Minutus

Dear Wendy and other colleagues who responded to my mail,

I found Wendy's post quite insightful and her observations of what goes on around the usage of each of the substances she mentioned demonstrative of a keen power of observation.

In my post I stated:
"An addict's mind works in a completely different way. All standards of behaviour are put aside and the addiction only is the key issue. All norms are put aside, they can lie, cheat steal, and even murder etc to get the next fix."

Perhaps I should have started with a "In great need of a fix, an Addict's ..."

What is addiction?

We have Want, Need, Craving and Addiction.

There are things that we must have (A NEED) naturally on a daily basis, water and food are elementary.

Then we find that where there is an imbalance we have a craving for common and every day things such as salt, sugar etc.

When we have this extreme need/craving induced by a 'drug' we call it addiction.

One of the points that our moral teachers have tried to instil in us through the ages has been personal and social mechanisms to kerb our wants and needs so that we can respects other people's (and creatures') wants and needs so that we can all get on with each other and strive "towards the higher purposes for which we were created". Organon 6 - Aph 9.

When this need gets out of control (we become greedy) then we offend against other people. Society then puts in place various personal and social mechanisms to deal with greed.

The veneer of humanity is extremely thin and underneath you find a vicious and dangerous creature - as demonstrated when there is rioting etc. When the mass of people move, it behaves very much like an animal pack rather than civilised group.
Have you ever seen the difference when people are leaving a place in an orderly fashion compared to when there is panic about fire or a bomb etc??

When there is extreme need and that need is not satisfied, then what happens?

Let us take food as an example.
What happens if one is out of work, has no money or assets to sell and is hungry?
There are very few options available: (the following is not comprehensive, I am just trying to demonstrate a point)
Beg (directly or indirectly)
Prostitute oneself
Steal food or money. In this final stage it has been observed many times that the person may kill or be killed in the process.

Drugs are no different, only often the problem is self inflicted - but there is usually a reason (there are of course case where people are made to become addicts by criminal elements so that they can be controlled or used - e.g. prostitutes)
.
If we were to provide for example heroin addicts with good quality and standard heroin and clean needles etc, then what would happen to crime and prostitution?

Well they did such an experiment in Liverpool a few years ago and after 6 months the levels of crime had gone down to 15% of what it was before the experiment. However, when this was reported to the Home Office (Interior Ministry of UK) the authorities of Liverpool were told to go back to the status quo! Perhaps the Mafia bosses had complained to those under their influence that their income was being affected by this new regime! Don't also forget that most heroin deaths come from over-dosing - often accidental when supply is of higher quality than what the addict is used to.

Provide the heroin addict with their heroin and there is no reason to believe that they cannot work and behave like any one else. (unless when they are totally zonked out of their head). It is when the desperation of the need for the next fix kicks in that their behaviour changes.

If you were just to read my opening para of my previous post, then what Wendy has said could be regarded as true. However, I did mention that you need to find out what has driven them to use these substances and what it is that they are trying to escape from. In deed what pain is it that they are trying to numb?

I think perhaps those of you who read the post to the end would have come across my last para and then thought that perhaps there is hope for me yet!

"In the end don't be surprised if you find some kind of a horror story deep down somewhere in their life - that is what they are trying to escape from. Most probably lots of TLC (Tender Loving Care) needs to be offered readily."

A big hug everyone and thanks
Good healing
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Soroush

I certainly didn't doubt your good intentions towards people suffering from
addiction and I hope my post didn't come across in that way.

What struck me about what you wrote was the idea that an addict's mind works
in a "completely different way". The choice of these three words conveyed a
strong ("completely") sense of distinction from other states which, since
these were not qualified, by implication I assumed to be non-addictive
states -- since the subject of the thread was dealing with addictive
behaviour and its treatment.

I read the entire post several times before replying to check out my
understanding of it, and I couldn't relate to your focus on lack of moral
inhibition as a particularly distinctive quality of addictive behaviour,
which is why I said so. Lack of moral inhibition is certainly a feature of
being "under the influence" of many (though not all) addictive substances,
but being under the influence doesn't necessarily imply addiction. It's also
a feature of deprivation, but it's the deprivation that creates the lack of
inhibition rather than the addiction. The addiction merely places the
substance on the persons list of things-essential-for-life -- so long as the
need is satisfied, relatively "normal" inhibitions remain in place ("under
the influence" notwithstanding).

You re-stated the phrase in your last post -- and then went on to
demonstrate with other examples how similar the dynamic is to other cases
where need transcends moral inhibition!!

