Pubdate: Wed, 26 Sep 2012
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2012 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/wEtbT4yU
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286
Author: Barbara Kay
Page: 10

A 'DISEASE' OF CHOICE

Most drug addicts quit by an act of will - and are motivated to do so
by simple cost-benefit calculations

Ronald started using drugs at 14, soon falling into a life of crime
and ending up in Vancouver's notorious Downtown Eastside (DTES). At
40, he stopped using. Drug-free for seven years, he now works for the
Salvation Army, helping addicts.

Stan is a giant of a man who used drugs, ran with bikers and engaged
in serious criminal activity. Today, he's been out of the drug scene
for a decade and runs a group for addicts struggling to break free of
their demons.

I could go on. Millions of people free themselves from addiction. Many
of them will be present this Sunday, Sept.30, at the Vancouver Art
Gallery to celebrate "Recovery 2012," Canada's first official day
devoted to addiction recovery.

Conceived and organized by the B.C. Orchard Recovery Centre in
partnership with the Drug Prevention Network of Canada (DPNC), the
event will rally addiction-recovery stakeholders and supportive
politicians to acknowledge the splendid work done in recovery programs
by dedicated volunteers. Recovering addicts will step up to the mic
and proclaim things like "I'm in Recovery. I've been in Recovery for
23 years." Or 18 months. Or two weeks. It's a welcome project, worthy
of becoming an annual tradition in all Canadian cities, as it already
is in the United States.

I wonder if the "progressive" folks who run safe injection sites, such
as the infamous Insite, will be in attendance. They're devoted to a
"harm reduction" addiction policy. And many of them see addiction as
an incurable disease that can only be compassionately and hygienically
managed, never cured. They pay lip service to rehabilitation, but in
this domain, you either believe recovery is a viable prospect or you
don't.

Regrettably, the "disease"/ "compulsion" model of addiction has taken
a firm hold on our collective understanding. Our disproportionately
liberal mainstream media complacently swallow the shibboleths of
harm-reduction champions (many of whom also advocate for drug
legalization) rather than weigh them objectively against arguments
from proponents of full-blown recovery - because the latter are more
likely to be found amongst practising Christians and other social
conservatives.

In his fascinating 2010 book Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, Gene 
Heyman, a lecturer in psychology at Harvard University, rejects the 
disease model, and makes a persuasive case for addiction as not only a 
disorder of choice, but one that is relatively easy to reverse.

Heyman poses an awkward question for disease theorists. What "disease"
can afflict 1% of people born between 1917 and 1936, but 14% of people
born between 1952 and 1963? The answer is none. Disease rates don't
rise or fall depending on the hostility of the general culture toward
them, but rates of drug use do - as the numbers above attest. And our
culture, once highly contemptuous of drug use, now spurns the
judgmentalism of yesteryear.

Heyman is a data hound. He has no political axe to grind, since he
does not declare himself for or against legalization of drugs or any
particular form of enforcement.

His conclusion, drawing on three major national surveys involving tens
of thousands of people, is that of those who had become addicted to
drugs by age 24, roughly 75% reported no drug use by age 37. Yet most
clinicians have little exposure to these success stories, Heyman
argues - because doctors' clientele disproportionately consists of the
drug users with the most intractable problems.

Most addicts stop using by an act of will, and are motivated to do so
by simple cost-benefit calculations. Heyman points to age 30 as the
usual cutoff, the age when people get serious about careers and
mating. (Getting married is enormously motivating. Married people are
only half as likely to abuse drugs as singles.)

Heyman agrees that addicts are genetically predisposed to addiction,
but he gives great credit to voluntary control over inclinations.
Genes shape about half of our behaviour choices. Genetically unlucky
people may have to work harder controlling their inclinations, but
with support, they can do it.

David Berner, executive director of DPNC and Recovery 2012's prime
mover, points out that rehab costs between $25,000 and $50,000 a year
per bed, as opposed to prison, which costs $250,000 per bed per year.
He claims rehab offers a success rate of between 25%-80%, depending on
the program.

If you had a real disease like cancer, and intervention gave you even
25% odds, while palliative care gave you none, which would you take?

The answer is obvious. So why are we still treating addiction as an
incurable disease rather than a choice?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt