5 myths of addiction
box of chocolates
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,013
5 myths of addiction
curious and found this article
do you agree?
Myth No. 1: There is an addiction gene
There is no single gene, or set of genes, that determines whether or not a person will become an addict. And even if a person's parents are addicts, it doesn't mean they will be too. Current addiction research shows that roughly 50% of addiction tendencies are attributable to genes.
Myth No. 2: Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'
The addiction rate for marijuana is lower than that of alcohol, and there is little scientific evidence that it acts as a trigger for harder drugs.
While teen marijuana use is not to be encouraged, the real "gateway drug" risk might be from abusing prescription opioids and stimulants, like OxyContin, Vicodin and Adderall, or with inhalant drug use. These have strong addictive properties and more accessible to teens.
A 2010 study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that among 12th graders, 8% abused Vicodin and 5.1% abused OxyContin. Inhalant use peaks in the 8th grade at around 17%, far earlier than all other drugs.
Myth No. 3: Addiction is for life
This simply isn't true, and it places a huge emotional and psychological burden on recovered addicts. Addiction is a spectrum disorder, like depression, and every person is different.
While there are plenty of cases where addicts struggle for years to overcome a drug addiction, many more cases reveal the opposite -- short-term users who manage to put the past behind them and lead normal and productive lives. According to the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 75% of alcoholics recover without treatment.
myth no 4:drugs fry your brain
Remember the 1987 anti-drug commercial that used a frying egg to show "your brain on drugs?" While drug abuse can be bad for the brain, it is a gross oversimplification to say that drug use generally causes permanent and severe brain damage.
This myth gives the impression that recovered addicts are "damaged goods" and sets the stage for discrimination by employers, health care providers and the legal system. That said, certain drugs are neurotoxic: methamphetamine, MDMA, cocaine and inhalants are a few examples. However, even with these types of drugs, the side effects, while undesirable, by no means produce a "damaged" person.
Myth No. 5: You have to hit 'rock bottom'
Here's why this is dangerous: If we wait until a person "bottoms out," it could be too late to help them.
Every person has a different "bottom." For some, it could be getting arrested or becoming homeless. For many, it's much less dramatic -- losing an important personal relationship, being confronted by family or doing poorly at work or school.
There is little evidence that the level of consequences a person accumulates before seeking help is related to their chances of succeeding in recovery. It's better to get help early than to hold out for the perfect desperate moment.
do you agree?
Myth No. 1: There is an addiction gene
There is no single gene, or set of genes, that determines whether or not a person will become an addict. And even if a person's parents are addicts, it doesn't mean they will be too. Current addiction research shows that roughly 50% of addiction tendencies are attributable to genes.
Myth No. 2: Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'
The addiction rate for marijuana is lower than that of alcohol, and there is little scientific evidence that it acts as a trigger for harder drugs.
While teen marijuana use is not to be encouraged, the real "gateway drug" risk might be from abusing prescription opioids and stimulants, like OxyContin, Vicodin and Adderall, or with inhalant drug use. These have strong addictive properties and more accessible to teens.
A 2010 study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that among 12th graders, 8% abused Vicodin and 5.1% abused OxyContin. Inhalant use peaks in the 8th grade at around 17%, far earlier than all other drugs.
Myth No. 3: Addiction is for life
This simply isn't true, and it places a huge emotional and psychological burden on recovered addicts. Addiction is a spectrum disorder, like depression, and every person is different.
While there are plenty of cases where addicts struggle for years to overcome a drug addiction, many more cases reveal the opposite -- short-term users who manage to put the past behind them and lead normal and productive lives. According to the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 75% of alcoholics recover without treatment.
myth no 4:drugs fry your brain
Remember the 1987 anti-drug commercial that used a frying egg to show "your brain on drugs?" While drug abuse can be bad for the brain, it is a gross oversimplification to say that drug use generally causes permanent and severe brain damage.
This myth gives the impression that recovered addicts are "damaged goods" and sets the stage for discrimination by employers, health care providers and the legal system. That said, certain drugs are neurotoxic: methamphetamine, MDMA, cocaine and inhalants are a few examples. However, even with these types of drugs, the side effects, while undesirable, by no means produce a "damaged" person.
Myth No. 5: You have to hit 'rock bottom'
Here's why this is dangerous: If we wait until a person "bottoms out," it could be too late to help them.
Every person has a different "bottom." For some, it could be getting arrested or becoming homeless. For many, it's much less dramatic -- losing an important personal relationship, being confronted by family or doing poorly at work or school.
