From: mike@optimla.aimla.com (Mike Diehr)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Philips Interactive Media
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 23:17:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.184507.19671@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>: 
>: Jesus Fucking Christ.  Is there one single fucking person on this goddamn
>: net that has half the brain to realize that not only is our mind
>: *psychological* but its also *biochemical*?  
>
>Certainly, but then we are not talking about immediate addiction to a drug.
>We are talking about an attempt, usually unconscious, of these people to 
>cure a biochemical imbalance in their body. I would not call that being
>addicted. Of course, if this attempted cure last long enough, then addiction
>could occur - and frequently does (some alcoholics are a good example).
>
>: You've got some truely fucking brilliant opinions.  Ah, so someone who
>: has a genetically inherated metabolic disorder (specifically something that
>: is related to gamma-ammunobutric acid in some way, and most likely something
>: like an anxiety disorder) has "the power to change their beliefs and
>: consequently their behavior".
>
>Certainly, they do. But, in this case, it wouldn't help them any. They still
>would be suffering from the disorder. That means they need to see a doctor
>about getting the chemical aid that is going to be necessary for them to lead
>a relatively normal life.
>
>: Thats just really really brilliant.  They don't have any kind of psychological
>: way to change their behavior.  The only way their going to change their
>: behavior is through a chemical mechanism because their problem is entirely
>: 100% chemical.  They're going to be alcoholics.  And there is no goddamn
>: way they are going to stop giving importance to the beliefs that motivate
>: that behavior.  "Anxiety attacks?  Ah, I think they're actually not
>: important and not a problem in my life...  so, I think I'll just stop
>: using alcohol and have fun with my anxiety attacks..."  Yeah, right.
>
>As you say, it is likely that they will become (and remain) alcoholics. 
>It is unfortunate that so many people consider alcoholism to be only a
>psychological problem. That may be true for a large majority of cases,
>but not all. Because of the belief that it is a "mental weakness" that
>causes a person to abuse alcohol, many will not seek the medical help
>which could help them control this problem. 
>
>Bill


Sorry to jump in, but I think you are both missing the point.  Basically, you are arguing as to whether the human condition is psychological or biological.  I have several things to say about that:

1) Can you come up with good definitions for either?
  Suppose you are driving and nearly get in an accident.  You get a big jolt of adrenaline, and are shaky and scared.  Chemical or mind?  Suppose you are having sex for the first time, and get a big jolt of adrenaline and endorphin(s).   You feel happy, euphoric and excited.  Biology or psychology?  I can take a hallucinogen and have a good trip or a bad trip.  Mind or matter?

2) What does it matter?
  Presumably, the addict is unhapy with their situation.  They are unhappy.  Can you really say that any style of "cure" is better than another.  I think the focus should be on the results.`

3) What is the point?
  It seems to me that the basic item that you are both arguing about, without admitting it, is morality.  Should the addict feel bad?  Is addiction a problem of will (your fault) or biology (not your fault.)  How should we think of it?   This all sounds very religious to me... try replacing /alcohol/ with /sex/ in your messages, and see how it reads...



-mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,rec.music.gdead