AVAILABILITY DEBUNKED AS CONTRIBUTOR TO ADDICTIONS

Re: Genetic and environmental influences on illicit drug use and tobacco use across birth cohorts
http://journals.cambridge.org/bin/bladerunner?REQUNIQ=1115955413&REQSESS=7622618&118000REQEVENT=&REQINT1=302380&REQAUTH=0
Over the last 13 or so years I've been studying the addiction literature for addiction paradigm making and paradigm breaking studies. I put examples of both of these kinds of studies in my book (Hypoic's Handbook, 1996) which breaks all current and past addiction paradigms and provides strong support for the new genetic theory called Hypoism. I also put these studies on my web site after the book was published. There isn't a current addiction scientist who has provided more of these kinds of studies in pure numbers and in value than Kenneth Kendler. His work, taken as a whole, provides pretty much all the evidence we need to debunk the current and past, but still believed, addiction theories that have warped and biased the field of addictions over the past hundred years and to help synthesize the correct theory, Hypoism. The paper I'm reporting on today is called, "Genetic and environmental influences on illicit drug use and tobacco use across birth cohorts," Psychological Medicine, 2005, 35, 1–8. The tenets of the current incorrect theories as it relates to understanding the addiction epidemic and for derivation of anti-drug policies is that anyone can get addicted if they use drugs, the drugs themselves cause the addiction in anyone who takes them, that availability of these drugs is a key part of the cause of the addiction epidemic, and that decreasing availability is the major goal of these policies. The major addiction theory today is called the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis (HBH) put forth by NIDA in 1996 by Leshner, the then chief of NIDA. Of course, knowing the real cause of addictions, genetics, period, has allowed me to criticize these tenets over the last 13 years. During these years various papers have in a timely fashion appeared to support my critique of current theories as well as support the correct theory, Hypoism. I have emailed all of you about them and included them in my ongoing review of addiction theory, my paper called The Hypoism Hypothesis, which is on my web site and which we all know has been ignored and censored by the addiction field and the media. A recent email to all of you described the complete debunking of the HBH and the support for the genetic model by Hiroi. Hiroi's paper has been ignored too. Now, Kendler provides more debunking of the HBH, as if any more were necessary, with his study on whether AVAILABILITY (and attitudes about drugs) has any actual effect on addiction causation, availability and attitudes being the main target of the drug war and current prevention methods. Guess what Kendler found? Availability has no effect on addiction, "given a certain degree of availability." I quote his paper below:
"The ‘no correlation hypothesis ’ predicts no substantial relationship between heritability and
prevalence of substance use. This pattern could arise because, given a certain degree of availability, individual differences in drug use are relatively immutable characteristics of human populations such that individuals predisposed to use will find a way to obtain the substance. In a large population-based twin sample of men and women, we were unable to find evidence that changing availability and/or acceptability of drug consumption – as indexed by rates of substance use – produced changes in the heritability. These results suggest that the heritability of substance use may be a relatively stable characteristic of human populations and not highly variable as a result of changing patterns of drug accessibility and consumption."
        What this quote means is that with even minimal availability and unless there is a complete eradication of addictive drugs, well known to be impossible, addictions will continue to occur as is, caused by unconscious genetics. In other words, the "environmental" influences of drug availability and prevailing attitudes about these drugs are straw men, bogus, meaningless, and have nothing to do with the addiction epidemic. The genetic cause of addictions is the critical issue and only by addressing this can we make any headway with reducing the addiction epidemic. I've been saying this exact thing for 13 years based on the Hypoism Paradigm of addiction causation. I predicted this result 13 years ago when I first put Hypoism forth. In fact, my first unpublished and ignored (censored) letter to the NY Times discussed this: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/nytimesletterstotheeditor/
So, we have one more nail in the coffin of the HBH, the addiction theory that has been dead for 13 years, long before it was even invented, but which is still ruling the field of addictions, and the government's policies in regards to addictions. Now, doesn't this make you question whether the current experts who use and support the HBH aren't just liars and frauds? If not, why not? This informational and theoretical censorship and bias is killing millions of addicts a year. Doesn't anyone care about this?