A new drug for depression... like heroin?

Many people become addicted while trying to 'self-medicate' mental disorders like depression.  One may wonder how or why, but the truth is that some drugs do help a bit.

Now, it seems that scientists have discovered a synthetic cousin of heroin is effective for treating depression:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/29/non-addictive-heroin-like-medicine-may-soon-crush-major-depression/

The scientists claim the in the study, all of the patients responded to the drug.  That's really good.

They also claim that it is non-addictive.  You may wonder why they would say something like that, and there's a simple reason: it does not give you a high.

Addiction is all about the high, be it subtle or profound.  While heroin may provide some relief from depression, the bigger effect is the intoxicating effects.  Pain medications like Oxycontin have the same problem of generating a high while blocking pain.

As doctors perfect medications, we can only hope that they will be able to develop pain medications along the same lines, blocking pain signals without creating a high.  This medication should also give hope to millions of addicts who suffer from addiction, just as Bill W. did throughout his life.

This may even end some of the silly experiments with with other intoxicating drugs in the search for relief for the terrible burden of depression.

Free Will, Islam, and Addiction

I'm not going to pretend to be an Islam expert, but I would like to address a few words towards the previous post about strict Islamic countries trying to use the 12 Steps.  So, this post is going to be a little more 'religious' than usual, but I think it is an interesting juxtaposition that people in recovery will have to address, and that is free will versus predestination.

Islam relies pretty heavily on predestination.  Everything is determined by God's will.  If your car breaks down, that's God's will.  Don't get a job, that's God's will.  Fight with your spouse, that's God's will.  Over and over again, you can hear 'inshallah' or 'as God wills' falling from the lips of Arabs throughout the Moslem world.

As a result, Islam has a difficult time with 'cause-and-effect.'  Basically, the world is seen not by God and man both acting on the world with God's foreknowledge, but rather God's and man's wills confronting one another, man as an agency of rebellion and his will either being permitted or thwarted by God's willing overcoming man's.  At the same time, God does not rely on man's agency, and He can make something happen without human 'help.'

As a result of this, you can divorce yourself from a great deal of personal responsibility.  After all, it was God's will that something happened or didn't happen.

And, yet, Islam also teaches that men will be held accountable for their sins and there really isn't much room for forgiveness.  So, for those Muslims who are in big trouble, God is literally leading them into damnation.  You can now see why Jihad and dying in battle became so attractive: if you die as a martyr, your sins are automatically forgiven and you go straight to paradise.

The problem for them will be accepting a disease model in which God desires to forgive and will tolerate even their worst sins.  Harder yet, this model also assumes that man has a completely free will.  After all, you can only take personal responsibility for actions and their consequences that you are responsible for.  If you believe that God is responsible for everything (because He dictates all that happens), then you are not responsible.

Of course, blaming God for everything only goes so far, and so human beings will suffer when they know that they have done wrong.

But, what makes this worse is forgiveness: every evil done to you was decided on by God.  He didn't allow it, He willed it.  There's a big difference between the two.  Moslem addicts will have to struggle with forgiving God first for allowing evils to fall upon them, before they can even get to the part about forgiving other people.

This falls into conflict with the usual interpretations of God found within 12 Step practitioners.  God does not will evil, but does allow it in light of His ability to fix what is broken at a later point.  So, evils of the past become sources of healing and light in the present.

This is the premise of Orthodox Christianity: God's justice is His ability to renew what is broken and rebuild even better what was lost.  It is constant improvement rather than a motion backwards.

It will be interesting to see how 12 Steppers in Moslem countries deal with the definition of a Higher Power.  I can't say for sure how they will square this off.

What will be more interesting will be to see how the religious authorities handle it.  I'm sure they are going to take an active interest, though I wonder how closely they will pay attention to the finer nuances of 12 Step teachings.  Recall from yesterday the confusion between ethanol and methanol in the cleric's statement about the evils of bio-fuels.  He thinks that arak and ethanol are the same thing.  Ooops... I guess he didn't get the memo.

Since these nations are dominated by the clergy, recovery programs are likely to be dominated by non-addict religious figures.  This does not bode well.  Recovery programs are best handled by recovering addicts.  Non-addicts have a difficult time understanding addiction.

As I said, it will be interesting to watch and see what happens.

  

Alcoholism in Strict Islamic Countries

You would think that a country where there is a punishment for possessing, let alone using, alcohol would mean that there would be few social problems with alcohol.  There's nothing further from the truth: alcoholism and other addictions are on the rise throughout the Islamic world.

For example, Iran is struggling with a significant alcoholism problem: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18504268

Most recently, alcohol tests taken from drivers in Tehran in the period of 20 April-20 May showed that 26% of them were drunk.

Wow, that's pretty high if you ask me.  There's a lot of drinking in a nation that has traditionally struggled with opiates, since Afghanistan is near by and opium poppies are cultivates in the area.  yet, there are few treatment services available, in large part because of the authorities.

Saudi Arabia also has a big problem.  Look at this study:

http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/5/1/2

If you look closely at the story, married students, who are going to be older and more life-experienced than single students who (in this culture) still live at home with mom and dad, report a higher level of social problems related to drugs and alcohol.  This is confirmed by other sources, such as:

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010053173951

With the Saudi government actively pursuing treatment models, the medical establishment is basically copping to the problem.  

The difficulty throughout the Middle East is that the religious establishment is generally more likely to want to punish than to treat.  They are also relatively isolated from scientific information.  Here's an example of just how radically uninformed some of their leadership is:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/19/66803.html

Yes, that's right: one of the top religious figures in Saudi Arabia thinks that fuel-grade ethanol is the same stuff as bourbon.  It's pretty clear that these guys have no idea what they are talking about on a practical level, and so this does not bode well for establishing treatment centers that people will willingly walk into.  After all, the religious figures are probably not going to understand the 'disease model' or the loss of control in addiction, and won't slow down to investigate matters before rendering a verdict.  After all, this scholar made his pronouncement apparently without talking to anybody in the fuel industry... and he's in Saudi Arabia of all places!

I do hope that these nations will one day understand the disease concept of addiction and help their people break free from the misery of addiction.

What I think is important to keep in mind is that addiction can form even under repression and suppression of addictive substances.  The law can only be used in a limited way, and so nations that want to deal with the social costs of addiction need to have a multi-faceted approach.  The law is only effective in controlling behaviors surrounding addiction (theft, public drunkenness, dealing, transporting, etc.), but not the problem itself.  After all, prison does not cure criminals in most cases.

Treatment must be made available, otherwise the wily addict will find ways to get around the law.

Marijuana Makes You Stupid

I know this is going to get me a bunch of hate-mail, but I just could not resist this headline after reading this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html

I find most marijuana-legalization advocates particularly annoying when they try to say that something that messes with your brain chemistry is somehow healthy and harmless.  Any time you mess with brain chemistry, you are increasing the odds of causing lasting damage.  The brain is not meant to be tampered with, and even well-meaning attempts to regulate brain chemistry backfire with horrendous results: just ask someone who has gone through difficulties with depression medication.  

Mental health professions who work with schizophrenics are often the loudest critics of marijuana usage, because they see how bad it is for schizophrenics.  It can make someone with borderline schizophrenia go full on, and take someone with full-blown schizophrenia and make them totally untreatable.  Marijuana usage is guaranteed to make psychotropic medications totally ineffective, as well as worsen the condition.

Because THC, the active ingredient in marijuana besides all the nasty chemicals that make cigarettes look like a healthy alternative (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9311783/drugs-cannabis-lung-cancer-BLF.html), is naturally occurring in the body, its effects are different from all other drugs.  It is, indeed, 'natural' but not the quantities that cannabis provides.  So, the body does not have the 'fight mechanism' it has with other drugs.

I think this is why it does the damage that it does to a developing brain, which the study proves is the case.  Here's another report on the same study:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/teen-cannabis-use-may-damage-brain-for-life-warns-major-study-8082533.html

What is more annoying are the people who say it is 'non-addictive.'  I think I can prove that just about anything is addictive.  If you can get addicted to food or sex, then getting addicted to smoking pot should not be too difficult...

Religion as a Drug

A friend sent me this link:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/08/attending_a_megachurch_drugs_uw.php

The title got my attention: "Attending a Megachurch is Kinda Like Doing Drugs, UW Study Finds"... yes, a 'professional' website used the word 'kinda' in a headline.  Already the credibility of the article has been undermined.  But, then again, in the age where 'Casual Fridays' are everyday and an entire generation thinks that you only wear a tie for your senior picture and the prom, then it should not surprise anyone that proper spelling in what represents itself to be a news article is just too hard.

End of rant from a recovering journalist.

So, let's get to the real core of the article: megachurches specialize in a controlled stimulation experience.  They have a type of 'liturgy' which, despite the 'kinda' informal attire, is entirely formulated.  It is designed the draw the person into a trance state.  For those of you who have not experienced this, here is a comedic interpretation of how this works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys4Nx0rNlAM

Some of my recent-convert parishioners sent this to me and said this is what their Sundays were like.  Yes, it is that cynical, but very effective.

This type of hypnotic activity has been around since the early history of man.  Many 'pagan' religions rely on the same susceptibility to hypnosis for their rites.  We see it in Voodoo, Santeria, the 'Whirling Dervishes' of the Sufi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi_whirling), etc.

You want to see how intense these hypnotic sessions can get?  Just watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xP4nfDkzc&feature=relmfu

You can also get the same effect from a heavy metal concert when you start shaking your head, called 'head banging.'  The trauma of the brain being sloshed around in the skull releases all kinds of chemicals which drugs also do.  The music provides the basis, whipping the emotions up until chemicals are released, and physical activity (like a mosh pit or head-banging) increases the effect.

That's why you can go to a 'Straight Edge' concert with no drugs or alcohol and see kids get high off of the 'adrenaline rush,' which is actually part of this same brain chemical cocktail.

And, yes, it can become 'addictive' (I would not argue in the same sense as alcoholism or drug addiction, but it can become a gateway addiction to these or other addictions) to the point where you can sacrifice a great deal to get that 'high.'  We have all seen people destroy their lives for the 'concert scene' or through weird religions and cults.

So, it is true that ecstatic religious worship can become a 'drug' in the sense that it causes chemical releases within the brain, but the same is true of music and even video games.  Any pleasurable activity, if amplified, will have the same effect.  The Germans harnessed a basic understanding of the human brain to design the Nuremberg Rallies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_rallies): exhaust a crowd through a day of marching, feed them heavily, then march them into a dimly lit arena to hear a speech: the combination softened the mind to the point where a type of hypnosis worked to enthrall the crowd.  That wasn't a religious service, but it looked in many ways like one.

Ecstatic worship is dangerous because it lowers one's critical thinking apparatus.  You must think about what you are being told in a religious service.  That's why I don't think these 'megachurch' services do much to communicate real information, which is why, overall, basic Christian knowledge has plummeted in recent years: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html.

Drugs don't communicate truth.  So, a service that essentially tries to create an 'experience' also won't communicate truth.

Anonymity: Good and Evil

Recently, I've started reading a book on human evil (The Lucifer Effect by Dr. Philip Zimbardo http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Effect-Understanding-Good-People/dp/0812974441/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345732543&sr=1-1&keywords=lucifer+effect), a topic which comes up when you are dealing with human consciences and confession, not to mention 4th and 5th Step work.  One of the most difficult questions for many people to answer, especially those who have done profoundly evil acts, is the 'why.'  Why kill, why rape, why do harm?

Part of this why involves the how.  Too often, the answer to why is simply "Because I could."  It is the old Mt. Everest explanation of George Mallory... "Because it's there."  

Human curiosity is virtually limitless.  The higher the intelligence, the more we want to know and to explore.  But, there are many things you cannot learn about simply by reading a book or hearing a lecture.  There comes a time where one must do.

Very often, the only thing holding us back from evil are the consequences to us that are not physical, but reputational.  With our name on the line, we won't do something.  That assumes that our reputation is worth keeping.

Let's remember, the police arrest and charge you through your name.  And your name is the key to your records and the remembrance of your past.  If you want to escape your past and how people see you in light of it, you must lose your name.

People go to ludicrous lengths to dodge their pasts.  I still remember watching The Apostle (http://www.amazon.com/Apostle-Robert-Duvall/dp/B00007ELF1/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1345734800&sr=1-1&keywords=the+apostle) and how Robert Duvall's character, after murdering a man, 'baptizes' himself and gives himself a new name so that he could go on doing what he was doing before.  He escaped his crime through a type of anonymity called impersonation.  He took on another identity.

There is another anonymity... blending.  Gang members out here wear the same clothes and shave their heads so that they all look the same.  Can't tell one from another, and that's just enough protection to carry out horrendous acts of violence and afterwards slip back into an amorphous crowd.

This type of anonymous evil was written about more than 100 years ago by Gustave le Bon (http://www.amazon.com/Crowd-Study-popular-mind/dp/1450532594/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345735077&sr=1-1&keywords=the+crowd).  I think it is worth reading for everyone, because it so eloquently describes the madness of anonymity and evil.

Anonymity grants a freedom from the self and the consequences of identity.

Can it ever be helpful?  In the case of Alcoholics Anonymous, the answer is 'yes' to some degree.  Of course, AA does not advocate total anonymity, but a type of anonymity that is designed to free one from a 'bad' identity.  After all, if one's identity is bad, one will continue to do bad things.  But, what if we are afraid to let go of this bad reputation and flawed identity?

This type of anonymity within the group allows someone to let go of an identity and reputation that is false.  The identity built by the addict is a mask.  The identity of a person is a crowd is also a false identity, but the identity of the addict is 'portable' in the sense that he carries it with himself constantly and in every situation.  If you take someone away from the crowd and remove the uniform, he loses the crowd's identity.  However, the identity of the addict runs deeper.  He uses this false identity against himself.

By, giving it up, he becomes free.  He is free to explore himself and do other things that he would not otherwise do because of the restriction of his identity as a 'managing addict.'  

Anonymity can be an ingredient of great evil, but even more profound evil is committed not with anonymity, but total identification with evil.

When the addict totally identifies with his disease, then he needs anonymity in order to escape the source of his destruction.

Russell Brand's Documentary

Well, wouldn't you know it: once I posted that I was still looking for his documentary, I found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdwUCEINJYU

Interestingly enough, Mr. Brand is actually making some really good points.

From my perspective, the British medical establishment, the National Health Service (NHS), has an interesting take on addiction. They seem to take addiction in the current definition as a disease.  They also see it as incurable.  So, the entire approach is utterly rational... if you have an incurable disease.

It's pain management in a nutshell.

The NHS dispenses methadone as a form of pain management, not really treatment.  After all, why treat a disease that is incurable, especially from a medical perspective?  So, they don't even try, and most addicts are more than happy to go along with the 'pain management approach.'

Mr. brand really objects to this, for good reason.  It does not bring sobriety, nor does it alleviate the suffering of the addict.

Pain management never alleviates suffering, it just dulls it until death takes over.

For the medical community in Great Britain, death seems to be the only real option for the addict.  So, they dope addicts up until they die.  This is why the NHS director and Mr. Brand were talking past each other during the interview: Mr. Brand is fighting for the life of addicts who are suffering with an incurable disease (that is treatable through a non-medical process), and all the doctor really sees is an incurable disease that leads to death (from a medical perspective).  In a way, each of them is right.

What he didn't say which needs to be said is that the medical establishment really needs to get out of treatment altogether, stop handing out Methadone, and let the government funding tied up in the NHS go to treatment centers.

Fat chance.  Government agencies never voluntarily give up cash or power.  NHS has them both.  They will fight to the end to keep their budget intact.

Mr. Brand's demands for reform are an uphill battle in the UK, in large part not because of the NHS, but the recent British aversion to any form of belief in God (other than their compromises with 'religious sensitivities' of non-Christians).  The English are very much opposed to religion, and the 12 Steps seems to the less-attentive to be quite contrary to the present fad of espousing atheism.

The UK has another problem of over-centralization, which makes local initiatives all the more difficult.  However, treatment centers like the one he attended will continue to exist and work their miracles because, in the end, there will always be those who believe in the 12 Steps and will continue to carry the message no matter the cost.