|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Number 4. (9/29/99) THE DRUG WAR WAR: Policy War or Policy Success? Your Choice!
Number 4. (9/29/99) The WAR between those for and against the drug war can't be resolved under the current concept of human drug use and addictions. This bogus paradigm, supported by academic and governmental addictionologists, has generated a fearful and hysterical populous that acts and votes accordingly. Until we replace their invalid paradigm with a valid and rational neurobiological one, no policy reform will occur. And, when we do policy reform, it will be based on this rational and valid new paradigm. Thus, the policy will make sense according to the equation of all known medical entities: pathophysiology leads to etiology leads to rational treatment and policy. This equation doesn't exist today because the pathophysiology hasn't been delineated. The left side of the equation is void. The Hypoism paradigm fills this void and will allow, when accepted, accurate and rational policies, including the demise of the drug war. Humans are instinctive organisms. Instincts are inherently irrational, powerful, and emotional. The only defense to the blind, excessive, and damaging use of instincts is clear anti-instinctive knowledge and the commitment to abide by it. Even then there is no guarantee of success because human instinctive beliefs, such as creationism and others, can overcome knowledge on most days. That's the way humans are built. The emotional rationalization of instinctive beliefs in attempts to make them appear "right" is the problem we are facing with drugs, addictions, and other feared diverse human behaviors. This rationalization polarizes people based on their beliefs and leads to increased conflict, not resolution of conflict. Only knowledge and a commitment to use it dispassionately can lead to resolution of emotion-based instinctive and polarizing conflicts.
Valid science and medicine based on the scientific method are the only tools to knowledge of the universe, life on earth, and human nature. Knowledge and the anti-instinctive use of knowledge always leads to policies that are fair, healthy, and wise even when they don't feel good which they never do. Instinctive beliefs, no matter how well rationalized and justified, always lead to policies that are unfair, unhealthy, and unwise even when they feel good which they always do. That is the nature of instincts - they feel good. Otherwise we would never use them. Thus: The right policy for the wrong and rationalized instinctive reason is just as damaging as the wrong policy for the wrong and rationalized instinctive reason. It is not the policy that is the issue but the reason, the knowledge, behind the policy. My stance is that when we get the knowledge correct we get the correct policy, at least eventually. That is the history of modern medicine and will, hopefully, be the history of the human species. Only valid knowledge can possibly lead to anti-instinctive policy that resolves conflict. Absent this knowledge there will always be polarization and conflict, no matter what the issue or policy. Resolution of instinctive conflicts must be anti- or counter-instinctive. Resolution of instinctive conflicts always needs to be based on a valid, non-emotional, non-instinctive premise. The 10 Commandments is an attempt to be anti-instinctive but fails. The United States Constitution is an attempt to be anti-instinctive but fails. The United Nations is an attempt to be anti-instinctive but also fails. The Supreme Court is an attempt to be anti-instinctive. Why do these attempts fail? Because they have been instituted in an atmosphere based on the wrong basis of human nature: how humans work and why. They, therefore, get misapplied and misused. The current polarizing debate between drug prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionists is instinctively based and therefore will not lead to healthy policy no matter what that policy is. My stance is that our emphasis needs to be on the premise behind drug use and drug addiction and policies derived therefrom. Policy decisions absent the correct drug use premise puts the cart before the horse and must fail. Polarization based on instinctive and ignorant fear on the one hand and instinctive and ignorant desire on the other will only perpetuate the ongoing war between the two poles. The current premise behind drug use and addictions to these drugs is based on belief and is thus superstitious, for both sides of the policy debate. It is not based on the scientific method, is not based on valid knowledge, and is of no benefit to us in attempting to resolve the problems associated with drug use and people's fears about drugs based on those superstitious beliefs. The current incorrect premise of drug use and addiction actually perpetuates the conflict. Drugs and drug addicts have been demonized based on fears that are themselves based on mythological propaganda and incorrect knowledge about them and about human nature. That propaganda is intended to produce these fears, and has worked. These irrational fears are what we are confronting. The fears can not be confronted effectively in the absence of the correct paradigm of drug use, drug addiction, and human nature. Until the true nature of drugs