From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:48:13 GMT
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

basher@ces.cwru.edu (Tim Basher) writes:
>> In <lamontg.711858404@milton> (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>> 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.
>
>In <1992Jul24.172902.17727@bradley.bradley.edu> (David Vessell) writes:
>>To be perfectly blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>I'm sorry, but I think that Lamont has a valid point.
>[Whether he knows what he is talking about, only he can know]
>
>>Heredity can, at best, provide the body with a strong predisposition
>>towards particular behaviour.  A child of an alcoholic may be predisposed
>>towards alcoholism.  But it's no guarantee.  A child born to parents who
>>are both schizophrenic has only about an 8 percent chance of falling prey to
>>schizophrenia.  Compared to the 1 percent of the general population, that's
>>a considerable hereditary influence, but hardly a guarantee.

You are using one particular example where risk has increased by a factor
of eight.  I was hypothesizing a much greater possibility (although naturally
with much smaller occurance) which elevates the chance that someone with
the genes gets the psychological problem to near certainty.  My hypothetical
situation was a metabolic disorder due to an inadequate production of
a crucial enzyme which effects the brain.  It was just a thought experiment
to illustrate my point. 
 
>While you are partially correct, you do not give a full picture.
>
>Yes, heredity can provide a strong predisposition.  But genetics can do
>more.  It is true that having a predisposition towards anencephy in your
>family does not mean all your children will have it [heredity], but it does
>mean that if your "child" has the genes for it, they will get it [genetics].
>
>Yes, genetics can provide a strong predisposition.  People can be genetically
>predisposed to develop asthma.  But the asthma may not actually become active
>without a triggering event (such as a childhood case of bronchitis or
>pneumonia).  However, once the trigger has occured, they do have asthma.
>
>Just as physical diseases, such as asthma, can have trigger events, so too
>can behavioral or psychological problems.  A person predisposed to be an
>alcoholic may never develop alcoholism [an overriding craving for alcohol]
>until after their first drinking "binge".

Essentially the point I was after.

>>No one is a slave to their urges.
>
>No one may be a "slave to their urges" but that does not mean that all people
>can solve their own problems [by "force of will"] without outside assistance.
>The unconscious mind can be just as strong as the conscious mind.

In my opinion the biochemical mind can be much stronger than the conscious
mind.  And the unconscious mind, while being the most powerful, is completely
erratic -- otherwise we'd prescribe "miracle cures" to all terminal
cancer patients.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.2187@cupid.sai.com)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: ftp.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan