From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 01:42:58 -0500

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>: 
>: Do you know anything about mind/brain duality?  I think you are completely
>: ignoring the biochemical brain inside our heads and focusing entirely
>: on the psychological mind.  Everyone's biochemistry is different and the
>: various biochemistries form an entire spectrum.  Are you familiar with
>: the biochemical hypothesis of affective disorders?  If you do why would you
>: then completely deny any biochemical hypothesis of predisposition to
>: addiction?  The theory is very simple.  There may be people who have 
>: lower neurotransmitter levels.  For example a deficiency of catecholamine
>: or indoleamines -- possibly presenting itself as a biochemical depression --
>: could predispose a person to addiction to cocaine or amphetamines.
>: Basically, the first time a person took the stimulant, they would elevate
>: their neurotransmitter levels and "feel normal" for the first time in
>: their lives.  Then they would crash back to the same state they were
>: in.  Thus they have essentially very strong physical addiction already.
>: Couple this with any psychological weakness at all (much less than what
>: you are talking about) and the person could essentially become clinically
>: addicted the first time they try the drug.  In these cases the mind could
>: be fairly strong, but the body is weak.

>Well, I think it is just a matter of definition. I would not describe the
>situation as an immediate physical addiction. There would be a very strong
>psychological urge to use the drug again, so the person could once again
>feel normal. This is the same as a person who took any other drug, to make
>themselves feel "good" - the difference is that the person is only feeling
>normal instead of "high".

>I agree that such a person might become psychologically addicted upon the
>first usage and thus be clinically addicted. It is also one of the reasons
>why I have stated, many times, that addiction does not equal abuse. In
>some cases, addiction could actually be better for a person than not taking
>some drug in the first place.

Indeed.  This brings to mind the excellent book by Dr. Oliver Sacks,
_The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat_.  In this collection of
case studies, Dr. Sacks describes a man with Tourettes whose
symptoms can be controlled by Haldol.  Here's a descriptive section
about the man from the book:

	"...He was (like many Touretters) remarkably musical, and 
	could scarcely have survived -- emotionally or economically --
	had he not been a weekend jazz drummer of real virtuosity,
	famous for his sudden and wild extemporisations, which would
	arise from a tic or a compulsive hitting of a drum and 
	would instantly be made the nucleas of a wild and wonderful
	improvisation, so that the 'sudden intruder' would be
	turned to brilliant advantage."

Before the Haldol, the man was in despair because of the tics, 
spontaneous expletives and other uncontrollable actions resulting
from the Tourettes.

	After being under medication for a time, the man found
that his musical and verbal creativity -- which was quite
prodigious -- was adversely affected.  It was as though the
Tourettes was integral to that part of him.  In fact, after
consulting with Dr. Sacks, the man would go off the Haldol
on weekends so that his musical performances would return to
their former level of virtuosity.

	So, here was a fellow who was "normal" by many criteria
when on Haldol but the price he paid was that he became bland
and relatively uncreative.

	As I'm in a sort of free-associative mood, I'll relate
one other item from Sack's book.  A patient of Sacks'
described to him how, after having used amphetamines throughout
his time in med school awoke one morning to find that his
olfactory system had suddenly increased in sensitivity.  This
occurred after one extended period of use.  The phenomenon
lasted for some time and it was almost as though he had 
discovered a new sense.  By "some time", I mean an extended
period -- about 3 weeks.  The chapter this case is in is 
called "The Dog Beneath the Skin".


-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_
Newsgroups: alt.drugs