In thisthread, Nebuchadnezzar said on the subject of gambling:


His assertion was supported by others, like BoF. Now being the jerk that I am, I decided to explore this even further and once again question ideas that we all hold so dear. But it should make for a fun debate, so let's try it.

I believe that addiction is a myth. I believe that all of our behaviors and actions are choices that we make and humans have the free will to choose whether or not do a certain action. Alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling...all vices that can have the affect of some sort of pleasure which makes people want to repeat the action. I contend that the only reason that these behaviors are called addictions is because they are widely considered socially unacceptable. Its wrong to gamble your kid's college fund at the craps tables. There is no rational reason to why he would do such a thing so he must have been addicted and unable to stop.

Is Addiction Just a Matter of Choice?


The opposition will say that while some people don't get addicted, others do. We'll get into that shortly i'm sure.

Here is a transcript of six scholars debating addiction (one of which being Dr. Jeffery Schaler, a former professor of mine):

Do Drugs Cause Addiction?


And that should throw enough gas on the fire for now.

Questions for Debate:

Is addiction a myth or reality?

You should differentiate between physical and mental addiction. In my quote, I was talking about a psychological dependence, but the quotes you posted below that deal with drugs, which falls under a physical or physiological dependence. So I will assume that you mean neither physical nor psychological addictions exist.

Physical addictions caused by substance abuse are most certainly real. The effects of addiction can be seen through withdrawal symptoms. According to the Medical Dictionary: "Withdrawal symptoms: Abnormal physical or psychological features that follow the abrupt discontinuation of a drug that has the capability of producing physical dependence. Common withdrawal symptoms include sweating, tremor, vomiting, anxiety, insomnia, and muscle pain." People are affected in different ways by these symptoms. It is true that some people can stop cold turkey, but they are the exception to the rule. No one wakes up and says "Let me try some drugs. Ooh, this is good, I'll do more!" and then wake up the next day saying "Oh no, found out that drugs are bad. I'll quit now." In fact, it is possible that genetics and being born to an addict play a large part in addiction. The article you posted about addicts quitting does not necessarily mean that addiction doesn't exist, it points out that addiction can be overcome, like many other problems. Plus, James Frey isn't the most reliable source.

You should also note that Dr. Szasz is not entirely credible. He dismisses all mental illness as a myth, even those illnesses that are caused by physical factors.

Psychological addiction is more of a gray area. As I said before, people can become psychologically dependent on anything, even things like sports, food, etc. Psychological addiction is much less easily defined, and I think that point of how it can be defined as opposed to dependency is moot.

Is addiction a myth?


No. If you understand the chemistry behind addictive drugs you would know that it's not like getting a sugar high. Many drugs imitate actual chemicals in your body by having similar receptor sites. If you mess with your body chemistry, you mess with your ablilty "to choose".

The only people I persume that would think people are completely in control of their decisions are people who have little bio-related education.

Think of it this way, next time you're thirsty try choosing not to be thirsty for water. It's a choice after all, right?

Withdrawal symptoms does not mean one is addicted. If you are one who exercises regularly and then stops exercising for a period of time...you will have withdrawal symptoms which in no way means you are addicted to exercise. It just means that a certain action that you have repeated often and that your body has grown accustomed to has stopped and your body needs to adjust to the change. That by no means equals the uncontrollable urge to committ a certain action as many propose.

Quitting cold turkey is the rule actually, not the exception. If you look at the source i provided in the opening, 60% of people quit smoking cold turkey. If my math is correct, that is a majority of Americans who smoke. Does this mean that those 60% were not addicted and those 40% were addicted? Does it mean that only a select few people can actually be addicted to something? Its circular reasoning to assert so. Is johnny addicted to smoking? How do you know? Because he can't stop. Why can't he stop? Because he is addicted. People can stop because people have free will. The reason people continue to do an action that we deem harmful is because they want to...thats the simplest explanation. To them, the pleasure received from the action is greater than the incentive to quit. If i promised to pay a person $20 a day to stop smoking...a person may be inclined to quit if they find that $20 a day more valuable than the sensation of smoking.



I am well aware of Dr. Szasz's opinions having read a couple of his books. What makes his opinions not credible? The fact that they challenge a widely held belief?



No you don't. Your ability to search for, purchase, and consume harmful substances is not affected. People do drugs or drink because they choose to. It feels good when they are high or drunk. If it didn't feel good, they wouldn't do it.


Comparing the drug or alcohol dependence to eating, drinking or even breathing is a tad off. You need those latter functions in order to live. You don't need to alcohol or drugs to live.

Lederuvdapac, let me ask you this... do you base all your opinions based solely on your own observations and experiences? So far you've argued that mental illness doesn't exist because you are able to think rationally and don't see how other people can't do the same, that global warming is junk science because you don't see how scientists can accurately model the climate, and now that addiction doesn't exist because you are able to exercise free will.

Since you are intent on following this path, let me broach this debate on your own terms. Have you ever woken to the sound of your alarm clock (or something similar) and hit snooze, or chosen to stay in bed despite the fact that you probably shouldn't? Ever gone to bed when you know you shouldn't (you need to get up soon for some reason, just ate, etc?) I'm willing to bet you have at some point (either that or you continue to scare me with your general chastity .) You are making a decision in that scenario that you probably wouldn't make in the clear light of day; however fatigue influences your decision making process. The chemical composition of your brain changes during extreme fatigue, the result of which is not only drowsiness and red eyes for example, but the compulsion to sleep.

Now assuming for the moment that you're not actually going to embarass yourself and argue that behaviour isn't influenced by brain chemistry, I'm curious as to where your argument comes from. If it's from the esteemed Dr. Szasz, then there are two problems. One, the guy's argument is seriously out of date. The guy has been making the same statements for about 35 years without doing much academic legwork. On top of that he is by and large a crackpot. Most of his research is published in political journals and other non-academic sources,I don't throw this accusation out lightly, but it is impossible for someone to corrobate the study of psychiatry and a tacit support of Scientology. Lets look at your source a bit. Criticizing addictiion you have a man who has essentally run a 40 year moral crusade against psychiatry, a lawyer, and a public policy academic. This is not to dismiss their argument out of hand, but to force us to consider it for what it is, politically/morally driven opinions with a tenuous medical foundation.

So what's the second problem? The actual arguments they are making. From Professor Schaler, when asked about patients (which he has never had) going to medical professional (which he isn't) asking for help in quitting:



No elucidation, no foundation. Being the trained academic he is though, he used the phrase I think. What does this tell me? That what he is sharing isn't a hypothesis or theory, but rather an opinion. Now, ignoring these shortcomings for a moment, lets look at what they're really trying to say.

What I can distill from their argument is that drugs are a choice, and that the behaviour of using drugs becomes a habit. Nobody is disputing that. What is up for dispute is the idea that my habit of say doing situps before I hop in the shower is essentially the same as someone's habit of injecting heroin.

What I want to be clear on is if that is your argument. Because if it is, you need to do a better job justifying it. As you have done here and elsewhere, you are interested in research. However, instead of finding evidence or support for your argument, all you are doing is going out and finding people who share your beliefs. You have not refuted the psycholoy of addiction theory, or offered any evidence to support your claims; instead you have posted a symposium which features people agreeing with you in equally insubstantial ways.

Your argument has all the credibility of a "3 out of 4 dentists recommend" type statement, because it is the exact same process.

Poor Dr Szasz, an elderly crackpot who got his medical degree in the late 1940s, when the speciality of psychiatry was in its infancy, who has not written or published anything in any journals in his field in almost 40 years, and who has clear and open ties with the cult of Scientology. Despite the fact that he is entirely out of date, works with a nutjob religious cult, and has been discredited and dismissed so many times one cannot keep count, not to mention that he was formally sanctioned at SUNY for violation of medical practices in his experiments (Oh, and the fact that he has NEVER worked with people suffering major mental illness), he is still trotted out by those who would dismiss a specific aspect of mental illness for whatever reason.

Interestingly, those who reference his anti-psychiatry work from the 1950s and 1960s often fail to mention some of his OTHER somewhat controversial opinions, such as:
-His belief that all drugs of every kind should be legal and easily available, not just hard drugs like heroin, but medications, tranquillisers, date rape drugs, all without legal sanction or prescriptions.
-That all sexual functions and acts should be legal and outside state control, including sexuality with children.
-That anyone should be legally able to end their life whenever they want, be it euthenasia or suicide at will.

And so on.




That doesn't even make any sense. You do not have 'withdrawal symptoms' when you stop running, not in any way the same way. You are fabricating a comparison when there is none based on your personal layman's interpretation of the linkages of symptomology. If you come off Heroin cold turkey, it can kill you. Stone dead. Is that the same sort of thing you are comparing to jogging?

Furthermore, you have in your earlier argument again created a link which does not exist and is entirely fictional; claiming that because some people stop addictive behaviours on their own, therefore there is no such thing as addiction. Again, that doesn't even make any logical sense. You have created a causal link where no logical causal link exists.

As has been stated several times, there is a substantive difference between mental and physical addiction. Now you seem to be trying to dismiss physical addiction as if it doesn't exist, and I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are simply flat out wrong.

This is not a matter of opinion or question, its not open to debate. Its like claiming there is no such thing as cancer. The existence and effect of physical addiction is simply not in question, no medical body on the planet, no nation, no national medical organisation in existence on any continent would disagree with that reality.


Now then, if you wish to argue the issue of the effects of mental addiction, that’s another story. While there is no dissent from the world's medical community that mental addiction exists, there is some dissent on exactly how 'compulsive' it is and how much power it has over the individual.

