Hysteria on 'crystal meth' prove full of holes and obvious attack on gains

A batch of apparently unheard-of articles demystify and debunk addiction hysteria (i.e. drug addiction). With the 'crystal meth' hysteria hurdling virtually unchallenged in many alternative communities of late, these should prove crucial! <!--break--> Did some independent research recently and found some very very interesting articles which basically blow the lid on received superstition, er, beliefs and so-called "conventional wisdom" about hard drugs like crystal meth. The way this hysteria has been hurdling virtually unchallenged through alternative communities, apparently across the spectrum, moves this critical thinker to ask significantly crucial questions (based in intuition and knowing patterns from previous hysterias) and *then* engage in independent investigation. Please pass these links and ideas on! A very important link for those already conscious to an extent of state warfare interests on the public at home (as well as abroad): www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL7.htm specifically paragraphs 4, 11, 19, 24, and --from bottom of page--2. And one for the more "conventional" product of "a good education" (whom might think the above too full of unsubstantiated "opinions"): _The Myth of Drug Addiction_ by John B. Davies, 1992 http://www.druglibrary.org/special/davies/myth_of_addiction.htm Specifically these sub-parts: /mythprologue/ paragraph 9 and /myth4.htm paragraphs 12, 16 Next, articles found here: In "hip Mama" magazine: "Crack Babies" All Grown Up & Talking Truth to Insults page 8, "Regime Change" issue #32, 2004 and "The Demon Seed That Wasn't: Debunking The Crack Baby Myth" www.citylimits.org/content/ar...cleView.cfm and debunking 'crack babies' myth: www.youthcomm.org/FCYU-Featur...4-03-10b.htm From cognitiveliberty's link (for those who are well-immersed in critical thinking already; for the rest, see quotes from the book after this): "In order to break the individual’s sense of autonomy, the state begins the indoctrination of children into the cult of negation at the earliest possible age. The call and response chant of “just say no” is more than just a product of drug hysteria; it is the totalizing slogan of life in late capital. In looking for sustenance from a culture of empty desire, the cultural participant turned consumer remains forever hungry. The citizen of this dystopia is without sovereignty, unable to identify, let alone trust h/er own agency, and is easily channeled in a helpless state of paranoia through the market system. (....) "To keep order through symbolic power (the manipulation of codes) is by far preferable because it is more efficient. When legitimation crisis occurs (the code is unmasked), physical force, generally in the form of military or police power, is called upon to reestablish the code. This latter mode is exceptionally expensive to use on a continuous basis, not to mention costs paid in losses caused by the obligatory decline in production and consumption as the physical clashes take place. The medical apparatus, however, maintains a near unquestioned code, for who would dare to challenge that which holds a key to personal survival, and at the same time has the power of police once a victim is processed into the institution? Perhaps it has more power; after all, an addict, having no free will, has no rights. The addict must pay exorbitant fees for h/er punishment and incarceration. Both products and services must be consumed for the rest of the addict’s life, producing tremendous profits for the medical establishment and its allies (those companies producing the products or processes of treatment). Unlike a standing military or police force, medical interventionism provides a fiscal as well as ideological return on the investment in physical force. In the process, the addict is often turned masochist—becoming one who enjoys the punishment, and gaining self-satisfaction from the excessive consumption of excessive intervention." (....) "Most notably, laws prohibit pleasure—everything is prohibited, from recreational drugs to sodomy, so that those who challenge the notion that health and production are the leading values in life can be persecuted as well as prosecuted. However, to underestimate the complicity of official medicine in this ideological swindle would be a mistake. If health and longevity were to be devalued, the medical industry would lose its criminal hold on the population. The fear of death and the nonrational value placed on life provides the perfect market for extortion: “I am making you an offer you can’t refuse. If you pay, you may have a long life; but if you refuse ….” Medicine has a product that cannot be refused, and by playing on the fear of dying, the medical industry has made medical junkies of everyone, while the totalizing discourse of medicine has made “psychos,” “perverts,” and “addicts” out of those who refuse to consume its texts and products. (....) A person is either “drug-free” or an addict. (Legal drugs prescribed by doctors or sold over the counter, which are intended to better one’s physical health, are not included in this formula). Notions of controlled drug use or ritualized drug use are drowned out by the noise of addiction hysteria. Any thought of drug use as a universal cross-cultural phenomenon is lost