Re: Re: ragge

[Guest guest]

I don't think there is anything 'deeper than that'?

What do you mean, exactly, by 'deeper'? Spiritual disease?

Re: ragge

>

>

> >

> > > That's something isn't it? Did the sight of the button

> > > relieve some of your pain as well as the anxiety?

> > >

> > > I'm hearing (and reading) a fair number of accounts

> > > involving drinkers/druggies who have anxiety, anger,

> > > depression, etc. When they decide to imbibe, swallow,

> > > and/or shoot-up... voila! they often feel better,

> > > sometimes euphoric even before their blood carries the

> > > substance of choice.

> >

> > Yep, saw something on TV with a drug rehab program that made junkies

> > go through the whole process involved, leading upto IV injection -

> > Each time getting nearer and nearer. The object was to let people

> > experience this " pre-high " (?), yet know that they didn't *HAVE* to

> > administer the drug itself. It has previously been noted that the

> > quality of many street drugs are so low that there is almost no

> > active constituent is present - People still get high though :-)

> >

> > As an ex-drunk, I noticed this relief at giving myself permission to

> > go to the liquor store. In early sobriety I did continued to buy my

> > cigarettes at the liquor store, just to learn to cope with that

> > feeling. Eventually " living dangerously " (?) lost it's attraction and

> > I gave up smoking anyway ;-) But, I think though, the process of

> > living in the problem <g> is important - the element of surprise is

> > lost. I always felt that a lot of AA's put themselves in danger from

> > relapse, first by avoidance, then by increasing the " power " of

> > alcohol, only to find themselves suddenly with the opportunity.

> >

> > Towards the end of my AA experience, meetings were about the *only*

> > time and place where I felt a significant " anticipatory pleasure " in

> > hearing all the drunkalogs and an increasing(!) desire to drink. For

> > me it was certainly among the good reasons for leaving.

> >

> > Mack

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Ken

sorry I have not done more on your 'reviews'. I will try to do it.

Just never thought about a formal evaluation of the book before, and have

not had time.

On your monster study, I did not see it as very relevant. Stuttering is

complex, and that situation seems highly aberrent. What you seem to

suggest, and what Alice does suggest, is that culturally normative

parenting is to be equated with concentration camp treatment. That is an

extreme view, one I find ridiculous, and one unsupported by research.

Terrible treatment can have effects, in children AND in adults. But most

children are not treated terribly, and people are a lot more resilient than

you allow. The child is NOT the father of the man, and the parents are not

even the main force in shaping the child (peer groups seem to have more

influence than do parents, for example).

But all of this is rather far away from my own special interests, and even

further from my limited expertise. I do know something of claims that

Hitler's child abuse led to Nazism, which is a patently ridiculous claim

supported by NO expert on Nazism or fascism. But even in this area, my

knowledge is avocational, not expert.

So, all I can say on your stuttering study is 1) it is a newspaper report,

and one would have to look a lot more closely at the general problem of

speech disorders, institutionalization, and the mechanics of that particular

study to evaluate it properly, 2) the newspaper report was too narrow in its

concerns, and 3) it seems to have little relevance to the vast spread of

'addictions' (aka dis-eases), and the rise of 'spirituality' as a means of

combatting these.

On another point, I am planning to be in Mexico for 3 or 4 weeks. I have

been trying to switch my subscription so that I only read on line, and thus

won't overload my incoming when I am away. Suggestions as to how this can

be done? I have changed my subscription profile with Yahoo, but still get

the e-mail.

Re: ragge

> > > >

> > > > Our differences are not specific enough to

> > > be

> > > > 'ideological'. They are

> > > > basic, and driven by one, single value:

> > > >

> > > > You insist 'addiction' results from a

> > > flaw inside the

> > > > individual.

> > > >

> > > > I insist that bad habits (NOT

> > > 'addictions'!) result from

> > > > flawed, though

> > > > understandable, attempts to adjust to social

> > > stress and

> > > > social pain.

> > > >

> > > > That is the entire debate.

> > > >

> > > > Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there.

> > > I insist it is

> > > > neither. People become chemically dependent due

> > > to habituated

> > > > pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys

> > > are dead wrong. DT

> > >

> > > ,

> > >

> > > Do you think it is always " habituated pleasure

> > > seeking. " Did you read

> > > Mona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies

> > > that struck her that

> > > led her to excessive drinking?

> > >

> > > It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone

> > > whose spouse dies to

> > > begin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do

> > > you think it is a

> > > correct characterize them as " pleasure seeking " ?

> > > The truth of the

> > > matter is that they are trying to escape terrible

> > > pain.

