Addiction Neuroscience; heres what we know.interesting reading
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the streets have no name
Posts: 1,078
Addiction Neuroscience; heres what we know.interesting reading
brief summary of what we know in neuroscience about addiction:
1. Drugs work in the midbrain. This is not the part of the brain that handles morality, personality, parental input, sociality, or conscious choice. That processing takes place in the cerebral cortex. The midbrain is the amoral, limbic, reflexive, unconscious survival brain. As humans, we have a bias in favor of the cortex. We believe that the cortex should be able to overcome the libidinal impulses of the midbrain. Normally that’s exactly what happens. But in addiction, a defect occurs at a level of brain processing far earlier than cortical processing. The midbrain becomes bigger than the cortex.
2. While predisposing factors are important (especially genetic burden), the primary cause of addiction is stress. We all face stress, but not all of us experience it in the same way. The stress that changes the midbrain is chronic, severe, and unmanaged. When the cortex does not resolve the stress, the midbrain begins to interpret it as a threat to survival.
3. Persistent severe stress releases hormones such as Corticotripin Releasing Factor (CRF). CRF acts on genes for novelty-seeking and dopamine neurotransmission. People under severe stress increase their risk-taking behavior in the search for relief. At the same time, the brain’s ability to perceive pleasure and reward — mediated through dopamine — becomes deranged. The patient becomes anhedonic. He or she is unable to derive normal pleasure from things that used to be pleasurable. Addiction is a stress-induced defect in the midbrain’s ability to properly perceive pleasure.
4. Drugs of abuse, whether uppers or downers, b or weak, legal or illegal, have a common property: they cause the rapid release of dopamine in the midbrain. If the stressed and anhedonic patient is exposed to this drug-induced surge of dopamine, the midbrain will recognize a dramatic relief in the stress and tag the drug as a survival coping mechanism. At this point the line is crossed — from the normal, drug-using, or drug-abusing brain to the drug-addicted brain. The drug is no longer just a drug. As far as the midbrain is concerned, it is life itself. This process tagging of the drug is unconscious and reflexive. Conscious cortical processing is not involved.
5. Increases in stress (and CRF) trigger craving — a tool the midbrain uses to motivate the individual to seek the drug. For non-addicts, craving is simply an unusually b desire. Even though the word is the same, it is critical to remember that craving for the addict is a constant, intrusive, involuntary obsession that will persist until the drug is ingested and the survival threat is relieved. Craving is true suffering. The tendency to underestimate the misery of craving is a major reason for the failure by healthcare professionals to effectively intervene in addictive behavior. Brain imaging is able to demonstrate a difference in the midbrain activity of the addict and non-addict during craving. (These scans also demonstrate a relative inactivity in the cortex.)
In light of this new understanding of addiction in neuroscience, the choice argument takes several hits:
* Punishment will not work to coerce addicts into making the right choice because the drug is tagged at the level of survival. Nothing is higher than survival. And so nothing used as leverage — threat of loss of job, prison, loss of child custody — can compete with an existential threat. The midbrain give the addict the message that the way to take care of the children, keep the job, calm the probation officer is to first secure survival (by using the drug). When the craving really kicks in, punishment has no effect and coercion is useless.
* Addiction is a disorder of pleasure. I believe all the moral loading of addiction stems from the fact that the patient with a disorder in his or her ability to correctly perceive pleasure is much more likely to be interpreted as being immoral before he or she is seen as being blind or deaf.
* Under stress, the addict craves drugs. As far as the midbrain is concerned, the addict’s moral sense is now a hindrance to securing survival. It is not that addicts don’t have values; in the heat of that survival panic, the addict cannot draw upon his or her values to guide behavior. Values and behavior become progressively out of congruence, increasing stress. In order to consummate the craving, the addict’s cortex will shut down. But that’s not the same as badness. The absence of one thing (cortical function) cannot stand for the presence of another (criminal intent).
* While it is true that a gun to the head can convince the addict to choose not to use drugs, the addict is still craving. The addict does not have the choice not to crave. If all you do is measure addiction by the behavior of the addict — using, not using — you miss the most important part of addiction: the patient’s suffering. The choice argument falls into the trap of behavioral solipsism.
* Just as a defect in the bone can be a fracture and a defect in the pancreas can lead to diabetes, a defect in the brain leads to changes in behavior. In attempting to separate behaviors (which are always choices) from symptoms (the result of a disease process), the choice argument ignores the findings of neurology. Defects in the brain can cause brain processes to falter. Free will is not all-or-nothing; it fluctuates under survival stress.
This information allows us to fit addiction to the disease model: the organ is the midbrain, the defect is a stress-induced hedonic (pleasure) dysregulation, and the symptoms are loss-of-control of drug use, craving, and persistent use of the drug despite negative consequences.
1. Drugs work in the midbrain. This is not the part of the brain that handles morality, personality, parental input, sociality, or conscious choice. That processing takes place in the cerebral cortex. The midbrain is the amoral, limbic, reflexive, unconscious survival brain. As humans, we have a bias in favor of the cortex. We believe that the cortex should be able to overcome the libidinal impulses of the midbrain. Normally that’s exactly what happens. But in addiction, a defect occurs at a level of brain processing far earlier than cortical processing. The midbrain becomes bigger than the cortex.
2. While predisposing factors are important (especially genetic burden), the primary cause of addiction is stress. We all face stress, but not all of us experience it in the same way. The stress that changes the midbrain is chronic, severe, and unmanaged. When the cortex does not resolve the stress, the midbrain begins to interpret it as a threat to survival.
3. Persistent severe stress releases hormones such as Corticotripin Releasing Factor (CRF). CRF acts on genes for novelty-seeking and dopamine neurotransmission. People under severe stress increase their risk-taking behavior in the search for relief. At the same time, the brain’s ability to perceive pleasure and reward — mediated through dopamine — becomes deranged. The patient becomes anhedonic. He or she is unable to derive normal pleasure from things that used to be pleasurable. Addiction is a stress-induced defect in the midbrain’s ability to properly perceive pleasure.
4. Drugs of abuse, whether uppers or downers, b or weak, legal or illegal, have a common property: they cause the rapid release of dopamine in the midbrain. If the stressed and anhedonic patient is exposed to this drug-induced surge of dopamine, the midbrain will recognize a dramatic relief in the stress and tag the drug as a survival coping mechanism. At this point the line is crossed — from the normal, drug-using, or drug-abusing brain to the drug-addicted brain. The drug is no longer just a drug. As far as the midbrain is concerned, it is life itself. This process tagging of the drug is unconscious and reflexive. Conscious cortical processing is not involved.
5. Increases in stress (and CRF) trigger craving — a tool the midbrain uses to motivate the individual to seek the drug. For non-addicts, craving is simply an unusually b desire. Even though the word is the same, it is critical to remember that craving for the addict is a constant, intrusive, involuntary obsession that will persist until the drug is ingested and the survival threat is relieved. Craving is true suffering. The tendency to underestimate the misery of craving is a major reason for the failure by healthcare professionals to effectively intervene in addictive behavior. Brain imaging is able to demonstrate a difference in the midbrain activity of the addict and non-addict during craving. (These scans also demonstrate a relative inactivity in the cortex.)
In light of this new understanding of addiction in neuroscience, the choice argument takes several hits:
* Punishment will not work to coerce addicts into making the right choice because the drug is tagged at the level of survival. Nothing is higher than survival. And so nothing used as leverage — threat of loss of job, prison, loss of child custody — can compete with an existential threat. The midbrain give the addict the message that the way to take care of the children, keep the job, calm the probation officer is to first secure survival (by using the drug). When the craving really kicks in, punishment has no effect and coercion is useless.
* Addiction is a disorder of pleasure. I believe all the moral loading of addiction stems from the fact that the patient with a disorder in his or her ability to correctly perceive pleasure is much more likely to be interpreted as being immoral before he or she is seen as being blind or deaf.
