Re: The ultimate truth about addiction

[Guest guest]

Addiction to alcohol and other drugs is real and can be demonstrated with

animal models. Drug and alcohol addiction should not be confused with the

" addictions " that have been invented by researchers (who are addicted to

research dollars) and treatment providers (who are addicted to insurance

dollars and market share). Money is at the root of a lot of bad ideas.

[Guest guest]

Windows98? Whose point are you trying to prove?

[Guest guest]

money is also the source of a lot of good ideas

too...profit motive also spurns people to invent

things like...the automobile, Windows98, probably

alternate recovery books...

--- D0CT0Rdry@... wrote:

>

> Addiction to alcohol and other drugs is real and can

> be demonstrated with

> animal models. Drug and alcohol addiction should not

> be confused with the

> " addictions " that have been invented by researchers

> (who are addicted to

> research dollars) and treatment providers (who are

> addicted to insurance

> dollars and market share). Money is at the root of a

> lot of bad ideas.

>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Save 50% at MotherNature.com! See site for details.

> http://click./1/766/1/_/4324/_/948243009/

>

> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document

> Vault

> -- /docvault/12-step-free/?m=1

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11839

> Addiction to alcohol and other drugs is real and can be demonstrated

with

> animal models. Drug and alcohol addiction should not be confused with

the

> " addictions " that have been invented by researchers (who are addicted

to

> research dollars) and treatment providers (who are addicted to

insurance

> dollars and market share). Money is at the root of a lot of bad ideas.

Pretty hard to set up blackjack tables for mice, but I've heard that

rabbits sometimes over-indulge in sex.

[Guest guest]

Windows98 should probably be burnt along-side the big book, if not in it.

But that just my personal oppinion.

Mike M

At 05:31 PM 01/18/2000 -0800, you wrote:

>money is also the source of a lot of good ideas

>too...profit motive also spurns people to invent

>things like...the automobile, Windows98, probably

>alternate recovery books...

>

>--- D0CT0Rdry@... wrote:

>>

>> Addiction to alcohol and other drugs is real and can

>> be demonstrated with

>> animal models. Drug and alcohol addiction should not

>> be confused with the

>> " addictions " that have been invented by researchers

>> (who are addicted to

>> research dollars) and treatment providers (who are

>> addicted to insurance

>> dollars and market share). Money is at the root of a

>> lot of bad ideas.

>>

>>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Save 50% at MotherNature.com! See site for details.

>> http://click./1/766/1/_/4324/_/948243009/

>>

>> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document

>> Vault

>> -- /docvault/12-step-free/?m=1

>>

>>

>__________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

then whats stopping you from developing something

better than windows? or using another product? windows

sure beats using DOS

--- Mike May wrote:

>

> Windows98 should probably be burnt along-side the

> big book, if not in it.

> But that just my personal oppinion.

> Mike M

>

> At 05:31 PM 01/18/2000 -0800, you wrote:

> >money is also the source of a lot of good ideas

> >too...profit motive also spurns people to invent

> >things like...the automobile, Windows98, probably

> >alternate recovery books...

> >

> >--- D0CT0Rdry@... wrote:

> >>

> >> Addiction to alcohol and other drugs is real and

> can

> >> be demonstrated with

> >> animal models. Drug and alcohol addiction should

> not

> >> be confused with the

> >> " addictions " that have been invented by

> researchers

> >> (who are addicted to

> >> research dollars) and treatment providers (who

> are

> >> addicted to insurance

> >> dollars and market share). Money is at the root

> of a

> >> lot of bad ideas.

> >>

> >>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >> Save 50% at MotherNature.com! See site for

> details.

> >>

> http://click./1/766/1/_/4324/_/948243009/

> >>

> >> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document

> >> Vault

> >> --

> /docvault/12-step-free/?m=1

> >>

> >>

> >__________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

point I'm trying to state is that making money or the

profit motive is not inherently evil..the Bill Gates,

Henry Fords, Sears, Rockefellers, etc. are

more of a force for good than evil, created wealth for

themselves as well as millions of others...but they

are labelled as Bad or evil by many in our

society....most people use windows, correct? cars?

retail stores? do you think the inventors of these

products would have done so if they didn't have the

chance to make a fortune in the process?