> > >

> > > Ken

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

It's quite logical to me why people drink. For the specific effects caused by the drinking. In those who do it repeatedly and sacrifice so much, it must be a profound pleasure, and all my empirical observation has born this out. The excuse systems are what many buy into on the interpersonal level (psychological) and the interpersonal level (sociological).

I know for a fact that that is not what happened in my case. For most of my adult life I did imbibe alcohol for reasons of pleasure, but usually with a degree of moderation. However, beginning in early 1998 I imbibed for reasons of self-medication. The amount of psychic pain I was in was unmanageable, and I literally could not stand to be awake and conscious unless I was either: (1) deeply engaged with a legal question that absorbed all of my mental energy by day, or (2) numbed with alcohol by night.

I drank at that time for the same reason many people are prescribed benzodiazapines in the wake of a child's death, and in my case that event was coupled with the end of a long-term marriage and abandonment by my best friend and business partner. It is not a coincidence that my drinking become ridiculously extreme at that particular time, as opposed to any other.

It is hard for me to address this issue, because I feel a bit as I imagine an Auschwitz survivor does when someone denies that the Holocaust occurred -- not that I am by any means comparing my trials to the obscenity of Auschwitz. It is just that this is the only situation I can think of where people are frequently confronted with vigorous denial of their worst suffering. Please understand that when you indicate a belief that I began drinking so heavily simply because I was pleasure-seeking, that feels like a trivialization of the worst events and most painful trauma I have ever undergone. I suffer still from what shrinks call post traumatic stress disorder (not sure I even accept there is such a thing, but it is undeniable that there has been something very wrong with my affect since I was inundated by personal tragedies with no opportunity to breath in-between).

Whatever theories you have read about the pleasure-seeking motive for drinking may or may not have broad applicability. But they are not always true, and I know this for certain, because it was not true for me.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

--- Mike wrote:

> By deeper, I mean if you are truly physically

> addicted to a drug, engaging

> in drug use rituals is not going to relieve the

> desire for drugs-only a

> chemical influx of the 'drug of choice' is going to

> bring about biochemical

> satisfaction.

But that seems to be what happens at times, even for a

herion addict. I've read accounts from longtime users

in the throws of involuntary withdrawel who feel

better, sometimes completely, when they know they will

soon score again. It may not last but would this not

be a form of biochemical satisfaction? The chemical

agent in this case is internally self-produced then

released, rather than injected.

If that theory in your post would

> work, then a heroin addict

> who scored crappy dope would be satisfied with

> whatever garbage he

> injected or inhaled, regardless of whether it

> contained heroin or not-That

> is FAR from the way it is. Mike.

Not necessarily. Isn't satisfaction here measured by

the degree thats described by the reporter? Again the

will to quit may still be exercised, albeit with

temporarily discomforting consequences. And what about

possible placebo effects?

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Re: ragge

Our differences are not specific enough to be 'ideological'. They arebasic, and driven by one, single value: You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the individual. I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from flawed, thoughunderstandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and social pain. That is the entire debate.

Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. I insist it is neither. People become chemically dependent due to habituated pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys are dead wrong.

DT

[Guest guest]

Quite So. I think sometimes strength of opinion is inversely proportional to personal experience... was true in AA too.

Yes, and in a situation where A declares that doing X is always motivated by Y, it requires only one person, B, to prove that A is in error, if it is the case that B did X for non-Y motive, and B is credible in his/her claim.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: ragge

It's quite logical to me why people drink. For the specific effects caused by the drinking. In those who do it repeatedly and sacrifice so much, it must be a profound pleasure, and all my empirical observation has born this out. The excuse systems are what many buy into on the interpersonal level (psychological) and the interpersonal level (sociological).

snip

Please understand that when you indicate a belief that I began drinking so heavily simply because I was pleasure-seeking, that feels like a trivialization of the worst events and most painful trauma I have ever undergone.

snip

Whatever theories you have read about the pleasure-seeking motive for drinking may or may not have broad applicability. But they are not always true, and I know this for certain, because it was not true for me. --Mona--

My belief is that drunkeness itself is a trivialization of whatever serious life event a person may be using as an excuse for getting drunk.

I have yet to meet an alcohol dependent person who could report upon a specific episode of drinking that did not include a very real period of sensual and mood altering pleasure.

DT

[Guest guest]

My belief is that drunkeness itself is a trivialization of whatever serious life event a person may be using as an excuse for getting drunk.

I have yet to meet an alcohol dependent person who could report upon a specific episode of drinking that did not include a very real period of sensual and mood altering pleasure.

Well of course when drinking there was an initial period of euphoria, but that ends and then it is simply numbness. But drinking is NOT a trivialization of a traumatic event. It operates as an anesthetic, just as it did during the American Civil war when the wounded were made drunk to control pain, just as human beings have done for millennia until the advent of modern anesthesia.

Psychic pain can also be anesthetized with alcohol. I ask you again, for those of us who commence deranged levels of drinking in the wake of trauma, do you REALLY think we are ALL looking for an "excuse" to get drunk? You don't think an inability to tolerate one's own thoughts and feelings has ANYTHING to do with it? And if you are correct, then why, once I was made to understand that I could instead take medication to hold the psychic pain within manageable bounds, did I quit drinking? (The meds provide no pleasure, they merely reduce the severity of pain.)

My grief counselor was on prescription Xanax for the two years after her daughter was killed. Did she also use her daughter's death as an "excuse, " in her case for the pleasure of Xanax?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona, sweet dreams................tears.

Was writing you a long whatever and the computer shut-down

Well thank you, Charlie. And I know how very freaking frustrating it is when the 'puter does that. A month or so ago I had drafted a post for a debate forum, cutting and pasting information from various web sites, and then just as I was spell-checking, the connection was lost, and with it my post that I spent more than 30 minutes writing.

Ladies can curse like drunken sailors in a whorehouse, at times...<smile>

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

paul diener wrote:

> Ken

>

> sorry I have not done more on your 'reviews'. I will try to do it.

> Just never thought about a formal evaluation of the book before, and have

> not had time.

>

> On your monster study, I did not see it as very relevant. Stuttering is

> complex, and that situation seems highly aberrent. What you seem to

> suggest, and what Alice does suggest, is that culturally normative

> parenting is to be equated with concentration camp treatment. That is an

> extreme view, one I find ridiculous, and one unsupported by research.

And one you seem to have made up out of thin air. But I can understand your

fondness for straw men.

>

>

> Terrible treatment can have effects, in children AND in adults. But most

> children are not treated terribly, and people are a lot more resilient than

> you allow. The child is NOT the father of the man, and the parents are not

> even the main force in shaping the child (peer groups seem to have more

> influence than do parents, for example).

Then, following your reasoning, all cultures must be the same because everyone

is influenced by peers who are influenced by peers, rather than intergeneration

transfers of culture (as has recently been found to occur in chimpanzees and

other primates).

>

>

> But all of this is rather far away from my own special interests, and even

> further from my limited expertise. I do know something of claims that

> Hitler's child abuse led to Nazism, which is a patently ridiculous claim

> supported by NO expert on Nazism or fascism. But even in this area, my

> knowledge is avocational, not expert.

Actually, they do support it, but rather unwittingly. They will refer to

something like his drunken father beating him but then follow it up with " but

he wasn't beaten any more than the rest of Germans at that time. "

>

>

> So, all I can say on your stuttering study is 1) it is a newspaper report,

> and one would have to look a lot more closely at the general problem of

> speech disorders, institutionalization, and the mechanics of that particular

> study to evaluate it properly, 2) the newspaper report was too narrow in its

> concerns, and 3) it seems to have little relevance to the vast spread of

> 'addictions' (aka dis-eases), and the rise of 'spirituality' as a means of

> combatting these.

Have you considered the broad effects of the tremendous growth in population

over the last century?

>

>

> On another point, I am planning to be in Mexico for 3 or 4 weeks. I have

> been trying to switch my subscription so that I only read on line, and thus

> won't overload my incoming when I am away. Suggestions as to how this can

> be done? I have changed my subscription profile with Yahoo, but still get

> the e-mail.

I'll change your subscription profile at this end. Let me know if it doesn't

work.

Ken

>

>

> Re: ragge

> > > > >

> > > > > Our differences are not specific enough to

> > > > be

> > > > > 'ideological'. They are

> > > > > basic, and driven by one, single value:

> > > > >

> > > > > You insist 'addiction' results from a

> > > > flaw inside the

> > > > > individual.

> > > > >

> > > > > I insist that bad habits (NOT

> > > > 'addictions'!) result from

> > > > > flawed, though

> > > > > understandable, attempts to adjust to social

> > > > stress and

> > > > > social pain.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is the entire debate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there.

> > > > I insist it is

> > > > > neither. People become chemically dependent due

> > > > to habituated

> > > > > pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys

> > > > are dead wrong. DT

> > > >

> > > > ,

> > > >

> > > > Do you think it is always " habituated pleasure

> > > > seeking. " Did you read

> > > > Mona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies

> > > > that struck her that

> > > > led her to excessive drinking?

> > > >

> > > > It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone

> > > > whose spouse dies to

> > > > begin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do

> > > > you think it is a

> > > > correct characterize them as " pleasure seeking " ?

> > > > The truth of the

> > > > matter is that they are trying to escape terrible

> > > > pain.

> > > >

> > > > Ken

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > __________________________________________________

> > >

[Guest guest]

In my opinion what you describe is not physical addiction, just trying to

break a habit of doing something that gives you pleasure. Addiction is

deeper than that. Mike.