in the noise. Societies which have functional regulating norms for drug use, be it for religious, recreational, or economic purpose, are absent from the discourse. Drug-free or addict—no other option is heard. Moderation cannot be applied to drugs." Unless you are what is called an "expert"; people like Aldous Huxley and R.D. Laing and others fit that bill. You and me, we're not "reputable" and cannot be alloted grey areas for independent investigation. "For the most militarized sectors of the state, illicit drugs are both demon and angel. The police and associated agencies (such as the DEA), which do not receive the respect (that is to say, the large budget) that their military counterparts receive, now have reason for increasing their jurisdiction and power. (What makes this opportunity so appealing is that the military proper cannot get in on the action. The fear is so great amongst state officials that the military, particularly the high command, will be corrupted by the tremendous profits involved in the drug trade that the military is kept at maximum distance). Members of the drug police receive money and secure jobs for completely useless behavior—quite a deal. No real objective exists, as the profit-making drug trade is as continuous as the demand for its products." You think this is interesting? Wait until the next batch of quotes! _The Myth of Addiction_. Here in the prologue section: "...as the following chapters will attempt to show, our beliefs about drugs and drug users are largely inaccurate. We choose to believe in helpless junkies and evil pushers primarily because we want to believe in them, and because such beliefs serve functions for us. The helpless junkie only exists because we all want him/her to exist; and because drug research continues to make naive use of what people say about their addictions. It is now imperative that we start to view research based on what drug-users say about themselves in its true light; and in consequence, to expect something more dynamic and positive from those of us who encounter drug problems. The interrelationship of IV drug use with HIV/AIDS makes such a new dynamic and purposive perspective essential. (....) And in chapter 4 (i guess): "...craving is an alternative word which we can use to describe an experience of discomfort, and an accompanying desire to curtail or avoid it. If we examine craving from a Kelley-type standpoint, it looks as though a craving explanation is offered in circumstances where i) people consistently choose to reduce their discomfort, and ii) there is a consensus belief about the biological determinants of the discomfort. Thus, whilst drug users 'crave' (have to have) drugs and hungry people 'crave' food, people merely 'want' colour T.V. sets or holidays in Venice. The use of the word 'craving' is an interesting exercise in attribution, and its primary purpose is to convey how we are intended to perceive the addiction process. It refers to the fact that sometimes people feel a strong desire to use, or use more of, their preferred drug, but it gives the impression of an autonomous force whose power cannot be resisted; hence its attraction. In fact, whether people resist the experience depends on whether they have good reasons, or no good reasons, for doing so. People in the dentist's chair have a craving to get up and leave; but by and large they stay put. "'Craving for cocaine or heroin may, like craving for nicotine in a smoker who has been nicotine free for many years, simply be triggered by memories of past experience. Like a cat that has tasted fish, a human that (sic) has tasted cocaine may be unwilling to give up the hope of repeating the experience. If this view is correct, then it may be more appropriate to look for the biological correlate of craving in the neurobiology of memory, and not in the neurobiology of positive reinforcement.' "Wise (op cit) thus implies strongly that craving derives not from some drugrelated change to the reinforcement mechanisms of the brain which turns a 'want to' into a 'have to'; but more mundanely from people's simple recollections that some experience was pleasurable the last time it occurred, coupled to the hope that it might happen again. In other words, a 'want' deriving from the normal everyday pharmacology of memory; not a 'have to' underlaid by some alien drug-induced pharmacology." quotes from here: Wise (1990), in an account of 'Reward Pathways and Drug 'Craving' ' (pp 43-45) ( WISE, R.A. The role of reward pathways in the development of drug dependence. In Balfour, D.J.K., Psychotropic Drugs of Abuse. New York: Pergamon, 1990. ) i find this stuff highly demystifying! And i think this goes a ways in putting the "radical" back in 'radical faeries'! Now, i wonder what *other* topics and concepts which are taken for granted might be critically explored as well! article originally found at: http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/250359.shtml (note the interesting discussion before you comment, and save a little typing for yourself)

