Addiction posts from Atlantis


Peter

Recommended Posts

George H. Smith wrote:

“Not long ago, while both of us were active on Atlantis II and after most A2ers had given up on Peter . . .”

I was the only Objectivist, on Atlantis II, until some other guy briefly showed up. And George I do appreciate the personal care you showed me. My reception from some of the others at A2 was scorn from day one.

I just wonder why you showed up here and deliberately said something provocative. Was it happenstance? No, because I mentioned on A2 about looking at OL and thought it was great. Are you feeling suicidal? I hope not. If you really thought I was Rambo, you would not have deliberately sought me out. Just trying to cause me trouble? Perhaps. Selling a book? Of course you are.

To all the Objectivists and fans of Rand, please read the following thread about drug addiction. And don’t miss Barbara Branden’s responses. As always: “Baby, you’re the greatest.”

Michael Stuart Kelly has not moved the thread so I will continue to post there.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

First a couple of quotes.

An excerpt from Ayn Rand’s Address To The Graduating Class Of

The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - March 6, 1974:

“Observe these young people's dread of independence and their frantic When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror. The spread of drug addiction among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence. desire to "belong," to attach themselves to some group, clique or gang. Most of them have never heard of philosophy, but they sense that they need some fundamental answers to questions they dare not ask--and they hope that the tribe will tell them how to live. They are ready to be taken over by any witch doctor, guru, or dictator. One of the most dangerous things a man can do is to surrender his moral autonomy to others: like the astronaut in my story, he does not know whether they are human, even though they walk on two feet. “

end quote

Greg Thompson replied to Ghs in the thread below:

“All good points. I'd like to ask one last question to all: If a scene in Fountainhead went something like this, would it disturb you at all?:

"Roark sat at his drawing table but exhaustion overtook him. He snorted a line of coke and it got his juices flowing. As he pondered the sitting room of the office building he was designing, he took a hit of LSD to expand his mind and creativity. Upon getting tired again, Roark took some speed. When he couldn't get to sleep, he injected some heroine to take the edge off."

Kind of disgusting, right?”

End quote

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Drug "Addiction" and Crime

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:33:36 -0500

Bill Dwyer wrote:

"Jeff is fond of dismissing the concept of "addiction" without ever bothering to define what he means by the term. I certainly did not imply or suggest that addiction amounted to anything like absolute physical enslavement, if that is what Jeff understands by "addiction." Indeed in my reply to Dick Rose, I stated explicitly,

"[T]o say that a drug is "addictive" does not mean that a person has no control over its use; it simply means that the need or desire for it is much more intense than for most other goods."

Jeff's quotation (from Jeffrey Schaler) refers specifically to "physical addiction," and I think this is what JR was talking about as well. Bill's definition of "addiction," which denotes a "need or desire" that is "much more intense than for most other goods," would mean that we are literally "addicted" to members of our family, to our husbands and wives" to our favorite foods, to sex -- and to everything thing else in life on which we place a very high value, and for which our need or desire is "much more intense than for most other goods."

I personally draw a distinction between habits and addictions. For example, it is my experience that cocaine can be habit forming for some people (like coffee, chocolate, sex, and many other things), but I have known other people who can do it once every few months, or even less frequently, with no cravings at all. Cocaine can induce a intense feeling of well being, and we typically like to do things that make as feel good. In this sense we are "addicted" to every pleasurable activity.

We could also say that have a "dependency" on every pleasurable activity, but this is a peculiar way of speaking. We don't normally say that we have a "dependency" on having sex, eating tasty foods, or on contributing posts to Atlantis. As Thomas Szasz has argued, drug use has been taken out of the realm of desires and habits and medicalized through the application of inappropriate metaphors.

Contrary to cocaine and most other drugs, heroin and other opium derivatives do fit my own criterion for physical addiction. This is because most (though not all) heroin users (or at least those who have been using for more than three consecutives days) experience severe physical withdrawal when they discontinue using the drug. This is not just a desire or craving; it is physical, not merely psychological. The pain can be intense beyond belief -- e.g., you might be unable to take a shower because the water hurts too much when it hits your skin – and you hurt in places that you didn't even know you had places..

This misery continues for around 3 days, until the body is able to replace the natural pain killers than it stopped manufacturing when an artificial pain-killer took over that job.

The problem is that anti-drug propaganda, such as children learn in schools, doesn't distinguish between different kinds of drugs and their effects. It is even possible to do heroin indefinitely without ever becoming addicted, if one follows the traditional junkie adage: "One day on, two days off; two days on, three days off; three days on – and you're hooked."

This may constitute "anecdotal" evidence by Bill's standard, but it is my experience that people who talk about drugs without having used them tend to be highly inaccurate when describing their effects. What is customarily described as "addiction" may simply be a habit, one not unlike many other habits in our lives.

Jeff Riggenbach quoted Bill Dwyer as follows:

"One final point," Bill writes. "Many months ago, George Smith acknowledged that his heroin addiction was so strong, he found that he couldn't quit on his own, but needed help. It is inconceivable to me that Jeff Riggenbach, as close a friend as he is to George, could be unaware of this fact. Evidently, he has chosen to ignore it in order to trumpet his claim that anyone who buys into the concept of "addiction" doesn't know what he or she is talking about!"

And Jeff replied:

"Yes, Bill, I know how George regards his adventures with heroin. We have discussed it many times. I chose to ignore it, because it is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because it is one man's interpretation of what happened to him, and nothing more. George experienced severe discomfort when attempting to stop using heroin. For various reasons, he decided that these symptoms of extreme discomfort were not psychological but physiological, and that the discomfort went on so long because it could end only when "the body is able to replace the natural pain killers than it stopped manufacturing when an artificial pain-killer took over that job."

"This is an interpretation, backed up by a theory. The theory, though widely believed, has never been proved. The interpretation is debatable. Others who have gone through the experience George is talking about have interpreted it differently The novelist and memoirist Jack Woodford devoted a chapter of his 1962 autobiography to his experience with heroin in the years just preceding the adoption of the Harrison Narcotics Act, the 1914 law which made heroin illegal in the United States. (Previously you could buy it at any drugstore, and many people did.) Woodford used it on a daily basis for several years, then balked at the prices he would have to pay on the black market to continue his habit, and gave it up "cold turkey." Though he experienced some discomfort, his interpretation of the experience was that former "addicts" who tell the sort of story George tells have brought this on themselves psychologically, as a result of what they have "learned" about the way heroin withdrawal is *supposed* to feel. It is unclear to me why this interpretation is any less plausible than George's. Bill tells us that "my main point against Jeff was simply that the concept of physical addiction is indeed a valid one," and that "George's valuable comments support this point."

It should be noted that, when I began using heroin, I was on Jeff's side of this debate; I too believed that "addiction" (in the sense of suffering acute physical withdrawal) is a myth based on expectations of what one is supposed to feel. And I continued to believe this during the year when I was only a casual user, since I never had any adverse physical reactions during that time. But my opinion quickly changed the first time I used it for more than three consecutive days, after a close friend had died and I needed to put my grief aside and finish an

important writing project. I thought to myself, "Well, how bad can it be? I may be a little uncomfortable the next day -- as one might be, say, during a hangover after a drinking binge -- but I won't be climbing the walls, as anti-drug propaganda would have it."

Well, I found out just how bad it can be: severe cramps, diarrhea, and the worst nausea I have ever experienced in my life, punctuated by frequent fits of vomiting. And on top of all this, recall the worst flu you have ever experienced and then multiply that feeling by a factor of ten -- and there you pretty much have my personal experience of going "cold turkey."

I don't doubt Jack Woodford's account of his benign withdrawal from heroin (though he did mention a fit of hiccups). I had also read Woodford's account, and I occasionally met other junkies who also seemed able to quit without much discomfort. But this was the exception. My girlfriend at the time experienced symptoms identical to mine, and we were relatively fortunate, since we never used needles. When you use heroin you tend to hang around other users, so I had the opportunity to observe a number of friends who used needles, and their withdrawals made mine look like a cakewalk by comparison. I am talking about people who were shaking so violently and vomiting so continuously that they couldn't even inject themselves, but had to have someone else do it for them.

With due respect to JR's skepticism about the physical aspects of "addiction," it is absurd to suppose that all this physical suffering was merely some kind of hypochondria brought about by socially-induced expectations.

Having said this, I must also disagree with the implications that Bill Dwyer drew from my personal experience. Many people stop using heroin on their own -- indeed, I did this myself on one occasion. I toughed it out for the three days, as bad as they were, only to find that I was unable to sleep for days after that. (This inability to sleep came as total surprise to me, but I later found out it is quite common.) After over five days of being exhausted but unable to sleep for even ten minutes, I decided to go back on, because, again, I was pushing a tight deadline, and I couldn't afford to lose any more time.

I agree with Jeff's assessment of the rehab scam. I went to a clinic in New Mexico that came highly recommended, one that cost $5000 up front to get myself in the door. And the only value of this clinic -- and I mean the *only* value -- was that they basically put me to sleep for three days until the worst was over. I was somewhat disoriented and weak after that (my weight had fallen from 185 to 140 pounds), but, aside from the usual problems with sleep, there was no more physical discomfort. As for the psychological "counseling" of this allegedly first-rate program, it was a joke from beginning to end -- but that is another story. I left after 20 days of a 28 day program, and never looked back.

I went to this clinic, not only because I wanted to save myself three days of hell, but also because I wanted to put myself in a different environment. I needed to get away from a situation where one phone and ten dollars would have a runner at my door in twenty minutes. Jeff is also right about the myth that "addiction" is something that supposedly haunts you for a lifetime. Not only did I never use heroin again, but I didn't even have any *desire* to use heroin again -- not after what I had been through. And this desire evaporated without any hokey 12-step program.

I guess this puts me midway between Jeff and Bill, but overall I am closer to Jeff's position. The "addiction" of heroin, at least for most users, has to do with one's ability to withstand a good deal of physical discomfort. As a skeptic in such matters, I wasn't expecting all the pain. But that pain (along with everything else) was quite real, I can assure you, whatever the research may or may not be able to prove.

Ghs

From: PinkCrash7@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:46:58 EDT

I used to hang around a lot of heroin junkies in the late 70s when I was working drugs as a semi-covert military police investigator in the Army. (No comments, please -- this was before I was a libertarian!). I'd sometimes see the junkies jonesing in the park where they hung out at before they'd get their fix. I had never used heroin before myself, that I recollect anyway, or at any rate, never became addicted to it, so the whole heroin culture and the behavior of the junkies was very peculiar to me. My firsthand experience with drugs fell mainly in the area of marijuana use in my early teens, but not very much more.

I did get to know several of the heroin addicts who we had busted and used as informants. Prior to that, my impression of heroin withdrawal was much as what George described, but what I remember from a couple different ones who I had talked to about it, it wasn't that severe for them and that rather surprised me.

I wonder if there may be other factors involved that effect the severity of symptoms during withdrawal, such as diet or possibly the kinds of substances that the heroin had been cut with. (As I recall, the heroin dealers I was familiar with in Germany generally cut their heroin with ascorbic acid.) Whether the other substances mixed with the heroin could possibly be a factor in the degree of illness suffered by the addict going through withdrawal could have anything to do with it or not, I have no idea.

Either way, it is quite understandable to me that the physical experience of withdrawal would vary quite a bit from individual to individual and that is probably true of many types of drugs. I recall, for example, that one of my former chiropractic clinicians (a student finishing her degree in chiropractic who practiced chiropractic on me), who was also a pharmacist (changing her career to chiropractic) described to me the very painful long-lasting effects she experience from stopping use of birth control pills after many years of taking them. The birth control pills screwed up her whole system so much that even many months after she stopped taking them, she was going through so much pain during her monthly cycle as her body was attempting to bring itself back to normal that she could not even attend class. And she was otherwise a very healthy and fit woman. I had never heard of that before until she told me. I had no personal experience in that regard either since I never used birth control pills long-term even when I was a pro-abortion choice feminist and knew little about the negative consequences of taking them. I couldn't tolerate the effect the pill had on my body and was so disturbed, I would stop taking them after only a short time. (That happed on several occasions as I recall.)

>With due respect to JR's skepticism about the physical aspects of "addiction," it is absurd to suppose that all this physical suffering was merely some kind of hypochondria brought about by socially-induced expectations.

I agree. While the mind can certainly have a deep influence over the way the body functions -- indeed, you cannot separate the two -- but when you're dealing with unnatural chemical substances in the body, that is something that no amount of mind power can change and different people do physically react in different ways in all kinds of things.

Thank you for sharing these very interesting, albeit less savory parts of your life. I think that you and Jeff Riggenbach both have much insight to offer in this regard.

Debbie

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:24:09 -0500

Andrew Taranto wrote:

"Nevertheless, I'd like to hear more from JR and GHS (or anyone else with first-hand experience) on this matter. I have some specific questions:

"- What is/was the appeal of psychoactive drugs for you? What do/did you "get out of it"? - If you've discontinued your usage, why did you stop? - Is there any way you can see that anyone ~should~ try psychoactive drugs, if not use them regularly?"

My drug of choice was always cocaine, largely because it is the closest thing to a magical cure for "writer's block" that one is ever likely to find. My writing could be at a standstill for weeks, but with one line of coke I was at my computer typing within five minutes, and enjoying every minute of it. And some of my best writing was done while on cocaine -- e.g., "The Meaning of Heresy" and "My Path to Atheism" (both in *Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies*).

Cocaine, as Freud pointed out, can give one the ability of intense concentration, and this, along with the sense of mental well-being that it induces, have made it a drug of choice for many, many writers. I viewed cocaine as a mental technology, one that happened to work very well for me, and I viewed my cocaine costs as a business expense. (At that time I would sometimes go weeks or even months without using it, depending on what I needed to write and how I was progressing.) Moreover, cocaine is not addictive, contrary to all the current propaganda. You can go on a binge for several days and feel fine after some sleep, with no withdrawal symptoms whatever.

The problem with coke (as with many drugs) is knowing when to stop. With cocaine, this problem is exacerbated by its illegality, which means you have to use a product that has been cut many times -- sometimes with a benign substance like baby laxative but more often with something to give it a punch, especially "crank" (i.e., speed). A good deal of street cocaine has crank in it, and that stuff can keep you up for a long time. So what happens when you want to go to sleep? Well, if you can't get something harmless like valium (and this is difficult to get on the street), you might turn to drinking liquor instead. And if you eventually find this repulsive (as I did), you might turn to taking small doses of heroin, which works wonderfully as a sedative to counteract the jitters and clenched teeth that come from taking adulterated cocaine. This is how I began using heroin. It was far less damaging than liquor and would have remained so, if I had not begun using it on a regular basis. But as I came to need a daily fix of heroin, I also needed to use cocaine on a daily basis as well (something I never did before) because heroin by itself can make you fall asleep. (I must say that I have never enjoyed napping as much as I did when taking that drug.)

It was then that my expenses became unbelievably high. It was not unusual for my girlfriend and I to spend $200-$300 per day, and financial ruin was not far behind (even though my writing productivity was earning me more money than I ever made before or since). For this and other reasons, I decided that I had had enough of that style of life and needed to move on. That was in 1994. To this day I remain convinced that if I had been living in a civilized country and been able to go into a drug store and purchase valium (or something similar) over the counter, I would never have touched heroin.

Although I have only alluded to the problem here, it is difficult fully to appreciate how ruinous the "war on drugs" truly is, unless you have actually live that lifestyle for a while. Many problems associated with drug use that are not normally discussed, even by advocates of legalization, result from the fact that cocaine, heroin, and other such drugs are illegal.

Ghs

From: BBfromM@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 03:38:56 EDT

Jeff R wrote:

<< Bill writes: "Depression can also be a factor in drug abuse. One study found that more than half the people being treated for cocaine addiction at a clinic would have been diagnosed with severe depression before they started using cocaine, and the deeper the depression, the stronger the habit." This is a good example of what Thomas Szasz would probably call the medicalization of language in order to obfuscate what would otherwise be obvious. What's obvious here is that if people don't feel happy, they're more likely to do something that makes them feel happy. The rest is cant. And as for "diagnosing" someone as suffering from a medical condition called "depression," for anyone who has ever read Szasz, this is just too ridiculous to dignify with a response. >>

I have read Szasz, but not about depression. Would you summarize what he says about the issue? And tell me where I may find his discussion of depression?

Barbara

From: Greg Thompson <roch_fd@yahoo.com>

To: Andrew Taranto <ataranto@yahoo.com>, Atlantis <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: Re: ATL: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:06:07 -0700 (PDT)

George Smith and others on this list are poster children for why it's not a good idea to use drugs.

I have never used drugs, but I have seen highly intelligent friends destroyed by them. Their destruction had nothing to do with the drug being illegal. They were wealthy. They got good stuff whenever they wanted it. One in particular had a tennis scholarship at a prestigious college with a 1,400 SAT score to match. He eventually dropped out of college to pursue getting high. The trust fund ran out and he is a pathetic shell of himself today.

George Smith describes three days of hell all because he couldn't write without outside help. No thanks. I can just imagine the folks in Galt's gulch lying around because they couldn't get the cocaine they needed for motivation. He describes the cocaine as "technology" to help him write. That's not technology, that's a crutch. We, as supposedly self-reliant individuals, should seek to live with as few crutches as possible. – GT

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:24:10 -0500

I never said I couldn't write without "outside help," and I don't know how Greg could draw the conclusions he did from my posts. My discussion of three days of misery pertained to heroin, not cocaine -- but I suppose all such drugs are the same for someone who knows absolutely nothing about them.

Greg's clichéd response does nothing towards advancing a rational understanding of the role that various drugs have played throughout human history. It implicitly relies on a creationist perspective, according to which human beings are somehow created "perfect" and any deviation from this norm constitutes a "crutch." I'm afraid I don't have this theistic faith in the perfection of nature that some Objectivists do.

Reckless drivers get themselves killed in automobile crashes, so does this mean that cars are a "crutch" -- a substitute for the natural process of walking that we could better do without? I have never experienced the prolonged pain from heroin withdrawal that I experienced when breaking up a romantic relationship, and I have seen people who have never recovered from such breakups -- so does this "addiction" and "withdrawal" mean that romantic relationships are a "crutch" that no one should engage in?

There have been many successful drug users; it's just that they are not as conspicuous as the failures, so you don't usually hear about them. Herbert Spencer, like a number of Victorian intellectuals, was an "opium eater" for most of his adult life, and he managed to become one of the nineteenth-century's most influential thinkers. As Thomas Szasz and others have illustrated, this relationship between drugs and highly successful people is by no means unusual.

Granted, some people resort to drugs in order to cope with emotional pain, but so what? Perhaps we should also condemn "crutches" like aspirin (not to mention many more powerful drugs) and deal with physical pain in a "rational" way instead.

In brief, there are rational and irrational ways of using drugs, just like there are rational and irrational ways of engaging in many other activities. Greg's "real men don't eat quiche" approach to drugs, though typical, is badly misinformed and is responsible for a good deal of the prejudice against drug consumers that we find in today's culture. I have known several self-proclaimed "Objectivists" who have managed to make themselves miserable with their philosophy, but I don't blame Objectivism for this, nor do I consider it a "crutch" (as some of its opponents do).

People are largely responsible for their own destinies. Some people manage to be relatively happy while using drugs, whereas other people manage to be miserable without drugs.

In fact, Greg has undoubtedly used many, many drugs throughout his life. It's just that his drugs are socially approved.

Ghs

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" <haljam@bearslair.net>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:24:53 -0700

Greg Thompson writes of cocaine: "That's not technology, that's a crutch."

Has it ever occurred to this supercilious bonehead that a crutch is also technology?

Several of you have put questions to me, seeking further information or comment. I'm rushing off this morning, but this afternoon, I'll attend to those messages.

JR

From: Greg Thompson <roch_fd@yahoo.com>

To: Jeff Riggenbach <haljam@bearslair.net>, Atlantis <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT)

I suppose I struck a nerve when Jeff Rigenbach resorts to calling me a "supercillious bonehead." I've never called anyone a name on this list and I'll remind Mr. Riggenbach that we probably agree on a great many issues. After all, we are Rand admirers. Perhaps this name calling among so-called comrades is a telling reason why objectivism is not an even bigger phenomenon than it is today. But I digress and I say whoa comrade, take it easy.

When I claimed that cocaine was a crutch and not mere "technology," Riggenbach pointed out that a crutch IS technology. True, but do you seek out crutches when your legs aren't broken? Do you break your own legs so you'll have the privilege of using crutches? As for George's thoughtful response, obviously I disagree with much of what he said (I'm an atheist by the way) and relating the matter to God was off the mark.

George is the one who said a line of cocaine helped him write. I didn't say it. And taking aspirin for pain is not the same as altering your mind so you can finish a book.

George is trying to dodge a simple fact. People who take drugs for this purpose (whether they're functioning or successful) are weak -- plain and simple. People who take drugs to fit in a social crowd are afraid of being themselves. They need a chemical. They are weak.

When the fictional Roarke was so exhausted from work, did he get a runner to bring him some speed or did he use cocaine to spur his creativity? Take care.

From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:55:21

As for the Roark-didn't-need-drugs argument, the story portrays him as a heavy user of one psychoactive poison, nicotine (like so many Rand characters), and an occasional user of another, alcohol; he probably uses caffeine as well. In particular, when Keating comes to him to ask him to ghost Cortlandt, Roark offers him a drink because he thinks it will help him through a difficult and embarrassing situation.

PR

From: "William Dwyer" <wsdwyer@home.com>

To: <Atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:34:36 -0700

George Smith wrote,

"I must also disagree with the implications that Bill Dwyer drew from my personal experience. Many people stop using heroin on their own -- indeed, I did this myself on one occasion."

I drew no such implications. I neither said nor implied that because George needed help to stop using heroin on a particular occasion, no one could stop using heroin on his own. My point was simply that George's experience refuted Jeff's claim that heroin addiction, as George defined it, was a myth.

Bill

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:00:18 -0500

I thought your point was that it can be very difficult to kick a heroin habit, and you mentioned my personal experience to illustrate this point. But, so far as I know, Jeff has never denied that it can be difficult to break this habit. His point has to do with the nature of "addiction" itself. I argued, contrary to Jeff, that heroin withdrawal does have a physical component and is not merely psychological – but this is irrelevant to whether someone seeks professional help or not. People seek professional help for purely psychological problems as well, so the fact I went to a clinic doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or another. That is the point I was trying to make. I apologize if I wasn't very clear.

Ghs

From: "William Dwyer" <wsdwyer@home.com>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:29:59 -0700

Jeff Riggenbach quotes me as follows:

>"No one is saying that drug dependency is irreversible," Bill announces with his usual air of confidence and deep understanding, "and if that is what is meant by 'addiction,' then no one is truly 'addicted.' But that's not what is normally meant by the term." >

He then replies,

> But in fact, of course, this is *exactly* what is meant by the term "addiction" when it is discussed in connection with psychoactive drugs and the "treatment" of "addicts." Has Bill never read anything at all about the massive "drug treatment" industry, almost the entirety of which is based on the "12 Step" absurdity?.... >

I meant "irreversible" in the sense that one needs to continue taking the drug in order to function normally. Even if one accepts the conventional wisdom that an alcoholic must undergo a period of recovery and remain a teetotaler for the rest of his life, it is still true that he or she does not need to continue drinking in order to function normally.

Jeff quotes Schaler as stating, "I deny that there is any such thing as 'addiction,' in the sense of a deliberate and conscious course of action which the person cannot stop doing."

At last we have a definition. "A deliberate and conscious course of action which the person cannot stop doing," which is precisely what I meant by "irreversible." I agree that the compulsive drinker can stop drinking, even if only with assistance -- that his use of alcohol is not irreversible. I agree that the strung-out heroin user can stop injecting heroin, even if only with support from others -- that his use of heroin is not irreversible, etc.

So if this is what Jeff means by "addiction," then I have no quarrel with him, because I agree that a person can always stop using drugs, even if he or she requires help in order to do so.

But observe that this is not the definition that George uses for "physical addiction." He defines "physical addiction" as a condition in which the abrupt cessation of drug use occasions painful symptoms of withdrawal. By that definition, I would say that addiction does indeed exist.

Jeff asks rhetorically,

>[W]hat is meant by the term "alcoholic"? How is it defined? How do we know one when we see one?

> "The term 'alcoholism,'" Schaler writes, "has become so loaded with prescriptive intent that it no longer describes any drinking behavior accurately and should be abandoned... there is no precisely defined condition, activity, or entity called alcoholism in the way there is a precise condition known as lymphosarcoma of the mesenteric glands, for example. The actual usage of the term 'alcoholism,' like 'addiction,' has become primarily normative and prescriptive: a derogatory, stigmatizing word applied to people who drink 'too much.' The definition of 'too much' depends on the values of the speaker, which may be different from those of the person doing the drinking." >

According to the American Medical Association, alcoholism is "characterized by habitual, compulsive, long-term, heavy consumption of alcohol and the development of withdrawal symptoms when drinking has stopped suddenly." Obviously, there are degrees to such a condition, and there are certainly borderline cases, but to say that there is no such thing as alcoholism is like saying that there is no such thing as obsessive compulsive disorder. Such conditions are readily observable.

I wrote, "Depression can also be a factor in drug abuse. One study found that more than half the people being treated for cocaine addiction at a clinic would have been diagnosed with severe depression before they started using cocaine, and the deeper the depression, the stronger the habit."

Jeff replied,

> This is a good example of what Thomas Szasz would probably call the medicalization of language in order to obfuscate what would otherwise be obvious. What's obvious here is that if people don't feel happy, they're more likely to do something that makes them feel happy. The rest is cant. And as for "diagnosing" someone as suffering from a medical condition called "depression," for anyone who has ever read Szasz, this is just too ridiculous to dignify with a response."

This kind of ad hominem answer is all too typical of Jeff's replies. If anyone is being "ridiculous," it is he, not those who relate depression to alcohol abuse. Not long ago, Jeff referred to David Bozzini's excellent post with the title "David Bozo Attempts Philosophical Analysis". Jeff may enjoy ridiculing those with whom he disagrees, but these kind of puerile responses are unworthy of anyone who considers himself a serious intellectual.