Re: ragge

>

> > That's something isn't it? Did the sight of the button

> > relieve some of your pain as well as the anxiety?

> >

> > I'm hearing (and reading) a fair number of accounts

> > involving drinkers/druggies who have anxiety, anger,

> > depression, etc. When they decide to imbibe, swallow,

> > and/or shoot-up... voila! they often feel better,

> > sometimes euphoric even before their blood carries the

> > substance of choice.

>

> Yep, saw something on TV with a drug rehab program that made junkies

> go through the whole process involved, leading upto IV injection -

> Each time getting nearer and nearer. The object was to let people

> experience this " pre-high " (?), yet know that they didn't *HAVE* to

> administer the drug itself. It has previously been noted that the

> quality of many street drugs are so low that there is almost no

> active constituent is present - People still get high though :-)

>

> As an ex-drunk, I noticed this relief at giving myself permission to

> go to the liquor store. In early sobriety I did continued to buy my

> cigarettes at the liquor store, just to learn to cope with that

> feeling. Eventually " living dangerously " (?) lost it's attraction and

> I gave up smoking anyway ;-) But, I think though, the process of

> living in the problem <g> is important - the element of surprise is

> lost. I always felt that a lot of AA's put themselves in danger from

> relapse, first by avoidance, then by increasing the " power " of

> alcohol, only to find themselves suddenly with the opportunity.

>

> Towards the end of my AA experience, meetings were about the *only*

> time and place where I felt a significant " anticipatory pleasure " in

> hearing all the drunkalogs and an increasing(!) desire to drink. For

> me it was certainly among the good reasons for leaving.

>

> Mack

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Precisely. This exposes a myth about addiction; that

relief happens AFTER the drug is taken. In your

examples relief happens prior to drug/alcohol

ingestion. If the pain or depression is no longer

there, then why decide to ingest anyway? To feel

better, relief, pleasure? Or is it to feel EVEN

better, MORE relief, GREATER pleasure, etc?

Speaking only for myself, the continued drinking was to ensure that sobriety did not break through with its attendant pain, and also to make sure that I passed out until morning and was not stuck sleepless with very painful thoughts. And altho there was *some relief prior to the ingestion, that was due to the comfort of knowing numbness was imminent, and that the pain I had been feeling all day was soon to be banished. It was my goal to remain anesthetized all night, and I succeeded.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> Ken

> Yes, I do think it is always habituated pleasure seeking. The

> excuse system has exquisite variety and is the consumate

> opportunist.

,

There has been no mention of criminal behavior. " Excuse system " ?

Sounds not a little bit moralistic to me. What and whose authority

requires an excuse, no less an excuse system?

> But by the time that first sip slides down the

> esophagus whatever painful excuse had been there is

> essentially gone. I know this may sound presumptive to many,

> but I've discussed this with hundreds of people who

> acknowledge that this is the case. Only a very few reported

> their " pain " still had import at the time of the first

> swallow, and even those, a much dimished import compared to

> the " pain " that led them to decide to drink earlier.

But the _idea_ of relief from pain, physical or emotional, often does

relieve the feelings temporarily. For example, someone who is depressed

decides to go to a therapist and the depression " magically " lifts before

the first session. Is this because the depression is only an _excuse_

to go to a therapist?

What about the heroin addicts who, when going through withdrawal, are

given (unbeknownst to them that it is just saline) a shot of simple

saline solution and they are fine.

Or the students in a study who _believe_ they are drinking and begin

acting and experiencing themselves as " under the influence. "

The list can go on and on. The situation (and human behavior) is much

more complex than probably even the weather.

I might also ask, why does, when someone asks hundreds, or even

thousands of AAs, they all respond " AA saved my life " ? Is it really

because AA saved their life?

> It's quite logical to me why people drink. For the specific effects

caused by the

> drinking.

Is it so much because of _actual_ effects from the alcohol or is it from

the _expected_ effects?

> In those who do it repeatedly and sacrifice so much, it must be a

> profound pleasure, and all my empirical observation has born this

out. The

> excuse systems are what many buy into on the intrapersonal level

(psychological)

> and the interpersonal level (sociological).

> Excuses for getting drunk are made to minimize the losses in other

areas of life.

> DT

> PS. For nondependent drinkers, the reason is essentially the

> same - pleasure seeking without habituation.

[Guest guest]

>

> There has been no mention of criminal behavior.

> " Excuse system " ?

> Sounds not a little bit moralistic to me. What and

> whose authority

> requires an excuse, no less an excuse system?

The user only; the one who decides once and for all

that quitting is the preferred choice. This is indeed

a self-judgement. The individual refers to any

internalized value that supports the choice.