and addictions is clarified with valid knowledge there can be no effective policy, only policy wars. If we want to continue this policy war, then we will ignore the need for a valid premise behind drug use and drug addiction. If we truly want to establish a fair, healthy, and effective drug policy, then we must support the search for the valid scientific basis of drug use, addiction, and human nature as it concerns human behavior. Only this can replace fear with wisdom. Our personal beliefs about what is right or not will not accomplish the goals for which I think we are searching. In my opinion, the Hypoism paradigm of drug use and addiction is a scientifically valid hypothesis and is closer to the reality of drug use behavior than is the current psychological/religious (P/R) paradigm. The Hypoism paradigm takes into account many human nature concepts the current paradigm, by it's incorrect view of human nature, can never take into account:
Moreover, when I use the word addiction I am not limiting it to just drug addictions, but to all addictions. The Hypoism paradigm deals with all addictions, not just drugs. The Hypoism paradigm is a concept that unifies many misperceived human behaviors, so much more than mere drugs, into a single and global paradigm. Hypoism is the anti-instinctive knowledge we need to resolve the current mess surrounding drug use and addictions. The Hypoism paradigm is the only paradigm existing today that can and will lead to the wise, healthy, and useful drug policies we all know we need. Hypoism can and will end the drug war. In the absense of a rational and realistic drug use and addiction paradigm, I'm afraid there will be no meaningful policy change. It's our choice whether we continue our policy war based on superstitious beliefs or resolve it with valid knowledge, The Hypoism Paradigm.
Number 5. (10/8/99) Evolution vs. Creationism Revisited For Addictions. ABC News on-line presented an article on the evolution/creationism debate within various school systems across our country. In the article, it presented the figures below derived from Gallop polls. These figures depict the crisis in American anti-intellectualism and entrenched superstition that I discuss in Hypoic's Handbook, Introduction chapter. Only 10% of those polled actually believe in the form of evolution on which Hypoism is based. These data confirm the point I make in that chapter and they demonstrate the depth of societal denial, and why, once a superstition is firmly entrenched, no amount of objective science can dislodge it. This is the power of the human superstition instinct. Beliefs surrounding addiction origins, causes, and policies likewise conform to the above belief mechanisms. The amount of emotional energy invested in these superstitious beliefs is incredibly large. This is corticolimbic dissociation on a massive scale as I present in the book. The strength of the P/R paradigm's addictionology "religion" is derived from the same source. This brand of American superstition helps perpetuate the P/R paradigm of addictions. Irrational and damaging addiction treatment and public policies are the direct result of this same human belief. (see article 4. in Articles by and for Hypoics page 1.)
This discussion is not an indictment of religion or superstition per se. It is a statement, rather, concerning how superstitious beliefs can interfere with the perception of reality, the reality of addiction in this case, and how this perception results in injury to people, addicts in this case. It must be confronted to bring it into the consciousness of the people who are acting upon it, possibly without realizing it. Let it be clear so that readers won't misinterpret my discourse: I am not for or against superstition or religion. Science is derived from the same superstition instinct, just as is art or any other form of creative imagination.
If practically 100% of ordinary (and superstitious) people agree with these scientific criteria when it comes to medicinal drugs, treatments, and procedures (Food and Drug Administration) then they ought to insist on the same criteria for addiction medicine. The fact is that our country's entire medical practice is based on the scientific method, except when mistakes are made. Then, the mistakes are corrected rapidly as long as the mistaken scientists have integrity. The other exception is in the field of addictions and addiction policy that are based on scientifically unproved and, in many circumstances, already disproved concepts and treatments. This is my complaint about the misuse of superstition. The current situation is this: When it comes to addiction theory, treatment, and policy, superstition is being misused and misrepresented as if it were science. It certainly would be nice if addictionologists would publicly admit this. This admission would go a long way towards our respecting this academic and medical field. Their honesty would refreshingly cool off the intense emotionalism and polarization surrounding addictions amongst the general populous, one of my primary goals. This would allow temperance and wisdom to seep into drug-use and addiction policy.
back
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can take the addiction out of the hypoic, but you can't take the Hypoism out of the addict.