There is little evidence that the level of consequences a person accumulates before seeking help is related to their chances of succeeding in recovery. It's better to get help early than to hold out for the perfect desperate moment.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by thislonelygirl 
curious and found this article
do you agree?
Myth No. 1: There is an addiction gene
There is no single gene, or set of genes, that determines whether or not a person will become an addict. And even if a person's parents are addicts, it doesn't mean they will be too. Current addiction research shows that roughly 50% of addiction tendencies are attributable to genes.
Jury is still out on this. And the way I read this paragraph, the last sentence contradicts the first.
Myth No. 2: Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'
The addiction rate for marijuana is lower than that of alcohol, and there is little scientific evidence that it acts as a trigger for harder drugs.
While teen marijuana use is not to be encouraged, the real "gateway drug" risk might be from abusing prescription opioids and stimulants, like OxyContin, Vicodin and Adderall, or with inhalant drug use. These have strong addictive properties and more accessible to teens.
A 2010 study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that among 12th graders, 8% abused Vicodin and 5.1% abused OxyContin. Inhalant use peaks in the 8th grade at around 17%, far earlier than all other drugs.
Sounds like it was written by a pothead. Lots of vagueness and unimportant stats on rx drugs and inhalants thrown in for more obfuscation.
Myth No. 3: Addiction is for life
This simply isn't true, and it places a huge emotional and psychological burden on recovered addicts. Addiction is a spectrum disorder, like depression, and every person is different.
While there are plenty of cases where addicts struggle for years to overcome a drug addiction, many more cases reveal the opposite -- short-term users who manage to put the past behind them and lead normal and productive lives. According to the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 75% of alcoholics recover without treatment.
That last sentence is either taken out of context or has a very wide definition of 'alcoholic'.
myth no 4:drugs fry your brain
Remember the 1987 anti-drug commercial that used a frying egg to show "your brain on drugs?" While drug abuse can be bad for the brain, it is a gross oversimplification to say that drug use generally causes permanent and severe brain damage.
This myth gives the impression that recovered addicts are "damaged goods" and sets the stage for discrimination by employers, health care providers and the legal system. That said, certain drugs are neurotoxic: methamphetamine, MDMA, cocaine and inhalants are a few examples. However, even with these types of drugs, the side effects, while undesirable, by no means produce a "damaged" person.
Well, I will concede it doesn't literally 'fry' the brain. But alcohol and drug abuse does cause brain damage. Been proven over and over. Substance abusers hate hearing this and fight it like the dickens, but... facts is facts. That said, the damage is on a spectrum depending on the substance, how much was used, and for how long and how young the user was when s/he began.
Myth No. 5: You have to hit 'rock bottom'
Here's why this is dangerous: If we wait until a person "bottoms out," it could be too late to help them.
Every person has a different "bottom." For some, it could be getting arrested or becoming homeless. For many, it's much less dramatic -- losing an important personal relationship, being confronted by family or doing poorly at work or school.
No one wants to wait until the abuser hits rock bottom, often the abuser insists on that. I'd love to fix the problem the moment I thought my loved one had a problem. But...guess what, the abuser didn't cooperate. We usually have no choice but to wait until the abuser is ready and that's usually when they hit rock bottom.
This sounds like it was written by a substance abuser or a treatment center or a proponent of a certain type of treatment plan. Want to guess whoever wrote this likely hopes to profit from his/her involvement in drugs/alcohol or the treatment thereof?
There is little evidence that the level of consequences a person accumulates before seeking help is related to their chances of succeeding in recovery. It's better to get help early than to hold out for the perfect desperate moment.
Huh?
do you agree?
Myth No. 1: There is an addiction gene
There is no single gene, or set of genes, that determines whether or not a person will become an addict. And even if a person's parents are addicts, it doesn't mean they will be too. Current addiction research shows that roughly 50% of addiction tendencies are attributable to genes.
Jury is still out on this. And the way I read this paragraph, the last sentence contradicts the first.
Myth No. 2: Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'
The addiction rate for marijuana is lower than that of alcohol, and there is little scientific evidence that it acts as a trigger for harder drugs.
While teen marijuana use is not to be encouraged, the real "gateway drug" risk might be from abusing prescription opioids and stimulants, like OxyContin, Vicodin and Adderall, or with inhalant drug use. These have strong addictive properties and more accessible to teens.
A 2010 study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that among 12th graders, 8% abused Vicodin and 5.1% abused OxyContin. Inhalant use peaks in the 8th grade at around 17%, far earlier than all other drugs.
Sounds like it was written by a pothead. Lots of vagueness and unimportant stats on rx drugs and inhalants thrown in for more obfuscation.
Myth No. 3: Addiction is for life
This simply isn't true, and it places a huge emotional and psychological burden on recovered addicts. Addiction is a spectrum disorder, like depression, and every person is different.
While there are plenty of cases where addicts struggle for years to overcome a drug addiction, many more cases reveal the opposite -- short-term users who manage to put the past behind them and lead normal and productive lives. According to the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 75% of alcoholics recover without treatment.
That last sentence is either taken out of context or has a very wide definition of 'alcoholic'.
myth no 4:drugs fry your brain
Remember the 1987 anti-drug commercial that used a frying egg to show "your brain on drugs?" While drug abuse can be bad for the brain, it is a gross oversimplification to say that drug use generally causes permanent and severe brain damage.
This myth gives the impression that recovered addicts are "damaged goods" and sets the stage for discrimination by employers, health care providers and the legal system. That said, certain drugs are neurotoxic: methamphetamine, MDMA, cocaine and inhalants are a few examples. However, even with these types of drugs, the side effects, while undesirable, by no means produce a "damaged" person.
Well, I will concede it doesn't literally 'fry' the brain. But alcohol and drug abuse does cause brain damage. Been proven over and over. Substance abusers hate hearing this and fight it like the dickens, but... facts is facts. That said, the damage is on a spectrum depending on the substance, how much was used, and for how long and how young the user was when s/he began.
Myth No. 5: You have to hit 'rock bottom'
Here's why this is dangerous: If we wait until a person "bottoms out," it could be too late to help them.
Every person has a different "bottom." For some, it could be getting arrested or becoming homeless. For many, it's much less dramatic -- losing an important personal relationship, being confronted by family or doing poorly at work or school.
No one wants to wait until the abuser hits rock bottom, often the abuser insists on that. I'd love to fix the problem the moment I thought my loved one had a problem. But...guess what, the abuser didn't cooperate. We usually have no choice but to wait until the abuser is ready and that's usually when they hit rock bottom.
This sounds like it was written by a substance abuser or a treatment center or a proponent of a certain type of treatment plan. Want to guess whoever wrote this likely hopes to profit from his/her involvement in drugs/alcohol or the treatment thereof?
There is little evidence that the level of consequences a person accumulates before seeking help is related to their chances of succeeding in recovery. It's better to get help early than to hold out for the perfect desperate moment.
Huh?
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,423
In my opinion only:
Heavy cannabis use alters personality & often leads to other harder drugs.
Only speaking from experience as my ex husband was & still is a heavy user.
Meth does fry the brain. If it doesn't fry it certainly damages it.
When I was on it I had 2 major episodes where I was paralysed & my hands turned in. Could've been close to stroke.
Oh my gosh, glad I don't do any of it now & am healthy.
Heavy cannabis use alters personality & often leads to other harder drugs.
Only speaking from experience as my ex husband was & still is a heavy user.
Meth does fry the brain. If it doesn't fry it certainly damages it.
When I was on it I had 2 major episodes where I was paralysed & my hands turned in. Could've been close to stroke.
Oh my gosh, glad I don't do any of it now & am healthy.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,641
I would disagree with most of this article.
I am not as diligent and patient as SadHeart!
I took care of a woman in her sixties.
She had "wet-brain".
I walked the halls with her, feeding her because she was grossly malnourished from simply not eating.
She mumbled incoherently and would just drop her pants and do a big poo and walk away, pulling up her pants on the way.
She had been a very intelligent mother and business woman.
She drank a lot and was "functional", until she wasn't.
I would say that is a bit of permanent brain damage, wouldn't you?
No one had done any genetic testing, but apparently "all belong to her" were alcoholics.
Quite honestly, EVERYTHING is a gateway drug.
The rock bottom thing is phenomenal only in the stunning lengths people will go to rather than stop their DOC.
Might as well add on the last point.
There was a man at my meeting tonight (AA) who drank (a bottle of vodka that was on sale) after being sober since 1990. He is back and doing ok. He did the chair about a week before drinking. Good chair too.
I am not as diligent and patient as SadHeart!
I took care of a woman in her sixties.
She had "wet-brain".
I walked the halls with her, feeding her because she was grossly malnourished from simply not eating.
She mumbled incoherently and would just drop her pants and do a big poo and walk away, pulling up her pants on the way.
She had been a very intelligent mother and business woman.
She drank a lot and was "functional", until she wasn't.
I would say that is a bit of permanent brain damage, wouldn't you?
No one had done any genetic testing, but apparently "all belong to her" were alcoholics.
Quite honestly, EVERYTHING is a gateway drug.
The rock bottom thing is phenomenal only in the stunning lengths people will go to rather than stop their DOC.
Might as well add on the last point.
There was a man at my meeting tonight (AA) who drank (a bottle of vodka that was on sale) after being sober since 1990. He is back and doing ok. He did the chair about a week before drinking. Good chair too.
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,443
This is the author.
I don't have a Doctorate, and I'd never make claim to being an expert, but the only point I'd partially agree with is #5...anyone who's ever experienced bottom tho knows it need not be an event...it's a surrender, a decision IMO 
D
Editor's note: Adi Jaffe is a Los Angeles-based addiction psychologist and researcher. A former drug addict and convicted drug dealer, Jaffe is a UCLA-affiliated researcher and expert on substance abuse, especially on the neuroscience and policy issues involved, and founder of AllAboutAddiction.com.
D
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,572
Marijuana is A gateway drug, mostly because it's illegal. Once you go into illegal places and start dealing with those characters, you will be exposed to more and more.
Also, people who experiment are often open minded to trying other things, perhaps partly because we lie to kids about drugs.
There are definitely genetic components for alcoholism.
Drugs CAN "fry" your brain. If you don't believe it, I have some people for you to meet.
As for hitting bottom, it's a floating bottom, to be determined individually.
Kinda stupid article all in all.
Also, people who experiment are often open minded to trying other things, perhaps partly because we lie to kids about drugs.
There are definitely genetic components for alcoholism.
Drugs CAN "fry" your brain. If you don't believe it, I have some people for you to meet.
As for hitting bottom, it's a floating bottom, to be determined individually.
Kinda stupid article all in all.
box of chocolates
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,013
Adi Jaffe is a Los Angeles-based addiction psychologist and researcher. A former drug addict and convicted drug dealer, Jaffe is a UCLA-affiliated researcher and expert on substance abuse, especially on the neuroscience and policy issues involved, and founder of AllAboutAddiction.com.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 235
I enjoyed the sentiment, but much of this is not true, and I would like to know the source. You say CNN but I can not find this article on the CNN database, and to be frank, no respectable journalist at the CNN level would write like this. I was an English major in college, and this is High School quality at best.
One that really stuck out was the "fried brain" platitude. My uncle was a chronic alcoholic for over 40 years and was a transient homeless person on the streets for the last 20 of those years. He is now in an almost vegetative state under hospice care and can barely speak and has no memory functions left whatsoever. He can not remember yesterday let alone a year ago. His brain cells have been wiped out from the abuse and his body is jello. In fact, this is the exact term his doctor used to explain to us what happened in order to break down the medical jargon, "Your uncle essentially fried his brain over the last 40 years". Sound familiar?
He never had a stroke or any other physical ailments whatsoever outside of a liver that looked like pate'. He lays in bed all day and drools on himself, poops his diaper and needs to be told at least 5 times who you are before he can remember. Oh, and he's 59 years old. Oh, and he had a scholarship to Yale at 17.
Sorry just wanted to clear up the egg thing. It's a reality.
One that really stuck out was the "fried brain" platitude. My uncle was a chronic alcoholic for over 40 years and was a transient homeless person on the streets for the last 20 of those years. He is now in an almost vegetative state under hospice care and can barely speak and has no memory functions left whatsoever. He can not remember yesterday let alone a year ago. His brain cells have been wiped out from the abuse and his body is jello. In fact, this is the exact term his doctor used to explain to us what happened in order to break down the medical jargon, "Your uncle essentially fried his brain over the last 40 years". Sound familiar?
He never had a stroke or any other physical ailments whatsoever outside of a liver that looked like pate'. He lays in bed all day and drools on himself, poops his diaper and needs to be told at least 5 times who you are before he can remember. Oh, and he's 59 years old. Oh, and he had a scholarship to Yale at 17.
Sorry just wanted to clear up the egg thing. It's a reality.
box of chocolates
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,013
when i first read this article i thought agree to disagree .
yes and no was my overall opinion of it.
yes there are genes but no to any single gene that dictates addiction meaning choices decisions etc
no marjiuana isnt the only gateway drug but it can be
no addiction isnt for life but it can be hence decisions choices severity
it can fry your brain if left untreated but no not always
yes for some and no to others as far as hitting rock bottom once again more decisions
when i strolled across it i couldnt help but wonder how vague the article is in general.
thought ide share. of course addiction itself can be vague one person with wet brain vs the same situation another without. all chances and probabilities so it made sense in the fact that the article was indecisive
yes and no was my overall opinion of it.
yes there are genes but no to any single gene that dictates addiction meaning choices decisions etc
no marjiuana isnt the only gateway drug but it can be
no addiction isnt for life but it can be hence decisions choices severity
it can fry your brain if left untreated but no not always
yes for some and no to others as far as hitting rock bottom once again more decisions
when i strolled across it i couldnt help but wonder how vague the article is in general.
thought ide share. of course addiction itself can be vague one person with wet brain vs the same situation another without. all chances and probabilities so it made sense in the fact that the article was indecisive
box of chocolates
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by vinyl
I enjoyed the sentiment, but much of this is not true, and I would like to know the source. You say CNN but I can not find this article on the CNN database, and to be frank, no respectable journalist at the CNN level would write like this. I was an English major in college, and this is High School quality at best.
One that really stuck out was the "fried brain" platitude. My uncle was a chronic alcoholic for over 40 years and was a transient homeless person on the streets for the last 20 of those years. He is now in an almost vegetative state under hospice care and can barely speak and has no memory functions left whatsoever. He can not remember yesterday let alone a year ago. His brain cells have been wiped out from the abuse and his body is jello. In fact, this is the exact term his doctor used to explain to us what happened in order to break down the medical jargon, "Your uncle essentially fried his brain over the last 40 years". Sound familiar?
He never had a stroke or any other physical ailments whatsoever outside of a liver that looked like pate'. He lays in bed all day and drools on himself, poops his diaper and needs to be told at least 5 times who you are before he can remember. Oh, and he's 59 years old. Oh, and he had a scholarship to Yale at 17.
Sorry just wanted to clear up the egg thing. It's a reality.
One that really stuck out was the "fried brain" platitude. My uncle was a chronic alcoholic for over 40 years and was a transient homeless person on the streets for the last 20 of those years. He is now in an almost vegetative state under hospice care and can barely speak and has no memory functions left whatsoever. He can not remember yesterday let alone a year ago. His brain cells have been wiped out from the abuse and his body is jello. In fact, this is the exact term his doctor used to explain to us what happened in order to break down the medical jargon, "Your uncle essentially fried his brain over the last 40 years". Sound familiar?
He never had a stroke or any other physical ailments whatsoever outside of a liver that looked like pate'. He lays in bed all day and drools on himself, poops his diaper and needs to be told at least 5 times who you are before he can remember. Oh, and he's 59 years old. Oh, and he had a scholarship to Yale at 17.
Sorry just wanted to clear up the egg thing. It's a reality.
to be clear i do not agree with it just sharing it
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 235
Well now, that article is far more complete than what you posted above. You shouldn't truncate an article like that, it really hurts the author's credibility and can cause more harm than you may think.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,295
I think this is interesting because it shows another viewpoint. There is gray in this world, and in the huge variations of people on the planet.
I do believe in the gray. Very few people are going to fit all the extreme assessments. Everyone is an individual, and all the combinations and variations do apply in life because of that fact.
I think it takes away the extreme labeling and helplessness where one must follow a particular regiment. There are many ways to decide one has had enough of abusing a substance.
I like that the author is a recovered abuser, it gives more validation to what he says than if he had simply been a psychologist.
Although I may not agree from my experience on every point he makes, I especially like what he calls Myth #3. There are people who can change their ways and not carry some label for the rest of their lives. That, is very refreshing.
I do believe in the gray. Very few people are going to fit all the extreme assessments. Everyone is an individual, and all the combinations and variations do apply in life because of that fact.
I think it takes away the extreme labeling and helplessness where one must follow a particular regiment. There are many ways to decide one has had enough of abusing a substance.
I like that the author is a recovered abuser, it gives more validation to what he says than if he had simply been a psychologist.
Although I may not agree from my experience on every point he makes, I especially like what he calls Myth #3. There are people who can change their ways and not carry some label for the rest of their lives. That, is very refreshing.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
