Sex is like the most primal of all biological urges, whereas the acid trip is not usually a wholly pleasurable experience, surely you can see how ridiculous the comparison is between sex and LSD
Wouldn't it depend on the person? And the LSD? And the sex?
No. sex addiction comes down to self medication. I don't know how you could possibly do this with LSD. Most people don't really understand what sex addicts do, because it really isn't cool at all.
This. Sex addiction is, well, an addiction, and it's ugly.
Hallucinogens are simply a different universe. Here's the experiment I propose: wrangle together about $50 and track down some LSD (well, good luck with that, but I digress). That'll score you between 5 and 10 trips, depending on how badly it's priced. Try to get addicted.
Torso Boy on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Things that do not cause addiction in healthy human beings cannot be considered addicting. Sex is not addicting. Sex addiction is possible, but it isn't caused by sex.
It's very useful in a discussion like this to maintain a distinction between actual, physical addiction and a psychological compulsion, even though "addiction" can be used to describe both. The first is caused by a substance, the second is not. When people say you can become addicted to pot, they're right, but it has fuck all to do with the pot itself and the addict is going to find some way to fulfill that compulsion whether pot is available or not, possibly in a more destructive way. (like the hootch)
Wouldn't it depend on the person? And the LSD? And the sex?
No. sex addiction comes down to self medication. I don't know how you could possibly do this with LSD. Most people don't really understand what sex addicts do, because it really isn't cool at all.
The fact that LSD may or may not be inherently euphoric isn't relevant. What's relevant is the users perception. If the addict thinks that eating LSD will somehow deliver him to his happy place, and many people who repeatdely use LSD do, then it indeed can become a drug of choice; an addiction assuming of course that individual is a person prone to addiction, psychological not necessarily physical.
]If you think it's as easy to get addicted to LSD as it is to sex, then you have no fucking idea what sex addiction is like and you need to shut the fuck up.
Addicts of any type are cut from the same cloth. They have a genetic predisposition to abuse "something" to shut out whatever mental baggage they are carrying. Generally speaking, that something is an action that gives them a "rush". Sex addicts cite alcoholic or drug addicted parents more often than not. It's hereditary and the addictions are linked.
It doesn't matter if it's sex, drugs, food or going all in with a pair of jacks. It's all the same shit. If you're born with the gene it's going to manifest itself in whatever is readily available and the addict will abuse it. If you're not then you can dose 15 times in the course of a month and you're not going to feel any more inclined to continue using than someone who has never done it once. You're indifferent.
The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.
Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue. Much of the traffic from Mexico or Colombia is for cocaine, heroin and other drugs, while marijuana production is increasingly domestic. Legalizing only marijuana would therefore fail to achieve many benefits of broader legalization.
so, i like drugs. not all of them, though. in fact, a lot of them are really really bad. but this dude from harvard says we should make them 'all' legal (well, coke and heroin with weed).
so, uh, WHAT? i just don't follow. his words sound smart, but COKE and HEROIN are BAD.
thoughts?
People do them legally or not. Having them legal provides access to clean drugs and opens up more avenues for health and safety.
Addicts of any type are cut from the same cloth. They have a genetic predisposition to abuse "something" to shut out whatever mental baggage they are carrying.
Exactly.
I was telling someone yesterday about the organ player for my defunct band. Heroin addict. Got busted again, went to rehab again, moved away from the heroin trade and has now taken up smoking crack.
Some people just have to get fucked up. Sad, but true.
EDIT
Also, if you've ever dropped LSD, you'd know why it isn't addictive.
Wouldn't it depend on the person? And the LSD? And the sex?
No. sex addiction comes down to self medication. I don't know how you could possibly do this with LSD. Most people don't really understand what sex addicts do, because it really isn't cool at all.
This. Sex addiction is, well, an addiction, and it's ugly.
Hallucinogens are simply a different universe. Here's the experiment I propose: wrangle together about $50 and track down some LSD (well, good luck with that, but I digress). That'll score you between 5 and 10 trips, depending on how badly it's priced. Try to get addicted.
Well I've never tried any hallucinogen, so I've got no idea about this. But I could say the same thing for cigarettes. They're disgusting as all hell, I think you have to really try to get addicted.
So your point is that people with the right mindset can become addicted to things that are not of themselves physically addictive?
Even conceding that point, how does that relate to drug policy? Why don't we then ban peanut butter? Eating peanut butter is a pleasurable experience; I could become addicted to it in the same way that your hypothetical LSD addict gets off on tripping.
A big argument for the ban of a lot of drugs is the claim people will become addicted.
A big argument is that many drugs are physically addcitive; many posters have pointed out that LSD is not, and Kevin Nash's response was "people with addictive personalities can become addicted to things which are not physically addictive." By which argument we should ban WoW.
Physical addiction is not nearly as relevant as you think it is.
The power of an addiction has very little to do with the severity of physical withdrawal symptoms.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I didn't read the whole thread and it may have been touched on but what about a different twist. What happens when you legalize drugs that carried life sentences for 3 time offenders for selling or even having it in possession? What I mean is how do you justify keeping people in jail while you legalize the very thing they were sent to jail for selling?
Sure you can say "Well it was illegal at the time so they should stay in jail", but you have to see the money that taxpayers would have to spend for about a billion new trials before some kind of precedent was decided. And that's IF the new precedent was to keep the people in jail for committing a crime when it was a crime.
And so what you legalize the possession of the drug but what about the manufacturing process? That's argueably where all the killing comes from anyway. You know companies are going to sprout up overnight manufacturing it. How does the FDA give out certificates to produce that?? "You must get people THIS high before you can make it ..."
sex and marijuana are a lot easier to get addicted to than shrooms or LSD.
Working under the assumption that none of these are physically addictive this really doesn't make any sense.
I was under the impression that very high usage of marijuana, ie using a bong daily could result in withdrawal symptoms. Also sex I would presume is addictive like jogging can be, addiction to the endorphin release.
KevinNash: I'd like to see what you base that red statement on, because science tends to disagree with you.
Physical addiction means that the drug you've been using has gradually changed the chemistry of your brain. The prime example is opiates such as opium, morphine, heroin and to a greatly reduced extent, codeine. When an opiate enters your brain, it behaves like the chemical called endorphins, which is associated with pleasure and pain relief. When you seriously injure yourself and your brain blocks out the pain, that's endorphins; it's also one of the chemicals released during exercise (so yes, running gets you high). Using opiates frequently causes the brain to conclude that it has another source of endorphins and therefore production can be reduced. When you quit, your brain starts producing again, but very gradually...in the meantime, you have withdrawal, which is not just a matter of willpower...it's a visceral, persistent, very much physical condition.
It must be emphasized that for most of these other than heroin or meth, sustained use is required to get hooked. You might do coke and want to try it again, but at that point, willpower is still a strong player.
Drugs that are physically addictive: alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines (speed, meth), ketamine.
Psychological or emotional addiction is just habit.
Qliphoth: I'm glad you used that example, because I can speak from experience here. I'm not constantly high, because there is nothing fun about that, but after school or work I have a few bong rips; usually 1-2 bowls a nigh, 6-7 nights a week. From time to time, I stop for a while, and at least in my case, there is no physical withdrawal. If anything, you start to feel a bit more awake and energetic during the evenings, probably in contrast to how you're used to feeling at nighttime.
What you will experience, however, is boredom. Azio stated this perfectly:
Withdrawal symptoms? No. You just want to smoke weed when you're bored because you're used to doing that.
Drugs that are psychologically addictive: weed, uh...maybe mescaline or amyl nitrate? I dunno, someone feel free to jump in and correct me here.
Now, hallucinogens are something different. They have little or no addictive properties. Of course, there are people who get addicted to hallucinogens, but they are the exception, and in statistical terms, pretty well anomalous. My good friend spent a full year on mushrooms and, while he doesn't exhibit any lasting damage, he said it was a pretty bad experience and there's really no reason to do it. Shroomers and acid freaks recognize that one should spread trips out- with acid, I think the ideal wait time is 1-2 weeks, with shrooms, a month.
Drugs that are barely, if at all, addictive: LSD, LSA, psylocibin (mushrooms), salvia, DMT/Ayahuasca, peyote (?)
Addicts of any type are cut from the same cloth. They have a genetic predisposition to abuse "something" to shut out whatever mental baggage they are carrying. Generally speaking, that something is an action that gives them a "rush". Sex addicts cite alcoholic or drug addicted parents more often than not. It's hereditary and the addictions are linked.
It doesn't matter if it's sex, drugs, food or going all in with a pair of jacks. It's all the same shit. If you're born with the gene it's going to manifest itself in whatever is readily available and the addict will abuse it. If you're not then you can dose 15 times in the course of a month and you're not going to feel any more inclined to continue using than someone who has never done it once. You're indifferent.
This is very simplistic. There are a lot of factors that can lead to addiction, and yes a genetic predisposition might be one of those, but the way you make it sound is that there's an "addict gene" that's either a 1 or a 0 and that's kind of a silly way of looking at it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
]If you think it's as easy to get addicted to LSD as it is to sex, then you have no fucking idea what sex addiction is like and you need to shut the fuck up.
Addicts of any type are cut from the same cloth. They have a genetic predisposition to abuse "something" to shut out whatever mental baggage they are carrying. Generally speaking, that something is an action that gives them a "rush". Sex addicts cite alcoholic or drug addicted parents more often than not. It's hereditary and the addictions are linked.
It doesn't matter if it's sex, drugs, food or going all in with a pair of jacks. It's all the same shit. If you're born with the gene it's going to manifest itself in whatever is readily available and the addict will abuse it. If you're not then you can dose 15 times in the course of a month and you're not going to feel any more inclined to continue using than someone who has never done it once. You're indifferent.
I have a lot of personal experience with addiction. I know exactly why addicts do what they do, and LSD seems very unsuited to the purpose of addiction. Can I do it on a daily basis as a means of escaping my problem?
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
Physical addiction means that the drug you've been using has gradually changed the chemistry of your brain.
God this pisses me off.
Even when I agree with people it pisses me off.
All psychoactive drugs change the chemistry of your brain. All of them. That is what they do.
Most drugs, even drugs that aren't widely considered "physically addictive" have the potential for changing your brain over the long term. That's what any addiction is, including sex, gambling, WoW, etc.
When people say "physical addiction" they mean something else. They mean there are withdrawals manifested as bodily sensations. Shakes, chills, tremors, diarrhea, etc.
However, the difference between a withdrawal sensation experienced in the body, like tremors, or a withdrawal sensation experienced in the mind, like anxiety or paranoia, isn't all that great. Either can be resisted. Either can be intense. Either can cause the recovering addict to relapse. The only time the distinction is relevant is when a physical withdrawal symptom becomes so severe as to require medical intervention, as with severe tremors or seizures off of alcohol. But for an addict to get to that point, they have to have engaged in habitual use for a long time. In other words, "psychological" addiction always precedes "physical" addiction. You don't fall face-first into a vat of cocaine or booze and come out with withdrawals... you have to have been seeking it out on a daily or near-daily basis for months or years. By that time, your life may already be fucked up - and many addicts manage to destroy their lives without ever experiencing a physical withdrawal symptom.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
What? That's not what I was implying. Nurture certainly can impact behavior and proclivity to addiction I'm citing from a purely biological standpoint. A child born to alcoholic parents, raised by people who do not abuse substances, is still prone to drug or alcohol abuse. or gambling addiction. or sex addiction. or world of warcraft addiction.
If you're an addict you were born that way. And you were an addict before you took your first drink or drug. And many addicts quit one drug only to use another. It's a matter of availability.
What we should be asking with regards to any given drug is not so much "Is this drug physically addictive," but rather "How psychologically addictive is this drug?" If the drug isn't powerfully psychologically addictive, then the physical withdrawal symptoms are no more than a footnote in a medical journal.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I agree with you, Nash, that addicts frequently translate from one object of addiction to another. Alcohol to meth, meth to sex, sex to gambling, gambling back to alcohol, etc.
Going to a 12-step meeting and watching somebody suck down coffee and cigarette smoke and say "I've been clean off of drugs for two years" is pretty hilarious.
I just don't think addicts are necessarily born. Yeah, there are certainly multiple genetic factors that contribute to addiction or resistance of addiction, but it's a much more complex topic than just that.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
What? That's not what I was implying. Nurture certainly can impact behavior and proclivity to addiction I'm citing from a purely biological standpoint. A child born to alcoholic parents, raised by people who do not abuse substances, is still prone to drug or alcohol abuse. or gambling addiction. or sex addiction. or world of warcraft addiction.
If you're an addict you were born that way. And you were an addict before you took your first drink or drug. And many addicts quit one drug only to use another. It's a matter of availability.
I could not disagree more. You place far too much weight on nature. Somebody can enter into an addictive cycle for a lot of reasons, and once you're in it, it can be very difficult to get out. Maybe theres some slight predisposition to stimulus effecting mood, but it functionally means absolutely nothing.
Nurture matters a lot more. And most addicts have their drug of choice. sex, crack, and heroin are not interchangeable for the addict of one of them who's dabbled in all. They can transition, but for many it doesn't happen often.
And like I said, I speak from personal experience here.
I didn't read the whole thread and it may have been touched on but what about a different twist. What happens when you legalize drugs that carried life sentences for 3 time offenders for selling or even having it in possession? What I mean is how do you justify keeping people in jail while you legalize the very thing they were sent to jail for selling?
Sure you can say "Well it was illegal at the time so they should stay in jail", but you have to see the money that taxpayers would have to spend for about a billion new trials before some kind of precedent was decided. And that's IF the new precedent was to keep the people in jail for committing a crime when it was a crime.
And so what you legalize the possession of the drug but what about the manufacturing process? That's argueably where all the killing comes from anyway. You know companies are going to sprout up overnight manufacturing it. How does the FDA give out certificates to produce that?? "You must get people THIS high before you can make it ..."
a) I'd let them out. There are people still serving terms for pot possession of between a QP and a pound.
b) the major debate is how, once legalized, we wrestle the industry away from organized crime. It's a doosie. Regulation is probably a must, but again, it's going to be a long, complex discussion.
So your point is that people with the right mindset can become addicted to things that are not of themselves physically addictive?
Even conceding that point, how does that relate to drug policy? Why don't we then ban peanut butter? Eating peanut butter is a pleasurable experience; I could become addicted to it in the same way that your hypothetical LSD addict gets off on tripping.
A big argument for the ban of a lot of drugs is the claim people will become addicted.
A big argument is that many drugs are physically addcitive; many posters have pointed out that LSD is not, and Kevin Nash's response was "people with addictive personalities can become addicted to things which are not physically addictive." By which argument we should ban WoW.
Physical addiction is not nearly as relevant as you think it is.
The power of an addiction has very little to do with the severity of physical withdrawal symptoms.
Not with a lot of drugs, no. But with many, it's hugely important.
It does take an initial emotional addiction to get into something like heroin, coke/crack or meth. And that emotional addiction is always a component. But as the chemical dependency progresses, willpower loses its potency. In people bad enough to be deemed "addicts," yes, it is extremely relevant. This can't be understated.
You keep mentioning cocaine. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about. The physical withdrawal symptoms of cocaine are very mild. Frequently, no physical withdrawal symptoms are present at all.
The "physical" addictive power of cocaine is negligible.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It does take an initial emotional addiction to get into something like heroin, coke/crack or meth. And that emotional addiction is always a component. But as the chemical dependency progresses, willpower loses its potency. In people bad enough to be deemed "addicts," yes, it is extremely relevant. This can't be understated.
The lack of willpower has alot to do with things that are not chemical dependency (physical) related as well. Like self loathing and the inevitable self-destructive nature of the addiction cycle. It's very much a combination of conscious and unconscious disappointment in yourself.
b) the major debate is how, once legalized, we wrestle the industry away from organized crime. It's a doosie. Regulation is probably a must, but again, it's going to be a long, complex discussion.
Actually this is the easy part. Existing legal-vice companies can kill the fuck out of organized crime on price. It's possible that some criminal organizations would turn their operations legit to be able to compete, but historically most will just find something else that's illegal and sell that because the risk-surcharge attached to contraband is the only thing that's making their business viable.
And when I'm talking about physical addiction being negligible, I'm talking about it from a sociopolitical standpoint.
It's certainly not negligible to a cocaine user if he can't have an erection for three months after quitting cocaine. But when determining policy, it's not quite as relevant as the "psychological" addiction cocaine can cause.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Anyway Torso Boy, I'm sorry for agroing on you because I largely agree with you.
I just personally think that there are a lot of popular, overly simplistic memes on addiction that impede public discussion.
I think there should be three criteria for determining the legal status of a drug:
1) How habit-forming is it?
2) How dangerous is it to the user? (Including the risks of use and the risks of withdrawal. This would also include behavioral risks; ie a drug that induces dangerously erratic behavior like PCP or self-mutilating behavior like Neurotin.)
3) What are the medical uses of the drug?
Under these criteria, marijuana should be legal (but restricted) as the answers to those three questions are: moderately, negligibly, and great. Meth should be illegal as the answers would be: extremely, highly, and minimal.
To me, it's less about legalizing specific drugs, but more about making our drug law not-stupid.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Anyway Torso Boy, I'm sorry for agroing on you because I largely agree with you.
I just personally think that there are a lot of popular, overly simplistic memes on addiction that impede public discussion.
I think there should be three criteria for determining the legal status of a drug:
1) How habit-forming is it?
2) How dangerous is it to the user? (Including the risks of use and the risks of withdrawal. This would also include behavioral risks; ie a drug that induces dangerously erratic behavior like PCP or self-mutilating behavior like Neurotin.)
3) What are the medical uses of the drug?
Under these criteria, marijuana should be legal (but restricted) as the answers to those three questions are: moderately, negligibly, and great. Meth should be illegal as the answers would be: extremely, highly, and minimal.
To me, it's less about legalizing specific drugs, but more about making our drug law not-stupid.
Meth is to Adderall as bathtub-gin is to Bombay Sapphire.
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
What? That's not what I was implying. Nurture certainly can impact behavior and proclivity to addiction I'm citing from a purely biological standpoint. A child born to alcoholic parents, raised by people who do not abuse substances, is still prone to drug or alcohol abuse. or gambling addiction. or sex addiction. or world of warcraft addiction.
If you're an addict you were born that way. And you were an addict before you took your first drink or drug. And many addicts quit one drug only to use another. It's a matter of availability.
I could not disagree more. You place far too much weight on nature. Somebody can enter into an addictive cycle for a lot of reasons, and once you're in it, it can be very difficult to get out. Maybe theres some slight predisposition to stimulus effecting mood, but it functionally means absolutely nothing.
How they get there in the first place is of major importance though. I'm of the opinion that people who somehow engage in behavior enough to let it consume them completely were pre-disposed to doing it in the first place. Contrast this with the non-addict who might try cocaine because it was available at a party and then it just doesn't occur to that person to do it again.
Nurture matters a lot more. And most addicts have their drug of choice. sex, crack, and heroin are not interchangeable for the addict of one of them who's dabbled in all. They can transition, but for many it doesn't happen often.
And like I said, I speak from personal experience here.
Nurture certainly matters but it matters not in whether or not the person is actually an addict but rather how it manifests.
There is a reason a lot of recovering addicts become born again Christians. It's "nurture" in that your trading a destructive addiction for an (arguably) less destructive one but you're still hooked on something.
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
What? That's not what I was implying. Nurture certainly can impact behavior and proclivity to addiction I'm citing from a purely biological standpoint. A child born to alcoholic parents, raised by people who do not abuse substances, is still prone to drug or alcohol abuse. or gambling addiction. or sex addiction. or world of warcraft addiction.
If you're an addict you were born that way. And you were an addict before you took your first drink or drug. And many addicts quit one drug only to use another. It's a matter of availability.
I could not disagree more. You place far too much weight on nature. Somebody can enter into an addictive cycle for a lot of reasons, and once you're in it, it can be very difficult to get out. Maybe theres some slight predisposition to stimulus effecting mood, but it functionally means absolutely nothing.
How they get there in the first place is of major importance though. I'm of the opinion that people who somehow engage in behavior enough to let it consume them completely were pre-disposed to doing it in the first place. Contrast this with the non-addict who might try cocaine because it was available at a party and then it just doesn't occur to that person to do it again.
Nurture matters a lot more. And most addicts have their drug of choice. sex, crack, and heroin are not interchangeable for the addict of one of them who's dabbled in all. They can transition, but for many it doesn't happen often.