<p>A batch of apparently unheard-of articles demystify and debunk addiction hysteria (i.e. drug addiction). With the 'crystal meth' hysteria hurdling virtually unchallenged in many alternative communities of late, these should prove crucial!</p> <!--break--><p>Did some independent research recently and found some very very interesting articles which basically blow the lid on received superstition, er, beliefs and so-called "conventional wisdom" about hard drugs like crystal meth. </p> <p>The way this hysteria has been hurdling virtually unchallenged through alternative communities, apparently across the spectrum, moves this critical thinker to ask significantly crucial questions (based in intuition and knowing patterns from previous hysterias) and *then* engage in independent investigation. </p> <p>Please pass these links and ideas on! </p> <p>A very important link for those already conscious to an extent of state warfare interests on the public at home (as well as abroad):<br /> <a href="http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL7.htm">www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL7.htm</a> </p> <p>specifically paragraphs 4, 11, 19, 24, and --from bottom of page--2. </p> <p>And one for the more "conventional" product of "a good education" (whom might think the above too full of unsubstantiated "opinions"): </p> <p>_The Myth of Drug Addiction_ by John B. Davies, 1992<br /> <a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/special/davies/myth_of_addiction.htm">http://www.druglibrary.org/special/davies/myth_of_addiction.htm</a><br /> Specifically these sub-parts:<br /> /mythprologue/<br /> paragraph 9<br /> and<br /> /myth4.htm<br /> paragraphs 12, 16 </p> <p>Next, articles found here: </p> <p>In "hip Mama" magazine: "Crack Babies" All Grown Up &amp; Talking Truth to Insults page 8, "Regime Change" issue #32, 2004 </p> <p>and </p> <p>"The Demon Seed That Wasn't: Debunking The Crack Baby Myth" <a href="http://www.citylimits.org/content/ar...cleView.cfm">www.citylimits.org/content/ar...cleView.cfm</a> </p> <p>and </p> <p>debunking 'crack babies' myth:<br /> <a href="http://www.youthcomm.org/FCYU-Featur...4-03-10b.htm">www.youthcomm.org/FCYU-Featur...4-03-10b.htm</a> </p> <p>From cognitiveliberty's link (for those who are well-immersed in critical thinking already; for the rest, see quotes from the book after this): </p> <p>"In order to break the individual’s sense of autonomy, the state begins the indoctrination of children into the cult of negation at the earliest possible age. The call and response chant of “just say no” is more than just a product of drug hysteria; it is the totalizing slogan of life in late capital. In looking for sustenance from a culture of empty desire, the cultural participant turned consumer remains forever hungry. The citizen of this dystopia is without sovereignty, unable to identify, let alone trust h/er own agency, and is easily channeled in a helpless state of paranoia through the market system.<br /> (....)<br /> "To keep order through symbolic power (the manipulation of codes) is by far preferable because it is more efficient. When legitimation crisis occurs (the code is unmasked), physical force, generally in the form of military or police power, is called upon to reestablish the code. This latter mode is exceptionally expensive to use on a continuous basis, not to mention costs paid in losses caused by the obligatory decline in production and consumption as the physical clashes take place. The medical apparatus, however, maintains a near unquestioned code, for who would dare to challenge that which holds a key to personal survival, and at the same time has the power of police once a victim is processed into the institution? Perhaps it has more power; after all, an addict, having no free will, has no rights. The addict must pay exorbitant fees for h/er punishment and incarceration. Both products and services must be consumed for the rest of the addict’s life, producing tremendous profits for the medical establishment and its allies (those companies producing the products or processes of treatment). Unlike a standing military or police force, medical interventionism provides a fiscal as well as ideological return on the investment in physical force. In the process, the addict is often turned masochist—becoming one who enjoys the punishment, and gaining self-satisfaction from the excessive consumption of excessive intervention."<br /> (....)<br /> "Most notably, laws prohibit pleasure—everything is prohibited, from recreational drugs to sodomy, so that those who challenge the notion that health and production are the leading values in life can be persecuted as well as prosecuted. However, to underestimate the complicity of official medicine in this ideological swindle would be a mistake. If health and longevity were to be devalued, the medical industry would lose its criminal hold on the population. The fear of death and the nonrational value placed on life provides the perfect market for extortion: “I am making you an offer you can’t refuse. If you pay, you may have a long life; but if you refuse ….” Medicine has a product that cannot be refused, and by playing on the fear of dying, the medical industry has made medical junkies of everyone, while the totalizing discourse of medicine has made “psychos,” “perverts,” and “addicts” out of those who refuse to consume its texts and products.<br /> (....)