Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Self-Refuting Drug Warriors
A new analysis of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health once again confirms a point I emphasize in my book Saying Yes: The vast majority of illegal drug users do not fit the stereotype of addiction and degradation promoted by the government and the news media. Based on data from the 2004, 20005, and 2006 surveys, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) calculated the percentage of people who became "dependent" on various drugs within two years of trying them. Here are the dependence rates, in ascending order:
Inhalants: 0.9%
Tranquilizers (nonmedical use): 1.2%
Psychedelics: 1.9%
Sedatives (nonmedical use): 2.4%
Painkillers (nonmedical use): 3.1%
Alcohol: 3.2%
Cocaine Powder: 3.7%
Stimulants (nonmedical use): 4.7%
Marijuana: 5.8%
Crack Cocaine: 9.2%
Heroin: 13.4%
In some ways these results track conventional wisdom. Heroin comes out on top, which conforms to traditional thinking if not to more recent scare mongering about crack and methamphetamine, each of which was said to be at least as addictive, if not more so. But even in the case of heroin, a large majority of users were not deemed "dependent," and most (69 percent) had not even used the drug in the previous year. Likewise, crack looks more addictive than cocaine powder, but 76 percent of the people who tried crack were not using it at all a year later, quite a feat with a drug that's said to be instantly addictive. The comparable rate for cocaine powder was 58 percent, which could mean that a) people find it more appealing than crack, b) people find it easier to integrate into their lives because the experience is less intense, or c) people find it more appealing because it's easier to integrate into their lives. I think most people would be surprised to see that "stimulants," which included methamphetamine, rate lower on this addiction scale than heroin, crack, and even marijuana, and that narcotic painkillers, described as overwhelming and irresistible in press coverage of the OxyContin "epidemic," look no more addictive than alcohol.
A few notes of caution:
1. SAMHSA measures drug dependence through questions based on the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic criteria, which require three or more of seven indicators: 1) tolerance, 2)withdrawal, 3) taking the drug in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended, 4) a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut back, 5) a lot of time spent getting, using, or recovering from the effects of the drug, 6) disruption of important social occupational, or recreational activities, and 7) persistent use despite serious drug-related physical or psychological problems. To qualify for the label, a patient is supposed to be suffering from a "maladaptive pattern of substance use" that leads to "clinically significant impairment or distress," which is difficult to assess at a distance through a survey. But the major line of criticism I've seen indicates that, if anything, applying the "clinically significant" criterion would generate lower rates of substance dependence.
2. This particular analysis covers just a few years, and serious drug problems may take longer to develop (although that's certainly not the impression left by the government's anti-drug propaganda). Studies covering longer periods, such as the National Comorbidity Survey (which I cite in my book), do find higher addiction rates. But they still indicate that addiction is not a typical result of drug use.
3. It's risky to assume that the addiction rate associated with a substance has to do with its inherent properties, as opposed to the sort of people who like to use it. It seems plausible that people who are attracted to an extreme, notorious practice like heroin injection, for example, are different from people who aren't in ways (tastes, preferences, personality traits, circumstances) that affect their likelihood of using the drug heavily.
[via the Drug War Chronicle]
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 7:17PM|#
I am wondering how tobacco would have ranked on this list.
I also wonder how much overlap there is between categories.
But they still indicate that addiction is not a typical result
of drug use.
This, of course, does not mean that it is not a significant problem
for a significant number of people in our society.
SIV|4.18.08 @ 7:20PM|#
How do you get "addicted" to psychedelics?
MDA/ecstasy, LSD, mushrooms all have a big diminishing returns
period unless you wait a while between doses.
SIV|4.18.08 @ 7:22PM|#
The only drugs that produce a physical dependence are some CNS depressants, alchohol, barbiturates,benzodiazepenes etc
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 7:28PM|#
I would also like to point out that if you frame drug dependence
as a disease and initiation as exposure, these "infection" rates
seem pretty high.
What is the infection rate for simple exposure to TB, for
instance?
Anyone know?
Zman|4.18.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Does caffeine count as a nonmedical stimulant? That's the only drug that I use, and I sometimes find myself with a nagging headache if I don't get my 1.5 cups of coffee in the morning. Put me in the 4.7 percent, I guess!
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Best guess on the TB question I posed above (base on some quick
googling):
Those exposed to TB (i.e., have a serious enough exposure to get an
infection) have between a 5 and 10% chance of developing disease in
their lifetime.
