You dirty rat, get out of coke!

[Guest guest]

The article on rats in an enriched environment verses those in overcrowded,

stressful environment shows that those who have the better environment have

virtually no interest in drugs. See: Drug: Should We Legalize,

Decriminalize or Deregulate by Jeffery Schaler, 1998 for the article by

Bruce called " Rat Park Chronicle. The book would be available

world wide. The publisher is Prometheus Books. Also includes articles by

Friedman, kson, Figarette, Szasz, Dupont and coveres

Addiction and Criminal Responsibility, Cocaine and Addictive Liability,

Durg and Free Will etc. It is rare to find me opening my wallet to buy a

book after I've read it in the library. I bought this one.

Cheers,

Carol

" life gave me lemons so I made limericks "

Http://www.BCRecovernet.org

The site has grown and changed again.

At 03:39 AM 3/19/99 -0800, you wrote:

>Howdy Pete,

>

>Pete Watts wrote:

>>

>> Hi Jim, folks

>>

>>

>>

>> > Hi Pete,

>> > I'm sure your much more familiar with the addiction literature than I

>> > am, but aren't there cases of certain species of wild animals using

>> > psychoactive substances? I remember reading something somewhere about

>> > birds that would go crazy for berries that had fermented in the wild -

>> > so much so they would pass out and die because of being cold blooded and

>> > having such fast metabolisms. It is interesting. If such is the case,

>> > it would seem that altering mood via psychoactive substance is not

>> > species specific.

>>

>> It is true that some animals do use psychoactive substances yes.

However, certainly with

>> opiates, it is hard to get rats to ingest them. I understand that it

is often the case with

>> alcohol too in lab studies. This at very least suggests that the models

based on animal studies

>> are unlikely to be applicable to humans because the way they respond to

psychoactive substances

>> is very different.

>

>Okay, rats don't like to get high. I could have taken an animal

>learning course this semester in which I would have learned more than I

>ever wanted to know about what rats do and don't like. I attended the

>first class and decided writing a 30+ page paper and giving 5 in-class

>presentations on f*ing RATS was not my bag. Not that its all that

>unusual to have this much work for a semester, but Jesus Christ they're

>F*ING RATS!! Oh well, I know a couple of students who work in the guy's

>rat lab and I'll ask them if they give their rats booze. Don't forget,

>rats used in labs are breed for specific traits. This being the case,

>I'd be a little surprised if the couldn't breed rats that liked booze.

>Also, while the proportions of the rat brain are different than humans',

>there are structural similarities. If addiction (habitual use) is

>learned, and it is located in the lower or primitive brain structures,

>then there's no reason to suspect that rats could not become addicted.

>At any rate, who gives a damn they're fucking rats.

>

>>

>> > I also recall reading that our neurochemistry

>> > developed from plant pollens (don't laugh), if this is the case it would

>> > seem quite natural that we would (as would lower organisms) eventually

>> > discover this or that plant made us feel gooood.

>>

>> Come now Jim, this derivational argument is silly, not least because

it's unnecessary! Sure,

>> animals will find out what gets them loaded, and do. It is true of

course, that it's very

>> likely that organic molecules in plants will have psychoactive effects.

Generally, I think

>> these substances are actually poisons evolved to inhibit insects eating

the plants. They may

>> work at least in part by hitting the neurochemistry of the insect

perhaps(?) and this is why it

>> gets a higher organism loaded, but rarely fatally. In the case of the

rat, the rat doesnt

>> choose to get loaded unless put under stress, and stops when the

stressor is removed.

>

>Reading your response and writing my response, I realize there are some

>major flaws in what I wrote. As an aside, I must say that I encourage

>you to be a teacher. As a teacher (speaking from experience) it is best

>not to be too harsh on your pupils. My statement was derived from an

>article I read in Scientific American (I think). It was a couple of

>years ago, so I'm not doing justice to the theory. I just know it made

>good sense at the time. I've tried to find the article, but haven't had

>any success. At any rate I knew you would balk, and I hope you did

>laugh (I did, after the fact). Nevertheless, here are some questions

>which come to mind regarding this issue: Is opium a pesticide? What are

>the odds of flora and fauna co-evolving in the same environment, and by

>chance developing similarly shaped molecules? With the case of poppy's

>and opium, what are the odds that we, or any other fauna affected, are

>not the bees spreading the pollen? This is a complex system, who's to

>say symbiotic relationships don't exist and didn't exist long ago?

>

>> I suspect that animal intoxication in the event of fermentation may

simply be a result of

>> eating for hunger and rotting fruit was all that was available. Heck,

even alcoholics usually

>> prefer a fresh apple to a rotten one. however, with with an

anthropomorphic perspective, this

>> gets interpreted by observers as trying to get loaded. The very fact

that it may be fatal

>> occassionally is evidence of a strong evolutionary pressure against

such excessive activity.

>>

>> I have seen a report of robins going crazy on creosote from a fence,

but in this instance we

>> are talking abt a highly concentrated, artificially created substance,

not a naturally occuring

>> one. Of course, this could be said to be analagous to processed drugs.

However, here (and in

>> fact also in previous examples) we have the issue of *variability of

behavior*. I expect

>> pretty well all the robins were getting loaded, rather a mixture of

abstainers, moderate users,

>> and innate 'creosotics'.

>

>I agree! I didn't say the birds that went crazy for the berries weren't

>hungry. I would agree that if they had an alternative source of fresh

>berries they would have avoided the fermented berries altogether. The

>report I read (from memory), which was posted by dry drunk Dave (from

>usenet and 12 step and politics) found a bunch of migrating birds dead.

>Still, why didn't they stop? Why did they eat so much that they passed

>out? That seems pretty weird to me. If they were that vulnerable why

>hadn't they developed a defense against it? Perhaps the media blew it

>up. However ... how did the Egyptians make Beer? Wasn't it bread?

>I've heard stories about the Egyptians drinking this lumpy/moldy beer,

>and as a result not getting sick/gangrene/dying. Could it be that beer

>contained antibiotics? Hmmmm? Just a tidbit of non-relavant

>information.

>

>I'm not so eager to separate humans from other species. If you buy into

>evolution, which I think you do, then qualitative differences are not so

>clear. I'm not saying we evolved from apes, but we have a common

>ancestor. From that ancestor there are only so many possible adaptations

>assuming all populations undergo similar environmental pressures. Even

>when we look at the brain of a F*ing rat we see similarities to good ol'

>homo sapeins sapeins. This is especially true when we begin to map out

>neural tracts. Just last week I attended a lecture on the

>

>> >

>> > The case of habitual use, however, is quite different than simple mood

>> > alteration. Some of it may be learned, but to tell you the truth,

>> > classical (or consumatory) conditioning does not seem to be sufficient

>> > to start the process. I say this because the first time I got high it

>> > wasn't particularly pleasant. Smokers report the same thing. I

>> > honestly suspect it is simply a combination of observational and

>> > operational learning.

>>

>> Absolutely; I find tobacco disgusting and still find unsweetened beer

not particularly pleasant

>> after thinking it disgusting for years.

>

>Unsweetened beer? Duuude what the hell are you talken about? Just

>kidden, I know you guys have crappy beer over there <BSEG>.

>

>> Ppl often find opiates nauseating initially.

>

>Nauseating yes, but have you ever felt really good after you puked? I

>have.

>

>

>> AOD use is highly socially constructed, with use asssociated with

adulthood and maturity, and sometimes

>> risk-taking; and is often associated with religious rituals. A

fascinating theory I have have

>> heard of is that alcohol was essential for civilization, and ppl

regularly drank small beer

>> rather than water as the alcohol could be relied on to sterilize the

water.

>

>Yes, I think that is what the Egyptians were up to.

>

>> >

>> > That leaves the question as to why is it a problem for some and not

>> > others? (I invite speculation from the list members) I remember at one

>> > point you suggested that rather than it being that some have a " weak

>> > gene " that some have an " immune gene " .

>>

>> True, but at the same time, I very much rate poorly the influence of

genetics at all, and

>> certainly at the level of an *individual* gene. However, I consider

this kind of principle to

>> be operating with regard to the weak genetic factors involved in AOD

abuse.

>>

>

>Yes, I suspect that your conclusion is that weakness or immunity it is

>still a genetic theory. Sorry to bring that up, but I would not rule

>out dispositions (one way or the other) entirely.

>

>> > That may be. Alternatively or

>> > additionally, it may be, as you also suggest, faulty parenting. I can

>> > agree to a point. As you know, this thread originally started with

>> > debate between Ken and about the effects of child abuse. While the

>> > effects of neglect are clear and universal (One of the points of

>> > Harlow's studies was to examine the link between neglect and

>> > psychopathology), I'm not so sure about the effects of abuse. In many

>> > ways, I suspect that it is how the child interprets the abuse or

>> > stressful event that determines the effect it will have on the child's

>> > development.

>>

>> This is setting my rationalization detector bleeping. Why should abuse

be more mediated by

>> interpretation than neglect? surely 'mere' neglect, which is an absence

of stimulation, is more

>> amenable to a child's capacity to reconstruct than abuse, which is a

directy assault on the

>> child's integrity? How can one 'reconstruct' being beaten, raped, or

being shamed and

>> humiliated?

>>

>

>First, lets make it clear, in the original message you said:

>

>PETE WATTS WROTE: I believe the problem comes from the intensely social

>nature of human beings

>and their natural craving for love and affection as children not being

>met.

>Neglect and abuse produce chronic distress (and quite likely organic

>brain

>deficits) that render an individual prone to addictive behavior. It is

>ironic

>that this can express itself in the form of obesity and bulimerexia.

>

>YOU have equated neglect and abuse. I do not equate them. Neglect is a

>universal concept. It means to ignore a child. The outcome is clear,

>in any war torn country with orphanages, Bosnia comes to mind.

>

>One reason this is clear, is because there are a lot of American couples

>being warned not to adopt children from eastern european countries

>because those children have been ignored (neglected). There are several

>famous cases of children who were abused in terms of being Neglected.

>The most famous was Genie. Genie was locked in a Los Angeles cellar by

>her parents. She was discovered as a young adolescent who was unable to

>speak. Psychologists, (some of the same ones trying to teach apes to

>sign) adopted Genie and tried to teach her to talk. Genie, and her

>neglect, is the reason why we accept as fact that there is a window for

>language acquisition. While it may be argued that locking a child up in

>a closet is both abuse and neglect, if that is your argument then you

>should state it. You did not. It seems to me that we need to discuss a

>definition of abuse before we make solid decisions about one another'

>reasoning.

>

>> > One of my favorite stories illustrating this point is that

>> > of British children during W.W.II. Perhaps this is an urban legend

>> > you're about to correct me on, but I remember hearing how these children

>> > would be down in the bomb shelters playing and having fun while the

>> > bombs were falling.

>>

>> This is probably true in general.

>>

>> > The explanation for this was that the children's

>> > parents did not get flipped out and acted like it was just normal. The

>> > children were cued of their parents attitudes and thus did not get

>> > upset.

>>

>> Very likely. what I am mystified by, is what relevance this has to when

children are being

>> brutally ill-treated by their parents in the manner I have just

described. In those days

>> bombs fell miles formn thier target; to the kids this would just be a

firework display with

>> big bangs, and their usually loving parents are looking after them.l

This has fuck all to do

>> with child abuse BY THE PARENTS THEMSELVES quite often.

>

>The relevance is a traumatic experience. Perhaps if you had lived

>through it you would understand better. I can only imagine hearing

>explosions all around me, acting like it is all right, and not coming

>out of it with the ever popular diagnosis of post traumatic stress

>disorder.

>>

>> I will return to your post later when I have more time, but imo it is a

typical abuse

>> rationalisation presumably to dodge the awful psychic horror of

admitting that abuse actually

>> happens and its full impications . youve basically said child abuse

wouldnt be a problem if

>> our culture didnt proscribe it.

>>

>

>As I will yours.

>

>>

HORSESHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

>>

>

>OUCH that hurts, I guess you must be talking about bone breaking, welt

>raising, bruise leaving abuse.

>

>YOU did not state that in the beginning. I was spanked by my dad with a

>leather belt. It did not leave welts or bruises. What I had done wrong

>was explained to me. I felt loved. If my father had not died when I

>was 8, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with booze. In my mind I

>was not abused. I was neglected, after my father died by a family I did

>not know. I hope you can remember that you are not the only one who has

>had a hard life.

>

>> Pete

>> ----------------------

>> Grant me the Strength

>> To Change the Things I Can Not Accept

>>

>> PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT/INFO LIST:

>> http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

>>

>> --- End Forwarded Message ---

>>

>> Pete

>> ----------------------

>> Grant me the Strength

>> To Change the Things I Can Not Accept

>>

>> PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT/INFO LIST:

>> http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

>>

>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>> eGroups Spolight:

>> Africanshereandthere - African-American artists, djembe

>> drummers, dancers.

>> /list/africanshereandthere

>>

>>