From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:16:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.lamontg.712113385
Distribution: usa
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'

dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>>Well now, I have yet to see any evidence that the power of the mind can
>>overcome addiction/anxiety attacks/etc in all cases.  Also, the specter
>>of the all-powerful subconscious mind is continually being raised in
>>this discussion (even if its not directly stated).   THAT IS UTTER FUCKING
>>COMPLETE BULLSHIT!
>
>Who wants all cases?  We're not looking for a magic bullet here.
>Psychological issues don't work that way.  I agree that too much credit is
>given to the subconscious and unconscious, but woefully little credit is
>being given to conscious thought.  I cannot and will not subscribe to the
>theory that heredity is everything and nothing else matters, because it's
>simply not true.

Thats not my point.

>>Personally, I don't think its of much assistance to someone who might
>>have a genetic disorder for which they will damn near need a miracle to
>>overcome it simply via using the subconscious mind.  It is *EXACTLY* like
>>telling cancer patients that they should just use their subconscious
>>mind to come up with a "miracle cure" like the cases you read about in
>>the media every now and then.
>
>Cancer patients frequently suffer from depression because of their
>conditions, and this depression can substantially slow successful
>treatment.  Treating this depression quite frequently improves a cancer
>patient's chances of survival.  This treatment doesn't mean just giving the
>patient happy pills, but psychological therapy as well.
>See, you seem to 
>be bouncing from one extreme to the other.  You say physiology is everything, 
>and if I disagree with you then you assume that I'm advocating a 100 
>percent psychological approach, which is a patently stupid assumption.

There are people on the net that seem to be advocating, however, a 100
percent psychological approach.  Statements about how addicts all have
"addictive personalities" and other crap *IS* in fact advocating a
100 percent psychological approach to addiction.

And I do *NOT* advocate a 100% physiological approach to addiction or
other mental disorders.  I'm merely trying to come up with examples that
are as close as possible to 100% physiological in order to show people the
opposite side of the coin, which many don't seem to be able to see without
it being shoved in front of their faces.  My point is that for certain
patients psychotherapy may only be useful as something to keep their
spirits up and really be useless as a cure without concurrant
pharmacotherapy or other help -- my point being that in addition to mental
disorders which are primarily psychological (I'm quite sure that those
exist) that there are also mental disorders which are largely biochemical
in nature.
 
>>What these people need is adequate pharmacotherapy to fix the underlying
>>biochemical problem without all the psychological "you can do it yourself"
>>bullshit.
>
>No, what people need is a sane combination of pharmacotherapy and
>psychotherapy where the two strategies complement each other.  Psychology
>isn't bullshit.  We're humans, not automatons imprisoned by urges and
>predetermination.

My exact point!

>We're not talking about some hypothetical brain malady that absolutely
>requires a physiological cure.  We're talking about 'drug addiction', which
>is a complicated and tangled web of physiological and psychological
>elements.  Let's try to keep that in mind, shall we?

Yes.  Lets also try to keep in mind that the psychological and physiological
elements most likely form a complete spectrum.  There may very well be
those who are utter psychological fuck-ups.  The addictive personalities
who really just have weak minds, and fit perfectly what some people have
been describing here in this thread.  There may, also, however, be those
who are crippled by a primarily biochemical problem for which psychotherapy
alone will most likely fail -- quite possibly leaving them with a feeling
that they have "weak minds" or "weak wills".  There has been precious
little admission by others in this thread that this kind of thing can
happen at all.
 
>It's quite ironic that as I typed this article there was a story on
>Headline News about research in Canada on the craving phenomenon that can
>plague users of cocaine, nicotine, alcohol, and other stuff.  This is a
>good thing, this research.  But an 'addiction pill' will not solve the
>problem of addiction or drug abuse if it ignores the psychological side of
>it.

No an "addiction pill" wont.  But drugs that repair biochemical damage or
maladustment may solve the problem of addiction and drug abuse *FOR*
*SPECIFIC* *INDIVIDUALS* and overall will *HELP* deal with the problem of
addiction, when combined with psychotherapy in the correct proportions for
each individual.  Can you see how this ties in with the mind/brain
duality crap that I've been blabbering about?  It just seems to me that
you and most others on this thread are placing psychology first, and resisting
admitting that pharmacotherapy may be more effective for certain patients.
My point is that for *some* patients pharmacotherapy may be useless, while
for *others* psychotherapy may be useless (and then there are all the
others in between...).  Essentially I think that they are completely 
equal, and that statements about how addicts are all mentally fucked are
really about the most ignorant things I've ever heard -- in fact that any
blanket statement about addiction & psychology is probably really damn ignorant.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs