The Accidental Addict

[RS Davis]

[glow=red,2,300]Maia Szalavitz Wrote:[/glow]
In a recent five-part series (Oct. 19-23), the Orlando Sentinel painted a stark picture of the opiate drug OxyContin: Prescribed for mild pain by a clueless doctor, the drug had destroyed a former policeman's life. Apparently, this story was typical: Thousands had been derailed by the deadly drug. Within weeks, however, the drug's manufacturer, Purdue Pharmaceutical, and the ex-cop's mother-in-law revealed that the man—called an "accidental addict" by the writer, Doris Bloodsworth—was a former cocaine abuser with a federal trafficking conviction.

- Rick

Further reading:

Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs by James P. Gray

Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use by Jacob Sullum

[whatever]

I said yes to this question, but not becaue I support the drug war!!! Cough, choke, gag, No.
But, I mean, certainly it's possible to take something over a period of time without knowing it is addictive? I think I'll come back to this one in case I'm confused

[outgirl]

Oxycontin is a drug seriously abused on the streets but most narcotic addicts did not start using because of health issues. Or if they did and became addicted, then I believe that some people are just genetically predisposed to becoming an addict. I've thought about this a lot. Last year, a nurse that I worked with died of a Fentanyl overdose. He was a great nurse, a great co worker and well liked by everyone. It was such a tragedy. His closest friends had no idea, but his trackmarks and the narcotics found in his refrigerator at home after his death proved that this was an ongoing problem. I don't believe that this would have happened if he would have worked in any other area. Something made him stick the needle in his arm the first time. I don't think if it weren't readily available to him, that he would have been on the corner trying to score heroin. I know that drugs are fun, but some people just can't keep themselves from going over the line with it. Addiction is an illness. That's why I have mixed feelings about legalizing drugs in this country. But I also can't help but compare it to drinking. Just because there are alcoholics in the world, shouldn't mean that I can't have a drink or two if I want one. I went through my drinking binge during my breakup, but quickly tired of it. It's just not in me to become an alcoholic. I think drugs are the same. If you are one of those whose DNA seems to include a propensity for addiction, then you should stay away from drugs and alcohol. I think there needs to be more education on addiction and its causes but without taking the all drugs are wrong policy. It's about who we are as individuals and what is right for each of us.

[RS Davis]

outgirl said:

Oxycontin is a drug seriously abused on the streets but most narcotic addicts did not start using because of health issues. Or if they did and became addicted, then I believe that some people are just genetically predisposed to becoming an addict. I've thought about this a lot. Last year, a nurse that I worked with died of a Fentanyl overdose. He was a great nurse, a great co worker and well liked by everyone. It was such a tragedy. His closest friends had no idea, but his trackmarks and the narcotics found in his refrigerator at home after his death proved that this was an ongoing problem. I don't believe that this would have happened if he would have worked in any other area. Something made him stick the needle in his arm the first time. I don't think if it weren't readily available to him, that he would have been on the corner trying to score heroin. I know that drugs are fun, but some people just can't keep themselves from going over the line with it. Addiction is an illness. That's why I have mixed feelings about legalizing drugs in this country. But I also can't help but compare it to drinking. Just because there are alcoholics in the world, shouldn't mean that I can't have a drink or two if I want one. I went through my drinking binge during my breakup, but quickly tired of it. It's just not in me to become an alcoholic. I think drugs are the same. If you are one of those whose DNA seems to include a propensity for addiction, then you should stay away from drugs and alcohol. I think there needs to be more education on addiction and its causes but without taking the all drugs are wrong policy. It's about who we are as individuals and what is right for each of us.

I agree, and the alcohol comparison was astute. Just like alcohol, the numbers of drug users who are addicted are in a tiny minority. If we would just end the drug war, that minority might actually be helped.

- Rick

[DanzaSlap]

I have no idea why people get addicted to drugs. I mean, I've been a cig smoker since I was 15 or 16, but have never really felt "addicted" to them. I mean, I enjoy smoking, but I don't do it so satisfy some sort of addiction, I do it because I enjoy smoking. I'm pretty sure it's due to my oral fixation (I bite the shit out of my nails) that smoking seems to come so naturally (that sounds really gay, but I swear I'm straight I digress. I've done coke on many occasions, never because I was addicted. I've tried morphine, X, dexedrine, methadone, and on and on. I've never been addicted to any of these, not even close. I just don't believe people are under some control of the drug. People use the drug because they like the effect.

