From: (Ian Wardle) Subject: ADDICTION IS IT NORMAL OR A MYTH? Date: 1995/11/03 newsgroups: alt.drugs.hard There is a real interesting debate hotting up here in the U.K. just now and it can be seen to be drawn from the work of two scholars in the field (E-Mail us for details). Basically, one argument has it that addiction is a myth. It is just a way that people explain away their behaviour. It is a 'script' they learn due to the dominance of the various medical and disease models of 'addiction'. This script is learnt in the same way that actors learn scripts for plays and films. The problem is that there are few althernative scripts to those of the medical/disease models. A good example is that people on the opiate anatagonists (e.g. Naltrexone) talk about that "medicine" in exactly the same way that people on Methadone Maintenance talk about their "medicine". The alternative view is seeking to ditch the medical/disease model but not to ditch the notion of addiction. In short, this argument is still in its early developmental days but hinges in part (my interpretation and chosen understanding) on the proposition that it may be normal to be addicted and that it is still societal reaction to addiction to certain substances (e.g. heroin) and not others (e.g. tobacco) that cause most of the problems. This latter argument can be used to say that with the wholesale use of methadone it may well be that it will be perfectly normal to be an opiate addict in the twilight of the 20th century. This is especially pertinent given the often under appreciated ANXIOLYTIC properties of methadone and the other opiates. Indeed if it can be shown that methadone is a successful ANXIOLYTIC then its appeal may rise as the perfect companion and/or alternative to the meteoric rise of the anti-depressant SSRI's (PROZAC etc...) ================================================================== From: (Peter McDermott) Subject: Re: ADDICTION IS IT NORMAL OR A MYTH? Date: 1995/11/03 newsgroups: alt.drugs.hard (Ian Wardle) wrote: >Basically, one argument has it that addiction is a myth. It is just a way >that people explain away their behaviour. It is a 'script' they learn due >to the dominance of the various medical and disease models of 'addiction'. >This script is learnt in the same way that actors learn scripts for plays >and films. The problem is that there are few althernative scripts to those >of the medical/disease models. [...] >The alternative view is seeking to ditch the medical/disease model but not >to ditch the notion of addiction. In short, this argument is still in its >early developmental days but hinges in part (my interpretation and chosen >understanding) on the proposition that it may be normal to be addicted and >that it is still societal reaction to addiction to certain substances (e.g. >heroin) and not others (e.g. tobacco) that cause most of the problems. I think that there is value in both positions. There can be no doubt that much of how addicts behave is a consequence of the way that they have internalized the dominant discourse or 'script' about addiction. The world tells us that withdrawal is intolerable and addicts will kill for a fix, and so many of us use this script to legitimize their bad behaviour. "I had to rob that old woman, I was turkeying." And as with anything, concepts and languages structure our behaviour. As Lacan says, 'The unconscious is structured like a language'. However, to use that to throw out the whole concept of addiction is, IMO, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a form of problematic behaviour out there that is characterized by various things -- an obsessive preoccupation with drugs, continued use in spite of negative consequences, physical withdrawal syndrome, etc. that we agree can be called addiction. While I believe that it is more amenable to our control that we often admit, it often gives rise to a contradictory state that I believe characterizes addiction for me, that is, the urge to stop can be very strong, while at the same time it is overwhelmed by the urge to use. This may not be a disease but addiction is a useful term to use to describe the condition. However, I do believe that the major consequences of addiction are a result of societal reaction, and that there is no real reason why people should see any form of opiate maintenance as any different to the use of antidepressants or insulin.