<br /> A person is either “drug-free” or an addict. (Legal drugs prescribed by doctors or sold over the counter, which are intended to better one’s physical health, are not included in this formula). Notions of controlled drug use or ritualized drug use are drowned out by the noise of addiction hysteria. Any thought of drug use as a universal cross-cultural phenomenon is lost in the noise. Societies which have functional regulating norms for drug use, be it for religious, recreational, or economic purpose, are absent from the discourse. Drug-free or addict—no other option is heard. Moderation cannot be applied to drugs." </p> <p>Unless you are what is called an "expert"; people like Aldous Huxley and R.D. Laing and others fit that bill. You and me, we're not "reputable" and cannot be alloted grey areas for independent investigation. </p> <p>"For the most militarized sectors of the state, illicit drugs are both demon and angel. The police and associated agencies (such as the DEA), which do not receive the respect (that is to say, the large budget) that their military counterparts receive, now have reason for increasing their jurisdiction and power. (What makes this opportunity so appealing is that the military proper cannot get in on the action. The fear is so great amongst state officials that the military, particularly the high command, will be corrupted by the tremendous profits involved in the drug trade that the military is kept at maximum distance). Members of the drug police receive money and secure jobs for completely useless behavior—quite a deal. No real objective exists, as the profit-making drug trade is as continuous as the demand for its products." </p> <p>You think this is interesting? Wait until the next batch of quotes! </p> <p>_The Myth of Addiction_. Here in the prologue section: </p> <p>"...as the following chapters will attempt to show, our beliefs about drugs and drug users are largely inaccurate. We choose to believe in helpless junkies and evil pushers primarily because we want to believe in them, and because such beliefs serve functions for us. The helpless junkie only exists because we all want him/her to exist; and because drug research continues to make naive use of what people say about their addictions. It is now imperative that we start to view research based on what drug-users say about themselves in its true light; and in consequence, to expect something more dynamic and positive from those of us who encounter drug problems. The interrelationship of IV drug use with HIV/AIDS makes such a new dynamic and purposive perspective essential.<br /> (....)<br /> And in chapter 4 (i guess): </p> <p>"...craving is an alternative word which we can use to describe an experience of discomfort, and an accompanying desire to curtail or avoid it. If we examine craving from a Kelley-type standpoint, it looks as though a craving explanation is offered in circumstances where i) people consistently choose to reduce their discomfort, and ii) there is a consensus belief about the biological determinants of the discomfort. Thus, whilst drug users 'crave' (have to have) drugs and hungry people 'crave' food, people merely 'want' colour T.V. sets or holidays in Venice. The use of the word 'craving' is an interesting exercise in attribution, and its primary purpose is to convey how we are intended to perceive the addiction process. It refers to the fact that sometimes people feel a strong desire to use, or use more of, their preferred drug, but it gives the impression of an autonomous force whose power cannot be resisted; hence its attraction. In fact, whether people resist the experience depends on whether they have good reasons, or no good reasons, for doing so. People in the dentist's chair have a craving to get up and leave; but by and large they stay put. </p> <p>"'Craving for cocaine or heroin may, like craving for nicotine in a smoker who has been nicotine free for many years, simply be triggered by memories of past experience. Like a cat that has tasted fish, a human that (sic) has tasted cocaine may be unwilling to give up the hope of repeating the experience. If this view is correct, then it may be more appropriate to look for the biological correlate of craving in the neurobiology of memory, and not in the neurobiology of positive reinforcement.' </p> <p>"Wise (op cit) thus implies strongly that craving derives not from some drugrelated change to the reinforcement mechanisms of the brain which turns a 'want to' into a 'have to'; but more mundanely from people's simple recollections that some experience was pleasurable the last time it occurred, coupled to the hope that it might happen again. In other words, a 'want' deriving from the normal everyday pharmacology of memory; not a 'have to' underlaid by some alien drug-induced pharmacology." </p> <p>quotes from here:<br /> Wise (1990), in an account of 'Reward Pathways and Drug 'Craving' ' (pp 43-45) ( WISE, R.A. The role of reward pathways in the development of drug dependence. In Balfour, D.J.K., Psychotropic Drugs of Abuse. New York: Pergamon, 1990. ) </p> <p>i find this stuff highly demystifying! And i think this goes a ways in putting the "radical" back in 'radical faeries'! </p> <p>Now, i wonder what *other* topics and concepts which are taken for granted might be critically explored as well!</p> <p>article originally found at: <a href="http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/250359.shtml">http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/250359.shtml</a> (note the interesting discussion before you comment, and save a little typing for yourself)</p>