Hypoism



Home Page of Hypoism, The Disease of Addictions


Web site advertising


The Overriding Principle


The reason for this web site


IMAGINE


send me a message


Discussion Page

Buy the book



Buy the Book

Hypoism Issues



Role of Dopamine in Addiction Causation


Theory of Addiction - Hypoism Hypothesis


Why drug use is unconscious and against one's willfulness - not volitional


Misuse of the word choice in addictions


THE INESCAPABLE LOGIC OF ANY VALID ADDICTION ETIOLOGICAL PARADIGM


WHAT OTHER DISEASE....?


What Am I Angry About? - Don't Ask Me This Again


Disease Concept - A Perspective


HYPOISM IN A NUT SHELL


Page Directory of this Site with Explanations and Links


The History of the Proof of Hypoism in the Wake of the P/R Paradigm page 1.


History page 2


Why Addiction Experts and Other People Are Ignoring Hypoism


Strange Brew


AIMING AT AN UNDERSTANDING OF ADDICTIONS


The Paradigm Vacuum in Addictions Today


THE ADDICTION PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION


What Does An Addiction Expert Know?


The Hypoism Addiction Hypothesis - An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective


Addiction Questionnaire


Misconceptions of addictions and addicts


What's Hypoism? What's an Addiction?


WHY WE DON'T NEED HYPOISM.


Why We Need Hypoism: A Comparison of the Principles and Consequences between the two Paradigms


Entitled to Your Opinion? Not Anymore.


HYPOICMAN: A non-recovering, unimpressed Hypoic


The Field of Addictionology: A Golfing Analogy


NEW YEAR PREDICTIONS


Contact Information

Hypoism Treatment Research



The Addiction Treatment Fraud Finally Exposed


Hypoism Treatment Research Proposal

N4A



I KEPT QUIET


The National Association for the Advancement and Advocacy of Addicts


Make A Contribution To The N4A


Addict Discrimination Documentation


Social Innovations Award 2000 for The N4A


Third Millennium N4A Conference Keynote Address on Hypoism - Pathophysiology in Addictions vs. Superstition


N4A Goes on the Offensive - Suggesting Real Action


The Verdict


Blind Faith?

Learn More About the Book



Letters from book readers


Title Page of Book


Book Blurb


Book Cover


Back Cover


Table of Contents


Foreword


Preface


Opening Statement


Chapter 1


Vision For The Future


Outcomes of Hypoic's Handbook


Bibliography


Book Corrections


Harm reduction prototype: Swiss PROVE program

Book Reviews



The Phoenix Magazine

Hypoics Not-Anonymous



Hypoics Not-Anonymous

Things You Can Do



What you can do---


My Kids

Special Links



Special Links to important web sites


Addiction Links on the Web

Addiction Genetics



Recent Genetic Studies on Various Addictions from a Large Twin Registry


Genetic Studies page 2.


Gateway theory finally disproven


Celera Discovers Millions of Tiny Genetic Differences in People

Interesting Addiction Science



Clinically Important Neurotransmitter Deficiencies

Hypoism Magazine-Articles by and for Hypoics



EMBRYONIC HYPOISM CIRCA 1968


#1 Hatred, #2 The Words: Opinion, Belief, and Knowledge, #3 Hate Addiction


#4 The Drug War War, #5 Evolution vs. Creationism Revisited for Addictions


#6 American Society for Addiction Medicine Statement for Recovering Physicians


#7 Issues Peculiar to the Disease of Addictions


#8 Critique of Alan Lechner's (NIH), "The Hijacked Brain Hypothesis."


#8a. Update!! Dr. Leshner recently makes a change


#9 MY STORY - The Doctor Drug War - Wrong and Wasteful p.1, 1/6/00


The Doctor Drug War p.2


Doctor Drug War p.3


Doctor Drug War p.4


Doctor Drug War p.5


Affidavit for judicial review of NYS Dept. of Ed.


#10 The Superstition Instinct 3/1/00


#11-Conflict of Interest in Addiction Research


#12 - Controlled Drinking Lands On Its Ass


#13 - The Kennedy Curse or Kennedy Hypoism?


#14 - The Lord's Prayer for Hypoics


#15 - Replacing Alan Leshner is the only way to end the Drug War


#16 - The Brain Addiction Mechanism and the COGA Study


#17 - Letter to the director of the National Academy of Medicine's Board on Neurobiology and Behavior Health on Addictions


#18 - Is Addiction Voluntary, A Choice, as Leshner and NIDA Insist?


#19 - Bush's Alcoholism and Lies


#20 - A P/R Paradigm Addict - "Cured?"


#21 - Congress Misled and Lied to by NIAAA


#22 - Special Letter to the Times on Addiction Genetics


#23 - JAMA Editor Publishes According to His Beliefs, Not Science


#24 - Smoking as Gateway Drug. I Don't Think So!


#24B - IS COCAINE ADDICTION CAUSED BY COCAINE?


#25 - One Less Heroin Addict. But At What Cost?


#26 - An Open Letter to the Judge who Sentences Robert Downey, Jr.


#27 - Letter To Schools About The Pride Program Against Drugs


#28 - A Letter To Bill Moyers, Close To Home, and PBS


#29 - HYPOISM IS ACTUALLY A DISEASE OF THE "WILL"


#30 - Brookhaven Labs Provide More Evidence For Hypoism


#31 - Addiction Prevention Revisited


#32 - DRUG WAR EVALUATION BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE


#33 - NIDA Is Close But No Cigar


#34 - Bush's Addict Discrimination and Hypocricy Begins


#35 - Maya Angelou's, "Still I Rise."


#36 - Leshner Lies To Congress


#37 - Addiction Combos


#38 Brain tumor proves Hypoism hypothesis


#39: So-called Availability Debunked as Contributor of Addictions


#40 - Hypoism Reproduced By A Pill


PIMMPAL Complex


Cartoons

The Hypoism Blog - The Addiction Blog



The Addiction Blog 4/17/11 -


The Addiction Blog 9/14/10 - 4/16/11


The Addiction Blog 11/12/09 - 9/14/10


The Addiction Blog 7/23/09 - 11/09/09


The Addiction Blog 5/16/09 - 7/22/09


The Addiction Blog 3/3/09 - 5/13/09


The Addiction Blog 8/3/08 - 3/3/09


The Addiction Blog 4/1/07 - 8/3/08

old letters



My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 1.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 2.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 3.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 4.


My NY Times Letters to the Editor page 5.


My New York Times Letters to the Editor page 6.


My Letters to the editor of the NY Times page 7.


My Letters to the Editor of the NY Times page 8.


NY Times Letters Page 9.


New York Times Letters Page 10


My NYT Letters page 11


NY Times Letters page 12.


NY Times letters p. 13


Letters to the NY Times page 14.


Letters to Newsday


Letters To The Los Angeles Times


Creationism/Evolution Letter to BAM 11-25-05

Speeches



Committee for Physician Health Speech
goldbutton.jpg

The Future of Addictions

Addict Discrimination in the News



Mandated Treatment for Welfare Recipients


Anorectic Murdered by Doctors out of Ignorance and "Desperation"(10/20/99)


Six Dead Heroin Addicts-Enough? 10/31/99


American Society of Addiction Medicine Discrimination


Darryl Strawberry Punished Again


South Carolina Forces Pregnant Women to Take Drug Tests


When it comes to drugs, the constitution doesn't apply


Parents of Overweight Girl Will Sue New Mexico


Scrapbook

Downloads



Download Files


huffington post


Custom HTML


Sitemap




Hypoics are born, not made.

Hypoism  
Dan F. Umanoff, M.D.  
941-926-5209  
8779 Misty Creek Dr.  
Sarasota, Florida 34241  

dan.umanoff.md@gmail.com  




LET'S SEE IF "THE FIRST USE OF THE ĎDRUGí IS VOLUNTARY"

LET'S SEE IF "THE FIRST USE OF

THE 'DRUG' IS VOLUNTARY"

OR,

A CONVERSATION BETWEEN STUPID OLE ME AND SMARTY-PANTS ALAN LESHNER, THE AUTHOR OF THAT QUOTE AND DIRECTOR OF OUR COUNTRY'S INSTITUTE FOR DRUG ABUSE

Ya know people, I sit here everyday at this new fangled computer knockin' my head against all these other people's heads who say they're experts on addictions, want to prevent addictions by educating those stupid kids about how bad drugs are and all that, want to treat all these addicts, even in jail if it comes to that, and get those damned irresponsible parents to make sure their stupid kids don't do no drugs. Fifty years later they're still sayin' the same stuff and the kids and even their parents are still takin' drugs. None of them seems to mind these experts one bit. Be that as it may, and you know it's true as the day is long, these garsh-darn experts keep doin' it anyway. Ya know, I call them on the telephone and tell them, "They're hearin' ya but they get drunk and high and stoned anyway. And there's a reason for why these not so stupid people keep ignoring your advise and laws. It's not cause they're deaf, dumb or blind. There's something about how their brains work that makes them take drugs (and alcohol) even when they know better. These smarty-pants experts don't give a hoot or a hollar about my theory, though, or my book. They are polite and listen to me, but I never hear from them again. They wouldn't read my book if I paid them. Just don't want to know how stupid I really am. I guess they feel sorry for me being such a jerk cause if they read the book they'd have to tell me so, and they don't want to hurt my feelin's. So it's simpler just not to read the book. God bless 'em. What nice people will do to keep from hurtin' my feelin's. Gosh. I'm not that naÔve not to comprehend their real motives, however.

One day, however, I was lucky enough to catch Alan Leshner on the golf course nearby and we tee'd off together without him knowing who I was. What luck! He's chief of NIDA and author of the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis of addictions, the current incorrect addiction paradigm, uncritically used by most addictionologists, whose first sentence states, "The first use of the drug is voluntary, but then the drug hijacks the brain and produces what we know to be addiction," or something to that effect. In fact, he's so emphatic about the first use being voluntary, he definitively states this sentence every time anyone asks him about addictions. No one has ever questioned him about it's validity though; not congress when they pass laws about addicts, not DEA when they arrest addicts, not the press when they write articles about addictions. This simple and seemingly innocuous and seemingly obvious and true statement about the first use being voluntary is actually the most damning of all misconceptions about addicts because it makes them responsible for causing and subject to blame and punishment for their addictions. Leshner admits addiction is a disease, but, he insists, only after the addict actually caused the disease voluntarily by taking the first drug. The following socratic discourse shows how wrong this misconception is, how mistakes in critical thinking and biased misinterpretation of neurobiology result in this misconception, and finally puts addiction into the context of all other blameless diseases. In doing so, addiction can be perceived in the realistic light necessary for real improvements in recovery and helpful changes in public policy. Remember, addiction is not the disease but is a symptom of the underlying inborn and genetic disease of Hypoism.

In the golf cart on the first fairway after we tee'd off, I said to Leshner, "Alan, you know better than to say the first use of the drug is voluntary. You ain't no jerk. The first use by future addicts is involuntary and against their will even though it appears to be voluntary. People who never get addicted, well, for them, yes, possibly voluntary, but not the future addicts. You know that, right? Why do you keep saying that same ole thing over and over about the first use of the drug bein' voluntary and makin' those addicts feel like real jerks?"

He said, "What are you talking about? I'm the chief of NIDA. Don't you have no respect?"

I said, "Well, no, not if your dead wrong I don't," and then started to ask him some questions he thought were really stupid, but answered them anyway. Lucky me.

"You know, Al, "I said, "that word voluntary, it's a doozy. That's one hell of a word that can really turn ya on your head when you actually start thinkin' about it. Let me ask you some simple questions about that damned word, OK?" He looked at me kind a funny but, what the hell, we had 17 holes to play. Where was he goin' anyway?

"You know how little babies are when they're born? They're hungry, right? They come out screaming for something to eat, not havin' eaten in nine months. Let's say we served them up a tray with sand, leaves, grass, rocks, milk, styrafoam chips, and clay. Which do you think they'd eat?"

"The milk, of course," he grimaced.

"Now how do they know to do that, Al?"

"Look here," he snickered, "that's what babies eat. Everyone knows that."

"True, but how do they know it? They didn't go to school yet. They don't even know their names yet. How do they know to eat milk?"

"Cause it's built-in, that's how," he smirked.

"Right. It's built-in. All babies eat milk. It's built-into their brains before they're even born. In fact, Al, even horse babies, and cow babies, and elephant babies, all babies whose mamas have teats eat milk as soon as they're born. It's built-in. No one needs to teach 'em that. Is that voluntary?"

"Is that voluntary?"

"No, I guess not," he said. "But babies aren't adults no less even twelve year olds yet. Twelve year olds aren't babies. When they drink milk it's voluntary."

"Right. They're not. But what do twelve year olds eat? Do they eat leaves, and dirt, and grass, and clay? No. They only eat what their intestines can digest, even if they don't know they have intestines. Stupid people have been eating 'the right stuff' since they existed, even without knowing anything about it. In fact, all living things eat 'the right stuff' and have been doin' so for millions of years, actually billions of years, without a single lesson from their parents or teachers. Would you call that voluntary? Is what you eat voluntary?"

"Within limits, yes, it's voluntary," he growled.

"Is it voluntary?" I repeated.

"Well, if you want to be picky, no, it's not voluntary. All people must eat. Adult people can and do only eat certain things and they don't need to go to school to learn which things to eat. It's built-in. But, everyone eats the same stuff, voluntary or not."

"True," I said, "but only because it's built-in to all of us to eat the same stuff. If someone came along who could digest grass, and that was all that was available to eat, he'd eat it and you still wouldn't. He'd live and you would starve to death. His mutation for the ability to eat grass would be lifesaving for him, as stupid as it looked to you, but you would die and he would live. Is his eating grass voluntary?"

"No," he barked, "but there are no people like that."

"True," I said calmly, "but that's the way the first drug use is to addicts-to-be (hypoics), and that's why hypoics use drugs involuntarily the first time while nonhypoics voluntarily do, or don't. It makes no neurobiological difference to nonhypoics, but makes a big neurobiological difference to hypoics. The difference in voluntariness is neurobiologically-based. Do you get it yet? Left to their own devices, following their own neurobiology of which they are ignorant under the current incorrect paradigm of addiction, they use addictors involuntarily from the get go; from the very first time. Hypoics are born with a different biology in their brains that inexorably leads to addictor use and ultimately, addiction. All addiction science is showing this to be the case. Twin and genetic studies are confirming this genetic differentiation."

"No, it's not the same," he insisted.

"Yes it is," I insisted. "Let me ask you some more questions?"

"Do you do sex voluntarily?"

"Of course," he blurted. "I always choose to have sex. It's always voluntary."

"When was having sex voluntary for you? When you were five, seven, ten, twelve, fifteen?"

He said, "Hey! I didn't have sex that early. No one has sex at five. I didn't feel like or even think about having sex until I was sixteen, then I waited. I chose to have sex the first time when I was twenty three."

"So," I responded, "was not having sex at five voluntary, a choice?"

He blurted, "No one has sex at five years old. The necessary brain biology isn't there yet. It only appears at puberty with the right hormones and stuff. Oh. I guess it wasn't voluntary then after all. But after sixteen, it was voluntary. I waited."

"True," I said, "but your getting closer to the meaning of the word voluntary. If the brain biology isn't there, it's not voluntary, having sex or not having sex, either way, at five. A five year old doesn't even think about it for real because there's nothing in his brain that resonates with actually having sex for real. The biology doesn't exist yet. You know, Al, that if this five year old boy was castrated, he never would have sex, right? His testicles would not be there to produce testosterone, the hormone necessary for sex in an adult. Is not having sex voluntary for a eunuch? Is not getting addicted voluntary for a nonaddict-to-be?"

"No, I'm beginning to see what you mean. Maybe my use of the word 'voluntary' was presumptive," he whispered, starting to understand the actual meaning of the word voluntary. "The word voluntary has different meanings when the biology is there compared to when it isn't there; built-in biology, that is."

"Right," I continued. "Now we're getting closer to the meaning of the word voluntary. It can mean two different things in different people depending on the underlying or built-in biology."

"But," he blurted out, "what does this have to do with addicts voluntarily using drugs for the first time? All people start out with pretty much the same biology before they take drugs. All people voluntarily take drugs the first time. It's only after they take the first drug that their brain biology changes and they become addicts."

"Al, PLEASE !!" I shouted, having little patience for this nonsense. "We both know this isn't true. Your theory, The Hijacked Brain Hypothesis, doesn't fit with the facts, biological facts, genetic facts, or behavioral facts. You know damned well that people who 'become addicts' are biologically and genetically VERY different before they take the first drug from the people who will never be addicts, even if they take an addicting drug, and are, in fact, incapable of being addicts. Let's go back to that sex question again. Everyone with the correct built-in biology for sex, most people that is, has sex at some time in their lives."

"Right," he said.

"This, of course is not voluntary as we have defined it. It's a biological fact. People have sex. It's built-into practically everyone."

"OK, right," he agreed.

"Not having sex or having sex superficially appears to be voluntary in terms of when, but when you look at it closely, it's just a matter of time before everyone has sex. Doing sex is, thus, instinctive, built-in, and not voluntary, only when, not if. The same with eating. The same with breathing. The same with taking a leak or a dump. Everyone does it, so volition about sex is not an issue for the vast majority of people, except in eunuchs, where not having sex is not volitional either, but for the opposite reason, absence of the biology."

"OK, right," he agreed.

"Let me hammer this point in a little deeper," I enthusiastically continued, seeing that Leshner might be opening up a little. "We agree that sex is instinctive and not voluntary as people commonly misuse that word. What about homosexuality? Now, there's a variation on the sex instinct behavior whose origins and biology is less well understood than addiction. Straight folks have for eternity considered homosexuality an abomination, even to the point of it being illegal in most states and many countries around the world, no different from addiction. Yet, if you ask a homosexual about his sexual preferences he would say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that he was born this way, and, thus, it is not voluntary at all. To homosexuals, same-sex preference is as instinctive and involuntary as heterosexuality is to straight people, even before the first sexual experience, and even without any knowledge of the actual biology that differentiates them from nonhomosexuals. They, and most people today, accept that without hesitation, even though they may not like it, and although it has taken many years of discussion for us to have reached this level of acceptance. Homosexuality used to be believed to be a choice, voluntary, but today it is clearly recognized to be involuntary. Yes?"

"Yes, alright, alright. That's right," he admitted.

"So, for some people homosexuality is built-in, instinctive, and involuntary due to unknown biological differences. In fact, if you think about it, there are countless instinct-derived behaviors that are clearly involuntary even though they appear to be voluntary when viewed superficially and with prejudice. Why is it so hard to know that the first use of a drug for a hypoic whose biology and genetics is much better understood than homosexuality isn't voluntary too? You are aware, aren't you, that all drugs of addiction work within the reward cascade, a neurobiological mechanism that has evolved to reinforce all instinctive behaviors? Why isn't it possible that use of these drugs, even the first use, has a biological origin at the same level as a biult-in instinct; that for hypoics, drug use is biologically instinctive?"

Before he could answer, because he didn't seem to want to, I continued. He was looking for a ball he mistakenly hit in the deep rough.

"Now, pretty much everyone is having sex of one sort or another. Why do some people get addicted to sex and others can choose when they have sex and when they don't? Why do these sex addicts have sex against their will while others have a choice about it? Hasn't sex hijacked everyone's brain? No. It only appears that sex has hijacked certain peoples' brains, the sex addicts, but in reality, sex hasn't hijacked anyone's brains. Sex addicts' brains have hijacked sex addict's bodies, not the other way around. In reality, sex was never voluntary for sex addicts, whereas sex seemed to be somewhat voluntary to nonsex addicts, in terms of when, but even then, not if. According to your hypothesis then, only drugs hijack people's brains, not instincts, yet, notwithstanding, addictions exist to both drugs and instincts. There are countless behavioral addictions all related to one instinct or another. There are people, the so-called checking or harm obsessive-compulsives for example, who can't drive their car two blocks without checking to see if they've run over someone while most people never think twice about such a possibility, no less stop their car and look for a dead body underneath it. These people aren't voluntarily stopping their car every five blocks any more than normal drivers are voluntarily not stopping their cars. The first time they stopped to check wasn't voluntary either. Yet, they got addicted to this peculiar behavior. Volition is absent in both situations. There are dozens of behavioral addictions that work exactly the same way: gambling, risky behaviors, people addiction, etc. Your hypothesis in reality doesn't fit either drug addiction or behavioral addiction. The addictor doesn't hijack anything. The brains of hypoics hijack the wills and the behaviors of these people from birth. The brains of hypoics are that much different from nonhypoics. That's what Hypoism is all about, and that's what your hypothesis misinterprets and disregards.

