Addiction, was Re: internet
Valerie Thorp
"... none of these things is addictive. Not even drugs. What causes
addiction is the need to escape an environment that's painful in some
way that they have no control over.
Schuyler has posted the Rat Park studies that show that drugs aren't
addictive. (The study is worth reading no matter what you fear is
addictive.) The need for drugs is caused by stressful environments,
not the drugs themselves.
http://www.walrusma gazine.com/ articles/ 2007.12-health- rat-trap/"
Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive. What causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is what the Rat Park studies are concluding. However, once using drugs, the drugs themselves cause addiction (morphine, an opiate, is the only drug Alexander, the Rat Park researcher, studied). It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape, size, structure and function are permanently altered by drug use. I won't cite studies here because they are very easy to find with little research and they are abundant. Environment certainly seems to play a role, however it does not "cause" addiction. I appreciate and agree with your point about environment causing people to turn to addictive behaviors, but please be careful and specific with inferences from two small research projects conducted using only one drug to jump to such a conclusion as "drugs aren't addictive".
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
addiction is the need to escape an environment that's painful in some
way that they have no control over.
Schuyler has posted the Rat Park studies that show that drugs aren't
addictive. (The study is worth reading no matter what you fear is
addictive.) The need for drugs is caused by stressful environments,
not the drugs themselves.
http://www.walrusma gazine.com/ articles/ 2007.12-health- rat-trap/"
Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive. What causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is what the Rat Park studies are concluding. However, once using drugs, the drugs themselves cause addiction (morphine, an opiate, is the only drug Alexander, the Rat Park researcher, studied). It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape, size, structure and function are permanently altered by drug use. I won't cite studies here because they are very easy to find with little research and they are abundant. Environment certainly seems to play a role, however it does not "cause" addiction. I appreciate and agree with your point about environment causing people to turn to addictive behaviors, but please be careful and specific with inferences from two small research projects conducted using only one drug to jump to such a conclusion as "drugs aren't addictive".
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
No drug has been demonstrated to be perfectly addictive. At least none that I've
ever read or heard about and I've read a fair bit about drugs and addiction.
Rat Park triggered off a lot of further study for Bruce Alexander. The funding
that he had gotten to do the rat park study dried up so he went and explored the
already existing literature around addiction and he found lots of studies
demonstrating that people went off drugs as soon as their environment changed.
Soldiers who had become addicted to heroin in Vietnam came home and went cold
turkey at some overwhelming amount statistically. In the UK morphine is a drug
that has been used as a pain killer with a very low rate of people staying on
the drug as soon as they can come off of it. You can read more of what he's
written here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm.
He talks about cocaine as well as heroin.
"It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape, size,
structure and function are permanently altered by drug use."
I change my neuron shape, size, structure and function pretty regularly, I
imagine. Living changes it. I can remember sitting in a biology professor's
office one day when a study on the brain difference between gay men and straight
men had been published and having him rant for a bit about how of course there
was a difference in brains, everything changes brains. Brains are adaptable
organs. They have plasticity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity can
go into it in greater depth if you are interested.
Tonight I went to dance rehearsal and worked on a couple of dances I know not
terribly well and learned a new one, as well as being shown how to pirouette. I
will have created new neural pathways and made other ones a bit more firm in the
process. I will have changed the shape, size, structure and function of certain
neurons. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Nor do I think that it
demonstrates that I'm addicted to Morris dancing.
"Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive."
Drugs are not absolutely addictive. Lots of people quit drugs pretty frequently.
Lots of people try a drug and never do it again. I have coffee most mornings and
wine most evenings. If my sources for both went away, or if I found that either
thing was something I no longer wanted to do, I'd suffer a bit of withdrawal and
move on.
"Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive. What
causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is what the
Rat Park studies are concluding."
Part of what the Rat Park studies demonstrated was that rats would quit doing
drugs when they were in a good environment. They would go cold turkey and suffer
the withdrawal when given a pleasant life and a choice between water and laced
water. For whatever reason, in a good environment, rats would choose to live a
life without opiates.
