|
TODAY'S TOPIC:
Mexico, Drug Addiction,
and the Brain
by
Natalia J. Garland
Print Version
|
There has always been dissension regarding the disease concept of
alcoholism and drug addiction, and regarding the A.A. approach to
sobriety and recovery. Some of this dissent is theoretically
based and some of it is culturally influenced. It is certainly
appropriate, and essential, to include cultural sensitivity and
treatment plan individualization in rehabilitation programs.
Beyond program completion, however, many patients will rely on A.A.
meetings as a major means of support. If some people choose to
forego the A.A. route (which is still emphasized in most treatment
facilities) and follow an alternate method, the question is whether
that alternative results in sobriety. The important thing is that
sobriety be maintained and the wellbeing of the individual be
restored.
There also seems to
be some controversy around the role of drug dealers in the problem
of addiction in America. Can drug dealers be blamed for making
drugs available? If drugs were not so plentifully and easily
available, would some addicts never have experimented with drugs or
never have become addicted? Are there potential addicts who could
be spared if only drugs were not readily available at the corner
grocery, in the school yard, or in mom's purse? Or, are drug
dealers answering to a supply-and-demand situation created by
addicts and a permissive society? And, do our laws and welfare
programs contribute to the need for and availability of illegal and
addictive drugs?
Recently, I came
across an article by Angelo M. Codevilla. He is a professor of
international relations, an editor of the American Spectator,
and he formerly served on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.
In his article, "Pro-Mexico," he discusses the
historical relationship between Mexico and the United States,
including immigration policy and the current drug trafficking from
Mexico into the U.S. My focus will be on Codevilla's remarks about
America's drug addicts. Below are the excerpts which I wish to
address.
|
We classify drug use by the powerless as a "disease" and
send them to "treatment programs" to words that no one
takes seriously. By paying them Social Security supplemental
income, we also relieve them of the responsibility of supporting
themselves. Since money is fungible, Social Security pays for
marijuana, cocaine, etc. Thus we enable and reward drug use. Among
the powerful, drug use no longer disqualifies anyone for high
responsibility. Whereas Bill Clinton mock-denied his drug use by
joking that he had not inhaled, Barack Obama simply admitted using
cocaine and was not blamed for it. In sum, our real laws support
rather than diminish demand for drugs. But our laws also make sure,
absolutely sure, that the drugs will flow exclusively through
criminal channels. This ensures that drug prices will be high and
that they will enrich and empower the scum of the earth. Then we,
having coddled demand, empowered and enriched the criminal
suppliers, blame Latin American societies for our drug problem.
These are the illusions of a self-indulgent people who imagine
themselves virtuous and blame others for their own corruption.
Neither the Mexican nor the U.S. governments can match the
attractiveness of the incentives or the terror of the threats. And
if the Mexican government were to try fighting fire with fire, to
terrorize the terrorists, the U.S. government would be the first to
denounce its "human rights abuses." In Mexico, some
unofficial organizations have set about beheading and otherwise
brutalizing persons associated with narco gangs. The U.S.
government has treated them the same nasty way it treated the
Colombian paramilitary organizations that took the starch out of
that country's narco-terrorist group, the FARC.
Instead, the U.S. government's recipe is to pay for more police to
be corrupted, more intelligence to be infiltrated, more technology
to be evaded, more helicopters to fly around impotently, more
innocent people to be push around ignorantly, while the narco
cartels kill. Essentially, the U.S. government's policy is to let
American society finance the drug cartels unofficially, while
officially it finances the Mexican government's war against them.
We are paying some Mexicans to make war on other Mexicans,
principally in the fragile human ecosystem that is the U.S.-Mexico
border, where some 6,000 people were killed in the last year. The
benchmark of success? The price of cocaine may rise. But when the
price rises, our darling college kids and yuppies pay it, and the
same amount of deadly money flows south. No wonder that some Latin
governments, notably Chile, have refused to cooperate with
America's "war on drugs," preferring to give the
traffickers free rein in their territory rather than get their
police, judiciary, and army polluted to support American hypocrisy
and tergiversation.
In short, the drug problem's root is that lots of Americans want
drugs, and that the rest of us eschew the reasonable opposites of
truly penalizing consumption (à la Singapore) or of total,
Darwinian legalization. So long as we keep doing this, we will
guarantee to the narcotraffickers effective control of the
U.S.-Mexican border and a veto on good relations between the
American and Mexican people.
[End of quotes.]
|
Codevilla seems to
criticize the disease concept and drug treatment programs, as well
as the addicts who enter those programs. My main objection to his
remarks is that he seems to believe that addicts are not serious
about recovery. We know that most addicts go through a stage of
denial about their condition. They 'resist' treatment, in part, to
avoid encounter with the painful emotions and life losses resulting
from their condition and because they are, in fact, physically
addicted to a chemical. It is difficult for addicts to picture a
life free of dependence on drugs. This does not mean that addicts
are not serious about recovery. Recovery involves various stages
of growth which unfold over time.
Is drug addiction a
form of self-indulgence? Again, the biopsychosocial dynamics of
addiction must be individually evaluated. It is possible, for
some people, that drug use or abuse is a form of self-indulgence.
Some people just like to get high. It is regarded as fun. However,
throughout my career, my observation has been that many drug
abusers and addicts are probably genetically predisposed to
addiction, that many come from backgrounds of severe emotional and
physical trauma, and that they are probably under the grip of a
powerful chemical imbalance in the brain. They are not
darlings and yuppies, but sick and suffering human
beings.
Only days after I
came across Codevilla's article, I received the latest edition of
Alcohol Alert in the mail. This issue's article is
entitled, "Neuroscience: Pathways to Alcohol Dependence."
It discusses how alcohol changes and impairs brain function. I
selected three paragraphs from the section entitled, "The
Brain's Unique Communication System."
|
Tolerance and
withdrawal are tangible evidence of alcohol's influence on the
brain. Scientists now understand some of the mechanisms that lead
to these changes--changes that begin with the brain's unique
communication system. The brain communicates through a complex
system of electrical and chemical signals. These signals are vital
to brain function, sending messages throughout the brain, which, in
turn, regulate every aspect of the body's function.
Neurotransmitter chemicals play a key role in this signal
transmission.
Under normal
circumstances, the brain's balance of neurotransmitters allows
the body and brain to function unimpaired. Alcohol can cause
changes that upset this balance, impairing brain function. For
example, the brain balances the activity of inhibitory
neurotransmitters, which work to delay or stop nerve signals, with
that of excitatory neurotransmitters, which work to speed up these
signals. Alcohol can slow signal transmission in the brain,
contributing to some of the effects associated with alcohol
intoxication, including sleepiness and sedation.
As the brain grows
used to alcohol, it compensates for alcohol's slowing effects by
increasing the activity of excitatory neurotransmitters, speeding
up signal transmission. In this way, the brain attempts to restore
itself to a normal state in the presence of alcohol. If the
influence of alcohol is suddenly removed (that is, if a long-term
heavy drinker stops drinking suddenly), the brain may have to
readjust once again: this may lead to the unpleasant feelings
associated with alcohol withdrawal, such as experiencing "the
shakes" or increased anxiety.
[End of quote.]
|
In other words, the
brain of an alcoholic or drug addict does not function, or no
longer functions, normally. There are both short-term (euphoria)
and long-term (dependence) effects resulting from alcohol and/or
drug abuse. Codevilla is not exactly correct when he says that
"...the drug problem's root is that lots of Americans want
drugs..." The problem is that lots of Americans have brains
that function differently due to the damaging effects of drugs.
Drug addicts experience irrational changes in the way they think,
feel, and behave. That means there is an ongoing American market
for illegal drugs, and those drugs enter the country through the
U.S.-Mexico border.
How do American
addicts pay for their drugs? Codevilla seems to believe that
some addicts who receive welfare (S.S.I.) use this money to buy
drugs. If that is true, then it is the responsibility of the U.S.
government to track S.S.I. cases and substantiate each recipient's
eligibility. From my career observations, I have found that many
alcoholics and drug addicts are employed and have health insurance.
Some are referred to treatment through their employer. Some are
referred through the criminal justice system or through child
protection services. Others are able to pay for outpatient therapy
on a sliding-scale fee basis (a fee much lower than the amounts
they spent on alcohol and drugs). Those who live on welfare often
seem to have other extenuating circumstances--such as a single
mother with young children, or disabling health problems. And
there are some women who pay for their drugs through prostitution
and who receive assistance only after they enter a treatment
program.
Is America to
blame? Have Americans normalized drug abuse? Are Americans too
lax or too busy to keep a watchful eye on the kids? Are American
voters too politically correct, or too forgiving, to uphold certain
standards for elected officials? Do Americans (because of their
own drug use) find it easier to identify with a president who
admits to drug experimentation than with a president who has
remained drug abstinent throughout his life? Should America's
national health priorities include drug treatment?
Is Mexico to blame?
Why does Mexico have a "fragile human ecosystem?" Why
has Mexico never taken care of its poor? Why has Mexico never
developed a solid education system or prosperous economy? Why are
drug smugglers glorified in a Mexican form of music known as
narcocorridor? Why do Mexicans (and apparently some Mexican
Americans) glamourize the very people who terrorize and brutalize
them? The following is a quotation from The Beat
magazine, 2002.
|
The narcocorrido finds its closest counterpart in American gangsta
rap. Both celebrate the greed, glamour, violence and risk-taking of
the drug trade, painting traffickers and dealers as common men who
triumph in a society that provides few doors to success. But while
gangsta rap is less than two decades old, narcocorridos lie
squarely in the tradition of the 19th century corrido song form
which gained wide popularity after the Mexican Revolution of
1910-20 with songs that eulogized the meteoric career of Pancho
Villa. From the way Los Tigres, Grupo Exterminador and Jenni
Rivera extol the drug culture, you might expect they clawed their
way out of the gangsta life. But with the exception of Chalino
Sanchez, whose rough-hewn, off-key voice on "El Crimen de
Culliacán" signifies that he was the real thing--as did
his gun battle with a would-be assassin while performing on a Palm
Springs stage--artists on Corridos y Narcocorridos insist they have
nothing to do with the narco culture and are simply performing the
material that sells best.
