Gearing up for the winter semester

I took the boys back to their mother on new years, amazed again at the ability of my two and almost eight year old to endure ten hours plus on the road with minimal fuss. I am rather depressed they are gone, talking on the phone every day just doesn't hold a candle to snuggles, reading to them in person, being peed on post bath or even having same two year old wander over to the corner to crap in his diaper five minutes after spending twenty five minutes sitting on his potty holding it in. I will also miss the sledding - post tooth coming out and emergency oral surgery actually included. While it was rather horrific, it is also better now and another experience shared with eldest.

But they are back with momma (for now) and I am getting ready for another semester.

I am really excited about my classes this semester, even the bloody math. I am taking abnormal psych, cross culture communications, American sign language, intermediate algebra and language and culture. The last three are four credit classes, making this an eighteen credit semester. I am a little reticent about the load, but ultimately I think it will be pretty easy going.

Abnormal psych is with a rather brilliant instructor and I can expect to write one paper, tests making up the rest of my grade. I am pretty comfortable with my knowledge of abnormal psych going into this class, so I don't expect any problems with tests and most regular readers of my blog know how I feel about papers...For those who don't - I bloody well love writing papers.

Cross culture communications is an online class - something I have never managed to deal with well before. But the instructor is my instructor for interpersonal communications and he made it clear that he is available personally and that he not only has message board discussions, but actually takes part in them. And most excitingly, there are only two tests (IIRC) and the rest of the grade is pretty much wrapped up in three - yes three papers!!!

I am taking intermediate algebra with the same instructor who taught my remedial algebra class and have every confidence that this will be just as great as that was. He was very instrumental in helping me understand concepts that I have had a totally shit time with in the past. He also is very available before and after class, as well as during rather more extensive office hours than a lot of instructors.

American sign is going to be pretty awesome - I actually dropped it last semester, after a couple of sessions for personal reasons, but have every confidence that this will be a great experience. The instructor is great and given my limited experience with her, someone I can totally deal with. She is very pleasant, very warm - without being saccharine, at the same time she is also very strict - a combination I am very fond of.

Language and culture is something I am really looking forward to for several reasons. First and foremost, I am really looking forward to the instructor - I would have taken any class she happened to be teaching this semester. She is the head of the humanities department and there are several things that I am interested in discussing with her - things she has a fair expertise in. And joy of joys, the only class she is teaching this semester is something I very much wanted to take. I am approaching the study of language from a very science oriented perspective - I think it will be valuable to look at it from a humanities perspective, extremely valuable really. I have been reading Terrence Deacon, who among many other things makes a solid case for approaching symbols/language/icons from a broader angle than science really allows for, when engaging the study of language and cognitive/neurological evolution.

And honestly, I have to admit that I am excited about having the opportunity to write a couple of papers in MLA. There is something rather relaxing about the MLA format - not to say that I don't appreciate APA - I do. But I will totally admit to being something of a whore when it comes to writing styles and there is just something rather sexy about MLA...

With all of my paper writing this semester, I am hoping I will be encouraged to write more blogposts - though they will be rather topical to the papers I happen to be working on at a given point. I know that we will get the parameters for our communication papers within the first week - so those will probably be the first ones that I hit on. I also expect to get the psych paper parameters early on as well. I am not all that sure when the humanities paper parameters will come out, but don't expect them until a specified time before they are due. The paper for sign-language will be available right away, but we won't have the background for it until we are well into the semester (I believe that one might be MLA too!!!).

All in all, I am really looking forward to the upcoming semester. It looks out to be totally big fun and excitement through and through (ok, so I am rather less excited about math, but still)...Good times will be had by all!!!

Dangerous Tropes: "I Can Do and Be Anything I Want"

Most of my generation was raised on this trite bit of nonsense and a lot of us really believe it. "You can be anything you want to be." "You can do anything you want to do, if you really work at it." "Where there's a will, there's a way." "I've got high hopes..."

Human beings are extremely versatile and resilient. We are very capable of being a great many things, every one of us. Nearly everyone has a variety of skills to draw from and a variety of innate intellectual talents with which to develop those skills. But my innate intellectual talents are not universal, neither are yours. An artist may not have the raw analytical talent necessary for experimental design. A scientist may not have the engineering talents necessary for affecting repairs on a car or their home. An engineer may not have the abstract creative capacity needed to write poetry, or a good novel. While we humans are versatile, we are not, any of us, infinitely capable of doing absolutely anything that might strike our fancy. And not everyone has the physical capacity to be this sort of athlete or that.

Now this may grate against the social conditioning of many people who grew up with the feel good tropes of the seventies and eighties, a legacy that still haunts many of our schools today. I am sure that the claim that we cannot, in point of fact, be whatever we might want to be is offensive to some. Having grown up with it, it goes dead against my own socialization to express it. There is a rather big problem though - it's true. We are not all the same and we do not all have the same abilities. About the best that can be said, is that most of us are rather drawn to follow our innate abilities - to do what we are good at.

The problem is that when we happen to pick on something that we just don't have the talent for, we often feel that our inability to succeed is a moral failing. That we just didn't try hard enough. It is so firmly ingrained into our psyche that we often cannot comprehend, cannot accept that there is any reason except our own laziness or insufficient will that we could fail. Even when reality is pointed out, there is often a part of us that truly believes our failure was a moral deficiency on our part. I mean come on, everybody knows that if you want it enough, you can totally make it happen. Except when you can't. At which point it is all your fault, for not wanting it desperately enough.

There is a very serious consequence to this mentality, when we try something and fail. Because we perceive that failure as a moral failing, it becomes rather easy to decide that we just don't want to try anymore - especially if we fail more than once. Conditioning can be crippling, even to people who have never shown signs of neurological disorders. Losing faith in oneself do very absolutely can and sometimes does break people. People commit suicide or slip into severe depression for a lot less than perceiving themselves a complete failure, unable manage that mythical, "what I wanted to be."

Then there is the very dangerous cousin, "you just need to think your way out of it, think your way past it." Like many people with neurological disorders, I have heard this one numerous times in my life, from many different people. Bad enough to hear it from family or friends who really don't understand or accept problems they cannot see. I would love to see damn near every psychotherapist who utters those words, or words to that effect, stripped of their licenses. Should they manage to kill a client with that kind of bullshit, I would love to see them prosecuted for it - and telling a severely depressed client, "you just need to think your way out of it," can be and sometimes is fatal.

Essentially telling someone who is severely depressed that it is their fault they are feeling this way, is a great way to send them into a major spiral. It is not uncommon for such spirals to bottom out into such despair that trying to continue to that next breath is inconceivable. And have no doubt, if you have never experienced it - there are times for a lot of people with neurological issues, especially those with mood disorders, when every breath is a struggle - a miserable eternity that you know it going to be repeated over...and over...and over again.

Loved ones do not make it any easier, when they try to push someone through this. It just isn't that simple. But when someone who is a licensed professional, someone who is trusted as a supposed expert on neurological issues does it, it is like telling them that this person who is trusting them to help them struggle through it is a failure. That it is their fault they are feeling like this. That if they really wanted to get better, they magically would be better. That is, to be clear, not likely what the therapist is trying to say. At least I should fucking hope not - though there are some ridiculously ignorant jackasses out there. But that is exactly what the client hears.

Lets think about getting past bullshit tropes that hurt people. Lets be realistic with our kids the way that the adults in the lives of my generation were not with us.

No, you can't be anything and everything you might want to be. You have innate talents that if you work hard to foster, will allow you to be good at what you really can do. If you work extra specially hard to foster those talents, you can even be great at what you do - though that doesn't always happen because life isn't always fair. And it is totally ok if you need some help along the way - all of us do really. It's just that some of us have brains that sometimes work against us. If you need medication to make it, that's ok. Getting cognitive therapy along with the meds is even better. No, you don't have to just think your way through it, because that is not how it works - unless you happen to have a very mild neurological issue.

Another thing to consider...A lot of substance abusers do so because they have failed too many times...

Silence Is The Enemy

I've never been raped, never been sexually assaulted, never been inappropriately touched even. In all honesty, I have never been nervous walking to my car at night, in a deserted parking lot or on an empty street. I've never been concerned about a man or women staring at me in a restaurant or the coffee shop - honestly, I'm pretty oblivious to that sort of thing.

I have however, been the object of wary, nervous glances from women who happened to be walking on the same deserted street I was. I have been an object of fear, because I am a guy and in certain circumstances women should be assuming that I am a potential attacker. Actually they shouldn't, because reality shouldn't require it - but it does and as long as it does they should. I hate being thought of that way - being the type of person that I am, that is the last thing that any women should fear from me. But that's the reality in which we live.

Rape happens here in this corner of the western world. It happens all too often and while we as a society don't approve and indeed consider rape repugnant and vile, women still need to be wary of strangers on the street. Because whether the assault was instigated by a stranger or, more often, by someone the victim knows or is related to, I doubt anyone reading this doesn't know a women who was sexually assaulted - most of us probably know men who have been as well. Even in our western society, with western mores, there are a lot of sick fucking people who do sick fucked up things to other people.

But at least in our society, this behavior is considered vile and repugnant, the perpetrators pathological.

In many other cultures, in other parts of the world this is not the case. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times writes of post-civil war Liberia, where rape has fallen off from 75% of Liberian women being raped during the war. Now the figure is around 12% of "women" seventeen years old and younger being raped - with 33% of those being inflicted on children twelve years old and younger. And this story is echoed all over the globe, in cultures that just accept it as a matter of course.

From Congo, to Darfur, all the way into Latin America, there are places where one can assume that any women you meet over the age of twenty has probably been raped - violently. Those who have not are the exception. And unlike the U.S., the UK, Germany or any other western nation, these women don't have the support of counselors, law enforcement or anyone else outside of their own families and sometimes not even there. It's life and that's that.

Sheril Kirshenbaum and Dr. Isis have teamed up with Scicurious, Tara Smith and Jessica Palmer, in donating their blog income for the next month to Doctors Without Borders. Sheril Writes:

The goal is two-fold: Raising funds and–arguably more importantly–awareness. Since blogging revenue increases with traffic, we hope to get people to keep coming back for more information about what’s going on and thinking about how to make a difference. Do not feel obligated to donate, but it’s one idea. There are many ways to contribute: Write and email Members of Congress (Congressional Directory here), speak at community meetings, encourage others to get involved, or donate to our chosen charity (Doctors Without Borders). Help us maximize our donations by visiting Isis, Jessica, Tara, Neurotopia, and returning here often because every click will help raise money. Spread the word. We want to make sure elected officials at multiple levels realize this is a global issue that matters to a large voting constituency!

There is always something we can do, even those of us who haven't money to help with. If you have a blog, write about this. Whether you do or not, write to the people on your email list - send them to Sheril's blog post, or that of anyone else who's written about this. Hell, copy and paste this whole entry and send it to them. Write your local and federal politicos and pretend they're actually good for something. Talk to the student affairs office, or it's equivalent at your local educational institutions and see about having someone in to speak about it - or even do some research and ask if you can speak. Public libraries are also a good place to try to have a speaking engagement of this sort. Be creative - if you have other ideas, leave them in comments or email me with them.

And if you do choose to write about this at your own blog, email Sheril at srkirshenbaum@yahoo.com and let her know. For that matter, let me know too and I will do my best to put up links as well.

I discovered Sheril's post via Greg Laden's post on this - well worth reading.
And here is a list of bloggers stepping up...Soon to be in Sheril's sidebar.

Addiction: A New Paradigm

This is my first addiction paper. Unfortunately I got too distracted in the middle of writing it and had a rather awkward change of focus. While it will work for the assignment, I am less than pleased with the results. I will try to amend it when time and opportunity allow. Here is a link to the annotated bibliography.

I should mention that any comments and criticisms are quite welcome, especially those that are constructive in nature. I know that some of the folks who come by are quite well versed in psychology and addiction. Please don't hesitate to point out errors, either factual or implied. And of course I welcome criticism of the writing itself.

Substance abuse and addictions cost American taxpayers more than $500 billion a year (NIDA). And more than sixty-five percent of Americans are affected by substance abuse issues, either directly as an addict, or because they are close to someone with substance abuse issues (Riskind). Yet twelve step programs, the dominant method for treating addictions in the U.S. has proven itself woefully inadequate at reducing the harms associated with addictions. Only a very small percentage of addicts and substance abusers who utilize twelve step therapies manage to get control over their addictions, and the percentages associated with cognitive-behavioral approaches are equally dismal. Society is in desperate need for a new addiction paradigm, a paradigm that addresses not only treatment, but our very perception of addiction and successful addiction management.

According to the American Psychology Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), addiction is defined as "impaired control over drug use” (APA). The NIH's MedlinePlus medical dictionary defines addiction as "...compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance..."(Merriam-Webster), while the MedlinePlus encyclopedia claims that "A physical dependence on a substance (needing the drug to function) is not always part of the definition of addiction”(NIH & USNLM) Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines addiction thus; "Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control”(Houghton Mifflin).

While the aforementioned definitions may seem to be quite similar, there are important differences. The distinction between overt chemical dependence and the underlying psychological dependence is particularly critical. It's also a major point of contention for those involved in addiction science. Another critical point of contention is whether or not non-substance addictions are addictions at all. Language largely defines reality and in regards to addiction it fails us in the most fundamental context: addiction science. It's no wonder that many of the people who work with addicts and substance abusers tend to eschew the word “addiction.” Lacking a coherent, cohesive clinical definition, addiction has become a very loaded term, even in the realm of hard science.

In Over the Influence Dr. Denning et al. express concern that “addiction” is often used too loosely “and does not speak to the user's relationship with a drug” (Denning 141). Instead the authors prefer to restrict “addiction” to the very top of a definitive spectrum that describes specific characteristics of the different relationships that people have with drugs. Moreover, the authors prefer to use the word “chaos” to define that point on the spectrum (Denning 28-30). While their desire to eschew the using the word addiction and it's related connotations is understandable, doing so ignores the broader social perception of what “addiction” means. And there is nothing to prevent describing the important distinctions between the different sorts of relationships people have with drugs, within a broader contextual framework of “addiction.”

The generalized social perception of what “addiction” means is in parts more simplistic and more complex than the confusion surrounding it in the clinically-oriented definitions presented above. Outside the hard science and clinical frameworks, context becomes even more important when discussing “addiction.” From the myriad pop songs that describe a romantic relationship as “addiction” to describing a homeless drunk who exists in a perpetual stupor, the connotations of “addiction” range from something warm and loving to something very dark and ugly. While on it's face it might appear that the use of “addiction” in the context of a romantic relationship or other ambivalent/benevolent contexts is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, it cannot be ignored. Again, language largely defines reality. More clearly our use of language largely defines reality. So like it or not, in the broader social context, ambivalent/benevolent behaviors are an important aspect of the discussion of “addiction.”

When Denning et al. shy away from the negative implications of “addiction,” they are also shying away from the positive connotations. While those connotations aren't part of any clinical framework of “addiction,” they are an important part of the broader social connotations. There is no reason not to take advantage of these implications in a clinical setting and many ways it could be used to effectively help people who are significantly hampered by substance abuse or other negative “addictive” behaviors. Words, with their implications, hidden meanings and quiet connotations are incredibly powerful tools. We should never be afraid to explore the possibilities that these tools have to offer. Especially when we are working with the intricacies of the human mind. There is no reason, when discussing addictions in a clinical setting, to ignore the less negative connotations of addiction. When someone comes forward with concerns about their substance use issues or other negative addictive behaviors, “addiction” is in the room, whether the therapist wants it to be or not. Instead of trying to change their language, it would be much easier to work on the association they have with the language they're thinking in.

In The Heart of Addiction, Lance Dodes, MD doesn't shy away from it. He takes a very broad approach that strikes to the core:

Addictions have been segregated as though they are different from other human problems, as though they required a unique approach (as in Alcoholics Anonymous), and as though they could not be understood as emotional issues by either the people treating them or the people suffering with them. But if addictions and compulsions are basically the same, psychologically, there can be no reason to think of or treat them differently. Like compulsions, addictions are...in the mainstream of the human condition (Dodes 185).

And this is why it is so very important to embrace the use of the term “addiction.” Not so addicts can cower in fear, in the hopelessness of their ability to ever manage their addictions, as the dominant approach to addiction treatment would have them do. Nor so they can exist apart from society, as some are wont to do. We should embrace the term “addiction” because we are human and addictions are very much a part of the human condition. Not just the negatives either, by embracing the language of “addiction” we are embracing it in all of it's glory, the good, the bad and everything in between. By embracing the language of “addiction” we are embracing the humanity of the addict and facing head on the problems of the addict's addictions. By embracing the language of addiction, addiction becomes less scary – less insurmountable, because we come to understand that addictions, like every other aspect of the human condition, aren't inherently good or bad, it's the expression that defines its positives/negatives.

Unfortunately, many of the expressions of addiction are quite negative and destructive. Substance abuse alone really is a mainstream human condition, all in itself. As NIDA tells us, it costs more than five-hundred billion dollars a year (NIDA). And as the survey posted by Faces and Voices for Recovery points out, addictions affect more than sixty-three percent of Americans (Riskind). Addressing the definitions of addiction only gets us so far, while definition is important, we also need to address the approaches of addiction treatment. There are three basic approaches to addiction treatment, which I will discuss in the order of their prevalence in practice. But it is important to understand that when dealing with addictions, there is no “one size fits all” approach. While I am going to be rather critical of the most prevalent, twelve step programs, it's important to keep in mind that for some addicts, the twelve steps not only work, but are critical – in many cases a lifesaving approach. The problem is not with the twelve step programs, it's with the broad assumptions that go with them.

The twelve steps to recovery are based on the disease model of addiction. The disease model of addiction is rather controversial, with notables in the field, such as Dr. Stanton Peele and the authors of Over the Influence, Denning et al., disputing its validity altogether. But a lot of research suggests a fairly definite link between alcoholism and genetics and there is a growing body if evidence to suggest a link between dopamine deficits and substance abuse. At the same time it's pretty clear that not all addictions are founded in that disease model and even those that are, don't necessarily fit into a single treatment approach. The Narcotics Anonymous: Basic Text typifies the basic assumptions that dominate the social and political addiction paradigm.

