In the last 24 hours, a video clip of a Texas judge beating his teenage daughter (for the crime of downloading music) has gone viral on the internet and news media. It’s a horrendous video, involving not only brutal violence but also vicious humiliation of a child by a parent. What makes the story more provocative still is that the daughter, 16 years old at the time, has cerebral palsy, the father is a judge who presides over child welfare issues, and, oh yeah, he was apparently addicted to opiates.
There’s little doubt that, as the story spins out in various directions, the issue of opiate addiction will hit the spotlight. While thousands clamour for the judge’s dismissal or worse, even his daughter, the victim of the abuse, says he needs rehabilitation instead. Could opiate addiction possibly explain this kind of behaviour? Could it excuse it?
There are drug families that change the personality in fundamental ways, as a direct result of brain damage. But it’s pretty clear what those drugs are: methamphetamine and crack are the most infamous culprits, and inhalants such as gasoline and various solvents also destroy cells up and down the nervous system. But opiates don’t damage the brain, in and of themselves, unless you OD, in which case you can lose a little, a lot, or all of your brain.
Yet some of the byproducts of opiate addiction can lead to behaviour problems so severe that the question of brain damage becomes a matter of definition. The first byproduct is craving itself. In a recent post, I compared the addict’s craving brain to that of an animal in a state of starvation. That’s not an analogy. The parallels are concrete. Drug craving laces the brain with dopamine, replacing the role of other neuromodulators. Thanks to massive gouts of dopamine in the ventral striatum, there is only one goal to pursue, and all the animal’s attention and behaviour is focused on that goal. But that doesn’t sound like the judge’s problem. Craving takes attention away from other people. The good judge was overly attentive to his daughter.
Withdrawal is another byproduct of opiate addiction. As junkies and drug counsellors know all too well, the physical discomfort of withdrawal symptoms produces a high level of irritability. Neurochemicals that have an arousing impact on brain and body (e.g., corticotropin-releasing factor, an ingredient of the stress response) are suppressed by opiates. When the opiates begin to leave the system, these neurochemicals rebound with a vengeance, yielding a state of agitation and hyperarousal. And with many common painkillers, that can happen within 6-24 hours following the last dose. So, was the judge going through withdrawal at the time of the beating? Probably not. The video clip, posted on Youtube (not fun to watch!) shows anger and methodical aggression, but there is no sign of the twitchy irritability that characterizes withdrawal.
I think the judge suffered from a more common ailment caused, not only by addiction, but by almost any kind of personal failure; and that’s shame. Shame is a powerful emotion, and it’s one of the few emotions that literally hurts. That cringing, crumpling feeling deep inside, the wish to fall through the cracks in the floor, to disappear from the world, because one’s own self is just so despicable — that hurts! Addiction to anything is shameful. It feels like, and perhaps is, a personal failure. But abusing a helpless child, over whom one holds both power and responsibility, is at least as shameful, and maybe a whole lot more. Being an addict and an abuser…well you see where I’m going. So the judge, like many violent people, was probably responding to and at the same time inducing intense feelings of shame. In himself.
Does that excuse his behaviour? Not at all. Shame doesn’t make you harm others. Shame is painful, and it elicits all kinds of defences. Violence is one of those defences, but to roll up your sleeves and indulge in it, to watch yourself doing it and not stop, is unjustifiable — especially for a justice of the peace. It’s one thing to abuse yourself: not nice, not logical, but you’re the one who suffers. It’s quite another thing to abuse someone else as a way to make yourself feel better.
Informed by unparalleled neuroscientific insight and written with his usual flare, Marc Lewis’s The Biology of Desire effectively refutes the medical view of addiction as a brain disease. A bracing and informative corrective to the muddle that now characterizes public and professional discourse on this topic.” —Gabor Maté, M.D., author of In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters With Addiction
Spot on, Professor!
I guess this kind of begs the question about the reasons for human violence. Is it purely idiosyncratic? Or is the human species inherently capable of violence with some people missing the neural structures or processes that put the brakes on the exercise of violence? Ernest Becker in his book Escape from Evil (1975) writes that more evil has been produced in the world by attempts to eliminate evil in the world than by anything else. Maybe the judge subconsciously feels that his daughter is physical evidence of the weakness (evil) in his life. Weakness, like poverty, seems to disqualify us from claims to prosperity and immortality. It may be that the judge is raging against his weakness and uses violence, and power in the courtroom, to try to convince himself that he is a valuable human being, not condemned to eternal death. Then again, maybe he has a nasty brain lesion. Who knows. I’m just glad that I live several thousands of miles away from him and his courtroom (not that there aren’t people just like him close by).
By the way, I just received your book in the mail from Amazon. I’ll let you know what I think in a couple of weeks. Do you know of the work of Robert Sapolsky at Stanford? He’s a neuroscientist who lectures about addiction and violence. His lectures are available on YouTube. He teaches a course called Human Behaviour Biology. I think he’s right on, but what do I know about neuroscience. I’m a sociologist.
Shame seems to work like a cascade. The judge may well have been ashamed of his daughter. He certainly seemed ashamed of something she’d done — an evil he wanted to eliminate, as you suggest, and parents often see themselves in whatever they imagine is unattractive in their children. But then came the abuse, of the kid (abuse of someone else) and of drugs (abuse mainly of the self), in whatever order they appeared. Both behaviours induce more shame. And in my mind, both kinds of abuse are self-amplifying: Each produces more shame, which leads to more abuse, which leads to more shame. In abuse of others, you relieve the shame with rage — punishing the symbol, feeling powerful, whatever, there are many interpretations. With drugs, you relieve the shame by directly changing how you feel. Opiates make you feel safe and warm: a perfect antidote to shame — until later.
I hope you enjoy the book — or at least find it stimulating. Meanwhile, my wife played me a Youtube video of Robert Sapolsky just days ago — by coincidence. I really liked him. He seems funny, smart and human — a good combination.
Don’t know if this might interest you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/new-brain-research-helps-explain-addiction_n_1067837.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
Marc,
I just now put in an order for your book, and I’m eager to read it; it is rare that I get truly excited about a book these days, but this one does it for me.
It is the melding of neurobiology, drugs, psychology, etc, that I find interesting – but most importantly, it’s your experience and your nuanced view on addiction that attracted my attention. Specifically, this quote:
“The question isn’t why some people become addicts, but why we all don’t.”
I’d argue that almost everyone is addicted to something, and to varying degrees, though the addiction takes different forms; rarely hard drugs, but more often exercise, intimacy, food, video games, gambling, etc.
The magnitude and the means of administration varies widely, as does the consequence for our health and well being, from positive to negative, as I’m sure you would agree.
Anyway, I digress.
So Marc, I’d like to pick your brains on a few issues and right now is the best time. I won’t even take the risk of waiting till I have received and read your book to see if my questions are addressed there.
Your blog is young, has a small readership, and there are few people commenting. This allows you the time and motivation to be attentive and answer questions, share personal insights, perhaps carry out longer discussions with your readers, etc.
A golden opportunity, for sure, and a luxury your readers might not get to enjoy once your book becomes a bestseller. When suddenly everyone suddenly wants your time and attention, when your blog becomes so popular that you get hundreds of comments on each post or article…
Seems you’re also basing blog posts on ideas and issues brought forth by your readers; perhaps you’ll find my questions interesting enough to write about.
1. There is an art and science to using drugs for productive work and creative endeavours. But the right drug, in the right dose, in the right mindset, by the right person, can provide an enjoyable and welcome boost. They add a certain zest and excitement, if handled strategically.
Naturally, whether the net benefit is positive or negative ultimately depends on the person, his or hers management of the drug, the rebound, etc.
For work, choosing the right drug for the right purpose is important. Sometimes you may want and draw benefit from euphoria, other times it’s merely distracting and reduces your productivity on that specific task (compared to a non-drugged state).
One must also maintain discipline and rules, of course, such as setting limits and restrictions about when and how much you are allowed to use. One might, for example, limit oneself to a maximum of 2 days a week of drug use.
Ultimately, responsible drug use that confers a net positive benefit is about knowledge and discipline.
I can go on, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. Do you think some people can handle drugs regularly and responsibly in the long term, as an aid or a boost, or do you think that people who go down that route ultimately end up suffering from it? Also, what are your own experiences with using drugs for work or creative pursuits?
