Why do some people seem to be resistant to addiction?

[rickolasnice]

Is this a matter of intellect? Mental maturity? Emotional strength? Spiritual enlightenment?

Arrogance?

 

[Hammilton]

Arrogance?

Bingo!

Seriously, does anyone want to hazard a guess at how many tens of thousands of people thought they couldn't become addicted for this reason or that and lo and behold, ended up addicted? If you use drugs long enough, you're pretty much guaranteed to become addicted. Some people may take longer than others, but the end result is pretty much the same. The degree to which ones life is ruined because of addiction varies widely, and I think that we're not seeing people who aren't becoming addicted, we're talking about people who are more effectively managing their addiction.

Lots of highly functioning people with legal prescriptions to opiates are fully addicted, but manage to control that addiction and keep their lives on track. They're still addicts, though. When I decided to go on Suboxone they asked me a bunch of questions about how my drug use had impacted my life. Well, it hadn't really. I never went to jail, I was never arrested. I never stole money or drugs. I always went to work, always got there on time and did an awesome job. I just couldn't stop using though, withdrawal sucked and so did the cravings. On Suboxone I don't have cravings, I don't have withdrawal. I still get everything done. I eagerly anticipate each dose, though. I spend more time thinking about it than I should, for sure. But it keeps me from using other, illegal drugs, and the legal problems that have a habit of accompanying them.

 

[Flynnal]

Lots of highly functioning people with legal prescriptions to opiates are fully addicted, but manage to control that addiction and keep their lives on track. They're still addicts, though. When I decided to go on Suboxone they asked me a bunch of questions about how my drug use had impacted my life. Well, it hadn't really. I never went to jail, I was never arrested. I never stole money or drugs. I always went to work, always got there on time and did an awesome job. I just couldn't stop using though, withdrawal sucked and so did the cravings. On Suboxone I don't have cravings, I don't have withdrawal. I still get everything done. I eagerly anticipate each dose, though. I spend more time thinking about it than I should, for sure. But it keeps me from using other, illegal drugs, and the legal problems that have a habit of accompanying them.

This tends to mirror my view on the war on drugs being a complete and total crapout that has never worked and never will. Back before abortion was legalised, people were screaming that legalisation would be the death of society...but it has come and gone...it's now what, 39 years since Roe vs Wade was ratified. Not much has changed, except that abortion is legal (whether you agree or not) and women are able to decide what to do with their bodies. Jesus fucking Christ, why can't opiate addicts be treated with the same latitude of dignity? I don't see it, because there are too many cunts involved in the legal system, and sadly, and ironically, most of them are pro-abortion. It's a strange paradox. Everyone here tells me that abortion is seen as a right, which I may or may not agree, whereas others tend to see it as a form of victimisation due to an inherent power difference (the unborn child vs the parents) and I tend to see the same pattern with the war on drugs, it's as though there is always some motherfucker telling you what you're going to do or what you're allowed to do...makes me want to snap their spines. I fucking hate hypocritical psychpaths.

 

[ebola?]

I think I'll repeat prior sentiment: you don't spend five thousand dollars on drugs in one month without being addicted in some sense.

ebola

 

[Hammilton]

Absolutely. If someone's using drugs long term, they will almost certainly have problems quitting.

There aren't as many now, but we used to see a lot of threads about how people avoided becoming addicted or asking questions about how they can avoid addiction, and getting answers from these sorts of people who think they've somehow figured it out.

I remember the sorts of answers you'd see,

"don't use more than X number of days per week"
"don't use if you're upset"
"Never use a drug to avoid or solve a problem"

The truth is, though, that more than the frequency, it's the length of time you use. That's a very simple and incontrovertible fact. If you continue to use addictive drugs, at some point you will become addicted. The length of time it takes varies for all sorts of reasons. Genetics, mental state, SES, Availability of drug, type of drug, purity (for street drugs), method of administration, frequency of use, all play a role. There are surely a dozen other relevant factors, as well. Additionally, these will play a role in the severity of the addiction.

At some point to not be an addict you have to quit. It's when you decide to quit permanently that you find out whether you're addicted or not. Up to that point it's hard to tell.

I think I avoided a severe addiction by avoiding the shorter acting drugs. Aside from my early experimentation, I mostly stuck to long acting opiates. First poppy pod tea, then methadone, then Suboxone. In between there are lots of other drugs and opiates, but those were the big three in my life. For those, one dose a day and I was fine. Pretty much all drugs have been like that for me, actually. One dose a day and I'm good. That wasn't really true of the drugs I did with friends, but that was just cannabis and alcohol. I barely ever drank, but with cannabis, like everyone, I'd smoke whenever it was passed to me over the course of a night. I think that this had a big impact. The reason why I was using probably played a big role too. Aside from pain relief (from nerve damage in my elbow, and later a bad back), I was mostly seeking sleep, and the amazing "opium dreams" with the accompanying euphoric rushes through my body. Fortunately, even Suboxone provides that. If I lay down and kind of meditate, I'll have these dreams and if I were to take a higher dose, or if I'd have taken a small dose the day prior, the euphoric rushes may even present themselves. They're not as fully immersive and more fleeting, but they're still there and enjoyable enough. Comparing it to PPT would be like comparing watching Avatar in an IMAX theatre with watching in on a VHS on an old 20" CRT-style television with broken speakers.

 

[Foreigner]

It's not easy for me to become physically addicted to something. I smoked cigarettes for years and then stopped cold turkey. I used to take pain medication for a back injury and had no withdrawls after some long-term use. Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that I do feel the absence of a drug but I don't feel compelled to go back to it.

As for psychological and habitual use, that's a different story. I end up doing a lot more drugs when I am bored, so I try to make my life eventful, even if it's just logging onto BL to write useless forum posts. The devil makes work of idle hands and all that.

 

[Hammilton]

I can't imagine a more detestable, bitchy person

You haven't met my wife.



What exactly was detestable or bitchy in what I had to say? Honestly, we have an entire society that's been run by people who have no idea how statistics work and make decisions based on anecdotes. They know of some guy who's on SSDI for a bad back, but whose back is actually fine and believe that most of the people on the program are similar freeloaders.

Our misunderstanding of statistics goes hand in hand with our inability to comprehend randomness. This is very well documented, actually. Probably the best real-world example for this would be people's inability accept evolution.

Considering the subjects dealt with here, people using their personal experience in lieu of statistically-backed facts can have potentially deadly consequences. How many times have you seen people talk about how they shoot pills and never had any problems so it should be okay for someone else to do?

In this subforum perhaps life and death issues aren't as common, but that's not exactly an excuse. This is the subforum that's supposed to be focused on the research oriented aspect of psychoactive compounds. Unless your group of friends happen to be conducting research, referring to their experiences as a stand-in for data or real research should be an acceptable reason for deleting a post. Misinformation is already too rampant.

When data doesn't exist, perhaps such a reference may be more acceptable, but otherwise why should we lower our standards for discourse? Sure, many of us here know not to accept the experience of four people someone knows as a meaningful bit of data, but there are a lot more that don't. We happen to live in a society that complained so much about the random feature on the original iPod Shuffle, saying that it lumped too many songs by a single artist together in a way that couldn't have been random.

I hope this follows well. I had a long day at work and had meant to reply to this for three days now and just haven't had a chance. Good night!

 

[tyrael]

....When data doesn't exist, perhaps such a reference may be more acceptable, but otherwise why should we lower our standards for discourse? Sure, many of us here know not to accept the experience of four people someone knows as a meaningful bit of data, but there are a lot more that don't.../QUOTE]

Totally agree with what you've said. I don't think one can get too irate about the use of anecdotal evidence and the like when on forums. By definitely (internet) forums are a place for individual discussion/conversation between people. (While I know many people on here do have higher/formal education on the [whatever this maybe] subject) Many people who post here are talking from (sometimes extensive) experience....which can count for something.

Posting on AdvancedAD however should reduce (albeit by the calling out from more knowledgeable users) incorrect/anecdotal posts - one would think.

....We happen to live in a society that complained so much about the random feature on the original iPod Shuffle, saying that it lumped too many songs by a single artist together in a way that couldn't have been random.

In fact it's quite difficult to produce true randomness electronically. Most "randomness" actually use pseudorandom packages - hardware random number generators or pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs) - where it is possible to calculate before time. Which is why most native packages to a language should never be used for encryption, cryptographic keys or any sort of cryptography.

 

[sekio]

In fact it's quite difficult to produce true randomness electronically.

Lava lamp and a webcam. Or a radiation source and a detector. There, true random numbers. (Random.org uses this type of setup)
That being said even though most PRNGs are not "truly random" in that they are reproducible, they are "statistically random" in that output symbols are independent of eachother, have a large cycle time, etc.

I digress. The more I think about this topic the more I keep coming back to the idea that most people are not "resistant to addiction", i.e. they still produce dependency, just a certain segment of the populance either feels no need to regularly use habit forming substances, or manages to deal with their addiction in such a way to minimize impact on their life.

I imagine you could take even the strongest-willed drug user, put them in a slum for 10 years where they have to struggle to put food on their plate, and you'd see a development of "addiction" in 95% of those that chose to use habituants.

 

[Mr.Scagnattie]

I truly wish I knew... because if science could accurately pin point some specific part of the brain that causes addiction or the pre-disposition to it.. we'd be one step closer to potentially eliminating it and saving a lot of lives. Including my own.

 

[Hammilton]

I imagine you could take even the strongest-willed drug user, put them in a slum for 10 years where they have to struggle to put food on their plate, and you'd see a development of "addiction" in 95% of those that chose to use habituants.

More than that, were you to allow people even in happy circumstances a free flowing supply of morphine, they'll become fully addicted to that drug within 5 years. I don't think the ones that don't become addicted are some genetic or psychological outliers. They're randomly lucky. But again, I would suspect that if we extend that time period out far enough, eventually you will see everyone become addicted, and some sort of bell curve will form.

This study will be difficult to perform until the Chinese decide to get back at the British for the whole opium trade and the wars they fought to keep the market open.

The only ones who won't become addicted at some point will be those who do not consume the drug.

That's not to say that any drug can't be use once or twice, but now experience tells me that unless a hard and fast line for abstinence is drawn, addiction will be seen in everyone.

I don't think there's research to deny that, but that is again, just my experience. Ten years ago I had a different perspective, one that now I can see was plainly wrong and impossibly optimistic.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

There are people who successfully chip hard drugs. I've met two. They are extremely rare.

You haven't met my wife.

What exactly was detestable or bitchy in what I had to say?

Your reputation precedes you.

That's not to say that any drug can't be use once or twice, but now experience tells me that unless a hard and fast line for abstinence is drawn, addiction will be seen in everyone.

I don't think there's research to deny that, but that is again, just my experience. Ten years ago I had a different perspective, one that now I can see was plainly wrong and impossibly optimistic.

States the person who regularly puts down people who factor in their anecdotes and experience.

 

[Solipsis]

When I was in rehab there was very good education on these matters and a cute neuropsychologist girl gave me some private 'lectures', in one of which she explained that there is a consistent reaction seen in people rewarded by comparable stimuli. The nucleus accumbens, hippocampus and hypothalamus are closely connected, setting up a self-reinforcing closed system of reward and memorization.

Sure people can try to lead lives that are generally so rewarding that this feedback loop plays no special significance but the power of the reward can become harder and harder to beat through desensitization, and there are constant dangers lurking: if everyday life is disappointing, the attraction of the reliable reward sneakily becomes apparent.

It's easy and lame to equate the factual value hammilton's anecdotal evidence to your own... if his suspicions are congruent with what we know about addictions, someone's belief that they are the exception that can resist this becomes laugable. Again: sure you may have a fulfilling life (remember the rat experiment) that protects you from addiction, you may have beneficial genetic predispositions, but psychologically speaking you would also be setting yourself up for the same fallacies as everyone. I think this remains true.

Hammilton may not be very involved with your personal feelings but at least he is sober enough to call people on what logically speaking is far more likely to be self-delusion than his own claims. Inverting the same argument back to him seems childish and to be honest, exactly what someone would do who wants to defend their justifications regarding drug use.


Said all that, I believe the thread subject is those few exceptions. I myself seem somewhat resistant to nicotine addiction. That may seem like a strange thing to say when I have smoked in the past, but I mean here that quitting for me seemed far more easy than for most people and I had virtually no physical reactions.
The reasons for this seem to be genetic and conditional: I heard that people metabolize nicotine at different rates, slow metabolism could possibly give much less steep a drop, and consequently a more tolerable level of craving.
Conditionally, I never associated smoking with other behavior like doing it after a meal, after sex, etc. Maybe only with riding a bike because that tended to be the time I was bored when being outside.

I guess genetics and neurology prevented me from developing urges that could not be beaten. If there are people generally resistant to addiction, my personal guess is that they have a natural limitation on certain types of neurological self-reinforcement. Those may be restricted to certain neurotransmitters or certain brain circuits: not easily getting addicted to one substance does not guarantee other resistance.

 

[tyrael]

....Said all that, I believe the thread subject is those few exceptions. I myself seem somewhat resistant to nicotine addiction. That may seem like a strange thing to say when I have smoked in the past, but I mean here that quitting for me seemed far more easy than for most people and I had virtually no physical reactions.....

Good post! In this instance however, one's definition of "addiction" determines whether you're called an addict or not. It would be said that any physical (or mental) resistance to quitting a (presumable regular) dosing could be said to be an addiction.

I agree that there exists a huge psychological component to any addiction which alone leads to a greater difficulty in any treatment (from that of a purely physiological attack).

Lava lamp and a webcam. Or a radiation source and a detector. There, true random numbers. (Random.org uses this type of setup)
That being said even though most PRNGs are not "truly random" in that they are reproducible, they are "statistically random" in that output symbols are independent of eachother, have a large cycle time, etc.....

Never said it wasn't possible. Look into any programming language's random library, it's not random.

 

[polarbearsarecool]

Addiction is a state of conditioned preference to a stimuli many are not "addicted" because neurochemically this circular feedback loop has not fully been activated. People gain pleasure from various conditioned daily activities, waking up brushing their teeth, showering, in a daily routine, in a very autonomic manner. The brain absolutely loves autonomic activity and much of what we do daily is engraved into this conditioned place preference state.

Many individuals are apt to just this state, receiving pleasure from purely autonomic activity, but these are individuals that are conditioned to closed circuit thinking, doing only what their typical thoughts and behaviors want them to do, these individuals are not sensitized to non autonomic; substance or thrill related DA-like, CCK-like activity. (But some of those individuals may be sensitized to sex, ethanol etc which is much more controllable)

Remember, addiction has many components, namely tolerance and sensitization. Individuals who are not sensitized to reward agents will not seek them out as they do not realize, nor do they automatically "want" these activities or drugs that can provide sudden instant reward. In order to become addicted the individual must undergo sensitization to an agent of reward- in a manner that neurochemical adaptation occurs rapidly enough in a manner alike to tolerance in which typical autonomic behavior is disrupted and reward seeking behavior comes into play.

Regardless people aren't resistant, its just that whatever the agent is, is not powerful enough to break their own conditioned place preference of their own thoughts and activities-in one session, or so.

Drugs that are excellent at massively breaking and destroying normal daily life CCP include, psychadelics, dissociatives, iboga...(there are others obviously but this list is more reward likely to disrupt daily life CCP toward a new circular memorized autonomic, automatic loop of reward seeking Conditioned place preference- opiates, benzos, stimulants, nicotine, marijuana. Stimulants mainly will increase this autonomic CCP so much(think amphetamines and studying..)

No one is resistant. All it is is the matter, magnitude, and type of stimuli on the person and their will(if they even have that degree of metacognitive ability) to resist the change in their conditioned thought...

running on low sleep, hope that helps

 

[MadTwatter]

you're just happy and not doing drugs for reasons like feeliing down that's it and why you just do not want more or get even sick of it

 

[Hammilton]

There are people who successfully chip hard drugs. I've met two. They are extremely rare.
States the person who regularly puts down people who factor in their anecdotes and experience.

You must have trouble reading. Is it a vision or a cognitive thing? Let's just hope for bifocals not bi-daily Aricept. It should probably say, "states the person who regularly mocks those who attempt to hold back culture by clinging to "experience" and anecdote where data is available and present.

Unfortunately, ethics forbids the sort of study that would be required to prove or disprove what I was speaking about.

 

[Identity888]

These brain scans suggest that drug misuse is linked with reduced brain volume in areas of the cortex that are involved with self-control. Violence, aggression and higher scores on measures of psychopathy, in contrast, were shown to be connected with greater volume in midbrain regions involved with desire, craving, pleasure and motivation.

“Gray matter volumes of the prefrontal cortex were reduced due to substance use disorders, not violence or psychopathy as has been previously suggested,” says Boris Schiffer, lead author of the study and a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany.

In other words, violent brains may be characterized by a more powerful “engine” driving them to act impulsively, while the addicted brain is typified by weaker “brakes” on such drives. In violent offenders who are also addicted to drugs, the combination of a more powerful engine and weaker brakes may leave them with both greater desire to seek pleasure (whether that’s drugs, violence or other activities) and a reduced ability to “just say no.”

The Criminal Mind: How Drugs and Violence May Affect the Brain

 

[JimRaynor]

The original queston is terribly wrong-worded. That anybody can be addicted to any drug under the right circumstances should be trivial to anyone. The Real Question is why does some people develop addiction more slowly than others?

I believe we all can relate to nicotine and adolescence. Everyone tried smoking once, some even several times, but only a fraction got an cigarette addiction. Why? Only environmental factors or something else? I think something else, since tobacco was extremely euphoric to me, from the first time encounter. THAT was the biggest reason I continued smoking. My environment discouraged smoking enormously.

It is laughable to think that addiction doesn't (to a part) have an neurobiologic origin. Of course it does, but why?

 

[Doctor Robert]

Even though addiction is hard to define, a friend of mine said someone is addicted to the degree they need that thing to cope.

I doubt i could ever get addicted to the point it severely impacted my life being the counter-dependent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterdependency) person i am.

I don't know about other people but purely biological/genetic reasons for addiction really scare me. I'd hate to think i was that helpless or a victim of my drug use. Then the only solution would be abstinence.