We realize that we are never cured, and that we carry the disease within us for the rest of our lives. We have a disease, but we do recover. Each day we are given another chance. We are convinced that there is only one way for us to live, and that is the NA way.(NA International 8)

Over time some addicts lost contact with other recovering addicts and eventually returned to active addiction. They forgot that it is really the first drug that starts the deadly cycle all over again. They tried to control it, to use in moderation, or to use just certain drugs. None of these

control methods work for addicts. (NA Inernational 78)

The problem with this, is that it presupposes that any addict who doesn't follow the NA or some other twelve step program, is doomed to a life of addictions. It also presupposes that it doesn't matter if someone alters their drug use to be less harmful. Any use is considered failure and any other method of treatment for addictions cannot possibly succeed. This is patently false and the repercussions of this position resonate throughout our society to the detriment of the vast majority of addicts.

This position has a huge influence on public policy in the U.S., including the sentencing guidelines for a variety of civil and criminal offenses. From drunk driving, to simple possession of an illicit drug, hundreds of people are sentenced to twelve step drug treatment programs every day in the U.S. Many of these people aren't addicts at all. Others are simply not going to successfully respond to twelve step treatment plans. In spite of several studies, including studies in which AA and NA were involved with (AA 12), showing that coercion into twelve step programs is ineffective and possibly counterintuitive, the principle that only the twelve steps can successfully treat addictions provides the momentum to keep such policies alive.

This position also has a detrimental effect on the perception of society as a whole. First off, it provides many addicts with an excuse not to try anything. They believe that because the twelve steps failed them, they should just give up – or that because they know they can't quit everything they won't bother trying to quit using the substances that are causing them the most harm. Second, it creates a perception in our society, that more people have addiction problems than really do. It convinces parents and friends, that because an individual has had substance abuse issues in the past, that any use on their part is a “relapse,” which can lead to alienation. And finally, this view segregates addicts from the rest of society. It says that addicts are somehow different from everyone else, that we're somehow damaged, weak or otherwise unfit.

With those criticisms in mind, it is also important to remember that AA, NA and other twelve step programs do seem to work for some people. Just because they don't work for everyone, there is no reason to assume they don't work at all. There are a great many people alive today, who attribute their survival to the twelve step approach to addiction recovery. And for some addicts total abstinence from all psychoactive substances is an absolute necessity. While the assumption made by many proponents of the twelve step philosophy, that the only treatment for addictions are the twelve steps is absolutely wrong, it is equally erroneous to assume that this makes the twelve steps a categorical failure. Indeed, quite often the twelve step approach is combined with the second most prevalent approach to addiction treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The most common cognitive-behavioral (C-B) approach is really quite simple. The premise is to change the way that an addict thinks of their addictions. The goal is to empower the addict, help them think in terms of strength and success. To move them away from hopeless, defeatist thought processes (Kadden et al). It is rarely, if ever a stand-alone therapy. It is a part of almost all in-patient addiction treatment programs. Indeed, it is rarely engaged outside the context of in-patient or aggressive out-patient treatment programs. While engaged in C-B therapy, the addict will usually meet with their therapist several times a week, sometimes daily for the initial few weeks of treatment. As treatment progresses, the patient will meet with the therapist less often. Usually they will be down to one session a week with their therapist after ten to fifteen weeks. Sometimes they will stop meeting with their therapist altogether at this point (Barry ch4).

A less common form of C-B is meeting with a therapist in a more traditional psychotherapy setting. Dr. Dodes. author of The Heart of Addiction, engages is therapy in a similar manner. The idea is to redirect the thinking and actions of the addict (Dodes). Really, this form of therapy has existed for as long as we've had psychotherapy, though the individual tactics have changed considerably over the years. One of the advantages to this method is that therapy is tailored to the addict and the addict has the advantage of a trained therapist who can help him or her make decisions about treatment beyond the C-B therapy sessions. Quite often, this form of therapy forms the core of harm reduction approaches to treating addictions.

The harm reduction approach to addiction treatment is firmly entrenched in the idea that there is no and never will be a “one size fits all” approach. As Patt Denning, Phd puts it in Over the Influence, “The harm reduction way of understanding drug use and abuse takes into account the complexity of each person's relationship with drugs” (Denning 8). That's right, everyone who uses drugs has a “relationship” with the drug or drugs they use. Moreover, people who engage in any addictive behavior have a specific relationship with that behavior that is central to their addiction. This recognition that there is a relationship involved and that said relationship is unique to the person experiencing it, is the key advantage that harm reduction therapy has over other, singular methods of addiction treatment.

