The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, And It Is Not What You Think

Awesome post, and awesome experiment.

.. and that's f'#ed up what they did to those other rats.

The human condition, and those of domesticated animals are susceptible to depression as a result of being "domesticated" with sufficient food and water, etc. with all their physical needs satisfied.

Primitive humans and animals are completely occupied in life having to seek food and other necessities. They always have something to do, something to pursue, and rewarded when they get it. What they do is very significant to them since its life or death. They don't have much idle time, any time to get depressed, since their minds are always occupied with a pursuit or a significant cause.

Modern domesticated humans and say indoor cats for example, have run into a dilemma because (for many) all of their food and necessities are provided leaving them with nothing they really have to do on their free time. They went from hunting their food, fighting for territory, and looking for mates -> to having their balls cut off, and playing with strings, or a ball of aluminum foil. Its a stupid existence. They went from feelings of high adventure and a rich life with all this stuff, and dynamics, to being stuck indoors, looking out a window, or playing with strings. Most of the time they are bored out of their minds and depressed. The human condition is not that different in a sense coming from a rich primitive lifestyle.

a reply to: purplemer

I kid you not, before I even clicked to open the thread, I had this thought: "You mean it's not crippling emotional trauma?" Not sure I like being right.

originally posted by: Tangerine

On the other hand, he has experience in choosing to not be a drug addict.

I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. Having experience NOT doing something isn't really experience, is it..

If it counted, I think I'd be probably the most talented person ever. I have tons of experience not doing things all over the world.

a reply to: odd1out

Yeah, didn't Methadone start being distributed en masse when the 'Nam vets came home and so many were strung out?

Pretty sure that's what I've been told, but might not stand under some scrutiny.

This is an interesting study.

As a human species, it is incredible how we tend to addict to almost anything, not just drugs. we become obsessed and attached to certain routines, sugar and food addictions, technology. You could actually be addicted or obsessed with anything! psychically addicted is a different story, most of these are mental issues.

This leads me to realize that our culture is more concerned with entertainment and feeding into specific addictions and obsessions for entertainment rather than focusing on self improvement. Which I think, if made more prominent would ultimately lend more happiness.

I think there was a study about wealth and they found people's happiness doesn't increase when income surpasses 75k. Yes, so virtually all of hte rich people aren't happier which explains a lot.

Here (the title should read Moneys Buys Happiness up to $75,000:
content.time.com - Study: Money Buys Happiness When Income Is $75,000...

People aren't always happy just because they're wealthy, or if they make $75,000 income. I think this can be for a variety of reasons. Maybe they had trauma sometime in their life. I remember reading rape victims have higher incidence of suicide than normal. Maybe they're chronically depressed because they inherited bad genes from their parents. Or, like the linked article in hte oP, maybe they're not socially connected.

Some more links:
www.foreignaffairs.com - The Price of Poverty...
healthland.time.com - The Rich Have Higher Level of Narcissism, Study Shows...
www.ted.com - Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies...

I think hte end result is we wnat a society which is less inequal but we want our poorest to not just rely on others to "raise up". The hope is everybody puts in the work to make society more equal.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

In essence yes, I just don't like the part about saying if you have a happy life you will no longer be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Improving your surroundings and well being a part of recovery and for some people I suppose could be enough but for others it takes quite a bit more. My concern was just with the allusion that it is some kind of moral choice being made by the user to be addicted (not whether they use in the first place, for clarification).

I think you mean illusion not allusion. They mean different things.

Nope, I meant allusion. The act of alluding.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

The addiction is manifested in different ways and different reasons, but it also a chemical thing which is not something that can be switched on and off like a light switch, and once your body and mind and brain chemistry becomes dependent on it, hence addiction sets in.

Though I agree with you on one point, it's important (to me) that I point out that there are differences between dependence and addiction. I know we are speaking addiction here in this thread, but some may take this to mean that anyone taking drugs is an addict. This is not always the case, and is why some people who take pain medications are made to feel stigmatized.

But the ultimate thing is to avoid it altogether, which in real life is not so easy, sometimes its like walking through a minefield.

This is true, and sometimes it's not in a persons best interests to avoid certain medications that are addictive; the risks vs. benefits have to be weighed carefully, and self discipline is very important (some have it-some don't-and many struggle).

Mice are mice. On general if they have it all they are more prone to avoid poisons and life out there mousy life's as best they can. What I am saying is, on some levels animals like mice are smarter then humans.

Animals do at least one thing which might be construed as smarter (IMO it is), they follow their instincts. Where humans, we use logic to talk us into or out of things instead of going with our own basic instincts.

If you are happy, you can conclude that you do not need drugs to make you something what you already have. But the many factors involved with the term "happiness" Does not necessarily mean the same thing from person to person, and all kinds of variables and life situations do change things. But in the end, no matter if your happy or not, its best to avoid addictive drugs and seek happiness in other things, even in the small things in life would make you more happy then drugs.

So true. I've read through the thread (so far), and I've seen a few people make remarks such as; "Because it's fun", but those are (IMO) people who are still in what I call 'the honeymoon period', or the stage in their addiction, abuse, of whatever chemical they are taking. They haven't reached the point where the drug is causing more harm than good.



* for your comment.

originally posted by: Ensinger23

originally posted by: Tangerine

On the other hand, he has experience in choosing to not be a drug addict.

I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. Having experience NOT doing something isn't really experience, is it..

If it counted, I think I'd be probably the most talented person ever. I have tons of experience not doing things all over the world.

You should have read more carefully. I said he has experience in CHOOSING.... Choosing to not do something is an active decision.

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

In essence yes, I just don't like the part about saying if you have a happy life you will no longer be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Improving your surroundings and well being a part of recovery and for some people I suppose could be enough but for others it takes quite a bit more. My concern was just with the allusion that it is some kind of moral choice being made by the user to be addicted (not whether they use in the first place, for clarification).

I think you mean illusion not allusion. They mean different things.

Nope, I meant allusion. The act of alluding.

Allusion is a figure of speech, in which one refers covertly or indirectly to an object or circumstance from an external context. I said the addict makes the initial choice to use the substance. That is a direct statement not covert or indirect reference. It was not an allusion.

I'm still waiting for your source for your claim that 80% of addicts are born with a predisposition to addiction and the other 20% alter their neurological pathways through the use of substances in such a way that they become addicts. Your claim implies that addiction is caused by the arrangement of neural pathways in the brain. Could you provide a link to the study that produced these statistics? I'd be interested in reading it for more information. Thanks.

a reply to: Tangerine

The use of allusion had nothing to do with anything you have said in this thread. It was in reference to the OP's research and supposed findings. I seriously don't understand why you are using these ridiculous straw mans in order to try and argue inconsequential points to my posts.

Do you really have nothing better to do? I have made it clear I don't wish to discuss anything with you if you are going to act like you are. I honestly have no desire to prove anything to you, I don't care if you agree with me or my statistics used. You have done nothing but argue semantics with me, it is pointless and a waste of both our time.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Tangerine

The use of allusion had nothing to do with anything you have said in this thread. It was in reference to the OP's research and supposed findings. I seriously don't understand why you are using these ridiculous straw mans in order to try and argue inconsequential points to my posts.

Do you really have nothing better to do? I have made it clear I don't wish to discuss anything with you if you are going to act like you are. I honestly have no desire to prove anything to you, I don't care if you agree with me or my statistics used. You have done nothing but argue semantics with me, it is pointless and a waste of both our time.

You are doing a good job of convincing me and others that your statistics do not exist. I have repeatedly asked you to back up your claims of fact (not semantics). You have failed to do so. That speaks for itself.

I think most addicts wind up having serious emotional issues, but something else to take into consideration is that the neurobiology can be a bit mucked up from the get go. Imagine having minimal brain damage, and not being able to cope with the fact that you can't fit in easily, or that people are always frustrated with you. You keep trying the best you can, but your best is not good enough in the eyes of people you care for, or that you require in order to get by in society. Maybe you have a talent, but your ADHD keeps you from being a success. You feel as if you have been screwed out of a chance to be your best. Someone introduces you to an emotional release in the form of a drug.

In this case, you can look directly to the drug and say that's the problem. You can look back one step and say the emotional pain was the problem. You can also look back to what caused the bulk of the emotional pain leading for the perceived need for release. That would be the brain damage. People with ADHD and other learning disorders are at increased risk of becoming addicts.

I trust nobody assumes I'm saying all addicts are brain damaged, or that this in any way excuses addicts from their ultimate choice to start up. It does seem those with brain damage are at both increased risk of trying, and increased difficulty reasoning their way into successful recovery. Recovery is a learning process, and if they're learning disabled... well that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
I think most addicts wind up having serious emotional issues, but something else to take into consideration is that the neurobiology can be a bit mucked up from the get go. Imagine having minimal brain damage, and not being able to cope with the fact that you can't fit in easily, or that people are always frustrated with you. You keep trying the best you can, but your best is not good enough in the eyes of people you care for, or that you require in order to get by in society. Maybe you have a talent, but your ADHD keeps you from being a success. You feel as if you have been screwed out of a chance to be your best. Someone introduces you to an emotional release in the form of a drug.

In this case, you can look directly to the drug and say that's the problem. You can look back one step and say the emotional pain was the problem. You can also look back to what caused the bulk of the emotional pain leading for the perceived need for release. That would be the brain damage. People with ADHD and other learning disorders are at increased risk of becoming addicts.

I trust nobody assumes I'm saying all addicts are brain damaged, or that this in any way excuses addicts from their ultimate choice to start up. It does seem those with brain damage are at both increased risk of trying, and increased difficulty reasoning their way into successful recovery. Recovery is a learning process, and if they're learning disabled... well that shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

Look back to the point where the person CHOOSES to use heroin, for example.

a reply to: purplemer

I think you are right ... in a lot of cases. But you are wrong in a lot of cases too. I think much depends also on the genes, the inborn neurotransmitter system if you want. And there is nothing you can do to change that system, except using the right drugs in a well thought way. A very difficult and long term operation with trial and error. And a lot of us are not strong enough, become addicted and enter a downward spiral.
So the social situation is not always the cause I think. Far from that.

a reply to: zandra

Thank you for your reply...I know that it is more complicated than rats in cages. I think however it might be a strong influencing factor.

purp...

a reply to: [post=18913598]purplemer[/po

A person becoming a drug addict has many different factors, Genetics, environmental conditioning, Chemical imbalance. The drugs them self are almost never the problem. When a person is able to work out the underlying issues that they are using the drugs to cope with they recover and lead healthy normal lives. The "Functioning Drug Addict" finds a way to live with their addiction, instead of letting their addiction live their life.

That doesn't explain rich people's addictios.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Yes and I never understood how people thought drugs made them feel good. I just don't see it myself.

It's the euphoria that makes them feel good. When you screw with different neurotransmitters in the brain you get that effect.