|
Are drug addicts "unable" to stop taking drugs?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
It seems to be a popular idea that addictive drugs like heroin and alcohol can at some point rob people of agency; that such drugs can render people "unable" to stop taking them. Addicts may speak of "not being able" to stop. I think that this way of speaking is mistaken; that the people usually termed "addicts" are making a choice to take what they do, not merely being dragged around by the drug, and that to speak of drug addiction in the same way that we speak of, say, epilepsy, is badly mistaken. An unmedicated epileptic simply cannot stop himself from having seizures; but an "addict" can stop himself from taking drugs. The reason that addicts don't stop taking drugs is that their lives don't provide them sufficient incentives to do so.
Mao famously ended opiate addiction in China by threatening to kill the addicts if they continued their habit. Those people, many of them addicted to morphine, opium, or heroin, apparently had the ability to stop their drug use, because they did, and quickly. History shows that there are few addicts who will not stop taking their drug of choice if the consequences of using are dire enough. Before Mao, the Chinese addicts did not lack an *ability* to stop using drugs; they lacked a sufficiently strong *desire.* Mao's threats provided that for them.
The problem is that it is sometimes hard or even impossible (because of valid concerns about human rights) to bring about the kind of consequences that would convince an addict to quit. Perhaps we might define an "addict" as a person who will stop using drugs only under pain of certain extreme consequences. |
|
|
| leph555 |
 |
|
|
| denys envy |
| let me tell you something you might not know about me joe rogan... i smoke rocks. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Addiction is something I don't understand very well. But haven't they just isolated a gene for alcoholism? The whole genetic vs. environmental debate on this matter has strong evidence on both sides. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Addiction is something I don't understand very well. But haven't they just isolated a gene for alcoholism? |
Yeah. But they haven't yet isolated a gene that causes people to drive to liquor stores, stock up, and pour certain liquids down their throat.
Kind of a facetious way of putting it, but I think there is an important point in there... |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
No I know, and I agree...I used to think the same thing; that people can and should be able to mind over matter anything - in this case addiction. But after learning more about it, and knowing addicted people, it's just not that simple I don't think.
Again, it's something I really truly don't understand, perhaps because of my own bias...but yeah. Addiction is ty. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Yeah. But they haven't yet isolated a gene that causes people to drive to liquor stores, stock up, and pour certain liquids down their throat.
Kind of a facetious way of putting it, but I think there is an important point in there... |
Alcohol, like opiates and benzodiazepines, is physically addictive, meaning if you are a long term regular user of the drug with a tolerance you will become physically sick if you stop using. This sickness is very unpleasant, quite similar to a horrible case of the flu plus seizures, psychosis, and extreme anxiety/panic attacks depending on the drug and level of dependance. But unlike the flu you know in the back of your mind that all you need to do to is use to make yourself well again. That's pretty powerful motivation to continue using. So yes, in that way the drug is controlling their actions. The only way for someone to break that cycle is to decide that being free of the drug is worth the pain of the withdrawal or for someone to have consequences worse than withdrawal come from continued use (your example of if you keep using you will be killed fits here). |
|
|
| mezzir |
| Yeah I remember hearing alcohol was one of the few substances from which withdrawl could actually be fatal, if severe enough. And there's also the question of psycologically addicted versus physically addicted. So yeah, /got nothin |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
Yeah I remember hearing alcohol was one of the few substances from which withdrawl could actually be fatal, if severe enough. |
Yeah, alcohol withdrawal is very serious, sometimes fatal. Benzo withdrawal can be serious as well. Opiate withdrawal is certainly unpleasant, though not nearly as bad as the sensationalized depictions of it in the media, and almost never fatal. |
|
|
| DigitalPhoenix |
Ganja wins yet again!  |
|
|
| Enigmatic XTC |
| while it is possible to stop with sufficient motivation, some people can become so dependent that there really is no sufficient motivation. Even death is not enough sometimes. I personally know people who have died more than once due to overdoses, been resuscitated, and still continue using. While that seems (and is) completely illogical to most people, if you are that dependent on something it makes perfect sense. One of the problems with addiction is that it is pretty much impossible to fully understand it without experiencing it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
It seems to be a popular idea that addictive drugs like heroin and alcohol can at some point rob people of agency; that such drugs can render people "unable" to stop taking them. Addicts may speak of "not being able" to stop. I think that this way of speaking is mistaken; that the people usually termed "addicts" are making a choice to take what they do, not merely being dragged around by the drug, and that to speak of drug addiction in the same way that we speak of, say, epilepsy, is badly mistaken. An unmedicated epileptic simply cannot stop himself from having seizures; but an "addict" can stop himself from taking drugs. The reason that addicts don't stop taking drugs is that their lives don't provide them sufficient incentives to do so.
Mao famously ended opiate addiction in China by threatening to kill the addicts if they continued their habit. Those people, many of them addicted to morphine, opium, or heroin, apparently had the ability to stop their drug use, because they did, and quickly. History shows that there are few addicts who will not stop taking their drug of choice if the consequences of using are dire enough. Before Mao, the Chinese addicts did not lack an *ability* to stop using drugs; they lacked a sufficiently strong *desire.* Mao's threats provided that for them.
The problem is that it is sometimes hard or even impossible (because of valid concerns about human rights) to bring about the kind of consequences that would convince an addict to quit. Perhaps we might define an "addict" as a person who will stop using drugs only under pain of certain extreme consequences. |
medical professionals categorise things like alcoholism as a disease, so i will side with them as i have yet to do any research of my own. all i DO know is it took me more than 2 years to stop smoking, and was probably the hardest thing ive ever done in my life (and im still sucking on my nicotine inhaler). im not really ready to pass judgement on those substances that i view as far harder to stop than the ones ive come into contact with. |
|
|
|
|
