The Myth of an 'Addict Gene'

jesus...

no, LSD is not found in ergot. LSA is found in ergot. although, since LSD is synthesized fromLSA you get half a brownie point. redeemable at any Ladie's footlocker.
 
If you follow the link to the Alternet article (OP), the comments made are quite interesting. More than person decries the article as giving ammunition to the "War on drugs" mob. The gist is that weakening the genetic link might legitimise moral disapproval of drug users (because you can't say"my genes made me do it!").

This is a fair point - but it ignores current thinking on models of understanding problematic drug use. The gene theory is a specialised version of the disease model - that there is a disease (called "addiction") that some people have which means that they can't use certain substances in a controlled manner. It's a helpful model, in the sense that it shifts focus to thinking of drug use as a health issue, rather than a moral or legal issue.

However, the disease model has been superseded for several decades by the social learning model. This model says that drug use needs to be understood in context - we need to know about the people using drugs, the drugs themselves, and also the environment in which drug use takes place. This means focusing on health, but also wider social contexts. This also means broadening our focus from the individual drug user to also look at whole communities.

The pre-eminence of genetic research in the media in recent times has probably helped re-invigorate the disease model. But, as set out in the article above, genes are by no means a blueprint for behaviour. In the same way, the disease model is not sufficient to help us understand drug use.
 
yo...i'm not a chemist. nor do i really care what i put into my body as long as i have a pretty good idea what it's going to do to me.

but this whole thread was talking about addiction...addiction rates are higher because ppl aren't respecting the addictive nature of the drugs they're taking. so in retrospect cultures that honored the relationship between man and plant/chemical did not have these problems. of course, these would be considered primitive cultures...with the advent of technology and urban civilization being removed from this kind of "humble" setting would without a doubt lead to the ills of chemical excess.

i don't know much, but i do know the effects of addiction on the human psyche...
 
environment VS gene

8( I think you have a good point Gazzzmmm (where your in MMT-and your family history)
I am also a recovering opiate addict in a MMT. I was stable for 2 years before I began tapering, and am now successfully reducing my dose. I believe that this article is seriously on to something. My mother, a serious alcoholic and cocaine abuser, died in 1997 (coincidencely the year oxycontins were established in the market), my father a pot head, and other relatives addicted I was extrememly suceptiable to drug addiction of a general nature, but I truly believe it was "desensitization" not "genes" that lead me to drug addiction. At a young age I saw my parents using substances (whether they be cig's to alcohol) to deal with emotional and other daily stresses of life. That made it easier in my head to take the first drink or smoke, which in turn lead me to the social environment where I did my first pill. In our adult minds we cannot 100% know how suceptiable we were to these things as young children, when our thoughts, emotions and spirits were first being formed into who we are, and how we were going to deal with things. I believe that our society has done nothing about the social acceptance of alcohol and cigerattes, and with the corporate agenderizing representatives that are leading us into the next century there is no way there going to spend money on the research that we actually rightfully deserve (research into the use of psychoactives and spiritual visualization in treating all diseases not just addiction) because these projects will not yield prescription drug medicines that you will have to take for the rest of your life to barely feel normal or lead half of a normal functioning life. 8( 8(

Therefore, I do not believe that any human condition or disease is genetic. Our parents(with the help of society's bullshit, and the lovely'sarcastic' school systems of today) teach us how to EAT, SLEEP, HANDLE STRESS, EXERCISE, INTERACT WITH OTHERS, PRAY, LOVE, FORGIVE, and last but certainly not least they teach us how to perceive things. At the same time I recognize that this opinion doesn't add or take away from the after fact. After you are already tarnished by opiate addiction (which I believe to be one of its own when dealing with pharma's not heroin because I dont trust the companies agenda and I know in my all knowing super conscious that they 'purdue pharma' literally thought of how they could make a drug that was more addicting and harder to strip from your body( I know this because I have detoxed from both, although heroin, an excrucitating and intense withdrawl, if combined with a great support system, the changing of lifestyle, friends, and social addictions can have easier physical withdrawls as with oxycontin on the other hand , trying to come off of 10-15 80's a day was a lot harder for my cold turkey than heroin ever thought of being. Dreading the methadone clinic I tried to quit on my own a few times, I was able to get off heroin, and be free from withdrawl (not free from jonesin tho) in about 5 days maybe 7, although I used again, but oxys, I went 3.5 weeks and I was still pukeing and poopin, I had to go to the clinic to get help, because I refused to use again. Going from a straight A student, tri-sport athlete, and activist extroderaire to a skin and bones pale, thief, slut, junkie, made me have a huge hatred and lack of understanding for the corporate world. In conclusion, I think that yes, genes are genes, but when you have environment, society and the world working against you, genes don't even compare.
 
Another interesting topic semi related to the thought of disease/addiction being brought on geneticaly; is an article in Scientific American on the argument of natural born talent. For quite some time scientist have been trying to explain, or better yet understand, why some people are more adept to certain fields. Overall target of article,

The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945

Check it out.
 
Originally posted by WhatUpDun
Hehe, be careful in assigning some disorder you might find in the DSM or any other medical information. OCD *IS* a disease. It can be treated, and it's certainly one of the less, shall we say, restrictive or involuntary of the mental disorders, and yet, it is a disease.
Click to expand...

A little off topic......but OCD is actually an incredibly difficult disorder to treat. It's not impossible to stop someone performing the compulsions (which are often hidden anyway), but the obsessions are far more stubborn.

I can't remember exactly where OCD sits on the WHO Global Burden of Disease Estimates, but it's something like no 4 amongst the mental disorders - only major depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder are more disabling. Overall I agree wholehartedly with your post, but to say OCD isn't restrictive or involuntary is a little misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top