I think we must have a slight misunderstanding here!

Can I ask how you perceive the lack of moral inhibition as being
particularly related to the state of *addiction* -- as opposed to the state
of deprivation or just being "under the influence"? Also, I have problems
seeing the distinction between civilised and uncivilised behaviour in
quite such a clear cut manner as you seem to, so could you perhaps clarify
this? Are you thinking specifically of violent behaviour? Or is it perhaps
that the lack of moral inhibition, when present, is more obvious than in
non-addictive states?

I apologise unreservedly if I've ascribed prejudices to you that you don't
hold, but perhaps you can see now how the confusion arose! (I'm sure there
wouldn't be half as many understandings if we could all discuss this in the
same room together.)

Regards
Wendy

Hi Wendy,

When I read Soroush's post I thought he was perhaps overemphasizing this
aspect of addiction -- not *every* addict becomes immoral. But it's such a
well-known feature of addiction, whether in certain people, or to certain
substances??? I don't know the details, but I *do* know that the "story" of
the "nice" girl/boy who is suddenly discovered to have e.g. looted his/her
elderly parent's savings to pay the pusher, is, well, archetypal, isn't it?
There are (I've heard) many similar stories, involving smaller or larger
amounts of money and damage, but the key point is that, in some cases the
addiction (according to my understanding) becomes more important than
family, love, wisdom, the future, etc., etc. The addict does things which
are (to us) completely horrendous, which s/he would have never done "in
his/her right mind", to maintain the habit. I don't think it's accurate to
say this has to do with being "under the influence", rather than "addicted".
Unless my understanding is very mistaken, it *is* to do with the addiction,
which has re-shaped so very many things within the addict's mind/body.

I assume you're familiar with this idea? Are you saying that it's
particular to the specific people involved, rather than to "addicts", or do
you think it's a myth rather than something that actually happens?

Shannon
on 9/5/02 11:08 AM, Wendy Howard at wendy@rachan.worldonline.co.uk wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you Wendy, Tanya, and Isali for your comments.

I do believe also that if we were to assemble in one room (hall more like it with the size of membership of minutus) it would be found that at least the four of us are probably singing from the same hymn sheet!

Written word, at least in the hands of someone like me, can sometimes fail to convey emotions and feelings. But that is my weakness and I hope with the help and patience of colleagues I can remedy it.

I think we can agree that if someone is under the influence substances that affect the brain - e.g. alcohol - they are not fully in control of their faculties. The limit is of course heavy intoxication when they actually pass out! But the person who is an occasional drinker is not going to behave as an alcoholic! They don't get the shake and the extreme need for the next fix.

What I was trying to convey was the situation when the NEED* for the substance (and you can even include food and water in this) is so great that all other things that matter are put aside in an attempt to obtain the next fix. If the supply of the next fix is not so limited (e.g. cigarettes), then there are not the major anti-social events that one associates with other substances. But even then I have heard someone when they had not had a cigarette for some hours say (and perhaps they did not mean it so much or it was a flippant remark) "I could kill for a cigarette"!

What I am trying to say is that extreme need brings out extreme characteristics and as a part of moves to satisfy this great need then all that mankind holds sacred can be trampled underfoot.

Wendy you asked me how I perceive "the lack of moral inhibition as being particularly related to the state of *addiction* - as opposed to the state of deprivation or just being 'under the influence'? "

I thought I had demonstrated with the Liverpool case that if the great need or deprivation was not there then the lack of moral inhibition would not be there as much - other than the particular affects of the substance being abused. If you were to supply an alcoholic with all the alcohol they wanted and all the heroin addict with all the heroin they may need, why would they resort to crime to get? However, they may, behave criminally or amorally because they are under the influence (wife beating, sexual abuse, driving, etc). In the same way if someone is not hungry, they are not going to steal for food or prostitute themselves for food, but then we do not directly associate 'wife beating' with normal foods.

Tanya has expressed this situation in another way:
"And all drug addicts are not people who lack ethical or moral judgement. Many of them can afford their addictions--
all those nice middle and upper class addicts who drink, pop and smoke their addiction substances. "

This is exactly right, only what happens when they run out of money?

On the lowering of inhibition - and the easiest example is alcohol - we witness the great lowering of inhibition in a lot emotion fuelled behaviour such as anger and also casual sexual relationships etc. One only need to visit the A&E wards on a Friday and Saturday evening to the early hours of the next day to see the number of drunk people who attend for treatment having been in some kind of a fight or (driving) accident. Why don't these people mis-behave on the other nights? In contrast the visits by Alcoholics to A&E would not be confined mainly to Fri/Sat nights!

Or how many people catch STD or become pregnant because when they were having sex they were so much under the influence of alcohol that they did not bother or think about using a condom? You can put this to lack of inhibition and lowering of guards and as Isali puts it excellently because of "significant diminishment of their management facility".

God set us apart from other creatures by giving us the gifts of power of reason and choice. It greatly saddens that some of my fellows purposefully choose to use substances that makes them basically reject these gifts and then we as 'healers' are left to pick up the pieces!

If you consider the rubrics that Wendy kindly gave use in her first post you will note that all the substances she referred to had 'Confidence, lack of Self'. This carries with an inability to fully cope with everyday circumstances. What we need to examine as homeopaths is what is in the background of the addiction. What was the trigger? I think in almost every case we find degrees of unhappiness and a desire to escape from something or help to forget some particularly nasty incident. If we can find that, then the key to the case has probably been found.

[* On the point about NEED, the daughter of one of my friends does a lot of work on 'need' management and allied with that debt management. Obviously some of the things some people think they need are only put in there artificially (and yes you can blame advertising for the that to a great extent). For a period she and some friends would visit pubs and identify women who were prostituting themselves, be friending them and then over many visits gently getting them to analyse their needs and to see what was real and what was not. The good news was that they were successful in a number cases to get the women to come off the 'game' and to have a better life.]

I wish you health, long life and good healing
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Soroush, you wrote, amongst other things,

"What I was trying to convey was the situation when the NEED* for the
substance (and you can even include food and water in this) is so great that
all other things that matter are put aside in an attempt to obtain the next
fix If the supply of the next fix is not so limited (e.g. cigarettes), then
there are not the major anti-social events that one associates with other
substances. But even then I have heard someone when they had not had a
cigarette for some hours say (and perhaps they did not mean it so much or it
was a flippant remark) "I could kill for a cigarette"!

I would ask you - what about the starving nations (waiting for their next
"fix") - do they behave along the lines you are describing?

Regards, Joy
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

I think the thing that differentiates an "addiction" from a (true) "need" is
simply that one is truly necessary to life/heatlh, and if other things are
well, fulfilling that need leads to continued good health, expansion of
wellbeing, optimization of creative potential, ability to do good in the
greater world, and all the stuff Hahnemann described in his lovely aphorism
(sorry, can't give number) re the "indwelling, reason-gifted spirit", I
think it was.

But in an addiction, the body/mind has been "deceived", or misguided, into
believing that the addictive substance is not only "needed", whereas it is
not, but believing that it is needed *more* than the "true needs" such as
food, water, community, etc. Which is (part of) why addicts are typically
undernourished and underslept, as well as why they will sometimes do various
socially unacceptable things.

Fulfilling true needs permits the organism to continue in a state of
harmony; fulfilling addictions leads to destruction.

Cheers,
Shannon
on 9/6/02 5:15 AM, Joy Lucas at joylucas_speaktv@hotmail.com wrote:

Your closing questions draws a response from the analogue of the individual's miamatic & constitutional condition to that of a collective. In principle analysis finds the application to be the same. We come to this life with a genetic parts list, miasmatically pre-set if you will, and thereafter manifest one's constitutional construction as one's life's path allow for the functional reflection of a matrix of proteins.

I would argue that control is an illusion; that what occurs is always a functional manifestion of a reaction, a response to the terrain in which one finds oneself. The two principles at play are those which identify and elaborate the relation of exogenous and endogenous factors upon the condition of the vital force.

My reading is that we all sit at a common table but are reflecting the view from our specific chairs.

Joy Lucas wrote:

I would like to suggest that there is a distinction to be made between 'wants' & 'needs'. 'Wants' are ego based while 'needs' are spiritually based. 'Wants' can only be satisfied which is temporal in nature; while 'needs' when accomodated offer fulfillment. They are without condition.

Robert&Shannon Nelson wrote:

Should starving people see the sight of food being denied to them and should they have sufficient energy, they will struggle to get it.

Ever seen the battle over some toys in some stores at Xmas??

Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shannon

You wrote:
to
"addicted".
addiction,
do

Heavens no! It happens alright

What I'm saying is that this behaviour is triggered by the *deprivation* of
the addictive substance.