And like I said, I speak from personal experience here.
Nurture certainly matters but it matters not in whether or not the person is actually an addict but rather how it manifests.
There is a reason a lot of recovering addicts become born again Christians. It's "nurture" in that your trading a destructive addiction for an (arguably) less destructive one but you're still hooked on something.
You are completely wrong about the importance of life experiences in how addiction develops. Completely wrong. Life matters far more then your DNA in this matter.
As for addicts, they can do coke at a party and rarely touch it again. They can drink alcohol but not become an alcoholic. As long as those are not their drug, it's not necessarily going to happen.
And born-again - AA, NA and SAA are all religiously based organizations at their core, and espouse christianity strongly. That is why alot of addicts turn born-again.
Frankly you're just tossing out a bunch of anonymous based beliefs of powerlessness and a need for a replacement crutch, which is a bunch of bullshit, and as far as I'm concerned you don't have any idea what you're talking about. I know my former psychologist would vehemently disagree with you.
Frankly you're just tossing out a bunch of anonymous based beliefs of powerlessness and a need for a replacement crutch, which is a bunch of bullshit, and as far as I'm concerned you don't have any idea what you're talking about. I know my former psychologist would vehemently disagree with you.
Actually, I think what he is saying is true of many addicts.
It isn't necessarily true for all.
But there are preceding tendencies - psychological or biological, such as poor impulse control or a need for immediate gratification - or other risk factors - stress, depression - that if left unresolved, will just lead the addict back into addiction. And since the addict may not have recovered past "alcohol = bad" they avoid alcohol but just find some proxy.
Plenty of addicts successfully resolve those preceding risk factors, but a lot don't, and so their addiction translates to a different drug or behavior.
The AA method is just poor because it's a one-size-fits-all system. It certainly fits some, but anybody recovering from addiction really needs to seek one-on-one cognitive-behavioral therapy with a real mental health professional in order to deal with the risk factors unique to their situation.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Frankly you're just tossing out a bunch of anonymous based beliefs of powerlessness and a need for a replacement crutch, which is a bunch of bullshit, and as far as I'm concerned you don't have any idea what you're talking about. I know my former psychologist would vehemently disagree with you.
Actually, I think what he is saying is true of many addicts.
It isn't necessarily true for all.
But there are preceding tendencies - psychological or biological, such as poor impulse control or a need for immediate gratification - or other risk factors - stress, depression - that if left unresolved, will just lead the addict back into addiction. And since the addict may not have recovered past "alcohol = bad" they avoid alcohol but just find some proxy.
Plenty of addicts successfully resolve those preceding risk factors, but a lot don't, and so their addiction translates to a different drug or behavior.
The AA method is just poor because it's a one-size-fits-all system. It certainly fits some, but anybody recovering from addiction really needs to seek one-on-one cognitive-behavioral therapy with a real mental health professional in order to deal with the risk factors unique to their situation.
And not taking the drug doesn't mean the person isn't an addict, and so it isn't unusual at all for the addict to find something to try to fill in the place of the drug. For many born-agains, that replacement is annoying people and fucking up the country.
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
What? That's not what I was implying. Nurture certainly can impact behavior and proclivity to addiction I'm citing from a purely biological standpoint. A child born to alcoholic parents, raised by people who do not abuse substances, is still prone to drug or alcohol abuse. or gambling addiction. or sex addiction. or world of warcraft addiction.
If you're an addict you were born that way. And you were an addict before you took your first drink or drug. And many addicts quit one drug only to use another. It's a matter of availability.
I could not disagree more. You place far too much weight on nature. Somebody can enter into an addictive cycle for a lot of reasons, and once you're in it, it can be very difficult to get out. Maybe theres some slight predisposition to stimulus effecting mood, but it functionally means absolutely nothing.
How they get there in the first place is of major importance though. I'm of the opinion that people who somehow engage in behavior enough to let it consume them completely were pre-disposed to doing it in the first place. Contrast this with the non-addict who might try cocaine because it was available at a party and then it just doesn't occur to that person to do it again.
Nurture matters a lot more. And most addicts have their drug of choice. sex, crack, and heroin are not interchangeable for the addict of one of them who's dabbled in all. They can transition, but for many it doesn't happen often.
And like I said, I speak from personal experience here.
Nurture certainly matters but it matters not in whether or not the person is actually an addict but rather how it manifests.
There is a reason a lot of recovering addicts become born again Christians. It's "nurture" in that your trading a destructive addiction for an (arguably) less destructive one but you're still hooked on something.
You are completely wrong about the importance of life experiences in how addiction develops. Completely wrong. Life matters far more then your DNA in this matter.
As for addicts, they can do coke at a party and rarely touch it again. They can drink alcohol but not become an alcoholic. As long as those are not their drug, it's not necessarily going to happen.
And born-again - AA, NA and SAA are all religiously based organizations at their core, and espouse christianity strongly. That is why alot of addicts turn born-again.
People can get hooked on Rational Recovery as well. It's not god-centric at all but they rely on the group to cope with their lack of drugs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but people become attached to the group and when it's not available they seek out something else, or relapse.
Frankly you're just tossing out a bunch of anonymous based beliefs of powerlessness and a need for a replacement crutch, which is a bunch of bullshit, and as far as I'm concerned you don't have any idea what you're talking about. I know my former psychologist would vehemently disagree with you.
I'm making a case that addiction is biological and there are pages of scientific journals to support this. Genetic mapping has linked alcoholism from one generation to another in countless families regardless of environment. You don't take an addict and just put him in a good home where his DOC isn't available, give them no treatment and just watch them prosper without latching on to another addiction sooner or later.
Physical addiction means that the drug you've been using has gradually changed the chemistry of your brain.
God this pisses me off.
Even when I agree with people it pisses me off.
All psychoactive drugs change the chemistry of your brain. All of them. That is what they do.
Most drugs, even drugs that aren't widely considered "physically addictive" have the potential for changing your brain over the long term. That's what any addiction is, including sex, gambling, WoW, etc.
When people say "physical addiction" they mean something else. They mean there are withdrawals manifested as bodily sensations. Shakes, chills, tremors, diarrhea, etc.
Yes, all psychoactive drugs change the chemistry of your brain. I should be more clear: physically addictive drugs alter that chemistry in a way that is detrimental to the normal function of your brain and demands that the habit continue. That is what "physically addictive" means. The difference between that and emotional/psychological addiction is that the former changes the way you function, whereas the latter is a habit. In a very loose sense, it's the difference between need and want.
However, the difference between a withdrawal sensation experienced in the body, like tremors, or a withdrawal sensation experienced in the mind, like anxiety or paranoia, isn't all that great. Either can be resisted. Either can be intense. Either can cause the recovering addict to relapse. The only time the distinction is relevant is when a physical withdrawal symptom becomes so severe as to require medical intervention, as with severe tremors or seizures off of alcohol.
I think the examples you're talking about here falls under physical, but the point to take away is that both are significant. I must reiterate that physical addiction can't be underestimated, though...a coke head is going to cry and whine and break down, but after a while, they get over it- obviously the emotional component is more significant here. But a heroin addict is driven on a whole other level- and in this case, the distinction is very relevant- they will cry, whine and break down; then they will puke, lose apetite, descend into psychotic episodes, become violent. I hear sometimes you don't shit for a couple weeks.
But yes, with most addictions, it's a combination of both in varying proportions.
But for an addict to get to that point, they have to have engaged in habitual use for a long time. In other words, "psychological" addiction always precedes "physical" addiction. You don't fall face-first into a vat of cocaine or booze and come out with withdrawals... [...] many addicts manage to destroy their lives without ever experiencing a physical withdrawal symptom.
This I can completely agree with, with the possible exception of crack and meth, whose addictive properties are apparently rather insane.
You keep mentioning cocaine. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about. The physical withdrawal symptoms of cocaine are very mild. Frequently, no physical withdrawal symptoms are present at all.
The "physical" addictive power of cocaine is negligible.
And when I'm talking about physical addiction being negligible, I'm talking about it from a sociopolitical standpoint.
It's certainly not negligible to a cocaine user if he can't have an erection for three months after quitting cocaine. But when determining policy, it's not quite as relevant as the "psychological" addiction cocaine can cause.
No, absolutely, I was pretty much referring to the heavy hitters of physical addiction. I just wanted to emphasize that the chemical component is not to be underestimated. It's not the most relevant in the grand scheme of things, but it does make many drugs unquestionably dangerous. Which makes the legalization process very delicate.
Anyway Torso Boy, I'm sorry for agroing on you because I largely agree with you.
I just personally think that there are a lot of popular, overly simplistic memes on addiction that impede public discussion.
I think there should be three criteria for determining the legal status of a drug:
1) How habit-forming is it?
2) How dangerous is it to the user? (Including the risks of use and the risks of withdrawal. This would also include behavioral risks; ie a drug that induces dangerously erratic behavior like PCP or self-mutilating behavior like Neurotin.)
3) What are the medical uses of the drug?
Under these criteria, marijuana should be legal (but restricted) as the answers to those three questions are: moderately, negligibly, and great. Meth should be illegal as the answers would be: extremely, highly, and minimal.
To me, it's less about legalizing specific drugs, but more about making our drug law not-stupid.
Don't apologize, I'm really pleased that this discussion has remained relatively civil and intelligent. You know how it can be.
I think pot and hallucinogens are a no-brainer for legalization. But my basic contention here is that I don't think prohibition works at all- which I acknowledge is absolutely arguable.
A drug like meth, which doesn't really have any redeeming qualities, will be used as long as it's around. Keeping it off limits gives it that dangerous appeal, and ensures that if a kid gets a hold of it, it's probably from a career criminal, who isn't likely to inform the kid of its side-effects. I do believe that if it's legal, people are properly educated and it's responsibly regulated, its use will decline drastically. Most importantly, even if I'm wrong, it's clear that the current approach simply isn't working.
I think therapy combined with some good old stoic philosophy would work a lot better then anonymous programs.
But that probably says as much if not more about how terrible they are then how good that would work.
I personally feel that stoic philosophy is a risk factor in codependency - perhaps the addict has too little of what you call "stoicism" while the codependent has too much?
And by stoicism, I mean an ability to resist impulses, an ability to resist the desire for instant gratification despite the long-term consequences, a lack of the tendency to seek selfish pleasure despite how it affects family and those around you, and an ability to face problems rather than hide from them.
In any case, everybody who has recovered - whether it be from addiction or codependency or depression or what have you - has their own recovery story. And they generally contain wisdom, but there's a tendency for people to feel that their story is universally true. A virtue that you lacked during the dark days of your life may be a virtue that I hold to such an extreme that it has become a vice - consequently, I think we need to be aware that what works for one person might be detrimental to another.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
There are certainly biological risk factors for alcoholism, yeah.
Differences in alcohol metabolism (and the presence or lack of the alcohol-metabolizing enzyme) between, for instance, American Indians and, as a counterpoint, Southeast Asians go a long way to explaining the greater tendency towards alcoholism in the Indian population.
Of course, so does being rounded up and forced to live on a reservation with your heritage stripped from you and no job opportunities.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
What? That's not what I was implying. Nurture certainly can impact behavior and proclivity to addiction I'm citing from a purely biological standpoint. A child born to alcoholic parents, raised by people who do not abuse substances, is still prone to drug or alcohol abuse. or gambling addiction. or sex addiction. or world of warcraft addiction.
If you're an addict you were born that way. And you were an addict before you took your first drink or drug. And many addicts quit one drug only to use another. It's a matter of availability.
I could not disagree more. You place far too much weight on nature. Somebody can enter into an addictive cycle for a lot of reasons, and once you're in it, it can be very difficult to get out. Maybe theres some slight predisposition to stimulus effecting mood, but it functionally means absolutely nothing.
How they get there in the first place is of major importance though. I'm of the opinion that people who somehow engage in behavior enough to let it consume them completely were pre-disposed to doing it in the first place. Contrast this with the non-addict who might try cocaine because it was available at a party and then it just doesn't occur to that person to do it again.
Nurture matters a lot more. And most addicts have their drug of choice. sex, crack, and heroin are not interchangeable for the addict of one of them who's dabbled in all. They can transition, but for many it doesn't happen often.
And like I said, I speak from personal experience here.
Nurture certainly matters but it matters not in whether or not the person is actually an addict but rather how it manifests.
There is a reason a lot of recovering addicts become born again Christians. It's "nurture" in that your trading a destructive addiction for an (arguably) less destructive one but you're still hooked on something.
You are completely wrong about the importance of life experiences in how addiction develops. Completely wrong. Life matters far more then your DNA in this matter.
As for addicts, they can do coke at a party and rarely touch it again. They can drink alcohol but not become an alcoholic. As long as those are not their drug, it's not necessarily going to happen.
And born-again - AA, NA and SAA are all religiously based organizations at their core, and espouse christianity strongly. That is why alot of addicts turn born-again.
People can get hooked on Rational Recovery as well. It's not god-centric at all but they rely on the group to cope with their lack of drugs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but people become attached to the group and when it's not available they seek out something else, or relapse.
Frankly you're just tossing out a bunch of anonymous based beliefs of powerlessness and a need for a replacement crutch, which is a bunch of bullshit, and as far as I'm concerned you don't have any idea what you're talking about. I know my former psychologist would vehemently disagree with you.
I'm making a case that addiction is biological and there are pages of scientific journals to support this. Genetic mapping has linked alcoholism from one generation to another in countless families regardless of environment. You don't take an addict and just put him in a good home where his DOC isn't available, give them no treatment and just watch them prosper without latching on to another addiction sooner or later.
That doesn't mean addiction is biological, it means that the addict stays an addict until he eliminates the urges rather than when he loses his go-to drug. If you say he's no longer an addict once he can't get his primary drug, nobody should be surprised when he tries to fill his addiction with something ele.
In my psych 101 textbook, in every unit- from social psych, to personality, to developmental, to addiction and mental illness- it emphasizes that everything is important: Social factors, biological factors and psychological factors. It's my favourite academic mumbojumbo: "the biopsychosocial approach." It's accurate, though...even if one factor might be more significant in a given situation, it's never acting alone.
That doesn't mean addiction is biological, it means that the addict stays an addict until he eliminates the urges rather than when he loses his go-to drug. If you say he's no longer an addict once he can't get his primary drug, nobody should be surprised when he tries to fill his addiction with something ele.
This is true, but I must emphasize, not for all drugs. I gather crack is irreplaceable, while getting over heroin is apparently a lot easier if you smoke weed. And anecdotally, weed helped me quit drinking.
I think therapy combined with some good old stoic philosophy would work a lot better then anonymous programs.
But that probably says as much if not more about how terrible they are then how good that would work.
I personally feel that stoic philosophy is a risk factor in codependency - perhaps the addict has too little of what you call "stoicism" while the codependent has too much?
And by stoicism, I mean an ability to resist impulses, an ability to resist the desire for instant gratification despite the long-term consequences, a lack of the tendency to seek selfish pleasure despite how it affects family and those around you, and an ability to face problems rather than hide from them.
In any case, everybody who has recovered - whether it be from addiction or codependency or depression or what have you - has their own recovery story. And they generally contain wisdom, but there's a tendency for people to feel that their story is universally true. A virtue that you lacked during the dark days of your life may be a virtue that I hold to such an extreme that it has become a vice - consequently, I think we need to be aware that what works for one person might be detrimental to another.
codependency is a shitty thing, and I feel bad for anyone stuck in a relationship with an addict. It's a lot easier to change when you rise or fall completely on your own, with nobody to fall on, so the situation is all around shitty.
and yeah, I get your point about individual experiences. My only universal point is that therapy with a real psychologist with a PhD (not a fucking addiction therapist) will help much more then the AA approach. My own personal beliefs reject the concept of addiction as pushed by them, so I know I'm somewhat out of a a limb, but I think that basic advice is good for everyone.
I think therapy combined with some good old stoic philosophy would work a lot better then anonymous programs.
But that probably says as much if not more about how terrible they are then how good that would work.
I personally feel that stoic philosophy is a risk factor in codependency - perhaps the addict has too little of what you call "stoicism" while the codependent has too much?
And by stoicism, I mean an ability to resist impulses, an ability to resist the desire for instant gratification despite the long-term consequences, a lack of the tendency to seek selfish pleasure despite how it affects family and those around you, and an ability to face problems rather than hide from them.
In any case, everybody who has recovered - whether it be from addiction or codependency or depression or what have you - has their own recovery story. And they generally contain wisdom, but there's a tendency for people to feel that their story is universally true. A virtue that you lacked during the dark days of your life may be a virtue that I hold to such an extreme that it has become a vice - consequently, I think we need to be aware that what works for one person might be detrimental to another.
codependency is a shitty thing, and I feel bad for anyone stuck in a relationship with an addict. It's a lot easier to change when you rise or fall completely on your own, with nobody to fall on, so the situation is all around shitty.
and yeah, I get your point about individual experiences. My only universal point is that therapy with a real psychologist with a PhD (not a fucking addiction therapist) will help much more then the AA approach. My own personal beliefs reject the concept of addiction as pushed by them, so I know I'm somewhat out of a a limb, but I think that basic advice is good for everyone.
Actually, the general academic opinion is that having a good support network of supportive family/friends is very advantageous to recovery. There's a lot of talk about "enabling" in the addiction community but that word has kind of inflated past its original meaning. Having a clean safe place to sleep, somebody to talk to who isn't addicted to anything, and having access to professional mental health and medical care are all really important, which sounds obvious but I've encountered parents who think that letting their alcoholic come home to clean up is a form of "enabling" - as if it would be better for their kid to crash at their dealer's place.
Anyway, I think we agree on the main point, which is that: AA is stupid, professionals are better.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think when I speak on that issue I'm talking specifically about someone that you are in a romantic relationship with, someone you can slip and fall again and again and they'll still be there for you. I put friends and family in a totally different category, and totally think having them there is a great thing.
Posts
Hallucinogens are simply a different universe. Here's the experiment I propose: wrangle together about $50 and track down some LSD (well, good luck with that, but I digress). That'll score you between 5 and 10 trips, depending on how badly it's priced. Try to get addicted.
It's very useful in a discussion like this to maintain a distinction between actual, physical addiction and a psychological compulsion, even though "addiction" can be used to describe both. The first is caused by a substance, the second is not. When people say you can become addicted to pot, they're right, but it has fuck all to do with the pot itself and the addict is going to find some way to fulfill that compulsion whether pot is available or not, possibly in a more destructive way. (like the hootch)
The fact that LSD may or may not be inherently euphoric isn't relevant. What's relevant is the users perception. If the addict thinks that eating LSD will somehow deliver him to his happy place, and many people who repeatdely use LSD do, then it indeed can become a drug of choice; an addiction assuming of course that individual is a person prone to addiction, psychological not necessarily physical.
Addicts of any type are cut from the same cloth. They have a genetic predisposition to abuse "something" to shut out whatever mental baggage they are carrying. Generally speaking, that something is an action that gives them a "rush". Sex addicts cite alcoholic or drug addicted parents more often than not. It's hereditary and the addictions are linked.
It doesn't matter if it's sex, drugs, food or going all in with a pair of jacks. It's all the same shit. If you're born with the gene it's going to manifest itself in whatever is readily available and the addict will abuse it. If you're not then you can dose 15 times in the course of a month and you're not going to feel any more inclined to continue using than someone who has never done it once. You're indifferent.
People do them legally or not. Having them legal provides access to clean drugs and opens up more avenues for health and safety.
Exactly.
I was telling someone yesterday about the organ player for my defunct band. Heroin addict. Got busted again, went to rehab again, moved away from the heroin trade and has now taken up smoking crack.
Some people just have to get fucked up. Sad, but true.
EDIT
Also, if you've ever dropped LSD, you'd know why it isn't addictive.
Well I've never tried any hallucinogen, so I've got no idea about this. But I could say the same thing for cigarettes. They're disgusting as all hell, I think you have to really try to get addicted.
Physical addiction is not nearly as relevant as you think it is.
The power of an addiction has very little to do with the severity of physical withdrawal symptoms.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Sure you can say "Well it was illegal at the time so they should stay in jail", but you have to see the money that taxpayers would have to spend for about a billion new trials before some kind of precedent was decided. And that's IF the new precedent was to keep the people in jail for committing a crime when it was a crime.
And so what you legalize the possession of the drug but what about the manufacturing process? That's argueably where all the killing comes from anyway. You know companies are going to sprout up overnight manufacturing it. How does the FDA give out certificates to produce that?? "You must get people THIS high before you can make it ..."
