Yes, I did say "
Part of why we have exaggerated desires for substances is because we've exaggerated their powers/benefits."
But recognize that I said "
Part" rather than "
The entire reason why we have exaggerated desires for substances is because we've exaggerated their powers/benefits." Also, consider that I said "exaggerated desires", not just mild desire or a passing whim, moderate desire, or even strong desire. Then think about the following questions you posed:
Originally Posted by
dwtbd 
Originally Posted by StevenSlate View Post
But it says you can change your preference for substance use, and end up preferring abstinence, and carry that out easily once you've realized it offers you more happiness than substance use. It offers a benefits to benefits analysis as means to figure out if abstinence is for you. It also has 4 chapters questioning our culture's view of drugs as all-purpose magical elixirs. The purpose of that is to de-romanticize substances. Part of why we have exaggerated desires for substances is because we've exaggerated their powers/benefits."
This is what I was referring to , doesn't this idea imply that abstinence is only possible in the absence of desire ?
If the pleasure of intoxication is in fact an illusion caused by societal memes unmasking it removes the false pleasure and allows for a path to abstinence? Believing the falsehood is actually what kept you using and your subjective experience was colored by naivety?
To me it is easier to acknowledge my past experiences and choose a different course of action going forward. Eg plan to not drink even in the presence of desire, the desire wasn't actually the problem all along, the drinking was
You wouldn't have been drinking if you didn't desire it on some level. I've had romantic partners who "were the problem" who I nonetheless stayed with because I had a massive overblown opinion of them being who I needed to be with. I believed being with someone else or alone would be worse or even impossible because they were "the one." After finally breaking up I
sometimes had passing desires to be with them that were defused by thinking something along the lines of "yeah but they weren't that great for reasons x, y, and z, and I'm happier not being involved than I would be if I was back with them." Those were passing desires, and nothing so great as "I can't possibly exist without this person and will be miserable without them." I saw through my previous infatuation to be able to let go.
TFM fits with your plan to not drink. It's saying that you desire abstinence more than you desire drinking - or that you want abstinence more, or that abstinence is your happier option - even if you use none of those words to describe it. It's saying your perspective now is that abstinence is better. If you didn't see it this way, you'd keep drinking.
I want to help people get to where you got.
One way of doing that is to show them that the pleasure of substances is highly subjective, and constructed not only of pharmacology, but also of our mindset about substances. We use the "drug, set, setting" model to dissect drug effects, to show that it's possible to reach a point where they do not appear as desirable to you as they once did. To go back to my breakup example, it's like realizing that the old flame wasn't "the one and only true love for me in the world / soul mate without whom I was incomplete." But it's not to say the person has no redeeming qualities.
In TFM we do not suggest that abstinence is impossible only in the absence of desire. We say that when you think it's the best option, you'll easily be abstinent even if you have
some desire; when you think usage is the best option, you will use even if you have
some desire to abstain.