How America Lost the War on Drugs

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://www.rollingstone.com/news/st..._war_on_drugs/

How America Lost the War on Drugs
After Thirty-Five Years and $500 Billion, Drugs Are as Cheap and Plentiful as Ever: An Anatomy of a Failure.
BEN WALLACE-WELLS
Posted Nov 27, 2007 12:56 PM

1. AFTER PABLO

On the day of his death, December 2nd, 1993, the Colombian billionaire drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was on the run and living in a small, tiled-roof house in a middle-class neighborhood of Medellín, close to the soccer stadium. He died, theatrically, ridiculously, gunned down by a Colombian police manhunt squad while he tried to flee across the barrio's rooftops, a fat, bearded man who had kicked off his flip-flops to try to outrun the bullets. The first thing the American drug agents who arrived on the scene wanted to do was to make sure that the corpse was actually Escobar's. The second thing was to check his house.

{snip}

(See the rest of this article here: https://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto..._war_on_drugs/)

[thewholetruth]

$500 BILLION spent on the 'drug war', and America is sicker than ever with more marijuana addicts, meth addicts and cocaine addicts - not to mention alcoholics - than ever before, per capita.

What an amazing waste of time. At what point do we say "We can't win this this way". Do we let drug addicts go ahead and have all the drugs they want by legalizing them, letting the sickest kill themselves off in the mass nationwide drug overdose that surely would take place immediately following legalization?

There is no doubt that all of us who work with drug addicts and alcoholics have job security right now. It's not getting better. It just keeps getting worse.

Don

https://www.rollingstone.com/news/st..._war_on_drugs/

How America Lost the War on Drugs
After Thirty-Five Years and $500 Billion, Drugs Are as Cheap and Plentiful as Ever: An Anatomy of a Failure.
BEN WALLACE-WELLS
Posted Nov 27, 2007 12:56 PM

1. AFTER PABLO

On the day of his death, December 2nd, 1993, the Colombian billionaire drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was on the run and living in a small, tiled-roof house in a middle-class neighborhood of Medellín, close to the soccer stadium. He died, theatrically, ridiculously, gunned down by a Colombian police manhunt squad while he tried to flee across the barrio's rooftops, a fat, bearded man who had kicked off his flip-flops to try to outrun the bullets. The first thing the American drug agents who arrived on the scene wanted to do was to make sure that the corpse was actually Escobar's. The second thing was to check his house.

{snip}

(See the rest of this article here: https://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto..._war_on_drugs/)

[Dynamique]

A big clue to the failure is right in the title: the WAR on drugs. The "war" mentality is doomed to failure. It's not a military endeavor, it's a social and human problem.

Legalization or decriminalization would certainly be a major step in the right direction. With respect to cannabis in particular, ending these goofball anti-pot laws from the 1930s would mean that Americans could return to growing hemp (not marijuana) as a crop. It's a crop that we could use in many ways, including as a source of biofuel that does not compete with food production.

Another step that makes much more sense than a "war" is making low-cost drug detox and rehab available as part of a comprehensive public health service. This would significantly reduce the demand for "recreational" drugs. My guess is that 30-50% of this non-prescription drug use is self-medication for depression and other mental illness. If we had effective public health services, including mental health services, much of the customer base would be removed.

As the Columbians are fond of saying, if nobody in the US was buying cocaine, they would not be producing it and selling it.

$500 BILLION spent on the 'drug war', and America is sicker than ever with more marijuana addicts, meth addicts and cocaine addicts - not to mention alcoholics - than ever before, per capita.

What an amazing waste of time. At what point do we say "We can't win this this way". Do we let drug addicts go ahead and have all the drugs they want by legalizing them, letting the sickest kill themselves off in the mass nationwide drug overdose that surely would take place immediately following legalization?

There is no doubt that all of us who work with drug addicts and alcoholics have job security right now. It's not getting better. It just keeps getting worse.

Don

[Tars]

$500 BILLION spent on the 'drug war', and America is sicker than ever with more marijuana addicts, meth addicts and cocaine addicts - not to mention alcoholics - than ever before, per capita.

When I've posted about this subject here before, I was accused of being stupid or naive. Whatever. But I couldn't let the "marijuana addicts" thing go unopposed this time. While I agree heartily with the sentiment that the drug war has wasted far too much of our resources...."marijuana addicts"? Please. Sounds like a timewarp to the '40's.

Do we let drug addicts go ahead and have all the drugs they want by legalizing them, letting the sickest kill themselves off in the mass nationwide drug overdose that surely would take place immediately following legalization?

Suggest you watch the excellent documentary currently showing on "IFC" (I think most of it's on YouTube as well) entitled (I think), "The Drug Years".
In it is a considerable portion examining the results of Holland's results from de-criminalization, not legalization. Many Dutch people only know about the meth epidemic in the U.S. from U.S. sources; it isn't a significant problem in their country. Both heroin and methadone are available in regulated potency and dosage, in state run clinics. The Dutch have realized that it's much more humane and cost-effective to have clinics, instead of prisons.

In the longterm I believe that most currently illegal drugs, if not all, will be de-criminalized. It won't happen immediately, as you alude. If marijuana is any indication, the de-criminalization process will happen in bits & pieces, drug-by-drug. A good place to start would be for individuals in the U.S. to educate themselves more about the specifics of various drugs & policies. We need a much higher (no pun) percentage of our population who know, for instance, that

marijuana is not addictive.

"Addiction: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." - Merriam Webster dictionary

[thewholetruth]

As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless. Those who pretend marijuana isn't addictive are typically those who are addicted, with very few exceptions. They like to feel like there is nothing wrong with their pot smoking, and so they encourage others to smoke pot too, touting the fact that it's not an addictive substance like opiates are. The biggest problem with pot smokers is the same problem every other addict has: Denial. Denial keeps addicts convinced that they don't have a problem. It literally blinds people to the truth about their addictions.

Your holding Holland up as some kind of example is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Give everyone pot and they'll stay away from other drugs? Perhaps because pot makes everyone apathetic and lethargic, and gives people the false sense that "Everything's okay" even when it's not, perhaps that is why people fall into the trap of staying stoned rather than getting wired. Who knows, really?

Not you. And not me. And I don't really care what how loaded they get legally in Holland. I do know that staying straight, keeping all of your faculties and intuition is far healthier than being stoned.

But thanks for sharing, dood.

Don

[thewholetruth]

BTW, I love your little icon. Totally insane, dood.

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

Don, this seems rather simplistic. Is this a theory, hypothesis, or fact? And if fact, what's your proof? Many researchers do not agree with this. See attachment.

As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless.
Don

[thewholetruth]

I agree, it sounds rather simplistic. However, experience has shown that it is true, Zeno. 17 years of experience as a recovery addiction specialist, helping tens of thousands of drug/gambling/pornography/sex/relationship addicts and alcoholics get free from their addictions has confirmed what I said.

People who actually work in the field have observed what your "researcher" has missed. Some Psychologists and Pschiatrists might disagree, as well, but Psychologists and Psychiatrists have no successful track record for helping people overcome addictions.

You can always find people to disagree with a given POV, Zeno.

Don

Don, this seems rather simplistic. Is this a theory, hypothesis, or fact? And if fact, what's your proof? Many researchers do not agree with this. See attachment.

[shellebelle]

I also agree its not a war. Its poor personal choices.

Every day we make choices!

We make choices to minimize the negative impact to the earth and I want to point out we should invest equally in our family, friends and community by responsible "use".

No child should feel the impact of "use" on their lives.

Whether it be over consumption of product, drug use (legal or illegal), alcohol, etc the list is long.



As the child of a recovering addict we as kids with our friends who were also children of addicts (mostly alcohol, lots of abuse; mental, physical and in some cases sexual) we defined addict from a similar perspective.

The "use" is not the key the lack of correction when one is showed that the "use" is impacting another is.

Mind you we created this definition at about 10 years old and many of us have kept it.

Addiction is when your "use" affects another person in a negative way and you "can't" change your actions despite being shown the negative impact to and despite "wishing" to change for those you love and care for.

This is true of shoppers who run their credit cards and finances to the point they can't care for their family to those like my father who drank to not hear/deal with my mother who was excessively abusive to us kids.


When a child says "For my birthday the only present I want is for you to stop . . ." please listen. Find out the whys.

As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless.
Don

[Tars]

Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless.

Total agreement! An addictive personality can become addicted to anything, not just substances. If they don't have access to one 'factor", such as marijuana, they may well get addicted to something else...coffee, long-distance running, porn, whatever.

Those who pretend marijuana isn't addictive are typically those who are addicted, with very few exceptions.

A rash generalization, which seems to refute your prior statement above. I use marijuana; I'm not addicted. Sometimes I smoke a little every day, several days in a row other times I go several weeks, months, or even years without imbibing. I know a few people immediate to my life who do the same. Not a large population sampling for sure. But significant enough to illustrate the point.

Now, I am addicted to sugar. If I go without for more than a couple of days, I get some real cravings. My wife struggles with tobacco. Both sugar and tobacco kill millions of people every year. I wouldn't advocate criminalizing either one of them - it's been demonstrated ad nauseum that prohibition just adds to the problem. As society de-criminalizes marijuana, we are not seeing a huge growth in usage, in fact it's more the opposite. Much more effective approaches involve behavior modification, education, and counseling of the addict.

Compared to actually addictive substances, marijuana is virtually benign. It's about as "addictive" as an addiction to soap operas or bingo; less addictive than say Diet Coke or nasal inhalers. An addictive personality can become fixated on any of them to the detriment of their individual life.

Marijuana is not addictive - some people are addictive. Deal with it by counseling, 12-steps, behavior mod, or whatever process(es) works for the individual addictive personality; not by mis-characterizing the drug as being "addictive".

[MsTerry]

Addiction, as a word, is a noun which in modern sense was first attested in 1906, in reference to opium (there is an isolated instance from 1779, with ref. to tobacco). The first use of the adjective addict (with the meaning of "delivered, devoted") was in 1529 and comes from Latin addictus, pp. of addicere ("deliver, yield, devote," from ad-, "to" + dicere, "say, declare").^[1]
Addiction was a term used to describe a devotion, attachment, dedication, inclination, etc. Nowadays, however, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life. The term is often reserved for drug addictions but it is sometimes applied to other compulsions, such as problem gambling, and compulsive overeating. Factors that have been suggested as causes of addiction include genetic, biological/pharmacological and social factors.
Decades ago addiction was a pharmacological term that clearly referred to the use of a tolerance-inducing drug in sufficient quantity as to cause tolerance (the requirement that greater dosages of a given drug be used to produce an identical effect as time passes). With that definition, humans (and indeed all mammals) can become addicted to various drugs quickly. Almost at the same time, a lay definition of addiction developed. This definition referred to individuals who continued to use a given drug despite their own best interest. This latter definition is now thought of as a disease state by the medical community.
Physical dependence, abuse of, and withdrawal from drugs and other miscellaneous substances is outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR). Terminology has become quite complicated in the field. To wit, pharmacologists continue to speak of addiction from a physiologic standpoint (some call this a physical dependence); psychiatrists refer to the disease state as dependence; most other physicians refer to the disease as addiction. The field of psychiatry is now considering, as they move from DSM-IV to DSM-V, transitioning from "dependence" to "addiction" as terminology for the disease state.
The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological dependence (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but to the definition of some it is not categorized as "addiction". In practice, the two kinds of addiction are not always easy to distinguish. Addictions often have both physical and psychological components.
There is also a lesser known situation called pseudo-addiction.^[2] (Weissman and Haddox, 1989) A patient will exhibit drug-seeking behavior reminiscent of psychological addiction, but they tend to have genuine pain or other symptoms that have been undertreated. Unlike true psychological addiction, these behaviors tend to stop when the pain is adequately treated.
The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated, because of its connotations. In modern pain management with opioids physical dependence is nearly universal. While opiates are essential in the treatment of acute pain, the benefit of this class of medication in chronic pain is not well proven. Clearly, there are those who would not function well without opiate treatment; on the other hand, many states are noting significant increases in non-intentional deaths related to opiate use. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to better delineate the risks and benefits of chronic opiate use.
Not all doctors agree on what addiction or dependency is. Traditionally, addiction has been defined as being possible only to a psychoactive substance (for example alcohol, tobacco and other drugs) which ingested cross the blood-brain barrier, altering the natural chemical behavior of the brain temporarily. However, "Studies on phenomenology, family history, and response to treatment suggest that intermittent explosive disorder, kleptomania, pathological gambling, pyromania, and trichotillomania may be related to mood disorders, alcohol and psychoactive substance abuse, and anxiety disorders (especially obsessive-compulsive disorder).^[3]
It is generally accepted that addiction is a disease, a state of physiological or psychological dependence or devotion to something manifesting as a condition in which medically significant symptoms liable to have a damaging effect are present.^[4]
Many people, both psychology professionals and laypersons, now feel that there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as gambling, food, sex, pornography, computers, work, exercise, cutting, shopping, and religion^[5] so these behaviours count as diseases as well and don't cause guilt, shame, fear, hopelessness, failure, rejection,anxiety, or humiliation symptoms associated with, among other medical conditions, depression^[6],epilepsy,^[7] and hyperreligiosity.^[8] In depression related to religious addiction "The religious addict seeks to avoid pain and overcome shame by becoming involved in a belief system which offers security through its rigidity and its absolute values."^[9] While religion and spirituality may play a key role in psychotherapeutic support and recovery, it can also be a source of pain, guilt and exclusion, and religious themes may also play a negative role in psychopathology.^[10] Although, the above mentioned are things or tasks which, when used or performed, do not fit into the traditional view of addiction and may be better defined as an obsessive-compulsive disorder,withdrawal symptoms may occur with abatement of such behaviors. It is said by those who adhere to a traditionalist view that these withdrawal-like symptoms are not strictly reflective of an addiction, but rather of a behavioral disorder. However, understanding of neural science, the brain, the nervous system, human behavior, and affective disorders has revealed "the impact of molecular biology in the mechanisms underlying developmental processes and in the pathogenesis of disease".^[11] The use of thyroid hormones as an effective adjunct treatment for affective disorders has been studied over the past three decades and has been confirmed repeatedly.^[12] In spite of traditionalist protests and warnings that overextension of definitions may cause the wrong treatment to be used (thus failing the person with the behavioral problem), popular media, and some members of the field, do represent the aforementioned behavioral examples as addictions.
Recently, some have modeled addiction using the tools of Economics, for instance, by calculating the elasticity of addictive goods and determining to what extent present income and consumption has on future consumption

[Lorrie]

(a little off topic)
I have a question...don... how to ask... uh...
...I don't want a several page long drawn out lose attention, big words, answer.


