My battle with the laptop nasties earlier this week has left me playing catch-up with work. Long work hours mean late night blog posts. Finding myself behind the eight ball, short on time, and staring at the computer it’s unfortunate that I have a penchant for compounding the not enough hours in the day problem with indiscriminate surfing. I did however run across a blog of substance called Drugmonkey- incidentally proving the wired version of the infinite monkey theorem that states even a semi-intelligent recovering alcoholic will run across a worthy article given enough time. The post and comments that caught my attention were semantic not simian in nature discussing the finer points of the language of addiction.
Click “Read more” to continue…
My take on the topic minus the cerebral nerd banter that I wish I had the smarts to join in on is the that drug monkey has it right. Most people think the definition of addiction is a one line entry when the truth of the matter is that every day there is a new volume written on the subject.
A substance or action can be addictive yet not cause an addiction. There is a considerable difference between a physical dependence causing “discontinuation syndrome” and addiction. These distinctions are generally lost on the public. Why is methadone maintenance as treatment for something as serious as an opioid addiction stigmatized while taking antidepressants for trivial matters is considered socially acceptable if not expected? There’s thousands more but I’m tired, so go read the article yourself while I clumsily tie this profusion of monkey references and misleading headline photo into a relevant theme with a quote.
“Understanding a complex problem is much like crossing monkey bars. You have to let go of your assumptions at some point in order to move forward.”
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I am a big fan of TDA, but I have to comment on something you said in “Letting Go of the Monkey Bars.” People do not take anti-depressants for trivial matters; they take anti-depressants for depression. This does not detract from the efficacy or value of the methadone program.
Sandy
and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to clarify my point.
Obviously antidepressants are useful in effectively treating clinical depression and have improvedthe quality of, and even saved the lives of many. So I should have said they have been overprescribed IMHO, and sometimes for even for trivial matters (testimony from those who take them).
I feel the reason this class of drugs has been improperly used is because of the way they have been agressively marketed to the public. While it is a great thing that people are aware that depression can be significantly more dangerous than a case of the blues, the drug companies actually cut their teeth on depression in developing the very financially rewarding tactic of disease marketing. (agressively pushing a list of generic symptoms so that people will go to their family doctor to request antidepressants, essentially- diagnosis by advertisement)
Sorry you are having work stress. But I have to say, your statement, “A physical addiction doesn’t necessarily correlate with a mental or emotional dependence.” made no sense to me at all. Hope you get some rest and renewal. Happy New Year.
was not a good mix last night. Thanks for the heads up, I need an editor something fierce.
Made perfect sense to me! Addiction and physical dependence are two different things–something many lay people and some professionals in the field fail to realize. One can be physically dependent without having a psychological addiction. Addiction consists of a set of behaviors, in addition to physical dependence, that are not always present. Many if not most methadone patients do not meet the definition of addiction to methadone. They are dependent on it, but do not display the addictive behaviors they formerly displayed with their drug of choice.
some of your thoughts and experience on MMT in a blog here.