The Nature of Addiction
If opium were the only drug of abuse, and the only kind of abuse were one of its compulsive use, discussion of addiction might be a simple matter. But opium is not the only drug of abuse. So many substances are used in so many different ways by so many different people for so many different purposes that no one view or one definition can possibly embrace all the medical, psychiatric, psychological, sociological, cultural, economic, religious, ethical, and legal considerations that have an important bearing on addiction.
The tradition of equating drug abuse with narcotic addiction originally did have some basis in fact. Until recent times, questions of addiction centered on the misuse of opiates, the various concoctions prepared from powdered opium. Then various alkaloids of opium, such as morphine and heroin, were isolated and introduced into use. Being the more active principles of opium, their addictions were simply more severe. More recently, new drugs such as methadone and Demerol were synthesized but their effects were still sufficiently similar to those of opium and its derivatives to be included in the older concept of addiction.
With the introduction of various barbiturates in the form of sedatives and sleeping pills, the homogeneity of addictions began to break down. Then came various tranquilizers, stimulants, new and old hallucinogens, and the various combinations of each. At this point, the unitary consideration of addiction becomes untenable. Further problems arise with the attempts to broaden addiction to include habituation and, finally, drug dependence.
The bewilderment that the public and its elected representatives manifest whenever a serious attempt is made to differentiate states of addiction or degrees of abuse probably stems from two all too common misconceptions concerning drug addiction. The first involves the stereotype that a drug user is automatically a social misfit. The second misconception involves the belief that there is something magically drug like about some substances which makes them 'drugs'.
Many substances are capable of acting on a biological system, and whether a particular substance comes to be considered a drug depends, in large measure, upon whether it is capable of eliciting a "drug like" effect that is valued by the user and what value society chooses to attach to that effect. In the difference between the two values is where you find 'the drug problem'. A substance's attribute as a drug is imparted to it by use. Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are clearly drugs, and the habitual, excessive use of coffee, tobacco, or an alcoholic drink is clearly drug dependence if not addiction. The same could be extended to cover tea, chocolates, or powdered sugar, if society wished to use and consider them that way.
The task of defining addiction, then, is the task of being able to distinguish between opium and powdered sugar while at the same time being able to embrace the fact that both can be subject to abuse. This requires a frame of reference that recognizes that almost any substance can be considered a drug, that almost any drug is capable of abuse, that one kind of abuse may differ appreciably from another kind of abuse, and that the effect valued by the user will differ from one individual to the next for a particular drug, or from one drug to the next drug for a particular individual. This kind of reference doesn't answer the various questions of availability, public sanction, and other considerations that lead people to value one kind of effect over another at a particular moment in history, but it does at least acknowledge that drug addiction is not a unitary condition neatly book ended by prevailing moral norms.
Copyright with the holder, with views expressed that are not necessarily shared by Hunter Decorator
The tradition of equating drug abuse with narcotic addiction originally did have some basis in fact. Until recent times, questions of addiction centered on the misuse of opiates, the various concoctions prepared from powdered opium. Then various alkaloids of opium, such as morphine and heroin, were isolated and introduced into use. Being the more active principles of opium, their addictions were simply more severe. More recently, new drugs such as methadone and Demerol were synthesized but their effects were still sufficiently similar to those of opium and its derivatives to be included in the older concept of addiction.
With the introduction of various barbiturates in the form of sedatives and sleeping pills, the homogeneity of addictions began to break down. Then came various tranquilizers, stimulants, new and old hallucinogens, and the various combinations of each. At this point, the unitary consideration of addiction becomes untenable. Further problems arise with the attempts to broaden addiction to include habituation and, finally, drug dependence.
The bewilderment that the public and its elected representatives manifest whenever a serious attempt is made to differentiate states of addiction or degrees of abuse probably stems from two all too common misconceptions concerning drug addiction. The first involves the stereotype that a drug user is automatically a social misfit. The second misconception involves the belief that there is something magically drug like about some substances which makes them 'drugs'.
Many substances are capable of acting on a biological system, and whether a particular substance comes to be considered a drug depends, in large measure, upon whether it is capable of eliciting a "drug like" effect that is valued by the user and what value society chooses to attach to that effect. In the difference between the two values is where you find 'the drug problem'. A substance's attribute as a drug is imparted to it by use. Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are clearly drugs, and the habitual, excessive use of coffee, tobacco, or an alcoholic drink is clearly drug dependence if not addiction. The same could be extended to cover tea, chocolates, or powdered sugar, if society wished to use and consider them that way.
The task of defining addiction, then, is the task of being able to distinguish between opium and powdered sugar while at the same time being able to embrace the fact that both can be subject to abuse. This requires a frame of reference that recognizes that almost any substance can be considered a drug, that almost any drug is capable of abuse, that one kind of abuse may differ appreciably from another kind of abuse, and that the effect valued by the user will differ from one individual to the next for a particular drug, or from one drug to the next drug for a particular individual. This kind of reference doesn't answer the various questions of availability, public sanction, and other considerations that lead people to value one kind of effect over another at a particular moment in history, but it does at least acknowledge that drug addiction is not a unitary condition neatly book ended by prevailing moral norms.
Copyright with the holder, with views expressed that are not necessarily shared by Hunter Decorator
Comments