
A common AA dark joke is that "high-functioning isn't a type of alcoholism, it's a stage in it." A lot of normal users will end up addicts, a lot of mildly problem users will progress. AFAIK the same patterns show in gambling addiction which is imo one of the major problems with these super accessible entry points into it.
Anyway though an essential mechanism of addictions is that they are dynamic. You can interview large groups of users of any drug (and also probably gambling) who will attest to its benefits in their lives. Even if they are currently correct, some of them will later become full blown addicts. It doesn't mean they were wrong at the time, just maybe overly confident about why it suits their lives.
A common AA dark joke is that "high-functioning isn't a type of alcoholism, it's a stage in it." A lot of normal users will end up addicts, a lot of mildly problem users will progress. AFAIK the same patterns show in gambling addiction which is imo one of the major problems with these super accessible entry points into it.