* Under stress, the addict craves drugs. As far as the midbrain is concerned, the addict’s moral sense is now a hindrance to securing survival. It is not that addicts don’t have values; in the heat of that survival panic, the addict cannot draw upon his or her values to guide behavior. Values and behavior become progressively out of congruence, increasing stress. In order to consummate the craving, the addict’s cortex will shut down. But that’s not the same as badness. The absence of one thing (cortical function) cannot stand for the presence of another (criminal intent).
* While it is true that a gun to the head can convince the addict to choose not to use drugs, the addict is still craving. The addict does not have the choice not to crave. If all you do is measure addiction by the behavior of the addict — using, not using — you miss the most important part of addiction: the patient’s suffering. The choice argument falls into the trap of behavioral solipsism.
* Just as a defect in the bone can be a fracture and a defect in the pancreas can lead to diabetes, a defect in the brain leads to changes in behavior. In attempting to separate behaviors (which are always choices) from symptoms (the result of a disease process), the choice argument ignores the findings of neurology. Defects in the brain can cause brain processes to falter. Free will is not all-or-nothing; it fluctuates under survival stress.
This information allows us to fit addiction to the disease model: the organ is the midbrain, the defect is a stress-induced hedonic (pleasure) dysregulation, and the symptoms are loss-of-control of drug use, craving, and persistent use of the drug despite negative consequences.
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by steve11694 
brief summary of what we know in neuroscience about addiction:
We believe that the cortex should be able to overcome the libidinal impulses of the midbrain. Normally that’s exactly what happens. But in addiction, a defect occurs at a level of brain processing far earlier than cortical processing. The midbrain becomes bigger than the cortex.
2. While predisposing factors are important (especially genetic burden), the primary cause of addiction is stress. We all face stress, but not all of us experience it in the same way. The stress that changes the midbrain is chronic, severe, and unmanaged. When the cortex does not resolve the stress, the midbrain begins to interpret it as a threat to survival.
3. Persistent severe stress releases hormones such as Corticotripin Releasing Factor (CRF). CRF acts on genes for novelty-seeking and dopamine neurotransmission. People under severe stress increase their risk-taking behavior in the search for relief. At the same time, the brain’s ability to perceive pleasure and reward — mediated through dopamine — becomes deranged. The patient becomes anhedonic. He or she is unable to derive normal pleasure from things that used to be pleasurable. Addiction is a stress-induced defect in the midbrain’s ability to properly perceive pleasure.
4. Drugs of abuse, whether uppers or downers, b or weak, legal or illegal, have a common property: they cause the rapid release of dopamine in the midbrain. If the stressed and anhedonic patient is exposed to this drug-induced surge of dopamine, the midbrain will recognize a dramatic relief in the stress and tag the drug as a survival coping mechanism.
At this point the line is crossed — from the normal, drug-using, or drug-abusing brain to the drug-addicted brain. The drug is no longer just a drug. As far as the midbrain is concerned, it is life itself. This process tagging of the drug is unconscious and reflexive. Conscious cortical processing is not involved.
5. Increases in stress (and CRF) trigger craving — a tool the midbrain uses to motivate the individual to seek the drug. For non-addicts, craving is simply an unusually b desire. Even though the word is the same, it is critical to remember that craving for the addict is a constant, intrusive, involuntary obsession that will persist until the drug is ingested and the survival threat is relieved. Craving is true suffering. The tendency to underestimate the misery of craving is a major reason for the failure by healthcare professionals to effectively intervene in addictive behavior. Brain imaging is able to demonstrate a difference in the midbrain activity of the addict and non-addict during craving. (These scans also demonstrate a relative inactivity in the cortex.)
* Punishment will not work to coerce addicts into making the right choice because the drug is tagged at the level of survival. Nothing is higher than survival. And so nothing used as leverage — threat of loss of job, prison, loss of child custody — can compete with an existential threat.
When the craving really kicks in, punishment has no effect and coercion is useless.
* Addiction is a disorder of pleasure. I believe all the moral loading of addiction stems from the fact that the patient with a disorder in his or her ability to correctly perceive pleasure is much more likely to be interpreted as being immoral before he or she is seen as being blind or deaf.
* Under stress, the addict craves drugs. As far as the midbrain is concerned, the addict’s moral sense is now a hindrance to securing survival.
It is not that addicts don’t have values; in the heat of that survival panic, the addict cannot draw upon his or her values to guide behavior.
Values and behavior become progressively out of congruence, increasing stress. In order to consummate the craving, the addict’s cortex will shut down. But that’s not the same as badness. The absence of one thing (cortical function) cannot stand for the presence of another (criminal intent).
* While it is true that a gun to the head can convince the addict to choose not to use drugs, the addict is still craving. The addict does not have the choice not to crave. If all you do is measure addiction by the behavior of the addict — using, not using — you miss the most important part of addiction: the patient’s suffering.
I like you emphasis on craving, and believe that an effective approach to getting one to stop and to remain stopped is to focus on the many factors IN THEIR LIVES that affect craving. It's not just their brain over which they have no control. It's everything that creates stress IN THEIR LIVES.
This information allows us to fit addiction to the disease model: the organ is the midbrain, the defect is a stress-induced hedonic (pleasure) dysregulation, and the symptoms are loss-of-control of drug use, craving, and persistent use of the drug despite negative consequences.
It concerns me that just because we can now show correlations between our thoughts and feelings and certain brain activity that we conclude that brain activity causes our thoughts and feelings. Pscyhology has shown (and common sense says) that it is a two way street: Thoughts cause feelings, feelings cause thoughts. All of those have a distinct chemical response in our brains. If they didn't we would be able to think and feel without brains. I just think it is dangerous to assume that because we know that certain chemicals make our stress go away and make us feel pleasure that WE can't do the same and that we don't know what we are doing--ie there is no cortex involvement in the process that leads to addiction, and after one is addicted. I totally agree that addiction is HARD to overcome. As far as I can tell you have explained some possible reasons WHY it is hard, but not why one person decides to stop and get help before another one.
thanks,
ted
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by tedseeker
Craving has been shown to vary dramatically based on an alcoholic's environment, and his thoughts. So, while they can indeed be uncomfortable and seem to be constant, they are not completely beyond the control of the addict.
well... there's research that shows that there's a certain gene that determine's one's resiliency to outside pressures and to stressors in the environment (5-HTT). those who are often unable to cope with these triggers are more and more proven to be born with at least one short allele, while having both alleles be long, changes one's ability to cope in the face of certain triggers.
so, sometimes the cravings are beyond the control of the addict.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the streets have no name
Posts: 1,078
[QUOTE=denny57;1371441]Where does this information come from?
I used a snippet in the name of fair use
http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm...ContentID=8038
I used a snippet in the name of fair use
http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm...ContentID=8038
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the streets have no name
Posts: 1,078
tedseeker
thank you for your detailed analysis. i'm sure you took much time and thought long and hard. The info is from research. I am not a researcher in this, only an explorer.
thank you for your detailed analysis. i'm sure you took much time and thought long and hard. The info is from research. I am not a researcher in this, only an explorer.
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by InThisForMe
well... there's research that shows that there's a certain gene that determine's one's resiliency to outside pressures and to stressors in the environment (5-HTT). those who are often unable to cope with these triggers are more and more proven to be born with at least one short allele, while having both alleles be long, changes one's ability to cope in the face of certain triggers.
so, sometimes the cravings are beyond the control of the addict.
so, sometimes the cravings are beyond the control of the addict.
