NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/drugs/20334

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 4.1 KB | 81 lines

Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!bagg
From: [e-mail] (matthew john baggott)
Subject: Re: LSD and alcoholics posting on usenet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:19:32 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Malevolessence) writes:

>> MDMA is no miracle cure, nor have I claimed it as one. It is a tool,
>> valuable as part of a complete recovery process. Yes, alcoholics
>> never recover--their brain chemistry remains the same. I am well
>> aware.

>    I doubt its value.  I doubt the psychological f/x of MDMA as argued on
>this netgroup are in any way useful for defeating alcoholism, and calling it a
>guide dog to truth is more than foolish...

Could you elaborate on your basis for these doubts?  Are you familiar with
the extensive work of therapists who have given MDMA to their patients,
are you familiar with the subjective reports of MDMA users, or is this
judgement based only on your understanding of "alcoholism?"

The claim that alcoholics are always going to be alcoholics puzzles me.
It sounds like something an objectivist would say.  Or like something
Wittgenstein attacked in his _Tractatus_.  If it means that former
chronic drinkers have a higher chance of engaging in disfunctional heavy
drinking than the general population, then I can happily go along with
it.  Otherwise, it sounds like dogma.  Now, if you find such dogma useful
in your attempts to understand/control your own behavior, fine.  Just
don't expect us scientists to think the claim has any scientific
validity.

From what I understand, there has recently been success curing
phobias with beta blockers.  For example, giving a dose of propranolol
immediately before the stress-producing situation allegedly prevents
panic from occuring and once the phobic finds they can calmly act in
those circumstances, the phobia is allegedly gone (and no further
drug intervention is necessary).  This seems to be an example of a
single drug intervention curing a chronic behavioral problem.
In what ways would treating alcoholics with MDMA be different?
There are some who maintain that alcoholism is partly motivated by
feelings of inadequacy in social situations and that alcohol is used
to lower one's own and others' expectations.  Under such a model
of alcoholism, MDMA therapy might seem particularly appropriate.

>> If *anything* is addictive psychologically (as I believe it is) then
>> doesn't that mean that the term 'psychologically addictive' is really
>> devoid of meaning (kind of like 'being'). Sorry, more semantics...
>
>    No.  Anything can be.  Potential vs. reality.

Perhaps anything can play the central role(s) in someone's life which
addictive drugs play in addicts' lives.  However, there are several
standardized ways of measuring the addictive potential of a drug.  For
example, we can look at patterns of self-administration in animals.  Or
we can look at patterns of use in human users (such as percent of first-time
users who continue to become frequent users).  Any single measurement will
have systematic flaws and will measure a slightly different aspect of the
'addictive qualitites' of a drug.  However, taken together, these measurements
can give us a pretty good idea about how addictive a drug is. This sort of
thing can be done for non-drugs as well.  While further experimentation is
necessary, it currently appears that MDMA has low addictive potential.

>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> Jim Petersen         [e-mail]          [e-mail]
>>
>>                 If mercy's in business I wish it for you-
>>              More than just ashes when your dreams come true.
>
>
>"Biff"

   --Matt Baggott