Another Generous Opponent

Many readers here will recall my exchange with ‘Citizen Sane’ on the subject of ‘addiction’ (you may read it here http://bit.ly/GzI61T

 

Now I have received a letter from a person who got in touch with me some months ago to give me a piece of his mind on the same subject.

 

He wrote:

 

‘A while back I wrote to you about your opinion on the "fantasy" of addiction (and even wrote my own little piece on it). I've been doing some thinking on my opposition to your views on addiction and have come to the conclusion that I may have been wrong on some of the points I made. You've no reason to remember the initial correspondence and you've no reason to care what I think now, but I thought I'd get in touch to show that some people do actually go away and think about their opinions and possibly re-evaluate them.

 

‘On Newsnight with Matthew Perry the point was made - one that he disagreed with - that if what he was saying was true, that addiction is an illness that cannot be controlled one little bit, then people would never get off drugs or stop drinking (he almost went on to contradict himself to say that he is in control while denying that people are in control... perhaps a bit confused). I feel a little bit stupid for only just agreeing with your point now because when I think about it now it just seems terribly obvious to me.

 

‘I also now agree with other points you've made in different discussions on, for example the so-called "soft" drug cannabis, that it doesn't just do harm to the individual abusing themself, but also to the people around them who have to put up with them and also to countries where gangsters are profiting massively from this due to, as I think you put it, "rich selfish western kids" or something to that effect. For many, on the face of it, it sounds awful, heartless and a bit rash to not give any sympathy to the person abusing himself with poisons and think only about the family and friends picking up the pieces, but does the idiot deserve the sympathy? Probably not.

 

‘When I initially sent you the e-mail on addiction I did describe myself politically at the time as a libertarian, which is probably why I came across as a bit naive and perhaps immature. I'm sure as I get older and read more I'm getting more conservative (small-c).

 

‘As I say, I just thought I'd let you know some people do actually re-evaluate their thoughts instead of spitting their dummy out when someone disagrees with them.’

 

 

Originally, he had written: ‘ I’m writing this because of [your] extraordinary claim that addiction to a substance is not a real condition and is merely a matter of a lack of willpower and a lack of personal responsibility. As Perry put it, his claim that addiction is non-existent is as ludicrous as saying that Peter Pan is real. Dr. Ellie Cannon wrote a response to [you] in the Mail on Sunday pointing out that while willpower is very much the biggest factor in a person’s recovery from addiction, addiction is a real illness that many normal people suffer from, to which [you] have also responded. In it [you have] given the formula to which a person should respond to [your] claim that addiction is fiction.

 

“*Define* the thing you say exists. *Describe* it. Show how we can detect its presence in an *objective, measurable and testable* way.”

 

Before I attempt to respond to [your] claim, I want to explain a few things first as I believe that his formula oversimplifies a very complex issue.

 

 

 

‘First though, why do I care what some columnist thinks about addiction? How does it remotely affect me? Surely there are better things I can spend my time writing about? Well, there are better things I could be writing about. At the end of the day we’re all entitled to our view, no matter how many people may agree or disagree with us, no matter how informed or uninformed it is. But this is an issue that’s very close to me. I’ve lost family members and friends due to addiction of alcohol. But why did they end up addicted to alcohol in the first place?

 

 

 

‘People don’t make a conscious decision to become addicted to something. An addict doesn’t wake up one day and say “you know what, I think I’m going to get myself hooked on alcohol today” because an addict often doesn’t even realise they’re addicted. Take someone suffering from severe depression from example. They may take the idea that alcohol drowns your sorrows a little too seriously and try it out and at first they will probably feel like it’s working. Problem solved! Until those feelings that drove them to drink come back. What do you think they do then? Do they realise that the drink isn’t a viable solution? No. It requires rational thought to realise that and often the person isn’t able to think rationally about things. So they drink. How do I know this? Because after a couple of breakdowns that I’ve recently had I’ve realised it’s what I’ve been doing. And I realise that, although I’m only just coming to terms with it, my issue with drink is not a recent one and has been building up over the course of the last year.

 

 

 

‘You may say “well that’s just silly.” “Drink won’t help you!” “Go to a doctor, you’re not helping yourself!” Those statements are all correct. To think that drink can help is a silly one, it doesn’t help you and the best course of action is to see a doctor. But as I say, it requires rational thought to come to that logical conclusion. A person in a depressive episode often isn’t able to think that logically and that rationally so they self-medicate on something that they think will numb the feelings. That cycle of getting into a rut only to turn to drink is what causes addiction. We are creatures of habit and you can look at addiction as a harmful and extreme habit. It’s an automatic reaction to something, often feelings, emotions and sensations. How to really understand addiction and the cause of addiction is not to ask why someone is drinking or taking medication they don’t need or any of those things but to find out what event, what mood, what emotion, what feeling and what sensation makes the person think they need it. Alcohol is a crutch for an alcoholic, one that is hard to put down.

 

 

 

‘Now I’ll go back to [your] simplistic formula for a response to [your] statement, I’ll quote it here again and then respond to it.

 

*Define* the thing you say exists. *Describe* it. Show how we can detect its presence in an *objective, measurable and testable* way.

The Oxford English Dictionary has “addiction” down as “the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance or activity“, which I have to say, in this case, isn’t an overly helpful definition and would only go to make Hitchens’ point for him, so here I will attempt to offer a better definition than that. Addiction is the state of being reliant on substance or an activity, it’s the irrational belief that one must consume a particular substance or partake in a particular activity in order to function. To describe it, if we take my example above of alcohol dealing with depressive thoughts, it’s the idea that drinking alcohol will drown out the depressive thoughts that plague the person’s mind. When this perceived need isn’t met, a person can suffer severe distress, heightened irritability and worse and worse feelings and emotions. I describe it as a perceived need because we can all agree that the person doesn’t need alcohol, it’s the irrational thought that makes the person think that they need alcohol. I have to admit, the last part of the formula is the hardest. Schizophrenia can cause a person to hear voices that aren’t there and it is accepted that this is a genuine illness, but how do we objectively say that a person can hear them, how do we measure the voices that the person can hear and how do we test whether or not the person can hear voices? Psychological illness, as addiction is, can really only be gauged by the information given by the patient so it’s hard to objectively measure and test it like a broken bone. It starts with the person admitting that they have a problem and need medical help with it (family and friends can seek help for the person but at the end of the day, psychological help can never be given until the person admits to them self that they have a problem and is ready to accept help). The test of a person’s addiction goes hand in hand with how to measure a person’s level of addiction, this comes during treatment. How long can a person go without the substance or activity they’re addicted to compared to when they first started treatment? That’s how to measure it.

 

 

 

I hope my response to [your] formula for responding to his statement is good enough and I hope that, if not, [you’ll] respond to it and tell me exactly why not. I do believe addiction exists and I believe to say it doesn’t is like saying depression and a whole host of other mental illnesses don’t exist. It is shameful for me to admit that I have a drink problem and it’s hard to admit. To admit you have a problem is the first step and the hardest step to getting better. Yes, I know that willpower is one of the biggest factors of curing addiction. But to have someone lecture me and tell me that my struggles are nothing to do with illness and all to do with a failure of willpower and personal responsibility is completely demeaning, unfounded and unnecessary. Addiction really is not fiction.’

 

 

I am impressed by this correspondent’s generosity of spirit and willingness to rethink. I’ve thanked him for taking the trouble to write, and for having the courage to do so. I have his permission to publish all the material above.