He writes,

> George experienced severe discomfort when attempting to stop using heroin. For various reasons, he decided that these symptoms of extreme discomfort were not psychological but physiological, and that the discomfort went on so long because it could end only when "the body is able to replace the natural pain killers than it stopped manufacturing when an artificial pain-killer took over that job." >

> This is an interpretation, backed up by a theory. The theory, though widely believed, has never been proved. The interpretation is debatable. >

"Interpretation"? I don't think so! What George describes was a direct ~experience~, the experience of extreme discomfort.

Jeff continues:

> Others who have gone through the experience George is talking about have interpreted it differently. >

If others had gone through the experience George is talking about, then they would have experienced the same thing. If they described something different, then they were describing a different experience. Bear in mind that experience is one thing; interpretation, another. George is talking about experience, not interpretation. He is talking about what he actually felt when he went through withdrawal.

Jeff says that I and others on this list "find George's anecdotal evidence persuasive because it lends credibility to the superstitions they are unwilling to give up. But they find [Jeff's] anecdotal evidence (and probably Jack Woodford's) unpersuasive, because of what it might require them to do if they accepted it."

Which is what? Start taking drugs! :-) The fact that Jeff did not personally experience any addiction from the use of drugs does not prove that no one can, whereas the fact that George did ~does~ prove that someone can. Therefore, whereas Jeff's experience is not sufficient to prove the claim that physical addiction is a myth, George's experience ~is~ sufficient to refute it.

Of course, there is abundant data from many other sources to supplement the experiences that George reports having. We don't need to rely only on his reported experiences. I think it's obvious that Jeff is in denial about this issue, especially since he claims, remarkably enough, to know George's own withdrawal symptoms better than George himself does!

Bill

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:48:37 -0500

Greg Thompson wrote:

"As for George's thoughtful response, obviously I disagree with much of what he said (I'm an atheist by the way) and relating the matter to God was off the mark."

I never said you were a theist. I said you treated the "natural" mental condition of human beings *as if* you were a theist who believed that God had created us in a perfect condition, such that any artificial aids are nothing more than crutches for the weak. I also pointed out that we rely on technology in many areas of our lives, such as when we drive cars (even at the risk of crashing) when we could employ the "natural" method of walking instead. I suppose cars are a "crutch" for people who are too "weak" to walk.

Greg Thompson wrote:

"George is trying to dodge a simple fact. People who take drugs for this purpose (whether they're functioning or successful) are weak – plain and simple. People who take drugs to fit in a social crowd are afraid of being themselves. They need a chemical. They are weak."

This is the kind of simplistic bilge that gives people who don't use drugs a bad name. I suppose people who drink a couple cups of coffee to get themselves going in the morning or to keep themselves awake while driving, or people who eat a chocolate bar for a "pick-me-up" in the afternoon, are "weak" as well. How about a writer who finds that the caffeine in Coca Cola keeps him alert? Another weak wastrel, I suppose. There is no essential difference between these practices and the use of cocaine..

Greg wrote:

"When the fictional Roark was so exhausted from work, did he get a runner to bring him some speed or did he use cocaine to spur his creativity? Take care."

No, and I'm not a fictional character. But many of Rand's heroes did smoke cigarettes, did they not? Ever hear of "addiction" to tobacco? A nicotine rush? Many of Rand's characters were drug addicts by today's standards. Or, to use your favorite term, they were "weak."

Ghs

From: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:12:24

Thomas Szasz and his readers (including Riggenbach) have observed that drug withdrawal affects different people differently and that it's debilitating largely to the extent that one expects it to be and allows it to be. From this they draw generous conclusions that the notion is obfuscatory, pseudo-scientific, intellectually pretentious and so on.

I've observed the same (not necessarily in the first person) about colds, old age, pregnancy, loss of limbs or the use thereof, loss of sight or hearing and diabetes (and various other chronic conditions), yet I've never seen anyone draw the same conclusions. This strikes me as an inconsistency. Either these are all faux-scientific fabrications or addiction is not *all* in one's head.

Peter

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" <haljam@bearslair.net>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: More on "Drug Addiction," Part I

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:16:01 -0700

Jeff Olson writes: "I would like to inquire of Jeff if he recognizes the *possibility* of a physical component in one's use of any substance. . . . What I mean is, can frequent use of a substance physically alter body chemistry in a way that one would experience a physical effect if one ceased use of this substance? JR mentions that the 'interpretation' of physical pain, such as reported by George and other heroin users, is 'debatable' -- suggesting that there is at least some evidence/reasoning for this assertion. Could you expand on that a bit, Jeff?"

Certainly. On one level of analysis it is patently obvious that there *is* "a physical component in one's use of any substance." After all, if drugs didn't alter one's body chemistry to some extent, at least temporarily, one couldn't get "high" (a very loose concept with very different specific meanings, depending on which drug one has consumed) by taking them. It is this elementary fact that originally gave rise to the hypothesis that perhaps the discomfort often (though *not* always) reported by drug users who had stopped using drugs after lengthy periods of daily use might be attributable to some sort of "readjustment" that one's body might have to gradually and painfully make after suddenly being deprived of a drug to which it had become habituated. On its surface, this hypothesis certainly seems reasonable. The problem is that millions upon millions of (mostly taxpayer) dollars have been invested, over a period of at least half a century, in a determined attempt to prove it -- and the result has been total failure. How long must we wait before deciding that an attractive hypothesis nobody can prove is probably worthless and that those who continue to proclaim its truth are acting more like religionists and than like scientists? Do those on this list who want to cling to the concept of physical addiction also want to cling to the concept of alchemy?

Even if someone were to come up with a proof of physical addiction, all that proof would prove is that *some* individuals become physically addicted to *some* drugs. There are too many counter-examples, cases of individuals for whom "cold turkey" withdrawal is a ho-hum affair, to make any sweeping claim that a given drug is "addictive," irrespective of the user, anything other than an utter absurdity. And then we would be faced with another question that has so far defeated the most determined and well financed attempts to answer it: what is it about the body chemistry of some people that makes them capable of becoming physically addicted to a particular substance when large numbers of other people, given similar use of the substance, do not?

Ellen Stuttle writes: "You quote Schaler as saying that 'physical addiction' to alcohol or anything else is, 'a far-fetched, scientifically worthless fantasy.' Does he claim that there's no such thing as delirium tremens? I have heard tell of people who have died from DTs – but it would be odd indeed for DTs to be life-threatening if they don't exist."

