From: peter@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) Subject: Re: withdrawal Date: 1995/10/02 newsgroups: alt.drugs.hard In article <44mgl8$ecc@park.interport.net>, here@there.everywhere (Your Name Here) wrote: >>>It was indeed my choice to try drugs in the first place. Nobody >>>made me do it. I just happened to belive (like every junkie that >>>I've ever known) that "I won't get hooked. I'm stronger and smarter >>>than they (the junkies) are". I've got the strength/determination >>>and will power to prevent it". Personally I now chalk that old belief >>>up to ignorance. Because after all I was only thirteen years old at >>>the time. But, be-that-as-it-may you're right about one thing. Drug >>>addiction IS some sort of sickness. I don't know if it's a disease, >>>an affliction or just an oddity. But I do know it does exist. It's >>>not "stupidity". Nor is it a "learned response". I personally think >>>it's an uncommon disease that is contracted the first time you >>>introduce narcotics into your body AND it crosses your mind that you >>>like it. >>>I'd just like to add my agreement to Ace's point here (and like him, >>I've got a good few years under my belt so I've seen a fair bit.) >> >>This thing _isn't_ about will power. I personally don't believe >>that addiction is a 'disease' as such -- I prefer to see it as some >>kind of disorder of the will -- albeit one that is chemically >>determined. >> >>I think that there is far too little emphasis placed these days >>on the role of the chemical. After all, as someone keeps pointing >>out on another thread, our bodies are made of chemicals, and if >>we introduce a new one it _will_ change the chemical balance, and >>thus who we are, in some sense. That doesn't make it impossible >>to function without opiates eventually -- but it does make it much >>harder, by several orders of magnitude. >> > >Leaving aside for the moment the fact that of course we are all speculating >when we speak of these theories of "addiction" and dependence (speculating >based on evidence hopefully, but speculating still), I take issue Peter with >your focus on "will". Well, I'm not totally comfortable with the notion myself either, but it does seem to best explain the phenomenon I'm talking about -- albeit using a "common sense" conception of "free will" as opposed to a strictly philosphical one. >Personally, I've seen no evidence for the existance of >"will". It seems clearly to me to be illusory: we have no "free will", all our >actions are determined by the combination of the structure of our brains, the >particular neurochemistry of the moment, and the combination of >electrical/chemical stimuli triggered by our environments both of the moment >and from our total past experience. And this may well be true. However, there is obviously some sense in which we have wishes, desires, and voilition. And addiction appears to fuck with what little capacity we do have to exercise that voilition. I've had a strange relationship with my habit compared to most people, insofar as I felt that it was a rational decision to use and to continue using despite the fact that I was going to get a habit. I also used for a very long time without ever trying to quit. Consequently, I used to see it as a cost/benefit analysis. People used while they saw it as being in their best interests to do so, and stopped when they decided that it wasn't. Of course, I now see that I was ignoring the experiences of a huge group of people who honestly and sincerely wish that they could stop using -- who get very little pleasure out of it, but who -- try as they might, are unable to stop. And I've always viewed this as a paradox -- is it possible to change one's own desires, or is it always somehow determined from outside? From talking to people who have actually managed to get and stay clean, I now believe that it _is_ possible to change one's desire despite the fact that it has been seriously overdetermined by the long-term use of opiates. I think that it takes a long time -- even with someone who hasn't had a habit for very long, but I do believe that it's possible -- and I think that where abstinence-oriented treatment has some effects, be it AA, Therapeutic Communities or Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, I think it succeeds because it does eventually manage to help you to reshape the nature of your desire. If we were totally chemically determined, as you suggest, then the successes of these modalities wouldn't exist. That said, I'd want to put in the qualification that the number of people for whom said treatments work at all is very small, and maintenance regimes are usually much more effective in helping people to live a normal life unencumbered by the problems of supporting a habit. But they also bring problems of their own, and there will always be some proportion of people who aim for being drug free. How many of them would feel the same way if the maintenance programs were more civilized is a seperate issue. >Of course, as we can't "get ahead of the >curve", we have to act essentially as if we _did_ have "will", but when we >look back over the years we see that we couldn't have done much very >differently. Of course, this is the Buddhist me speaking, Not to mention the Marxist, as well. Have you ever read Althusser's essay on Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses? He draws on Lacan to produce a wonderful account of how ideology makes it necessary for us to believe that we have free will, in order to function. McDermott gives it two thumbs up! >but it dovetails >perfectly with modern biology and physics. This should be an extensive post, >but I've got to run. I wish Peter, that you'd elaborate here on your own >theory of "addiction", as you've always seemed to me to have a unique (and >seemingly contradictory) view of the thing. I actually don't have one. I don't buy any of the accepted theories, because I see too many holes in them -- too many exceptions to all of the general rules. I have a pretty good idea of which parts of what are true, and which aren't -- but I don't think that you can actually make a general statement about addiction, precisely because of the problem of free will. There will always be a proportion of that population who don't fit your theory. But it's that lack of any real paradigm and the need for continuous study, speculation and theorizing that keeps me interested in the topic. Unlike most American addiction treatment people, I'm pretty certain that we don't know very much about this stuff at all, and trying to make sense out of it is a source of endless stimulation for me. >I've always understood you to be >arguing that for yourself it was a "willful" thing. No? Yeah, pretty much. I knew what I was getting into when I got into it and didn't have any qualms about it. I continued to use because I wanted to use, not because I believed I couldn't stop -- I just thought I didn't want to stop. I was happier using than clean. However, when I seriously made the attempt to do so, and found that it was much more difficult than I'd expected, it was a real blow -- despite what I know about the subject. I guess I tended to see myself as superman. Just because other people have trouble quitting doesn't mean that I will. And once you _are_ detoxed, why is it that you relapse? Well, for me it was because I _wanted_ to get high. And at the same time, didn't want to. So it's that conflict between the intellectual desire to stay clean, and the emotional pull of getting high that I was referring to when I was talking about a 'disorder of the will'.