From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:57:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
: In <f!lmx6p.rcain@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
: >"Confront why they abuse drugs."  I maintain that for some people and some
: >drugs the why *is* the drug.
: 
: Why?

You keep asking for these "why"s as if I or anyone had some hard research
data and I'm insisting that we don't even have a test yet of means of
discrimination that would provide a definitive experiment.

: 
: Would a "normal, happy, well-adjusted individual" (if such existed :-)
: be addicted to a drug just because of itself?  I maintain not.  In

Why? :-)

: that case, the difference between the hypothetical and the actual is
: either brain chemistry (hi Lamont) or psychology.  In which case
: the reason for the addiction is not the drug, it is the state of the
: person taking the drug.

And I maintain the opposite.  I could take an arbitrary street sample
and give them a new wonder enhancer called Accelerin that is cocaine
and a way to administer that isn't so obviously snorting, nosedrops
say.  Give these people an open supply and at the end of the a month
tell them what they were actually doing and many who had no prevous
problems with "normal, happy well-adjustedness" would continue its
usage knowing the risks and many would do so illegaly given the
access.  Now you will probably counter that only the ones lacking the
"normal, happy, well-adjusted" attributes would have a problem. I
would wager that one would find some extra correlation with these but
it would not be dramatic.  I have personally observed several cases
of people that disliked alcohol becoming alcoholic by close association
with someone who was practicing heavily.  While it may have been a
srewed up circumstance that got them ingesting the stuff, time and the
alcohol alone made them alcoholics.

: 
: >				Simple as that. For those people the best
: >confrontation is just that, confronting the drug and the drug alone, not
: >any deep seated problems or joining will power gyms.  Someone said that
: >these people were pre-addicted and I believe in that phenomenon.
: 
: Belief does not make it so.  Even the fact that belief can act to
: help in some cases does not make it so--belief in God can be beneficial
: as well, but the existence of said God is not required for those
: benefits to exist.

Now, now just because I am honest enough to admit argument from belief,
as you are doing also, don't attempt to dismiss it because it is belief.
It is more than belief, it is the observations of an intelligent man who
has spent time in recovery treatment and post-treatment programs and who
has lots of friends in low places.  I spent nearly two years hanging around
the blues musician scene on the Gulf coast and there was a lot of room for
observing this phenomena close up from many people practicing.  So my
"why" is a good education on the topic and a lot of in situ "research."

: 
: You seem to take others attitudes to an extreme that isn't intended.
: I never said, and I have not seen anyone else say "let them die"
: or anything similarly Darwinist.  The point *I'm* trying to make is
: that the individual is *ultimately* the only one who can do anything
: about it.  Even if it means taking drugs to clear a brain chemistry
: problem, the individual still has to be responsible enough to take the
: beneficial drugs.  By all means, help those who need help!  But don't
: give them an excuse to go crying about how it wasn't really their fault.
: Don't tell them "it's the drug" because it isn't that simple.

Why?  It often is not that simple, but I contend that most often it is.

Many times intervention is used and used succesfully because the
user no longer has the will to "do anything about it".  I may have
mentioned this in an earlier post but one seems to have come up vacuous
(a'right, a'right I mean with no words at all in it.)  AA and NA do
teach that it is the substance itself that is the cause and to be blamed.
It lifts from the user the ultimate responsibility for his addiction but
one of the 12 steps is that to the degree that it is possible to without
compromising another it is required to make ammends to every one that
can be remembered (this is a long and painful process, just the remembering)
for any harm or damage done to them as a consequence of the addiction.
This is far from abrogation of responsibility.  You are relieved of the
responsibility for your compulsion but not for your behavior while using.

It can be argued that this is merely a useful paridigm for recovery. Based
on lotsa years of observation I don't think so, I think it is accurate.

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

Stomp out intolerance!