2. What are your thoughts on the role of expectation in the rebound/comedown and the magnitude thereof? As you know, the rebound people experience after a night of cocaine, amphetamines, or what have you, varies widely. Some people feel severely depressed and unmotivated; others barely don’t feel a thing.
What role do you think expectations play in this? Some people have been told about the horrors of the comedown, the withdrawal, the shitty feeling, etc, and subsequently they end up feeling like shit.
Others may have another view – a more objective one, if you will, that is based more in reality and less on stories. Subsequently, they have other expectations, and might not experience a “comedown”.
3. Furthermore, related to the question about the role of expectation, it is a fascinating topic to explore as it pertains to drug use.
I have often found that behavior and effect is highly dependent on the mindset one approaches the drug with before ingestion…whether you are able to use a drug like cocaine for long-term pursuits in your work, such as writing or research, i.e. work that lacks immediate feedback/reward (something cocaine in theory would not be well suited for), depends on your expectation thereof, based on prior experiences.
If you’d have any thoughts on this, I’d be eager to hear them, though I realize it’s a fairly broad topic to address in a short response.
Well I hope you like the book. Indeed my view of addiction is nuanced — very much so. I’ve looked at it from so many angles, it could hardly be otherwise.
Regarding your first question — do I think that drugs can be taken responsibly, even productively, without necessarily leading to addiction? Yes, I do, but I still regard it as a somewhat dangerous dalliance. As you suggest, self-imposed limits would be essential for this kind of regular, non-harmful used. The trouble is that drugs, because they directly affect brain systems involved in impulsivity (primarily the ventral striatum, but also the orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, etc) and response control (e.g., dorsal anterior cingulate), can alter the mechanisms that make controlled use possible. They can sabotage that noble goal, and they can do it insidiously. We all know the major offenders, but even caffeine can sneak up on you. I’m no prude about this, but I’ve learned to be careful in my thoughts and actions. Most experiences come through the senses, not the blood. When you “ingest” experience, anything goes.
About rebound/withdrawal, interesting point. Yes, I do think expectations can colour the experience in very different ways. But those expectations have a lot to do with one’s own history of drug use. So…they will change over time, for good or ill. Once drug use brings on feelings of self-blame, shame, personal weakness, etc, expectations for the comedown, the day after, will often be clouded by a self-punitive voice. See? Now look what you’ve done!
Question number 3 is indeed a broad topic. Like question 2, I would approach it as a developmental psychologist (my training before neuroscience). The quality of one’s mindset can be seen as the cause, but it can also be seen as the effect, of the colouring of drug experiences. And that makes for a feedback cycle, which is the primary engine for change. In other words, look out! Mindsets can develop, evolve, decay, and so forth — often without awareness or control. This would indeed be a good topic for a blog.
Thanks for the interesting perspectives you bring to this blog.
Hmm, controlled use of substances to enhance creative endevours. I have to lean towards Marc’s perspective on this one.
Addictive thinking is subtle and powerful. Most addicts, at some point, find themselves in a state of denial and self justification, so much so that most 12 step programs state that the most important thing necessary to escape addiction is to become honest with oneself. Amy Winehouse comes to mind….
As for rules to control consumption, this is a very tenuous approach given the denial element. I have heard, in open AA meetings, alcoholics with long sobriety, joke amongst themselves about how they “controlled” their drinking by setting rules….beer and wine only, never at work, never in the morning etc, etc…..each and every rule a thin guise of denial.
I think there are just way too many life experiances out there that provide far better, more real, safer ways to experiance the emotions necessary for creative expression. Climb Mount Everest, take a roller coaster ride, “watch the constellations reveal themselves, one star at a time”, better yet, help a kid in trouble…
Cheers
And the trouble is that denial itself is insidious. It sneaks up on you well before you’re even in serious trouble. To put it more precisely, denial is pretty much the most basic way we do impression-management from the inside. It’s an early, primitive, and relatively effective defence mechanism (says Freud and 100 years of his followers). So, as soon as you’re starting to have “fun” that rings some alarm bells somewhere inside, denial comes up and modifies the circuit of self-reflection: Well, that’s okay. I’m entitled to a little fun.