That means that exposure to marijuana, crack, or herion is at least
as likely to lead to signficant disease ("dependance") as exposure
to a TB infection.
Are we wise to consider TB infection a public health issue of
significant import?
Given the numbers of people who initiate marijuana usage each year,
is this an issue that warrants the attention of public health
officials?
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 7:57PM|#
None of the above is meant to support the notion that drug use
should be a issue for the criminal justice system...
I am just not sure how the above study would support a conclusion
that the negative consequences of recreational drugs use are not
worth the attention of public health officials (like those at
SAMHSA).
|4.18.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Let me answer your question with another question: do you think the
consequences of a full-blown TB infection and the consequences of
marijuana addiction are even in the same ball park? Also, addiction
is not a communicable disease.
SIV|4.18.08 @ 7:59PM|#
I would also like to point out that if you frame drug
dependence as a disease and initiation as exposure, these
"infection" rates seem pretty high.
Using "disease" as a metaphor for addiction?
Damn Szasist!
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Randolph Carter
do you think the consequences of a full-blown TB infection and
the consequences of marijuana addiction are even in the same ball
park?
Sure, potentially.
TB infection is, typically, readily amenable to a quick medical
fix. Drug dependence is often resistant to treatment and can lead
to significantly detrimental quality of life.
Also, addiction is not a communicable disease.
Unless you believe in social practices being passed from generation
to generation or from peer to peer.
Of course, strictly you are correct. That, however, doesn't mean
that a significant number of people will be exposed and experience
negative consequences as a result of that exposure.
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 8:05PM|#
SIV,
Using "disease" as a metaphor for addiction?
Damn Szasist!
Cute, but, of course, Szasz would say that you "can't" call
addiction a disease, while I am saying that you "can" consider it a
disease.
|4.18.08 @ 8:07PM|#
I don't know, with that definition of communicable you could
pathologize pretty much anything from compulsive exercise to an
unhealthy love of black metal. I do get what you're saying though,
I just don't get where the government has a role in managing
anything but infectious, communicable diseases. Now private
organizations, that's another story.
Also, I don't think Jacob is saying that addiction doesn't deserve
any attention as a problem, merely that these statistics stand in
very stark contrast to the "try it once and you're hooked" rhetoric
of drug warriors.
|4.18.08 @ 8:08PM|#
This just in.
I don't care if you get addicted to heroin (crack, meth et al) as
long as you are not on the dole and don't commit violent or
property crimes. The government shouldn't either.
|4.18.08 @ 8:15PM|#
How do you get "addicted" to psychedelics?
MDA/ecstasy, LSD, mushrooms all have a big diminishing returns
period unless you wait a while between doses.
In my youth, there was a period where I would drop acid (~300-500
μg) every Saturday. It takes a week for your tolerance to get back
to normal and I had Sunday off to negotiate the "day after dumbs".
Maybe they mean something like that kind of use.
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Randolph,
these statistics stand in very stark contrast to the "try it
once and you're hooked" rhetoric of drug warriors.
Of course, but that is not the rhetoric that most people involved
in substance abuse issues use...
One of the reasons to get it out of the hands of law enforcement
and back into the hands of public health officials.
? I just don't get where the government has a role in managing
anything but infectious, communicable diseases.
Managing?
How about providing services to reduce the societal impact
of?
It seems that anytime the negative consequences are felt by the
community, a collective response may be appropriate.
But that's why I am a pragmatist and you are a libertarian, I
suppose.
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 8:19PM|#
J sub D,
I don't care if you get TB as long as you don't end up on the dole
or breathe on me over the intertubes...
;^)
But I believe that you should be able to get help for your
condition if you want it.
Now we can debate the best system for delivering that service.
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 8:23PM|#
In my youth, there was a period where I would drop acid
(~300-500 μg) every Saturday.
Always knew you were an old burn out.
*takes one to know one, I guess.
|4.18.08 @ 8:29PM|#
But I believe that you should be able to get help for your
condition if you want it.
Lutheran Social Services does excellent work. I'm skeptical of
AA/NA but it seems to help some people. There are others that don't
want help, they just don't want to be labelled criminals for
ingesting drugs.*
*I typed the paragraph above and then finished your post. I concur
with your last two sentences.
Famous Mortimer|4.18.08 @ 8:46PM|#
"I don't know, with that definition of communicable you could
pathologize pretty much anything from compulsive exercise to an
unhealthy love of black metal."
