Stories of people living with addiction

An interview records how someone understood their life at a particular time. It can show why work, relationships, or substance use mattered to them, what changed, and what remained hard. It does not measure the safety of a substance, prove that a particular treatment worked, or diagnose another person. Those questions need different evidence and, for an individual, an appropriate professional assessment.

This article gives original summaries of themes from three published studies, rather than reproducing participants' interviews. Participants consented to research under particular confidentiality arrangements. That is no invitation for us to republish their family or medical details. We do not merge several people into one supposedly real person or invent words for them.

In 2020, Hystad and Wangensteen interviewed 11 former patients of a long-term Norwegian treatment program for substance use disorders. They had left inpatient care in 2016–2017, and all had received some professional support in the intervening years. This small group has a particular treatment history; it cannot stand for everyone living with an addiction.

Ten of the eleven reported at least some substance use after discharge. Many distinguished what they themselves regarded as social alcohol use from earlier destructive patterns involving other substances. Some described work, partners, family, and a better ability to cope with life. The same study also included accounts of damaging returns to use, further treatment, and continuing problems. Different aspects sometimes appeared in one person's account.

So a report of improvement deserves to be heard, but it does not by itself establish that using is safe. A later difficult period does not erase everything a person has genuinely rebuilt, either. Any assessment has to consider the substance, consequences, period of time, and person's goals. There is no need to test that boundary by using again.

In the Norwegian interviews, one participant described cannabis as positive for them while also describing serious harm involving another substance. That is a report of their experience, not clinical proof of cannabis benefit or advice for anyone else. Experienced help and continuing difficulties can refer to different parts of the same life.

Treating a reported benefit as an obvious lie can obscure what someone is seeking: relief, connection, energy, calm, or a way through the day. Yet an experience is not a final risk assessment. A conversation can name the hoped-for effect separately from what is already known about sleep, health, responsibilities, spending, relationships, and freedom to change course. This uses existing facts; it does not call for a personal experiment.

Another qualitative study interviewed 20 young adults aged 21–29 whose clinicians had diagnosed a substance use disorder. They were recruited from outpatient programs at one urban Boston hospital; most had experience of treatment for opioid use disorder. These were people already engaged in help within a particular US system, not all young adults who use substances.

Interview themes included wanting to study, work, form relationships, and have an identity defined by neither substance use nor the label “in recovery.” Participants spoke about mental health, taking part in decisions about care, and the continuing work change might involve. These were their understandings of a worthwhile life and treatment; the study does not show that every person had already reached all those goals. It shows why care for a person reaches beyond one measure of abstinence.

Someone may want to stop using and also want an education, a home, and room to remain themselves. None of those goals requires a flawless record. Respect for a person's goal does not rule out professional help when harm or risk is present.

Liebregts and colleagues drew on 237 interviews about amphetamine-type stimulants in five European countries. The researchers deliberately recruited people with differing patterns, from infrequent to frequent use, including groups not classified as dependent by the study's research measure. It would be wrong to present all these interviews as stories of people with addiction.

Some participants described continuing use in terms of pleasure, escaping routine, or feeling energized to manage household and work demands. Those are reported motives and sensations. The study did not measure whether completed work, health, or long-term functioning improved. Its interviews also described movement toward problematic use, difficulties with sleep and attention, strain on relationships and responsibilities, and seeking support. Life alongside continuing use takes different forms; it is neither inevitably one catastrophe nor evidence of safety.

The study recruited purposively rather than drawing a random population sample. It did not follow each person through the phases over time or test which support worked best. It therefore cannot give someone's chances of a particular future or a “safe” pattern of use. Frequency, confidence, and a feeling of mental strength alone are neither clinical criteria nor protection.

One person could stabilize their housing or job while a relationship remains strained. Another could stop using a substance and still need care for anxiety, support, and time to rebuild trust. A third could report a benefit while continuing use and also notice losses. These are possible combinations for reflection, not additional biographies of people in the cited studies.

It helps to distinguish three layers: what a person says about their experience; what is already known about consequences in their life; and what a clinician might assess with consent and enough information. The first should not be demeaned, the second should not disappear for the sake of a neat ending, and the third cannot be replaced by someone else's interview or a home test. Not every instance of use is a disorder, and serious harm need not wait until a person accepts a label.

