I went from the Ivy League to IV drugs. And I've been obsessed with figuring out what addiction is ever since. Is it a disease? A moral weakness? A learning disorder? I explore this issue and what science can -- and cannot -- tell us about these questions in today's Washington Post.
I believe it is far more complicated than most advocates of particular perspectives admit.
More here. And as always, I'm interested in hearing what others think about this...
Follow Maia Szalavitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/maiasz
I was able to quit cigarettes by simply deciding, as you decided, to quit. I didn't particularly think it was a glamorous or pleasurable thing, so I quit, but I quit several times before finally realizing I couldn't bum a smoke, or have one under any circumstances. I've quit coffee as well, but I slip back now and again because of articles about its benefits.
One of the reasons I smoked the weed as long as I did was a sense of alienation from the dominant culture. That alienation was fed by my success at selling the weed, I'm afraid. As an honest, dedicated buyer, I made friends all over the country and felt I was doing a service for that part of society that enjoyed it.Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't. At any rate, the criminal justice system has ways of dealing with addiction to dealing, and it is, as they say in prison, nothin nice. Many people take drugs for the community drugs has ready made for you. You can meet people, make friends, get laid, and all without the hassle of traditional networking. Plus there's a buck in it, a buck that makes it necessary to do the drug in order to sell it.
Legalizing drugs would take the monetary cachet away from them, and a lot of people would be less likely to do them then. Drug use should be a health issue, not a legal issue.
Once drug use is a health issue, we can treat the problem with effective public relations and programs designed to bring people together more authentically than simply sharing a pipe, a needle, or various measures of fronts.
I was taught not to drink by a father who often squandered our meager resources on binges. I was taught, in turn, to drink by the rich kids whose parents provided us booze and cigarettes so we'd grow up and learn to use these respectable drugs.
I was taught to quit drinking by tiring of the trouble booze caused--headaches, hangovers, waste of time. Also, drinking lost its cachet for me. When marijuana came along in the 60s, it seemed so delightfully sub rosa, and it had a very subdued set of effects I found preferable to those of booze. Also, the people trying it seemed of a higher order than the frat boys.
I remember all the articles that said cocaine wasn't addictive! I had doctor friends (med school) who showed me and asked me if I could get some, which I didn't. As the high tide of cocaine consumption crested, I resisted it, mostly (as Mark Twain might say of telling the truth). It was junk, so watch out.
I do not know why self-respect allowed me to resist it, or to be an occasional user. Probably the same self-respect that made me realize that opiates could be very addictive and should not be used regularly.
My only severe addiction, and it was brief, was gambling. It seemed okay for a while, but I realized that I was losing more than winning and had to quit while I was behind. I'm glad I could, but who knows why I could.
We're all psychologically dependent on numerous things-- love being the big one. That's not a problem. It's a good thing, in fact. It means we're human.
The problem is compulsive use of substances or activities despite negative consequences. The compulsion, not the dependence, is the problem.
Dependence simply means need-- need is fine. Need for something that's hurting you isn't dependence, but addiction. The word dependence just causes confusion, not clarity
The research shows some links to emotional memory and pleasure in association to hippocampus stimulus, the connection is not well understood.
That's interesting, you say:
"this is related to memory and some type of psychological need"
A psychological need, eh? You mean one is being influenced, controlled or determined by something other than ones conscious awareness?
That ones neuro-transmitters are seeking to reproduce good emotional feelings from an external source? Sounds habit-forming, one could form a psychologically dependence on such a thing.
Imagine that! Go figure.
Seems PC is very knowledgeable on this subject and neuro-science is proving it.
If I remember correctly PC has well over 35 years of experience on the subject.
Agape.
Similarly, I don't think endorphins and are a "false fix"-- they are literally a key part of the natural chemistry of love. if your brain's reward system doesn't work (if you block these chemicals or have some dysfunction in these systems for some reason), you cannot connect with other people.
And so, one of the things people do instead is take drugs.
This doesn't mean that "love is false" or "love is a drug" in the sense that it's "fake" or "artificial." It just means that we are chemical beings and that drugs can mimic these natural chemicals in ways that can be destructive.
The endorphins are not the false fix. It is the narcotic that falsely stimulates, in the place of love, the body's endorphin system.
What's destructive is the cycle of repeating the process of quick fix narcotic love, which plagues the body with illness and social consequences, seperating further the person from making and maintaining successful and 'naturally' rewarding relationships.
And your ability to push away a temptation towards addiction would rely on previous experience with a true experience in a loving, nurturing relationship.
One of the key points it makes is that you can have dependency without addiction (we're all dependent on food, air, water-- diabetics are dependent on insulin, some blood pressure medications cause dependence but no one robs drugstores to get them)and there is also addiction without physical dependence.
Cocaine, for example, causes very little physical dependence (you don't get physically sick when you quit, just have severe craving) but no one argues any more that it's not addictive (though they used to do, as you would have seen if you read the story).
And serotonin and dopamine are involved in virtually every emotional response by the brain so it's hardly surprising they'd be involved with addiction. That doesn't tell us much.
Omega 3's do help with depression and insofar as some people's addictions are driven by depression (which was true in my case), it may help there as well.
But this is far from simple.
Other people I know though can recreationally use alcohol, pot, or halucinogens and not experience any addictive behavior.... but then again, we have an obesity epidemic in this country -- addictions to video games and potato chips may be the cause.
But I think what many people don't get is that it's not a choice to have such feelings-- sure, you can work cognitively to distract yourself and to not "buy into" them, and you can do service to others to reassure yourself that actions count more than thoughts and your actions aren't worthy of such self-loathing.
However, if you still feel as though you are worthless and unloved and that you don't deserve to be loved, it is very, very difficult to avoid chemical escape. It is here where addiction and depression meet: and if you don't somehow-- social support, therapy, medication, ideally combine all three-- lift that, you are either going to be miserable, suicidal or using or all three.
Meanwhile, people who have never experienced such things say things like "get over it" and stop being so self-obsessed. That's like telling someone to ignore a toothache. It's very easy to ignore your teeth if they aren't hurting.
This is where I have sympathy for the disease model-- if by disease you mean something you didn't choose that torments you, I agree. But where I don't buy it is where you say there's no choice involved and no free will. Because that perspective leads to seeing addicts as dangerous zombies who need to be locked up to protect themselves and everyone else.
So I think we need to be alert to complexity here, basically-- and choose approaches that are compassionate and effective. Curiously enough, the more compassionate approaches are the most effective anyway.
Crazy Raul, though, I figured that he may have had an addiction going. Since there were folks in there whose only offense was being homeless and he was so dirt poor, I always figured that he just didn't fit in on the outside. But on the visiting days he was a hustling machine.
The visitors came directly into the prison interior and it created a real holiday atmosphere twice a week. Food and crafts for sale, children running the halls, couples arranging places to be discreet. That sort of thing.
Raul hawked whatever someone was willing to give him a commission on, and he bought pills as fast as he cleared enough for one. Before the end of the visit he was falling down high, but, I think, loving it. And then he needed to keep it going so he hocked what few meager things he had. When we saw him down to his underwear that was the signal that this cycle was over, and that he would have to be basically naked and straight for the next couple of days.
And then it would start over. His clothes were given back to him on trust that what he owed on them would be paid from his first sales, and he never failed, because he would have been out of business, and out of drugs, if he did.
We only feel better when our lanscape offers the oppurtunities for change. I think addition is a calling for help. It is enviromental.
Assure you that "being obsessed" is part of addiction.