What, you might exclaim, we have two wills operating in the same person? Right. We have a conscious will that runs the show most of time in nonhypoics although even they can screw up occasionally. But they don't get addicted because they don't have the biology necessary to get addicted. This same conscious will, although just as ever-present and powerful, works less well in hypoics. All humans have a second will, a biological will, an unconscious will, the built-in will, the limbic will so to speak, that pushes nonhypoics around quite a bit, but not enough to allow addiction. In hypoics, on the other hand, this unconscious will consistently overpowers their conscious will and ensures their use of addictors and eventual addiction. Addictions to both drugs and instincts (behaviors) occur in exactly the same way. This distinction between the brains of hypoics and nonhypoics is exactly like the distinction between the normal sexual person and the eunuch, although it isn't recognized as such by you addiction experts yet. Hypoic's and nonhypoic's biologies are that different at birth. That's what the genetics is saying. That's what addicts are saying but no nonaddicts are listening because it doesn't make sense to them. They just can't relate to it just as eunuchs can't relate to sex while noneunuchs naturally do. How could they? Their brains don't work the same way as hypoic's brains. Thus, they can't conceive of the enormous neurobiological difference that would make one person involuntarily use a drug, even for the first time, when it appears to them that they themselves voluntarily don't use a drug for the first time. However, neither case is voluntary and for opposite reasons: opposite biology of the brains of these different people. Nevertheless, this differentiation is true and will be definitively proven true as soon as we're willing to do the experiments to prove it. The human genome project will prove it. Animal experimental addiction studies have already proved it, but because the experts don't like the idea of it, the results of these experiments are being minimized. The COGA Study will prove it if it is done correctly, but the results are quite slow in getting published and, even then, will probably be misinterpreted by its authors. It will only be proven definitively when the nonaddicts have the imagination and courage to ask the right questions of the hypoic's biology and interpret the results with an open mind. Hypoics have the biology at birth to be addicts while nonhypoics don't. The built-in biology to be addicts exists in certain people just like babies know to drink milk instead of grass, just like you're going to have sex again and the eunuch isn't, just like homosexuality, just likeÖ.

This is the way nature works. This is the way the brain works. The brain can only do what it's biology allows it to do. Brains only do what resonates with their biology. The word 'voluntary' has no real meaning when it comes to addictors in either hypoics or nonhypoics because neither have a choice. Hypoics will always be addicted to something and thus their first addictor use is involuntary while nonhypoics will never be addicted and their first addictor use is not really voluntary although it is definitely inconsequential. This is true even when it appears to be untrue. This is the paradox of addictor use. This is the piece of the jigsaw puzzle of addictions that we have been missing for ever. Not only is the first use of the drug involuntary in hypoics and volitionally inconsequential in nonhypoics, but the word is meaningless in both groups. This is the only way it can be. Nature works this way and only this way.

Thus, Al, your use of the word 'voluntary' is wrong and ignorant. It is based on the wrong concept of how the brain works especially when it comes to addictions which arise from a built-in brain mechanism altered by certain genetic alleles and only in people who have the right combination of these alleles. Moreover, they get these alleles from their parents, and in just the right combination to produce the addiction producing mechanism in these people. All the twins studies show this has to be the case. Volition is just not a part of addiction or its absence, one way or the other.

"But," he interjected, "these people have no right to take the first drug. Itís against the law! Itís against the bible! Itís against accepted morality! Itís antisocial! Itís detrimental to society and even to themselves! They still do it anyway! This proves itís voluntary!"

"Al," I retorted, "thatís exactly the point and exactly why it is proof of just the opposite. For the most part, addicts, including alcoholics, who seemingly took the first drug voluntarily, are law abiding citizens and moral in all other aspects. Many are deeply religious people, even clerics. Your calling their first use voluntary make them have to all be assholes and antisocial defiant schmucks. Of course, this includes all the behaviors we have discussed today as well such as homosexuality, compulsive gambling, various forms of sex addiction, etc., behaviors still illegal and immoral in many areas of the country and in the bible as well. You know this is wrong, and your theory has no way to reconcile this. You canít have it both ways, Al. Either youíre wrong about this word voluntary and your entire Hijacked Brain Hypothesis is wrong, or its not. In fact, itís wrong.

"Oh Christ," he said sheepishly, "will you hit the ball and shut up?"

"No. Just one last thing. Until you change your paradigm of addiction to one consistent with the actual neurobiological realities and stop deliberately lying to the public, addictions will remain the large problem they are today. Until you reconceptualize NIDA's addiction paradigm to fit what we just discussed and publicize it, you are guilty of voluntarily and unnecessarily hurting millions of americans and the whole of society both in their misconceptions of what they're recovering from and from the drug war, public health policies, and criminal justice legislation derived from these wrong concepts. I suggest, with all due respect, if you truly deserve any, you either quit your position or make amends to the public, and fast."










You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.




Sign In