I can tell you that I was a smoker for 12 years and I quit one day 15 years ago
without ever returning. Well, that isn't true, I smoked a cigarette at a party
once about 2 years after I quit. And I was worried that the one cigarette would
take me quickly back down to my pack a day habit. But it didn't. My environment
was too different, my desire was gone. The nicotine was out of my system. One
cigarette wasn't enough, I needed to change the structure of my life to start
smoking again. I still would. Even though the nicotine is just as addictive as
it once was, my life is such that it doesn't support that addiction any more.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014488607000052 is an
interesting abstract about how an enriched environment changes the way the brain
responds to morphine in mice. There are more studies than that one that support
Dr. Alexander's findings. Here's another take:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740675709000243. This one is
pretty cool: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301008210001450.
What may have been the truth of the drug-induced addiction model seems to be
changing. At least in some circles.
I'm not afraid that drugs will take Simon or Linnaea away from me. Not because I
don't think that they will someday try them. I don't know. But because I think
that they won't be better entertainment, engagement, more interesting thing to
do than what they are already doing. I don't think they will add anything, or
that they have anything so painful to take away.
Schuyler
________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ever read or heard about and I've read a fair bit about drugs and addiction.
Rat Park triggered off a lot of further study for Bruce Alexander. The funding
that he had gotten to do the rat park study dried up so he went and explored the
already existing literature around addiction and he found lots of studies
demonstrating that people went off drugs as soon as their environment changed.
Soldiers who had become addicted to heroin in Vietnam came home and went cold
turkey at some overwhelming amount statistically. In the UK morphine is a drug
that has been used as a pain killer with a very low rate of people staying on
the drug as soon as they can come off of it. You can read more of what he's
written here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm.
He talks about cocaine as well as heroin.
"It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape, size,
structure and function are permanently altered by drug use."
I change my neuron shape, size, structure and function pretty regularly, I
imagine. Living changes it. I can remember sitting in a biology professor's
office one day when a study on the brain difference between gay men and straight
men had been published and having him rant for a bit about how of course there
was a difference in brains, everything changes brains. Brains are adaptable
organs. They have plasticity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity can
go into it in greater depth if you are interested.
Tonight I went to dance rehearsal and worked on a couple of dances I know not
terribly well and learned a new one, as well as being shown how to pirouette. I
will have created new neural pathways and made other ones a bit more firm in the
process. I will have changed the shape, size, structure and function of certain
neurons. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Nor do I think that it
demonstrates that I'm addicted to Morris dancing.
"Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive."
Drugs are not absolutely addictive. Lots of people quit drugs pretty frequently.
Lots of people try a drug and never do it again. I have coffee most mornings and
wine most evenings. If my sources for both went away, or if I found that either
thing was something I no longer wanted to do, I'd suffer a bit of withdrawal and
move on.
"Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive. What
causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is what the
Rat Park studies are concluding."
Part of what the Rat Park studies demonstrated was that rats would quit doing
drugs when they were in a good environment. They would go cold turkey and suffer
the withdrawal when given a pleasant life and a choice between water and laced
water. For whatever reason, in a good environment, rats would choose to live a
life without opiates.
I can tell you that I was a smoker for 12 years and I quit one day 15 years ago
without ever returning. Well, that isn't true, I smoked a cigarette at a party
once about 2 years after I quit. And I was worried that the one cigarette would
take me quickly back down to my pack a day habit. But it didn't. My environment
was too different, my desire was gone. The nicotine was out of my system. One
cigarette wasn't enough, I needed to change the structure of my life to start
smoking again. I still would. Even though the nicotine is just as addictive as
it once was, my life is such that it doesn't support that addiction any more.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014488607000052 is an
interesting abstract about how an enriched environment changes the way the brain
responds to morphine in mice. There are more studies than that one that support
Dr. Alexander's findings. Here's another take:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740675709000243. This one is
pretty cool: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301008210001450.
What may have been the truth of the drug-induced addiction model seems to be
changing. At least in some circles.
I'm not afraid that drugs will take Simon or Linnaea away from me. Not because I
don't think that they will someday try them. I don't know. But because I think
that they won't be better entertainment, engagement, more interesting thing to
do than what they are already doing. I don't think they will add anything, or
that they have anything so painful to take away.
Schuyler
________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Daria S
I feel uncomfortable to post this way and yet I want to address this...
"Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive." - this is a belief, not necessarily a fact - this belief is repeated in different versions throughout the post, but remains nonetheless a belief (like the belief it is stated in opposition to)
"What causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is what the Rat Park studies are concluding." - that was not the conclusion I saw in the linked article or that I drew from the description of the study. It seemed that even rats who had been given the drug repeatedly were more likely to voluntarily wean themselves off of the drug when the environment was pleasant (however the study does not say what percentage of rats in either group did continue to use the drug, so a conclusion either way is unclear).
"It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape, size, structure and function are permanently altered by drug use." - this does not translate into addiction. Neurons are often altered for many reasons during an organism's lifetime, not only by repeated chemical exposure. They are altered by thoughts, experiences, and pretty much life itself...
in addition: 'permanently' - debatable, some believe cells are renewed/replaced after a certain period of time - in that model to be altered permanently does not make sense
"please be careful...with inferences... to jump to such a conclusion" - this leads me to think the post was made from a fear-based mindset rather than open mindedness
I apologize for the debating nature of my post. I don't want to alienate anyone, and I feel afraid I have anyway. Just looking to inspire with new thoughts.
Personally I rejoice in the idea that addiction is not conditional on a substance... and it makes sense seeing how variably addiction manifests itself.
Very interesting.
"Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive." - this is a belief, not necessarily a fact - this belief is repeated in different versions throughout the post, but remains nonetheless a belief (like the belief it is stated in opposition to)
"What causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is what the Rat Park studies are concluding." - that was not the conclusion I saw in the linked article or that I drew from the description of the study. It seemed that even rats who had been given the drug repeatedly were more likely to voluntarily wean themselves off of the drug when the environment was pleasant (however the study does not say what percentage of rats in either group did continue to use the drug, so a conclusion either way is unclear).
"It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape, size, structure and function are permanently altered by drug use." - this does not translate into addiction. Neurons are often altered for many reasons during an organism's lifetime, not only by repeated chemical exposure. They are altered by thoughts, experiences, and pretty much life itself...
in addition: 'permanently' - debatable, some believe cells are renewed/replaced after a certain period of time - in that model to be altered permanently does not make sense
"please be careful...with inferences... to jump to such a conclusion" - this leads me to think the post was made from a fear-based mindset rather than open mindedness
I apologize for the debating nature of my post. I don't want to alienate anyone, and I feel afraid I have anyway. Just looking to inspire with new thoughts.
Personally I rejoice in the idea that addiction is not conditional on a substance... and it makes sense seeing how variably addiction manifests itself.
Very interesting.
--- In [email protected], Valerie Thorp <valeriethorp@...> wrote:
>
> "... none of these things is addictive. Not even drugs. What causes
> addiction is the need to escape an environment that's painful in some
> way that they have no control over.
>
> Schuyler has posted the Rat Park studies that show that drugs aren't
> addictive. (The study is worth reading no matter what you fear is
> addictive.) The need for drugs is caused by stressful environments,
> not the drugs themselves.
> http://www.walrusma gazine.com/ articles/ 2007.12-health- rat-trap/"
>
> Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive. What causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is what the Rat Park studies are concluding. However, once using drugs, the drugs themselves cause addiction (morphine, an opiate, is the only drug Alexander, the Rat Park researcher, studied). It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape, size, structure and function are permanently altered by drug use. I won't cite studies here because they are very easy to find with little research and they are abundant. Environment certainly seems to play a role, however it does not "cause" addiction. I appreciate and agree with your point about environment causing people to turn to addictive behaviors, but please be careful and specific with inferences from two small research projects conducted using only one drug to jump to such a conclusion as "drugs aren't addictive".
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Sacha Davis
As an RN I work with the addicted population so this subject is very near
and dear to my heart. I do sincerly mean 'dear' because despite the
challenges, I have a passion for serving this population. When I work
with them I cannot wonder what has happened to them that has caused them
to seek out the ultimate in numbing and disassociative experiences over
and over and over again, at the expense of their health, of their sanity.
I think this is what people think of when they speak of addiction. Not
the physical addiction but the behaviors that emerge around addiction.
