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.
Thanks Phil for the detailed comment and links. I do believe that addiction comes from a need to cope—and do not believe in the “gene” or disease” theory of addiction. The disease theory came about 100% because of the medical establishment and insurance needing a “hook” in order to provide and insure treatment.
I believe that some people—including myself—are indeed susceptible to addictive behavior because of our personalities—but do NOT believe that any particular substance tripped my “hard-wiring” as you put it. Maybe a love addict or exercise addict or food addict or social media or gaming addict feels better about their particular addiction because they feel it’s less destructive to them than booze or blow or smack—but I don’t think so. I think those people—given the right circumstances and stress would jump to those more powerful substances easily once the “this activity or this stuff makes me feel better” decision has been developed.
There are certainly some substances that can hook a person quicker—opioids and fentanyl are literally designed to create addicts.
Separate of those very modern inventions—Addiction is due to coping with some underlying discomfort even if that discomfort has t been yet identified.
Just my humble opinion based on experience and lots of observation. I also happen to love Gabor Mate’s take on it which aligns with mine.
I am right on with your assessment of the AMA’s declaration in the 1950s of “disease” status so the stigma of “weak-willed-person” could be removed and the Insurance industry’s “arm could be twisted”…but we all know that Physicians rarely treat that disease…like they would diabetes or heart disease. Most treatment regimens for alcoholism are counseling from recovering addicts having masters degrees, maybe part of a Practice headed by a Physician.
So I am reading that you see the general matter is psychological in nature and less of a physiological/brain chemistry/receptor matter. The coursework I took was pharmacological in nature and heavily driven by the impact on the Central Nervous System by each substance. For example, LD50 is known by all toxicologists, all pharmaceutical manufacturers who are required to experiment on laboratory mammals to determine the volume dose/weight that it takes to kill 50% of the animals tested. Then the data is extrapolated to humans by gender/weight. What emerged is data like: 100 cups of coffee consumed by a 200 lb. Man in one day has sufficient caffeine to kill him. Or a BAC of .038% will slow a persons heart rate/respiration close to death. LD50 exists for most substances. The Journal of Forensic Sciences and Medicine knows that there is no known LD50 for THC, LSD or Nitrous Oxide(Laughing gas). Nicotine, Caffeine & alcohol all have LD50 levels.
Thank you for providing the other, Psychological, side.
You were schooled well in the physiology. As for the psychological— I need look no further than the success of AA for millions. It’s not for everyone—some people are unwilling to look at their own life’s in a sufficient way to identify their own underlying discomfort or trauma. But it works. It is a malady of the spirit. The physiological effects of the behaviors are merely symptoms of something underlying. I believe I could now drink reasonably knowing what I know—but why ever would I? I’ve dealt with the discomfort and the issues sufficiently to not need a coping mechanism like substances.
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.
I like that—wear your few good relationships like a loose garment. You can’t change other people—only yourself and how you react and respond to them. Thanks An.
I'm no medical or psychological expert but I have observed a lot of people with addictions that I've known and also have my own obsessive compulsive thing. Based purely on that it looks to me as though there is no one root cause and trying to explain it ties you in knots. The need to cope with an issue causes the person to use a substance, then the physiology kicks in. It can be the other way round as how many have I known with dependency that comes from pain meds that become a psychological need. You can't find a cause unless you're talking about one person and their cause.
As for solitude and isolation... It is as simple as solitude when you want to be alone for a purpose and isolation when you want to be alone for a need. You can nuance that but I feel you can actually root that one.
Bloody hell Dee you're making me think first thing on a Saturday morning!
I get it Drew. If there were easy answers to treating this shit—more people would get well instead of the opposite. I can only write from my own experiences and extrapolate from there. It does inform me when I see something like the 12 steps be so effective for so many people—and has zero basis in medicine. 👍🙏
Attachment styles are fascinating to study. So much happening there. (Tho I have a bit of resistance to the clumping in categories other than for medical billing purposes)
Solitude versus loneliness is even more powerful to observe. I’ve had both. 💞
Dee, you’re a hero in my eyes. You did what it took to get you where you want to be, no matter what the voices urge you to do. Guys like me have a hard time understanding the fight guys
Another excellent essay where I felt like you were in my head writing about some of my life. I look forward to returning here when I have time to dive into the excellent, interesting comments this piece drew from your readers.
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.
Thanks Phil for the detailed comment and links. I do believe that addiction comes from a need to cope—and do not believe in the “gene” or disease” theory of addiction. The disease theory came about 100% because of the medical establishment and insurance needing a “hook” in order to provide and insure treatment.
I believe that some people—including myself—are indeed susceptible to addictive behavior because of our personalities—but do NOT believe that any particular substance tripped my “hard-wiring” as you put it. Maybe a love addict or exercise addict or food addict or social media or gaming addict feels better about their particular addiction because they feel it’s less destructive to them than booze or blow or smack—but I don’t think so. I think those people—given the right circumstances and stress would jump to those more powerful substances easily once the “this activity or this stuff makes me feel better” decision has been developed.
There are certainly some substances that can hook a person quicker—opioids and fentanyl are literally designed to create addicts.
Separate of those very modern inventions—Addiction is due to coping with some underlying discomfort even if that discomfort has t been yet identified.
Just my humble opinion based on experience and lots of observation. I also happen to love Gabor Mate’s take on it which aligns with mine.
Dee,
I am right on with your assessment of the AMA’s declaration in the 1950s of “disease” status so the stigma of “weak-willed-person” could be removed and the Insurance industry’s “arm could be twisted”…but we all know that Physicians rarely treat that disease…like they would diabetes or heart disease. Most treatment regimens for alcoholism are counseling from recovering addicts having masters degrees, maybe part of a Practice headed by a Physician.
So I am reading that you see the general matter is psychological in nature and less of a physiological/brain chemistry/receptor matter. The coursework I took was pharmacological in nature and heavily driven by the impact on the Central Nervous System by each substance. For example, LD50 is known by all toxicologists, all pharmaceutical manufacturers who are required to experiment on laboratory mammals to determine the volume dose/weight that it takes to kill 50% of the animals tested. Then the data is extrapolated to humans by gender/weight. What emerged is data like: 100 cups of coffee consumed by a 200 lb. Man in one day has sufficient caffeine to kill him. Or a BAC of .038% will slow a persons heart rate/respiration close to death. LD50 exists for most substances. The Journal of Forensic Sciences and Medicine knows that there is no known LD50 for THC, LSD or Nitrous Oxide(Laughing gas). Nicotine, Caffeine & alcohol all have LD50 levels.
Thank you for providing the other, Psychological, side.
Phil
You were schooled well in the physiology. As for the psychological— I need look no further than the success of AA for millions. It’s not for everyone—some people are unwilling to look at their own life’s in a sufficient way to identify their own underlying discomfort or trauma. But it works. It is a malady of the spirit. The physiological effects of the behaviors are merely symptoms of something underlying. I believe I could now drink reasonably knowing what I know—but why ever would I? I’ve dealt with the discomfort and the issues sufficiently to not need a coping mechanism like substances.
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.
Thanks for sharing a bit of your own experience Tom. And I truly appreciate you reading here. 🙏
Very true! Thank you!
Sometimes I feel guilty for removing myself from this world, thinking it and sowith many people in it are crazy.
It is an ego- driven world, often greedy, mindless, ruthless and sad.
I keep my circle really small and try to wear it like a lose garment.
I cannot be in constant contact in all the hustle and bustle.
There is a reason why monks and other spiritual people seek solitude and remove themselves from all the distractions.
Not that I'm a monk or plan to become one! LOL
I like that—wear your few good relationships like a loose garment. You can’t change other people—only yourself and how you react and respond to them. Thanks An.
Thanks Dee!
The wisdom quote actually says: wear the world like a lose garment.
I did not express that properly!! :)
Words are really important aren't they?!!
And I keep expecting people to already to know what I mean!!
Have a wonderful day!!
Incidentally when I say "you" I'm using it in the general sense as you didn't actually say that in the piece. Just to be clear!
I'm no medical or psychological expert but I have observed a lot of people with addictions that I've known and also have my own obsessive compulsive thing. Based purely on that it looks to me as though there is no one root cause and trying to explain it ties you in knots. The need to cope with an issue causes the person to use a substance, then the physiology kicks in. It can be the other way round as how many have I known with dependency that comes from pain meds that become a psychological need. You can't find a cause unless you're talking about one person and their cause.
As for solitude and isolation... It is as simple as solitude when you want to be alone for a purpose and isolation when you want to be alone for a need. You can nuance that but I feel you can actually root that one.
Bloody hell Dee you're making me think first thing on a Saturday morning!
I get it Drew. If there were easy answers to treating this shit—more people would get well instead of the opposite. I can only write from my own experiences and extrapolate from there. It does inform me when I see something like the 12 steps be so effective for so many people—and has zero basis in medicine. 👍🙏
Attachment styles are fascinating to study. So much happening there. (Tho I have a bit of resistance to the clumping in categories other than for medical billing purposes)
Solitude versus loneliness is even more powerful to observe. I’ve had both. 💞
And since you’re observing and studying consciously—you will of course be fine when feeling these things. 🙏❤️
Thanks for reading Teyani.
Solitude is putting loneliness to work.
Dee, you’re a hero in my eyes. You did what it took to get you where you want to be, no matter what the voices urge you to do. Guys like me have a hard time understanding the fight guys
Thank you my friend. It wasn’t/isn’t easy but it’s totally worth every ounce of effort and vigilance.
Wonderfully written Dee, and an important subject.
Thank you friend 🙏
Totally my pleasure-I'm happy to support your work anyway I can
Likewise!
Another excellent essay where I felt like you were in my head writing about some of my life. I look forward to returning here when I have time to dive into the excellent, interesting comments this piece drew from your readers.
Thank you Donna. It seems that many others have felt the edges of this topics 🥲