Does Drug Use Lead to Addiction, or Are Some Brains More Prone To Use Drugs?
Researchers argue that "we may need to reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction."

Does using alcohol, nicotine, or cannabis engender addiction by changing the structure of brains, or does the structure of brains incline some people toward using those substances? In standard brain disease models of addiction, the neurotoxic effects of abused psychoactive substances are thought to cause brain changes that spur compulsive cravings for drink, smokes, or dope.
A recent study in JAMA Network Open, an open-access, peer-reviewed, international medical journal published by the American Medical Association, challenges that model and suggests that brain differences associated with addiction precede rather than result from substance abuse. A team of neuroscientists examined associations between brain structure and substance use initiation in nearly 10,000 children enrolled in the ongoing Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study.
Children aged 9 to 11 years were enrolled in the study. MRIs of each child's brain were taken at that time. None of the kids in the initial cohort reported using alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, or other psychoactive substances. During the next three years, the researchers periodically asked the kids, all still below age 15, if they had used any of those substances. Roughly a third of the kids (3,460), with some overlap, owned up to using either alcohol (3,123), nicotine products (431), cannabis (212), and other substances (213), such as inhalants, prescription sedatives, and hallucinogens.
The researchers then compared the brain MRIs of the kids who consumed psychoactive substances with those who did not. Remember, these MRIs were taken before any of the now adolescents had used any psychoactive substances. The researchers identified eight "neuroanatomical features associated with substance use initiation that were present before substance exposure."
Prior studies of adult addicts have found that they generally have lower overall brain volumes than nonabusers do. In their study of the ABCD cohort, the researchers were surprised to find the contrary to be the case. Bigger adolescent brains with more gray matter were significantly associated with early substance-use initiation. Interestingly, neurological research suggests that bigger brains somewhat correlate with higher intelligence.
Another difference in brain structures coincident with early substance use is a thinner prefrontal cortex, which is associated with impaired emotional regulation and working memory. Early users also have larger globus pallidus volumes, which lessens impulse control. The researchers
suggest their study may be capturing brain variability related to exploration and risk-taking that motivates precocious psychoactive substance use.
An earlier study using data from the ABCD cohort asked if cannabis use contributes to psychosis in adolescents or if adolescents use cannabis to self-medicate their emerging psychotic symptoms. The researchers did not find evidence that early cannabis use contributed to the risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms.
Instead, they suggest there may be a shared vulnerability in which genetic, gestational, or environmental factors may confer vulnerability for both cannabis use and psychosis. They further found, consistent with the self-medication hypothesis, that worsening symptoms motivated the initiation of cannabis use and that the users experienced reduced symptom distress.
In their commentary on the adolescent substance use initiation study, two University of Minnesota cognitive neuroscientists observed that the brain differences found in the new study "reflect predispositional risk for substance use initiation—and that we may need to reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction."
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "This Is Your Brain Before Drugs."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Okay, but we are not talking about necessity so let's emphasize the wrongness of drugs and help those of lower will power not to start. Acrasia and aboulia are not popular on REASON but the ancients both Christian and Pagan emphasized it
Akrasia is typically understood as a failure to act according to one's own better judgment. The individual has the knowledge of what is best but acts against it.
Abulia is a deficit of motivation or initiative, a reduced capacity to form intentions and act on them.
In short: Akrasia implies a failure of control over a present will, while abulia implies a deficiency in the will itself.
The 'Experts' say one thing but that one thing isn't right so they say another thing but that other thing isn't right so etc, etc, etc....
Who pays for this blabber? Oh yeah; Useless waste of time babble bots packing Gov-Guns for a living.
If only research had to be *EARNED* such babble-boting wouldn't exist and real research might get done.
Thus becomes the ends of taking the factor of *EARNED* value out of the equation.
MORE TESTING NEEDED!
Bailey is addicted to more testing.
Is there a vaccine for that?
Need to test for it, but think so.
Indeed. The question isn't whether or not some people are more prone to addiction, that has been known for decades, it's why. It seems to me that it has something to do not only with brain/body chemistry but also behavioral traits.
brain differences associated with addiction precede rather than result from substance abuse.
Ahh, so what you're saying is that we have to eliminate the drug trade before folks get their hands on the drugs. Got it. Let's go wipe out some cartels (Donnie just used bombs on Iran, no reason they can't redirect to Latin America), nuke China, and forever jail anyone who has even the slightest amount of drugs in their possession. I'm in.
Many of the drugs were not designed for pleasure, instead legitimate drugs and chemicals were co-opted for use by the criminal underworld and stupid teenagers. If drugs were completely legal from the start, they would probably be much safer and very different than the horribly addictive and dangerous stuff out there now. The problem is that pleasure creates addiction. Seeking pleasure is a very powerful natural force.
If all you want to do is stimulate pleasure centers in the brain, you can do that with a couple of wires and a battery--and no chemical side effects!
And some day we will, when technology permits. And we'll be able to stimulate a lot more than pleasure, too!
"Horribly addictive" = very good. They wouldn't be "addictive" if people didn't like using them or it made a high proportion of them sick.
lol, what is a "legitimate drug"? Aspirin?
Seeking pleasure is a very powerful natural force.
Well, then maybe Eve shouldn'ta ate that apple huh? Because the snake has been preying on that "very powerful natural force" ever since.
All of the drugs taken for pleasure, are pleasing to those taking them. What they were designed for doesn't matter to those taking them for pleasure.
You're not entirely wrong, but... opium dens were a thing when opium was not illegal.
We hardly need brain scans to know this. Everyone who was once young and started drinking as a teen with friends knows that one guy who became an alcoholic. Like everything else, there is going to be genetic variation in suseptibility to addiction. There is genetic variation in every damn thing. Some women get breast cancer and die quickly, while others only find out after the fact they had a tumor that disappeared on its own without them even knowing it was there at the time.
'A team of neuroscientists examined associations between brain structure and substance use initiation in nearly 10,000 children enrolled in the ongoing Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study.'
Does substance use include puberty blockers?
Don't know about puberty blockers, but sex hormones are powerfully psychoactive.
Even by proxy?
So are pheromones.
Great!
Now we can finally win the war on drugs!
Just scan all the kids, and perform a post-birth abortion on all the addicts-to-be.
TA-DA
In one generation, no more drug use.
Don't give our betters any ideas. They will start screening for MAGAs-to-be.
It will not make any difference to policy whatsoever. These studies come along every few years and their correctness or lack thereof is used by one side or the other to justify whatever argument they need to get to the endpoint they want.
We had studies back in the late 90s which absolutely positively settled the science that young people's brains are so far from fully developed that their impulse control was barely functioning, meaning that the juvenile justice system needed to be reformed utterly as no one under the age of 26 even knows what they're doing. Those very same people screeching that not only will, but in fact DID turn right around and demand that 16 year olds be given the vote and should be allowed to be on the pole and should be able to engage in sexual relations with every adult out there because, hey, they're pretty much fully functioning adults!
This study will be the same thing: Don't blame the addicts! They know not what they do!
*cue tape fast forward sound*
Quit infantilizing people who decide to take drugs, you're denying them agency!
I think you're wrong about about people deciding to take drugs. This article is about scientific evidence concerning the causes of addiction, not recreational or medical use. Addiction by definition is the continued or recurrent abuse of drugs despite severe social consequences of the abuse. If you get drunk once before you know better and say, "Oops! That didn't go well. I think I will avoid getting drunk ever again!" you are NOT an addict, nor are you likely to become one.
Sure, that's how Bailey's article is headlined, but is that what the studies are actually about?
Once they moved past physical addiction and started babbling about psychological addiction they lost the plot.
No, the article is about an "adolescent substance use initiation study" (emphasis added) not about the causes of addiction.
Hint: Substance use initiation =/= addiction.
Hell, substance use does not equal addiction.
Although the caution still remains that causation is difficult to prove, it is good to know that what I have been saying for the last forty years is likely to be true: that addicts are predisposed to addiction. Once the general public gets it through their thick skulls that it is not a character flaw, the sooner we can get to the goal - a medical treatment that does not cause dysphoria but prevents the anatomic, biochemical and genetic predisposing factors from controlling the addicts desires and behaviors.
Many people revile the very concept of causation where voluntary human action is concerned.
...
Bigger adolescent brains with more gray matter were significantly associated with early substance-use initiation. Interestingly, neurological research suggests that bigger brains somewhat correlate with higher intelligence.
When are they going to admit that the cool (i.e. smart) kids want to use more drugs, just as they want to eat various foods and beverages, travel to various places, etc.? That psychoactive drug use is a sign of maturity and adventuresomeness, and was selected for along with intelligence as a human characteristic, and a sign of progress?
Oh. I guess they did.
Why would that matter? Unless there is some weird form of injection, the active ingredients in the drug cross from the blood into the brain. And there they affect (or don't) billions of brain cells that may themselves mutate or be already prone to 'addiction' (assuming that means they are signalling other parts of the body to encourage 'more') or change over someone's life or a ton of other things that render a 'model' garbage.
AND
Substance use, in and of itself, not addiction. Substance use initiation, alone, doesn't even predict addiction.
Nothing about studying "adolescent substance use initiation" (italics for emphasis), without follow up studies to see who gets addicted, says a fucking thing about addiction.
Not using drugs does not lead to addiction. So how about we push for not using drugs. Or is this the liberal 'just the right percent or number of addicts" Utilitarian Libertarianism, the right number of people dying or having their lives destroyed. Freedom