I again refer to the book Heavy Drinking which says that research showed the most severe alcoholics resisting a second drink given enough incentives--even while undergoing withdrawal symptoms. Did none of them have the gene that takes away control completely?
thanks,
ted
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 792
the article i read on the topic was from the new york times, about a year ago, but i'm sure if you did a google search on the gene (5-HTT) and resilience, there would be several articles published on the topic... in my opinion, it's just another indication of the genetics of this disease (other disorders were described in the article i read... higher risk of depression, suicide, etc., not just substance abuse).
i can't validate or unvalidate what "heavy drinking" says, since i'm not familiar with the book. i just know from research i've done and from things i've witnessed, i have yet to see a case where an alcoholic can resist a second drink when given incentives. hitting rock bottom would be a different story, but i've never seen it done with incentives. there's a physiological change that occurs in the brain of alcoholics, so i'm not sure it entirely has to do with their lack of control, or their unwillingness to have any.
i can't validate or unvalidate what "heavy drinking" says, since i'm not familiar with the book. i just know from research i've done and from things i've witnessed, i have yet to see a case where an alcoholic can resist a second drink when given incentives. hitting rock bottom would be a different story, but i've never seen it done with incentives. there's a physiological change that occurs in the brain of alcoholics, so i'm not sure it entirely has to do with their lack of control, or their unwillingness to have any.
the girl can't help it
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: splendraville
Posts: 5,599
I guess the only "value" and "belief" that will sink in to an addicted mind is the desire not to have another hangover from hell...that's the only one that worked for me at least...
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by InThisForMe
the article i read on the topic was from the new york times, about a year ago, but i'm sure if you did a google search on the gene (5-HTT) and resilience, there would be several articles published on the topic... in my opinion, it's just another indication of the genetics of this disease (other disorders were described in the article i read... higher risk of depression, suicide, etc., not just substance abuse).
i can't validate or unvalidate what "heavy drinking" says, since i'm not familiar with the book. i just know from research i've done and from things i've witnessed, i have yet to see a case where an alcoholic can resist a second drink when given incentives. hitting rock bottom would be a different story, but i've never seen it done with incentives. there's a physiological change that occurs in the brain of alcoholics, so i'm not sure it entirely has to do with their lack of control, or their unwillingness to have any.
Originally Posted by HeavyDrinking, p36
And in 1977 a review of the scientific literature cited nearly sixty pertinent reports of experiments and clinical studies and concluded that "within a hospital or laboratory environment, the drinking of chronic alcoholics is explicitly a function of environmental contingencies." The reviewers noted that the subjects were able to control their consumption on their own and also when they were "rewarded" for doing so by special privileges, opportunities for socialization, or money.
True these results were all obtained in special environments (hospitals) with alcoholics who were often receiving special support and help. But if these drinkers were able to control their drinking in these special settings, one of two explanations must hold. Either (1) the carful observers in the special settings are noticing behaviors that careful observers would also detect in everyday situations or (2) the change in setting from home to hospital indeed radically affects alcoholics' self-control and drinking patterns.
Either of these explanations undermines the classic loss-of-control conjecture. if the first explanations holds, then loss of control is a stereotype born of faulty observation and a misunderstanding of drinkers' behavior. If the second explanation holds, then it is the social setting, not any chemical effect of alcohol, that influences drinkers' abilities to exert control over their drinking."
.....If we move from experiments conducted in special settings to real-life observation, we find the same principles at work. The consensus in the research literature is that even in their normal, everyday settings, chronic heavy drinkers often moderate their drinking to abstain voluntarily, the choice depending on their perceptions of the costs and benefits."
True these results were all obtained in special environments (hospitals) with alcoholics who were often receiving special support and help. But if these drinkers were able to control their drinking in these special settings, one of two explanations must hold. Either (1) the carful observers in the special settings are noticing behaviors that careful observers would also detect in everyday situations or (2) the change in setting from home to hospital indeed radically affects alcoholics' self-control and drinking patterns.
Either of these explanations undermines the classic loss-of-control conjecture. if the first explanations holds, then loss of control is a stereotype born of faulty observation and a misunderstanding of drinkers' behavior. If the second explanation holds, then it is the social setting, not any chemical effect of alcohol, that influences drinkers' abilities to exert control over their drinking."