By understanding that everyone has their own relationship with drugs, harm reduction can help addicts find approaches that will work for them. The harm reduction approach recognizes that not everyone will be abstinent from all psychoactive substances or even the substance that is the object of their addiction. Harm reduction doesn't gauge success by arbitrary standards. Success is gaged by reducing the harm of the addictive behaviors. The harm reduction approach recognizes that success may be an ongoing process of gradual reduction of harm. But most importantly, the harm reduction approach recognizes that success is entirely relative to the addicts relationship to their drugs or other addictive behavior.

Another powerful advantage to recognizing that people have relationships with drugs and their addictive behaviors, is possibly the most powerful. “Relationships change” (Denning 28). Our relationships are always changing, always evolving – no matter the relationship being discussed. As they grow and change, my relationship with my children changes. I'm confident that it will continue to do so well into their adulthood, because my relationship with my own parents has been ever changing. Change is very much the nature of relationships.

But while the harm reduction approach sounds and ultimately is pretty remarkable, many practitioners of the harm reduction approach have a very singular view just the same. As was shown in our exploration of the definitions of addiction, many harm reduction practitioners are uncomfortable using the word addiction. In part, because they are uncomfortable with the disease model of addictions as a whole. And this is ultimately to the detriment of the addicts who come along, who would be best served by a twelve step program. Just like the dominating twelve step approach that claims that nothing else can work, many harm reduction practitioners would exclude ideas outside their purview. And even Dr. Dodes, who seems very open to many different approaches isn't immune to the language of exclusion. While he really does have a rather revolutionary approach to viewing addiction and avoids couching his terms in outright absolutes, it's clear that he has a very strong preference for his analytical approach.

It is time for us to chart a new course for dealing with addictions in our society and at the very top of the list is a driving need to get over our petty turf wars. You saw the figures in the introduction to this paper. We aren't running out of addicts any time soon, there are more than enough to go around. Unfortunately all too few of them are getting any help at all. While this is largely due to the exclusivity of the dominant paradigm, it is also due to the claims by various elements that they have the method to help the addict with their addictions. What the message to addicts should be, is that one way or another, there is a way to help them reduce the harm caused by and ultimately overcome their addiction. That if one approach doesn't work, there are other options available.

Beyond that, we need to fundamentally change our perception of addictions. Addiction is a mainstream, even a fundamental aspect of the human condition. Humans are creatures of habits and compulsions. When taken out of the context of negative, harmful behaviors, “addiction” takes on a great many connotations that range from benign to outright positive. While searching for a coherent clinical definition for addiction, it was hard not to notice that there are probably hundreds of pop songs with addiction in the title or as the title. People talk about their addictions to books, walks in the park, hiking, spending time with their kids, community service – the list is endless. And there isn't a single thing in that list that couldn't be taken to a unhealthy, negative extreme. There are few, if any humans who can truly claim to have never manifested some sort of addictive behavior that was taken to an unhealthy extreme.

Yet as a society, we feel justified in segregating the “addicts” into a special group. And “addicts” are just as guilty of anyone else in perpetuating this tendency. Because people want to believe that there are addicts and there are “addicts.” It's easier that way. Segregative labeling is also, quite unfortunately in the mainstream of the human condition.

There are a great many things that would make a major difference in helping people reduce the harm of their addictions. Policy changes, such as legalizing, regulating and taxing currently illicit drugs, for example, would make it much easier for people with serious addictions to get help, while removing a lot of people who don't have addiction issues with those drugs out of the treatment system. Making sure that people who commit crimes such as driving under the influence of intoxicating substances both pay for their crime and get treatment that will help them get control of their addictions, instead of just pawning them off on AA or NA. Providing kids with a realistic view of drugs and drug use, that doesn't make claims they're going to know are false but ensures that they understand the very real dangers involved with drug use and other risky behaviors.

But most important, is fundamentally altering our view of addictions as a society. Language largely defines reality. Before humans developed language, we were little different than any other omnivore out there. It could be and in fact has been argued that language is what makes humans human. We need to be using our language to move us forward with regards to addictions. Because right now we are failing and failing badly. Considerably more than half of the people in our society are dealing with the effects of harmful substance addictions. We are spending more than $500 billion every year in the U.S. alone, just dealing with substance addictions. And according to the median of several statistics I saw, from sources at the NA website, to the harm reduction sites and substance abuse help clearinghouse sites, we are failing more than seventy percent of the people who actually go looking for help. No way of knowing what percentage of actual addicts we fail, because most of them never look for help.

In which I Discuss Student Stuff......

For the few folks reading this who may not be aware, I have recently re-embarked on my educational journey - becoming a formal student for the first time since I dropped out of high school sixteen years ago. As part of this journey, I am taking several classes that are prerequisites required to complete the program I am taking. I intend on discussing some of those classes here, because one, I'm spending a hella lot of time in them and two, because some of the things I am studying are relevant to discussions I am trying to foster here.

One of the ideas I am tossing around, is posting some of the papers I am writing at any given point. For the most part they will tend to be papers on topics that I am rather interested in, given that I am embarking on a course of study that I find interesting. At the moment, I am taking a college writing and research class and have managed to get an instructor who is allowing me to pick the topics I write will have to write two major papers on. And this is where you, my readers can come into my world.

I would like to know what you think I should pick as a first topic. I was originally thinking I would write a paper on harm reduction and a new addiction paradigm, but the recent discussion about eugenics (knowing that I am going to spend a fair amount of time researching and blogging about it) has led me to consider writing the paper on eugenics. And of course there is literally a world full of other topics to consider. I am definitely going to keep the topic within the realm of science, either psychology, neurology or genetics. But within those categories are a whole lot of options. So please weigh in. What would you like to see me write about? Given the same assignment, what would you choose as a topic? If you were restricted by the parameters I mentioned, what would you choose?

Also, would it be silly to post papers? I promise they will be nearly as edge of your seat exciting as the breathtakingly thrilling posts I write. Or more to the point, they will be no more boring than the sorts of stuff I write already. They will be longer though. Probably quite a bit longer. And it has been pointed out to me before, that I am certainly not going to gain a reputation in the blogosphere for my brevity.

I know most of the people reading have spent far more time in school in recent years than I have (especially those of you who are profs) and probably have more recent experience with this sort of thing. And now that I mention it, if you happen to be a prof, feel free to tell me what you like, or don't like to see in a paper. (And in case any of my profs stop by) Did I mention that I have the most remarkable and stimulating instructors ever?

I will probably soon be posting my first paper, in which I discuss;

To learn to think is to learn to question. Discuss a matter that you once thought that you knew "for sure" that you have now begun to question.

When reasonably possible, I will also try to bring into the discussion here, the things I am studying in school. Coincidentally, the discussion about eugenics and where it has gone thus far, in my humanities class today, we watched a video that I have seen before, from the Genographic project, something that my dad has taken part in and something I would take part in if I could afford to. Unfortunately the whole eating and not living in a box thing makes that impossible at the moment. But be assured, I am going to get around to blogging about it, in relation to our discussion on eugenics. I actually have had the video from today in mind since this conversation came up again.

Oh, and I am also hoping to get back into talking about talking to our kids about drugs. And sex. And other dangerous things. Keeping in mind that mine are one and seven and that we started the discussion with the seven year old, three years ago (albeit in a very general fashion). If this is an interest to anyone, please feel free to pressure me to hit on it sooner than later....

More on the Conversation that Never Ends

The last post garnered rather a lot of response, so I wanted to clarify a few things. Also, quite a few responses came via email. Please, comment publicly. There were several good points made, that I think could add a lot of value to the discussion. For those who are uncomfortable talking about this openly, I do allow anonymous comments - i.e. I don't get any information about you. I only ask that you sign off with some identifier, besides simply anonymous. I don't care what you choose to use as a screen name, just give me something to refer to. Unidentified comments will be deleted.

I would also take this opportunity to point out that another sciblogger has weighed in on this. Dr Free-Ride, at Adventures in Ethics and Science, makes some very similar points to my own.

First, Abel actually was referring to legal wrangling, when he talked about going over the line. And this is a very important factor in discussion of issues such as sex and drugs with our children.

This is a very real concern, for a lot of parents. The only real answer for it, is to be active and try to affect change in our communities. In many places it is possible to have one's children taken away or be otherwise oppressed for making very reasonable and sound parenting choices. And it's a catch twenty two. On the one hand, the only way to effect change is to talk about why these are perfectly reasonable choices. On the other hand, if one talks about it, it could be cause for serious legal problems. This is a tough enough issue that even living someplace as reasonable about these things as Portland is, it still makes me a bit nervous, talking about it.

I do know that this is a pretty big problem, one that is all the more difficult, having been raised to believe that the freedom of expression is akin to being a sacred ideal. Especially true when it comes to raising one's children and doing what we believe is right, to raise as functional, ethical and safe children as we can. There are no easy answers. Many contributors to the problem are rather obvious, but actually changing them, is as complex a problem as trying to break the deathgrip the republicrats have on American electoral politics. One advantage, is that this is very much a localized issue and we can all get very directly involved with local politics. It is still an uphill fight, but I think it is one worth fighting.

Drugmonkey also weighed in, with a very important point about risk assessment. This being that even a seemingly small chance, such as one percent, is not as small as it seems. To illustrate, take a group of five hundred kids, not far off the mark for a lot of graduating classes at high schools all over the country. If anything, it's probably a little small. But it works for illustrating the numbers easily.

Something that affects one percent of a teen population, is going to affect five kids in that group. But that leaves four hundred, ninety five kids who it doesn't affect, right? Of course it does, but I want you to consider exactly what this means. I want you to consider the odds of one of those five kids being someone you and your child knows. At the least, it is exceedingly likely that at least one of the five will be known to someone you/your child knows. Less likely, but still plausible, one of those five will be your child. So lets look at some numbers, kindly provided by Drugmonkey;

In this we are supported by the data in the sense that 50% of 12th graders have tried an illicit drug, 73% have tried alcohol and 56% report having "been drunk".

So lets look at how this translates into our group of five hundred kids. We have a full two hundred, fifty kids who will try an illicit drug. Two hundred, eighty of them will get drunk. And three hundred, sixty five will try alcohol. To be clear, it is virtually impossible that you/your child will not know several kids who will fall into one or more of those categories.

I would also like to take a look at the numbers for inhalant use among teens, from this context. Mainly, because this is the one that frightens me the most. According to a 2006 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (Warning, PDF link), 11.1% of twelfth graders have used inhalants, holding steady since 2002. Finding statistics on the percentage of kids who use inhalants, who die of it is proving rather difficult, but according to this same report, of those who die, 22% are first time users. So of our group of five hundred kids, fifty-five or fifty-six of them will use inhalants. Here is a listing of likely side effects of inhalant abuse, from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Note the stats are a little different for the frequency of use. Keep in mind that until this page, we have been looking at statistics for use before high school graduation. NIDA's figures are for lifetime use, not just use among youth.

So while it is easy to point at figures like one percent, and assume that this means something is safe, the reality is that one percent isn't that far away from us, at any given point.

Finally, I wanted to clarify what I am trying to encourage parents to do. I am not suggesting that parents tell their children that if they really need to use drugs, do such and such, because it's safer than other options. While for some kids, that might well become a reasonable method of harm reduction, most kids really don't need that. What I am advocating, is nothing more than providing our kids with enough information, to make an informed decision, should they choose not to abstain. Make sure that you aren't going to find them cold and dead in their bedroom, with an aerosol can in their mouth. Make sure they aren't going to drive intoxicated, or ride with an intoxicated driver.

Lots going on...

Wow, it's been a while. Sorry about that. I am still waiting on a connection at home and dealing with a lot of things at once.

We are having a baby in a matter of weeks now. Not really prepared enough but working on it. Unfortunately, I am going to have a break from working that I really need not to have. I will probably come up with something, but it's very stressful timing with Christmas and a baby coming quickly.

On top of it all, my five year old is really having issues at school. We have bent over backwards and jumped through hoops to make it work, to create continuity between school and home. His counselor has also gone the rounds to help us create a workable solution. Part of the problem is the school, part of it is his ADHD. So we are pulling him out at the semester turnaround. As much as we hoped to avoid it, we will be teaching him at home.

To a certain degree, this is kind of exciting. There will be many advantages to home schooling. Ultimately, I think it is probably the best way to educate someone with severe ADHD. One on one teaching would have done a lot for me. But it is also very intimidating. It will all be in our hands and on our heads.

It also means that we are going to have to make some serious changes to the way our household operates. This in itself would not be such a problem, but it comes at a time when we are already going through serious changes, what with the baby and all. It also means that there is little possibility of momma going back into the workforce (not that this was likely to happen in the near future anyways).

On the upside, it is motivation to write more about education. I have been wanting to get a forum going to discuss parental supplementing and home schooling. We are actually getting a new internet connection soon, which will get me back to doing more blogging. We will also probably both be getting into writing about our experiences, both good and bad, with educating our son. I am also interested in hearing from others who are either home schooling or actively supplementing their child's education. I am also keen on hearing from parents who are done (or mostly done) with that sort of thing. Educators are also of interest, as are those who just have an opinion about it all.

I will probably be starting a new blog for this endeavor. Expect it after the holidays. I don't intend to blog less here, indeed with a home connection, it should go on the upswing again. But I will probably do more on the new one, as I hope my partner will too.

Again, I am sorry that it has been so sparse lately. But as you can see, I've been busy.