_________________________________________________________________
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL July 1998
_________________________________________________________________
SECTION J: LETTER
--------------------------------------------------------
Note: Please submit all contributions or
corrections for the letter section to
the PsychNews Int'l mailboxes:
psychnews@psychologie.de and
pni@badlands.nodak.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
ON THE DRUG _POLICY_ PROBLEM
(PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL 3(1), FIFTH COLUMN)
Dear Dr Schaler,
I found your column very interesting and also very American.
I was astonished about you doubting the existence of a thing
like addiction as I'm working at the "Addiction Research
Institute". Unfortunatly I didn't get the point of "referring
to how drugs get into the body". I think no one refers to
addiction in that sense.
But when you say that no evidence is found for the belief
that drugs can cause drug users to lose control of their
behavior you should be precise about the substance you are
talking about. Benzodiazepines for instance might cause a loss
of control over behavior - even if you took it in order to
avoid a jetlag. If you go and drink a bottle of whiskey you
might get more aggressive than you'd wish to be otherwise etc.
You argue that, as the consequences are known, this loss of
control is not "caused" by the drug but chosen by the user.
This is true before consumption only and only if one really
knows about the possible effects. Knowledge is not accessible
to everyone at need as you have realised after getting the
feedback of your students.
However I'd like to express agreement with rather than
criticism against your article. Europeans tend to favor
the point of view that medicalization is still the more
desirable alternative to criminalization. And I would not
like to see any company promoting heroin usage or actually
selling it in front of schools as the libertarians propose.
It is interesting to see the drug policy issue being
discussed in America too and I really hope you can move
something there.
Sincerely
Richard Blaettler
Institut fuer Suchtforschung (ISF)
Addiction Research Institute
Konradstrasse 32, 8005 Zuerich
Email riblae@isf.unizh.ch
Richard Blaettler, MA (lic phil I) in Sociology works as
scientific assistant at the Addiction Research Institute (ISF) in
Zurich, Switzerland since 1994 specialized in evaluation of
treatment for heroin and cocaine user and in informatics.
_________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE FROM DR. SCHALER
I appreciate Richard Blaettler's comments very much,
and this opportunity to respond across the "ocean."
Blaettler kindly states my views are "very
American." If only that was true! Quite to the
contrary, American perspectives on drug policy are
generally the opposite of my own. Americans tend to
view drug use as either a sin, crime, or disease--and
too often a combination of all three--even though the
designations are contradictory.
For example, when scholars here criticize the
myth that addiction is a treatable disease, they can
expect to be branded as heretics and targeted for
witch-hunts. These witch-hunts take the form of
public denouncement, character assassination, grant-
application refusal, hiring refusal and firings. We
live in a culture here where lying has come
to be the dominant ethic.
There is no such _thing_ as "addiction."
Addiction refers to an activity, not an entity.
"Addiction" is a social construction serving the
ideological, socio-economic, and political interests
of those espousing it. Just because few people here
regard "addiction" as a myth doesn't mean it isn't one.
Throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th
century most physicians asserted masturbation was a
disease. Their assertions didn't make it one.
Believing "addiction" exists doesn't make it exist.
How do drugs get into the body? People choose to
put drugs there. That's a behavior. Behaviors have
reasons, not causes. The reasons for using illegal
drugs are the same ones for using legal drugs, i.e. to
avoid coping with experience. Certainly drugs
affect the body, and in that sense may cause errors in
perception. However, that is not what I was referring
to in my discussion, which is why I differentiated
between what drugs do to the body and how drugs get
into the body. People choose to use drugs. Drugs
don't have a mind of their own. Either a person
chooses to do the physical activity involved in getting
the drug into his/her body or someone else puts the
drug there, either forcibly or covertly (e.g. poisoning).
Blaettler suggests drug users make choices
before consuming drugs, and lose the ability to choose
after consuming them. His view is unsupported by
scientific fact. The fact is heavy drinkers (Schaler,
1997), marijuana users (Zimmer and Morgan, 1997),
(cocaine users (Erickson et al., 1987), heroin users
(Robins et al. 1980; Alexander et al., 1980) and
smokers (Hennrikus et al., 1996) all moderate their
use of the drug after consumption when they want to.
That is an empirically-supported fact.
When "addiction" is treated as a disease, a sin or
a crime, research shows the treatment is not successful.
Those who view "addiction" this way are generally afraid
of allowing these facts to be known, because the facts
would drive them out of business. For example, the
fact is, a year of treatment for heavy drinking was
found to be as effective in reducing problems associated
with drinking behavior as a "dose of advice" (Edwards et
al., 1977; Chick et al., 1988).
Finally, it is truly ironic that Blaettler
says Europeans tend more to medicalization of
addiction: Controlled-drinking programs are generally
accepted and advocated in Europe, Canada, and Australia--
and considered "dangerous" in America, which is why we
have so few of them.
Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.
jschale@american.edu
REFERENCES
Alexander, B., Hadaway, P., and Coambs, R. (1980).
Rat park chronicle. British Columbia Medical
Journal, 22, (2), 54-56.
Chick, J, Rison, B., Connaughton, J., Stewart, A., and
Chick, J. (1988). Advice versus extended
treatment for alcoholism: A controlled study.
British Journal of Addiction, 83, 159-170.
Edwards, G., Orford, J., Egert, S., Guthrie, S.,
Hawker, A., Hensman, C., Mitcheson, M.,
Oppenheimer, E., and Taylor, C. (1977).
Alcoholism: A controlled trial of "treatment"
and "advice." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38,
1004-1031.
Erickson, P.G., Adlaf, E.M., Murray, G.F., and Smart,
R.G. (1987). The steel drug: Cocaine in
perspective. Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books
(now available in second edition through Jossey-
Bass).
Hennrikus, D.J., Jeffery, R.W. and Lando, H.A.
(1996). Occasional smoking in a Minnesota
working population. American Journal of Public
Health, 86, 1260-1266.
Robins, L.N., Helzer, J.E., Hesselbrock, M., and Wish,
E. (1980). Vietnam Veterans three years after
Vietnam: How our study changed our view of
heroin. In L. Brill and C. Winnick (Eds.) The
yearbook of substance use and abuse, volume 2
(pp. 213-230). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Schaler, J.A. (1997). The case against alcoholism as
a disease. In W. Shelton and R.B. Edwards (Eds.)
Values, ethics, and alcoholism, pp. 21-49,
Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press Inc.
Zimmer, L and Morgan, J. (1997). Marijuana myths and
marijuana facts. New York: Lindesmith Center
(www.lindesmith.org)
_________________________________________________________________