.....If we move from experiments conducted in special settings to real-life observation, we find the same principles at work. The consensus in the research literature is that even in their normal, everyday settings, chronic heavy drinkers often moderate their drinking to abstain voluntarily, the choice depending on their perceptions of the costs and benefits."
My own observations of my brother, who has physical dependancy on alcohol, drinks in the morning, and throughout the day, is that he will modify his consumption throughout the day depending on the circumstances. He'll even abstain for a day on occasion.
ted
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 792
i understand what you're saying, i just have a different opinion on the topic.
if you look into some current research, even the HBO special that came out several months ago, doctors show CT scans and other evidence showing that the wiring of the alcoholic's brain is different from non-alcoholics. i'm not a doctor, though, so i only know what i believe and what i've seen from the alcoholics i've known and listened to at AA meetings.
there is a difference between heavy drinkers and alcoholics. i know that some can quit, some can't, even when their live depends on it. they know what they're doing to their body, they just physically can't control it. i very much doubt that any alcoholic would continue to live such a miserable life if it was simply a matter of choice.
your brother being able to modify his consumption is a good thing, but not everyone can. it's their inability, or sometimes unwillingness, to quit is what distinguishes heavy drinkers from alcoholics. (all in my opinion, of course
)
if you look into some current research, even the HBO special that came out several months ago, doctors show CT scans and other evidence showing that the wiring of the alcoholic's brain is different from non-alcoholics. i'm not a doctor, though, so i only know what i believe and what i've seen from the alcoholics i've known and listened to at AA meetings.
there is a difference between heavy drinkers and alcoholics. i know that some can quit, some can't, even when their live depends on it. they know what they're doing to their body, they just physically can't control it. i very much doubt that any alcoholic would continue to live such a miserable life if it was simply a matter of choice.
your brother being able to modify his consumption is a good thing, but not everyone can. it's their inability, or sometimes unwillingness, to quit is what distinguishes heavy drinkers from alcoholics. (all in my opinion, of course
)
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by splendra
I guess the only "value" and "belief" that will sink in to an addicted mind is the desire not to have another hangover from hell...that's the only one that worked for me at least...
Some people are able to quit before others. IF you indeed had hangovers from hell, maybe since all it took was a drink to make it go away that actually made it harder for you to quit than someone who never gets hangovers (like my brother)? I'm curious--what made you have that desire when you did--and why do you think that you didn't have it sooner?
ted
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by InThisForMe
i understand what you're saying, i just have a different opinion on the topic.
if you look into some current research, even the HBO special that came out several months ago, doctors show CT scans and other evidence showing that the wiring of the alcoholic's brain is different from non-alcoholics. i'm not a doctor, though, so i only know what i believe and what i've seen from the alcoholics i've known and listened to at AA meetings.
if you look into some current research, even the HBO special that came out several months ago, doctors show CT scans and other evidence showing that the wiring of the alcoholic's brain is different from non-alcoholics. i'm not a doctor, though, so i only know what i believe and what i've seen from the alcoholics i've known and listened to at AA meetings.
there is a difference between heavy drinkers and alcoholics. i know that some can quit, some can't, even when their live depends on it. they know what they're doing to their body, they just physically can't control it. i very much doubt that any alcoholic would continue to live such a miserable life if it was simply a matter of choice.
your brother being able to modify his consumption is a good thing, but not everyone can. it's their inability, or sometimes unwillingness, to quit is what distinguishes heavy drinkers from alcoholics. (all in my opinion, of course)
your brother being able to modify his consumption is a good thing, but not everyone can. it's their inability, or sometimes unwillingness, to quit is what distinguishes heavy drinkers from alcoholics. (all in my opinion, of course
)
Here's another excerpt from the book. Note that in this study NONE of the alcoholics lost control:
Originally Posted by HeavyDrinking
These subjects were accustomed to drinking a quart of whiskey a day, and they suffered withdrawal when they stopped. During the experiment they could earn an ounce of bourbon in anywhere from five to fifteen minutes, depending on their speed in pushing the button...The subjects participated for one or two months and at any time they could have earned enough to drink to become totally intoxicated. But in ALL the variations of the experiments.."NONE of the subjects...attempted in a situation where they could determined the volume and pattern of their own drinking to drink themselves into a state of unconsciousness or collapse." Moreover, the subjects actually demonstrated control over their drinking, in that:
(i) they drank to maintain high but roughly constant BAC's [blood alcohol content] during shorter drinking periods; (ii)they did not drink continuously but spontaneously initiated and terminated drinking sessions over a longer experimental period; (iii)they tended to work for and drink moderate amounts of aclohol and did not consume it as soon as it became available; (iv) some subjects chose to taper off their drinking in order to avoid or reduce withdrawal symptoms following termination of the experiment; and (v)subjects chose to work over one-or tow-day periods [without drinking] to accumulate alcohol rather than to drink to abolish partial withdrawal symptoms.
(i) they drank to maintain high but roughly constant BAC's [blood alcohol content] during shorter drinking periods; (ii)they did not drink continuously but spontaneously initiated and terminated drinking sessions over a longer experimental period; (iii)they tended to work for and drink moderate amounts of aclohol and did not consume it as soon as it became available; (iv) some subjects chose to taper off their drinking in order to avoid or reduce withdrawal symptoms following termination of the experiment; and (v)subjects chose to work over one-or tow-day periods [without drinking] to accumulate alcohol rather than to drink to abolish partial withdrawal symptoms.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 792
i really do understand your opinion... we've had many debates here on whether alcoholism is a choice or not, and we all have various opinions.
i don't think you can compare alcoholism to losing weight. however, just as someone with depression may be genetically predisposed to being so (just as an alcoholic may be predisposed to their disease), doesn't mean they can just choose to be happy one day.
i realize that you believe it's a choice. i don't believe it is, for everyone.
i think if someone can quit so easily, they aren't an alcoholic. it's the nature of the beast that makes quitting so hard.
i don't think you can compare alcoholism to losing weight. however, just as someone with depression may be genetically predisposed to being so (just as an alcoholic may be predisposed to their disease), doesn't mean they can just choose to be happy one day.
i realize that you believe it's a choice. i don't believe it is, for everyone.
i think if someone can quit so easily, they aren't an alcoholic. it's the nature of the beast that makes quitting so hard.
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Charles, MO
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by InThisForMe
i realize that you believe it's a choice. i don't believe it is, for everyone.
i think if someone can quit so easily, they aren't an alcoholic. it's the nature of the beast that makes quitting so hard.
i think if someone can quit so easily, they aren't an alcoholic. it's the nature of the beast that makes quitting so hard.
Many things can make the choice to quit or to continue very difficult, whether we are talking about alcoholism or controlling one's appetite for food or sex, or anything else that strongly appeals to them. Add to it physical dependency and it can greatly increase the difficulty.
We can agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, and when I get around to it, I'll check out the gene you mentioned.
ted
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the streets have no name
Posts: 1,078
Originally Posted by tedseeker
I wanted to see that special, but didn't.. I have no doubt that an alcoholics brain is wired different than a non-alcoholics. As is an artist from a scientist. I just don't know what we can conclude from that.
I just don't know. I've heard this too, and even some here say that's how it was for them. Yet, they quit. I think we underestimate how DIFFICULT choice is. If it were easy then people would easily lose the weight they want to, for example. Choice does NOT imply EASY.
Here's another excerpt from the book. Note that in this study NONE of the alcoholics lost control:
ted
I just don't know. I've heard this too, and even some here say that's how it was for them. Yet, they quit. I think we underestimate how DIFFICULT choice is. If it were easy then people would easily lose the weight they want to, for example. Choice does NOT imply EASY.
Here's another excerpt from the book. Note that in this study NONE of the alcoholics lost control:
ted
when you say your brother "NEVER" gets hangovers, do you actually live with him and
see him each morning after he gets loaded, bright eyed and bushy tailed, crystal clear lucid, efficient in motion and cognition, etc etc etc, no blood shot eyes, pleasant and not irritable?
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the streets have no name
Posts: 1,078
Originally Posted by tedseeker
I wanted to see that special, but didn't.. I have no doubt that an alcoholics brain is wired different than a non-alcoholics. As is an artist from a scientist. I just don't know what we can conclude from that.
I just don't know. I've heard this too, and even some here say that's how it was for them. Yet, they quit. I think we underestimate how DIFFICULT choice is. If it were easy then people would easily lose the weight they want to, for example. Choice does NOT imply EASY.
Here's another excerpt from the book. Note that in this study NONE of the alcoholics lost control:
ted
I just don't know. I've heard this too, and even some here say that's how it was for them. Yet, they quit. I think we underestimate how DIFFICULT choice is. If it were easy then people would easily lose the weight they want to, for example. Choice does NOT imply EASY.
Here's another excerpt from the book. Note that in this study NONE of the alcoholics lost control:
ted
That make me think about a true story from someone I know that recovered from qualudes 25 years ago. he recounts how he calculated 24/7 dosing that would not lead to an overdose. he did actually manage to stay high quite a while before the fog got too thick and he eventually miscalculated and ended up in an ICU. He was later told how he was arrested stark naked believing he was picking qualude offs a neighbors bushes.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where the streets have no name
Posts: 1,078
I may have posted this befoe but another friend, ex alcoholic 18 years now says his parents helped to get him sober. "they changed the locks on the house"
The stuff PET scanning has shown is specific to addicts. An addicted scientists Pet scan will be different from that of a non addicted scientist.
The stuff PET scanning has shown is specific to addicts. An addicted scientists Pet scan will be different from that of a non addicted scientist.
the girl can't help it
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: splendraville
Posts: 5,599
Originally Posted by tedseeker
Some people are able to quit before others. IF you indeed had hangovers from hell, maybe since all it took was a drink to make it go away that actually made it harder for you to quit than someone who never gets hangovers (like my brother)? I'm curious--what made you have that desire when you did--and why do you think that you didn't have it sooner?
Also I think the fact that I was far away from my family and had nobody coddling me by paying my bills, buying me groceries, fixing my car, putting a roof over my head and having to go to work with a hangover so I could do all these things for myself made a great impact on my disssion to quit.
My other siblings who are now all in their 40's and 50's are all still at my mom's house drinking and drugging and they don't have to worry about paying bills, buying groceries, taking care of their kids cause MOM will do it for them. I am very glad I took my drinking to another state away from all that support cause I could still be there getting aspirin and money for my hangover and drinking...
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Keepin' my side of the litterbox clean
Posts: 2,136
At my husband's last rehab (June '06) a medical doctor came in and showed the family members brain scans from a number of alcoholics' brains. The scans were indeed markedly different from those who were not addicts. There is research that says alcoholism is not a disease and there is research that says it is. Factors such as genetics, personality characteristics (or defects, I suppose), family-of-origin background, etc. have been studied.
Perhaps it's a mixture of the factors that have been researched that lead to addiction. I do know that I've watched several of my relatives literally drink themselves to death. I do know that my AH gets drunk every evening and stays drunk almost every weekend. The last time I saw the man have a sober weekend was Labor Day '06. He also vomits a lot. So for me, I tend to view this as a disease. Otherwise, I simply cannot fathom why someone would find drinking to such excess being worth trashing one's health and even dying as a result of it.
Perhaps it's a mixture of the factors that have been researched that lead to addiction. I do know that I've watched several of my relatives literally drink themselves to death. I do know that my AH gets drunk every evening and stays drunk almost every weekend. The last time I saw the man have a sober weekend was Labor Day '06. He also vomits a lot. So for me, I tend to view this as a disease. Otherwise, I simply cannot fathom why someone would find drinking to such excess being worth trashing one's health and even dying as a result of it.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