,

--- D0CT0Rdry@... wrote:

>

> Windows98? Whose point are you trying to prove?

>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files

> and, access them from

> anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here

> for a chance to win a

> digital camera.

> http://click./1/337/1/_/4324/_/948248158/

>

> eGroups.com Home:

> /group/12-step-free/

> - Simplifying group

> communications

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11839

> Addiction to alcohol and other drugs is real and can be demonstrated

with

> animal models.

Oh no it cant. humans are vastly more complicated than rats and

rabbits. what may be true for them need not be for us. But in any

case, ironically, it is actually very HARD to produce addictvie

behavior in animals. Usually it requires isolating social animals in

tiny cages where puching a bar to get a hit or whatever is practically

the only thing they CAN do. When rats are in put in nice rat-friendly

environments, such as in the " Rat PArk " experiments, they actually

avoid opiate laced water, even if sweetened, rather than prefer it.

Humans are quintessentailly socal animals,, and addiction is a

complicated social construct rather than a biological disease. As

ever, read Stanton Peele for the facts.

Pathological Gambling is generally accepted as an addiction, and has a

DSM entry. (I havent time to respond to crticism of the DSM such as in

the link by TOmmy, but I could). What this shows is that there need be

no drug for a compulsive behavior to be acquired, as is aslo suggested

by evidence that alcholics tend to drink based on whether they think

they are drinking alcohol rather than whether they actually are, also

shown in experiment.

Btw, I get uncomfortable when a new poster pops up anonymously without

any kind of introduction. Anonymity doesnt have a too good reputation

round these parts. Know what I mean?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01/20/2000 5:31:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,

awatt04@... writes:

<<< Oh no it cant. humans are vastly more complicated than rats and

rabbits. what may be true for them need not be for us. >>>

Of course we are more complicated than animals, but at the cellular level and

biochemical level, we are much the same. Chemically, much the same thing

happens to a substance, a food or a drug, whether it is ingested by you or by

a rat.

<<<But in any case, ironically, it is actually very HARD to produce addictive

behavior in animals. Usually it requires isolating social animals in

tiny cages where puching a bar to get a hit or whatever is practically

the only thing they CAN do. >>>

But they can produce chemical addiction in animals by forcing them to ingest

chemicals, which is exactly why there is a difference between chemical

addiction and behavioral models of addiction.

<<<Humans are quintessentailly socal animals,, and addiction is a complicated

social construct rather than a biological disease. >>>

I don't think it is an either-or choice. If you have in mind the Alcoholism

Movement's (i.e., AA's) model of a " biological disease, " that too is part of

the problem. Chemical addiction may be viewed as a normal reaction to

ingesting too much of an addictive substance over too long of a time. This

simple view is an alternative to AA's view, which says something must be

wrong with the addict, and the behaviorist's view, which says nothing is

wrong with the substance.

<<< As ever, read Stanton Peele for the facts. >>>

Dr. Peele is a clever fellow and I enjoy his criticisms of AA, but I don't

agree that he has all the facts or the only point of view from which steppism

can be criticized. His LOVE AND ADDICTION actually started the whole craze to

" treat " non-chemical " addictions " with the AA model. Dr. Peele is a social

psychologist with no personal experience of chemical addiction. Having not

experienced it, he naturally discounts it, or just doesn't believe in it. I

don't think he has all the answers.

<< Pathological Gambling is generally accepted as an addiction, and has a

DSM entry. (I havent time to respond to crticism of the DSM such as in

the link by TOmmy, but I could). What this shows is that there need be

no drug for a compulsive behavior to be acquired, >>>

This is a tautology. You have defined a behavior as the same as a chemical

addiction, then argued that that shows something about chemical addiction.

If we simply define " compulsive behavior " as different from " chemical

addiction, " which it is in many important respects, we get a different

logical outcome.

<<<as is aslo suggested by evidence that alcholics tend to drink based on

whether they think they are drinking alcohol rather than whether they

actually are, also shown in experiment.>>>

This experiment has been shown to only work at low levels of alcohol intake.

Above the threshold where alcohol use becomes obvious, where the drug

actually takes effect, it doesn't work. This shouldn't surprise us if we use

our powers of simple observation and common sense rather than relying on the

" experts. " By logical extension of this famous experiment, one should only be

guilty of DWI if one thought he were intoxicated!

<<< Btw, I get uncomfortable when a new poster pops up anonymously without

any kind of introduction. Anonymity doesnt have a too good reputation

round these parts. Know what I mean?>>>

At this time, I prefer not to use my name on postings. Of course I will abide

by the rules if identification is a requirement for the list. Funny I got

signed on, though, without giving any name. If you want, you can contact me

off list and get my name.

[Guest guest]

What do you mean by an addictive substance, and why?

" Chemical addiction may be viewed as a normal reaction to ingesting too

much of an addictive substance over too long of a time. "

Regards

Krakatoa (aka Graham)

[Guest guest]

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11931

>

> But they can produce chemical addiction in animals by forcing them to

ingest

> chemicals, which is exactly why there is a difference between

chemical

> addiction and behavioral models of addiction.

Here is an interesting debate on chemical vs. behavioral.

Just click on " Debates " and you'll see it.

http://bomis.snap.com/rings/szasz/1

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01/21/2000 6:28:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,

krakatoa@... writes:

<< What do you mean by an addictive substance, and why?

>>

An addictive substance will cause habituation and withdrawal symptoms. A

common pattern can be observed where the user starts to use the substance

occasionally. Then in response to what is perceived to be a volition, a want

or desire (but which may be an early manifestation of cellular adaptation)

she increases the usage. When the user decides to stop, she experiences mild

or severe discomfort, in sever cases shock that requires medical attention.

This is withdrawal, which makes it difficult to quit. If the user quits

successfully, and her body recovers, she is much like others who have never

used, with the exception that if she goes back to occasional use, she is more

susceptible to the addiction cycle, and at an accelerated rate.

It is possible to blur the distinction between an addictive and a

non-addictive substance, but the above clearly applies to nicotine, the

opiates, and alcohol (which isn't to say that every user becomes and addict).

And at the same time, it clearly does not apply to cow's milk and chicken

soup (which isn't to say that even they can't become a fetish for some nut).

Unless we intentionally blur the difference, it is usually pretty obvious

what is and what isn't an addictive substance. And there is a fundamental

difference, I would say, between the artificial chemical changes that occur

as a result of ingesting a drug, and the chemical changes that are naturally

produced as a result of an activity.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01/21/2000 8:23:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

awatt04@... writes:

<< Oh no it didnt. As he does not endorse AA this would never have

happened on the basis of his work. There were many others, principally

Pia Mellody and Bradshaw, who got that ball rolling, but even then

AL-Anon, GA and OA appeared long before they got started

>>

Check out LOVE AND ADDICTION, author's preface, 1991: " naturally it is a sad

irony for us that our work contributed inadvertently to the labeling of yet

more 'diseases' over which people are 'powerless.' "

As for the rest, I can see that we're using the same words to talk about

different things. The behaviorist's view that drug addiction is merely a

behavior in which drugs are only incidentally involved is a view that I do

not share. Is it the purpose of the list to propagate only those views? I

thought the list was for those who are interested in finding workable

alternatives to 12-stepism, an area where I have an acute interest.

[Guest guest]

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

>

> Of course we are more complicated than animals, but at the cellular

level and

> biochemical level, we are much the same. Chemically, much the same

thing

> happens to a substance, a food or a drug, whether it is ingested by

you or by

> a rat.

