From: petersen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen)
Subject: Re: LSD and alcoholics posting on usenet
Followup-To: alt.drugs
Organization: Chicago IL
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:57:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.135235.1@pomona.claremont.edu>,
cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu (Muffavore) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Dec28.094636.11709@news.acns.nwu.edu>, petersen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Julie Petersen) writes:
> > In article <1992Dec27.201453.1@pomona.claremont.edu> cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu (Muffavore) writes:
> >>> Well, certainly one good experience isn't going to make someone
> >>> suddenly wake up and never drink again. But it can be a powerful
> >>> start just to realize there's something else 'out there'. One of
> >>> the keys to AA is acceptance of a 'higher power'. This is much
> >>> easier when one has experienced the higher power directly through
> >>> LSD or MDMA.
> >>
> >>	The 'higher power' argument is nice; however, it's just substitution of
> >>one addiction for another, and in the long run doesn't cure the more
> >>intellectually active alcoholics.  Besides, you fail to address the point:  it
> >>is a disease, whether physical or mental, and simply giving a substitute drug,
> >>whether bullshit icon (gOD) or MDMA is not going to cut it.  
> >>
> > 
> > I'm not sure I'm getting your point here... Are you implying that
> > alcoholics never recover? I'm saying MDMA could be used to aide
> 
> 	No, I'm saying that the way to treat alcohol is not to assign more
> drugs to it as miracle cures.  That is bullshit, as is giving gOD (DOg) to the
> poor fucks in treatment -- the only way is to face the problem, and I don't
> think that hallucinogens are going to aid that (this is not from lack of
> understanding, but too much understanding).  Alcoholics never do recover, in a
> sense -- you are always an alcoholic, but you may not be drinking.  Do you
> understand now?

MDMA is no miracle cure, nor have I claimed it as one. It is a tool,
valuable as part of a complete recovery process. Yes, alcoholics
never recover--their brain chemistry remains the same. I am well
aware.

> > the recovery process, and you keep saying that I'm wrong because
> > alcoholism is a disease. I don't see how the fact that alcoholism
> > is a disease ('disease' is subjective term, how about 'biological
> 
> 	Great.  Semantics.  Hey -- recovery is a subjective term, too, pal.  I
> know some alcoholics who don't want to recover....

I'm one.
 
> > difference') discredits the idea of using MDMA as part of working
> > towards a solution. In the first place, MDMA can allow a person
> > to look at themselves honestly. It can break down the defenses
> 
> 	No, it can take away their inhibitions about doing so, which fosters a
> dependency in itself.  Are you understanding yet?

Using MDMA, and even liking it, does not automatically lead to
dependency. It may for some people, it won't for others. So why
not open it up as an avenue. I'm not claiming it will work for
everyone, that would be stupid. But it will work for some people.

> > that an alcoholic uses to avoid seeing what they're doing to
> > their life. And the nice thing is that at the same time that you
> 
> 	I know quite a few who will admit openly that they are alcoholics, and
> recognize that fact (that is, they're not just saying "oh yeah iman alcoholic"
> and writing it off quantitatively) and do not want to change.

Once again, I know this attitude quite well. I am an alcholic and
as of right now I am not ready to change.

> > see yourself clearly, you are more inclined to accept things for
> > what they are. Acceptance is the first step towards recovery.
> > 
> > As for MDMA being 'substitution of one addiction for another',
> > you saying this simply means that you don't understand MDMA. It
> > may be many things, but almost nobody makes the claim that it's
> > addictive, physically *or* psychologically.
> 
> 	Anything is addictive psychologically -- I understand more
> of this than you do, trust me...

If *anything* is addictive psychologically (as I believe it is) then
doesn't that mean that the term 'psychologically addictive' is really
devoid of meaning (kind of like 'being'). Sorry, more semantics...

> > 
> > For the alcoholic, alcohol is a very powerful drug, almost an
> > opiate. Some people don't understand that alcohol affects the
> > alcoholic differently than it does a 'normal' person (any
> > doctors to back me up on this?). Using LSD or MDMA is not
> > 'merely' replacing one drug with another. For an alcoholic who
> > has been partaking of a powerful drug for all of his adult life,
> > the high is very much an intergral part of life. It's got to
> > be replaced somehow (there is a natural human need for feeling
> > high, whether through religion, drugs, exercise, whatever). If
> > the highly debilitating drug alcohol can be replaced with a
> > drug that everyone agrees is way WAY safer, then that is a
> > great accomplishment in itself. And if it is a drug such as
> > MDMA which generally tends to be self-moderating, even better.
> > And as the alcoholic awakens from the 'other'-oriented
> > alcoholic high to the 'self'-oriented MDMA high s/he may
> > discover a whole new world which allows them to leave
> > behind the alcohol.
> 
> 	What about the alcoholics who drink two beers a day?  I hear that MDMA
> is neurotoxic; alcohol is as well, but at that level to a lesser degree.  For
> one thing, I think you're talking hardcore alcoholic, in whose cases I doubt
> your positive experience theory applies at all, and I doubt are treatable with
> any drugs...MDMA or LSD might mmake them feel more alive, but they are still
> going to need alcohol.  This is truth, something you've stated above -- I'm
> saying that your treatment is bullshit, and that applying it makes as much
> sense as applying leaches.  AM I coming through yet?

Two beers a day is no less neurotoxic than an equivalent dosage of
MDMA. As for the two beer a day alcoholic, as long as they're not
blacking out (which is entirely possible) and they're functioning
satisfactorily (to them) why mess with things? We're talking here
about recovery, which implies a desire for recovery. I
certainly don't advocate ANY method of 'curing' alcoholics who
are happy just the way they are.

> > 
> > At the very least, there should be further research into the
> > use of LSD and MDMA to treat alcoholism. Nothing else we've
> > tried seems to work particularly well, any new approach
> > should at least be studied, rather than pushed into a closet
> > without giving it a chance. Personally I just think the
> > government would rather have an alcoholic citizenry than
> > an awakened psychedelic citizenry. Call me paranoid.
> 
> 	Your stance is that of an absolute -- hallucinogens are good, alcohol
> is bad.  Some people will always be alcoholics, and some will recover.  The
> reason nothing has worked so far is that it's mostly tied up with that halfwit
> bastard gOD, who has nothing to do with chemicals and is merely another useless
> addiction -- I have yet to see a program I'd trust an alcoholic in.
> 	And some should stay alcoholic.

No. Hallucinogens (and empathogens) are what they are, alcohol is
what it is. The premise of this whole discussion is treatment for
alcoholics. Of course some people live happily as aloholics, maybe
some even should stay alcoholic. But the starting point for all
of this discussion was the idea of treatment: an alcoholic who wants
to stop taking alcohol.

Hallucinogens, empathogens, and alcohol all have their place. In
my opinion everyone should try all of them at least once, 
preferably more, just to understand what they're about.

__________________________________________________________________________
Jim Petersen         petersen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu          jp@darkstar.com

                If mercy's in business I wish it for you-        
             More than just ashes when your dreams come true.
Newsgroups: alt.drugs