Connect with us


Do Genetics Play a Role in Addiction? 



Many of us have heard the term “addictive personality”; obviously in reference to people who seem to struggle with addictive tendencies more than others. When most people think of addiction, they think of drugs and alcohol, but many behaviors and activities can be addictive as well, such as gambling, sex, and eating. Statistics are all over the map, but experts estimate that as many as 46 million Americans struggle with at least one type of addiction.  

So, why do some people get addicted while others do not? Recent studies suggest that up to half of a person’s risk of becoming addicted to anything is hereditary, and certain gene variations can give insight as to what substance or activity a person is more likely to become addicted to. Finding a genetic basis for this risk can help researchers and physicians learn more about “the addictive personality” and come up with better ways to tackle the addiction epidemic.  

What is addiction? 

It’s important to first note that addiction is a disease rooted in mental illness, and as we are now learning, biology. It’s not a character flaw or moral failing. Most people experiment with substances at some point in their lives, but not everyone becomes addicted. That should be enough to determine that there is something deeper going on there, and all major health experts around the world agree including The American Medical Association, The National Institutes of Health, and The World Health Organization. 

Addiction has a lot to do with individual brain chemistry. The human brain is hardwired to reward us when we do something that makes us feel good. This has historically been a reason for our survival over the years, and the reason why things like eating, exercise, and sex trigger the release of a neurotransmitter called dopamine; to encourage to keep doing whatever it was that made us feel good. 

The same thing happens when we take drugs, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, gamble, etc. – that reward system in the brain gets triggered. according to the National Institutes on Drug Abuse (NIDA), “large surges of dopamine ‘teach’ the brain to seek drugs at the expense of other, healthier goals and activities.”  

Studies have shown that long-term substance abuse can limit a person’s ability to feel pleasure at all, but especially when they are not using their substance of choice. Over time, the reward center in the brain becomes less receptive and less functional. Once a person’s brain reaches this point, and they develop a tolerance to the substance in question, they will need more and more just to operate at baseline level and feel any type of normalcy.   

Again, some people are more susceptible to this process than others. This is where the idea of existing mental illness, genetics, and other biological factors, and how they pertain to the disease of addiction as a whole, begin coming into play.  

Genetics and epigenetics of addiction

Genetics is the study of genes, whereas epigenetics focuses on the intersection of environment and genetics. Overall, DNA sequences between humans are roughly the same (about 99 percent or more), however, that up to 1 percent variation accounts for the millions of differences we see in people throughout the world.  

The differences account for physical variations such as height, hair color, eye color, etc., as well as invisible traits including temperament, openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Additionally, genetic variations can increase the risk for, or provide protection from, certain diseases such as heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and yes, addiction. Doctors are now looking at certain gene mutations to determine a person’s likelihood of developing certain illnesses, such as the BRCA 1 and 2 mutations that are linked to a higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer.  

However, since most diseases, including addiction, are much more complex and a result of variations in many different genes rather than a mutation to a single one, it can be a bit more difficult to determine exactly which combinations heighten a person’s overall risk of becoming an addict.  

And this is where epigenetics come into play as well, to complicate things even further. The prefix “Epi-” means “above” or “in addition to”, so epigenetics is looking at anything outside the body that can alter our DNA. Numerous studies have shown that lifestyle and environmental factors can “mark” the DNA, or restructure it at the cellular level. These epigenetic marks can permanently alter DNA and they can even be passed on to children. For example, when a person uses cocaine, it can mark the DNA in a way that increases the production of certain proteins called histones that are common in addicts, and these can be transferred during pregnancy.  

The addictive personality  

Ah, the dreaded addictive personality. That fine line that separates the people who can hang casually from the ones who take everything to the next level. Who is more likely to have it? Can it be cured or prevented?   

The most recent study on this subject was published in the journal Nature in October of 2022. Researchers looked at 15,000 participants, many of whom were siblings including identical twins, step siblings, and adoptees, and found that up to 70 percent of addictive traits are heritable. “People with the highest level of risk were four times more likely to develop a substance use disorder than people with the lowest risk,” the study noted. Although they did acknowledge that societal and environmental risk factors can lead to addiction as well, genetics were an even bigger component.  

Most of the genes that have an impact on addiction are shared, meaning that people who have those genes are at risk for numerous different types of addictive disorders and substance use problems. But that is not always the case, as a handful of genes have been found to be substance-specific (for example, they influence problems with alcohol only, or only issues with methamphetamines, etc.) 

The study states that “a large part of the genetic risk is related to self-regulation, which reflects how differently wired brains process risk and reward. Some people have brains primed toward greater impulsivity than others, and this can put them at risk for numerous forms of addiction.” 

The study also examined the role of the environment on genetics and the overall relation between the two and addiction. For example, the combination of certain genes and lifestyle factors such as diet, physical activity, and stress, can all play into each other and make a person more primed to develop a substance use disorder. Conversely, certain activities can discourage drug-seeking behavior, like exercise, which seems to be a more pronounced effect in males than females. Interestingly, some studies also looked at how drug use is influenced by society, or peer pressure, and it was noted that animal’s drug abuse can be impacted by that of its cage mate. So if one of the animals in the cage is using drugs, it could influence the others to do the same.  

In addition, studies suggest that “drugs or stress in a person’s social or cultural environment can alter both gene expression and gene function, which, in some cases, may persist throughout a person’s life.” Genes can also play a role in how a person responds to their environment, adding another layer of complexity for people who are already at risk for developing an addiction.  

Final thoughts on the Addictive Personality

If ever there was evidence that addiction is a disease and not a moral failing, this is it. Now we know that genetics have a major part in forming the “addictive personality”. What’s possibly one of the best things about this piece of knowledge, is that it can be implemented in the treatment protocols of addicts, and will hopefully result in better outcomes for them and their families.

Hello readers. We’re happy to have you with us at; a news source here to bring you the best in independent reporting for the growing cannabis and hallucinogen fields. Join us frequently to stay on top of everything, and subscribe to our Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, for updates straight to your email. Also check out some awesome promos for cannabis buds, smoking devices and equipment like vapes, edibles, cannabinoid compounds, amanita mushroom products, and a whole bunch more. Let’s all get stoned together!

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2022 provisional data overdose

Death Toll Rising: Overdose Deaths 2022 Released




The numbers from the last few years are not encouraging. It seems these days people are dropping left and right, and the main culprit is doctor prescribed medication. Recent data released by the US government shows an increase – though minor – in overdose deaths for 2022. Read on for more info.

Overdose deaths 2022

2022 is now the highest recorded year for overdose deaths in the US, taking the place of the preceding year. Provisional data released by the CDC on Wednesday, May 17th, put the number for 2022 overdose deaths at 109,680. These are not final numbers however. For example, 2021 provisional data put the number at 107,622 deaths. That number rose to 109,179 by the time final numbers came out. Final numbers for 2022 are likely to be a bit higher than what just came out. Either way, still an increase from the previous year.

The most troubling factor in this, is that over 2/3 of these deaths, are attributable to synthetic opioids. Opioids are based on compounds from the opium plant, but are not naturally occurring, and are instead made in a lab. Whereas synthetic versions of weaker opiates (compounds found in the plant) are also given as medication – like codeine; the bigger issue is with the stronger, synthetic offerings. This entire classing of drugs is lab-created, and this whole issue stems not from a black market growing, but from doctors prescribing these medications.

The drug with the biggest share of the death toll? Fentanyl. Its estimated that of 2022 numbers, more than 75,000 of the total 109,680 are attributable to synthetic opioids, with fentanyl leading the way. Fentanyl is strong in its own right, but is often mixed with other drugs, either purposefully, or accidentally; which leads to many deaths. Other drugs that played a big role in 2022 overdose death numbers, are psychostimulants, like meth and coke; which together made up over a quarter of the deaths.

Overdose deaths strong in 2022
Overdose deaths strong in 2022

The White House’s Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Dr. Rahul Gupta, had this to say in a statement about the current drug crisis and what the government is doing about it: “We’ve expanded treatment to millions of Americans, we’re improving access to Naloxone to reverse overdoses, and we’re attacking the illicit fentanyl supply chain at every choke point.”

Of course the bigger issue, which was 100% ignored in the White House statement, is that these are doctor prescribed medications. The whole reason this is an issue at all, is because doctors were acting as dealers…and still are. Whatever other actions might be taken, that point must be remembered. The opioid issue is massively different from other drug issues, in that these drugs are legally prescribed, and their legal prescription is not only what started this mess, but remains ongoing.

Previous years death overdose numbers

On the plus side (however much you can use that term), overdose deaths stayed relatively level from 2021-2022. 109,179 in 2021 is not terribly far from the overdose death number of 2022 – 109,680. Just a rise of a few hundred; although final numbers could put the 2022 number several thousand higher in the end. For now, the numbers indicate that things remained generally consistent, with only a minor increase; but considering an increase is still an increase – it also shows nothing was done to help the problem.

The final number for 2021 overdose deaths – 109,179, was 15%+ higher than 2020, which had approximately 93,000 overdose deaths. That number is a 30% increase from 2019 overdose death numbers, which totaled about ~70,630 deaths. This means just between the years 2019 and 2022, yearly overdose deaths increased by about 40,000 deaths. 2018 numbers weren’t much lower than 2019, with 67,367 overdose deaths that year.

In one of the only instances of a temporary change in trajectory, the 2018 numbers are a 4.1% decline from the previous year’s numbers. In 2017 there were 70,237 overdose deaths, which is almost on par with 2019; making 2018 numbers a temporary dip. Unfortunately, the trajectory did not change overall, and the numbers since increased. Weirdly enough, after that 2018 dip, numbers went up at a much faster rate than they did before. Kind of like the quiet before a storm.

The main issue with synthetic opioids started in the first decade of the century, although it didn’t pick up steam in a grand way until after 2010. Weaker opiate medications have been around for awhile, going back to the late 1800’s. It says a lot about these newer and stronger synthetics, that despite the fact we’ve had access to similar medications for over 100 years, it was only with their entrance that the overdose rate skyrocketed.

Synthetic opioids driving overdose deaths in 2022
Synthetic opioids driving overdose deaths in 2022

Even heroin has been around since the turn of last century, first as an actual medication. And whereas heroin used to represent the worst talking point for overdose deaths; related overdose numbers have stayed at relatively even levels in the last 20+ years. The main increase is in synthetic opioids only. You can see it all very clearly in graphs here.

Issues with White House statement

Obviously, upon information of this nature coming out, the White House must say something. The government has done nothing to stop the legal production of these drugs, which makes it a part of the problem automatically. The government made no bones about illegalizing Quaaludes back in the early 1980’s, despite also saying that they were highly addictive; so it stands to reason that caring about the addictive nature of opioids is not what keeps them legal. For the record, Quaaludes had a negligible death toll, especially compared to opioids.

Black markets exist for drugs that are both legal and not legal. For this particular issue, what set it off was the creation and sale of synthetic opioids. Meaning this is a pharmaceutical company and government-created issue. Given that, it stands out to me that the White House statement says this: “Most of these deaths were caused by illicit synthetic drugs like clandestinely manufactured fentanyl and methamphetamine, often in combination with other drugs including cocaine, heroin, and xylazine.”

Maybe this is true. Maybe most of the deaths are from the black market now, but plenty are not. And it could be that the majority are not. These are doctor prescribed medications. Whatever illicit market there is, is only relevant because of the legal market. The drugs were created by the legal market, NOT the black market. It seems the White House wants readers to associate this entire issue with the black market, and not as a government-regulated problem.

Gupta goes on to say this: “The historic actions taken by the Biden-Harris Administration are saving lives. We’ve expanded treatment to millions of Americans, we’re improving access to Naloxone to reverse overdoses, and we’re attacking the illicit fentanyl supply chain at every choke point. As a result, around 19,000 people are still alive and can be there at the dinner table, at birthdays, and at life’s most important moments.”

Once again, the White House really wants you to focus on the illicit market, not the one it promotes legally. Attacking the illicit supply chain? Why not simply not allow doctors to prescribe the medications? Why not stop their legal production and sale? If you read this without knowing anything about the issue, you’d probably not guess these are legal medications.

Drug overdose deaths
Drug overdose deaths

Even funnier still, is that having done nothing to help the problem, the government then takes credit for saving 19,000 lives. I expect the point Gupta is trying to make, is that the use of Naloxone reversed that many overdoses; but it certainly doesn’t mean that that many people were saved. It means a particular overdose was treated for a person. Not only is the government taking credit, it’s calling this a ‘historic action.’

Gupta goes on, “President Biden has called on us to double down on our efforts to save even more lives so we can beat this crisis, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.” But what does that mean? Even more Naloxone? Is his argument that a drug put out to counteract overdoses, will stop an entire addiction crisis for drugs still wildly available, even legally? Does pumping an alcoholic’s stomach, make them not an alcoholic anymore? Its like, the government is offering nothing, yet trying to take credit for an only small rise in deaths. And ignoring that a rise automatically means nothing improved.

He goes on to talk about seizures of illegal product, seemingly to put attention on the illegal market again. Yet, in not one place does he talk of changing regulation to limit legal production or prescribing. According to the statement, government actions are solely for increasing Naloxone use, and seizures of illicit drugs.

And it continues to ignore the most useful possibility out there: swapping ketamine for opioids. This actual solution is never mentioned at all by any government; which is painfully weird if the idea is to help people. Not only does ketamine show as a more useful pain treatment, and one that can last months after application; but without the addictive properties of opioids. Of course, not mentioning it does go in line with helping pharma companies make money from opioid sales.


Does this leveling off mean that some action is working, and the problem will reverse? Likely, no. Because no suitable actions have been taken. Maybe the problem won’t get worse, and we’ve reached the standard leveling off point. Or maybe this is just a break in the overall trajectory, which will continue up next year. One thing for sure (or pretty sure) is that real change takes real action. Right now, the government isn’t even being honest about where the problem is coming from. So can we really expect it to do anything useful about it?

Welcome readers! We’re happy you found us at; where we put our energy into bringing you the best in independent reporting for the cannabis and hallucinogen industries. Head our way daily to keep in-the-know; and subscribe to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, for all direct updates and awesome product promos.

Source link

Continue Reading


New Study On Payment Info Shows Weed Might Lower Opioid Use




It’s a horrible topic that we can’t stop talking about because it doesn’t stop being a horrible topic. One of the biggest issues in the world of health and drugs is the opioid epidemic, and the large and growing number of overdose deaths from these doctor-prescribed medications. Research on different fronts point to the use of weed as a way to lower opioid use, with a recent study related to payments once again backing up that idea.

The research

The opioid issue is huge, and the medical industry is constantly commenting on it, and how to deal with it. In a recent study, investigators showed a monetary connection which indicates that places with legalized weed, also have lower opioid prescription and use rates. However, the study comes with some concerning points.

The study, entitled Using Penalized Synthetic Controls on Truncated data: A Case Study on Effect of Marijuana Legalization on Direct Payments to Physicians by Opioid Manufacturers, was put out by researchers from the University of Florida, University of Southern California, and Purdue University.

In the study, investigators assess data from drug transactions of direct payments from opioid manufacturers, directly to physicians. In this case, specifically between 2014-2017. The purpose? To identify if these payments are affected by the inclusion of medical cannabis policies. In order to do this, the researchers used a “a novel penalized synthetic control (SC) method that accommodates the zero-payment related latent structures inherent in these payments.”

Thank you for coming by. Subscribe to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter for email updates; and for sweet offers on tons of swag like cannabis flower, vapes and other smoking-related equipment, edibles, cannabinoids, amanita mushroom extracts, and so much more. We promote feeling good. Come do it!

The paper makes this statement, “Physicians are the primary gatekeepers for deciding medication for patients needing pain management.” This is important to remember as death numbers spiral out-of-control. As medical marijuana is employed in more places and for more things, more doctors might be driven to switch up how and what they write for pain.

Study findings

The study results indicate a “a significant decrease in direct payments from opioid manufacturers to pain medicine physicians as an effect of [medical marijuana law] passage.” It found that “physicians in states with an MML are prescribing fewer opioids.” The thought is that this is “due to the availability of medical marijuana as a substitute.”

To get more specific, this “substitution effect is comparatively higher for female physicians and in localities with higher white, less affluent, and more working-age populations.” This could indicate that female doctors might be friendlier in general to the idea of medical marijuana, or it could speak to females having less powerful relationships with opioid producers. It’s hard to say which.

The study found that in 2015, doctor’s prescribed 49% more opioid treatments than non-opioid treatments in terms of 30 day prescriptions, as well as prescribing 49% more days of prescribed medication for opioid vs non-opioid treatments. In states where no legalization measure was applied, the ratio remained about the same for opioid vs non-opioid prescription, at about 1.38:1.

For states that did apply a medical marijuana legalization within the years 2015-2017, the study found that the same ratio decreased from 1.57:1 to 1.52:1. The same decrease in ratio was likewise seen when looking at the number of days of medication prescription when comparing opioid to non-opioid medications, in states that passed a medical legalization.

These numbers imply something weird though, which the researchers don’t talk about. They imply that states without medical weed policies, automatically prescribe less opioids. After all, a 1.38:1 ratio is lower than either 1.57:1 or 1.52:1, indicating non-legal states prescribe less before and after a legalization. This, to me, seems suspect, or at the very least, very much in need of some sort of explanation. Nothing of the sort is given.

Opioid medications
Opioid medications

Realistically, according to this data, researchers could say that states with medical weed policies, have uniformly higher opioid prescribing, and likely higher use. And that seems a big enough point that it deserves expansion, which it didn’t get. In fact, all the researchers say after presenting the information, is “We leave further analysis of the possible effect of MML passage on patient care for future research.” What this means, is impossible for me to say based on what is provided. But it’s an odd thing not to address.

Wait a second, how did they put this together?

The thing about a lot of research, is that its not exactly direct. Meaning its not about counting heads in a group. It can’t be when researchers want to study large populations. When trying to assess something on a country-wide level, it means making estimates about larger numbers, often using models to generalize information to a greater level. While this is necessary, it can create questions of effectiveness in specific situations.

In this case, the investigators created a “novel penalized synthetic control method.” They describe it as such: “This method estimates an average treatment effect from a longitudinal dataset on multiple treated and control individuals. We create a synthetic counterpart of each treated and control unit by closely matching on the target unit’s and their groups’ average pre-treatment outcome history using the pooled synthetic 27 control strategy. Further, we use a novel penalty so that the resulting estimators are adaptive to the latent groups in the data whose members have similar quarterly non-payment patterns.”

They go on to explain it further, but the point in me quoting it, is to show it’s a bit more complicated than counting up the prescriptions or payments by themselves. So can there be error in models? Of course. Am I saying there is one here? Not exactly. I’m just pointing out a strange piece of data, which was spoken about only partially, and which works to ask more questions than it answers.

Another reality to consider, is that researchers looked at payments from opioid manufacturers to physicians; something often looked at as a corrupt way to get more prescriptions written. The researchers in the study overlook this idea, and actually say “interactions between these manufacturers and physicians are critical to advance existing pain management protocols.” And that “Direct payments from opioid manufacturers to physicians are established conduits to facilitate such interactions.”

In fact, the researchers seem concerned about less money flowing from opioid producers to doctors. They say, “The finding that the opioid manufacturers in states that passed MML are stepping away from this particular form of interaction is concerning, for such activity can significantly affect the opioids ecosystem.”

Does medical weed affect opioid prescription and use?
Does medical weed affect opioid prescription and use?

Do we really want doctors taking payments from opioid manufacturers?!?

The researchers in the study sound concerned about a possible erosion of the opioid market. But…isn’t that we want? Something like weed to affect the current opioid eco-system and lower the amount of use? And don’t we want to see less of them prescribed, and doctors paying less attention to opioid manufacturers?

Perhaps the biggest issue with this study, beyond making an implication about legalized states uniformly prescribing more opioids vs non-opioids than non-legal states, is that it seems to be written by researchers who fully support payments made from opioid producers directly to the doctors who prescribe them. Which has already caused tons of controversy in that those who accept such payments, tend to write more prescriptions.

This can be seen in an investigation into pharmaceutical payments directly to doctors in the state of New York. In this 2018 report by New York Health Foundation, it found that among other things, “Physicians who received payments from opioid manufacturers prescribed more opioids to Medicare patients than physicians who did not receive any opioid-related payments.”

How much money are we talking about, and how frequently did it seem to have this effect? According to the report, “More than $3.5 million in opioid-related payments were made to physicians in New York State by pharmaceutical companies; about one in ten physicians who prescribed opioids to Medicare patients received a payment.”

It said that, “Moreover, a higher number of opioid prescriptions was associated with more opioid-related payments to physicians.” However, it also found that these payments were concentrated among a choice few doctors, “Opioid-related payments from industry were concentrated within a small proportion of physicians, who tended to prescribe a large quantity of opioids. The top 1% of physicians in New York, in terms of the amount received in opioid-related payments, received more than 80% of total payments.”

So perhaps the finding of the current report that less money is going to doctors from opioid producers, is actually an indication of a lessening of these seemingly corrupt payments, which have led to more prescribing. Which is technically what we want in this climate. And which therefore strongly calls into question the motives of the researchers and why this information makes them concerned.

Effects of legal weed on opioid payments to doctors
Effects of legal weed on opioid payments to doctors


I admit I’m slightly confused. The study talks about medical weed bringing down opioid use as seen through payments, which in the middle of a crisis like this, is optimal. Then it backhandedly turns this around and essentially questions if this is a good idea. Perhaps this study is an example of how research is often funded for a purpose, and not always with the best of intentions. I can’t say this for sure, as no funding information is given. Maybe a problem in and of itself.

Hello readers. We appreciate you joining us at; a place for independent news reporting on the ever present world of drugs. Stop by regularly to keep in-the-loop on important stories, and sign up to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, so you’re always on top of what’s going on.

Source link

Continue Reading


NYTimes: Are You Addicted to Weed? – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana




The New York Times is asking: are you addicted to weed? And if you were, would you even know?

That’s what the “paper of record,” is asking, with the warning that nearly six percent of American teens and adults have “cannabis use disorder.”

Many used to highly regard the New York Times due to its reputation for high-quality journalism. In recent years, the paper’s accuracy, objectivity, and editorial decisions have suffered, particularly in the age of social media and the 24-hour news cycle.

From presidential elections to the covid hysteria to the Russian-Ukraine war – the New York Times has devolved into a Tumblr blog.

The article “How Do You Know if You’re Addicted to Weed?” is not high-quality journalism. The journalism of their past – like breaking the Iran-Contra Affair or revealing the Pentagon Papers – would likely be considered “harmful misinformation” now.

Just look at how they treated the Hunter-Biden laptop scandal. Or how they covered the covid lab-leak hypothesis. Search “NYTimes” and “Joe Rogan” and see how their jealousy manifests.

The New York Times is no longer the paper of record unless that record is writing advertisements for corporate sponsors.

And this is what the NYTimes “addicted to weed” article amounts to—advertising for anxiety meds.

NYTimes: Are You Addicted to Weed?

NYTimes: Are You Addicted to Weed?

The NYTimes is asking: are you addicted to weed? And to be fair, this article is not as bad as it could have been. It opens with an adult named Julian, who always smoked weed instead of forming friendships or other relationships.

Julian didn’t even think he had a problem until someone suggested he was “addicted to weed.” So he looked up the definition of “cannabis use disorder” online and self-diagnosed himself.

Funny, the “experts” discourage that in almost every other situation.

The Ontario government, for example, has launched a “Stop Going Down Rabbit Holes” campaign. 

Despite healthcare shortages and overcrowded hospitals, the Ontario government wants you to speak with a professional about common medical ailments (like whether you should apply heat or cold to a sprain) instead of doing any research yourself.

The NYTimes “addicted to weed” article says that cannabis is addictive like alcohol or cocaine. They admit it won’t cause an overdose death like opiates. But it can cause a “dramatic decrease in quality of life.”

This line needs some nuance, but unfortunately, the quoted psychiatrist doesn’t go into detail.

Alcohol, for example, can cause a dramatic decrease in your quality of life whether you see your drinking as problematic or not. Mentally, you could be fine. But physically, you’re body is processing a literal poison.

While you could make a case that smoking cannabis harms the lungs, if you’re consuming edibles or extracts, cannabis will not physically destroy your body. Nor does it kill brain cells the way alcohol or cocaine will.

So how does cannabis cause a dramatic decrease in quality of life? 

Signs of Addiction or “Cannabis Use Disorder” 

NYTimes: Are You Addicted to Weed?

This NYTimes “addicted to weed” article uses the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) as an authoritative text. You might recognize its other name – the DSM-5.

But the DSM consists of cultural conventions, not scientific concepts. A “caffeeine use disorder” is not listed despite the 74% of Americans who drink coffee daily. 

The main reason is that telling millions of Americans they have a substance abuse problem is counterproductive.

As well, we normalize daily caffeine consumption. Even if you told 74% of Americans that they had a problematic relationship with coffee, they’d ask you to mind your own business.

