From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:53:20 GMT

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".

The important difference here is that you're dealing with negative
reinforcement (which is much stronger) vs. positive reinforcement.  The
psychological weakness necessary for addiction to take place would be
less.

>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.

Right, they're psychologically addicted.  The root cause, however, is a
biochemical abnormality in their brain and the effect of the drug.  The
cure for this kind of addiction would most likely not be standard 
psychological treatment, but pharmacotherapy with anti-depressants or
similar drugs.  While I wouldn't call it "physical addiction", and technically
its "psychological addiction", we're dealing heavily with biochemistry.  IMHO
"psychological addiction" is somewhat of a misnomer in this case.  A
"neurochemical addiction" might be a better term which embodied the mind/brain
concept a little better.

-- 
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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:5280 alt.drugs:13410