I think in any discussion around addiction it's important to flesh out
that addiction is different than dependency. Yes, not every person who
uses drugs becomes an addict and there is no guarantee of addiction, but
dependency on medications is a very real thing. I personally am dependent
on Zoloft, if I don't dose for a couple days my anxiety goes sky-high,
then I have to dose it again. IN order to get off the drug I will have to
taper - it's not safe for me to stop using it altogether. But my behavior
around using Zoloft is not addictive. I have a prescription, I get it
legally, but I am still dependent on it.
Addiction is a very complex physiological and psychosocial problem. In
six years of caring for the IVDU population, I cannot think of a single
person who comes from an intact, attached, loving and stable family. I
have had one person who came off herion without using methadone and it was
a feat of will and strength. People who use, the long-term addicted, are
wounded, walking around like raw nerves in our society. They come from
chaos, are not attached, have been hurt and abused. They cannot cope,
suffer from mental illness, don't know how to function without the quick
fix of illegal drugs. It's not many of us don't do this same thing
legally - alcohol, porn, music, whatever your addiction of choice that
fills those voids and reduces the pain.
The behavior around addiction does not stem from being dependent on a
drug, but not having access to a drug, needing money to get drugs, not
having a safe way to use drugs, and the general moralistic attitude toward
drug use in this country (USA). This leads to violence, prostitution,
destructive behavior. If we practiced more harm reduction there would be
less stigma around people who use, less violence, and more space for
people to find a way to get the support they need to stop using.
I think Drugs are Evil isn't the right approach, I think Drugs Aren't
Addictive is simplistic. I think you can do studies and research, but
there are real people living as addicts and they can tell you why the
cannot stop, or will not stop. Having children have resulted in me seeing
the people I care for as children. I now know at a cellular level that
children are not born bad, they are innocent loving creatures who end up
in terrible situations that ultimately destroy them. THIS is the
environment. This is why parenting in a kind thoughtful way is so deeply
important, and this is why I am so drawn to (radical) unschooling. It is
so full of love and joy. It is the ultimate extension of attachment,
putting the parent/child relationship above all other things. Will this
prevent drug use - most likely but there is no guarantee of anything in
life.
If anyone is interested in reading a good book about addiction, Gabor
Mate's In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts is amazing. It changed me as a
person and helped me understand a very challenging population. It makes a
good physiological case for addiction, but regardless, it also brings a
strong tone of compassion for people caught in the cycle of drug use.
I write from my heart because this is a subject that I care deeply about.
I can only relay my experience, and that can be summarized by saying this
is no black and white subject. It's complex, full of humanity and
tragedy, terrifying, and humbling all in one.
S.
and dear to my heart. I do sincerly mean 'dear' because despite the
challenges, I have a passion for serving this population. When I work
with them I cannot wonder what has happened to them that has caused them
to seek out the ultimate in numbing and disassociative experiences over
and over and over again, at the expense of their health, of their sanity.
I think this is what people think of when they speak of addiction. Not
the physical addiction but the behaviors that emerge around addiction.
I think in any discussion around addiction it's important to flesh out
that addiction is different than dependency. Yes, not every person who
uses drugs becomes an addict and there is no guarantee of addiction, but
dependency on medications is a very real thing. I personally am dependent
on Zoloft, if I don't dose for a couple days my anxiety goes sky-high,
then I have to dose it again. IN order to get off the drug I will have to
taper - it's not safe for me to stop using it altogether. But my behavior
around using Zoloft is not addictive. I have a prescription, I get it
legally, but I am still dependent on it.
Addiction is a very complex physiological and psychosocial problem. In
six years of caring for the IVDU population, I cannot think of a single
person who comes from an intact, attached, loving and stable family. I
have had one person who came off herion without using methadone and it was
a feat of will and strength. People who use, the long-term addicted, are
wounded, walking around like raw nerves in our society. They come from
chaos, are not attached, have been hurt and abused. They cannot cope,
suffer from mental illness, don't know how to function without the quick
fix of illegal drugs. It's not many of us don't do this same thing
legally - alcohol, porn, music, whatever your addiction of choice that
fills those voids and reduces the pain.
The behavior around addiction does not stem from being dependent on a
drug, but not having access to a drug, needing money to get drugs, not
having a safe way to use drugs, and the general moralistic attitude toward
drug use in this country (USA). This leads to violence, prostitution,
destructive behavior. If we practiced more harm reduction there would be
less stigma around people who use, less violence, and more space for
people to find a way to get the support they need to stop using.
I think Drugs are Evil isn't the right approach, I think Drugs Aren't
Addictive is simplistic. I think you can do studies and research, but
there are real people living as addicts and they can tell you why the
cannot stop, or will not stop. Having children have resulted in me seeing
the people I care for as children. I now know at a cellular level that
children are not born bad, they are innocent loving creatures who end up
in terrible situations that ultimately destroy them. THIS is the
environment. This is why parenting in a kind thoughtful way is so deeply
important, and this is why I am so drawn to (radical) unschooling. It is
so full of love and joy. It is the ultimate extension of attachment,
putting the parent/child relationship above all other things. Will this
prevent drug use - most likely but there is no guarantee of anything in
life.
If anyone is interested in reading a good book about addiction, Gabor
Mate's In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts is amazing. It changed me as a
person and helped me understand a very challenging population. It makes a
good physiological case for addiction, but regardless, it also brings a
strong tone of compassion for people caught in the cycle of drug use.
I write from my heart because this is a subject that I care deeply about.
I can only relay my experience, and that can be summarized by saying this
is no black and white subject. It's complex, full of humanity and
tragedy, terrifying, and humbling all in one.
S.
> No drug has been demonstrated to be perfectly addictive. At least none
> that I've
> ever read or heard about and I've read a fair bit about drugs and
> addiction.
>
>
> Rat Park triggered off a lot of further study for Bruce Alexander. The
> funding
> that he had gotten to do the rat park study dried up so he went and
> explored the
> already existing literature around addiction and he found lots of studies
> demonstrating that people went off drugs as soon as their environment
> changed.
> Soldiers who had become addicted to heroin in Vietnam came home and went
> cold
> turkey at some overwhelming amount statistically. In the UK morphine is a
> drug
> that has been used as a pain killer with a very low rate of people staying
> on
> the drug as soon as they can come off of it. You can read more of what
> he's
> written here:
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm.
> He talks about cocaine as well as heroin.
>
>
> "It has been thoroughly proven in scientific studies that neuron shape,
> size,
> structure and function are permanently altered by drug use."
>
> I change my neuron shape, size, structure and function pretty regularly, I
> imagine. Living changes it. I can remember sitting in a biology
> professor's
> office one day when a study on the brain difference between gay men and
> straight
> men had been published and having him rant for a bit about how of course
> there
> was a difference in brains, everything changes brains. Brains are
> adaptable
> organs. They have plasticity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity
> can
> go into it in greater depth if you are interested.
>
> Tonight I went to dance rehearsal and worked on a couple of dances I know
> not
> terribly well and learned a new one, as well as being shown how to
> pirouette. I
> will have created new neural pathways and made other ones a bit more firm
> in the
> process. I will have changed the shape, size, structure and function of
> certain
> neurons. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Nor do I think that
> it
> demonstrates that I'm addicted to Morris dancing.
>
>
> "Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are
> addictive."
>
> Drugs are not absolutely addictive. Lots of people quit drugs pretty
> frequently.
> Lots of people try a drug and never do it again. I have coffee most
> mornings and
> wine most evenings. If my sources for both went away, or if I found that
> either
> thing was something I no longer wanted to do, I'd suffer a bit of
> withdrawal and
> move on.
>
>
> "Environment does not cause addiction and drugs absolutely are addictive.
> What
> causes someone to initially turn to drugs may be environment, which is
> what the
> Rat Park studies are concluding."
>
> Part of what the Rat Park studies demonstrated was that rats would quit
> doing
> drugs when they were in a good environment. They would go cold turkey and
> suffer
> the withdrawal when given a pleasant life and a choice between water and
> laced
> water. For whatever reason, in a good environment, rats would choose to
> live a
> life without opiates.
>
>
> I can tell you that I was a smoker for 12 years and I quit one day 15
> years ago
> without ever returning. Well, that isn't true, I smoked a cigarette at a
> party
> once about 2 years after I quit. And I was worried that the one cigarette
> would
> take me quickly back down to my pack a day habit. But it didn't. My
> environment
> was too different, my desire was gone. The nicotine was out of my system.