However, considering there is probably little to avoid it.


Can you answer in one sentence ...or two..okay. In the simplest..what should a person do to recover from addiction?


Or is it true you can not answer this because everyone is different and the reasons behind their addictions vary so there is no simple answer?

Or are all people with addictions basically the same?

Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?
2. All people are different no simple answer?
3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal....

I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...

As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless. Those who pretend marijuana isn't addictive are typically those who are addicted, with very few exceptions. They like to feel like there is nothing wrong with their pot smoking, and so they encourage others to smoke pot too, touting the fact that it's not an addictive substance like opiates are. The biggest problem with pot smokers is the same problem every other addict has: Denial. Denial keeps addicts convinced that they don't have a problem. It literally blinds people to the truth about their addictions.

Your holding Holland up as some kind of example is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Give everyone pot and they'll stay away from other drugs? Perhaps because pot makes everyone apathetic and lethargic, and gives people the false sense that "Everything's okay" even when it's not, perhaps that is why people fall into the trap of staying stoned rather than getting wired. Who knows, really?

Not you. And not me. And I don't really care what how loaded they get legally in Holland. I do know that staying straight, keeping all of your faculties and intuition is far healthier than being stoned.

But thanks for sharing, dood.

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

If you help people get free of their addiction, and addiction is a matter of personality then you must help people change their personality. Most personality theories emphasize stability over fluctuation. How do you help people change their personality? Or does one remain an alcoholic, like the dry drunk?

As a practitioner do you have the resources to keep track of your clients over time in any systematic way and gain knowledge of long term effects of your treatment? That is, how do you gain an objective view of your track record?

I asked to relate this to your idea of "proof," "fact," etc. Does 17 year of experience constitute proof in itself? Do you deny that force-feeding an non-addictive personality say benzodiazepines does not lead to addiction?

I agree, it sounds rather simplistic. However, experience has shown that it is true, Zeno. 17 years of experience as a recovery addiction specialist, helping tens of thousands of drug/gambling/pornography/sex/relationship addicts and alcoholics get free from their addictions has confirmed what I said.

People who actually work in the field have observed what your "researcher" has missed. Some Psychologists and Pschiatrists might disagree, as well, but Psychologists and Psychiatrists have no successful track record for helping people overcome addictions.

You can always find people to disagree with a given POV, Zeno.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Marijuana is addictive. It's also one of the two most common gateway drugs. That is, most meth, cocaine and heroin addicts admit that marijuana was first when they started using illegal drugs. Gambling is addictive, video games are addictive, many, many things are addictive, and marijuana is one of them.

The use you describe is the same kind of description pot addicts offer when asked about their use. And I've heard that story so many times, I don't hesitate to admit that I seriously doubt you've ever gone months or years without pot unless you were incarcerated.

Your reply is virtually the same story every addict in Denial tells, and I've heard plenty of them. Virtually every addict in recovery admits telling the same kinds of tall tales about how they only "use" pot, not "abuse" pot, while they were in Denial. Pointing to sugar? That's what addicts do when confronted about their pot/meth/coke addiction: 'Hey, look over there!'

Pretty classic, your post.

Don

Total agreement! An addictive personality can become addicted to anything, not just substances. If they don't have access to one 'factor", such as marijuana, they may well get addicted to something else...coffee, long-distance running, porn, whatever.

A rash generalization, which seems to refute your prior statement above. I use marijuana; I'm not addicted. Sometimes I smoke a little every day, several days in a row other times I go several weeks, months, or even years without imbibing. I know a few people immediate to my life who do the same. Not a large population sampling for sure. But significant enough to illustrate the point.

Now, I am addicted to sugar. If I go without for more than a couple of days, I get some real cravings. My wife struggles with tobacco. Both sugar and tobacco kill millions of people every year. I wouldn't advocate criminalizing either one of them - it's been demonstrated ad nauseum that prohibition just adds to the problem. As society de-criminalizes marijuana, we are not seeing a huge growth in usage, in fact it's more the opposite. Much more effective approaches involve behavior modification, education, and counseling of the addict.

Compared to actually addictive substances, marijuana is virtually benign. It's about as "addictive" as an addiction to soap operas or bingo; less addictive than say Diet Coke or nasal inhalers. An addictive personality can become fixated on any of them to the detriment of their individual life.

Marijuana is not addictive - some people are addictive. Deal with it by counseling, 12-steps, behavior mod, or whatever process(es) works for the individual addictive personality; not by mis-characterizing the drug as being "addictive".

[thewholetruth]

"Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?"