> > But by the time that first sip slides down the

> > esophagus whatever painful excuse had been there

> is

> > essentially gone. I know this may sound

> presumptive to many,

> > but I've discussed this with hundreds of people

> who

> > acknowledge that this is the case. Only a very

> few reported

> > their " pain " still had import at the time of the

> first

> > swallow, and even those, a much dimished import

> compared to

> > the " pain " that led them to decide to drink

> earlier.

>

> But the _idea_ of relief from pain, physical or

> emotional, often does

> relieve the feelings temporarily.

Precisely. This exposes a myth about addiction; that

relief happens AFTER the drug is taken. In your

examples relief happens prior to drug/alcohol

ingestion. If the pain or depression is no longer

there, then why decide to ingest anyway? To feel

better, relief, pleasure? Or is it to feel EVEN

better, MORE relief, GREATER pleasure, etc?

> someone who is depressed

> decides to go to a therapist and the depression

> " magically " lifts before

> the first session. Is this because the depression

> is only an _excuse_

> to go to a therapist?

Not necessarily. If depression is endogenous, then

there's nothing immoral about seeking medical

treatment for on-going relief.

>

> What about the heroin addicts who, when going

> through withdrawal, are

> given (unbeknownst to them that it is just saline) a

> shot of simple

> saline solution and they are fine.

Why not then, after the fact, explain the ruse to

them? Those who think it's right for themselves to

quit may do so more readily, and with greater resolve,

than if they are told they have a disease.

> Or the students in a study who _believe_ they are

> drinking and begin

> acting and experiencing themselves as " under the

> influence. "

In reality, would you want to do this? Say students

are at a frat party, you fool them into drinking only

water, but they are particurly gullible and believe it

to be vodka. They start acting drunk. Are you gonna

tell 'em to get behind the wheel of a car? No, tell

them the truth. Hopefully, they'll snap out of it.

> The list can go on and on. The situation (and human

> behavior) is much

> more complex than probably even the weather.

>

> I might also ask, why does, when someone asks

> hundreds, or even

> thousands of AAs, they all respond " AA saved my

> life " ? Is it really

> because AA saved their life?

Of course not. They save themselves despite whatever

baloney they pick up at a meeting.

> Is it so much because of _actual_ effects from the

> alcohol or is it from

> the _expected_ effects?

Why is this relevant? Once drinking/drugging occurs,

it's probably a safe bet that the expected effects

will become the actual effects.

Of course the human brain is complex but endless

debate about this complexity can and often does

support the drinking/drugging behavior. I experienced

this first hand as a former addict (booze was my

vehicle)

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: ragge

> Ken> Yes, I do think it is always habituated pleasure seeking. The> excuse system has exquisite variety and is the consumate> opportunist.,There has been no mention of criminal behavior. "Excuse system"?Sounds not a little bit moralistic to me. What and whose authorityrequires an excuse, no less an excuse system?

[ Excuse does require at least two parties, so if there is no internal ambivalence or other person involved, the issue of an excuse doesn't even arise. ]> But by the time that first sip slides down the> esophagus whatever painful excuse had been there is> essentially gone. I know this may sound presumptive to many,> but I've discussed this with hundreds of people who> acknowledge that this is the case. Only a very few reported> their "pain" still had import at the time of the first> swallow, and even those, a much dimished import compared to> the "pain" that led them to decide to drink earlier.But the _idea_ of relief from pain, physical or emotional, often doesrelieve the feelings temporarily. For example, someone who is depresseddecides to go to a therapist and the depression "magically" lifts beforethe first session.

Is this because the depression is only an _excuse_to go to a therapist?

[ Is there a habituated pattern of seeking first sessions with therapists? ]What about the heroin addicts who, when going through withdrawal, aregiven (unbeknownst to them that it is just saline) a shot of simplesaline solution and they are fine.

Or the students in a study who _believe_ they are drinking and beginacting and experiencing themselves as "under the influence."

[ Or the other group that was given alcohol after being told it was nonalcoholic fluid. They didn't get as high. ]

The list can go on and on. The situation (and human behavior) is muchmore complex than probably even the weather.I might also ask, why does, when someone asks hundreds, or eventhousands of AAs, they all respond "AA saved my life"? Is it reallybecause AA saved their life?

[ I agree, people can be fooled by others even to the point of taking it on faith, but how do you fool yourself about something so basic as a profound sensual pleasure? ]> It's quite logical to me why people drink. For the specific effectscaused by the> drinking.Is it so much because of _actual_ effects from the alcohol or is it fromthe _expected_ effects?

[ I believe a better question would be "Is it so much because of the _positive_ effects from the alcohol or is it from discounting the _negative_ effects?" But even that question is not too useful because it doesn't address the real issue. The positive effects are for sure, the negative effects are only a possibility. I think therein lies the reason people take the risk. They know they will win something - that period of euphoria; and they might not lose anything; or there's the outside chance they may win something and lose a lot, a worthwhile gamble to some. Whatever happens, they'll get that deepleasure first. ]

[ DT ]

> In those who do it repeatedly and sacrifice so much, it must be a> profound pleasure, and all my empirical observation has born thisout. The> excuse systems are what many buy into on the intrapersonal level(psychological)> and the interpersonal level (sociological).> Excuses for getting drunk are made to minimize the losses in otherareas of life.> DT> PS. For nondependent drinkers, the reason is essentially the> same - pleasure seeking without habituation.

[Guest guest]

By deeper, I mean if you are truly physically addicted to a drug, engaging

in drug use rituals is not going to relieve the desire for drugs-only a

chemical influx of the 'drug of choice' is going to bring about biochemical

satisfaction. If that theory in your post would work, then a heroin addict

who scored crappy dope would be satisfied with whatever garbage he

injected or inhaled, regardless of whether it contained heroin or not-That

is FAR from the way it is. Mike.

Re: ragge

> >

> >

> > >

> > > > That's something isn't it? Did the sight of the button

> > > > relieve some of your pain as well as the anxiety?

> > > >

> > > > I'm hearing (and reading) a fair number of accounts

> > > > involving drinkers/druggies who have anxiety, anger,

> > > > depression, etc. When they decide to imbibe, swallow,

> > > > and/or shoot-up... voila! they often feel better,

> > > > sometimes euphoric even before their blood carries the

> > > > substance of choice.

> > >

> > > Yep, saw something on TV with a drug rehab program that made junkies

> > > go through the whole process involved, leading upto IV injection -

> > > Each time getting nearer and nearer. The object was to let people

> > > experience this " pre-high " (?), yet know that they didn't *HAVE* to

> > > administer the drug itself. It has previously been noted that the

> > > quality of many street drugs are so low that there is almost no

> > > active constituent is present - People still get high though :-)

> > >

> > > As an ex-drunk, I noticed this relief at giving myself permission to

> > > go to the liquor store. In early sobriety I did continued to buy my

> > > cigarettes at the liquor store, just to learn to cope with that

> > > feeling. Eventually " living dangerously " (?) lost it's attraction and

> > > I gave up smoking anyway ;-) But, I think though, the process of

> > > living in the problem <g> is important - the element of surprise is

> > > lost. I always felt that a lot of AA's put themselves in danger from

> > > relapse, first by avoidance, then by increasing the " power " of

> > > alcohol, only to find themselves suddenly with the opportunity.

> > >

> > > Towards the end of my AA experience, meetings were about the *only*

> > > time and place where I felt a significant " anticipatory pleasure " in

> > > hearing all the drunkalogs and an increasing(!) desire to drink. For

> > > me it was certainly among the good reasons for leaving.

> > >

> > > Mack

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Re: ragge

Dave,Don't you realize that there some events, or chains of events, that are too overwhelming for a person to face and/or take in all at once? What about those soldiers in Viet Nam who took heroin and had no problem quitting once they were back in their normal environmennt?

It sounds like an agreeable response to this would be -

"Thank God for the heroin availability over there in Nam, because without heroin those poor guys would have been too overwhelmed to face those events."

DT

[Guest guest]

just an observation

DT

Re: ragge> > > Dave,> > Don't you realize that there some events, or chains of events, that > are too overwhelming for a person to face and/or take in all at once? > What about those soldiers in Viet Nam who took heroin and had no > problem quitting once they were back in their normal environmennt?> It sounds like an agreeable response to this would be - > > "Thank God for the heroin availability over there in Nam, because without heroin those poor guys would have been too overwhelmed to face those events." > > DT

[Guest guest]

When an addict gets drugs that he knows are good, he will start to feel relief of withdrawal symptoms (SOMETIMES!) before he actually ingests the drug. This might be some kind of psychosomatic effect, like the last of the reserve endorphins might get released by the brain subconsciously because it knows more are on the way or something, but this phenomena is not understood well at all yet, and there is NO WAY anyone can use this effect as some kind of foundation for therapy, it is just not understood or reliable enough . Mike.

Re: Re: ragge

Precisely. This exposes a myth about addiction; that relief happens AFTER the drug is taken. In your examples relief happens prior to drug/alcohol ingestion. If the pain or depression is no longer there, then why decide to ingest anyway? To feel better, relief, pleasure? Or is it to feel EVEN better, MORE relief, GREATER pleasure, etc? Speaking only for myself, the continued drinking was to ensure that sobriety did not break through with its attendant pain, and also to make sure that I passed out until morning and was not stuck sleepless with very painful thoughts. And altho there was *some relief prior to the ingestion, that was due to the comfort of knowing numbness was imminent, and that the pain I had been feeling all day was soon to be banished. It was my goal to remain anesthetized all night, and I succeeded. --Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona - Dave's 'pleasure theory' not 'true' for YOU?

But 'true' for the poor and minorities?

Is this an offer to cut a deal?

" The treatment of addiction quickly emerged as a new medical speciality

complete with its experts, professional organizations, sanitoriums, and so

forth. As in the cases of alcoholism, criminality, insanity, poverty, and

homosexuality in the second half of the nineteenth century, the medical

classification of morphinism as a disease tended to ignore social factors in

favor of supposed psychological and biological tendencies of the individual.

Addiction, like all of the above, was a 'disease of the will', as much a

vice as an illness. The disease's connection to a larger social picture was

emphasized in terms of effects rather than causes: it originated in the

individual and his or her heredity, but it was taken as an indication of a

general decline in the physical and moral health of Britons as a whole. . .

.. middle-class habitual users tended to be treated in state-of-the-art

sanitoriums while working class users went to prison. " (Barry Milligan,

1995, Pleasures and Pains: Opium and the Orient in Nineteenth-Century

British Culture, Univ Press of Virginia, p. 25).

Lower-class and working class slobs are just seeking 'pleasure', and Dave

is paid to push them around, shove his simplistic myths down their throats,

and see that they get the punishment they deserve if they don't 'behave'.

(Some, of them, of course, DO not behave properly, but this is a matter of

social control, and ought to be labeled as such. The myth of 'addiction'

only obfuscates.)

Mona rejoins that the rich are different. THEY don't seek pleasure, but

only relief from travail. She is willing to smash the poor, but the rich

need to go to the Betty Ford Center.

The more bullshit changes, the more bullshit stays the same.

Re: ragge

>

> [snip]

> >

> > Whatever theories you have read about the pleasure-seeking motive

> for

> > drinking may or may not have broad applicability. But they are not

> always

> > true, and I know this for certain, because it was not true for me.

> >

> > --Mona--

>

> Quite So. I think sometimes strength of opinion is inversely

> proportional to personal experience... was true in AA too.

>

> Non carborundum illegitemii. (Don't let 'em get you down ;-)

>

> Mack

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mona - Dave's 'pleasure theory' not 'true' for YOU?

But 'true' for the poor and minorities?

Is this an offer to cut a deal?

If you will reread my post, you will see that I said it may or may not be true to a certain extent, but that it cannot be always true. Only one exception disproves an 'always" claim, and I am an exception to the pleasure theory if it is held to always be true. (Unless the definition of "pleasure" encompasses the numbing of pain.) Whether I am the only such exception is highly unlikely, but I have no information about anyone other than myself, and certainly the racial or socioeconomic status of any other exceptions is a matter on which I lack sufficient information to proffer speculation.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona rejoins that the rich are different. THEY don't seek pleasure, but

only relief from travail. She is willing to smash the poor, but the rich

need to go to the Betty Ford Center.

Is this some chronic illness which afflicts you? You will not find any post in which I say, or even imply, any such nonsense. That will not constrain you, I realize, as I am not the first person on the list to whom you have, in your wild-eyed zealotry, misattributed all manner of codswollop

Having experienced the death of a child I feel a bond with other mothers who have endured the same unbearable pain that transcends any cultural, racial or socioeconomic boundaries. Any of these other moms who also began abusing chemicals in response to that event and the unfortunate sequelae that also sometimes must be borne, would also not be seeking pleasure so much as they were attempting to extinguish acute and unremitting pain. Only an ignoramus could think race or class had anything significant to do with that.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Mona, does Diener not get along with you? I notice some seemingly unfriendly language between you two sometimes, although I could possibly be wrong(I am once in a great while) .

It should have been pretty obvious that I am among the many who find 's Mission to the Insufficiently Concerned obnoxious. And he apparently believes I've never met a poor person or person of color whom I didn't want to kick and spit upon.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

It's funny you should say that, particularly to Mona as I perceived your

comments on cursing when you used to " get all whacked out on heroin " as an

underhanded side swipe at Mona's cuss-a-thon post which I found rather

amusing. So you'll excuse me for thinking the below is more of the same

Mike.

Re: Re: ragge

Mona, does Diener not get along with you? I notice some seemingly

unfriendly language between you two sometimes, although I could possibly be

wrong(I am once in a great while) . Mike.

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: ragge

Mona - Dave's 'pleasure theory' not 'true' for YOU?But 'true' for the poor and minorities?Is this an offer to cut a deal? "The treatment of addiction quickly emerged as a new medical specialitycomplete with its experts, professional organizations, sanitoriums, and soforth. As in the cases of alcoholism, criminality, insanity, poverty, andhomosexuality in the second half of the nineteenth century, the medicalclassification of morphinism as a disease tended to ignore social factors infavor of supposed psychological and biological tendencies of the individual.Addiction, like all of the above, was a 'disease of the will', as much avice as an illness. The disease's connection to a larger social picture wasemphasized in terms of effects rather than causes: it originated in theindividual and his or her heredity, but it was taken as an indication of ageneral decline in the physical and moral health of Britons as a whole. . .. middle-class habitual users tended to be treated in state-of-the-artsanitoriums while working class users went to prison." (Barry Milligan,1995, Pleasures and Pains: Opium and the Orient in Nineteenth-CenturyBritish Culture, Univ Press of Virginia, p. 25).

[ Ok, I'll go along with the above. And I'll even agree that I can imagine a future that would look back to today and agree with your next paragraph; but it would be a horrendous future that had forgotten any semblance of personal responsibility and had caved into the ideology of P. Denier who rewrote history to justify his ends. Everyone would have been suffering as a victim of a social disease not addiction. Private enterprise would be dead or pure evil, and the new world order would be homogeneity ad nauseum. ]

Lower-class and working class slobs are just seeking 'pleasure', and Daveis paid to push them around, shove his simplistic myths down their throats,and see that they get the punishment they deserve if they don't 'behave'.(Some, of them, of course, DO not behave properly, but this is a matter ofsocial control, and ought to be labeled as such. The myth of 'addiction'only obfuscates.)

[ Upon 's suggestion I perused a copy of Rumbarger which is one of a series edited by Levine and Reinarman, two prolific writers who sound ok at first. You can see some of their ideas at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/drug_politics.htm ] Here's my gripe with these sociologists, for some reason they have ignored the 12 step revolution of the 20th century altogether. They are not dumb enough for it to have been poor analysis. It was ignored on purpose. I suspect they look at 12steppism the way the oil consumers look at Sadam Hussein - 'We've nurtured this monster, but it can help our long term strategy if we keep it under close watch with a ten foot pole as long as possible.'

Levine is a Berkeley "12 stepopologist", and friend of Room and Roizen, also Berkeley 12stepopologists" http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/bonalcoholsociology/ . What he does in the following speech for instance http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/htmlpage3/ is talk about a list made by Trebach of 12 commissions, conveniently avoiding sociology's own inhouse alcohol control policy done in 1975 by Room and his generation at what's now the anachronistic Kettil Bruun Society for Social and Epidemiological Research on Alcohol. The sociology study (also known as the Purple Book (not to be mistaken with the National Clergy Conference on Alcoholism's Blue Book <:-)>)) was distributed by Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies (an AA Pawn). Rutgers in a preview copy 2 page memorandum sent with the book to prospective buyers stated (1975)

"It is concluded that the evidence supports the argument that the control of alcohol availability is a public health issue. Thus the World Health Organization is urged to assist in "calling the attention of governments to the potential preventive value of a systematically developed control policy and in stimulating governments to evaluate critically the applicability to their own countries of the conclusions put forward in this report."

Back to Levine's talk. Conveniently avoiding that his field already has its thumb deep into the pie of government's "sytematically developed control policy" he tells everyone to pretend their in a Star Trek episode to try and change govt policy.

"Think of yourselves as on a Drug Policy Trek. You are members of the Enterprise Commission. Ethan Nadelmann is your Captain Kirk. Your five-session mission is to explore new drug policy worlds, and new civilizations for those drug policies. To boldly go where no commission has gone before." http://www.hereinstead.com/sys-tmpl/htmlpage3/

I believe he's intentionally missing a lynchpin opportunity. Sociologists need to study, investigate, and analyze the advocation of the demise of institutionalized AA and alcohol/drug abuse treatment. Can't they see treating someone for willfully ingesting a substance must start with the imposition of an outside morality and from there it goes way into the Gulag Archipelago. Is that what sociologist want? It certainly appears so.

Instead of diddling around I wish sociologists would get on the stick and also go after the real 12 step Members in their own field (Norman Denzin, for example) who are rewriting sociological methodology for the purpose of allowing anyone and their mother to get a grant from the National Institute for AA/NA/CA/OA/Alanon in Rockville, MD, and waste it on stories and 12 step exegesis. I guess it's their jobs they're worried about.

I tend to believe that as a sociologist, 's distant yet determined perspective on human existence, as he so unabashedly shares with us, is itself what is leading him to try and pidgeonhole the real grassroots forces here in this discussion group using the new medium of the worldwideweb.]

[ DT ]

Mona rejoins that the rich are different. THEY don't seek pleasure, butonly relief from travail. She is willing to smash the poor, but the richneed to go to the Betty Ford Center. The more bullshit changes, the more bullshit stays the same.