Re: Drug Addiction

--- In [email protected], "johnr" <keltonburg@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "hibbsa" <asbbih@> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to better understand the position coming out of the
> > philosophy on this matter. Something that puzzles me is this. Let's say
> > there is one camp that believes drug addiction is very real - perhaps we
> > could call this the mainstream camp. Then there is the Popper/Deutsch
> > camp that argue the whole concept of addiction is in error...that it's
> > about preferences, ideas, and so on.
> > Now, assuming that something both sides could agree on, is that there is
> > a phenomenon of, scare quotes "addiction" in society.  For example,
> > there are people who say they are addicted to something, who report that
> > they 'don't want' to take the drug but can't stop, as well as various
> > other self-reported or observed behaviors. Then on top of that, there
> > are the statistics that associate crime with drug "addiction".
> > Prostitutes report they are only selling their body to pay for their
> > habit, burglars that they are trying to feed a habit and so on.
> > The above are just examples that come to mind. But all I'm depending on
> > here, is that there is *some* agreement on *some* features of, scare
> > quotes "addiction".
> > Or that, for example, someone who is "addicted" to crack, is more
> > frequently in a disordered life, cannot hold a job down, looks awful,
> > experiences social isolation. Or whatever. Not requiring any of that to
> > be agreed on, only that there would be some agreement around some list
> > of lifestyle impacts.
> >
> > So here's my question: What difference does it make to the phenomenon of
> > "addiction" and its consequences, who is right about what "addiction"
> > really is? I mean, would not that phenomenon still be there?
> > One obvious answer is that with good philosophy, drug taking would be
> > legalized, not stigmatized, and much more cheaply available. That's fair
> > enough.  OK sure, but then what about the life-style impacts of, say,
> > crack addiction such as not being able to hold down a job. If that was
> > happening now, it would still be happening if drugs were legalized,
> > surely?
> > So yeah...what would be different on the ground if Popperians are right?
> 
> As a former addict,starting from the age of 13. Also having an unmanageable life either schooling or work.Attending AA for many years,involved with addicts and prostitutes for many years ,the conclusion of my life it all was due to mental illness,Bipolar.This OS something that's denied in AA circles they day its a disease,that it isn't ,neither is it a spiritual menstrual and physical illness ,it is mental.The spiritual part is if you believe in a higher power your life Will change,a banana could be your higher power,you would still change. But you would still have a mental illness, the reason stability is in some peoples lives is they focus on the one day at a time program.So nothing is ever out of the mindset. It's just hibernation no more no less.


I can answer but not exactly from Popparian lens. In particular I had one son with ADHD/ODD/OCD and another with Autism/bipolar. The autistic is ~90% cured. That is, he went from no eye contact at age 3 to being enrolled and competitive with his peers by Kindergarten. In general physical is the easiest, then mental, and finally emotional to fix. The ADHD/ODD/OCD is much more difficult as we didn't hit on the right approach until much later in his life (~16.) However we did stop the ODD (VERY difficult to manage) and his ADHD/OCD is much more manageable. As a result he is at Texas Tech holding a 3.8 his first semester instead of getting Cs as he did 3 years ago as a 10th in high school.

I found all three illnesses are on the same spectrum and treatment is very similar. Unfortunately western med is VERY good at symptom abatement and taking over when the body fails itself (i.e. broken bone, heart attack, etc.) However, when dealing with systemic illness it tends to try to treat parts and isn't very good at acknowledging failure or recognizing alternative approaches. (As no one or anything can be good at everything.)

At a very high level the disease appears to be a collapse of the body's outerwall (gut - 80% of immunity), an overrun of the body with "bad things" (toxins, critters, etc), and finally a collapse of the inner keep wall (blood/brain barrier) followed by brain swelling which seems to result in many, but not all, of the symptoms. (Being a systemic illness symbiotic critters like fungus (i.e yeast) set up shop and their toxins cause emotional swings (Bi-polar), brain fog & inability to "will" yourself (ADHD) Some folks are more prone and this runs in families - genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger. 

Since folks on the spectrum tend to be risk takers and US is a place of opportunity - you'll find yourself among peers if you live here. Also certain professions require being on the spectrum to excel - i.e. IT is about 60% or so of folks with varying degrees on the spectrum. 

The approach we used as a cure (at least for the negative aspects) is:
1. Control the environment (stop the attack)
2. Trust the body can do the right thing and build it up.
3. When the body is strong enough - "detox" which includes kicking out everything from toxins to critters.

Obviously a very big topic. I do have quit a bit written out about what worked for us, the theory of why since it required throwing out the standard tools I used in my work as a closet academic,etc.

http://bit.ly/A58cOF
http://bit.ly/y5MId2