Yes it would. But of course the question is not whether some people experience discomfort (sometimes extreme discomfort) when withdrawing from drugs they have used on a regular basis for a long time. This is obviously true. The question is what *causes* this discomfort -- a "physical addiction" to the substance in question or a very powerful *psychological* "addiction." Are the DTs caused by physical processes within the body akin to respiration? Or are they caused by the mind?

JR

From: Greg Thompson <roch_fd@yahoo.com>

To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>, *Atlantis <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:26:22 -0700 (PDT)

All good points. I'd like to ask one last question to all: If a scene in Fountainhead went something like this, would it disturb you at all?:

"Roark sat at his drawing table but exhaustion overtook him. He snorted a line of coke and it got his juices flowing. As he pondered the sitting room of the office building he was designing, he took a hit of LSD to expand his mind and creativity. Upon getting tired again, Roark took some speed. When he couldn't get to sleep, he injected some heroine to take the edge off."

Kind of disgusting, right? The point is, all of these substances are crutches that can lead to addiction and harm the body. As objectivists who revere the physical mind and body, we at least try to be good to our "temple." Take care. – GT

From: "M. Shane DeVault" <michaeldevault@yahoo.com>

To: "Peter Reidy" <peterreidy@hotmail.com>, <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: Re: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:51:44 -0500

Peter Reidy writes:

>I've observed the same (not necessarily in the first person) about colds, old age, pregnancy, loss of limbs or the use thereof, loss of sight or hearing and diabetes (and various other chronic conditions), yet I've never > seen anyone draw the same conclusions. This strikes me as an inconsistency. Either these are all faux-scientific fabrications or addiction is not *all* in one's head.

Well, Peter, I tend to agree, but one small point. I think that addiction--chemical addiction--is not "faux-scientific fabrications", as do you. However, they are "all in one's head."...it is a brain-chemistry thing.

While many types of addictions are not chemical in nature—more psychosomatic than anything--some are incredibly addicting. I would think that anything that has a massive chemical affect in the brain *could* and I stress *COULD* form a chemical addiction. Perhaps the problem with studying addictions in this form is that not everyone responds the same way to the chemical reactions and the members of this list *demand* a consistent response from one individual to the next before they accept something as *objective*.

This is, in the case of subjective physiological responses, a fallacy. You cannot expect that every human anatomy will respond to every chemical stimulus in the same way.

Just as a cup of hot coffee does not affect every human tongue the same way, we cannot expect that Heroin or Cocaine or mary jane affect each person identically. (I can't drink McDonalds coffee without it scorching my tongue, but some here I'm certain, think it is not hot enough. I saw one lady drink a cup of coffee that was 205/F. I on the other hand, freak out and yelp like a dog when it hits about 180.)

Physical, *chemical addictions* are facts of life. So are psychological addictions for that matter. But it will be forever impossible to quantify the effects on each person because of the irreducible complexity of the model. You have millions of DNA factors, couple with BILLIONS of environmental factors--all of which are *random*, btw--, and then you have the thousands of reactions that occur. Millions of DNA factors times BILLIONS of random environmental factors (anything from chemical disposition to foods eaten or having a bad hair day for ten years), mean we'll never be able to accurately project the effects of the chemicals.

Just my two cents. That was a good cup of coffee, btw. :-)

S

M. Shane DeVault

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" <haljam@bearslair.net>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: More on "Drug Addiction," Part III

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:56:13 -0700

Andrew Taranto writes: "- What is/was the appeal of psychoactive drugs for you? What do/did you "get out of it"? - If you've discontinued your usage, why did you stop? - Is there any way you can see that anyone ~should~ try psychoactive drugs, if not use them regularly?

In my youth I tried a wide variety of legal and illegal drugs. My motive was curiosity. Some of what I tried I found to my liking for various reasons. Other things I tried I didn't care for or even actively disliked. Examples in this latter category would include heroin and "angel dust" (PCP). Examples in the former category would include marijuana, cocaine, and the psychedelic drugs, especially LSD. Marijuana, though it produces a feeling very different from the one produced by alcohol, has a roughly comparable overall effect on me; i.e., it makes it easier for me to relax, feel sociable, overcome a "bad mood" that might be sticking with me from earlier events in a particular day, etc., etc. Cocaine, and, to a lesser extent, amphetamines and related stimulants such as Preludin, offer the same benefits that most people look to coffee for -- sharpened awareness, heightened energy, etc. I agree generally with George Smith's observations about cocaine.

The psychedelics are a special case, and represent the only case in which I would actually *recommend* illicit drug use. Where the other illicit drugs are concerned, my attitude is basically:

(1) It is normal to be curious about the effects of drugs and to feel some desire to experiment with them and find out what they're all about.

(2) Most people who report never having had any such interest at all usually turn out, under questioning, to be harboring some degree of fear about the use of these substances, generally because they have uncritically accepted a certain amount of the anti-drug propaganda constantly pumped out by the U.S. government and the U.S. mass media.

(3) I think this is unfortunate, but I'm not convinced that these individuals are *necessarily* missing anything. I know many people who have tried marijuana, but decided they liked the roughly similar effects of wine or beer better. I know others who can take or leave cocaine, but wouldn't want to do without their morning coffee. Fine. Whatever floats your boat.

Where psychedelics are concerned, I hold a different view. LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline are quite unlike any of the other drugs under discussion here. I think in an ideal world, everyone's education would include at least a couple of very carefully planned and controlled experiences with these drugs. I can go into greater detail about this, if anyone is interested, but a good sense of what I'm talking about can be gleaned from reading Aldous Huxley's very brief book The Doors of Perception. Huxley first took mescaline in the 1940s, followed that experience up with a number of other, similar ones, tried psilocybin and LSD, and used all three drugs frequently during the last 20 years of his life. He realized early on that there were profound philosophical (specifically epistemological) implications in the experience these drugs induced; this is what The Doors of Perception is largely about. (Huxley also greatly valued the truly wonderful euphoria these drugs bring with them; on his deathbed, he asked his wife to give him a hit of LSD and died tripping.)

JR

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: On "Drug Addiction"

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:56:39 -0500

Peter Reidy wrote:

"Thomas Szasz and his readers (including Riggenbach) have observed that drug withdrawal affects different people differently and that it's debilitating largely to the extent that one expects it to be and allows it to be. From this they draw generous conclusions that the notion is obfuscatory, pseudo-scientific, intellectually pretentious and so on."

I had a personal conversation with Thomas Szasz in the summer of 1990, while I was attending a conference on the East Coast. I told him that it was my experience that heroin is physically addictive in the sense that one can suffer acute physical discomfort after discontinuing its use.

Szasz did not object in the least to my characterization; in fact he agreed with it. He went on to say that this was one of the tragedies of the "war on drugs." He speculated that legalization might lead to a new technology -- specifically, a type of heroin that produces the "high" without the addictive properties it now has. He stated that, as far as he knew, there was no necessary relationship between the pharmacological properties that cause the sensation of pleasure versus those properties that are responsible for the pain of withdrawal.

Although I haven't read the relevant books by Szasz in some time, I recall that this conversation was consistent with the views presented there. I don't recall that Szasz ever claimed that all experiences of"addiction" are purely psychological. Rather, he objected to the medicalization of matters pertaining to drugs, according to which drug and alcohol use are a "disease." These are two separate and distinct issues.

If someone can find a passage in which Szasz agrees with JR's position regarding the psychological nature of ALL "addiction," then I would appreciate seeing it. This certainly is not the position he took during our conversation.

Ghs

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" <haljam@bearslair.net>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: More on "Drug Addiction," Part IV

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:09:34 -0700

Barbara writes: "I have read Szasz, but not about depression. Would you summarize what he says about the issue? And tell me where I may find his discussion of depression?"

Basically what Szasz says about depression is what he says about all "mental illness" -- that there is, strictly speaking, no such thing; that what we are really talking about here is problems in living and the different ways different people deal with them. Calling "depression" a "mental illness" or a "medical condition" is to "medicalize" unjustifiably an emotional reaction to the problems in one's life and one's estimate of one's ability to deal with them. In Heresies (1976), he defines "depression" as "self-accusation and self-pity." In Ideology and Insanity (1970), he writes:

"Consider the millionaire who finds himself financially ruined because of business reverses. How shall we explain his "depression" (if we so want to label his feeling of dejection)? By regarding it as the result of the events mentioned, and perhaps of others in his childhood? Or as the expression of his view of himself and of his powers in the world, present and future? To choose the former is to redefine ethical conduct as psychiatric malady." (27)

JR

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" <haljam@bearslair.net>

To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: More on "Drug Addiction," Part V!

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:26:26 -0700

Bill! Dwyer! writes: "Obviously, there are degrees to such a condition, and there are certainly borderline cases, but to say that there is no such thing as alcoholism is like saying that there is no such thing as obsessive compulsive disorder. Such conditions are readily observable."

No, Bill, such "conditions" are *not* readily observable! What *is* readily observable is certain behavior! The "conditions" of "alcoholism," "obsessive compulsive disorder," "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder," and so forth, exist only in the minds of psychiatrists bent on turning all problems in human living into medical conditions and diseases -- and, of course, in the minds of their dupes among the general public!

Bill! wrote: "Jeff may enjoy ridiculing those with whom he disagrees." But Bill, I don't ridicule anyone! All I do is point out how ridiculous certain of my critics are!

The last part of Bill's latest effort is so ridiculous, it is difficult to know where to begin! George described the extreme discomfort he experienced upon quitting heroin after weeks or months of daily use! *This* part of what he wrote was a *description*! Then he stated that this experience was, in his view, not psychologically induced, but was rather purely physical! Then he theorized that the reason behind it was his body's need to gradually begin manufacturing substances it had left off manufacturing during the time of his daily heroin use! These last two statements (the two printed just above this one, the two that begin with the word "then") are *not* "descriptions" of an "experience"! The first is an *interpretation* of the experience -- that it was purely physical in origin, not psychological! (And this is what I thought we were debating here!) The second is a brief statement of a *theory* justifying that interpretation!

I don't know how to end this post except with more exasperated vituperation at the obtuseness of some individuals, but that would be improper! So I'll stop writing now!

JR!

From: "Dave Thomas" <davethomasdavethomas@hotmail.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: JR and "12 step absurdity" (was On "Drug Addiction")

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:41:50 -0700

Jeff Riggenbach:

"But in fact, of course, this is *exactly* what is meant by the term "addiction" when it is discussed in connection with psychoactive drugs and the "treatment" of "addicts." Has Bill never read anything at all about the massive "drug treatment" industry, almost the entirety of which is based on the "12 Step" absurdity? (No, of course not; why did I ask? When you were born knowing everything, there's no need to educate yourself about anything you wish to talk or write about. You can just smugly assume that whatever you already believe to be true *is* the truth.)"

I'm curious to know, Jeff, if you've ever attended, say, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings or if you've ever talked seriously with a long-term non-disillusioned member of this organization. I ask this because the points you made against drug treatment programs don't apply well to this organization. Also, having been to a number of these meetings, I find that most people's opinions of this particular form of drug treatment are

shamefully ignorant.

BTW, I am not a member of this organization; I've attended meetings with a friend who is. I'm certain that any sort of "group therapy" or any self-help programs with structured steps are not for me; but I do recognize that, for some people, the end result of these programs is better than anything else these people have found. To paraphrase what they say at just about every meeting: this is the best solution we've found to deal with our problems with alcohol, if there is a better course of action, we welcome it. For whatever possible bad premises AA is based upon, this program does, for some people, work better than anything else I know.

Dave

From: "Jeff Riggenbach" <haljam@bearslair.net>

To:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pleased that Peter Taylor posted the lengthy exchange from Atlantis that I participated in in 2001, since it is one of the more interesting discussions of drug use and the nature of addiction that I know of, with various positions being represented. But it should have a separate thread of its own, especially since some people who are not following this thread may wish to comment on it. Perhaps Michael Kelly could use his omnipotent powers on OL to bring this about. 8-)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really trippen thread man...so chromosomal and brainy...

bongoBong.gif

junkie.gifwilly.gif

Seriously though excellent points. I just wish I knew some of the players and without a scorecard it is not easy.

"There's a cheap, common, and mostly safe drug, in daily use for centuries by hundreds of millions of people, that only lately has been investigated for its therapeutic potential for a long list of common ills. The list includes Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, depression and anxiety, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and even pain and obesity. Why has interest in this potential cure-all been slow to develop? One reason: in its current forms the drug offers pharmaceutical companies no possibility of substantial profit. Another, perhaps more important: the drug is reviled as the world's most addictive. The drug, of course, is nicotine."

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020404;jsessionid=B684DD10D523664FCFCB3D76999A8A0E

The study is from 2004ish.

Moreover, there is a significant percentage of the therapeutic community that believes that the use of anti-depressants has created serious problems in the "treatment" of the alleged "diagnosis" with those drugs.

Adam

I would like to hear a lot more on this issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I moved this thing over here to the Addiction section a few days ago, but I did not read it at the time.

I just now read it, but only half so far.

Déjà vu time, folks.

I already went through a discussion like this over on the old SoloHQ when I presented my article on addiction. Reading so many people opining about addiction and wanting their views to be true for everybody is, frankly, depressing. Why do people want to be the owners of the truth about things they know so little about?

I know that a good 90% of everything I read about addiction in Rand-land does not correspond to what I have lived through and seen others experience.

I am also rather saddened by the way more conservative Objectivists view addiction. But my sadness is not due to their misunderstanding of it or me. It is empathy for their deception when the full truth of Ayn Rand's speed use becomes clear, as has been revealed through the new biographies of her. (I know many of these folks will twist themselves into pretzels and others will attack the authors to keep in a state of denial—I have read in a few places that some of them have already started—but facts are facts.)

I am near the end of Jennifer Burns's book, Goddess of the Market. (I haven't read Anne Heller's book yet.) Jennifer's book has a unique virtue—one that other books on Rand do not have. Since she had access to the Ayn Rand Archives, she had access to correspondence written to Rand that Rand kept. And she quoted from it to throw light on some of the more contentious issues that have haunted the Objectivist subculture.

One of these issues was Rand's drug use. The time is during the 1940's.

Jennifer states that Rand had totally blown her reputation with New York publishers by not meeting the deadline in her first contract for finishing The Fountainhead. To make sure she stayed on track in finalizing the book for Bobs Merrill, she got a prescription for Benzedrine (speed). In addition to curing her chronic fatigue (before the burn-outs, of course), this was quite the fashion among writers back then.

Rand apparently liked that a lot and became an enthusiast, even recommending it to others. Without going into too much detail, here is a quote from Goddess of the Market, p. 126, which quotes a letter from Isabel Paterson. The time frame is 1944, one year after Rand started using speed:

Paterson adopted a motherly role toward Rand. She was particularly concerned about Rand's continued use of Benzedrine to fuel her late-night conversations and lengthy writing days. "Stop taking that Benzedrine, you idiot," she told her. "I don't care what excuse you have—stop it."67

Here is the footnote (67) mentioned in the quote above. It is on p. 318:

67. Isabel Paterson to AR, January 19, 1944. On another occasion she threatened "to come out there in person and spank you to a blister" if Rand kept up her habit. Isabel Paterson to AR, June 7, 1944.

Jennifer gives the place in the Ayn Rand Archives where these letters can be found and mentions 2 other letters by Paterson to Rand in November of 1944 concerning her drug use.

That doesn't sound like someone simply following a doctor's prescription until a problem is resolved. That sounds like getting wired qua getting wired.

In the opening post giving the 2001 Atlantis discussion, I saw that, like in my own experiences in discussing addiction, some people mocked addicts, claiming that it was ridiculous to imagine Roark sending out to the drug dealer when he got tired. I wonder what they will think once they learn that, albeit with a prescription, this was exactly what Rand did—and she did it while she was finishing her creation of Howard Roark to boot.

That's the part that makes me sad...

And I say that without mocking or feeling the "gotcha" feeling.

Just sad...

Maybe someday I will probe that sadness. It is real and it is wistful. When I think back to different moments in my own life... I think about the addictions I have lived through and overcome... what they made me do and what I did on my own... ah shit... At this moment, this is nuanced into so many levels that the different parts are unclear. So, hell... I guess I will have to probe it one day...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the opening post giving the 2001 Atlantis discussion, I saw that, like in my own experiences in discussing addiction, some people mocked addicts, claiming that it was ridiculous to imagine Roark sending out to the drug dealer when he got tired. I wonder what they will think once they learn that, albeit with a prescription, this was exactly what Rand did—and she did it while she was finishing her creation of Howard Roark to boot.

That's the part that makes me sad...

And I say that without mocking or feeling the "gotcha" feeling.

Allow me to enjoy the "gotcha" feeling, if you cannot. 8-)

I only tried speed once, and I didn't like it at all. That was in 1973, while I was in a near-panic from falling so behind schedule on writing Atheism: The Case Against God. (I had signed a contract for four months, having no realistic sense of what to expect, and it took me a year and four months instead.)

When I mentioned my problem to a physician friend of mine, he asked if I had ever tried using "diet pills" -- the standard euphemism for speed. When I said no, he wrote a prescription for me, after which I took my skinny self to the famous Schwab's Drug Store in Hollywood and got the "diet" pills.

I took one later that day, figuring that I needed to pull an all-nighter. I spent most of the night pacing the floor with clenched teeth and fists. I couldn't wait for the effect to wear off, and I threw the rest of the pills away. Prescription speed in those days was very powerful stuff.

Superb post, Michael. Thanks for writing it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I see little point to being complete in this post, but a handful of things have to be said.

Firstly, when discussing drug use and abuse, it would benefit the layperson to understand that dependence, tolerance, addiction, cravings, etc are different words with different meanings (the new DSM in a few years should, hopefully, clarify a bit of this confusion to the professionals)

Secondly, opioid cessation (if not properly managed) will result in both physical and physiological symptoms. This is not psychosomatic, nor is it up for debate (also, for cocaine, withdrawal symptomology is almost entirely psychological, with little physical. In no way does that mean there is no withdrawal to cocaine)

Thirdly, perceived intensity of withdrawal varies substantially from person to person. This has almost nothing to do with 'expectations' of the withdrawal, as Jeff claims, but rather is dependent upon "how life is going"/"mental outlook"/etc. I like how Bill brings up the idea of medicalizing things that should've been kind of obvious (though I think my analysis of what that means is probably the opposite of what he does). If drugs were the only things you really got out of life, addiction will be harder to break for you than for someone with a 'healthier' life (and it doesn't really help that, in modern western society, being a "drug addict" generally comes with inherent social setbacks that are wholly independent of anything related to physiology)

For an *incredibly* fascinating little look at this aspect of addiction, see the "Rat Park" study (tl;dr: Rats conditioned to cocaine while in cramped cages will select water over cocaine once introducted into a "healthy" social/life environment, which they created as a 'rat park' where the rats could live 'normally' as opposed to cramped cages. Also, the rats that were never in tight cages and had always lived cocaine-free in rat park, were uninterested in the cocaine once the addicted rats and the cocaine were introduced!!!!!!!!)

Jeff- Wow, I really like your "recommendations" on drugs! I'm pretty much the same, in that psychedelics are the only thing I believe a person truly "misses" through abstinence. I'm downloading (legally, right?) doors of perception right now, but...did you know that your "education should involve a couple Trips" idea is actually a part of another book of his (99% sure), "The Island"? Fantastic book, and quite short, but "Moksha Medicine" (some kind of fictional phen/trypt-type psychedelic) ceremonies were part of the youth's education.

I'll put my trolling hat on for the following: Objectivism is an amazing topic to ponder(for lack of a more appropriate word to describe thought processes while tripping) on psychedelics. In fact the last time I tripped I ended up reading Rand (probably atlas) for many hours of the trip, well actually the entire time after 'peaking' was over and i could actually read from a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now