ADDICTION SEPERATING TRUTH AND MYTH

Addiction is a complicated subject.  People often have different ideas about it, different pictures of what addiction is and what an addict is.  One definition that I found that really illustrates how the concept of addiction is socially constructed is, “Certain individuals use certain substances in certain ways thought at certain times to be unacceptable by certain other individuals for reasons both certain and uncertain…!” (1).  Although this definition is somewhat humorous and does illustrate how addiction is a social construction it leaves a lot unanswered and doesn’t leave us with an agreed upon working definition.  What I have learned through several psychology courses is that addiction can be defined as continuing a particular behavior even after experiencing negative consequences for that behavior sometimes with or without physical dependence or compulsiveness towards the behavior.  The negative consequences can come in the form of criminal charges, loss of job, loss of status, and damaging family ties just to name a few.  This definition is broad but the benefit of a broad definition like this is it looks past societies views of using some substances as being acceptable and using other substances not acceptable.  Also, this definition can look beyond substance use and look at other behaviors such as gambling or sex as being sources of addiction.  The focus of this definition is on continuing behavior despite negative consequences and often in spite of increased negative consequences for the behavior.  In this blog when I refer to addiction it is this definition I will be alluding to.  However, I will not be tackling all addictions.  I will be focusing on addictions involving alcohol, prescription drugs, and illicit drugs. 

In U.S. history it wasn’t till the 1900’s that there started to be laws and legislation regulating and outlawing certain substances.  In the 1900’s partly due to the popularity of patent medicines addiction was at its highest.

  In 1906 the Pure Food and Drug Act created the FDA and got rid of patent medicines. In 1914 the Harrison Act was passed that targeted only opium, cocaine and their derivatives.  In 1920 the 18^th Amendment was passed prohibiting alcohol only to be repealed in 1933. 

 In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act was passed which lead to the prohibition of Marijuana.  All of these laws and legislation were not based on real harm to people and society but based on strong political lobby’s that had something to gain from these substances being prohibited.(2)

This was made possible by the powerful tool of the media.  The media has been used over and over to make the American public believe that some substances are more dangerous than others not based on actual harm but based on political motives of those in power.  In the 1930’s and 1940’s it was reefer madness and other racial images of people using marijuana then acting crazy and uncontrollable. 

 In the 1960’s and 1970’s negative images of hippies and anti-war protestors were rampant along with the message that they were all on drugs.  In the 1980’s it was crack cocaine which was racialized as an African American inner city problem with nightly images on newscasts of African American people using crack and killing each other.   At the turn of the century the new demon was methamphetamines with images of poor people doing terrible acts to just get there next fix.  The whole time the media is selling society this image that illicit drugs are bad they are also selling society an image that alcohol and prescription drugs are good.  Alcohol has been glamorized over and over and big money goes into TV commercials portraying images that if you drink alcohol it is nothing but good times and beautiful women.

  As far as prescription medication goes there are commercial after commercial saying that no matter what ails you just take this magic pill and all your problems will be solved.  This sounds very familiar to the snake oil salesman of the late 1800’s that lead to epidemic addiction rates in 1900.  Although most prescription drugs receive positive publicity one pain medication Oxycontin has not.  Once again however this campaign that Oxycontin was being abused at epidemic rates was not based in fact and targeted the poor.(5)  All of these messages contradict recent studies.  Recent studies show that not only is alcohol the most harmful to society and to the individual but also kills more people worldwide than AIDS, TB, and Violence.(3&4)  Unfortunately this is not the message we get from the media or the leaders who make laws determining which drugs are acceptable to use and which drugs if used automatically make you a drug addict and a criminal.

The lack of success for both alcohol and marijuana prohibition are examples of why criminalizing the use of these substances just drives certain behaviors underground and creates more crime.  There are ways to fight addiction without criminalizing drug use and procession.  “The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, not a criminal law, did more to reduce the level of addiction than any other single statute we have passed in all of the times from then to now.”(2)  Another way to handle addiction without criminalization is the medicalization of addiction.

With the medicalization of addiction and treating it as a disease there are positive and negative effects.  The criminal justice system would lose a lot of its revenue if drugs were decriminalized and drug addiction seen as purely a medical issue.  For the addict seeking treatment it can still be hard and they can still be seen as deviant.  Because of the history of drugs being criminalized and the media portrayal of some drugs being acceptable and others not there is still a harsh stigma associated with being considered a drug addict.  There is also a misconception that if a person is a drug addict they have engaged in other criminal behavior, which increases the stigma.  Also, in our society addiction is seen as an individual’s problem and a sign that the individual has a lack of control, will power and character.    

If as a society we could shift our view and portrayal of addiction as a disease like cancer and those afflicted with it as being tough, strong individuals who have fought to overcome or manage their disease then addiction would start to lose its stigma.  Although the medical community is already involved in fighting this disease with the destigmatization of addiction the medical community would benefit more with more funding for research, prevention and treatment like many other diseases.  Also more insurance companies would cover drug treatment programs.  If there wasn’t the stigma attached to drug addiction then people would be more honest when talking to their doctors about their drug use which would allow doctors to better treat their patients. 

Word count:1127

REFERENCES

1.     Burglass & Schaffer. 1984. as cited by Bill Griesar instructor Psychology 265 WSUV

2.    Whitebread, Charles. 1995. “The History of The Non-Medical Use of Drugs in The United States”

3.    Nebehay, Stephanie. “Alcohol Kills More Than AIDS, TB, or Violence: WHO”

4.    The Economist. “Scoring Drugs: Drugs That Cause Most Harm”

5.    Inciardi and Goode. 2003. “Oxycontin: A Prescription for Disaster” 

Film Review: Generation RX

1.       The main thesis of this film was that in the U.S. children are being medicated with dangerous psychoactive drugs and alarming rates with dangerous affects on them, their families, and society.  The purpose of doing this is to make ridiculous amounts of money for pharmaceutical corporations as well controlling children in the classroom. 

2.       The main arguments to support this thesis were many.  The number of kids being medicated in the last couple of decades has grown exponentially.  The number of school shootings, suicides and other violent acts committed by children on these medications is high.  Also there was a scandal involving Eli Lily, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of Prozac, to cover up the fact that Prozac can cause increased suicidal ideation.  There is a conflict of interest for the DSM panel because most of them have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. 

3.       This ties into the class because now not being able to sit still for a long period of time, focus on the task at hand and follow strict instructions well is seen as deviant.  Wanting to move around and use your imagination is seen as deviant.  These behaviors are seen as problems and labeled as being ADHD.  Being sad because a friend moved away or a pet died is seen as deviant therefore problematic and labeled as depression.  Being anxious about school and friendships as a teenager is seen as deviant therefore problematic and labeled as anxiety disorder.  The mainstream society sees these things as medical conditions that need to be medicated instead of life conditions that are a part of growing up to be worked through with adult guidance.

4.       The fact that there was such a strong conflict of interest among the panel member for the DSM along with how much the pharmaceutical industry has grown.  When you look at that along with the tragic stories about the damage these drugs have done to people’s lives it is obvious these pharmaceutical companies don’t see these people as people but just statistics.  To the pharmaceutical companies who are only concerned with making money these people are just the unfortunate costs of doing business. 

5.       I found this documentary very compelling and I thought that every point they made tied together into the big picture that children are just an untapped market for these pharmaceutical companies.  I did think they could have made it more balanced.  I do believe there are some people who can benefit from these medications.  However, instead of being mass marketed these medications should only be used in extreme situations for short periods of time and under strict medical supervision like a hospital setting. 

6.         The point made that these medicated kids are not learning how to cope with life stresses along with damaging the prefrontal cortex of the brain; which is responsible for judgment, decision making and impulse control, makes me wonder of the kids who make it to adulthood how many of these adults then struggle with addiction problems.  I could use a large sample of people who are in drug treatment programs or jail for drug charges and do a survey.  The survey would include questions including; have they ever been on any medications as children or teenagers, how long where they on any medications, and what medications.