Bubblehammerblog

Recently published findings by a group of German researchers has concluded that a propensity to cocaine addiction is genetically determined. Here it is.

Genetic factors, scientists believe, account for 70% of cocaine addiction, making it as heritable as schizophrenia and other mental health conditions. Studies of twins suggest alcoholism is about 50% genetic.

I have problems with this notion, beginning with the difficulty of determining just what is meant 'addiction' - not a straightforward construct when we begin teasing apart the the various cultural, social, medical & political threads from which it's made. But let's leave that aside. What is being said here is that addiction is a disease, & as such it can rightfully take its place alongside other genetically inherited disorders, & be treated accordingly.

The idea that drug addiction is a disease is an old one. It was the basis of what came to be called the British System for dealing with people with problematic opiate habits, begun in the 1920s & largely discredited & dismantled by the 1970s. This was in constrast to the approach broadly taken in the US, where drug users were seen as morally disordered people in need of corrective punishment. Under the British System doctors prescribed users with supplies of opiates. The resulting stablisation would allow the disease to run its course, so the theory went, & eventually the user would voluntarily refrain from drug use. A problem was that at the time there was no clear idea about precisely what kind of disease addiction was, its etiology & pathology. Genetics has now come up with an answer.

What we're witnessing here is another example of the medicalisation of human diversity, (or the pathologisation of deviance, if you want an uglier construct). The process began with the development & eventual ascendancy of biologically reductionist psychiatry, & has gained enormous momentum as a result of certain types of genetic research. There are now influential people who are asserting, with the prestige of science behind them, that whole areas of human experience, from entrenched misery to deviant thought & behavior, are largely the result of defective genes. 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars...'

Being a mere rude mechanical, I'm not in a position to argue the underlying science informing these assertions. What I can do, though, is touch upon some of the implications involved. For now I'll outline just one example, while urging readers to come up with others themselves.

A projected outcome of research into the genetic basis of drug addiction is the development of vaccines able to selectively block the effects of certain substances, the use of which society disapproves - cocaine for example. This is the strategy behind the funding of such research. The drug can be considered as akin to a virus. Through a process of genetic screening, those people identified as being at risk of 'contracting' addiction as a result of exposure to the substance would simply be innoculated, thus saving them from a life of recurring misery & financial ruin. Who could argue with such a sensible & humane proposal?

The companies providing the screening & supplying the vaccines would of course make huge fortunes for investors. When recently an English secondary school proposed the compulsory routine drug testing of its pupils, parents were reported to be widely supportive of the idea. Many parents would no doubt see it as their duty to have their children protected against drugs by paying to have them innoculated. Compulsory vaccination is just a step further. Again, who could object to a measure that could protect children from a scourge that might ruin their young lives?

I could. I want my children to be protected from as many of the random onslaughts of bacteria & viruses as possible. But I certainly don't want them to be given artificial immunity from the necessity of making moral choices.

Whether a person decides for or against the idea of using substances to alter brain chemistry is a moral choice. Here's where I part company with the almost overwhelming majority of medical, legal & political opinion. I think that the matter of chemical substances & states of consciousness properly belongs in the realm of religious belief. The state has no more warrant to determine the composition of the chemical soup in my brain than it has to decide for me whether I should believe in transubstantiation or not.

So long as substances exist, natural or synthetic, that can alter consciousness in some way, pleasurably or otherwise, there will be humans interested in using them. It was ever thus. All attempts to alter this fact are futile. The deranged obsessives currently working at US State research facilities on genetic methods of wiping out the psychoactive components of the coca leaf & the opium poppy are barking at the moon. They might as well attempt to extract the holy stuff from holy water.

A grown up society ought to be able to safely accomodate the basic human impulse to seek altered states though chemicals, instead of screaming blue murder every time a 16 year old lights up a joint. Doing so is is like trying to stop the little buggers shagging. The enculturation of drugs use - there's another awkward mouthful for you to consider.

|