‘drug addiction no worse than hunger pangs’

This is very similar (although kind of in reverse) to the placebo effect. They both use almost the same explanation. Thousands of doctors have testified to "prescribing" placebos to their patients who then "miraculously" are completely cured. Tons of psychotherapists do it on a regular basis. Many problems people have are just "in their heads." Now addiction does have a real physiological component, but addiction cravings and the like can be drastically reduced using the "mind over matter" technique. Just ask any pregnant woman who used to use drugs or drink a lot before she got pregnant- how do they stop cold turkey like that? The thought of harming their baby is so utterly disturbing and disgusting to them that quitting smoking/drinking/drug use is easy for them. It can work the same way for other people just as well. I know it has worked for me with some of my mental addictions (food being actually the most difficult one...).
 
I think that his program may work, I would need to see the evidence before I reccomend it to anyone, but the human brain really has a wide variety of functions.

Think of people with back pain or allergies that can be cured by tripping... It is not that the lsd changes them, but their brain changes as a result of their expirament. I think this may be a similar method of chainging your brain.
 
The pain of being stabbed in the eye with a soldering iron is only in your mind.

We should probably stop prosecuting people for torture, since it doesn't do any permanent damage.
 
---
> Obviously the "expert" author has never gone through
> physical withdrawal symptoms of more potent and
> additcive drugs. I bet he'd change his mind after having
> some of those.
---
I have suffered physiological withdrawals upon the cessation of tobacco use, and I largely agree with "the 'expert' author."
---
Namaste,
Cliff
 
---
> Yeah this guy needs to fast for a month or so and then
> tell us about hunger pangs...
---
I think "hunger pangs" and "chronic starvation" are clearly separate, though admittedly related, concepts.
---
Namaste,
Cliff
 
---
> I am a big proponent of personal willpower in the fight
> against addiction but the suggestion that the anxiety,
> muscle aches, diarrhea, flu like symptoms, dilated pupils,
> runny nose and abdominal pain associated with opiate
> withdrawal are mere figments of the mind and are not
> physiological is grossly incorrect.
---
Yes, that suggestion is grossly incorrect, but I'm not clear that Mr. Griffin suggested that.
---
Namaste,
Cliff

p.s.- you left out the really fun opiate withdrawal symptoms like spontaneous ejaculations
 
Personal thought here... and I know for sure that I will get the shit flamed out of me for saying this... But, if one really, I mean... REALLY wants to abruptly quit using drugs when addicted, they CAN.

Alot of addicts have been known to go through the painful process of quitting Opiate drugs, withdrawals and all... for well over a month, just so they can reduce their tolerance to the drug. With, pure intentions of using it again... so they can experience the full "High" once again.

For one to quit... they need the "will" and the "want" in order to sucessfully do so.
People *THINK* they want to quit using, because they are fed up with the burden followed by using drugs. They go take-up a program like Buprenorphine, that will actually subside the withdrawals of Opiates. But, later to find out, that subconsciously... they are not ready to kick the drug because the "High" is just too damn enjoyable. And, so... the painful process of quitting and using, quitting and using, quitting and using, will start.
 
I can't help feeling that some of the people posting here are confusing the presence of withdrawal symptoms with 'addiction'. The latter implies a craving for a particular activity (such as injecting heroin, or gambling); the former is a simple biochemical re-equilibration of the body. There is plenty of literature about this - and the considerable grey area between the two. For example, GIs returning to the US from Vietnam with heroin habits simply stopped using - because of the change in environment. Patterns of behaviour simply can't be understood outside of their context.

To me, the thrust of the article is that the popular conception of those patterns of behaviour generally referred to as "addiction" is wrong - and I couldn't agree more. Addiction is not a disease, or a personality disorder. There is no such thing as an "addictive personality". Even the word 'addiction' is so loaded that we probably shouldn't even use it to explain or understand the behaviours being referred to.

(lights blue touch paper and stands well back... ;) )
 
> Yeah this guy needs to fast for a month or so and then
> tell us about hunger pangs...
---
I think "hunger pangs" and "chronic starvation" are clearly separate, though admittedly related, concepts.
Click to expand...

If you fast for a month that's acute starvation not chronic starvation, and it will be accompanied by intense pangs. My point was the author didn't seem to understand how intense hunger pangs can get.
 
Last edited:
---
> If you fast for a month that's acute starvation not chronic
> starvation
---
I have seen definitions that differ. Perhaps we are using the word "fast" in different senses?
---
Namaste,
Cliff
 
^^^

If you have a one-time severe illness that lasts a month thats an accute illness. A chronic illness is one that lasts or keeps recurring over many years or a lifetime. If you just fast once for a month thats accute starvation. If you fast on and off many times repeatedly over the course of some time or if you just have an insufficient diet over a long period of time then its chronic starvation.
 
Last edited:
---
Well, I have seen a source that define acute starvation as 3 days of starvation and chronic starvation as 4 consecutive cycles of 3 days of starvation plus one day of feeding. This would seem to place one month of fasting more on the side of chronic starvation. I am also aware that fasting can be used in different senses, alternatively meaning ingestion of minimal amounts of food or complete abstinence from food.
---
Namaste,
Cliff
 
Well, I have seen a source that define acute starvation as 3 days of starvation and chronic starvation as 4 consecutive cycles of 3 days of starvation plus one day of feeding.
Click to expand...

I saw that source too. It was in rats, not humans, which have a much shorter life span. And, as I said, recurrent cycles of something would be chronic. Chonic starvation in humans generally means many years of cumulative malnutrition, as happens to people living in poverty or in areas with recurrent famines.
 
---
> I saw that sour ce too.
---
It is good that you have learned how to use Google. :)
---
> It was in rats, not humans, which have a much shorter life span.
---
The grammar of your sentence would tend to indicate that humans have a shorter lifespan than rats, but we're both aware of what you meant (I think). Also, I did not claim that the study involved humans, and the language of "placed more on the side of..." was meant to suggest (albeit, I now admit, weakly) that these periods might not be completely scaleable to humans.. However, the fact that rats have shorter lifespans does not always reflect upon experimental models - for instance, it still takes at least a couple of weeks of cocaine self-administration for animals to be considered stabilized 'dependent' in some studies. If I was in error in the allusion to the reference, my apologies. Another source I have seen (that does involve humans) defines prolonged starvation as more than 1-2 months, which would place 1 month of starvation right on the cusp. ;) Yet another source I have seen (Liability Considerations in Child Welfare ) reports a case of "chronic starvation" lasting 5 weeks which resulted in the death of a human child.
---
> And, as I said, recurrent cycles of something would be chronic.
---
Well, when Muslims fast during Ramadan, it's in recurrent cycles, and therefore, by your own definition, chronic. As I said, "fasting" is used in different senses, as is, for that matter, "chronic." One definition of chronic uses recurrent cycles, but that is, of course, not the only definition. See dictionary.com; I am using definition 1, you are using definition 2.
---
> Chonic starvation in humans generally means many years
> of cumulative malnutrition, as happens to people living in
> poverty or in areas with recur
---
Anyway, these semantic squabbles are distracting from the point (especially as I was not intending to use the term chronic starvation as a technical formula but rather to refer to a persisting state of abstinence from food over a prolonged period of time), which is that the scientist in question was clearly not referencing "fasting for a month" when he referred to "hunger pangs." I also feel that quabbles have distracted from the larger point of the role of choice and willpower in defeating these supposedly intractable 'addictions' (the modern equivalents of demonic possession). OTOH, the scientist in question may also be familiar with research purporting to show that fast food is 'as addictive as heroin.'
---
Namaste,
Cliff
 
Last edited:
^^^

Regardless, I don't see any strong analogy between hunger pangs and opiate withdrawl pains. One is the body's response to a threat to physical survival that must eventually be satisfied or you will die. The other is just your body making an adjustment.

the larger point of the role of choice and willpower in defeating these supposedly intractable 'addictions'
Click to expand...

So now your saying that people who can't beat 'addictions' suffer from a lack of willpower? I don't think its that simple. I think self-awareness and understanding of one's situation play a much larger role in overcoming 'addictions' than does simple willpower, and I thought the author emphasised that. I don't disagree with most of the article. But his title and first sentence, the part about hunger, I can't agree with.
 
Last edited:
---
> Regardless, I don't see any strong analogy between hunger
> pangs and opiate withdrawl pains. One is the body's response
> to a threat to physical survival that must eventually be satisfied
> or you will die. The other is just your body making an adjustment.
---
Perhaps the analogy is that both are uncomfortable sensations that can be endured, given the proper mental set/setting on the part of the person experiencing them. I think the doctor in question was emphasizing that heroin withdrawal does not turn one into an automaton only capable of seeking more heroin.
---
> So now your saying that people who can't beat 'addictions'
> suffer from a lack of willpower?
---
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Their willpower is fine. That's the essential point.
---
Namaste,
Cliff
 
people do not have set amounts off will-power, anyone feeding a drug dedication has massive will-power. It is not a question of having enough will-power. changing habitual patterns of behaviour involves realising two opposing desires I.E health/high are in conflict and resolving the unconcious battle, this has traditionally been done by talking about the negative effects and concequences of use untill someone quits, if however the use gives benifits of comprable magnitude this will not work, say to use a crude example the emotional pain of abuse feels to overwhelming to bear and opiates suppress this then the choice between the odd absess from injecting and the fear of emotional overwhelm-ment(sp) may not seem as obvious(appologies for the crude analogy) equiping individuals with the resorces to mangae thier lives without substances will enable them to choose to either not use or to use non-problematically.

the vast majority of substance users do not enter problem patterns of use or change behaviour when other life factors take prescident (family, kids, career etc) when use is looked at in this context it is a matter of choice plain and simple its just for some that choice may be very very painfull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top