In light of this new definition of addiction, are we going to keep up the "Lock them up and throw away the key" attitude? Then when they serve their time they get out and fend for themselves only to keep repeating the, in the system routine?
Addiction now defined as brain disorder, not behavior issue
- Thread starter KilljoyKlown
- Start date
To give some perspective here, Dr Benjamin Rush was the first physician known to reject the behavior attitude toward addiction.
Interestingly, he did so over 200 years ago. This renaissance man earned a BA at age 14; he learned French, Italian and Spanish while in Europe; he became America's first professor of chemistry at age 23; he published writings opposing slavery, capital punishment, alcohol and tobacco; he published writings promoting equal education for women, free public schools, patriotism, and the United States Constitution; he named Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin among his friends; he urged Thomas Paine to write “Common Sense”; he signed the Declaration of Independence; he became the most admired teacher of medicine in Philadelphia (considered the medical center in America in its time), and he trained more than 3,000 students who carried his training to every corner of America; he founded the first free medical clinic in America, and he volunteered there for many years; he helped to incorporate the Young Ladies Academy in Philadelphia because he believed in the education of women; he taught Meriwether Lewis about frontier illnesses and provided the Lewis and Clark Expedition with a medical kit; he was far ahead of his time in his belief that all mental illnesses, including alcoholism, were due to physical causes; he promoted humane treatment of the insane, and he published the first American psychiatric textbook; he is known as the “Father of American Psychiatry”, and the emblem of the American Psychiatric Association bears his portrait.
Rush invented the concept of addiction. Prior to this, people viewed drunkenness as merely a wrong choice (ie, they simply drank too much, and merely needed to cut down). But Rush introduced the idea that alcoholics lose control over themselves. He identified the properties of alcohol as the cause of addiction. He developed the conception of addiction as a form of medical disease, and he finally developed the idea of abstinence as the only cure for addiction (instead of not drinking so much).
So, this "not a behavior issue" has been around for quite some time. I worked in the chemical dependency recovery field for several years and in various roles, and people (including addicts themselves) know that there's various factors (among them, willpower, genetic, biologic, familial, societal, etc) that contribute to their addictions, but that their attitude and willpower is the only factor that they can currently control. I have also heard from many addicts own lips that people quit their addictions only when they're ready to do so, and I have heard them scoff at the idea that addiction is a "disease". Plenty of help exists for those who want to quit, and all they must do is really want to quit. I firmly believe in this also for the time being.
That said, medical research may someday advance to the point of inventing medications that compensate for the biological deficits that contribute to addictions.
Interestingly, he did so over 200 years ago. This renaissance man earned a BA at age 14; he learned French, Italian and Spanish while in Europe; he became America's first professor of chemistry at age 23; he published writings opposing slavery, capital punishment, alcohol and tobacco; he published writings promoting equal education for women, free public schools, patriotism, and the United States Constitution; he named Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin among his friends; he urged Thomas Paine to write “Common Sense”; he signed the Declaration of Independence; he became the most admired teacher of medicine in Philadelphia (considered the medical center in America in its time), and he trained more than 3,000 students who carried his training to every corner of America; he founded the first free medical clinic in America, and he volunteered there for many years; he helped to incorporate the Young Ladies Academy in Philadelphia because he believed in the education of women; he taught Meriwether Lewis about frontier illnesses and provided the Lewis and Clark Expedition with a medical kit; he was far ahead of his time in his belief that all mental illnesses, including alcoholism, were due to physical causes; he promoted humane treatment of the insane, and he published the first American psychiatric textbook; he is known as the “Father of American Psychiatry”, and the emblem of the American Psychiatric Association bears his portrait.
Rush invented the concept of addiction. Prior to this, people viewed drunkenness as merely a wrong choice (ie, they simply drank too much, and merely needed to cut down). But Rush introduced the idea that alcoholics lose control over themselves. He identified the properties of alcohol as the cause of addiction. He developed the conception of addiction as a form of medical disease, and he finally developed the idea of abstinence as the only cure for addiction (instead of not drinking so much).
So, this "not a behavior issue" has been around for quite some time. I worked in the chemical dependency recovery field for several years and in various roles, and people (including addicts themselves) know that there's various factors (among them, willpower, genetic, biologic, familial, societal, etc) that contribute to their addictions, but that their attitude and willpower is the only factor that they can currently control. I have also heard from many addicts own lips that people quit their addictions only when they're ready to do so, and I have heard them scoff at the idea that addiction is a "disease". Plenty of help exists for those who want to quit, and all they must do is really want to quit. I firmly believe in this also for the time being.
That said, medical research may someday advance to the point of inventing medications that compensate for the biological deficits that contribute to addictions.
Sounds like Rush was quite a guy (way ahead of his time), but isn't that one of the hindsight clues that help know the guy was a genius? One of the things I'm concerned about is how the law is going to be affected by this new definition of addiction? Will the courts change how they deal with addiction?
:wallbang:
That's a no, nothing, nada, no change.
It surprises me absolutely none that there's physical changes going on in the brain that make addction a compulsive behavior. That seems pretty logical. When has law and logic bore a resemblance?
When the lawyers prove it that way otherwise it usually doesn't.
to be fair its not the courts which are at fault, there power is limited to acting as parliment\congress\legislature has decided. The change needs to be made in legislation, not in the courts
The US Supreme Court has the right to decide if a law is right or wrong. It can find that a law is to vague and asked for it to be amended if they want to. So you are correct but the courts can initiate a way to change the laws if they so desire.
i know but i cant see any route (Except MAYBE cruel and unusual punishment but that would be a strech concidering every other country is the same) by which you could eliminate possession laws. They are oviously well written enough to have withstood challange for years, whats changed is not how the laws a written but the science. This SHOULD change the ethics but it takes time, and the courts will probably leave it to the legisure to make that decision.
If each country has there own laws why try to make them apply to everyone elses countries?:shrug:
It is just confusing at times when a visitor vacations somewhere and does something that is allowed in their country but not allowed in the country they are visiting.
actually alot of cases in the westminster system are used in other courts, for instance canadian, NZ and british cases are used in Australian courts. US cases arnt because (a quote from my law lecturer) "you could find a US case to agree with any position", there isnt much consistancy in the US cases. Its not about trying to force your laws on other countries (our laws, yours, there all the same in this matter).
My perspective is that the justice system treats addiction as something of a crime (ie, voluntary) and something of a disease (involuntary). Where I come from, most jails and prisons have substance dependency recovery programs -- at least AA, NA, etc.
However, society cannot, and will not, turn a blind eye toward drug users who steal, rob, pimp or traffic to sustain their unlawful and self-destructive habits. The article quoted in the OP corroborates this view: "...choosing recovery over unhealthy behaviors is necessary," Hajela said. "This 'choosing recovery' is akin to people with heart disease...choos[ing] to eat healthier or begin exercising".
I have seen what addiction does to people, I have lived with them, and listened to them, and mentored them. Some addicts are diagnosed with mental illnesses (it's called being "dual-diagnosed"), but their personality won't let some of them admit to addiction. They drink or drug because the world sucks, but they won't take their prescribed meds because that would force them to admit that the problem is in themselves (and not the world), and they're not ready to handle that reality. So, to define their addiction as only a brain disorder validates their distorted view that they aren't responsible for their addiction.
For me, the Number One point about substance addiction is that you can never cheat your brain. Whatever the drug does to your brain, it knows it and compensates for it. When you wake up the next morning, the drug is gone but the compensation remains, making you need the drug all the more. Heroin addicts will tell you that they start with sniffing one bag. The next day they feel lousy, so they sniff one bag just to feel normal, then they sniff another to get high. Day after day, their addiction progresses 1 bag, 2 bags, 3 bags, etc. Even for you coffee drinkers, your can't-get-out-of-bed or your don't-try-to-talk-to-him/her-before-their-coffee personality is mostly due to caffeine withdrawal.
However, society cannot, and will not, turn a blind eye toward drug users who steal, rob, pimp or traffic to sustain their unlawful and self-destructive habits. The article quoted in the OP corroborates this view: "...choosing recovery over unhealthy behaviors is necessary," Hajela said. "This 'choosing recovery' is akin to people with heart disease...choos[ing] to eat healthier or begin exercising".
I have seen what addiction does to people, I have lived with them, and listened to them, and mentored them. Some addicts are diagnosed with mental illnesses (it's called being "dual-diagnosed"), but their personality won't let some of them admit to addiction. They drink or drug because the world sucks, but they won't take their prescribed meds because that would force them to admit that the problem is in themselves (and not the world), and they're not ready to handle that reality. So, to define their addiction as only a brain disorder validates their distorted view that they aren't responsible for their addiction.
For me, the Number One point about substance addiction is that you can never cheat your brain. Whatever the drug does to your brain, it knows it and compensates for it. When you wake up the next morning, the drug is gone but the compensation remains, making you need the drug all the more. Heroin addicts will tell you that they start with sniffing one bag. The next day they feel lousy, so they sniff one bag just to feel normal, then they sniff another to get high. Day after day, their addiction progresses 1 bag, 2 bags, 3 bags, etc. Even for you coffee drinkers, your can't-get-out-of-bed or your don't-try-to-talk-to-him/her-before-their-coffee personality is mostly due to caffeine withdrawal.
We are actually talking about two different problems here. One is the addiction problem and the other is the supply problem. Let's take alcoholism, during prohibition we had more crime and gang activity than before prohibition. But now it's not a crime to drink responsibly and drunk driving arrest have been going down and there are less alcoholics now. So it's legal but it's being managed without jailing people for possession.
My point being not all users are criminals, but by making something people really want illegal you create a situation for criminals to make a lot of money. As more and more people want in on the gravy train you get very large gangs willing to war with each other to protect their turf (gangland USA). So it appears that nobody learned a damn thing from prohibition.
If you want to clear up the gang problem and reduce addiction levels, you have to find a way to take the money out of the equation. There are several ways of doing this and yet no one is willing to bit the bullet and do it. One good way to start would be to go to a cashless society. Can anyone see how pushers could move their product without cash? Even if they tried every transaction leaves a clear trail (Ouch! Damn that big brother).
KilljoyKlown the quickest, safest and easiest way is to surply the adicts drugs (or safe alternitives in the case of meth) from a pharmacy. Then they will be cheep, consistant and not cut with something which is worse than the drug itself.
However drugs arnt the only form of adiction:
Now concidering this report that verdic SHOULD have been the australian form of "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" (i use the US form because it is quite well phrased and succinct)
However drugs arnt the only form of adiction:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gambling-addict-who-stole-millions-jailed-20110812-1iq41.html
Now concidering this report that verdic SHOULD have been the australian form of "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" (i use the US form because it is quite well phrased and succinct)
Is there such a thing as a safe alternative to meth? Also, if you commit a crime that hurts others you need to be removed from society, but if you have a diagnosed health disorder, what happens to you after conviction maybe should be different than it is now.
I do agree that some form of affordable drugs would take the money out of the criminals hands and help prevent users from having to commit crimes to support their habit. Combine that with education and other incentives to not do drugs and one generation would pretty much clear the problem up.
Personally i would give dexamphetamine alone rather than meth but thats without any resurch into it. Im sure that a pharmacist could find an even better subsitute
On the other thing why should they be convicted, treated sure but why convicted? After all there is a reason why "not guilty by mental disease or defect" exists, thats not a conviction.
I think your very wrong about meth. There is no suitable substitute for it. Also, while having an addictive disorder might be a reason why someone commits a crime, it can't be used as an excuse to avoid jail or prison time, when the crime involves harm to others. I have known addicts before that never committed any crimes that harmed others, and when I asked them why not they said because that was not the type of person they were.
You ask why should they be convicted? Because there is no sure cure for their problem and they have a proven track record of being willing to hurt others to get what they want. The only way you have to tell a bad person from a good person is the track record they leave behind. Otherwise you might get a real criminal that likes drugs confused with a drug addict that commits a crime to support a habit.