The War on Drugs is a total joke, though. It causes a lot more problems than it helps. Stigmatizing people as criminals who use drugs is not an effective way of helping drug addicts, which is why Europe is moving to a Harm-Reduction Model for dealing with drug use. I do think the term "addiction" is used in place of a more appropriate term "habit" in describing how most people use drugs. Habits are hard to break, no doubt, so people should be able to get treatment on demand. It's a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than incarceration.

Perhaps the worst thing the War on Drugs has done is create a false dichotomy of either the War on Drugs or rampant drug addiction. This is accomplished by spreading tons of mininformation, so much so that when I even suggest that the most effective way to deal with drugs is to legalize and regulate ALL of them, I'm looked at like I'm crazy (except from fine people like yourselves ). It's really depressing.

I could write more and more about this, as there is no other topic that facinates me like drugs and their effect on humans and society. But I'll spare you my inane bullshit.

[RS Davis]

DanzaSlap said:

I have no idea why people get addicted to drugs. I mean, I've been a cig smoker since I was 15 or 16, but have never really felt "addicted" to them. I mean, I enjoy smoking, but I don't do it so satisfy some sort of addiction, I do it because I enjoy smoking. I'm pretty sure it's due to my oral fixation (I bite the shit out of my nails) that smoking seems to come so naturally (that sounds really gay, but I swear I'm straight I digress. I've done coke on many occasions, never because I was addicted. I've tried morphine, X, dexedrine, methadone, and on and on. I've never been addicted to any of these, not even close. I just don't believe people are under some control of the drug. People use the drug because they like the effect.

The War on Drugs is a total joke, though. It causes a lot more problems than it helps. Stigmatizing people as criminals who use drugs is not an effective way of helping drug addicts, which is why Europe is moving to a Harm-Reduction Model for dealing with drug use. I do think the term "addiction" is used in place of a more appropriate term "habit" in describing how most people use drugs. Habits are hard to break, no doubt, so people should be able to get treatment on demand. It's a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than incarceration.

Perhaps the worst thing the War on Drugs has done is create a false dichotomy of either the War on Drugs or rampant drug addiction. This is accomplished by spreading tons of mininformation, so much so that when I even suggest that the most effective way to deal with drugs is to legalize and regulate ALL of them, I'm looked at like I'm crazy (except from fine people like yourselves ). It's really depressing.

I could write more and more about this, as there is no other topic that facinates me like drugs and their effect on humans and society. But I'll spare you my inane bullshit.

No, do go on. I agree completely, and am glad such a Drug War scholar as yourself (I know this from posts on STL) is around. I think it is the one issue we all agree on around here. ;D

- Rick

[outgirl]

DanzaSlap said:

I do think the term "addiction" is used in place of a more appropriate term "habit" in describing how most people use drugs.

I agree with everything you've said except for your opinion on addiction. Biting your nails is a terrible habit but does not cause physical symptomology when it's not done.

[DanzaSlap]

outgirl said:

I agree with everything you've said except for your opinion on addiction. Biting your nails is a terrible habit but does not cause physical symptomology when it's not done.

Allow me to clarify-- I'm not saying addiction doesn't exist. Certainly, opiates cause physical addiction, there's no doubt. Heroin, OxyContin, Morphine addicts, etc, don't use the drug because they like the effect, they use it alleviate withdrawal symptoms and function normally in society. Those people are truly addicted.

But a cocaine addict? Coke is not physically addictive-- it's very "psychologically" addictive, just as marijuana. The problem is, "psychological" addiction is eerily similar to the old definition of "habit" in DSM, which has since been striken from the book. It's all outlined in "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" by Jacob Sullum (link above in Rick's post). I think cigs fall into the category of habit, as does every drug that's not an opiate. The broad definition of addiction is one problem with the War on Drugs, as people think that addicts have no "will power" or something, when in actuallity, a heroin addict takes heroin most likely because he has no other options to kick the addiction. So, I suppose in that case, people can be overtaken by the "demon heroin." Of course, it takes a long time and prolonged usage to get to that point, and if we educated people on how not to get addicted, we might get somewhere.