I feel pretty comfortable saying you couldn't be addicted to LSD and still be human.
Physical addiction means that the drug you've been using has gradually changed the chemistry of your brain. The prime example is opiates such as opium, morphine, heroin and to a greatly reduced extent, codeine. When an opiate enters your brain, it behaves like the chemical called endorphins, which is associated with pleasure and pain relief. When you seriously injure yourself and your brain blocks out the pain, that's endorphins; it's also one of the chemicals released during exercise (so yes, running gets you high). Using opiates frequently causes the brain to conclude that it has another source of endorphins and therefore production can be reduced. When you quit, your brain starts producing again, but very gradually...in the meantime, you have withdrawal, which is not just a matter of willpower...it's a visceral, persistent, very much physical condition.
It must be emphasized that for most of these other than heroin or meth, sustained use is required to get hooked. You might do coke and want to try it again, but at that point, willpower is still a strong player.
Drugs that are physically addictive: alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines (speed, meth), ketamine.
Psychological or emotional addiction is just habit.
Qliphoth: I'm glad you used that example, because I can speak from experience here. I'm not constantly high, because there is nothing fun about that, but after school or work I have a few bong rips; usually 1-2 bowls a nigh, 6-7 nights a week. From time to time, I stop for a while, and at least in my case, there is no physical withdrawal. If anything, you start to feel a bit more awake and energetic during the evenings, probably in contrast to how you're used to feeling at nighttime.
What you will experience, however, is boredom. Azio stated this perfectly: Drugs that are psychologically addictive: weed, uh...maybe mescaline or amyl nitrate? I dunno, someone feel free to jump in and correct me here.
Now, hallucinogens are something different. They have little or no addictive properties. Of course, there are people who get addicted to hallucinogens, but they are the exception, and in statistical terms, pretty well anomalous. My good friend spent a full year on mushrooms and, while he doesn't exhibit any lasting damage, he said it was a pretty bad experience and there's really no reason to do it. Shroomers and acid freaks recognize that one should spread trips out- with acid, I think the ideal wait time is 1-2 weeks, with shrooms, a month.
Drugs that are barely, if at all, addictive: LSD, LSA, psylocibin (mushrooms), salvia, DMT/Ayahuasca, peyote (?)
This is very simplistic. There are a lot of factors that can lead to addiction, and yes a genetic predisposition might be one of those, but the way you make it sound is that there's an "addict gene" that's either a 1 or a 0 and that's kind of a silly way of looking at it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I have a lot of personal experience with addiction. I know exactly why addicts do what they do, and LSD seems very unsuited to the purpose of addiction. Can I do it on a daily basis as a means of escaping my problem?
and this hereditary bullshit is just bullshit, there is no gene that says "I had a fucked up youth so I need to self medicate on a daily basis". That is a load of anonymous perpetuated shit.
God this pisses me off.
Even when I agree with people it pisses me off.
All psychoactive drugs change the chemistry of your brain. All of them. That is what they do.
Most drugs, even drugs that aren't widely considered "physically addictive" have the potential for changing your brain over the long term. That's what any addiction is, including sex, gambling, WoW, etc.
When people say "physical addiction" they mean something else. They mean there are withdrawals manifested as bodily sensations. Shakes, chills, tremors, diarrhea, etc.
However, the difference between a withdrawal sensation experienced in the body, like tremors, or a withdrawal sensation experienced in the mind, like anxiety or paranoia, isn't all that great. Either can be resisted. Either can be intense. Either can cause the recovering addict to relapse. The only time the distinction is relevant is when a physical withdrawal symptom becomes so severe as to require medical intervention, as with severe tremors or seizures off of alcohol. But for an addict to get to that point, they have to have engaged in habitual use for a long time. In other words, "psychological" addiction always precedes "physical" addiction. You don't fall face-first into a vat of cocaine or booze and come out with withdrawals... you have to have been seeking it out on a daily or near-daily basis for months or years. By that time, your life may already be fucked up - and many addicts manage to destroy their lives without ever experiencing a physical withdrawal symptom.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What? That's not what I was implying. Nurture certainly can impact behavior and proclivity to addiction I'm citing from a purely biological standpoint. A child born to alcoholic parents, raised by people who do not abuse substances, is still prone to drug or alcohol abuse. or gambling addiction. or sex addiction. or world of warcraft addiction.
If you're an addict you were born that way. And you were an addict before you took your first drink or drug. And many addicts quit one drug only to use another. It's a matter of availability.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Going to a 12-step meeting and watching somebody suck down coffee and cigarette smoke and say "I've been clean off of drugs for two years" is pretty hilarious.
I just don't think addicts are necessarily born. Yeah, there are certainly multiple genetic factors that contribute to addiction or resistance of addiction, but it's a much more complex topic than just that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I could not disagree more. You place far too much weight on nature. Somebody can enter into an addictive cycle for a lot of reasons, and once you're in it, it can be very difficult to get out. Maybe theres some slight predisposition to stimulus effecting mood, but it functionally means absolutely nothing.
Nurture matters a lot more. And most addicts have their drug of choice. sex, crack, and heroin are not interchangeable for the addict of one of them who's dabbled in all. They can transition, but for many it doesn't happen often.
And like I said, I speak from personal experience here.
a) I'd let them out. There are people still serving terms for pot possession of between a QP and a pound.
b) the major debate is how, once legalized, we wrestle the industry away from organized crime. It's a doosie. Regulation is probably a must, but again, it's going to be a long, complex discussion.
Not with a lot of drugs, no. But with many, it's hugely important.
It does take an initial emotional addiction to get into something like heroin, coke/crack or meth. And that emotional addiction is always a component. But as the chemical dependency progresses, willpower loses its potency. In people bad enough to be deemed "addicts," yes, it is extremely relevant. This can't be understated.
The "physical" addictive power of cocaine is negligible.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The lack of willpower has alot to do with things that are not chemical dependency (physical) related as well. Like self loathing and the inevitable self-destructive nature of the addiction cycle. It's very much a combination of conscious and unconscious disappointment in yourself.
Actually this is the easy part. Existing legal-vice companies can kill the fuck out of organized crime on price. It's possible that some criminal organizations would turn their operations legit to be able to compete, but historically most will just find something else that's illegal and sell that because the risk-surcharge attached to contraband is the only thing that's making their business viable.
It's certainly not negligible to a cocaine user if he can't have an erection for three months after quitting cocaine. But when determining policy, it's not quite as relevant as the "psychological" addiction cocaine can cause.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I just personally think that there are a lot of popular, overly simplistic memes on addiction that impede public discussion.
I think there should be three criteria for determining the legal status of a drug:
1) How habit-forming is it?
2) How dangerous is it to the user? (Including the risks of use and the risks of withdrawal. This would also include behavioral risks; ie a drug that induces dangerously erratic behavior like PCP or self-mutilating behavior like Neurotin.)
3) What are the medical uses of the drug?
Under these criteria, marijuana should be legal (but restricted) as the answers to those three questions are: moderately, negligibly, and great. Meth should be illegal as the answers would be: extremely, highly, and minimal.
To me, it's less about legalizing specific drugs, but more about making our drug law not-stupid.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Meth is to Adderall as bathtub-gin is to Bombay Sapphire.
How they get there in the first place is of major importance though. I'm of the opinion that people who somehow engage in behavior enough to let it consume them completely were pre-disposed to doing it in the first place. Contrast this with the non-addict who might try cocaine because it was available at a party and then it just doesn't occur to that person to do it again.
Nurture certainly matters but it matters not in whether or not the person is actually an addict but rather how it manifests.
There is a reason a lot of recovering addicts become born again Christians. It's "nurture" in that your trading a destructive addiction for an (arguably) less destructive one but you're still hooked on something.
You are completely wrong about the importance of life experiences in how addiction develops. Completely wrong. Life matters far more then your DNA in this matter.
As for addicts, they can do coke at a party and rarely touch it again. They can drink alcohol but not become an alcoholic. As long as those are not their drug, it's not necessarily going to happen.
And born-again - AA, NA and SAA are all religiously based organizations at their core, and espouse christianity strongly. That is why alot of addicts turn born-again.
Frankly you're just tossing out a bunch of anonymous based beliefs of powerlessness and a need for a replacement crutch, which is a bunch of bullshit, and as far as I'm concerned you don't have any idea what you're talking about. I know my former psychologist would vehemently disagree with you.
Actually, I think what he is saying is true of many addicts.
It isn't necessarily true for all.
But there are preceding tendencies - psychological or biological, such as poor impulse control or a need for immediate gratification - or other risk factors - stress, depression - that if left unresolved, will just lead the addict back into addiction. And since the addict may not have recovered past "alcohol = bad" they avoid alcohol but just find some proxy.
Plenty of addicts successfully resolve those preceding risk factors, but a lot don't, and so their addiction translates to a different drug or behavior.
The AA method is just poor because it's a one-size-fits-all system. It certainly fits some, but anybody recovering from addiction really needs to seek one-on-one cognitive-behavioral therapy with a real mental health professional in order to deal with the risk factors unique to their situation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But that probably says as much if not more about how terrible they are then how good that would work.
And not taking the drug doesn't mean the person isn't an addict, and so it isn't unusual at all for the addict to find something to try to fill in the place of the drug. For many born-agains, that replacement is annoying people and fucking up the country.
People can get hooked on Rational Recovery as well. It's not god-centric at all but they rely on the group to cope with their lack of drugs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but people become attached to the group and when it's not available they seek out something else, or relapse.
I'm making a case that addiction is biological and there are pages of scientific journals to support this. Genetic mapping has linked alcoholism from one generation to another in countless families regardless of environment. You don't take an addict and just put him in a good home where his DOC isn't available, give them no treatment and just watch them prosper without latching on to another addiction sooner or later.
I think the examples you're talking about here falls under physical, but the point to take away is that both are significant. I must reiterate that physical addiction can't be underestimated, though...a coke head is going to cry and whine and break down, but after a while, they get over it- obviously the emotional component is more significant here. But a heroin addict is driven on a whole other level- and in this case, the distinction is very relevant- they will cry, whine and break down; then they will puke, lose apetite, descend into psychotic episodes, become violent. I hear sometimes you don't shit for a couple weeks.
But yes, with most addictions, it's a combination of both in varying proportions.
This I can completely agree with, with the possible exception of crack and meth, whose addictive properties are apparently rather insane.
No, absolutely, I was pretty much referring to the heavy hitters of physical addiction. I just wanted to emphasize that the chemical component is not to be underestimated. It's not the most relevant in the grand scheme of things, but it does make many drugs unquestionably dangerous. Which makes the legalization process very delicate.
Don't apologize, I'm really pleased that this discussion has remained relatively civil and intelligent. You know how it can be.
I think pot and hallucinogens are a no-brainer for legalization. But my basic contention here is that I don't think prohibition works at all- which I acknowledge is absolutely arguable.
A drug like meth, which doesn't really have any redeeming qualities, will be used as long as it's around. Keeping it off limits gives it that dangerous appeal, and ensures that if a kid gets a hold of it, it's probably from a career criminal, who isn't likely to inform the kid of its side-effects. I do believe that if it's legal, people are properly educated and it's responsibly regulated, its use will decline drastically. Most importantly, even if I'm wrong, it's clear that the current approach simply isn't working.
I personally feel that stoic philosophy is a risk factor in codependency - perhaps the addict has too little of what you call "stoicism" while the codependent has too much?
And by stoicism, I mean an ability to resist impulses, an ability to resist the desire for instant gratification despite the long-term consequences, a lack of the tendency to seek selfish pleasure despite how it affects family and those around you, and an ability to face problems rather than hide from them.
In any case, everybody who has recovered - whether it be from addiction or codependency or depression or what have you - has their own recovery story. And they generally contain wisdom, but there's a tendency for people to feel that their story is universally true. A virtue that you lacked during the dark days of your life may be a virtue that I hold to such an extreme that it has become a vice - consequently, I think we need to be aware that what works for one person might be detrimental to another.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Differences in alcohol metabolism (and the presence or lack of the alcohol-metabolizing enzyme) between, for instance, American Indians and, as a counterpoint, Southeast Asians go a long way to explaining the greater tendency towards alcoholism in the Indian population.
Of course, so does being rounded up and forced to live on a reservation with your heritage stripped from you and no job opportunities.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That doesn't mean addiction is biological, it means that the addict stays an addict until he eliminates the urges rather than when he loses his go-to drug. If you say he's no longer an addict once he can't get his primary drug, nobody should be surprised when he tries to fill his addiction with something ele.
This is true, but I must emphasize, not for all drugs. I gather crack is irreplaceable, while getting over heroin is apparently a lot easier if you smoke weed. And anecdotally, weed helped me quit drinking.
codependency is a shitty thing, and I feel bad for anyone stuck in a relationship with an addict. It's a lot easier to change when you rise or fall completely on your own, with nobody to fall on, so the situation is all around shitty.
and yeah, I get your point about individual experiences. My only universal point is that therapy with a real psychologist with a PhD (not a fucking addiction therapist) will help much more then the AA approach. My own personal beliefs reject the concept of addiction as pushed by them, so I know I'm somewhat out of a a limb, but I think that basic advice is good for everyone.
Actually, the general academic opinion is that having a good support network of supportive family/friends is very advantageous to recovery. There's a lot of talk about "enabling" in the addiction community but that word has kind of inflated past its original meaning. Having a clean safe place to sleep, somebody to talk to who isn't addicted to anything, and having access to professional mental health and medical care are all really important, which sounds obvious but I've encountered parents who think that letting their alcoholic come home to clean up is a form of "enabling" - as if it would be better for their kid to crash at their dealer's place.
Anyway, I think we agree on the main point, which is that: AA is stupid, professionals are better.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.