An important article on addiction and its root cause

[Xmac]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann...=Canada+Living

[catherine]

Wow, this article has definitely gone viral. A friend posted it on Facebook, my daughter sent it around the whole family, and I've seen it pop up on other discussion boards.

It's provocative for sure, and I enjoyed the lab experiments with Rat Park, but I do not believe there is a "root cause"--there may be one of many, and to put the "magic bullet" squarely into the hands of the people around the addict and make them responsible for the addict's recovery is not entirely fair or right.

I have participated in living experiments in my life where family members had the exact same support system and one or two members were lost to addiction while the others were not. Now, it's true that I've wondered my whole life whether or not my father would have died in the Bowery at age 43 if my mother hadn't kicked him out--but I know my mother did the right thing to save the family. This type of article is going to throw people living with alcoholism into a serious tailspin, especially if they are leaning towards the excruciating decision to cut ties with the addict.

When I deal with the addicts in my life at this point, I try to help them to know that I'm there for them, without enabling, but this is a very, very difficult thing to do and requires a lot of training and therapy to not get destructively enmeshed. I think that's the best I can do. I disagree with the article in that I still feel that biochemical urges are at play and the demons do win, despite heroic loving by families. This article ignores the critical point that the addict must find meaning in the support offered--and how do you achieve that? In my experience, that comes as an act of grace and a moment of clarity, but both of those are totally outside anyone's control, including the addict's.

So, yes, it was a very good article, I read it, it helps me feel a little more optimistic, but it's a bit simplistic and misleading. I think the strong support and love will definitely tip the odds in favor of recovery, but here is one case where I will disagree with John Lennon's idea that "All You Need Is Love."

But thanks for sharing it..

[Xmac]

I hear what your saying Catherine.
What's missing in this article is that the connection we have with ourselves, addict or not, is primary and that rats, as far as we know don't have stories: guilt, shame, anger etc.

I also posted this on FB and this is what I basically said:
The best thing about this article is not just our possible change in attitude and treatments of addicts of every stripe, but also the responsibility they can take in the shift of perception that it's not their fault.

Where it falls short by omission is that it's not anyone else's fault either.
Still, we're now a bit closer to effectively dealing with it.

I actually do think there is a root cause (and it is why I posted it here): believing unexamined thoughts that cause suffering. Whether or not an "addict" would buy into such an idea, much less practice it, is an open question. So, it still does come down to the individual.

On a deeper level, I still agree with John Lennon. If I love an addict, I don't give him help I can't afford because that's conditional love and it leaves self love out of the equation, which leaves no love at all.

[ctg492]

If love could cure an addict my love would have. i made a commit one time that I was loving my son to death, as the police office was at my house I loved him more when I walked away. I loved him the correct way when he came back clean. 39 months and counting.

Not sure I agreed with the article. But if it helps one family or addict that is what matters.

[pinkytoe]

I have personally known several addicts - then and now. My father had an outwardly extremely successful career as a cardiologist but suffered a lifelong addiction to narcotics (obtained at his practice) and alcohol in his later years. And cigarettes. He had friends, family, ie connections so I will always wonder what the "hole in his soul" was. I think the article is very interesting to ponder but in my own 25 yr addiction to cigarettes it was indeed "an act of grace and a moment of clarity" that propelled me to give them up. I do wonder though if just like little children...the right mentor, ie connection at the right time can make all the difference in one's life.

[catherine]

I actually do think there is a root cause (and it is why I posted it here): believing unexamined thoughts that cause suffering. Whether or not an "addict" would buy into such an idea, much less practice it, is an open question. So, it still does come down to the individual.

I would agree with you there.. but it's a chicken or egg question: if you are willing to do the work of self-awareness will you inevitably short-circuit the desire for self-medication; and if you are in the throes of addiction, do you have the willingness and the capacity (without that touch of grace I talked about) to do the work?

I think the other key factor that the article misses is the fact that if an addict finds meaning in anything beyond themselves, they are less likely to fall into addiction. So of course, for many people, that higher meaning takes the form of relationships, but it can be a lot of other things that may come with strong social contacts as part of it. For example, in the book Unbroken, Zamperini fell into alcoholism when he returned from the war and was despondent for quite a while, despite the love and support of his wife and family. But his wife brought him to something like a Christian revival meeting, and his life changed--that's where he found his purpose. Of course, as a result, his social bonds were strengthened.

On a deep and more general level, I also agree with John Lennon, but love alone does not cure addiction--I stand by that. The article headline is the discovery of the root cause of addiction: lack of social connection--I still think that's a bit too simple of an answer.

But, very provocative.

[Zoe Girl]

it is interesting, and also challenging. I would challenge some things back having a daughter who recently admitted to an alcohol problem. She started out as difficult to comfort, lots of screaming as a baby if she didn't get loads of holding that was beyond what I could do even as a SAHM. So she went ahead and did pretty well, but I will always remember her summer she was 15. Broke my heart, she had no friends to do anything with. She was creative and made an entire city for a small stuffed animal in the basement, including a coffee shop. She and her siblings refused team sports, groups like scouts, summer programs, anything that could have addressed some of the isolation. So it is not just availability of other humans but humans you really can connect with as well.

I came to the total edge and lived there a few sections of my life for a time. I smoked, but kept the rest on this side of the line. I actually several times considered going to AA out of loneliness. Other groups were fine but mom groups or other groups are so easy to drop from sight. I think there are many cases when having a strong connection to people or a group helps, and that is getting more difficult to create. Some of the Buddhist teachers I listen to talk about 'co-regulation', simple sitting near other humans and calming because of the shared space and energy. It is related to the physical aspects of empathy, how our emotions try to tune in with a person near us automatically.

[Xmac]

I would agree with you there.. but it's a chicken or egg question: if you are willing to do the work of self-awareness will you inevitably short-circuit the desire for self-medication; and if you are in the throes of addiction, do you have the willingness and the capacity (without that touch of grace I talked about) to do the work?

Seems to me, for the "addict" who has come to desire freedom, this is where a family/friend/community support system could be valuable, even synergistic, in a process/journey of inner work. I've also seen that it can take a very long time for someone to admit to themselves et al, that they truly want freedom from addiction. There is also a lot of help and love that is offered along the way that is premature and is mistaken as help and love.

I think the other key factor that the article misses is the fact that if an addict finds meaning in anything beyond themselves, they are less likely to fall into addiction. So of course, for many people, that higher meaning takes the form of relationships, but it can be a lot of other things that may come with strong social contacts as part of it. For example, in the book Unbroken, Zamperini fell into alcoholism when he returned from the war and was despondent for quite a while, despite the love and support of his wife and family. But his wife brought him to something like a Christian revival meeting, and his life changed--that's where he found his purpose. Of course, as a result, his social bonds were strengthened.

The article strongly suggests that it is being with others that is the main answer. What it doesn't say is who those others have to be.

On a deep and more general level, I also agree with John Lennon, but love alone does not cure addiction--I stand by that.

Even if the form of love comes from the clarity that there is nothing left that the other can do for the "addict"? Except maybe presence occasionally, either in person or the phone? Love, as I've seen it, is not always what it's supposed to look like. Giving one space to be with themselves and do for themselves can be what love looks like because it is respectful of everyone involved. I see that real love, that which doesn't come from any seeking of outcome or expectations, is the answer.

I have a close family member that was still doing his path with substances when he asked me a favor (there's a very long history here with myself and others saying yes because we wanted something for which we were not aware). It was in the form of a text, so I had some time to get clear. He wanted a ride that involved hours of driving and time too. I asked him, "don't you have a vehicle now?" To which he said, "I don't have money for food, never mind gas". I told him no, to the ride and that if he needed food I would find a way to get some to him. I later found out the food issue was a lie, which is what I thought as a possibility. So, he learned he's still got support where it counts and he doesn't have an enabler: love. He's been stable for quite a while now, living with his aunt. Even though it may sound like I'm taking credit here, it's really more about being right, again, with myself and him.

[catherine]

I probably agree with you more than I seem to, because I know that you are a Byron Katie fan, and I am too, and I have turned to her and also to Eckhart Tolle to help me frame my responses to the addicts in my life, and it has helped (well, it's helped me--not sure about them). And I totally agree with the epidemic of social isolation that was talked about, as well as the habit of judging people's behavior and projecting all sorts of unhelpful stuff on them.

My issue is the idea that love (even the "right" kind") is the missing ingredient most, if not all, of the time. It's more complicated than that. Substance abuse is an affliction of tragic proportions, and we can be God's ambassadors in the unconditional love department, but it's still beyond our control.

[Miss Cellane]

It's an interesting article. And I do not doubt that the premise, "all you need is love," is true for many addicts.

But there is also a significant body of proof that many people with depression self-medicate with drugs or alcohol. And not all of these people are lonely or isolated. From what I've seen in my extended family and among friends, self-medicating for mental health issues is also a cause of addition.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with the author that this isolation and loneliness can be a cause of addition for some people. But I don't thing there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this problem.