Appealing to the DSM-5 as the be-all, end-all of the discussion on “cannabis use disorder” is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. For, the criteria it provides aren’t even scientific.

Consider the concept of “loss of control.” No scientific evidence supports it. You may find some conditional evidence in neurobiology, but this has yet to establish causation. You may also find some observational research that supports it.

But the gold standard in science is demonstrating cause and effect.

The DSM-5 is a product of culture. Particularly a culture that’s been captivated by drug war propaganda.

According to the DSM-5, developing tolerance to THC and experiencing withdrawal symptoms (which could be as benign as insomnia or irritability) means you’re addicted to weed, or, to be politically correct, you have “cannabis use disorder.”

What Actually Causes Addiction?

NYTimes: Are You Addicted to Weed?

The NYTimes “addicted to weed” article quotes Dr. David Gorelick. He said, “Cannabis use disorder occurs in all age groups, but it’s primarily a disease of young adults.”

What goes unsaid is that most people with “addiction” issues are young adults because, by their 30s, these issues resolve naturally.

The research is conclusive: Most young adults with drug-dependency issues recover independently without the need for formal treatment. They do this by their 30s.

Of course, the NYTimes “addicted to weed” article ignores this research. It does not fit the “public health” narrative that some drugs are harmful and addictive that require treatment. While others (the ones produced and patented by pharma) are good and healthy that require taxpayer-financed subsidies.

Also, when you view human action as a consequence of forces beyond our control, a cultural phenomenon – addiction – can be construed as a “disease” of the brain.

But despite the NYTimes’ “addicted to weed” propaganda, little evidence supports the brain-disease theory of drug addiction.

The myth persists because there are financial incentives to “treat” addiction as a “disease” rather than what it actually is – a problem with the mind.

Hidden in the NYTimes “addicted to weed” article is the truth.

Having another psychiatric diagnosis, such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is also associated with an increased risk [of cannabis addiction].

As one of the doctors in the article says, it’s possible to consume daily and not have a “disorder.”

The people who continue to use cannabis despite negative consequences are people with other issues. They are self-medicating with cannabis. And given the options, cannabis will be preferable to opiates or alcohol. Or even SSRIs.

NYTimes: Addicted to Weed? Here Are Your Options

NYTimes: Are You Addicted to Weed?

So what does the NYTimes “addicted to weed” article recommend? There are no approved medications to “treat” a cannabis “disorder.” But that doesn’t stop psychiatrists from prescribing medication.

The article does reference cognitive behavioral therapy but in the context of treatment and recovery. Where you’re developing strategies to “deal with cravings” or “triggers.”

Instead of fundamentally changing your preferences. 

(For example, many of us prefer not to drink coffee later in the afternoon. Most of us aren’t dealing with cravings or developing strategies to cope. We simply don’t want to consume caffeine in the afternoon based on our preferences.)

Yet, despite the attempts of the NYTimes to make a case of being addicted to weed, the reality comes crashing down in the final paragraph: “Julian now smokes weed very rarely — only once every few months if an old friend is around. He doesn’t miss it, he said.”

If Julian’s use was a disease of the brain, then how is this possible? Or was Julian’s “disorder” a coping mechanism for stress and anxiety? Could it be that Julian resolved his anxiety issues and now has a “take it or leave it” approach to cannabis?

This wouldn’t be possible if it were the pharmacology of the drug causing addiction. If Julian’s brain was diseased, wouldn’t a “relapse” compel him back into chronic use?

Or perhaps the brain disease or “disorder” model is bunk.

Feeling Addicted? Try some CBD

Time to take CBD -What time of day should you take CBD, and why?

If you prefer anti-anxiety pills from pharmaceutical companies – that’s your prerogative. And if anxiety is the problem, most people don’t recommend a diet high in THC.

At least add some CBD into the mix.

But don’t let the “experts” convince you that you have a disease or disorder. 

It could be that your cannabis use is problematic. But that would be a sign of an underlying issue. Of some fundamental preference you may not fully understand.

What it isn’t is a disease like cancer or myocarditis. It’s a habit. And for the 6% minority, it’s a self-destructive habit.

So in that sense, the NYTimes is wrong; you cannot get addicted to weed. Cannabis is a flower. And flowers can’t force you to do things against your will.

Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media