[End of quote.]
|
It would seem that
some Americans and some Mexicans have, at least, one thing in
common: the dehumanization of addicts. Some Americans have
normalized drug experimentation and recreation. Taking your first
snort of cocaine is almost the same as taking your first puff on a
cigarette or your first sip of alcohol. This in itself is
insideous because there is nothing normal about the progression of
addiction for those first-time users who will develop lifelong
dependency. It could be suspected that drug availability--not just
cultural decline or parental laxity--is responsible for changing
the view on drugs from that of a dangerous substance to that of an
expected phase of teenage behavior.
A few parents even
allow their underaged kids to drink alcohol--so long as they drink
at home, as though that could prevent chemical changes in their yet
underdeveloped brains. In these instances, the potential for
addiction is underestimated or simply ignored. And there are some
parents who regard marijuana as no more harmful than alcohol, and
who themselves abuse alcohol and marijuana--and their kids know it.
If presidential
candidates said they never tried drugs, the public would suspect
most of them of lying--because most people nowadays have tried
drugs. Most people have taken that unnecessary risk, whether out
of curiosity, peer pressure, or the desire to modulate their mood.
Some of them, like certain presidents and presidential
candidates, were able to quit or recover without incurring great
losses. Others, however, are now either buying from the drug
dealers or they are in the rooms of A.A.
We must question if
President Obama's recent 'Beer Summit' set a bad example for
America's youth.* The 'Beer Summit' normalized alcohol intake in
America--a president, a police officer, and a college professor
drinking beer and with no regard for the message they might imprint
on children who lack good role models (and with no sensitivity
toward racial and cultural groups which have a low tolerance for
alcohol or whose communities are plagued with addiction). What's
wrong with drinking iced tea? Or a refreshing lemonade? Why not
have a 'Cranberry Juice Summit?' Obama missed an opportunity to
set a standard.
Some Mexicans
view America's addicts as objects, as nothing more than a market
for a product. The solution, however, is not as Codevilla would
mise en scène: "In short, the drug problem's
root is that lots of Americans want drugs, and that the rest of us
eschew the reasonable opposites of truly penalizing consumption
(à la Singapore) or of total, Darwinian legalization."
The Singapore method
is not an alternative to America's current laws against drug
possession--laws which are effective when enforced and when the
offenders are prosecuted. In addition to drug possession laws, it
would be helpful to develop more drug-abuse prevention programs for
youngsters. America also has D.U.I. laws and child protective
services--programs which are effective when adequately funded and
staffed. The Darwinian method would inflict unbounded misery on
the spouses and children of addicts. It is not a matter of
survival of the strong and extinction of the weak, but of
generational continuation of trauma and addiction.
A better solution
would be for America to take care of its own through addiction
research and treatment--a solution that would be reasonable,
humane, and feasible if given national priority. Drug smugglers
cannot sell their product if there is no market. If there are
millions of people worldwide who have achieved sobriety through
A.A., C.A., and N.A., then we must be thankful for those in
recovery who continue to reach out to the sick and suffering. If
it were not for A.A. and its sister organizations, the market for
illegal drugs would be even greater.
[*NOTE: I heard on
one news program that Obama drank non-alcoholic beer (FOX News
Sunday, 08/02/09). If this is true, this information was not
widely known. The impression was that Obama drank beer; and he
openly said that he was inviting the officer and professor to the
White House for a beer. Non-alcoholic beer, by the way,
contains a small percentage of alcohol. Whether Obama drank beer
or non-alcoholic beer, the fact that he drank a beer product gives
forth a very different image from drinking iced tea or some other
soft beverage.
Perhaps any
President of the United States should be required to adhere to an
alcohol zero-tolerance policy. The President should be totally
alert at all times and ready to make quick decisions in times of
catastrophe and war. Even the slightest alcohol-induced
impairment should not be risked or tolerated.]
(Written 08/10/09: bibliography available.)
[ADDED NOTE:
Yesterday, on July 20, 2010, President Obama met with British
Prime Minister Cameron and they spoke to the press. Obama began
his opening remarks as follows.
|
We have just concluded some excellent discussions--including
whether the beers from our hometowns that we exchanged are best
served warm or cold. My understanding is, is that the Prime
Minister enjoyed our 312 beer and we may send him some more. I
thought the beer we got was excellent--but I did drink it
cold.
[End of quote.]
|
It is baffling. Is
this kind of talk supposed to be charming, witty, macho? While
Mrs. Obama confronts America's problem with obesity, the President
flouts his beer-drinking: a bad example for our youth and an
incongruous image for our addicted society. Moreover, beer is
filled with calories! How can you criticize Mac Donald's
hamburgers when you are drinking calorie-laden beers?]
(Written 07/21/10)
Until we meet
again....... .......stay sane.
|