> One
> cigarette wasn't enough, I needed to change the structure of my life to
> start
> smoking again. I still would. Even though the nicotine is just as
> addictive as
> it once was, my life is such that it doesn't support that addiction any
> more.
>
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014488607000052 is an
> interesting abstract about how an enriched environment changes the way the
> brain
> responds to morphine in mice. There are more studies than that one that
> support
> Dr. Alexander's findings. Here's another take:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740675709000243. This
> one is
> pretty cool:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301008210001450.
> What may have been the truth of the drug-induced addiction model seems to
> be
> changing. At least in some circles.
>
>
> I'm not afraid that drugs will take Simon or Linnaea away from me. Not
> because I
> don't think that they will someday try them. I don't know. But because I
> think
> that they won't be better entertainment, engagement, more interesting
> thing to
> do than what they are already doing. I don't think they will add anything,
> or
> that they have anything so painful to take away.
>
>
> Schuyler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
VT
Thanks for sharing your experience in the post below. I also have close ties to this subject, some similar to yours and some different.
I wanted to say a few things on this subject before I move away from it.
1. I think all of us who have posted on it share a caring and passionate viewpoint on the topic, and come with helpful intent.
2. I did not intend to label people as addicts or diminish the issues surrounding addiction; the opposite is true. I was saying that it is not simply environment that creates a dependency. I believe it is more complicated than that and felt it was diminishing the struggle addicts and people who are physically dependent on a chemical substance face; as if to say, just find a happy place and your life will turn around, or to say it is their fault for turning to drugs because it is just environmental and should be easy to change. That is what I was responding to and I likely misinterpreted.
3. I was trying to highlight the deep struggle around dependency and the very real physical effects of it. It may be a belief, but I find it hard to imagine anyone would deny that physical dependency can be scientifically demonstrated.
4. Thanks to Sacha Davis for pointing out the importance of recognizing the difference between addiction and dependency. I was thinking of the two as synonymous when I responded, which they are not.
5. From this discussion, I have moved the very significant role that environment plays in addiction to the forefront of my thoughts, instead of focusing on physical dependency. I appreciate what has been shared on this topic; especially highlighting the environment created by unschooling as opposed to the environment that many addicts come from.
-Valerie
I wanted to say a few things on this subject before I move away from it.
1. I think all of us who have posted on it share a caring and passionate viewpoint on the topic, and come with helpful intent.
2. I did not intend to label people as addicts or diminish the issues surrounding addiction; the opposite is true. I was saying that it is not simply environment that creates a dependency. I believe it is more complicated than that and felt it was diminishing the struggle addicts and people who are physically dependent on a chemical substance face; as if to say, just find a happy place and your life will turn around, or to say it is their fault for turning to drugs because it is just environmental and should be easy to change. That is what I was responding to and I likely misinterpreted.
3. I was trying to highlight the deep struggle around dependency and the very real physical effects of it. It may be a belief, but I find it hard to imagine anyone would deny that physical dependency can be scientifically demonstrated.
4. Thanks to Sacha Davis for pointing out the importance of recognizing the difference between addiction and dependency. I was thinking of the two as synonymous when I responded, which they are not.
5. From this discussion, I have moved the very significant role that environment plays in addiction to the forefront of my thoughts, instead of focusing on physical dependency. I appreciate what has been shared on this topic; especially highlighting the environment created by unschooling as opposed to the environment that many addicts come from.
-Valerie
--- In [email protected], "Sacha Davis" <sacha@...> wrote:
>
> As an RN I work with the addicted population so this subject is very near
> and dear to my heart. I do sincerly mean 'dear' because despite the
> challenges, I have a passion for serving this population. When I work
> with them I cannot wonder what has happened to them that has caused them
> to seek out the ultimate in numbing and disassociative experiences over
> and over and over again, at the expense of their health, of their sanity.
> I think this is what people think of when they speak of addiction. Not
> the physical addiction but the behaviors that emerge around addiction.
>
> I think in any discussion around addiction it's important to flesh out
> that addiction is different than dependency. Yes, not every person who
> uses drugs becomes an addict and there is no guarantee of addiction, but
> dependency on medications is a very real thing.
> Addiction is a very complex physiological and psychosocial problem.