12 Steps. Simple as that. I've been watching folks for years. Never have I seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed that path. Never.

"2. All people are different no simple answer?"

Simple answer. While the nature of one's brokenness varies from person to person - be it abuse, molestation, neglect, with or without the added bonus of being overly sensitive and/or overly emotional and accounting for the misconceptions/perceptions of a child - the solution is the same for everyone, no matter how sick or broken they might be. Some recover quickly, some slowly, but they all recover if they thoroughly follow that path.

"3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal...."

Addiction is addiction. People are people. Brokenness is brokenness. How addicted we become varies from person to person. But many things are common to those who wish to overcome addiction. Complete abstinance is required, as it rigorous honesty. Anything less always - yes, always - results in relapse. There are other aspects which are required of all addicts if their chances of recovering are going to be good, but too many to list in this brief synopsis you asked for.

Bill and Bob, the 2 Christian men who founded AA, didn't have 12 Steps. They had 6 steps gleaned from the Oxford Group, a Christian organization that had some success, but not nearly the success AA has had with overcoming alcoholism and addiction. 6.5 billion people on the planet, and just 12 steps. That's how simple it is. Half-measures, we've seen, avail folks nothing. Thoroughly following this path is required for success, and the only reasons people fail is (a) because they aren't willing to thoroughly follow this path, or (b) mental illness is so great they aren't capable of following this path.

"I hope you understand what I am trying to ask..."

I do. I know that there are people on this board who will try to pick my comments apart and try to tell me I'm wrong, or that it's not that simple, and I've already heard it all. It's exactly as I've said. It's that simple. It's not easy, but it's simple. Practicing principles is simply required. That seems to be what people balk at most. Many folks have a hard time with rigorous honesty. Forgiveness comes hard for some, as well, until they learn that forgiveness isn't for the person who has dissed you. Forgiveness is for you. No peace inside us when we're harboring resentment. Humility is another principle that people have trouble practicing, and real faith is another. With the right teachers, we can learn how to do this. Left to our own devices, we'll keep on stumbling through our lives like we always have. Surrender = victory is not something our intellect grasps. Spiritual laws aren't something our intellect grasps, either. Needless to say, intellect doesn't play a big role in facilitating recovery despite the fact that the vast majority of recovering addicts are above average intelligence. I'm probably getting in too deep now.

I hope this helps, Lorrie. It's one man's opinion, based on years of experience, but I work with the sickest of the sick, and thoroughly following the path leads to freedom from addiction for every person who does it. I don't care what the addiction is. Addiction is addiction, and we know how to overcome it now. It's not rocket science. And there are millions of addicts and counselors on the planet who have witnessed and/or experienced the same thing I have.

Okay, Waccos. I think this is where you commonly start throwing rocks and trying to poke holes in my comments.

Don

(a little off topic)
I have a question...don... how to ask... uh...
...I don't want a several page long drawn out lose attention, big words, answer.


However, considering there is probably little to avoid it.


Can you answer in one sentence ...or two..okay. In the simplest..what should a person do to recover from addiction?


Or is it true you can not answer this because everyone is different and the reasons behind their addictions vary so there is no simple answer?

Or are all people with addictions basically the same?

Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?
2. All people are different no simple answer?
3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal....

I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...

[Lorrie]

You passed! You're right! I have had same experience and info I have gleaned with those with addiction/addictives.

Very good!
And thank you.
Mind you, I do not have an addictive personality.

"Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?"

12 Steps. Simple as that. I've been watching folks for years. Never have I seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed that path. Never.

"2. All people are different no simple answer?"

Simple answer. While the nature of one's brokenness varies from person to person - be it abuse, molestation, neglect, with or without the added bonus of being overly sensitive and/or overly emotional and accounting for the misconceptions/perceptions of a child - the solution is the same for everyone, no matter how sick or broken they might be. Some recover quickly, some slowly, but they all recover if they thoroughly follow that path.

"3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal...."

Addiction is addiction. People are people. Brokenness is brokenness. How addicted we become varies from person to person. But many things are common to those who wish to overcome addiction. Complete abstinance is required, as it rigorous honesty. Anything less always - yes, always - results in relapse. There are other aspects which are required of all addicts if their chances of recovering are going to be good, but too many to list in this brief synopsis you asked for.

Bill and Bob, the 2 Christian men who founded AA, didn't have 12 Steps. They had 6 steps gleaned from the Oxford Group, a Christian organization that had some success, but not nearly the success AA has had with overcoming alcoholism and addiction. 6.5 billion people on the planet, and just 12 steps. That's how simple it is. Half-measures, we've seen, avail folks nothing. Thoroughly following this path is required for success, and the only reasons people fail is (a) because they aren't willing to thoroughly follow this path, or (b) mental illness is so great they aren't capable of following this path.

"I hope you understand what I am trying to ask..."

I do. I know that there are people on this board who will try to pick my comments apart and try to tell me I'm wrong, or that it's not that simple, and I've already heard it all. It's exactly as I've said. It's that simple. It's not easy, but it's simple. Practicing principles is simply required. That seems to be what people balk at most. Many folks have a hard time with rigorous honesty. Forgiveness comes hard for some, as well, until they learn that forgiveness isn't for the person who has dissed you. Forgiveness is for you. No peace inside us when we're harboring resentment. Humility is another principle that people have trouble practicing, and real faith is another. With the right teachers, we can learn how to do this. Left to our own devices, we'll keep on stumbling through our lives like we always have. Surrender = victory is not something our intellect grasps. Spiritual laws aren't something our intellect grasps, either. Needless to say, intellect doesn't play a big role in facilitating recovery despite the fact that the vast majority of recovering addicts are above average intelligence. I'm probably getting in too deep now.

I hope this helps, Lorrie. It's one man's opinion, based on years of experience, but I work with the sickest of the sick, and thoroughly following the path leads to freedom from addiction for every person who does it. I don't care what the addiction is. Addiction is addiction, and we know how to overcome it now. It's not rocket science. And there are millions of addicts and counselors on the planet who have witnessed and/or experienced the same thing I have.

Okay, Waccos. I think this is where you commonly start throwing rocks and trying to poke holes in my comments.

Don

[thewholetruth]

I'm incapable of changing anyone's personality, Zeno, but you are correct that a profound change in personality is required in order for real recovery to take place. I'm not sure that any explanation that I give here is going to be considered sufficient by you, sir. Let it just be said that if there is no profound change in a person's personality, they will not likely do things any differently than they already do. Fortunately, the 12 Steps facilitate that necessary change in anyone who thoroughly follows them.

"As a practitioner do you have the resources to keep track of your clients over time in any systematic way and gain knowledge of long term effects of your treatment?"

I do.

"That is, how do you gain an objective view of your track record?"

The proof is the lives changed, Zeno. There is no way to fudge numbers when it's a matter of successful recovery vs. relapse. The reasons for relapse are always the same: not thoroughly following what one learns regarding the 12 Steps and active involvement in the recovering community.

"I asked to relate this to your idea of "proof," "fact," etc. Does 17 year of experience constitute proof in itself?"

No sir. My confidence is not just in my own 17 years of experience and observation. I've got 17 years of confirming that recovery happens and that the 12 Steps work every single time a person thoroughly practices them. Also, I'm a member of the world's largest secret organization, whose members stay plugged in to one another and report on the successes and failures, and the causes for each. This research has been going on for more than 75 years. Addiction is no longer a mystery to the recovering community, sir. It's only a mystery to many psychologists and psychiatrists, but then, they aren't collectively really motivated to help someone overcome addiction, now are they? One less customer to analyze when recovery actually happens.

"Do you deny that force-feeding an non-addictive personality say benzodiazepines does not lead to addiction?"

I've never personally observed such hehavior, Zeno. If your question is whether or not a nonaddictive personality can become addicted to things, the answer is yes. They sure can.

[thewholetruth]

I passed? YAYYYY!

Thanks, Lorrie!

Don

You passed! You're right! I have had same experience and info I have gleaned with those with addiction/addictives.

Very good!
And thank you.
Mind you, I do not have an addictive personality.

[thewholetruth]

Some of what you posted is inaccurate psychobabble, having little or no relevance to actually treating active addiction. Psychologists and psychiatrists are full of crap, much of the time, and they resent the spiritual solution that the 12 Steps are, as their client base has been greatly diminished since their introduction and widespread, worldwide success.

I've read it all before, MsTerry, and some of what you've posted is standard crap from the psychologist/psychiatrist vines that we call "sour grapes".

The truth is that psychiatrists and psychologists never figured out how to overcome addiction, and they resent those who have.

Don

Addiction, as a word, is a noun which in modern sense was first attested in 1906, in reference to opium (there is an isolated instance from 1779, with ref. to tobacco). The first use of the adjective addict (with the meaning of "delivered, devoted") was in 1529 and comes from Latin addictus, pp. of addicere ("deliver, yield, devote," from ad-, "to" + dicere, "say, declare").^[1]
Addiction was a term used to describe a devotion, attachment, dedication, inclination, etc. Nowadays, however, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life. The term is often reserved for drug addictions but it is sometimes applied to other compulsions, such as problem gambling, and compulsive overeating. Factors that have been suggested as causes of addiction include genetic, biological/pharmacological and social factors.
Decades ago addiction was a pharmacological term that clearly referred to the use of a tolerance-inducing drug in sufficient quantity as to cause tolerance (the requirement that greater dosages of a given drug be used to produce an identical effect as time passes). With that definition, humans (and indeed all mammals) can become addicted to various drugs quickly. Almost at the same time, a lay definition of addiction developed. This definition referred to individuals who continued to use a given drug despite their own best interest. This latter definition is now thought of as a disease state by the medical community.
Physical dependence, abuse of, and withdrawal from drugs and other miscellaneous substances is outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR). Terminology has become quite complicated in the field. To wit, pharmacologists continue to speak of addiction from a physiologic standpoint (some call this a physical dependence); psychiatrists refer to the disease state as dependence; most other physicians refer to the disease as addiction. The field of psychiatry is now considering, as they move from DSM-IV to DSM-V, transitioning from "dependence" to "addiction" as terminology for the disease state.
The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological dependence (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but to the definition of some it is not categorized as "addiction". In practice, the two kinds of addiction are not always easy to distinguish. Addictions often have both physical and psychological components.
There is also a lesser known situation called pseudo-addiction.^[2] (Weissman and Haddox, 1989) A patient will exhibit drug-seeking behavior reminiscent of psychological addiction, but they tend to have genuine pain or other symptoms that have been undertreated. Unlike true psychological addiction, these behaviors tend to stop when the pain is adequately treated.
The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated, because of its connotations. In modern pain management with opioids physical dependence is nearly universal. While opiates are essential in the treatment of acute pain, the benefit of this class of medication in chronic pain is not well proven. Clearly, there are those who would not function well without opiate treatment; on the other hand, many states are noting significant increases in non-intentional deaths related to opiate use. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to better delineate the risks and benefits of chronic opiate use.
Not all doctors agree on what addiction or dependency is. Traditionally, addiction has been defined as being possible only to a psychoactive substance (for example alcohol, tobacco and other drugs) which ingested cross the blood-brain barrier, altering the natural chemical behavior of the brain temporarily. However, "Studies on phenomenology, family history, and response to treatment suggest that intermittent explosive disorder, kleptomania, pathological gambling, pyromania, and trichotillomania may be related to mood disorders, alcohol and psychoactive substance abuse, and anxiety disorders (especially obsessive-compulsive disorder).^[3]
It is generally accepted that addiction is a disease, a state of physiological or psychological dependence or devotion to something manifesting as a condition in which medically significant symptoms liable to have a damaging effect are present.^[4]
Many people, both psychology professionals and laypersons, now feel that there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as gambling, food, sex, pornography, computers, work, exercise, cutting, shopping, and religion^[5] so these behaviours count as diseases as well and don't cause guilt, shame, fear, hopelessness, failure, rejection,anxiety, or humiliation symptoms associated with, among other medical conditions, depression^[6],epilepsy,^[7] and hyperreligiosity.^[8] In depression related to religious addiction "The religious addict seeks to avoid pain and overcome shame by becoming involved in a belief system which offers security through its rigidity and its absolute values."^[9] While religion and spirituality may play a key role in psychotherapeutic support and recovery, it can also be a source of pain, guilt and exclusion, and religious themes may also play a negative role in psychopathology.^[10] Although, the above mentioned are things or tasks which, when used or performed, do not fit into the traditional view of addiction and may be better defined as an obsessive-compulsive disorder,withdrawal symptoms may occur with abatement of such behaviors. It is said by those who adhere to a traditionalist view that these withdrawal-like symptoms are not strictly reflective of an addiction, but rather of a behavioral disorder. However, understanding of neural science, the brain, the nervous system, human behavior, and affective disorders has revealed "the impact of molecular biology in the mechanisms underlying developmental processes and in the pathogenesis of disease".^[11] The use of thyroid hormones as an effective adjunct treatment for affective disorders has been studied over the past three decades and has been confirmed repeatedly.^[12] In spite of traditionalist protests and warnings that overextension of definitions may cause the wrong treatment to be used (thus failing the person with the behavioral problem), popular media, and some members of the field, do represent the aforementioned behavioral examples as addictions.
Recently, some have modeled addiction using the tools of Economics, for instance, by calculating the elasticity of addictive goods and determining to what extent present income and consumption has on future consumption

[Lenny]

(a little off topic)
I have a question...don... how to ask... uh...
...I don't want a several page long drawn out lose attention, big words, answer.
However, considering there is probably little to avoid it.
Can you answer in one sentence ...or two..okay. In the simplest..what should a person do to recover from addiction?
Or is it true you can not answer this because everyone is different and the reasons behind their addictions vary so there is no simple answer? Or are all people with addictions basically the same?
Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?
2. All people are different no simple answer?
3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal....
I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...

Every one has "their story" in answering the above. For me, and I find it common, a root source & problem is PRIDE. Found self with a gun in my mouth, and/or at the bottom of the bottle, on the floor, soaked in own fluids, and finally realized, "I am NOT God", and stuff like that. There IS something OUTSIDE and it is GREATER and it is not in me or your friend, so you can NOT "lick it, beat it, get better" and all the other crap I told myself. Some folks have to hit that bottom point. Just buried a beautiful boy about 3 weeks ago. Everyone thought he was a Jesus-freak....he wasn't, but during that ceremony a number of young kids got up and actually confessed to thinking about taking themselves out. I wanted to stand and scream, "Come to me, and I will MAKE you glad about life". We are a pride filled race, and some think they can beat it. They can't, but they don't know.
OK, shut my trap and keep it short. But thanks for the rant.

[MsTerry]

.

Okay, Waccos. I think this is where you commonly start throwing rocks and trying to poke holes in my comments.

Don

No Don, you are doing it for us
You are not curing addiction, you are replacing addiction with a program and then call it a cure when they become addicted to the program.

[Zeno Swijtink]

addictive. (...) addict (...) addiction

Don

Wonder how you, or the 12 Step movement, defines these terms.

[Tars]

12 Steps. Simple as that.

OK, that explains a lot about your perspective on things. You & I see the universe quite differently. If 12 steps is your answer to problems, more power to you.

[thewholetruth]

I personally define addiction very differently than I did when I was a daily pot smoker 26 years ago. My definition didn't include someone like me, who owned my own home and was a Superintendent for a construction company. I couldn't see my own addiction. Most addicts can't, because of Denial.

If your drug use is causing problems in your life, if you're spending more than you want to spend, doing more than you intend to do, if your wife/friends/family/employer thinks your drug/alcohol use is a problem and you don't, if you want to quit but you're failing to quit - those are all signs of addiction. The interesting thing about addicts in Denial is that they might be spending hundreds of dollars a week/month on their pot/drugs/alcohol but still tell themselves "it's not a problem unless almighty *I* think it's a problem" and then they actually buy their own b.s. Denial is both amazing and scary, because you don't know it when you're in it.

I'd have to look up what the Big Book says about it. It does include a definition for alcoholism, which IS addiction, btw.

Don

Wonder how you, or the 12 Step movement, defines these terms.

[thewholetruth]

The question wasn't "What is the answer to problems?". The question was what is the solution to addiction. 12 Steps works for everyone willing and capable of working them.

Interesting how you twisted that around to be about "problems", when the question was about addiction, not problems.

Don

OK, that explains a lot about your perspective on things. You & I see the universe quite differently. If 12 steps is your answer to problems, more power to you.

[thewholetruth]

SURPRISE! MsTerry throws ROCK #1. There is no known cure for addiction, Ma'am, and I've never claimed to be able to cure addiction. Your comment reveals you have no idea what the 12 Step recovery program is even about, MsTerry.

SURPRISE #2! MsTerry doesn't know what she's talking about...again.

Don

No Don, you are doing it for us
You are not curing addiction, you are replacing addiction with a program and then call it a cure when they become addicted to the program.

[thewholetruth]

Choosing to practice humility displaces pride. One can't be humble and prideful at the same time, in the same way that we can't be in fear and in faith at the same time. Humility, faith, perseverence, self-discipline, compassion, patience, love, honesty, willingness - all are principles that we can either choose to practice or refuse to practice. Practicing them gives us peace and draws us closer to God. Not practicing them makes us miserable and draws us closer to the enemy. One cannot be in self-will and God's will at the same time, either. There is spiritual warfare going on out there, although the spiritually asleep always deny that.

Thanks for sharing, Lenny. My prayers go out to that boy's family, and to those other kids contemplating suicide.

Don

Every one has "their story" in answering the above. For me, and I find it common, a root source & problem is PRIDE. Found self with a gun in my mouth, and/or at the bottom of the bottle, on the floor, soaked in own fluids, and finally realized, "I am NOT God", and stuff like that. There IS something OUTSIDE and it is GREATER and it is not in me or your friend, so you can NOT "lick it, beat it, get better" and all the other crap I told myself. Some folks have to hit that bottom point. Just buried a beautiful boy about 3 weeks ago. Everyone thought he was a Jesus-freak....he wasn't, but during that ceremony a number of young kids got up and actually confessed to thinking about taking themselves out. I wanted to stand and scream, "Come to me, and I will MAKE you glad about life". We are a pride filled race, and some think they can beat it. They can't, but they don't know.
OK, shut my trap and keep it short. But thanks for the rant.

[MsTerry]

. There is no known cure for addiction, Ma'am, and I've never claimed to be able to cure addiction.
Don

Don, you are repeating my words.LOL
You're right you are not curing addiction, you are replacing an addiction with another addiction!

SURPRISE #2! MsTerry doesn't know what she's talking about...again.

This is the kind of intelligent conversation you want?
You use the word "again". Can you back up your claim?

[MsTerry]

Thanks for debunking that "fear of God" myth

we can't be in fear and in faith at the same time.
Don

[thewholetruth]

Thank you for modeling the folly which occurs in a spiritually undeveloped person's mind. I take it you're being sarcastic, MsTerry? Isn't it fascinating how many people don't get what the "fear of God" even means? I mean, really. Growing up in America and not understanding what that's about? That takes some real effort, doesn't it!

Don

Thanks for debunking that "fear of God" myth