The Myth of 'Addiction'

Mr 'W' seems to be one of those people who think that a dictionary definition has some sort of decisive force in an argument about meaning, because it sits between hard covers. On the contrary, dictionaries vary in their definitions, from time to time and from publisher to publisher, and are full of subjective statements influenced by the editor's view and the spirit of the age in which they are written. But let us look at the definition of so-called ‘addiction’ which Mr ‘W’ provides.

 

On the ‘Russell Brand Wriggles on Addiction’ thread, He says ‘The word 'addiction', according to the dictionary, means a "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal."

 

This definition contains a whole series of claims which are themselves subjective, vague,  arguable and need definitions of their own.

 

1.‘Compulsive’ . What does this mean? Is it absolute? Does it therefore mean the person has no choice in the matter (compulsion generally means this)? How, then is this compulsion manifested and enforced? Was the person compelled to begin ingesting the substance under discussion? If not, in what sense can he possibly be said to be under compulsion? What force is then 'compelling ' him to carry on with his'addiction?  If he can end his 'addiction' by an exercise of will, how can it possibly, in logic, be a 'compulsion'?  It is plainly the opposite, a volition.   If not absolute, and it plainly is not,  is the sue of the word 'compulsive' not in fact a statement of subjective opinion, employed by the person involved, to excuse his weakness of will?    

2. ‘Need’ . This is just a way of dignifying a craving or desire. I *need* a certain amount of water over a given time, or I will fall ill and die. The same is true of food, of oxygen, and of light. If the absence of something will not cause me to fall ill or die, then I do not need it. I desire or crave it.But I may well tell you (or tell myself) that I ‘need’ it, because it is embarrassing, and even rude to admit to being driven by desire or craving (e.g. the person who comes home, flops on to the sofa and pronounces ‘I *need* a drink’. He doesn’t. He wants one.  But ‘I want a drink’ sounds a bit babyish, doesn’t it?).

 

3. ‘Habit-forming’ . I use this expression myself precisely because it makes so few claims for itself. It is a statement of fact. Some pleasures do become habitual, and people will claim to be ‘addicted’ to such things as sex, gambling and even TV-watching. Qualified professionals will indulge them in this belief, and take fees from them (or from the state) for ‘treating’ them for the supposed addiction. But everone knows athat a 'habit' issomething for which we are ourseves responsible, and which is sustained through our own weakness. It is in a way a direct contradiction of the whole claim, to use this expression. A 'habit' is not a synonym for 'adduiction', but a clean different thing.  

 

What is actually involved here? The will of the person involved is not exercised to reject the habit before acquiring it, nor to resist the habit once acquired, the person indulges in a pleasure which is well-known to be habit-forming, and so takes a decision to form the habit, believing its pleasures to be greater than its disadvantages. If, later, he perhaps decides that the disadvantages outweigh the pleasures, he is then free to abandon it if he wishes.

 

The one absolute determinant fact is this . *He will not abandon it unless he wants to do so*. Given that this is so, all the other characteristics of the alleged complaint are shown to be of no significance. The only consistent , unavoidable and invariable determinant of the beginning and the end of an ‘addiction’ is the exercise (or non-exercise) of the will of the person involved. In what way, then, can ‘addiction’ have any existence outside the subjective exercise of will? In which case, what use it as a concept, how could we objectively establish its presence in the human frame, and how can it be 'treated'?

 

Then we come to ‘characterised by tolerance’ . I suspect that many things which are not habit-forming are also characterised by tolerance. As for ‘well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal’  this seems to me to verge on exaggeration. What are these ‘well-defined physiological symptoms’ in the case of alcohol?  The word ‘hangover’ occurs to me. I have had very bad hangovers. They have not impelled me to start drinking again. They were symptoms of mild alcohol poisoning and moderate dehydration, not of 'withdrawal'. And the phrase ‘well-defined physiological symptoms’  seems to me to be a pompous exaggeration, designed to blind the gullible with fake science.  

 

 

Mr ‘W’ sarcastically sneers :’ I hope you understand what it means now.’

 

I might say the same to him. My general advice is that you don’t begin to understand something until you think about it, which I do not believe he has done. He has not thought about it, not because he cannot, but because he does not want to. He does not want to because his world view, in which people are not free actors but pitiful subjects of outside influence, who cannot be held responsible for their own actions, appeals strongly to him.

 

This is a perfectly understandable position for a non-Christian person, who believes neither in original sin nor divine grace, to take.  It is of course self-serving, asall such opinions are. But never mind. It is, in fact the standard post-Christian attempt to deal with human guilt.  But it is an opinion, not a fact, and it is one which can easily be demonstrated to be such. The concept of ‘addiction’, like the whole post-Christian system of criminal justice and welfare, is based upon this opinion.

In my own view, the catastrophic results of the belief in ‘addiction’ – the failure to deter drug taking, and the state’s subsidy and  indulgence of habitual drug-takers leading to an inexorable growth of drug-taking over the last 50 years – are strong evidence that this opinion is based upon a fundamental mistake about the nature of man and of the universe. It is precisely because the issue is so big, that people get so angry when anyone challenges the concept of ‘addiction’. They don’t want to hear their own doubts expressed.

 

 

Mr ‘W’ asserts ‘Therefore, if you have "well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal" you can be said to be 'addicted' to that particular substance.’

Well, you *can* be *said* to be. But you *can* equally well be *said* *not* to be, by someone with a  different opinion. Facts are not made or expressed in such sentences, only opinions..

 

He then says ‘ I don't understand why you are asking me how it can be a medical condition. When did I ever say it was a medical condition?’

 

It is the general view of those who believe that it exists, that ‘addiction’ is a medical condition which can be dealt with through various forms of ‘treatment’ . The courts of England believe this, as they are frequently to be found urging ‘treatment’ upon ‘addicts’.  If there is no illness, how can there be a treatment?

The same can be said of the drug liberalisation lobby, who relentlessly urge ‘treatment’ rather than what they bizarrely call ’criminalisation’ of people who have deliberately broken the criminal law, and thus ‘criminalised’ themselves.  If Mr ‘W’ does not think ‘addiction’ is a medical condition, what then does he think it is, that allows him to state that there is such a  thing, as a fact.

 

He says :’ I only said that addiction exists despite the fact addicts retain their free will.’

Well, he has said it, but he has not proved it with fact or logic. In my view, ‘addiction’ cannot co-exist with free will, any more than the famous immoveable object can co-exist with the famous irresistible force.  If one exists, the other cannot, by definition. Either there is free will, or there is not. If there is not, then we are slaves of circumstance who have no choice in our fates, such as ‘addicts’ are alleged to be.

 

And he finishes, with a patronising slap around the chops for me :’ Hopefully  (PH: ‘aaargh! Why will people use this awful, subjectless German-American formulation when they mean ‘I hope’? Or perhaps he doesn’t mean that’),  now the meaning of addiction has been explained to you, you will stop making your absurd assertion that it doesn't exist because as we both seem to agree the point that addicts can choose to give up is irrelevant to whether or not addiction exists.’

 

Well, now that the concept has been explained to *him*, he might also note that I absolutely do not agree that the fact that ‘addicts’ can give up their addictions is irrelevant to whether not ‘addiction’ exists. Far from being irrelevant, it is wholly central. I do hope that is clear now. I am, by the way, pleased that he is enjoying ‘Night falls on the City’.

 

I should also address here the comment by James Kabala, also on the Brand thread.  If he respects me, as he says,  he should read me more.  He says : ‘I think more often belief in addiction is cited as a reason why drugs ought to be illegal - since there is the fear that a hitherto good person convinced to try drugs once can quickly become a slave to addiction for life, we must take legal steps to make sure that he never has access to try it that first time. I think a proof that addiction is a myth might actually lead to an increase in support for legalization, at least in the U.S. - maybe in Britain the rhetoric on each side is different. In the U.S., the statement that marijuana is not addictive is far more often made by the pro-legalization side - the implication is often that cocaine and heroin are rightly banned since they are (supposedly) addictive, but marijuana is OK because it is not’.

 

This is one of the reasons why I refuse to accept it. The campaign to make marijuana legal has been predicated on the idea that it is a ‘soft’ drug, in some way less dangerous than the bogeyman drugs, Heroin and Cocaine . It seems to me that the unpredictable possibility of being insane for the rest of your life is probably worse than (and certainly no less appalling than) the dangers of any other drug, and that the marketing of marijuana as ‘soft or even ‘medicinal’ is a wicked lie which urgently needs to be countered.

 

I explore this propaganda falsehood in my book ‘The War We Never Fought’, but claims that marijuana is ‘addictive’ seem to me to be in the area of unwise exaggerated propaganda, of the srt that backfires on those who make it.

 

A lot of marijuana smokers seem to me to be able to take it or leave it depending on circumstances. If we tell them it is ‘addictive’ we will simply convince them we don’t know what we’re talking about. The danger of mental illness, on the other hand, is a real problem. The suggestion that a person who once takes a drug such as heroin will become a slave to it inevitably promotes undeserved sympathy for these wilful criminals, in the media, the culture and ultimately in the criminal justice system,  

 

Thus it undermines the law, by fuelling the lobby for so-called ‘treatment’, (usually indulgence, and sometimes a supply of an alternative drug) rather than punishment. This destroys the law’s deterrent force, and increases the risk that people will take illegal drugs.  I should have thought this was obvious,. It is certainly what has happened in Britain (again, see my book) . This sort of naivety is one of the reasons for the abject failure of the western nations to control or limit illegal drug-taking.