Exactly. This is why the DSM is a joke, and every human urge is
slowly being conditionalized. You are encouraged to feel haunted,
and unhappy because that's what most other people are feeling. Fun
is a sin.
It stems from the puritan history of the U.S., where the sanctity
of the vessel, and the sin of not keeping it clean, need
conversion.
It also gives people the "disease" scapegoat now. "Disease" sounds
much more serious and uncontrollable, than the rather pedestrian
"bad habit."
In the past, there were eccentrics, and people with simply
"different personalities." Now, these personalities represent a
pathological malfunction within the "group."
Pop psychology is to blame.
|4.18.08 @ 9:07PM|#
In the past, there were eccentrics, and people with simply
"different personalities." Now, these personalities represent a
pathological malfunction within the "group."
well it doesn't need to be all or nothing, I'd rather have someone
with schizophrenia or obsessive compulsive disorder be able to get
help for what is truly a disease than say, "well different strokes
for different strokes, and in this case by strokes I mean washing
your hands until they're raw."
Maybe it's a rectangle/square situation - psychological diseases
produce unorthodox, eccentric behavior, but not all unorthodox,
eccentric behavior is a psychological disease.
|4.18.08 @ 9:24PM|#
This just in.
I don't care if you get addicted to heroin (crack, meth et al) as
long as you are not on the dole and don't commit violent or
property crimes. The government shouldn't either.
Layne Staley sang about it...he's dead from it. But it was his
choice. He lived the life the rest of us should be defending no
matter how revolting it seems...What's my favorite drug? Well, what
have you got? Trans Fat?
Neu Mejican|4.18.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Randolph,
Since Infamous Mortimer latched on to it, I guess I'll respond to
this...
I don't know, with that definition of communicable you could
pathologize pretty much anything from compulsive exercise to an
unhealthy love of black metal.
You are right about the "communicable" part, but to reach the level
of "disease" you would need to show how your exercise or love of
black metal was a "maladaptive pattern" that leads to "clinically
significant impairment or distress,"
The DSM makes these distinctions even if Mortimer doesn't
understand them.
SIV|4.18.08 @ 10:54PM|#
a "maladaptive pattern" that leads to "clinically
significant impairment or distress,"
Like criticizing the State under Communism.
That "maladaptive pattern" was one of the leading
causes of psychiatric confinement in the old Soviet Union.
Famous Mortimer|4.19.08 @ 4:51AM|#
"You are right about the "communicable" part, but to reach the
level of "disease" you would need to show how your exercise or love
of black metal was a "maladaptive pattern" that leads to
"clinically significant impairment or distress,"
Why, how subjective of them.
But since the diagnoses is up to me, I'll vote no.
The DSM making such distinctions doesn't make their ever narrowing
conditionalizing any less of a farce, whether you are aware of it,
or not.
In my experiences with DSM defenders, there's little you can say or
do to snap the spell. The art of rationalization is suffice.
Famous Mortimer|4.19.08 @ 4:55AM|#
"Maybe it's a rectangle/square situation - psychological
diseases produce unorthodox, eccentric behavior, but not all
unorthodox, eccentric behavior is a psychological disease."
Now, if we could only get the talking heads, who actually have the
most influence to adopt this mindset.
Psychology is called a "soft science" for a reason.
robc|4.19.08 @ 7:33AM|#
a collective response may be appropriate.
Thats why many churches have a drug treatment program.
A collective response to a social problem.
Unapplied asterisk|4.19.08 @ 7:34AM|#
I typed above before reading JsubD's or the last 2 lines of NM's post.
|4.19.08 @ 10:32AM|#
What I'm curious about with this survey is that its for people who have "tried" the drug in the past two years, and then measure the percentage that become addicted. I know from previous studies that many people who try marijuana only try it once, at best twice. So I'm curious at what the dependency rates become at more moderate rates of use. IE how many people become "casual" heroine users with no dependency problems.
|4.19.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Indeed, from the link it seems that the Stimulants (nonmedical use) refers to prescription medications such as adderall, rather than illicitly produced amphetamines.
Yahoo Answerer|4.19.08 @ 11:05AM|#
I once lived in a majority black neighborhood (I was one of only three white people I knew who lived there) and on several occasions would have people who were obvious undercover cops try to sell me drugs. They looked baffled when I calmly explained that I lived there and did not do drugs.
|4.19.08 @ 12:57PM|#
I once lived in a majority black neighborhood (I was one of
only three white people I knew who lived there) and on several
occasions would have people who were obvious undercover cops try to
sell me drugs. They looked baffled when I calmly explained that I
lived there and did not do drugs.