It's an extrememly fine distinction which is enormously complicated in the
case of heroin by the fact that delusions of criminality are part of the
drug state. If you can bear with me, I'll try and tease it out in the
following.

**If the addictive sustance is freely available**, this behaviour largely
doesn't occur, unless - say taking alcohol as an example - the person reacts
violently when they're under the influence. Soroush gave a great example of
a program in this country (Liverpool) which demonstrated that the level of
crime associated with heroin addicition plummeted when supplies were made
readily available.

The initial attraction to the substance has a lot to do with
susceptibility -- with the state that the person is in when they first try
the substance being close to one polarity of the substance state. That's how
the attraction operates. The closer the person's state is to the substance
state, the more irresistible the attraction becomes. It operates *despite*
rational opinion. Rational opinion usually jogs along behind trying to think
up plausible justifications, and if it isn't up to the job, then denial
takes over until the addiction reaches the point where denial is no longer
possible.

Let's say that the person's original state intensifies of it's own accord
without the aid of drugs. Take a stereotypical example within what we could
call "the opiate diathesis": someone who's environment is such that they are
threatened, criminalised, disadvantaged, merely because of where they live
or their family background and not because of anything they themselves have
done. Such an individual is pretty soon going to feel that it makes no
difference how well they behave - they're damned anyway. Put yourself in
their shoes and walk around in them awhile. Imagine how that must feel.
Imagine how long you could stand living that reality before something gave
way.

This is why I feel that the demonisation of the drug as the villain of the
piece is inappropriate. It's there because that's its natural environment.
Like draws like. It may exacerbate a pre-existing state, but it's more of a
symptom than a cause. Not only is demonising it not strictly accurate, it
allows society to duck out of any responsibility in the matter - "oh they're
drug addicts, it's only to be expected - it's the drug that makes them do
it." Which is more immoral? The drug addict stealing to get his/her next
fix? Or the society that criminalises, threatens, disadvantages and turns
its back on certain groups within it?

We all observe how easily reason takes a back seat in dis-ease of any
nature. Of course people with addictions lack moral inhibition at times -
but it's a common symptom of *all* dis-ease!!

**The extent of lack of reason is directly proportional to the degree of
pathology** suffered by the individual which they're trying their damnest to
seek relief from, and the *nature* of the pathology will determine the
precise expression. Push a heroin addict further into their pathology by
depriving them of the substance, and you'll stand a good chance of getting
an exhibition of the fullest extent of their pathology: ie. they behave like
a criminal. The reason we criminalise them instead of responding to and
understanding the pain is because *we're* responding to the nature of the
substance (see delusions of Opium again)!

Note that we (I'm referring largely to western nations here) don't react the
same way to alcohol, despite the fact that far more violent crime is
perpetrated in association with it, so it's immediately apparent that our
reaction to the crimes committed by heroin addicts is disproportionate. What
price our precious reason then, if we're unable to see that we're "proving"
the substance just as surely as the person who depends on it?

Look at aphorism 9 of the Organon:
"In the healthy condition of man, the spiritual vital force (autocracy), the
dynamis that animates the material body (organism), rules with unbounded
sway, and retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious,
vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions, so that our
indwelling reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy
instrument for the higher purposes of our existence."

The corollary of this aphorism - that our indwelling reaon-gifted mind can't
really do it's thing *unless* man is essentially healthy - is worth thinking
about. If there is disharmony in the vital force, then the prime directive
for the organism is to do something to try and correct that disharmony and
all the symptoms we observe of whatever nature in dis-ease represent the
attempts of the vital force to do so. The symptoms are calling out for the
remedy and the Great Cosmic Magnet draws us towards it. Addiction actually
represents the attempts of the vital force to heal itself. It may be that
the drug is the actual simillimum, but because the dose is far too great, no
cure is achieved.

As Soroush rightly pointed out in his earlier post, the veneer of
civilisation is extremely thin. It's a pretty universal feature of the human
ego that it imagines itself to have a greater extent of control and
influence than it demonstrably does. Look around you and see just how much
energy we expend every day on dressing up our emotional reactions as
rational conclusions! Not only that, but we are all swayed continually by
the energetic signatures of the things to which we have susceptibility.
Largely we're completely unaware of it, and imagine our "rational"
conclusions to be just that, when in truth they are simply reflections of
the gestalt of the subject of our conclusions. In a very real sense,
prejudice is unavoidable unless we're very, very aware of the nature of what
we're dealing with!!

Regards
Wendy