Yes, but my BRAIN and MIND are very different. A culture of skin cells

will react the same way too, but they cant be " addicted " going crawling

round bars. You are merely describing chemical habituation; addiction

is about repeatedly returning to the drug or whatever, even after

complete detoxification. It's a *behavior*, a product of the

brain/mind, not a chemical state.

>

> But they can produce chemical addiction in animals by forcing them to

ingest

> chemicals, which is exactly why there is a difference between

chemical

> addiction and behavioral models of addiction.

But again, a chemical habituation is not addiction in the sense theat

expression is normally used; one can be chemically habituated to a drug

but not be addicted after withdrawal - this is seen over and over again

in numerous contexts.

>

> <<<Humans are quintessentailly socal animals,, and addiction is a

complicated

> social construct rather than a biological disease. >>>

>

> I don't think it is an either-or choice. If you have in mind the

Alcoholism

> Movement's (i.e., AA's) model of a " biological disease, " that too is

part of

> the problem. Chemical addiction may be viewed as a normal reaction to

> ingesting too much of an addictive substance over too long of a time.

This

> simple view is an alternative to AA's view, which says something must

be

> wrong with the addict, and the behaviorist's view, which says nothing

is

> wrong with the substance.

Ok, I will accept a *contributory factor* in the case of a drugs. But

this contributory factor is not *essential* - to dimiss behavioral

addictions that appear very similar in characteristics to chemical

addiction excepting that there is no drug, is mere snobbery, not

science.

> Dr. Peele is a clever fellow and I enjoy his criticisms of AA, but I

don't

> agree that he has all the facts or the only point of view from which

steppism

> can be criticized.

I didnt say that - I was talking abt the reality of how addiction

works, which is very different from mere chemical habituation.

> His LOVE AND ADDICTION actually started the whole craze to

> " treat " non-chemical " addictions " with the AA model.

Oh no it didnt. As he does not endorse AA this would never have

happened on the basis of his work. There were many others, principally

Pia Mellody and Bradshaw, who got that ball rolling, but even then

AL-Anon, GA and OA appeared long before they got started

> Dr. Peele is a social

> psychologist with no personal experience of chemical addiction.

Having not

> experienced it, he naturally discounts it, or just doesn't believe in

it.

Total non sequitir. A psychiatrist doesnt have to be schizophrenic to

accept there is schizophrenia. Imo its the ones that discount it, like

Szasz, who are nuts, buts thats another matter. In the case of

psychological disorders one is vastly better equipped to assess the

reality of them if one is NOT a sufferer, as the tool of reason, the

mind, is the very thing the disorders affect. Having been a sufferer on

the other hand will inevitably tend to make one put far too great a

store of ones individual experience and what rightly or wrongly one has

come to believe abt it, such as the AA-inspired garbage.

>

> << Pathological Gambling is generally accepted as an addiction, and

has a

> DSM entry. (I havent time to respond to crticism of the DSM such as

in

> the link by TOmmy, but I could). What this shows is that there need

be

> no drug for a compulsive behavior to be acquired, >>>

>

> This is a tautology. You have defined a behavior as the same as a

chemical

> addiction, then argued that that shows something about chemical

addiction.

NO it is not. Anti-depressants are not addictive, even though one

becomes chemically habituated to them and withdrawal is unpleasant.

Abuse of antidepressants is virtually unknown. Maybe I am " addicted "

because I mighgt take them for life and my quality of life is poor if I

stop taaking them, but what kind of " addiction " is this? It is absurd

to talk of an addiction which tremendously *improves*a person's life

with minimal or no drawbacks. SO chemical habituation is *not* the

issue, it is repeated use despite negative consequences that defines

addiction, and that can apply to gambling and many other things. As

this is the case, it is a mistake to concentrate on chemical

habituation, as this is not the significant facrtor.

> If we simply define " compulsive behavior " as different from " chemical

> addiction, " which it is in many important respects, we get a

different

> logical outcome.

But *why* should we define it so? Chemical habituation is neither

necessary or sufficient for compulsive behavior, so why make such a big

deal of it?

>

> <<<as is aslo suggested by evidence that alcholics tend to drink

based on

> whether they think they are drinking alcohol rather than whether they

> actually are, also shown in experiment.>>>

>

> This experiment has been shown to only work at low levels of alcohol

intake.

> Above the threshold where alcohol use becomes obvious, where the drug

> actually takes effect, it doesn't work. This shouldn't surprise us if

we use

> our powers of simple observation and common sense rather than relying

on the

> " experts. " By logical extension of this famous experiment, one should

only be

> guilty of DWI if one thought he were intoxicated!

A non sequitir. I could debate this, but it probably isnt worth the

mileage. What matters is there is clear evidence for the role of

belief in an addict's behavior, so simple description in terms of

chemical intoxication and habituation is *not* an accurate description

of addiction.

> At this time, I prefer not to use my name on postings. Of course I

will abide

> by the rules if identification is a requirement for the list. Funny I

got

> signed on, though, without giving any name. If you want, you can

contact me

> off list and get my name.

There is not a formal requirement, but I consider it a common courtesy,

at least to give a pseudonym if you wish to be anonymous. But

considering you are giving no personal information except perhaps by

implication that you have at some time been substance dependent, I

wonder why you need anonymity. You havent presented yourself as

someone with an interest in the purposes of this list, merely wished to

propogate a very narow view of addiction. May I ask why you wish to be

on this list?

[Guest guest]

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11945

> Check out LOVE AND ADDICTION, author's preface, 1991: " naturally it

is a sad

> irony for us that our work contributed inadvertently to the labeling

of yet

> more 'diseases' over which people are 'powerless.' "

CONTRIBUTED - not started. But in any case the author's disown this,

so what?

> As for the rest, I can see that we're using the same words to talk

about

> different things. The behaviorist's view that drug addiction is

merely a

> behavior in which drugs are only incidentally involved is a view that

I do

> not share. Is it the purpose of the list to propagate only those

views?

No-one is doing it. I havent - I have conceded some role for chemical

habituation, but not a central, and certainly not a definitive one.

This list isnt to propogate your views either though - we all have our

opinions, and we are free to state them and disagree with those of

others, as we have been doing.

> I

> thought the list was for those who are interested in finding workable

> alternatives to 12-stepism, an area where I have an acute interest.

That is one possible purpose, but IIRC it is primarily about getting

away form XA, or coping with a loved one's participation, voluntary or

otherwise. While there is indeed discussion of alternatives here, the

very belief that one needs *anything* to recover from an addiction,

rather than just simply stopping it, is itself an idea which some feel

is a part of XA which they do not agree with.

By all means ask or talk about alternatives if you wish - so far you

haven't done so, it's entirely up to you.

I find it odd that you indicate a willingness to reveal your real name

privately, while not even willing to choose a pseudonym here. Going by

your addy, I will refer to you as " doc " if that is acceptable to you.

[Guest guest]

" tommy perkins " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11933

>

> Here is an interesting debate on chemical vs. behavioral.

>

> Just click on " Debates " and you'll see it.

>

> http://bomis.snap.com/rings/szasz/1

An interesting snippet from that debate:

DR. SCHOTTENFELD: Let me follow up just by a question

about how you think about and would respond to an addict who,

for instance, has neglected his children and is now desperate to

overcome addiction and become a good parent? Do you think that

treatment should be made available to that person? Do you think

that society should conduct research to improve drug abuse

treatment and to make treatment available?

DR. SZASZ: Well, you are asking many, many questions:

whether or not it is a function of the government to provide

treatment for diseases which are bona fide diseases, and then to

provide treatment for what are not diseases but are politically

defined as diseases. It's difficult for me to discuss this subject

without reminding people of the audience that masturbation, self

abuse, was for 200 years the leading psychiatric disease before it

was replaced by drug abuse. So these are not diseases.

[Guest guest]

" Doc " is fine. I haven't denied the importance of beliefs or mental

processes, either. For some affairs, they are more important than the

physical facts. But the cental fact of drug addiction, it seems to me, is

the drug's ability to addict, meaning that it becomes necessary for

homeostasis, for feeling " normal. " " Recovery " means dealing with that. To

deny the role of drugs in drug addiction is a view that, it seems to me, only

an academic could love. Of course, you seem not to agree, and you are

certainly not alone. I suggest that it is easier to recover without

*anything* if one places a good share of the responsibility for addiction on

the drugs. Get them out of your life, and you have recovered, you don't need

any social or behavioral psychologists. Of course, they are available if

wanted, but I hate to see the choice limited to AA on the one hand and the

behaviorists' philosophy on the other. Maybe there are others on this list

who could benefit from that third view, maybe not.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tommy, folks

Tx for this link - I enjoyed reading it. Szasz, Schaler and

certainly wiped the floor with the opposition imo - though they were

helped by having one of the opposition effectively arguing for their

side. As I've indicated before, I am by no means a great fan of Szasz,

or Schaler either - but they really looked good here, although that

cold be the result of the porr quality of the opposition, who came out

with almost contradictory ideas at certain points, three of which were:

1) Addiction is the result of a genetic susceptibility.

2) Addiction results from chemical changes in the brain as a result of

using.

3) Kids get addicted as a result of peer pressure.

Regarding " doc's " original comment, I am reminded of how monstrously

stereotypical behaviors often emerge in captive animals in zoos when in

too small or unstimulating environments; at Regents Park zoo in London,

which is by no means the worst, I've seen everything from shrews to

polar bears engage in repetitive behavior that looks like it goes on

all day - in really bad environmets, it can include pulling out of fur

or feathers and other self-injury, without any drug to compel them to

do it. also its hardly surprising that they will shoot themselves up

with heroin on whatever in such conditions if given the chance - and

these conditions are much richer than those normally in addiction

experiments. The stress of the lab environe,ment created the chemical

imbalance in the brain that they desperately medicate to try to

restore. Such animals often respond to Prozac - as humans do.

P.

" tommy perkins " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=11933

> d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=119

31

>

> >

> > But they can produce chemical addiction in animals by forcing them

to

> ingest

> > chemicals, which is exactly why there is a difference between

> chemical

> > addiction and behavioral models of addiction.

>

> Here is an interesting debate on chemical vs. behavioral.

>

> Just click on " Debates " and you'll see it.

>

> http://bomis.snap.com/rings/szasz/1

>

>

[Guest guest]

i didn't think psychiatry had been around for that long?

-annette

>on Fri, 21 Jan 2000 22:38:38 -0800

> " Pete Watts " wrote:

>In-Reply-To: <86a0d1$85n3eGroups>

>X-Mailing-List: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: The ultimate truth about addiction

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Content-Type: text/plain

>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[snippage]

>DR. SZASZ: Well, you are asking many, many questions:

>whether or not it is a function of the government to provide

>treatment for diseases which are bona fide diseases, and then to

>provide treatment for what are not diseases but are politically

>defined as diseases. It's difficult for me to discuss this subject

>without reminding people of the audience that masturbation, self

>abuse, was for 200 years the leading psychiatric disease before it

>was replaced by drug abuse. So these are not diseases.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01/22/2000 12:37:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

joe-b@... writes:

<< I wasn't chemically addicted to anything, I just dropped pills all

the time every day, and often ended up unconscious or in hospital. >>

This is a very interesting perspective.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 01/22/2000 12:56:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wgt@... writes:

<< I had

habituation (increased tolerance over time with regular use) and I certainly

had withdrawal symptoms. >>

I think that fits the model pretty good, but that's your call. I was hoping

for a response something like yours, because I said it but didn't emphasize

it. You need to get the booze and drugs out of your LIFE not just out of your

body. I'm sure people return to alcohol and other drugs for a number of

reasons, but one of them is that it's the best life they know. Building a new

life that's more rewarding than the booze or drug filled life is recovery.

