Yes, we lied and we denied. No doubt about it. But what about people that lie in the midst of other extremely emotional life events like domestic abuse, divorce, sexual abuse, emotional abuse – you name it? What about them? Are they all liars too?
I only ask because these are examples of extremely traumatic life events that cause tremendous suffering, just like addiction. These events, like addiction, are commonly shielded by lies.
However, in these situations it is understood that the lie, although terribly wrong, is a form of self-preservation during a highly emotional time. These untruths are often quickly forgiven.
My theory on this is that most people believe we can just simply choose to have our disease or not. Like, “Let’s see here, well . . . no, I’m not really in the mood to be an addict today. So, I’ll just stop.”
Our perceived “choice” makes us both the perpetrator and the victim, so its okay to call us names. Ugh.
What if conclusive medical studies confirmed that only 15% of addicts ever had a choice about their disease? What if 85% were either born with a genetic predisposition for addiction or unknowingly developed a predisposition for addiction as a result of traumatic life events and experiences?
If that were true, would people be so quickly to persecute the "addict"?
I believe that there is a significant amount of truth in that proposition. Most of us were diagnosed with other disorders prior to the onset of addiction. And, if you weren't ever diagnosed, you probably had a feeling you were quite different from everyone else.
The denominating factor is insufficient dopamine. While the masses walk around with sufficient dopamine and are able to experience love, peace and serenity, those of us with deficient dopamine stare in awe and wonder how it is that these people can be so happy, so secure and so willing to get out of bed in the morning and believe that there is something worth living for.
Although we're dopamine deficient, we're often quite intelligent and, as a result, develop creative coping strategies. The first time we experience the rush of endorphins from the "fight or flight" experience, we want more. That rush of endorphins gives us a sense of peace, calmness and an optimistic perception of the world around us. Because our brain and lives have been starved for and deprived of what everyone else has and lives comfortably with, the first taste leads to an insatiable hunger.
Some say the "insatiable hunger" is equivalent to "craving". Well, I don't know about you guys, but craving is not exactly what I was doing when I was addicted. I compare the experience to being in a burning building. We have the choice to either get out of the burning building or stay among the flames, but is that really a choice? No way. If you want to survive, you find a way to get out. It's as simple as that. Its not craving, it’s surviving! So, does a person caught in a burning building "crave" to get out of there just like one might "crave" a chocolate candy bar? No way. There is a significant difference.
That's one of the reasons I think addiction is so powerful. It somehow affects our survival instinct. Even though we realize that its crazy to keep taking the drug, our brain whole-heartedly believes that we will die if we do not get the drug. So, to me, its not about "craving", its about "survival". Does that make sense to you guys?
Any rational person could tell the difference, but the difference in our brain chemistry causes us to perceive reality a bit differently than others do – just like a person with a high IQ makes different perceptions than a person with a low IQ. That’s just how it is and our perceptions are equally as real. In fact, our bodies respond physiologically to our perceptions, no matter how different they are from another’s perceptions.
So, in that context, does an addict ever really make the "choice" to continue using a drug or drink?
Here's an analogy that might help make my point.
Imagine giving a person blind at birth a pill that almost instantly gives him the gift of sight. Suddenly, he blissfully explores what he could only imagine before, and begins putting the puzzle pieces of life together according to his own observations rather than by second hand, quizzical narration. Then, right in the middle of it all, without notice, his sight is taken away. Do you think he might want to experience "sight" again, even if only momentarily?
This analogy is similar to the experience of an addict. However, sight is an extrinsic experience as it only affects the way one interacts with the world. As opposed to experience of finally attaining sufficient levels of dopamine, which is both an extrinsic and intrinsic experience for the dopamine deficient. Meaning that the drug of choice not only effects how one interacts with the world, but also seemingly improves the very nature of the person interacting with the world. For example, I was finally able to feel and give love as well as able to understand how people got out of bed each day and went about their lives contently while I sat watching only wanting to die.
It was a powerful experience – one strong enough to change who I was and how I lived.
My belief is that “normal” people only experience the extrinsic effects of the drug and, as a result, it does not affect who they are. Leaving the drug behind is easy when it doesn’t change who you are– much like the blind man could return to normal and resume his every-day life after experiencing sight.
But, to us, the experience is much more than a “buzz” or good time. Instead, the drug becomes a tool that enables us to understand life and why people want to live. We perceive the drug as a necessary tool for survival that enables us to feel human and to understand humanity for the first time.
The problem is that the tool ends up bashing us in the head and leaving us for dead in the end. An unfortunate truth.
So, a person with “normal” brain chemistry might respond, “You had the choice to take the drug or drink the first time. That was the dumb “choice”.
Okay, assuming that’s true, how many people with “normal” brain chemistry have made the choice to drink socially or try a drug? Many may not want to admit it, but the reality is that a significant majority do try it. Does that mean everyone who ever tried a drink or drug are equally immoral, weak and dumb?
And, lets not forget the people who only had the choice to follow a doctor’s directive to take prescribed pain medication for a legitimate reason or to just suffer through it. In my case, I was near death in a hospital when addiction started rearing its ugly head. I was not involved in any decision process at that time.
Sure, I could have chosen to stop taking the meds in time and, I did, for years. Until a series of traumatic life events combined with another physical injury required hospital treatment. That’s when my brain chemistry was so off-balance that I literally began believing that I could not live without it. After years of living a sad existence, I followed my doctor’s treatment plan that improved my quality of life immensely. But, you know how the story ends, the physical and emotional relief provided does not last long term. It’s only temporary, and only the lucky ones get out alive by finding a doctor that cares enough to diagnose the resulting chemical imbalance appropriately and live a productive life.
(Original Air Date: 10/28/05) Being a mom is hard enough, but imagine juggling soccer, PTA meetings, homework and carpools all while trying to cover up a secret life of drug addiction. Dr. Phil follows up with some moms who say they were junkies. Joani, a mother of two, couldn't get through a half hour without shooting up -- and she was a nurse in a drug rehabilitation center! It's been six months -- how is she now? Then, Stephanie was addicted to Vicodin and took 60 times the recommended dosage every day. She's been clean for four months, but now has a new problem. Plus, a viewer inspired by Stephanie checks herself into rehab. Join the discussion.
