Is Drug "Addiction" a Brain Disease?

[Chem-Safe]

Does the drug cause the problem? What do you think?

---

 

[Paracelsus]

Great questions. Formally, without the brain, addiction in our usual understanding would not have worked. And most of the processes responsible for the condition occur precisely in and between neurons. However, I would not put all the responsibility on our cerebrum. As well as on the substances themselves. Dozens of factors play important roles in the formation of addiction, ranging from genetic material and sensitivity to exogenous agents, ending with the social and cultural background in which we are born, formed and live. And these are just the fairly obvious and well-known variables that come to mind first.

 

[Chem-Safe]

Great questions. Formally, without the brain, addiction in our usual understanding would not have worked. And most of the processes responsible for the condition occur precisely in and between neurons. However, I would not put all the responsibility on our cerebrum. As well as on the substances themselves. Dozens of factors play important roles in the formation of addiction, ranging from genetic material and sensitivity to exogenous agents, ending with the social and cultural background in which we are born, formed and live. And these are just the fairly obvious and well-known variables that come to mind first.

ParacelsusThat's a good response!

 

[cascade]

The brain disease model of addiction holds that substance use disorders (SUDs) are chronic, relapsing brain diseases and that relapses are symptoms, and part of the expected course, of the disease. As with other diseases, SUDs are caused by multiple forces, including behavioral, environmental, and biological ones.

The general disease conception of addiction, which includes the brain disease model, is supported by all major psychiatric authorities, including the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry. It is not a recent trend in thinking. As early as 1784 in the United States, Benjamin Rush discussed addiction in terms that anticipated the disease model. In 1956, the American Medical Association (AMA) affirmed that alcoholism qualified as an illness, and by 1987, the AMA officially affirmed the brain disease model of addiction. The brain disease model of addiction is a useful framework for understanding substance use disorders, but there is no shortage of controversy among the public surrounding it’s validity.

cascadePrecisely, these institutions are the ones that supported the War on Drugs and, a few years ago, considered LGBTI+ people as sick. By this I mean, on what basis do they say this?

 

[Chem-Safe]

The brain disease model of addiction holds that substance use disorders (SUDs) are chronic, relapsing brain diseases and that relapses are symptoms, and part of the expected course, of the disease. As with other diseases, SUDs are caused by multiple forces, including behavioral, environmental, and biological ones.

The general disease conception of addiction, which includes the brain disease model, is supported by all major psychiatric authorities, including the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry. It is not a recent trend in thinking. As early as 1784 in the United States, Benjamin Rush discussed addiction in terms that anticipated the disease model. In 1956, the American Medical Association (AMA) affirmed that alcoholism qualified as an illness, and by 1987, the AMA officially affirmed the brain disease model of addiction. The brain disease model of addiction is a useful framework for understanding substance use disorders, but there is no shortage of controversy among the public surrounding it’s validity.

cascadePrecisely, these institutions are the ones that supported the War on Drugs and, a few years ago, considered LGBTI+ people as sick. By this I mean, on what basis do they say this?

 

[Paracelsus]

Precisely, these institutions are the ones that supported the War on Drugs and, a few years ago, considered LGBTI+ people as sick. By this I mean, on what basis do they say this?

Chem-SafeOf course, institutional medicine is subject to errors and deviations, which today seem outlandish. But I want to note that medicine cannot develop in isolation from society and its institutions. Also, all diagnostic manuals should be perceived as very simplified reference books. They always lag behind the actual data and provide fairly basic information that could be used by the widest range of specialists in order to somehow systematize and reduce to a single view all the complex processes of our body, and especially consciousness.

 

[Chem-Safe]

Origin
Most of the evidence supporting that "addiction" is a brain disease comes from studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s with laboratory animals that were administered large amounts of amphetamine intravenously, sometimes even directly into the brain. These studies investigated the short- and long-term effects of amphetamines on neuronal structure and function. A consistent finding is that a single large dose of amphetamine in non-tolerant animals causes extensive damage to dopamine neurons. This neurotoxicity can be prevented if increasing doses of amphetamine are used over several days to the animal. In other words, tolerance is a protective factor for the brain;

Brain damage: Dopamine Theory
From there, the theory of dopamine was created, which is the theoretical basis defended by NIDA, Nora Volkow and a whole dome of people. This theory comes to tell us, briefly, what NIDA puts on its website:

Drug addiction is a chronic disease characterized by compulsive and uncontrollable drug seeking and use, despite adverse consequences. For most people, the initial decision to use drugs is voluntary, but repeated drug use can lead to changes in the brain that challenge an addicted person's self-control and interfere with his or her ability to resist intense drug cravings. These brain changes can be persistent, which is why drug addiction is considered a "relapsing" disease-people in recovery from drug use disorder are at high risk for returning to drug use even if they have been drug-free for years."

In other words, according to them, there is irreversible damage to the dopamine D2 receptors;

One of the most rigorous studies on the subject investigated it in abstinent people and the results obtained indicated that no differences could be found between the abstinent people and the control group.

Nora Volkow, the director of NIDA, weighed in on this, reaffirming that addiction was a chronic disease, but that proving it required current techniques to be more sensitive.

 

[OrgUnikum]

No. Alone the fact that we have far more dopamine and serotonine receptors in the gut than in the brain will suffice to dissemble this myth.

 

[Paracelsus]

I'm not defending the myth, but I note that the density of receptors in different parts of the body is not very related to any one of their functions. I.e., numerous serotonin receptors in the intestine will not have a direct relationship to the effect on consciousness, behavior and thoughts as much as their few brothers in the central nervous system have this effect.