I too question whether addition fits the disease definition. Gene Heyman of Harvard Medical school wrote a book, "A Disorder of Choice", and would agree that for some who are considered addicted, it is a matter of choice, but this does not mean that there are not changes that take place in the brain when someone abuses a substance . What may need to be qualified in this sorry is whether all of what is referred to as addiction causes the same biological changes.
Read the article "Hidden Switches in the Brain," in Scientific American, Dec. 2011 by Dr. Eric Nestler of The Mount Sinai Hospital. His research show that there are epigenetic changes in the brain when an individual is addicted. These changes determine which the code of the protein a gene produces. One is not "cured" without these codes resetting themselves, or returning to there original state.
" if an identical twin has an addiction problem to a drug of abuse, his or her twin is probably not addicted, because environmental exposures are just as important in order for the genetic potential for addiction to become manifest. And unfortunately, there are some twins who are going to be more vulnerable and the question becomes what is the basis of that twin's enhanced vulnerability. One possibility is that it's just random events during development, that as a few neural stem cells in a fetus give rise to a hundred billion nerve cells in an adult human brain, a lot of stuff happens. And those kinds of random changes during development explain, for example, why the pattern of gyruses in the brain are very different even between identical twins.
Nora Volkow believes that drug taking is a disease on the grounds that chronic drug use incapacitates our ability to exert self-control. How can this be? By definition a former drug user is a person who no longer uses drugs, i.e, is a person exerting self-control.
Volkow says she's working on a vaccine for drug habits. That's right! Can't stop using cocaine? Not to worry! Take this (future) vaccine and all will be okay. Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Joe the Addict has an intense craving for cocaine. But Joe, being a good guy at heart, wants to beat this craving. He is now presented with two choices. Either Joe, or his medical insurance company, or even more likely the state, will pay exorbitant sums of dollars for generous servings of this new miraculous substance, which, presumably, will be called AntiCo (it would be labeled AntiCoke were it not for copyright infringement). Joe receives an injection of AntiCo. Then, after inhaling or smoking cocaine, he doesn't satisfy his craving because AntiCo will have neutralized cocaine's effects. When the effects of both AntiCo and cocaine have worn off, Joe will repeat the process. And repeat it again and again. Until he gets it right -- until, that is, he's overcome his craving for cocaine. In effect, he's gone cold turkey.
Choice number two: he goes cold turkey. He obtains (that is, pays for or has somebody else pay for) no AntiCo. He obtains (that is, pays for or has somebody else pay for) no cocaine. He suffers the pangs of going without cocaine. Total cost to the taxpayer? Nada, zilch, zero. But Joe, driven on by the recommendations of his political leaders, his doctors, the drug companies, and the drug-treatment experts, chooses, of course, option one. Should this "cure" pan out, we can look forward to an escalation of the drug war as the most incorrigible of users seek out more cocaine in an attempt to outdo the strength of the catalyst.
From pneumonia to cancer to AIDS, we're encouraged to get on a drug to combat an illness or to facilitate a cure. But, absent a vaccine, Volkow tells us that the cure for the disease of ingesting cocaine is to get off a drug, to not ingest cocaine. Question: by what definition of medicine is NOT taking a drug a cure for a disease?
Barry I agree with the spirit of not wanting to use further drugs to combat drugs. But I must take issue with your statement that "by definition a former drug user...is a person exerting self-control". As an addict in recovery myself, this is not the way recovery works. I tried to beat my addiction using willpower and self-control and it just didn't work.
Recovery is brought about by a change in pscyhe, not by self-control. And yes, this is I think most happily done by therapeutic methods rather than medication, in an ideal world.
If I had to use self control every day to beat my addiction, that would be a life not worth living - because it is constant mental torture not to use when you have an addiction. I know, because I tried that before I set about changing my reactions and responses, and my thinking - and became a happy, recovered addict.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Gene Heyman of Harvard Medical school wrote a book, "A Disorder of Choice", and would agree that for some who are considered addicted, it is a matter of choice, but this does not mean that there are not changes that take place in the brain when someone abuses a substance .
What may need to be qualified in this sorry is whether all of what is referred to as addiction causes the same biological changes.
Read the article "Hidden Switches in the Brain," in Scientific American, Dec. 2011 by Dr. Eric Nestler of The Mount Sinai Hospital. His research show that there are epigenetic changes in the brain when an individual is addicted. These changes determine which the code of the protein a gene produces. One is not "cured" without these codes resetting themselves, or returning to there original state.
" if an identical twin has an addiction problem to a drug of abuse, his or her twin is probably not addicted, because environmental exposures are just as important in order for the genetic potential for addiction to become manifest. And unfortunately, there are some twins who are going to be more vulnerable and the question becomes what is the basis of that twin's enhanced vulnerability. One possibility is that it's just random events during development, that as a few neural stem cells in a fetus give rise to a hundred billion nerve cells in an adult human brain, a lot of stuff happens. And those kinds of random changes during development explain, for example, why the pattern of gyruses in the brain are very different even between identical twins.
Volkow says she's working on a vaccine for drug habits. That's right! Can't stop using cocaine? Not to worry! Take this (future) vaccine and all will be okay. Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Joe the Addict has an intense craving for cocaine. But Joe, being a good guy at heart, wants to beat this craving. He is now presented with two choices. Either Joe, or his medical insurance company, or even more likely the state, will pay exorbitant sums of dollars for generous servings of this new miraculous substance, which, presumably, will be called AntiCo (it would be labeled AntiCoke were it not for copyright infringement). Joe receives an injection of AntiCo. Then, after inhaling or smoking cocaine, he doesn't satisfy his craving because AntiCo will have neutralized cocaine's effects. When the effects of both AntiCo and cocaine have worn off, Joe will repeat the process. And repeat it again and again. Until he gets it right -- until, that is, he's overcome his craving for cocaine. In effect, he's gone cold turkey.
Choice number two: he goes cold turkey. He obtains (that is, pays for or has somebody else pay for) no AntiCo. He obtains (that is, pays for or has somebody else pay for) no cocaine. He suffers the pangs of going without cocaine. Total cost to the taxpayer? Nada, zilch, zero. But Joe, driven on by the recommendations of his political leaders, his doctors, the drug companies, and the drug-treatment experts, chooses, of course, option one. Should this "cure" pan out, we can look forward to an escalation of the drug war as the most incorrigible of users seek out more cocaine in an attempt to outdo the strength of the catalyst.
From pneumonia to cancer to AIDS, we're encouraged to get on a drug to combat an illness or to facilitate a cure. But, absent a vaccine, Volkow tells us that the cure for the disease of ingesting cocaine is to get off a drug, to not ingest cocaine. Question: by what definition of medicine is NOT taking a drug a cure for a disease?
Barry Lyons
author, "Letter to a Prohibitionist"
Recovery is brought about by a change in pscyhe, not by self-control. And yes, this is I think most happily done by therapeutic methods rather than medication, in an ideal world.
If I had to use self control every day to beat my addiction, that would be a life not worth living - because it is constant mental torture not to use when you have an addiction. I know, because I tried that before I set about changing my reactions and responses, and my thinking - and became a happy, recovered addict.
Beth Burgess
Smyls Recovery Coaching