At 09:45 18/05/2005, you wrote:
>I ain't got proof - there just isn't anything about even slightly
>suggesting the idea of genetic causation. As a working hypothesis the
>'no addiction gene' concept is extremely useful for us treating addicts
>particularly as a weapon against the idea that 'it's in me genes so I
>can't do anything about it, doc'.
>I find that I am constantly combating fatalism, ideas of inevitability
>and the pessimistic view of addicts that all is lost and to see this
>view taken up and promulgated into a medically and government sanctioned
>opinion i.e. that 'there are lots of drugs about therefore our kids will
>become addicts' sticks in my gullet. Thus my reason for breaking cover
>and writing in to this thread. No more for now going to Ireland to find
>a leprechaun.
>
>Love Rog
Thanks for being honest. The possibility of a genetic component should not
(does not for many of us) have anything to do with fatalism, and my reading
of the literature does suggest such a possibility, though no proof.
The idea that people may respond differently to the same substance in their
body matters.
It's true of wheat, sugar and significant numbers of drugs.
What makes the difference often has a genetic component, but if you live a
sensible life you still minimize your risk of type 2 diabetes, and knowing
which drugs may suit an individual's genetic make-up may be one of the big
breakthroughs of the 21st century.
Tim's story of how people recover from addiction had the real ring of
truth. We're all victims occasionally. The addicts that recover simply
refuse to see themselves as lifetime victims. If we persist in seeing drug
addicts only as victims we deny them what may be the one principle that
they can use to recover.
However all this is HUGELY different from protecting our children. Love,
care and guidance are fundamental to all children, but our children should
have the opportunity to grow up in a drug free environment where they don't
have to inhale other peoples' fag smoke or pot, don't have to put up with
people stoned at school or pushing drugs outside or bullying to get money
for drugs, and do have something as close to a civilized environment as
possible in which to learn and grow.
Such radical ideas may shock, may be light years away from both common
sense and science (but I think not), or may be unpopular (though nationally
I think not). This list seems like a good place to air them.
Julian
|