Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Off Topic: Addiction: Ideas that do not help

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nora Volkow, director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, writes in Time:

David Sheff wrote a beautiful book called, appropriately enough, Beautiful Boy A Father’s Journey Through His Son’s Meth Addiction, one of the most compelling portrayals I’ve ever read of a parent’s loss of a child to drugs. …

Many people still call addiction a moral failing. But 20 years of research tells us that it’s a disease that results in part from the damage that abused drugs to the brain circuits required for self-control. Unfortunately that damage is long-lasting, meaning that the person remains vulnerable to relapse even after years of successful rehabilitation.

Sheff’s experiences highlight how poorly our society addresses addiction. … Yet punishment and stigmatization do nothing to ameliorate the problem. How could they, when about 50% of addiction is rooted in our genes and much of the rest is due to social and cultural factors such as stressful childhood experiences?

All true, but all irrelevant, and in my view, harmful.

Every recovering addict I have ever spoken to – and I used to have a social sciences beat – has simply decided to get better, and acted on the decision. Punishment and stigmatization often play a useful role because they help the addict remain aware that the problem is real, and costly. That’s important, because the addict is often in a conflicted state about whether to just drop out again into the unreal world of addiction, as opposed to pursuing recovery. If the rest of the world is vague and unreal too, what is the addict supposed to do?

Most, wisely, call themselves “recovering” addicts for that very reason.

Look, I don’t wish anyone hardship, but the mid- and late-life consequences of addiction can be horrific, so the last thing the typical addict needs to be told is, “You can’t help it.”

A better message would be, “Addiction is NOT a brain disease. It is a choice for coping with a world that is difficult for every human being. So what can we do to help you cope, while shedding your addiction?”

Comments
This post seems in fact quite on-topic. The genetic and environmental reductionism that Nora Volkow endorses is the same sort of reductionism that we confront in the materialistic evolutionists. As Denyse points out, tertium datur -- a third option is given, namely an act of choice or intelligence. Intelligence must work within the constraints of nature and nurture, but it is not reducible to them. Good post Denyse.William Dembski
May 11, 2009
May
05
May
11
11
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
“It’s all your fault” isn’t very constructive, either.
Let's not needlessly exclude a middle, here. As Denyse acknowledges, it can be completely true that there are genetic factors and environmental factors that make some people more prone to certain addictions than other people -- without taking away responsibility from the individual for saying 'yes' or 'no'. Just because I'm not as husky as my neighbor, does not mean I can wallow in my genetic misfortune and refuse to take out the trash twice a week. It might feel "sympathetic" to let someone do that, but it would not be in their best interests. Even if it's not *all* my fault, I still have a say in the matter.lars
May 11, 2009
May
05
May
11
11
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
"It's all your fault" isn't very constructive, either.Berceuse
May 11, 2009
May
05
May
11
11
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply