From: lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: LSD and alcoholics caught in mortuary with sheep corpse
Date: 4 Jan 1993 08:59:46 GMT
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

I'm jumping in the middle of this shit which appears to have crawled out
of my kill file from somewhere...

asbestos suits will be required to read any further...

cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu (Malevolessence) writes:
>> Could you elaborate on your basis for these doubts?  Are you familiar with
>> the extensive work of therapists who have given MDMA to their patients,
>> are you familiar with the subjective reports of MDMA users, or is this 
>> judgement based only on your understanding of "alcoholism?"
>
>	It is based upon my understanding of alcoholism, which appears to be
>more extensive than that of anyone else here.  Also, it is based upon half a
>lifetime of observing people and chemicals, and people behaving.

If we're discussing the addictiveness of MDMA here, and you're basing your
information on alcohol and alcoholism, you then have nothing really useful
to add to the discussion.  Or shall we also discuss the addictiveness of
caffiene based on our experiences with cocaine freebase?
 
>> The claim that alcoholics are always going to be alcoholics puzzles me.
>
>	You understand nothing of the problem, then.

evidence?  what is the problem from your viewpoint, or are we merely to
take your word as being handed to you from god? 

>> It sounds like something an objectivist would say.  Or like something
>> Wittgenstein attacked in his _Tractatus_.  If it means that former
>> chronic drinkers have a higher chance of engaging in disfunctional heavy 
>> drinking than the general population, then I can happily go along with
>> it.  Otherwise, it sounds like dogma.  Now, if you find such dogma useful
>> in your attempts to understand/control your own behavior, fine.  Just
>
>	You're confusing drinking and alcoholism, which leads me to doubt your
>claim to being a 'scientist.'  

Do you want me to send you a copy of his methamphetamine study?

>> don't expect us scientists to think the claim has any scientific
>> validity.
>> 
>> From what I understand, there has recently been success curing
>> phobias with beta blockers.  For example, giving a dose of propranolol
>> immediately before the stress-producing situation allegedly prevents
>> panic from occuring and once the phobic finds they can calmly act in
>> those circumstances, the phobia is allegedly gone (and no further
>> drug intervention is necessary).  This seems to be an example of a
>> single drug intervention curing a chronic behavioral problem.
>> In what ways would treating alcoholics with MDMA be different?
>> There are some who maintain that alcoholism is partly motivated by
>> feelings of inadequacy in social situations and that alcohol is used
>> to lower one's own and others' expectations.  Under such a model
>> of alcoholism, MDMA therapy might seem particularly appropriate.
>
>	There are some who feel that way, doubtless, and there are some who
>would attribute it to a vengeful deity.  Neither theory is correct.

The former is a correct model for one cause of alcoholism.  The latter is
just whistful bullshit.  And TRY to say something useful for once.  please.

>	Alcoholism as a disease is the addiction to alcohol, which comes in
>many forms and is not the simple emotional lack you portray it as.

Right, there are many forms.  He just cited one form which is a response to
anxiety which can be cured by a form of pharmacotherapy.  I'd expect that
another form would be self-medication for endogenous GABA deficiency or other
neurochemical abnormality, that could be treated and cured if we had the
proper methods, and knew better how to apply them.  Right now our understanding
of the physical and neurochemical processes involved in addiction are in
its infancy.

Of course we do need to consider both the mind and brain at the same time,
and realize that for some, it probably is a largely psychological problem
occuring from the mind, that may be extraordinarily difficult to break.

>	So there is your answer.  If you are unable to understand it -- well,
>since you think you are a philosopher, go read some Nietzsche, preferrably some
>of the more trenchant passages from "Beyond Good and Evil" (otherwise known as
>"Nietzsche Lite").

Why don't you take your philosophical masturbation somewhere else, and let
science develop a useful definition and treatment of addiction and all its
subcategories?

>> Perhaps anything can play the central role(s) in someone's life which 
>
>	Sophomore:  Anything sensual can have psychological
>addiction-engendering qualities.  Anything.  I have seen people make
>nonaddictive drugs 'addictive' by using them until they became not a central
>focus but a necessity in their lives.  Anything.

No shit sherlock.  The central questions are how often does this happen
with a given drug, how hard is it to modify someones behavior so they no
longer do this with a given drug, and how does much does addiction to the
substance in question tend to interfere with people's lives.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu
  "When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."
                                      -- Robert Anton Wilson