[Guest guest]

At 06:46 22/01/00 -0500, you wrote:

> " Doc " is fine. I haven't denied the importance of beliefs or mental

>processes, either. For some affairs, they are more important than the

>physical facts. But the cental fact of drug addiction, it seems to me, is

>the drug's ability to addict, meaning that it becomes necessary for

>homeostasis, for feeling " normal. "

It's interesting. I used drugs in a chaotic and damaging way for 18 years,

but it was only the last half of that that involved " addiction " - in my case

it was opiates. The first half was a lot more dangerous than the second

half but I wasn't chemically addicted to anything, I just dropped pills all

the time every day, and often ended up unconscious or in hospital. I got

bruises, burns and broken bones. I would classify both the first 9 years of

being an indiscriminate pill consumer, and the subsequent nine years of

being an " opiate addict " as being essentially the same thing- drug

dependence. In retrospect it seems that the physical component with the

opiates was a complicating factor but not of any huge significance. The key

to the behaviour I think is that during the first nine years I was keenly

aware of a feeling that I couldn't stand to be straight.

> " Recovery " means dealing with that. To

>deny the role of drugs in drug addiction is a view that, it seems to me, only

>an academic could love. Of course, you seem not to agree, and you are

>certainly not alone. I suggest that it is easier to recover without

>*anything* if one places a good share of the responsibility for addiction on

>the drugs.

This doesn't seem to explain drug dependency, just physical addiction. Most

people I know who were " drug dependent " either had a physical addiction

like I did- some of the time, or didn't have that " addiction " at all, but

still seemed unable or unwilling to live without taking drugs and causing

themselves all sorts of damage in the process. The physical addiction

seemed to be mostly an irrelevance, except of course it made things a bit

more awkward. The overall effect on the person's life seems the same- if

anything some registered opiate addicts seemed to be more stable and less

likely to inadvertently harm themselves because they mostly concentrate on

one kind of drug and are not endlessly experimenting with painkillers,

tranquilisers, sleepers, barbiturates, hypnotics and so on, where an

ill-advised combination can put you into a dangerous blackout or overdose.

> Get them out of your life, and you have recovered, you don't need

>any social or behavioral psychologists. Of course, they are available if

>wanted, but I hate to see the choice limited to AA on the one hand and the

>behaviorists' philosophy on the other. Maybe there are others on this list

>who could benefit from that third view, maybe not.

Joe B.

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

> " Doc " is fine. I haven't denied the importance of beliefs or mental

>processes, either. For some affairs, they are more important than the

>physical facts. But the cental fact of drug addiction, it seems to me, is

>the drug's ability to addict, meaning that it becomes necessary for

>homeostasis, for feeling " normal. "

Here is why some of us are dubious about your 'physiological' explanation of

addiction. You had said:

" << What do you mean by an addictive substance, and why?

>>

An addictive substance will cause habituation and withdrawal symptoms. "

That's fine -- habituation and withdrawal are observable. But then when you

go on to claim that this means that when someone uses an addictive drug, it

becomes necessary to continue using the drug in order to feel 'normal',

there is a grand leap of faith... The whole question is whether the physical

'addictiveness' is what leads to the repeated destructive use.

In terms of my own experience, the idea that I had problems with alcohol

because of its 'addictiveness', in your sense, doesn't seem to work. I had

habituation (increased tolerance over time with regular use) and I certainly

had withdrawal symptoms. But I found that the more severe the withdrawal,

the less inclined I was to drink in order to make it stop!

The thing is, after I had abstained for a matter of days, weeks, months, or

years, I would still keep going back. The only explanation I have been able

to come up with is that I liked to drink! Another factor, I think, is that

the disease theory, and the 'AA powerlessness', made it easier to justify.

Btw, there is nothing at all wrong with anonymity on this list.

--wally