From: mccla_d@aelle.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Subject: RE: Instant Addiction
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Distribution: sci.psychology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:54:02 GMT

zorrilla@cattell.psych.upenn.edu says:

> Siegel, et al. ... an increased tolerance  as a consequence of 
> opponent-process acting in reaction to a stimulus.
> ...
> Work like this has demonstrated that aspects of addiction are amenable to
> behavioral analysis.

Analysis, certainly. Usefull treatments remain to be seen.

I find a great difference between being able to alter behavior which may 
constitute a component of addicition, and altering them when they appear AS
a component of addiction. A analogy would be studying effects of anoxia and
trying to generalize them to cases of explosive decompression. It may in fact
occur, but the syndrome of symptoms being generalized to contains enough more
significant factors that by relative diminution, the first studies are of 
little use.

Tolerance is a reaction independent of addicition. Certainly it occurs, due
to the drugs in the system. It occurs in cases which are not addiction also.
And addiction is active without tolerance. A large number of addicts die after
periods of abstinance, where their tolerance drops but their drug seeking 
behavior has not dropped, or has increased. After periods of abstinance, they
tend to pick up where they left off, or even higher. Smith & Wesson (I'm not
kidding) of Hazeldon are good sources on this, as is J. Milam.

Milam quotes several notables (in _Under The Influence_)
including APA presidents who urge studies of
addictions be placed under medical research rather than psychological research
for the reasons I've stated. While psychology can claim to be able to recreate
some symptoms and manipulate them, it cannot claim to have made significant
headway contributing to protracted remission of addiction through these 
methods. It *can* claim significant, although sometimes haphazard, headway in
helping relieve the psychological damage done during active addiction.

In my strictly personal opinion, some psychologists who claim to intend
contributing to the addicitons field through studies in behaviorism have
really only recognized that they can buy a ticket on a long slow gravy
train, just as many hospitals did when *they* got in on substance abuse
treatment 10 to 20 years ago. They persist because people continue to throw
money at any research which might (in their uneducated opinions) help curb
the rip tide. As pure research, they contribute significant results. But
they are not supported in this direction by members of the community which
put these things into action. They remind me of a small group of interior
decorators who insist that when they find just the *right* shade of burnt
umber, it will become THE color to paint the living room.

Believe me, everything that's been announced has been tried. The results of
behavioristic studies have not shown themselves to be useful in practice,
even in cases where seemingly positive results in one aspect or another
came out.

Granted, there is a significant portion of the population of those who
administer treatment who refuse to consider behavioral studies on purely
political grounds; anything which indicates something other than genetic/
biochemical etiology reduces their case for the disease concept, which in
turn reduces their chances for continued research in that direction, as well 
as feeds the fires of their long time enemies, the moralists. But a large
number of more open minded people still consider all aspects of the field.
Both these populations are well represented in the literature in the 
substance abuse field. Behaviorists are rarely seen at all in these journals.
 
Newsgroups: sci.psychology