Minutus

Dave wrote:

Yes, agreed, though I think I can see where Joy was coming from on this and
I would agree with her that addiction tends to occur (in relation to
anything, not just substances) where it provides some kind of substitution
for a deficiency of something needed at some level by the organism. Hence
addiction is a symptom of deficiency, rather than the deficiency itself. It
can certainly come about after casual recreational use of a substance, but
lots of people casually use substances recreationally; not all of them
become addicted.

One of the most useful ideas I've come across in relation to addiction is
that of *substitution* -- the addictive substance provides some kind of
vague simillitude to a sensation, feeling or idea that the organism is, at
some level, seeking. The particular substance/activity to which the
individual is addicted can then provide a huge clue as to the nature of the
deficiency that needs addressed.

I don't believe that the substances themselves have any particular
"addictive" quality. This may seem a strange thing to say in the face of
commonly-accepted opinion, but it's worth following that line of thought for
a bit because it returns the responsibility for the addiction to the person
concerned and thereby gives them the power to overcome it. Substances only
derive this "addictive" quality in relation to their interaction with us.
It's *we* who are driven to keep returning to the substance. And I think
that those substances which exert the most powerful and widespread
attraction (ie. the so-called "addictive" substances) are those that provide
something which is more generally lacking in humankind than the more
idiosyncratic, individual things that people become attached to.

Regards
Wendy

Hi Wendy,

I heartily agree that

on 12/22/02 5:49 AM, Wendy Howard at wendy@rachan.worldonline.co.uk wrote:

Substances only

However, your next statement, that
implies that there is a "will" or desire or intention involved; that the
"deficiency" being filled (if it is that) is a M/E one. I think this is not
necessarily true, or at least cannot be shown to be generally true. From my
family experience and my reading, there are many cases (I'm inclined to say
"most", but couldn't back up that strong a statement) where nutritional
support can eliminate an addiction, where psychological measures were a
total and complete bust. E.g. craving for alcohol can be caused (even in
psychologically rather uncomplicated mice, monkeys, etc.) by nutritional
deficiencies including (these are the only two I happen to remember, tho I'm
sure there are more) EFAs, protein, magnesium....

And I think

OR, back at the nutritional model, provide a stand-in in some way, for
something else which is lacking (whether emotional or physical, etc.).

than the more

I do find it a fascinating idea, that the nature of the idiosyncratic
addiction can give clue to the actual need involved. Probably this will
eventually work out to be true, but wow, where to start... E.g. a child
with autism or other brain sxs brought on by corn? What does that tell you,
other than "constitutional care" and "avoid corn"?

But a very interesting line of inquiry...

Cheers,
Shannon

Dear Wendy,

I agree with you in part. The question I have is whether you negate the 'addictive' aspect to various drugs
where, for example, they were medicinally applied; ie, morphine. It is true that using morphine, or any of
its derivatives, offers relief from pain which is your 'substitution' theory. But are you negating the physiological
impact that the drug has which makes the body crave more?

tanya

Shannon wrote:

Well if you want to make that implication you can, but I didn't!! We can be
driven just as much by nutritional needs (eg. I'm hungry, therefore I'm
driven to eat) as by anything else!

Regards
Wendy

Tanya wrote:
'addictive' aspect to various drugs
true that using morphine, or any of
theory. But are you negating the physiological

I'm not negating anything. The physiological processes we observe in opiate
addiction are "real" enough. What I'm suggesting is approaching the dynamic
from a slightly different perspective.

It's much the same as taking the germ theory of disease from a slightly
different angle. The germ theory of disease has it that germs are the
external cause of disease. Many of us see it slightly differently, that the
change in state in an individual to provide a conducive environment for
certain germs is *prior* to "infection" and that therefore the germs are not
the *cause* of the disease, but merely another symptom of it, albeit one
that appears to produce symptoms in its own right.

We are essentially hologrammatic, so dependency on any substance can be
expected to exhibit the reflection of that dependency at all levels of
being. Identifying physiological processes which shout "addiction" is one
thing. Moving from that observation to the conclusion that the physiological
processes are *responsible* for the state, and that therefore the substance
is the "cause" of the problem, is another. However, that is the line of
reasoning that's commonly taken because of the materialistic bias of our
perspective. All I'm saying is try looking at it from other angles.

Regards
Wendy

Wendy,

Normally I would argue from your point of view. But having recently dealt with a medically induced
opiate addiction, I have to allow for the external impact and creation of the addiction--at least in
some cases. In the case the I dealt with, which was posted a couple of months ago, the woman
became addicted without knowing what was happening. She was very aggressive about stopping
the medication as soon as she noted any side effects. She stopped cold turkey and went into
severe withdrawal symptoms. I would find it very hard to argue your perspective in this case. She
was in a severe accident, was taken to a hospital which medicated her without giving any information
on the meds or their consequences. I think we need to allow for variations in a theme on just about
any position we take.

I would certainly agree that many people use various things to 'medicate' their pains and discomforts
in life. And in such conditions, your perspective would certainly hold.

tanya

wendy wrote
The physiological processes we observe in opiate addiction are "real"
enough. What I'm suggesting is approaching the dynamic from a slightly
different perspective.

Hello Wendy, this is precise - it is susceptibility. One could suggest that
those who take an experimental chance with a leisure drug and then become
addicted have unlocked the door, unlocked the susceptibility that they
always had towards becoming a drug addict - likewise with those who develop
such a painful illness that they have to 'succumb' to morphine and the like,
and then become addicted are already those who have this susceptibility. The
susceptibility will be there before the addiction - it is just chance and
choices in life that leads certain people in that direction.

Best wishes, Joy
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&x ... I=7474&SU=
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getm ... ishere_3mf

Tanya wrote:
with a medically induced
the addiction--at least in
months ago, the woman
aggressive about stopping
turkey and went into
perspective in this case. She
without giving any information
variations in a theme on just about

In this instance I would question your use of the term "addiction" to
describe your patient's state. Obviously she was suffering symptoms as a
result of taking opiates, but the crucial phrase here seems to be "She was
very aggressive about stopping the medication as soon as she noted any side
effects". Pretty much any substance will produce effects if taken
continually, and may also precipitate unpleasant symptoms in the process of
readjustment following withdrawal. This doesn't necessarily signal
addiction.

The word addiction comes from the Latin addictus, derived from the verb
addere meaning to devote, to deliver over. Your patient was quite clear
about her choices here. There doesn't seem to much sense that she was
devoted to her pain medication, or had given herself over to it. She took it
in ignorance, believing she was well advised, until she realised what was
happening to her, whereupon she dropped it like a hot potato.

It could be considered that the apparent "addictiveness" of the opiates
relates to an almost universal level of susceptibility in humankind to the
dynamic that the substance represents a close approximation to. This
perspective can be quite instructive about our general condition!

I do take your point though. I have a patient who has been on a certain
medication for over 20 years which didn't seem particularly well indicated
to begin with, and she now appears locked into a physiological cycle of
dependency on it. However, this is still very much consistent with the rest
of her case and her particular dependency/independency dynamics.

Regards
Wendy

okay, i can go with the perspective that Joy and Wendy have put forth

tanya

Interesting distinction. In fact, physiological dependence is well
documented as a possible effect of many substances, including very common
ones such as caffeine and ephedrine. However, that situation may or may not
be accompanied by psychological addiction, which generally would indicate
that the person's life has changed in some way around the substance (or
activity or person or...). It seems that Wendy's client or acquaintance
feared addiction as a sequela to physiological dependence, and hence
"dropped it like a hot potato." I've encountered a fair number of people
who could be said to be addicted to their illnesses, and who have to be
willing to change their psychological profiles substantially in order to
experience durable healing. Some do it, some don't.

Rosemary