If you wish to continue the debate, I strongly suggest you reframe it in terms of the power or compulsion of mental addiction, and leave physical addiction out of it, otherwise you are literally arguing against universal reality.


EDIT to add: Damn fine post, UltimateJoe.

Well typically people don't become addicted BEFORE they try drugs.

Let me put it this way, you are NEVER in the same state of mind ALL the time. When you're hungry, in the Andes on a mountain top, you'll eat another person. You probably wouldn't make that same choice if you live near a grocery store.

When you are intoxicated and driving, you make worse decisions that you would sober.

Drugs and body chemistry INFLUENCE your decisions. Like I said before, people are not ROBOTS. Mood and state-of-mind affect our decisions and choices.

To be honest, I am shocked that this is even being debated. I think it just shows to what extent you believe in your "people are always responsible for their actions" philosophy that you can't realize that people are influenced by their bodies much less their surroundings in the choices they make.

I disagree. Fatigue may influence your decision to stay in bed, but in no way is the choice predetermined or definitie...because it is still a choice. If i press the snooze button on ym alarm clock, its because the immediate pleasure i get from a few more minutes of sleep outweighs the long term displeasure i may get for being late to school/work. Now for instance, if my alarm went off and i woke up noticing my house was on fire...would my fatigue or chemical composition of my brain result in the compulsion of sleep? The answer is no. Its because the short term pleasure of more time sleeping is less than the long term effect of dying in a fire.


Well lets not be dishonest here and pick a single line from an entire debate and use it to discredit and entire argument. Here was his support for that argument:


Schaler wasn't so much saying that they were liars but rather that people were kidding themselves or that they don't know what the truth is. People continually hound these people and tell them that their addiction is not their fault and that it is uncontrollable. And what happens? A self-fulfilling prophecy. I am sure most of us know that term the psychiatric experts we all are. People begin to believe that they are helpless in their effort to stop their habit and give up trying to stop.



There is little difference between the two in that both fulfill some sort of pleasurable activity for the person. You feel good when you work out and you want to have a good body, so you do situps. You feel good when you are high on heroin so you continue to do it. If it didnt feel good, you would have no thought to continuing.



How about the evidence that 60% of people who smoke quit cold turkey? Were those 60% of people truly addicted? Did they not make a life decision to quit smoking? Or how about the study by Lee Robins that studied veterans of the Vietnam War who used heroin? 87% did not use when they returned to the United States. Why is that? Its because a change of environment and situations meant that the soldiers no longer needed the high they got from the drug. Finally the study in Canada (ill look for a name) which studied rats and their choice between water and water with morphine. The study showed that when the rats were in enclosed cages, they were a lot more likely to choose the water with morphine in it. However, the rats in a more wide open environment were more likely to choose ordinary water. Why is that? Its because the environments were different and the pleasure that is received from the morphine was only necessary to cope with the harsh conditions of a cage. Thats three studies right there in my opening.

But here's some more:

NATURAL RECOVERY FROM HEROIN ADDICTION: A REVIEW OF THE INCIDENCE LITERATURE

This compilation of studies by Dan Waldorf & Patrick Biernacki came to the conclusion that:



Basically it is saying that the environment and psychology of the individual plays a major role in whether or not they can recover from a drug habit.



1) Many people, even on these boards believe in the legalization of drugs.
2) I've seen no proof of Szasz advocating sexuality with children
3) Many people, even on these boards have advocated euthenasia

So i don't really see how you can discredit the man on those points alone when the arguments are shared by liberals, libertarians, and others all over.


The basis of your argument is that withdrawal symptoms are one of the factors that indicate addiction. I am arguing that other activities such as exercise or drinking coffee every morning also have withdrawal symptoms when discontinued, but no one considers them an addiction.


Here is a transcipt for John Stossel's ABC segment on 20/20 which aired 4/21/03:

Help Me, I Can't Help Myself



We have men suing casinos because he couldn't stop pulling on the slot machine and we have children suing McDonalds because their food is "addicting." Where does it end? Where does personal responsibility begin? Everyone is looking for excuses. Thats what we make for ourselves. I gambled away all my money because i was addicted to gambling. I got fat because i am addicted to fast food. I lost my job because I got addicted to heroin. Are they really not in control of their lives? No. They are in control but they choose the immediate gratification over the long term consequences.

Call me crazy, but you don't offer one iota of evidence for your theory that



You offer no psychological studies, no phsyiological proofs, just conjecture and incidentals. What makes you believe this?



Without actually seeing the study it is useless. As we both know a high number of smokers who quit return to their habits over time. Without actually looking at the study (instead of just talking about it) it is impossible to assign it any value. Maybe the study also says that people who "quit" cold turkey resume their habits within two weeks.

In short, why don't you actually try and prove what it is you're saying instead of just dancing around the issue.