You were a victim of racial profiling. White males in a black
neighborhood are presumed to be drug purchasers.
Profiling goes both ways and is sometimes based on reality,
sometimes based on prejudice. When people Accept that uncomfortable
reality then an intelligent discussion of profiling can begin.
|4.19.08 @ 1:13PM|#
If we assume 50% of the population will try at least one of the
listed drugs at sometime in their lives the addiction risk listed
translate into ~20% of the population developing an addiction. 1 in
5 people with an addiction would be a serious problem.
Fortunately, addiction is primarily a psychological phenomenon
attached to particular individuals, not individual drugs (most
people treated with morphine do not become morphine/heroin
addicts). People with addictions always use multiple intoxicants.
There same addicts show up in the statistics for many different
drugs. The actual per capita risk of addiction is
not 20% but closer to 10% because addiction risk is attached to the
individual not the drug.
Neu Mejican|4.19.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Mortimer,
Now, if we could only get the talking heads, who actually have
the most influence to adopt this mindset.
Talking Heads...my favorite is Remain in Light
Psychology is called a "soft science" for a reason.
This is true. It has a long way to go...but that does not mean it
has not made significant progress in understanding a complex
phenomenon. The approach used in the DSMIV is certainly imperfect,
but has supported much of the progress since it was adopted.
If you've got a better idea, the APA is in the process of improving
the tool.
http://www.dsm5.org/
|4.19.08 @ 1:29PM|#
As a Neuroscientist, and addiction researcher, I find the list
to be interesting. The very idea that Psychadelics are addictive is
amusing. What evidence, and how is "addicted" criteria met in this
study?
Heroin, Meth, Cocaine have high risk for addiction. Pain killers as
well. The question is susceptability...as some people have alluded
toward. Different populations, genetics, environmental factors can
increase the risk of a one time or a recreational user to become
addicted. Funny enough, even in animal studies, with inbred rodent
strains, mice and rats have genetic differences that will
differentiate their ability to work for a drug like cocaine,
heroin, or meth.
The rates of use, and economic impact of drug and alcohol abuse
costs cooperate America an estimated 100 billion per year, in
increased health care costs, loss in productivity, etc. But given
that information, what other "addictions" cost society. Drugs are a
window to that kind of behavior.
Figuring out how these drugs work, and their risk is a valuable
commodity, and teaches us about motivated behavior. Understanding
both the sociological and neuropsychopharmacological mechanisms for
drug seeking is paramount to understand how people make risky
decisions. Much of what we learn about drug addiction relates to
gambling, and other behaviors.
In any case, in animal models, drugs like Marijauna are very
difficult to use in a "addiction" model. Animals just won't work as
hard for that kind of drug as they will for Morphine or Heroin. The
problem is that these lists group all the drugs together as if they
were equal, and as if all the population was at the same risk: that
simply isn't the case.
TallDave|4.19.08 @ 1:33PM|#
What about Prozac and SSRI inhibitors?
The "this happpy pill bad, this happy pill good" dichotomy has
never made much sense.
|4.19.08 @ 2:05PM|#
TallDave,
What about Prozac and SSRI inhibitors? The "this happpy pill
bad, this happy pill good" dichotomy has never made much
sense.
Anti-depressants are not euphoric i.e. they do not create the
illusion of pleasurable sensation input. Taking a handful of prozac
won't give you an orgasmic rush. Instead, they work by increasing
the input of the rational parts of the forebrain which lets people
interpret events around them in a more realistic fashion.
The difference is best highlighted by the case of someone who is
depressed due to the death of a loved one. Prozac will do little to
ease the suffering for the person because depression is the natural
and appropriate response to such an event. Cocaine, however, will
give the person a euphoric rush so much that they may interpret the
death as a positive event.
|4.19.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Fusion,
The very idea that Psychadelics are addictive is
amusing.
The effects of psychedelics on the brain are to nonspecific and
short lived to create physical addiction. However, the risk of
psychological addiction (people seek out the experience at a
serious cost to themselves and others) is very real.
Physical addiction is a red herring. Hundreds of thousands of
people become physically addicted to opiates every year while they
are being treated for pain yet only a small percentage of them
develop any overwhelming desire to take the drugs once the pain
goes away.
Our real problem is that many people will seek out pleasure at an
enormous cost to themselves and people around them. We should focus
on that instead of trying to restrict access to anything that
people might find pleasurable.
|4.19.08 @ 3:02PM|#
"Cocaine, however, will give the person a euphoric rush so much
that they may interpret the death as a positive event."
I can't see this being true. Lets say, purely as an example as this
definitely did not happen just last night, I were to be doing 12-15
lines of cola and someone comes up to me and says "your uncle just
died"...hillarity ensues? The cola is gonna make me think my uncle
is better off dead? No way, it doesn't alter your perception of
reality like that, it just "gets ya goin", or so I'm told (because
I obviously did not split a $100 teener, some weed, a couple
screwdrivers and a 12 pack of Heineken with two of my buddies last
night before returning home at 3 in the morning).
Chuck|4.19.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Robert--
I'm bugged that police are allowed to sell drugs. If I
were a judge and cops testified in my courtroom that they were
selling drugs, I would have them arrested, sting or no sting. The
fact that police are allowed to commit felonies for the sole
purpose of enticing others to commit misdemeanors is yet another of
the great tragedies of the drug war. And we wonder why cops think
they're better than the little people...
Morgue Cheerleader|4.19.08 @ 5:09PM|#
bigbigslacker -
Dr. Love obviously gets much better coke than we (hypothetically)
do -- so much better that its effects have no resemblance at all to
any we've ever (hypothetically) experienced, no matter how much
we've ever (hypothetically) done.
Drug warriors get all the good shit.
|4.19.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Re: Self-Refuting Drug Warriors,
http://reason.com/blog/show/126086.html
Sullum has wonderfully discovered one of the secrets that I have
known and written about for 16 years that if used wisely can
finally end the drug war and all its ramifications. An old article
of mine that discusses this is, "The Drug War War," at:
http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/articlesbyandforhypoicspage2/
Sullum's article states: "A new analysis of data from the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health once again confirms a point I
emphasize in my book, "Saying Yes": The vast majority of illegal
drug users do not fit the stereotype of addiction and degradation
promoted by the government and the news media." The article
concludes, "It's risky to assume that the addiction rate associated
with a substance has to do with its inherent properties, as opposed
to the sort of people who like to use it. It seems plausible that
people who are attracted to an extreme, notorious practice like
heroin injection, for example, are different from people who aren't
in ways (tastes, preferences, personality traits, circumstances)
that affect their likelihood of using the drug heavily."
So, what Sullum is saying is: 1) that the government has disproved
their own contention and theory that the use of addictive drugs is
the cause of drug addiction [the hijacked brain hypothesis] and 2)
that there is something about those users who do get addicted that
is different from those who don't. [What Sullum thinks is the
difference is wrong however. We will get to that in a
minute.]
Let me rationally translate this into something meaningful and
useful. These two conclusions are correct and critically important
in changing our county's thinking and policies about addictions.
Currently, our country's "drug" laws and policies are based on the
addiction theory known as the hijacked brain hypothesis (HBH), long
believed but only first codified in Leshner's article: Leshner A.:
Addiction is a Brain Disease, and it Matters, Science; 278, 45-70,
10/3/97 . What this theory states is that drug use is a conscious
choice, voluntary (a moral choice), and then the drug changes the
brain into an addicted brain and that this change (addiction) is
now a brain disease. Thus, because addiction is defined as harmful
to society, like theft and murder, drug addiction is an immoral
behavior requiring both government protection (criminalization of
drugs) and punishment of drug users and addicts (criminalization of
users and addicts). All aspects of the drug war are an outgrowth of
this theory. The only problem, which Sullum has discovered, is that
the HBH is scientifically wrong, and, if the HBH is wrong then the
policies based on it are wrong, something we all know. But now we
know why.
The true science of addiction and addiction causation is quite
different from the HBH, which, it turns out, is a deliberate
governmental lie, a major scandal. This science is reviewed in my
book, Hypoic's Handbook, and web papers,
http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ and
http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/. Within
the first paper is embedded a link to Hiroi's paper also reviewing
this science up to 2005. You can thus read that paper without
having to go to the library. [Hiroi uses the term "plasticity
theory" rather than "HBH." They're the same thing.] Hiroi concludes
his review of addiction causation with: "A majority of substance
users do not develop addiction to nicotine, alcohol, or opiates.
Currently available plasticity-based models (model 1. - the HBH) of
addiction do not adequately account for the limited prevalence of
addiction among chronic substance users and the presence of
pre-existing, comorbid traits. The genetic model (Model 2) of
addiction predicts that addiction is more likely to develop after
initial substance use in individuals with genetic susceptibility.
Model 2 [the genetic model] highlights the need for a new direction
in addiction research as well as new treatment strategies." --
Exactly what I've been saying for 16 years and for exactly the same
reason.
What all this science shows is that the difference between people
who get addicted and those who don't is their genetics, not
voluntary choices, tastes, preferences, personality traits, and
circumstances. Thus, it is genetics that causes addictions and the
disease is not the addiction but the actual genetic differences
(which haven't yet been specifically delineated). I have called
this genetic disease Hypoism because it is a disease of low (hypo)
reward system activity and addictors, drugs and addictive
behaviors, all raise this activity. It turns out that the use of
addictive drugs and behaviors in people who ultimately get addicted
is genetically mediated (not morally mediated), involuntary and
unconscious, the complete opposite of the HBH. It also turns out
that policies like the drug war can't work on such a disease.
That's why they don't work. Completely different policies are
required to prevent and deal with addictions under the Hypoism
paradigm than under the HBH. These are all discussed in my book.
Many of them are exactly what the anti-drug warriors want but for
the right reason.
As Sullum's article implies but doesn't quite say because he's
unaware of the actual answer, the genetics, we need to change
addiction paradigms from the HBH to Hypoism. Then the most
effective and humane policies to combat addiction will follow as
they do whenever the correct theory replaces the wrong theory.
These changes require changing the leadership and people pushing
the misinterpretation of the real science and the pseudoscience of
the HBH starting at the top with Nora Volkow, the Bush appointed
chief of NIDA, appointed specifically to maintain the drug war.
Under a new president who values valid science over ideology and
mythology all this is possible, but the people need to know about
it as well as demand it.
|4.19.08 @ 9:59PM|#
As some of you may know, I'm an occasional poster here, but I
always read the boards. I never, ever, thought that I'd agree with
Shannon on something from that experience.
-- Fortunately, addiction is primarily a psychological phenomenon
attached to particular individuals
I have an addictive personality myself, relationships, games,
drugs, work, all of it will do. I think there's a lot of research
to be done in this area. When I was young, I'd get hooked on a drug
that I liked, games and subjects would likewise draw my undivided
attention if I fixated on them. Both my parents had problems with
OCD and I just said myself that I always read the boards here, J
Sub D, you walk among us =P
What are the major differences between someone who can't stop
checking their blackberry and someone who feels the need to puff up
every day? I've been in both camps and had the same drive for both
activities, a feeling that it just had to be done, even though it
wasn't at all.
There's still a lot of research to be done in this field as I said.
There's very few contempary studies that come close to addressing
the subject I find.
TallDave|4.20.08 @ 1:02AM|#
Shannon.
Anti-depressants are not euphoric i.e. they do not create the
illusion of pleasurable sensation input.
Ah, the "wrong kind of happiness" argument. Why should euphoria be
illegal? Unwise, in some cases, but then why is a little feeling
better perfectly acceptable?
Prozac will do little to ease the suffering for the person
because depression is the natural and appropriate response to such
an event.
Not true, it's routinely prescribed for precisely that
reason.
Cocaine, however, will give the person a euphoric rush so much
that they may interpret the death as a positive event
That's a bit silly. Cocaine and heroin can seriously warp your
decision-making and become a very strong compulsion, but they don't
make you glad your beloved Aunt Mabel died.
Daniel Reeves|4.20.08 @ 8:46AM|#
Wall of text.
Obviously having a M.D. doesn't mean that you have the common sense
to realize that people don't care.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Nice to know that, according to APA, I don't have to go to any
of those stoooopid meetings!
....someone who can't stop checking their
blackberry CRACKBERRY.....
There. Fixed that for you.
My nephew has mild aspberger's and he is about as compulsive a
person I've ever seen. The kid is like Rainman, except high
functioning. At seven years old he can kick anybody's butt on
almost any computer game and he's a math whiz. And don't even try
telling him to put the Wii controller away.
I also have a bit of a compulsive side. Don't know how serious it
is but if I find something I like, I can be obsessive about it.
Which is why, in the Studio 54 days when when coke was all the
rage, I wouldn't touch it. I just kept saying to myself,
that stuff is sixty bucks a gram, what if you like
it?