Someone may want to tell a friend or clinician about changes, or tell no one. A public story is especially sensitive: work, children, partners, treatment, and substance use involve several people's privacy. Agreeing to speak with a professional is not agreement to be recorded or published, or to give relatives access to a phone or medical records. A kind intention does not give another adult the right to speak in someone's place.

A loved one can offer help, describe what they have already observed, and set their own limits around time, money, or housing. Decisions about an adult's care should involve that adult and take safety into account. Children must not become observers, keepers of adult secrets, or monitors of adults' use. Where violence occurs, protecting those harmed and contacting appropriate local safety services matters regardless of whether anyone is ready to discuss treatment.

Instead of blaming someone for another setback, a person might ask what has changed since the last conversation, what is already known about health and obligations, what benefit the person hoped for, and what support feels acceptable now. Hearing the answer does not require agreeing with every conclusion. People can try to describe what happened accurately without debating whether someone deserves help.

If someone wants to change their use, their goal can be discussed with a professional in light of the substance, health, and preferences involved. The CDC describes substance use disorders as treatable and emphasizes that one approach does not fit everyone. This article offers no abrupt self-discontinuation of prescribed medication or home “test of control.” Felt success and real consequences belong in the same conversation.

Locally available help may begin with a primary care clinician, mental health service, or addiction specialist. It is reasonable to ask whether a service accepts new people, serves the relevant age and substance, offers a usable language, what it costs, how long the wait is, and what stays private. These are questions for finding a workable route, not a required form before asking for help. An appointment is not yet care received; if someone's condition worsens, seek a faster local option.

If someone is receiving prescribed treatment, changes to medicine or dose belong in a discussion with the prescriber. Loved ones can offer support without coercion or surveillance; even when an adult declines, they can seek help for themselves and protect their own boundaries. Love, spiritual practice, a sense of meaning, or agreement with anyone's philosophy may matter personally, but none is a condition of medical care. Life continues before a perfect ending, and so does the right to help.

If it is safe and useful, these questions may prepare a conversation. Answers are not required to receive help. Do not create a new episode of use, stop medication, or enter a risky situation to answer them.

1. What changes have already occurred in health, work, relationships, and daily life, and what remains difficult?
2. What benefit does the person report, and what known consequences occur alongside it?
3. What does the person want to discuss now, and what do they wish to keep private?
4. What support is possible with an adult's consent, and what boundaries do loved ones and children need?
5. What local help is actually accessible by age, language, cost, wait, and privacy, and what known danger calls for urgent help?

1. Hystad J., Wangensteen T. Former inpatients’ narratives of substance use four years after substance use disorder treatment: A qualitative follow-up study. Published online in 2021, issue in 2022. Eleven interviews with former patients of one Norwegian program; thematic self-reports, not an assessment of the safety of particular use.
2. Schoenberger S. F. et al. “My Life Isn’t Defined by Substance Use”: Recovery Perspectives Among Young Adults with Substance Use Disorder. Published online in 2021, issue in 2022. Twenty interviews with treatment-engaged young adults in Boston; goals and perspectives, not a representative outcome for everyone.
3. Liebregts N. et al. Different phases of ATS use call for different interventions: a large qualitative study in Europe. 12 April 2022. Qualitative interviews with 237 people in five European countries across patterns of use; reported motives, not measured effectiveness or a universal diagnosis.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatment of Substance Use Disorders. 25 April 2024. US public health guidance on disorders and treatment options; neither an individual diagnosis nor a directory of local services elsewhere.

people's stories; addiction; substance use disorders; life after treatment; continuing use; reported benefit; recovery; quality of life; relationships; consent; professional help; safety.

Andrey Zarinsh — author and founder of United Wisdom. He explores inner transformation, the unity of traditions, intercultural dialogue, and contemporary spiritual discipline. Instagram: @andrey.zarinsh.

Maria Evilkut — co-author of United Wisdom. Alongside her research work, she seeks to test these ideas in practice and observe how principles of unity and mutual understanding work in real life between people and cultures. Instagram: @ilkutki.

Content checked: 14 October 2026. Language version: EN.