Re: The argument against marijuana, and other drugs legalization

**ScratchMonkey** · 01-24-2010, 09:52 AM

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/nov...y-with-ecstasy

In a pilot study, South Carolina psychiatrist Michael Mithoefer is targeting PTSD with a controversial drug: methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA, commonly known as Ecstasy. He gave MDMA, along with psychotherapy, to 21 participants who had developed treatment-resistant PTSD as a result of experiences with crime or war.

**BigGaayAl** · 01-28-2010, 11:03 PM

If it weren't for penalization of substance use, meth wouldn't even exist and nobody would be out of their mind enough to use that crap. /2cents

Bill Hicks was right all along. But off course that evil man had an actual good heart and smart mind, more than can be said of the phoneys (rip J.D.) that crave power over others.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-28-2010, 11:24 PM

A podcast about neuropsycho pharmacology

http://twit.tv/kiki30

**aeroripper** · 01-29-2010, 03:49 AM

lol, Bill Hicks is right on the money. Pot is much more positive drug (in sensible moderation) than alcohol is. I would much rather talk to someone who was stoned than someone who's belligerently drunk any day. The former might be a little annoying at worst, but the drunk guy is actually threatening.

I honestly don't think we'll see drugs legalized and regulated until our current political and economic structure collapses and there is a new intellectual renaissance in American society.

**BigGaayAl** · 02-04-2010, 03:18 AM

Excellent interview with an uncommon viewpoint also touches upon adhd.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/addiction

**snooggums** · 02-04-2010, 10:59 AM

Actually he touches on ADD, not ADHD (similar but with strong distinctions).

His theory may work for him but i never had an absence of care and I find it hard to believe that stresses led to my condition since I actually showed signs at 4 and 5 years old. My Kindergarten teacher thought I was retarded because I did my own thing instead of following along with the class. I was in gifted by 4th grade (when they first evaluate for it) and graduated with a 3.7 GPA without trying. I found college boring, ran into some financial issues and didn't complete. Finally diagnosed ADD at 30 years old.

He also indicated that addiction is based on abuse, not genetics, yet there are many studies that show alcoholism has a genetic predisposition. I'm going to go with my usual opinion on human behavior, when there are indications of genetic trends and also cases with no genetic trends it is most likely a combination of genetic predisposition with environmental factors that can either increase that disposition or cause the behavior without the predisposition. I think I am predisposed, and I can easily see someone who had the stresses he described develop the same behaviors just like how someone who is depressed can develop alcoholism while a predisposed person might just need to drink a couple of times to trigger their predisposition.

I still think it is great to have a location like that. Most people don't realize that destructive addiction issues are usually related to abuse and are often a form of escapism.

**BigGaayAl** · 02-04-2010, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

it is most likely a combination of genetic predisposition with environmental factors that can either increase that disposition or cause the behavior without the predisposition. I think I am predisposed, and I can easily see someone who had the stresses he described develop the same behaviors just like how someone who is depressed can develop alcoholism while a predisposed person might just need to drink a couple of times to trigger their predisposition.

.

I totally agree and you are absolutely correct. It is nature nurture, and it's obvious to me personally that it is never either or.

!However, as the guy states in the interview, the current western paradigm is heavily slanted towards the nature side (genetics) and the basis for these calculations, can be debated, but- that is the whole point he made- they aren't even debated now. The 'nature' side is currently very much on top. All you hear is genes genes genes brain brain brain. The value of this interview is there if only because he mentioned that other facters ARE valuable and should also be considered.

In your own story Snoogs, I see one interpretation which is not entirely justified though.

I find it hard to believe that stresses led to my condition since I actually showed signs at 4 and 5 years old

Actually MOST of the nurture influence, most of the formative aspects of your environment (i.e. not genetically predisposed) happen BEFORE that age. So your observation about the onset of symptoms is imo not useful to draw any kind of conclusion as to the learnt or born aspects of it.

And then we haven't even considered yet the elements of nurture that occur in the womb (e.g. babies that are born with a drug addiction from mom). In the interview also, he puts his own cause for getting add, when he was a baby still.

Another important facto imo he touches upon is how explaining substance abuse and everything else via 'nature', automatically excuses people from examining themselves and society. And as people are lazy especially at the art of knowing themselves, they usually happily take that chance. You might as well drug yourself

same result= no introspection.

**snooggums** · 02-04-2010, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

In your own story Snoogs, I see one interpretation which is not entirely justified though.

Actually MOST of the nurture influence, most of the formative aspects of your environment (i.e. not genetically predisposed) happen BEFORE that age. So your observation about the onset of symptoms is imo not useful to draw any kind of conclusion as to the learnt or born aspects of it.

I'll add a little clarification: during my first 4 years my stay at home mother took care of me and my one and a half year older brother and they are two of the most caring people I know. My father was also around but worked full time plus a bit of travel, but not enough to have neglect issues. It would be a stretch to find a situation that would case the stress leading to ADD from nurture in that particular setting. There really would need to be a biological (not necessarily genetic per se) or environmental aspect that my older brother somehow was not exposed to.

I agree or understand your other comments and the conversation was very well worded. I do agree that substance abuse is primarily nurture, people with addictions who are abused are less able to cope with their usage, while a self confident and grounded person can do a lot of drugs with little ill side effects. I had someone at work try to convince me that someone on the intervention series on A&E had just gone to drugs all of a sudden for no reason. Of course her mother and father were alcoholics (and alcoholism does have genetic factors for most people) so she drank a lot to start with, then she was raped and after that she started with the hard stuff. So it was a combination that led to the life ruining abuse.

**BigGaayAl** · 02-05-2010, 12:39 AM

Actually Snoogs I think you misunderstood me just a little again. I was not trying to say either nurture or nature is more important.

"I do agree that substance abuse is primarily nurture"
Well my pov, is that I don't really know, and that you can't really measure that in percentages too well, as most scientists in genetics/neuro-psychology do. The whole twin-studies thing has some merit nontheless.

The very LAST thing I will be caught doing is telling you what was more important in your childhood, since I wouldn't know WTF I'm talking about if I did.

In an individual case, I would keep both in mind, but the only factor you have as a psychologist that you can work with is nurture, so it diserves at least equal consideration. The pure nature view can ONLY lead to fatalism, or medication, as an effect of the assumptions.

**A note on how to characterise "abuse" in this context. I'm sorry but I'll have to dig up Freud, because this is a discussin pioneered by him, and misunderstood by almost everyone that didn't actually read his work.

Freud at some point discovered that the majority of his patients had a childhood trauma of sexual abuse. He is flamed and carelessly dismissed for this tentative hypothesis until today. In fact this is the number one thing used to disqualify his theories without knowing **** about them. What they don't tell you is that later he refined this as he saw that some of these trauma were not true, but imagined. Nor where they always of a sexual nature. Later on he and others that worked off him, postulated that everyone has some trauma in childhood, and that this trauma is an essential part of growing up. Often this trauma would be described by patients with a sexual story, logically because it is all about how one relates to your significant others.

So from suspecting actual sexual abuse, he went to the concept of a traumatic yet formative experience that shears you off from the unity with your mother (and/or father but I can write a whole book about that) and is neccesary for what we call 'normal' developement.

This doctor, who I found insightful, regrettably has not read Freud, and is now where Freud was in something like 1930. He is rediscovering now what Freud worked trough over decades. I bet though that for his severely impaired patients, there is a higher chance of actual factual abuse in their past.

From this point of view it is not the question in my opinion whether you we raped in childhood

and don't remember it perhaps, but what the specific care-dynamic was of your growing up. And in my mind, perhaps possibly it could have played a part, even if you had the best parents with the best intentions. All human relations imo, and certainly the ones we all grow up with, are inherently imperfect, unfinished, flawed. This is unavoidable, and has effects on us. When Freud thought of the Oedipus complex, he was not saying you want to have sex with your mother, rather he was trying to give us a window of understanding this personal trauma in our childhood, this personal myth, by using a myth. Pretty brilliant to me, but easily ridiculed. A bit like Darwin really.

///end of class - really **** me, I should be a teacher with my pompous narcissistic monologues

I love it!

**Hambergler** · 02-05-2010, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/addiction

Big surprise. A psychologist thinks addiction is all about psychology. Using words from disillusioned drug addicts as "medical" evidence; who don't take responsibility for their lives and blame everybody else for their problems is not a basis for truth. It does make for good book content though. There are plenty of addicts that had perfectly happy childhoods contrary to what the good Dr says. If what he says is true all they would need to recover is a few big hugs.

Truth is most people start using drugs because they are curious and continue because they like the effect. After a while the drugs takes over. There is common ignorant conception that there are recreational opiate users. There are practically non. After 5 days of use they are addicted. These drugs are simply more powerful then a persons will regardless of childhood episodes or nature. In psychology, where nurture or nature can be considered; is to what degree of relief does a person gets from the initial drug encounter from their normal state. If the relief is substantial they may be more inclined to continue to search for that relief. But this is a very very small and insignificant number with opiates. They almost all become addicts regardless.

Comparing the power of opiates and shopping is like comparing a fire cracker to an atomic bomb. Food, shopping alcohol, crack, heroin, video games. They are not the same and should not be compared. They all have pleasure seeking elements at play, but some have driving forces that are much more powerful.

I do believe in a more compassionate solution; decriminalization, rehabs instead of jails and safe use houses etc. but the Dr is ignorant and a megalomaniac. He should stick to what he knows: The Nazis made him buy his new car.

**BigGaayAl** · 02-05-2010, 04:48 AM

I admit it would be less uncommon if he actually was a psychologist. "Dr. Gabor Maté is the staff physician at the Portland Hotel Society"

I know 1 person in my life who does not use any drugs. Perhaps most people in fact are recreational users. Almost everyone in Belgium uses alcohol, a severe harddrug, and at least more then half are not alcoholics. Opiates may be different, but I do personally know many people who only use it just now and then. "There are practically none" does not seem true to me.

"There are plenty of addicts that had perfectly happy childhoods contrary to what the good Dr says". I don't know if you read the segment in my previous post about how one can conceptualise abuse in this context. Perfectly happy childhoods is pretty hard to define.

You seem to take this topic very personally though for some reason. Your post comes across as though you are angry at this man. I'd be interested to know why you find him so offensive, or what he says.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 02-05-2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Hambergler

There is common ignorant conception that there are recreational opiate users. There are practically non. After 5 days of use they are addicted. These drugs are simply more powerful then a persons will regardless of childhood episodes or nature. In psychology, where nurture or nature can be considered; is to what degree of relief does a person gets from the initial drug encounter from their normal state. If the relief is substantial they may be more inclined to continue to search for that relief. But this is a very very small and insignificant number with opiates. They almost all become addicts regardless.

It may depend on the power/makeup of the opiates. I used a fairly strong opiate based painkiller for about three weeks. I never felt addicted. When I stopped I didn't need more. They also didn't really affect me that much. Most pain killers don't. Dentists are always amazed at how much they have to give me before I don't feel anything.

So I do think there is a nature/genetic component to it all. I drank 12-24 beers a night for almost 2 years. Then one day I stopped and never had withdrawals or felt I needed alcohol. In fact I was tired of drinking and didn't drink again for almost a year.

Nicotine I cannot quit by myself. I have tried dozens of time. The best I can do is chew the gum. I have gone almost 2 months without nicotine and I was still having withdrawal symptoms and they where horrible. I think I was addicted after using nicotine just a couple of times because I remember just needing it the second time I chewed beechnut. I couldn't (and still can't) think straight without it.

**snooggums** · 02-05-2010, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Hambergler

Big surprise. A psychologist thinks addiction is all about psychology. Using words from disillusioned drug addicts as "medical" evidence; who don't take responsibility for their lives and blame everybody else for their problems is not a basis for truth. It does make for good book content though. There are plenty of addicts that had perfectly happy childhoods contrary to what the good Dr says. If what he says is true all they would need to recover is a few big hugs.