Alcohol is physically addictive as well, and is, in fact, the only drug that can have fatal withdrawal symptons (heroin can, but only in people with weakened bodies).

[RS Davis]

DanzaSlap said:

Allow me to clarify-- I'm not saying addiction doesn't exist. Certainly, opiates cause physical addiction, there's no doubt. Heroin, OxyContin, Morphine addicts, etc, don't use the drug because they like the effect, they use it alleviate withdrawal symptoms and function normally in society. Those people are truly addicted.

Truly addicted, yes. Helpless, no. Heroin addicts often detox voluntarily so that the next time they cop, the thrill will be back. So, quitting is not out of the question. They are addicts because they choose to be addicts. This bullshit voodoo pharmacology, convincing us that a drug - and not our own problems and choices - can rob us of our free will, is an insult.

How is it that pain patients rarely have addictions to their pain medications? Set and setting. Some people like to use opiates. Some people like to use them too much. The latter tend to be the same people that abuse alcohol and other drugs, as well. Our fever to control pain medication is unfounded and damaging.

As she said in the article, referencing an American Medical Association study: "[It] covered the period from 1990-96, analyzing national records of opiate prescribing rates and emergency room drug-abuse "mentions"—and found that as prescribing increased, abuse of these drugs did not rise proportionately. In fact, for fentanyl, a stronger opiate than heroin, medical use rose 1,168 percent, but abuse reports fell 59 percent." What this means is that the same people who were "addicts" before were "addicts" after. Drugs don't create addicts - people's personal psychology does.

There are many examples I can bring up. As the article points out - and it is more thoroughly addressed in Mr. Sullum's great book - "While nearly half of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam tried heroin while abroad, only 20 percent of users became addicts. And only 12 percent remained junkies—even though 60 percent of those addicted while in Vietnam tried heroin at least one more time back home."

There was also a study done with mice, where they could hit one button for food and one for heroin. They had two groups. One was isolated, with no social structure or stimulus. The other was a communal area, with many mice and things to do. In the lonely, isolated one, the mice hit the heroin button all the time. In the other, they hit it only occassionally. What this means is that, again, the drug is not creating the addict, but the life and pathos of the user.

Done rambling.

- Rick

[outgirl]

DanzaSlap said:

Allow me to clarify-- I'm not saying addiction doesn't exist. Certainly, opiates cause physical addiction, there's no doubt. Heroin, OxyContin, Morphine addicts, etc, don't use the drug because they like the effect, they use it alleviate withdrawal symptoms and function normally in society. Those people are truly addicted.

But a cocaine addict? Coke is not physically addictive-- it's very "psychologically" addictive, just as marijuana. The problem is, "psychological" addiction is eerily similar to the old definition of "habit" in DSM, which has since been striken from the book. It's all outlined in "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" by Jacob Sullum (link above in Rick's post). I think cigs fall into the category of habit, as does every drug that's not an opiate. The broad definition of addiction is one problem with the War on Drugs, as people think that addicts have no "will power" or something, when in actuallity, a heroin addict takes heroin most likely because he has no other options to kick the addiction. So, I suppose in that case, people can be overtaken by the "demon heroin." Of course, it takes a long time and prolonged usage to get to that point, and if we educated people on how not to get addicted, we might get somewhere.

Alcohol is physically addictive as well, and is, in fact, the only drug that can have fatal withdrawal symptons (heroin can, but only in people with weakened bodies).

Thanks for clarifying. This is a subject I care a lot about (addiction) I've had 2 friends who were nurses that had serious narcotic addictions and one is dead now. It's a real problem in the healthcare field. I have done plenty of drugs but have never really been tempted to shoot up at work. Well, or anywhere for that matter. I just don't buy the theory that it's all a matter of choice for these people. While some may choose to experiment for a while, No one really chooses to be an addict. And some people seem to be able to do narcotics without becoming addicted. I really do believe that it's an illness not unlike alcoholism. Just another reason why I believe that no one should be imprisoned for drugs. But I also think that we need more research into the cause of addiction, without the moralizing. I really think it goes deeper than just a matter of doing too much.