I need a psychological study to prove that taking heroin makes a person feel good? Or that people work out to stay healthy? I believe this because we are a people of free will. You can debate all you want on the affect that drugs have on a person when they are ingested but the fact remains that it is our free will that dictates how these substances get into our body. How we search for, purchase, and then consume the drugs. Those are choices we make.



The exact study has eluded me, but aside from the ABC news source i found this:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/20/2760



We are not debating the affects that these substances have on people. What we are debating is whether or not people have the choice to NOT consume them. I believe they do while you believe people are uncontrollably compelled to take these substances against their will.

Hold on a second here...



I agree with you here, to a point. People do have a choice. I chose not to start smoking because, well, I'm not an idiot. (Apologies to anyone here who picked up smoking after the 60's... but hey, it's how I feel.) However, what is up for dispute is what happens after those substances begin to influence your physiology.

People do have free will, to a point. I suggested the "sleeping in" example to illustrate that point. When your physiology changes, it influences behaviour. Fatigue is a minor condition compared to a chemical dependency like nicotine or opiate addiction. Your argument that none of that really matters, and are not really doing anything to prove it except espousing your own personal moral philosophy, which sounds nice but has zero relevance in a medical/psychological discussion.

Quoting the abstract from studies is not much of a contribution either, especially since you insist on introducing incidental and incomplete data. You are either operating under the assumption that quitting "cold turkey" is easy, or succesful. I know for a fact that it isn't easy; I've seen that first hand. As for success, that is the sort of thing that you actually need to demonstrate... you know, actually provide some data other than a professors name. Taken in a vaccuum your citation suggests that quitting is relatively easy for people to make the choice to try it. In context however, that data could tell a different story



Now, you have two avenues of response. You can attempt to explain why those other 97.5% fail based on research and investigation; or you can simply argue that the other 97.5% of people don't really want to quit... but then you would be trying to convince us of an opinion which has no foundation or support, and is utterly unpersuasive.

I have to agree and disagree with Leder



I disagree, I just don't think people take the time to study such nonsense. I do jog and when I get in a routine, like Leder says, my body gets accustomed... and if I take a break for a while I notice a change in my energy level, my mood, and it's hard too explain... but there is like this.... urge, for lack of a better word to run. But then... once I stop for like a week or so it becomes hard to start running again... So I agree with Leder that there is withdrawal... just not enough to actually need studying.



It depends... they may choose to use the word... physical dependency rather than addiction.

And I think that is the heart of what Leder is getting at. I don't think he is talking about the human body becoming dependent on a drug, but instead the human mind becoming dependant on drug or the possibly of the human mind becoming addicted.

And though someone who is severely addicted to heroin can die if they go cold turkey... there still is nothing stopping them from going cold turkey.

Here is where I disagree with Leder

Free will and addiction are not exclusive from one another. I can still have free will, make choices, and be addicted. The reason is this... Addiction doesn't mean one is made to do something it just means they are compelled. And this word is often interchanged with made.

For example:


Let say Leder you are driving down the street come to a stop light and someone pulls out a gun and tells you to "get out of the car" You get out... they get in... Did they make you get out of the car.

Not really, unless they physically dragged you out of the car. You still had the free will to just say "no." Other people have just said "no." But most people would recognize that you were forced out of the car.

If your life became endangered, you survival mode would likely kick in. And though you have the "free will" to remain in your car, you desire to live will trump the mere physical possession of the car.

This is how addiction works.... yes they all have free will but the drugs tamper with their mind and affect their ability to make choices.

Actually, I've hit the snooze and missed important meetings before...when I had only a few hours of sleep and was extremely tired. It was not my intent or CHOICE to remain sleeping, it was my body doing it for me.

I am amazed that you don't grasp the concept that people with physiological changes act differently. Have you ever heard of OCD?

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-an05.html

After all, addiction is simply a compulsion, right? So if a person has a compulsion to wash their hands 10 times an hour why is it inconceivable that they would have a similar action toward drugs?

I'm guessing you probably thought that Terri Shiavo was capable of making a choice as well?

Is addiction a myth or reality?

The answer to this question would be yes. One can make myth reality. This ability is the basis of all religious, political and social institutions.

So, what is the definition of addiction anyway? From Webster's:

ad·dic·tion (Ã dikÆshÃn), n.
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
[1595–1605; < L addicti$n- (s. of addicti$) a giving over, surrender. See ADDICT, -ION]

Addiction is the action of giving over the will, surrendering the will, to something or someone. That's from the Latin root, and the modern meaning speaks to what can happen afterward. The implication is that nobody is born being addicted.

I guess the Latin speakers did not have crack babies, but let's say that's an exception to the concept. I suppose you could have opium babies too.

Anyway, everyone is right. It's just that everyone is focusing on different parts of the meaning. Generally, nobody forces an addiction upon people, and generally, getting off an addiction involves severe trauma.

It is interesting that rats in cages prefer drugs to water, whereas rats in natural environments prefer the water. The idea then is to live in a natural environment.

Or maybe the rats that preferred water had big houses in safe neighborhoods, the security of dependable income etc. and onward. That's the important point, not what part of the definition one focuses upon.

Now, one can be born into hopeless poverty, and that's not an act of will, at least in most myths. Some hold to the idea. I'm not so sure, due to the fact that many people would have never selected their families, but then maybe there's no way to know how things will turn out. Maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

Influence of behavior is not the same as the uncontrollable action that is associated with addiction. My decision can be influenced...but that in no way equals the choice being made for me. This is a psychological issue in my mind, not a medical/physiological one. The concept of addiction involves a person not having the ability to exercise free will over their actions. Basically, that their behaviors are of no fault of their own similar to a person contracting cancer under no fault of their own. I reject this notion. I contend that people ARE able to control themselves but psychiatrists and others telling them that they have no control over their situations creates a self-fulfiling prophecy where they either give up trying to stop or place blame on others.

It has become an art for people in our society to take away personal responsibility and place blame on others. McDonald's fast food made me fat. The Casino's responsible for my gambling addiction. The drug is responsible for my addiction. Never does one stop to say that it is "I" who chose to go to McDonalds, or to the Casino, or to purhase the drugs. knowing full well the effects of each activity.



I disagree. Addiction has been equated with a disease. Something uncontrollable...when nothing is farther from the truth. If you are able to make a choice, than how it can be addiction? In your example, you have the choice to stay in the car and die, but as you said, your desire to live trumps possession of the car. But that doesnt take away from the fact that it was still a choice. Nobody is debating the effect the drug has on the mind when it is taken...what is being debated is HOW the drugs get into the body.

For instance. Normal guy who happens to take drugs. Wakes up in the morning, goes to work like any other person. But after work he drives to a specific spot and meets a specific person who happens to be a drug dealer. He hands over some cash and receives his drugs. He drives home and consumes the drugs. The search for, purchase, and taking of the drugs occurred when he was not under the influence. He chose to drive to the dealer. He chose to purchase the drug. He chose to take it. What the drug does to the person is insignificant because if the person is unable to make any choices with free will, than why do we give this person any rights at all? Why do we give him the right to vote or the right to drive?

People who have problems and who sincerely seek help should be provided with it accordingly. However, never should it be taught that their problems are the result of anything but their own choices. People should be responsible for what they do and to tell a person that their actions are uncontrollable sends an inaccurate message that harms the person instead of helps them. Tell them that they are in control of their lives and if they want to smoke or drink or gamble, than thats their choice and its fine. But if they want to stop and are sincere, that they can do it.

Ok how about this. Leder, take up smoking for 1 year. Then quit. Let me know how it goes. Don't worry about the side effects of smoking, it's all in the name of science.

You once again have decided to start a thread about a topic and yet you dismiss all credible evidence done by professionals, scientists, and doctors. (Proof: You failed to address UJ's question) This leads me to believe that you aren't interested in a debate, only raising your post count.

Not that there's any point:
Neuroscience of Addiction

Well psyclist, luckily you are here to make sure that i am kept honest. First of all, your source provided dealings with animal models. The basis of my argument is that human beings, who have free will, can choose not to take drugs or not to gamble. Animals do not have free will. Secondly, the research only states that drugs have an effect on the brain on the abusers, which i have acknowledged. Drugs have an effect on the brain, I am in no way debating that. The question is whether the free will of a person is gone.

If a person smokes and is addicted to nicotine, the nicotine doesn't make a person jump into their car, drive to the local gas station, and purchases a pack of smokes. The person does that because they WANT to. Are they compelled to by a craving? Absolutely. But they can be compelled by a craving for chocolate or for certain type of food. The fact is that the calculated measures taken by supposed addicts to acquire their favorite substances shows that they are acting with free will.

really... I thought we were debating Addiction It is irrelevant how the drug got into the body because to be addicted to a drug it must have previously been consumed. It's consumption is what leads to the compulsion.

Will you admit the a drug addict is compulsed by his own mind and in some cases body to continue using a drug???

I understand what you are saying about everything being a choice... Like I said I agree with you to that extent. But what I am stating and I don't see you as refuting is that we can still have free will and be compulsed to do things... This compulsion is what we have come to define addiction as. Whether it is towards drugs, gambling, alcohol, food, or in your case... masturbation

How are you going to get around compulsion?? Free will is not destroyed by compulsion... however compulsion can severely curtail what decisions you will or won't make with your free will.

Ha droop, what you do in your time is your business

Ok, i understand fully your point. But its the last sentence i take issue with. I agree that one's decisions can be influenced or even curtailed...but the essence of free will is that we are able to make our own choices about what we do or do not do. External or internal influences compell people to do any number of activities but does the compelling nature of the influence result in the lack of choice by the person? For instance, God forbid a serial killer kills your entire family. You would feel the utmost compulsion to take revenge on the serial killer. However, desptie the overwhelming desire to kill...it is still a choice of what action you do.

I submit that the nature of the compulsion, even if it "severly curtails" your decision, is not tantamount to the loss of the ability to choose what you do and do not do.

I'm sorry, but why are we having a philosophical discussion in the Science and Technology forum?



You can submit this until you're blue in the face, all you've done is offered your opinion and a couple of vague pseudo-science references. Howabout making a more persuasive case than "I think."

Firstly, you obviously have not had many psych classes because if you had, you would realize how often animals (rats, mice, pigeons, sea slugs, etc) are used to study fundamental questions of psychology. These include habituation, classical learning and operant conditioning, memory, drug tolerance, helplessness, and many many more. To simply dismiss a study because it uses animals as the subjects is outright ignorance. Why are animals used to study instead of humans? Because we have many similar fundamental qualities and display many similar actions/behaviors.

Ever heard of classical conditioning? The old Pavlov's Dogs? Well that was first documented in animals and later studied in people. Tolerance? First seen in people, now mostly studied in rats. operant conditioning? Studied in people and animals. The nervous system was first studied in squid and now much research on learning and synaptic pathways have been completed using the sea slug. And guess what, it very closely parallels the human nervous system. It's almost like people are animals....or maybe animals are people-like? Perhaps we're closely related is what I'm trying to say.

So why are you outright dismissing this study instead of discussing it leder? Oh right, because you don't think animals have free will. They don't have the ability to choose between any two things. Are all choices which animals make predetermined and due solely to fate? Can a dog or cat not decide to sit in the sun, then move to the shade just because it feels like it? Or is every action of an animal simply a response to the environment which means they have no control over any choice or decision?

My point is not to state as a fact that all animals or organisms have free will, but to state that instead of providing counter-evidence to psyclist' link you instead make a ridiculous statement about animals not having free will at all (which I don't think you could prove). So perhaps you should confront evidence put on this board with some counter-evidence instead of dismissing others attempts.

Is the sky catholic? Does the pope *** in the woods? Is a bear blue? Are you kidding me?

Of COURSE addiction is a reality. Addiction is continuing to engage in a behavior even when one's rational mind concludes that the behavior is not in the person's best interests. It can be gambling, drinking, drugs, watching TV, or even posting in political debate forums on the internet.

Our brains are wired for pain vs. pleasure at their core. However, the complexity of our brains and the added capacity for decision power combined with our culture of personal freedom can result in situations like "addiction" where short-term pleasure overrides longer term pain.

There have been millions upon millions of otherwise intelligent human beings who've suffered from a variety of addictions. If it were just a matter of rational "choice", these people would not have suffered as they have and continue to.

Luckily for everyone I am addicted to debate and just unable to stop myself from making my argument. It's not my fault of course.

It has been immensely difficult to search for research that backs my claims since most of information comes from either books or hard copies of journals that have to be paid for online. But Ill do my best here.

I have an idea. Let's try to start over by looking at the origin of addiction in our culture and how it has evolved over time.

The Discovery of Addiction


Addiction is a form of social control on things that were once considered vices. Basically, people have to choose wisely what it is that they get addicted to because one can be addicted to any number of things including the internet and video games. But while those addictions are seen as pretty harmless, drugs and alcohol which have have been notorious throughout Western culture are seen as very harmful. If i am addicted to coffee or chocolate, its not that big a deal.

Is the addiction doctor the voodoo priest of Western man?


Now we have the loss of control theory which states that:



But this theory has been debunked:

The Implications and Limitations of Genetic Models of Alcoholism and Other Addictions



We now have the belief that such things as alcoholism are caused by biological dispositions:


But...



So this lack of the ability to control one's behavior has been totally debunked time and again yet here we are debating whether or not someone can control their own actions. I am not saying people are not heavily influenced by the want to get high, but rather that they can still choose not to get high.


I'm not going to argue with you whether or not the ability of an animal to make rational decisions is comparable to that of humans...that's ridiculous. Animals act based on instinct and learned experiences...not on rational, calculating decisions about the causes and effects of their actions. The lion pounces on the prey because it is hungry and wants to eat it. It doesn't stop to wonder about the right of the prey to live.

I earlier provided a study where animals (rats) were given a choice between water and water with morphine in it. Rats in an enclosed environment chose the morphine while rats in an open and spacious environment chose the water. This shows to some extent that environment and social factors play a role in one's decision to take drugs. I don't take this study very far because once again we are dealing with animals as opposed to humans who has free will.

RESOLVING THE CONTRADICTIONS OF ADDICTION

Leder[/B]

It's times like this where only the dictionary can clear things up.


What is the key word?? Compulsive.


If you are admitting that drugs can be compulsive and addiction is... "Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance"

Then the debate of:

Is addiction myth or reality?... is over.

You have conceded the only point that matters.

As for does addiction eliminate free will... I say no. Nothing eliminates free will other than brute strength and mental incapacity to the point of vegetation.

But you are connecting the two, which I don't understand how. A person can still maintain free will and be addicted... addiction does not mean that a person has no free will.

droop224, that may be how the dictionary defines addiction is the simplest of terms, but that is not exactly the commonly accepted definition among the medical community. The Wikipedia entry for Addiction says:



Now the key word in this definition that you don't have in yours in uncontrolled. If things were simply compulsive, than you are right we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would be agreeing to the same thing. But its the question of whether people are in control despite mitigating factors such as compulsion. Now i have tried to provide information to support my viewpoint but have not see research that says a person cannot control the consumption of an addictive substance, research has only been shown to prove that the substances have a harmful effect on the consumer which I am not disputing.

Ok I wouldn't make an update post if it wasn't furthering the debate along and obviously I feel strongly that the our current understanding of addiction (as a disease) is wrong and thus want to prove logically that it is. So here is more fuel for the fire and a basic summary of my argument.

The question that I asked in the opening was Is Addiction Myth or Reality? The real question i was asking is whether or not the concept of addiction is an uncontrollable disease or habitual behavior that is still controlled by free will. And that is what i was trying to convey and i apologize for any confusion on that. Here is my contentions: First, addictions exist in the sense of habitual behaviors that people do throughout their daily lives. Exercising, drinking coffee, reading, alcohol, drugs, and especially religion can all be consider an addiction because they are behaviors that are committed over and over due to one's enjoyment in the activity. The problem with the concept of addiction is that whether or not it is considered a disease (which i will discuss later) depends greatly on the social norm regarding the activity in question. For instance, many people on these boards are shown to post anywhere from 1-5 times per day. Its a habitual behavior in that almost every day they check the site and make a post on a certain topic. This activity is not seen as an addiction because there is no negative stigma for debating on an online forum and doing so is not considered to be a problem. However with some activities such as consuming heroin, there is a negative stigma regarding it which only exists due to the social norms of the culture. The stigma may not exist in some cultures or cultures that have legalized the use of narcotics. Thus, since heroin is "wrong," the habitual use of it is also "wrong" and is called an addiction. The truth of the matter is that people must choose which addictions it is they undertake in because some are considered ok while others are not, based soley on the beliefs of the culture we live in and not on any actual evidence.

Now with my longer post up above, I explored the origins of today's concept of addiction and we discovered that it starts with the colonial period and stems mainly from the temperance movement which lead to prohibition. Alcoholism (and i am mainly discussing alcoholism because it is one of the easier subjects to dicuss being the wide array of research and social stigma) during the last two centuries has had different meanings. Heavy drinking was first attributed to the drinker's will and interaction with the social environment, then to alcohol itself (temperance movement), and finally to the physiology of the drinker (end of Prohibition and the rise of AA programs and progressive reason). The Disease Model for addiction comes from Benjamin Rush (as I noted in my earlier post) who called drunken deviance a "disease of the will." This analysis was mainly a moral one as it was based on zero scientific evidence. The combination of moralism and medicine can be best illustrated by Rush's "moral and physical thermometer" which scaled the liquids of the day based on his feelings on what the liquids effect was. For instance, milk and small beer were associated wth "serenity of the mind, reputation, long life, and happiness" (Rush 1981). About the same time, the temperance movement was gaining steam in which they felt that drunkeness was not purely medical because it was both a SIN and a disease. Good morals and abstinence protected one from the disease. So we can see where morality plays a huge role in defining alcoholism as a disease. This line of thought gained strength in legal circles as obviously Prohibition occurred in the US. The repeal of Prohibition gave way to the modern form of thinking which is that those who are heavy drinkers (as well as drug abusers) are so because of a "loss-of-control" in which they are physiologically and psychologically unable to control there consuming of the substance.

Now when looking closely at the disease model for alcoholism we see biomedical researchers, as contended by the opposition, show genetic and physiological differences account for alcoholism (D.W. Goodwin 1988; F.K. Goodwin 1988; Blum et al. 1990; Tabakoff and Hoffman 1988). Yet there are still many biomedical researchers who find these claims invalid (Lester 1989; Bolos et al. 1990; Billings 1990). Now we are all quick to believe scientists because we hold the belief that because they are smarter than us (or atleast more knowledgeable) that they are also infallible in their fields which is completely untrue as we examine how medicine was used to the advantage of the Nazis who said Judaism was a disease and in the Soviet Union where dissent against the Soviet government was considered a disease. In this country, once recognized diseases include homosexuality, masturbation, and negritude (having black skin). People accept addiction as a disease because scientists say its a disease...as displayed by many posters on this thread. But the facts and reason contradict this.

As I have argued in this thread, the effects that certain substances have on a person is not significant but HOW the substances get into the body. Just because the habitual use of something causes a disease (such as heavy drinking leading to a diseased liver), that doesn't necessarily mean that the habit is caused by a disease. For instance, having sex is an activity that may lead to an STD, but continuous sex isnt in itself a disease. "They cannot control themselves" you say? Well fortunately, the loss of control theory has been discredited time and again by research. Numerous studies in which alcoholics moderate or control their drinking undermines that very theory when supposed diseased alcoholics are able to moderate or control their drinking (Bigalow et al. 1972; Cohen et al., Alcoholism, 1971; Cohen et al., Moderate Drinking, 1971; Davies 1952; Institute of Medicine 1990; Miller and Caddy 1977; Heather and Robertson 1981; Marlatt 1983; Miller 1983; Marlatt and Gordon 1985; Paredes et al. 1973; Pattison 1966; 1976; Pettison et al. 1977; Roizen, Cahalan, and Shanks 1978; Roizen 1987; Sobell, Sobell, and Christelman 1972; and Tuchfeld 1981) One very telling study by Merry in 1966, alcoholics who were unaware they were drinking alcohol did not develop an uncontrollable desire to drink more and reported no increase in craving. In Cohen et al.'s 1971 study, five chronic alcoholics were hospitalized and characterized as having no control over their addiction. In this study, the five subjects were actually given the opportunity to have as much alcohol that they wanted (up to 24 ounces of 95-proof ethanol on weekdays for 5 consecutive weeks), but were rewarded by better living conditions if they cut down their drinking. The results are telling because they moderated their drinking when rewarded with the better environment but returned to drinking when it was taken away.Engle and Williams also had an interesting finding when they found that the desire for alcohol increased when alcoholics were told they consumer alcohol even though they hadn't. "The Increased desire for alcohol was evidently based on the information provided or knowledge of its presence rather than on ana actual physical presence and chemical effect upon the organism. No evidence was found for a physiological relation between one drink of alcohol and an increased desire for alcohol in the alcoholic. (Engle and Williams 1972, p. 1103)" Another study that contradicts the loss of control theory found that alcoholics bought and stockpiled alcohol in order to get drunk in the future which implies planning and control over their drinking (Mello and Mendelson 1972).

However, my favorite experiment was conducted in 1973 by Marlatt, Deming, and Reid. 64 random alcoholics and social drinkers took part in a taste-rating task. One group was given a beverage that contained alcohol but were told was not alcohol even though it tasted like it. The other group was not given alcohol but were told that their drink did contain it. Can you guess the findings? Among both the alcoholics and social drinkers, "the consumption rates were higher in those conditions n which subjects were led to believe they would consumer alcohol, regardless of the actual beverage administered" (1973, p.240). So what does this all mean? That the foundations for addiction as a physiological addiction are baseless. The properties of a substance like alcohol make a person feel good and they use it because they want to and NOT because they have some physical and uncontrollable need for it. If anyone contends that the story is different for drugs like cocaine or heroin then you are sadly mistaken because users moderate and control there use just as much as alcohol and there is research to back that up but i think that the studies on alcoholism is sufficient for now.

What is the reality? Addiction is a choice, not a disease. People choose the behaviors that they undertake and yes they do so even at their own risk. There are many risky activities people do such as skiing, skydiving, bullfighting, car racing, exc... and taking drugs or drinking alcohol is no different. People who say that the use of drugs or alcohol lead to the destruction of lives are making a moral judgment and not one based on the evidence which is that the harm done by drugs has been exaggerated to continue the negative stigma of these substances. "Addicts" are told that they have a disease in which they cannot control and they must acknowledge that they have a problem in order to be "cured." What this does is creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the addict no longer believes he/she is in control of their own lives and cannot control their addictions. This makes them stop trying on their own and need the help of professionals who are all too happy to take a fee for the treatment. It also absolves the addict of any responsibility if he/she relapses or goes on a binge because the justification for the action is that they cannot control their actions. Treatment for addiction is not effective and there is no legitimate study that says treatment is any more effective than non-treatment.

I know that the public at large usually shys away from the idea that people are in control over their own lives and responsible for their actions. Its easier to believe that because people do things such as heroin which many make the moral judgment as a bad choice that those people have a disease. Its harder to explain why someone would shoot heroin and ruin their life if it was voluntary. But the all the facts point to the theory that the immediate gratification acquired by the drug is considered more than the long term consequences. And if a better incentive is presented (such as money) that the person will moderate or control their addiction in order to get the reward. This is hard to swallow because it goes against many of the tenets that we as a society have held for a very long time but I think its time that we see through the fallacies and come to our own conclusions.

P.S.- if anyone would like direct citations for the studies listed, i would be happy to oblige through a PM.