While some people are predisposed to addiction to a particular drug, actual abuse of a drug is different than usage of a drug.

Someone who smokes weed daily for enjoyment is not the same as someone who smokes to avoid issues in their life, just like someone who drinks for pleasure and someone who drinks to forget are using the same behavior and one is abusive while the other is not. People with good childhoods that aren't one of the few with chemical addiction tendencies may use drugs but are unlikely to abuse them unless they have trauma when they are older. Someone with a good childhood who gets raped in college still has trauma, even if it isn't during childhood.

@BigGaayAl: I did misread your words. You were clarifying when the nurture has more effect, you weren't comparing it to nature. I do agree a lot of that happens during the first 5 years including attachments, physical contact boundaries and socializing, and I was just clarifying my situation for my example. I take no offense to any commentary on an example I provided

**Hambergler** · 02-05-2010, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

I admit it would be less uncommon if he actually was a psychologist. "Dr. Gabor Maté is the staff physician at the Portland Hotel Society"

Wow, makes it even worse.

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

I know 1 person in my life who does not use any drugs. Perhaps most people in fact are recreational users. Almost everyone in Belgium uses alcohol, a severe harddrug, and at least more then half are not alcoholics. Opiates may be different, but I do personally know many people who only use it just now and then. "There are practically none" does not seem true to me.

Alcohol is a totally different matter I am talking about this interview and a facility for heroin. Alcohol is a totally different matter. I don't believe that you have friends that use heroin every now and again. They are in denial.

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

"There are plenty of addicts that had perfectly happy childhoods contrary to what the good Dr says". I don't know if you read the segment in my previous post about how one can conceptualise abuse in this context. Perfectly happy childhoods is pretty hard to define.

There seams to be an abundance of criteria for a bad childhood. What is the criteria for a good one? The bottom line is it doesn't matter. Blaming ones childhood for ones continued addiction is irresponsible, ridiculous and deadly.

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

You seem to take this topic very personally though for some reason. Your post comes across as though you are angry at this man. I'd be interested to know why you find him so offensive, or what he says.

I don't like seeing an ignorant Dr. portraying himself as some kind of healer and making boatloads of money. According to him, If your mother had a square nipple your justified in destroying yourself. He's an opportunist making money on the backs and shoulders of his patients with destructive misinformation.

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

It may depend on the power/makeup of the opiates. I used a fairly strong opiate based painkiller for about three weeks. I never felt addicted. When I stopped I didn't need more. They also didn't really affect me that much. Most pain killers don't. Dentists are always amazed at how much they have to give me before I don't feel anything.

There is a totally different mindset for recreational use and medical use. A responsible Dr will try to prescribe painkillers where a patient can still feel a little pain so they will know what pain level they are at and will know when to stop. Recreational users use much stronger drugs and the point is to get obliterated. I can assure you if you were prescribed heroin you would be in serious trouble after three weeks.

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

So I do think there is a nature/genetic component to it all. I drank 12-24 beers a night for almost 2 years. Then one day I stopped and never had withdrawals or felt I needed alcohol. In fact I was tired of drinking and didn't drink again for almost a year.

If your metabolism/liver can process 2 cases of beer in one day and you were still coherent. You are pre-disposed to alcoholism. I would be very careful. A normal reaction for adults is to stop at 2-3 and they are ready for bed. I'm going to guesstimate that about 8% are pre-disposed.

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Nicotine I cannot quit by myself. I have tried dozens of time. The best I can do is chew the gum. I have gone almost 2 months without nicotine and I was still having withdrawal symptoms and they where horrible. I think I was addicted after using nicotine just a couple of times because I remember just needing it the second time I chewed beechnut. I couldn't (and still can't) think straight without it.

Good thing nicotine isn't as destructive as heroin.

**snooggums** · 02-05-2010, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Hambergler

Alcohol is a totally different matter I am talking about this interview and a facility for heroin. Alcohol is a totally different matter. I don't believe that you have friends that use heroin every now and again. They are in denial.

I see you have fallen for the propaganda of the War on Drugs.

Thread Tools

Display