Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Phil Hannum's avatar

Dee,

I love what you have written, but one thing you wrote does not square-up with my studies & some common views that families have.

Here is what confuses me, and I will explain: you wrote :

Those who understand addiction will already know this. Whether it’s booze or drugs or anything else, it’s not about the substance. The substance is used as a coping mechanism. People drink to take the edge off. To relax. To socialize with friends.

My questions:

There are plenty of families out there who believe that their loved-ones were “hard-wired” at birth to go bonkers the first time their brain receptors encountered the substance that they were “hard-wired” for. So, when you write “it’s not about the substance” it runs against some people’s view that brain receptors are quite discriminating for particular substances & they may not go bonkers for other substances. In the text books I have read, there are many illustrations of the shape of a particular substance (using a jig-saw fit illustration) exactly “fits” a same-shaped receptor. So your sentence suggests that all persons will have receptors that go “bonkers” for all substances. I have not found that in the literature or in my family. Until he died after 30 years of use, my brother’s substance of choice was Phencyclidine (PCP) with a side of Alcohol (which he overcame after 10 years). He tried THC, didn’t go bonkers. Another family member’s receptors were aligned for alcohol.

Eight years ago, I produced 3 videos on addiction. The first was titled, “The day before addiction.” In this video, I took-up the issue of a baby being hard-wired from the womb for his/her “affinity” substance. The point I attempt to make is that. If a given first-time user never self-administers that “bonkers” substance, then they will never have the “bonkers” experience. In the video, I call it “getting onto the treadmill of addiction.” That means that, except for fetuses who become addicted through mom’s addiction placenta blood transfer (crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc), an addiction free baby lives free from addiction until, through self-administration, they introduce their brain receptors to that “bonkers” substance.

The second video is titled the day of addiction. AA and NA explain that an “addict” is always an “addict.” If true, then I describe that climbing onto that treadmill is a very sad condition, indeed. But it suggests that hard-wired brain receptors for natural & synthetic opioids, that are never introduced to those substances, will never be presented with that “bonkers” experience. Hallucinogens, central nervous system stimulants, mushrooms, THC, may not produce the “bonkers” effect on them. So future potential addicts may never encounter their “ jig-saw-fit” substance & may never get addicted to the substance for which they were hard-wired.

What you wrote suggests that some persons brains are responsive to all substances for reasons of “escape”. Maybe you are suggesting that all persons will be responsive to all substances if they are seeking “escape.”

Your writing today may suggest that the “hard-wired-to-a-particular-substance-from-the-womb” theory may need to be set aside. Maybe the substance/receptor illustrators may need to be less suggestive by using “the jig-saw-fit” illustrations that I find online & in text books.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-opioid-drugs-activate-receptors#:~:text=Researchers%20found%20that%20opioid%20drugs%20and%20the,less%20addictive%20than%20currently%20available%20opioid%20drugs.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-endocannabinoid-system-essential-and-mysterious-202108112569

https://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20020225/koob2.html#:~:text=Alcohol%20is%20believed%20to%20mimic,aspartate%20(NMDA)%20glutamate%20receptor.

Expand full comment
Tom Gentry's avatar

Great read. It took me awhile to understand this distinction and how it applies to my life. I was so disconnected from myself that I didn't really understand what I was feeling or what it meant.

When I was 40, I was walking on the beach with a friend about my divorce. I talked about feeling lonely when my son was with his mom. In that moment, I realized it might have been the first time in my life I used the word lonely to describe myself. That's not because I was never lonely.

Even well into sobriety, when I did feel lonely, it wasn't because I was alone. It was because I carried this belief that I was not supposed to be alone. That was one of the many irrational beliefs that I had to reckon with.

I've learned that I am a person who needs a certain amount of solitude. I start getting jumpy when I'm not getting any time to myself. So, now I prioritize it.

There is a lot more I could say here. This is a big topic, and an especially important one for anyone trying to put a cork in it.

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts