Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
From: [doctor 1] at [ihspc.att.com] (bl045268c-Hailey)
Subject: Re: Jerry on smack again
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 20:00:53 GMT

In article <2ifhhk$[n 38] at [romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu]> [b--or--n] at [alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu] (Brent A. Gordon) writes:
>Cocaine not addictive?  Now I have never tried it, nor do I have any
>desire to.  However, I have seen some of my friends practically 
>living on it.  They actually claimed at the time that they would die
>without more.  If this is not your definition of an addiction, then
>what is?

Well, I don't know what Jerry's is, but I suspect he'd be comfy with the
definition commonly used in the medical community and most everyone else who's
knowledgable and is not pushing a war agenda or making a living off the civil
war:

     1) resonance 2) tolerance 3) morbid craving.

'Resonance' (spelling correction welcome) is the state in which withdrawal of
a substance makes a person sick, and reintroducing a small amount of the
substance makes them well.  This is what we used to call "physical
addiction".

'Tolerance' is the state by which you need increasing amounts of the drug to
get the same effect.

'Morbid craving' is what people generally think of when talking about
'addiction'.  Someone here on the net once described it as a craving strong
enough 'to alarm other members of the tribe'.  A good and colorful, if not
entirely complete, definition.

If any of these elements is missing, you may still have a problem, but it's
not an "addiction".  

This is a very useful definition.  The compulsive gambler, who will ruin his
or her whole life and give up every chance they have to be happy, is none the
less not 'addicted' to anything.  Same goes for the person who loves their
spouse and family but "can't help themselves" when it comes to their desire
to have multiple sexual partners - thereby taking the chance at loosing
everything.  The study of these behaviors can be important for the
understanding of addiction, but it's not addiction, and we need to seperate
out this kind of noise in order to discuss the subject sensibly.

In the case of cocaine, number 1), resonance, is missing.  Someone else can
fill in the scientific aspects (I certainly can't), but basically, cocaine
stimulates the release of chemicals you have inside your body anyway.  The
cocaine doesn't get you high, or really have much of any other kind of effect
at all.  Your body just isn't going to miss it when it's gone: it hardly
knows it's there.

Can you now see why 2), tolerance, doesn't really apply?  Once you've done
enough cocaine, your body can't release any more of whatever it is (help?!)
as there's none left.  Until your body has time make some more, you can keep
using cocaine, but it won't do anything.  Not much room there for the idea of
tolerance.

So, what we're left with is 3), morbid craving.

Some people suffer from compulsive hand-washing.  Some are so bad that they
can't work or continue in their normal family life, and some are even
institutionalized.  If the need to wash your hands often is so strong that
you completely opt out of life to indulge it, I'd say that's a pretty darn
morbid craving.  But is it an addiction?  Of course not.

Perhaps a better example is the triple-bypass patient with diabetes (sp?) who
still insists on a heavy, southern-style breakfast dripping in bacon grease.
Is this evidence that bacon is addictive?  Can you imagine posting that "I
believe all food should be legal, but misinformation like this hurts our
cause.  My neighbor ate bacon even though he knew it was killing him, so I
*know* bacon is addictive"?

>Humans can be, and are, addicted to a whole spectrum of substances.

People can be compulsive about many things, even to the point of messing up
their lives ('morbid craving'):  Work, sex, video games, cleaning, car
racing, other people...  But they can only be addicted to substances that are
addictive.  Period.

Bacon isn't one of them.  Neither is cocaine.  No amount of laws or press
coverage or anything else can change that.

>I am completely FOR the legalization of ALL drugs.  I do feel, however,
>that misinformation like this does nothing but hurt our cause.  The

I'm glad we're on the same side.  However, ignorance like this does nothing
but hurt our cause.  Calling someone's craving for a non-addictive substance
"addiction" is misinformation.

(I say this knowing full well that I probably made about a zillion errors in
this post.  A scientist I'm not.  Even someone who's read Richard Lawrence
Miller's "The Case for Legalizing Drugs" or any number of other good books
more recently than I will be able to patch up what I've said.  The above is a
good enough understanding for me to get along on, rather the way I understand
how my car engine works.)

>US drug problem will not be curbed by long prison terms rather by 
>education (not the PDFA and DARE lies either).  This education should
>begin with us.  If we lie about the dangers of drugs, then we are no
>better than those drug warriors who oppress us.
> 
>>
>>Jerry Stratton
>
>my 1.5 cents.
>
>Brent Gordon
>

Please think *three* times before calling someone a lyer.  Didn't you at
least consider that maybe, just maybe, Jerry knew what he was talking about
before you actually accused him of lying?  Is that your first reaction
whenever you learn something about the world contrary to what you previously
believed?

In no way should I be construed as saying cocaine is "safe".  I assert that
it won't turn the user into a duck, either, but I'm not "lying about the
dangers".

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick
             [doctor 1] at [pofbbs.chi.il.us]  <- Use this one.  Be patient.