Addiction: Whole New View

Found an interesting article - I call it interesting because virtually everything is interesting to me - that talks about brain, mind and behavior specialists are re-thinking the concept of addiction. About time you say? I agree.

With help from neuroscience, molecular biology, pharmacology, psychology, and genetics, they're challenging their own hard-core assumptions and popular "certainties" and finding surprisingly common characteristics among addictions.

They're using new imaging techniques to see how addiction looks and feels and where cravings "live" in the brain and mind. They're concluding that things are far from hopeless and they are rapidly replacing conjecture with facts.

For example, scientists have learned that every animal, from the ancient hagfish to reptiles, rodents, and humans, share the same basic pleasure and "reward" circuits in the brain, circuits that all turn on when in contact with addictive substances or during pleasurable acts such as eating or orgasm. One conclusion from this evidence is that addictive behaviors are normal, a natural part of our "wiring." If they weren't, or if they were rare, nature would not have let the capacity to be addicted evolve, survive, and stick around in every living creature.

"Everyone engages in addictive behaviors to some extent because such things as eating, drinking, and sex are essential to survival and highly reinforcing," says G. Alan Marlatt, Ph.D., director of the Addictive Behaviors Research Center at the University of Washington. "We get immediate gratification from them and find them very hard to give up, indeed. That's a pretty good definition of addiction."

Now let's look at something that everyone has heard of, namely that pesky alcohol addiction, no that pesky alcohol disease I mean. The article mentions the notion that alchoholism are considered a disease, actually that most addictive behaviours are diseases and that this is a "model" or "theory" for characterizing it.

Everyone likes this model, Miller says. People with alcohol problems like it because they get special status as victims of a disease and get treatment. Nonalcoholics like it because they can tell themselves they don't need to worry if they don't have the "disease." The treatment industry loves it because there's money to be made, and the liquor industry loves it because under this theory, it's not alcohol that's the problem but the alcoholic.

I applaud these scientists, and it's about time we took another look at addiction issues, because let's be honest the current one is a corrupt one. The corporations, and the institutions handling addiction, are the only ones profiting off of it, does this seem right to you though? I've got a couple of persons I know thats been to AA, but has had relapses numerous times. Let's hope these scientists can figure out something better. But anyway, to get the full understanding of what the article talks about, have a look at it yourself:

Source: Addiction: Whole New View

reply to post by Droogie


Nice article. I have always found "addictions" to be an odd phenomenon. I am certainly addicted to eating food. It has the pleasureable effect of keeping me alive! Also, sex. I am highly addicted to sex, and I feel that it is necessarily so to ensure the survival of my species. As a matter of fact, I have seen the popular opinion of many biologists that say "survival of species" is a far more powerful instinct than "survival of self." Therefore, animals (including humans) will often risk or sacrifice their own life just to get a little sex! NOW THAT IS A STRONG ADDICTION, and WE ALL HAVE IT!!

So, some drugs are far more addictive than others, and yet some weaker addictions are more prevalent. Nicotine for example. Much research says Nicotine is not very addictive at all. ALL research shows that any chemical addiction to Nicotine is gone within 3 days to 2 weeks. Yet people still crave it 10 - 20 years after they stop smoking? Whereas Heroin is extremely addictive, but once people get clean for a fair amount of time, they often have no desire to ever resume, and even an irrational fear of resuming the habit?

So, Food, Sex, Cigarettes, Alchohol are often abused and result in more life-threatening situations than do hard drugs like Heroin or Crack?

Obviously there is something else going on besides just a chemical addiction, or a feel good hormone.

so hypothetically speaking:
Once they find out where in the brain these
addictions occur, will they send us all to FEMA
Camps to take away our addictions so we're
all model citizens ????

Will they absolve freewill????

This could be scary if it's potential is abused
by TPTB.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Droogie

 

Whereas Heroin is extremely addictive, but once people get clean for a fair amount of time, they often have no desire to ever resume, and even an irrational fear of resuming the habit?

Have you got any sources that verify these claims? I haven't heard of this before.

So, Food, Sex, Cigarettes, Alchohol are often abused and result in more life-threatening situations than do hard drugs like Heroin or Crack?

I don't know how you got that from the article, would you care to show me?

reply to post by boondock-saint


Hm, again, I'm not sure how you gathered this from the article. But in the case that I've overlooked something, would you care to show me where the article implies that we will be sent to FEMA-camps? It's kind of a dramatic view on something that should be innocuous and in fact helpful.

It would be interesting to debate how this might put an end to the current B.S. corrupt view on how we should treat addiction as a disease. Addiction is someting that is prevalent in all humans, and we should not treat it as a disease.

Well, as with anything, we need to look at the definition in order that we are all on the same page.

Addiction: A compulsive need for habit forming drugs.

So equating drinking water or eating food OR sex wouldn't categorically fall under that definition. Reason being that they aren't categorically habit forming drugs. Alcohol yes, water no.

The OP said:

... It would be interesting to debate how this might put an end to the current B.S. corrupt view on how we should treat addiction as a disease. Addiction is someting that is prevalent in all humans, and we should not treat it as a disease.

I disagree....
In looking at the above definition of true addiction and it's relevance to chemical dependence. Then addiction is and should be treated as a disease in lieu of our current system of treating it solely as a crime.

But that is the entire purpose of providing these addictive drugs to the poor in the first place.

It works as an effective means of culling the numbers of the poor through death and/or incarceration.

And also why in the US , the prisons are owned and operated by private for profit corporations. [re:Halliburton]

Also as to why the wealthy attend rehab when addicted and the poor go to jail and/or end up dead.

Originally posted by Droogie

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Droogie

 

Whereas Heroin is extremely addictive, but once people get clean for a fair amount of time, they often have no desire to ever resume, and even an irrational fear of resuming the habit?

Have you got any sources that verify these claims? I haven't heard of this before.

So, Food, Sex, Cigarettes, Alchohol are often abused and result in more life-threatening situations than do hard drugs like Heroin or Crack?

I don't know how you got that from the article, would you care to show me?

The first part of your question is only my personal experience from people I have known that are either ex-smokers, ex-alcoholics, or ex-drug addicts. I have known quite a few, and kicking the initial habit is much more difficult for those on the harder drugs. However, the ones that I know that have been successful for a year or two and got their lives back on track are entirely appalled and fearful of the thought of ever trying those drugs again. As a matter of fact, two of the women that I know refuse to even take a Tylenol, because they have an "irrational" fear of getting hooked on anything! (For the record, I am not in the field, I just happen to know 5 or 6 people that have gone from the bottom to the top.)

Now for the second part of your question, I didn't get it from the article, I was merely commenting on how I think the whole idea of "addiction" is misunderstood and sometimes senseless. "Chemical Addiction" is pretty easy to see and research, but then we have other aspects of addiction that are almost impossible to understand. Steroids for instance. There is no chemical addiction to steroids, but there is a very strong emotional addiction. Cigarettes and Nicotine have a very weak chemical addiction, but the "habit" and lifestyle that accompanies smoking is very hard to break. Smokers often don't know what to do with their freetime after they quit smoking. They "need" to have a cigarette just to walk outside or eat a meal? (From my personal experience as well.)

Originally posted by Droogie
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Hm, again, I'm not sure how you gathered this from the article. But in the case that I've overlooked something, would you care to show me where the article implies that we will be sent to FEMA-camps? It's kind of a dramatic view on something that should be innocuous and in fact helpful.

It would be interesting to debate how this might put an end to the current B.S. corrupt view on how we should treat addiction as a disease. Addiction is someting that is prevalent in all humans, and we should not treat it as a disease.

Droogie, I see that you are a fairly new member. Is it your intention to kill your own thread?

If we stick merely to what is in the article, then there is really no need for a thread? We can all read the article nod in approval and move on to a more interesting discussion.

The idea of these threads is to read an article, make some kind of inference from it. Connect that inference to personal experience or other articles and other threads, and then discuss the issue as a whole. It is important to stay on topic, but it is equally important to bring in a variety of views.

Hope that helps.

reply to post by nh_ee


Well, you have obviously not caught the essential building block of this topic, which is: a new view on addiction Therefore, it doesn't help to give an old definiton, which ignores the entire premise of the potential debate. I suggest reading the article, which describes very accurately how these scientists suggests on how we should look at addiction.

reply to post by getreadyalready


There's no need to be condescending, my being a new member doesn't have anything to do with anything.

If you agree with what the article is saying, thats fine, I do too. But if you don't agree, why not have a debate on it? And since this is in the science and technology forum, and I bet that most of us aren't scientists, is it wrong to put up new information in the interest of enlightenment? Or is this forum only for threads where you can post your own scientific discoveries?

And if you was hurt because I asked for sources, don't be. It was merely a question as I was interested in what you were saying. I don't mind personal experiences, but I appreciate documented empirical evidence as well.

The idea of these threads is to read an article, make some kind of inference from it. Connect that inference to personal experience or other articles and other threads, and then discuss the issue as a whole. It is important to stay on topic, but it is equally important to bring in a variety of views.

I agree. But I found what he said to be complete fantasy, if you have another view on it, by all means respond to it.

[edit on 19/7/10 by Droogie]

[edit on 19/7/10 by Droogie]

reply to post by Droogie


I didn't mind you questioning my post, it was your response to Boondock that I thought was strange. That response combined with your response to me is what made me think to post. I tried to not be condescending. That was the point of saying, "I see that you are a new member." I also saw that you are from Scandanavia, and I thought it might be a cultural thing making me read your posts as a little harsh. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, as for agreeing with the original article. NO, I don't think that addictions are "diseases." But, I also don't think the research from the article supports that argument. If anything, finding that there is a brain mechanism for addictions proves that they ARE diseases!

Now, as for potential abuse as Boondock was stating. I don't believe in any brain-altering drugs. I think anti-depressants are widely over prescribed and dangerous. And, if they can find replacement chemicals to fix addictions such as alcholism, then it is a short slide down the slope to replacing addictions such as overeating and pedophilia. Shorter still to replacing sex drive in people who choose to be abstinent and don't want to battle the urges. Slippery slope all the say down good intentions to the point Boondock was making about prescribing drugs to help us not be addicted to things like Freedoms! Maybe it is an exaggeration now, but Doctors are already using Anti-Depressants and Pain Killers in place of diagnostic medicine.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Firstly, judging if someone is trying to be condescending or not on the internet isn't easy. A rule of thumb is that a message will always be interpreted in the most negative fashion, which I regret I did.

But regarding the second paragraph in your post;

The article says that addiction is inherent in all humans, therefore it shouldnt be regarded as a disease. I agree with that statement because I put my trust in the scientists' judgdement on this matter. However, I certainly see your point, and I appreciate your view on this and I need to think about it.

And as for the third paragraph of your post, I'm not sure what to think. I agree on the first half, but the second I see as exaggeration and it sounds too extreme. But if so, looking at it in a hypothetical view, it would be scary and it makes me think of a police state such as britain that has several cameras on every corner. The use of anti-depressants and pain killers are probably a good way in pacifying people and to control, it's a scary thought.

PS: I use alot of time formulating my posts due to the language barrier, and this barrier might cause me to misinterpret some posts, and I appologize for that.

I have been in and out of rehabs in order for DSS to pay my rent, it is a total racket, my Benefits card is passed around like a J, and yes, the disease model helps this paradigm for the above stated reasons.

My DOC is cannabis, DSS says I'm unemployable, yet I've smoked with more than one of my bosses on the job and still performed fine.

Did you know that the Rehab industry wants to decriminalize drugs? True, more $ for them...The incarceration industry says I'm a criminal, CPS says I'm a child abuser.

Sick
Unemployable
Child Abuser
Criminal

They can't decide.

I'm just a human seeking pleasure.

Oh yeah, I looked, I could not find six-pack of cancer at the convenience store...

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Kalki11]