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 10:29AM|#
Wall of text?
Wall of
Voodoo!
...tried to wade through the Wall of Text....can't, make it,
crawling.....thirsty.....need water....
Try more spaces, more paragraphs, but always remember......
sometimes less is more..........
especially when you're talking to The Man.
Neu Mejican|4.20.08 @ 11:53AM|#
TWC,
Brilliant.
Here is a fun link full of anti-marijuana messages from the WFMU
blog.
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2008/04/old-time-radio.html
Bob Goodman|4.20.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Our real problem is that many people will seek out pleasure at an enormous cost to themselves and people around them.
Problem??!!! That's where all the creativity in the world comes
from!
a feeling that it just had to be done, even though it wasn't at all.
The late Albert Ellis called it "must-urbation".
|4.21.08 @ 10:24AM|#
This, of course, does not mean that it is not a significant
problem for a significant number of people in our
society.
Sure, whatev. The leap from that to "and therefore it should be
illegal" is the one I struggle with.
Our real problem is that many people will seek out pleasure at
an enormous cost to themselves and people around them.
That strikes me as a reason for outlawing extramarital sex,
high-end entertainment systems, you name it.
Alexander DeLuca|4.30.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Thank you, Mr. Sullum, for an interesting article. My
comments:
http://doctordeluca.com/wordpress/index.php/archive/prescription-lies/374/
Big Prescription Drug Lies; Alex DeLuca; War on Doctors/Pain Crisis
blog of the Pain Relief Network; 2008-04-27.
Excerpt:
Sullum, referring to an analysis of 2004-2006 survey data by the
government Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA), notes that the calculated rates of
"dependence" or addiction (tolerance plus continued use despite
adverse consequences) within two years of using various substances
are very low. For example, SAMHSA estimates that 3.1% of people who
'nonmedically use' prescription painkillers show evidence of
addiction, 96.9% do not. For comparison, the two-year addiction
rate estimate for alcohol is 3.2%, and for cannabis 5.8%
Huh? So, according to the U.S. government's best scientific guess,
cannabis is more addictive than either alcohol or opioid analgesics
like morphine and OxyContin? How much did this un-parse-able
nonsense cost us? [Some 18 BILLION dollars a year funnel through
the drug czar (ONDCP) to fund the drug war including the academics
in NIDA and SAMHSA]
So why, with the drug war money flowing like water for decades, is
the scientific research so incredibly crude? As I try to explain in
an interview done earlier this year with CEI (see raw footage: Part
6: Reign of Terror - Let the Pain In), if the Government really
cared so much about the children, wouldn't they have found a way to
study them? All this money for the drug war including funds for
substance abuse research (NIDA and SAMHSA), and all we get is
survey data? Not one lousy prospective, longitudinal study that
would tell us exactly what happened to the 25% of adolescent
"prescription drug abusers" who only used a few times, or the
majority who used 10 times or less? Please.
In fact the U.S. Govt doesn't give a rats ass about either drug
abuse or drug addiction. Don't take my word for it, read the yearly
White House Drug Strategy. They are obsessed by drug USE, and that
is all they measure - raw use. This simply is not sufficient data
upon which to make rational public policy. GIGO - Garbage In,
Garbage Out.
I highly recommend Scherlen and Robinson, "Lies, Damned Lies, and
Drug War Statistics," published in 2007, if you are at all confused
by the yawning chasm between the endless prescription drug abuse
propaganda and the data the Govt actually bothers to collect. Jacob
Sullum's Saying Yes is likewise a demystifying experience.
Finally, Dr. William Hurwitz did a far more sophisticated analysis
of a wider array of government databases, using only his brain and
the internet and no tax dollars, which was published in 2005 (while
he was in federal detention for drug trafficking) in the journal
Pain Medicine entitled, "The Challenge of Prescription Drug
Misuse."
Just a snippet from that paper:
"Most individuals who engage in illicit use of pain relievers do so
infrequently… As noted in Table 7, slightly fewer than one quarter
of those reporting use in the prior year used on only 1 or 2 days.
The majority (52.4%) had used these medications on 10 days or fewer
in the prior year [supporting] the proposition that mere exposure
does not inevitably lead to abuse and dependence. It also suggests
the informal and opportunistic… pattern of most youthful drug use
(Table 7)."
http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/ChallengePDA-Hurwitz05.htm
Apologies for the length of this Comment.
..alex...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245