THE MISTAKEN ROLE OF CHOICE IN ADDICTIONS, OR THE MORAL, RATHER THAN THE SCIENTIFIC, BASIS OF THE CURRENT ADDICTION THEORY, THE HIJACKED BRAIN HYPOTHESIS.

The major issue is no longer whether addictions, after the fact addictions, are genetically caused or not. The field agrees that once the drug is ingested, only people with the right genetics get addicted. This is the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis (HBH). This new thinking is a big step from the older theory specifying, absent any valid science, that anyone is capable of getting addicted because that theory said drugs cause addictions by the nature of the drug itself, irrespective of the user’s brain or genetics. Some people still hold to this disproven biased belief. Of course, it took many many years to go from the old theory to the HBH. The critical issue in the HBH is its first sentence which says, “The drug is voluntarily (willful choice) ingested, then the drug changes the brain, in genetically predisposed people, to an addicted brain.” Thus, the brain is hijacked by the drug despite the acceptance that only genetically susceptible people end up addicted.

            So, currently, the field of addictions, medically and criminally, is run by the HBH which blames two things for addiction: 1. the addicting drug, and 2. the choice made by the genetically susceptible person to use the drug in the first place. Our country’s drug policies are based on these two things; the drug war for #1, and the criminal justice system for #2. The best and most effective public drug policies would theoretically be based on the correct theory of addiction causation, an argument I will make later in this article, whatever that turns out to be, but assuredly it will never be based on an incorrect addiction causation theory. Therefore, if the HBH is incorrect in any of its statements, the entire theory is wrong, and it can’t be used for public policy. Thus, if the first part of the HBH is wrong, that people who eventually end up addicted, got addicted because of a voluntary and free willed choice to use the drug in the first place, then the entire theory and all the policies subsequent to that wrong theory must be stopped.

            Since even I, as well as all valid science, agree with the second half of the HBH, that only genetically susceptible people end up addicted, it’s the first half, the “voluntary and free-willed choice” part of it that needs to be discussed and affirmed or denied via science, not philosophy. So, what is the science behind this part of the HBH? There is none. I can’t even say that pseudoscience has been used to prove this statement. There’s no proof, either using valid science or invalid pseudoscience, for the volitional use of addicting drugs leading to addiction. It has always been merely assumed, always, because it has always been assumed that all choices are voluntary and free-willed based. Thus, that initial use of drugs in future addicts is voluntary is a belief, not a fact. In fact, the most recent review of addiction causation, THE GENETICS OF ADDICTIONS: UNCOVERING THE GENES, Nature Reviews, Genetics, Vol. 6, July 2005, David Goldman, Gabor Oroszi and Francesca Ducci, uses the word “choice” five times without a single reference to how anyone has proven that free willed and conscious choice to use an addictive drug is in any way related to the causation of addictions. Everything else is dutifully referenced, as scientific reviews should be, except for this. Yet, they use the word choice in these ways in the article: “The addictions are moderately to highly heritable, which is paradoxical because these disorders require use; a choice that is itself modulated by both genes and environment.” “However, because addictions are in theory entirely preventable by law or individual choice…” “However, voluntary or enforced choice has met with partial success.” “These moderate to high heritabilities are seemingly paradoxical: addiction depends initially on individual choice to use an addictive agent (so, if a person chooses to use a drug, how can addiction to the drug be heritable?)”  “Furthermore, it is becoming clear that susceptibility to several complex diseases — coronary artery disease, obesity, cancer and AIDS — is genetically influenced, but also depends profoundly on lifestyle choices.” The use of the word choice in these sentences is stated but not proven and not referenced, a scientific sin especially in an article from a peer reviewed journal. However, the frequency and manner of its use does hammer home for the reader the clear “fact” that choice is, according to this peer reviewed article in a prestigious journal, Nature, the critical issue in the addiction epidemic. Well, let’s see.

            The fact is that the valid science of addiction causation has shown over and over, in both human epidemiological and twin studies, and in animal studies, that what looks like a choice is actually not a choice but itself is caused by the genetic neurobiology that causes addictions from the get go. That’s why Goldman et al, above, say, “These moderate to high heritabilities are seemingly paradoxical: addiction depends initially on individual choice to use an addictive agent (so, if a person chooses to use a drug, how can addiction to the drug be heritable?)” That’s correct, it either won’t be a choice or it won’t be heritable. It can’t be both. The paradox only exists if one believes that there is a conscious and free-willed choice involved. There is no paradox if the genetic neurobiology, the disease of Hypoism, causes the addictions as well as causing the “choice” of initial use of the addictive drug. And, this is [one of the things] what Goldman and the rest of the field has missed in its attempts to understand additions, this paradox. The fact is that there is no paradox, except within their biased and preconceived beliefs about addiction causation. It is only a “seeming” paradox if one BELIEVES the assumption, but not if one reads the science with an unbiased mind. Choice, as we use this word in everyday conversation, is no more involved in addictions than in homosexuality, race, or eye color.

            Moreover, this thinking, my thinking, not their thinking, works as well for addictions where there is no drug involved, behavioral addictions such as sex, gambling, eating disorders, etc. Thus, from beginning to end the HBH is wrong in its theory to explain addictions; behavioral addictions have no causative drug but the people get addicted nonetheless.

            Lastly, a recent paper, Genetic susceptibility to substance dependence, Molecular Psychiatry (2005) 10, 336–344, by N Hiroi and S Agatsuma, compares and contrasts the HBH, the plasticity model, with the genetic causation model, including the genetically determined “choice,” and confirms that the HBH doesn’t fit the science whereas the genetic causation model, from initiation of addictor use (initial “choice” to use) to addiction, does fit the science.

            Thus, in terms of the word and the philosophical or moral use of the word “choice,” there are two kinds of people in the world: 1. People, non-hypoics, without the genetic disease, Hypoism, that causes addictions. These people have a choice to use or not to use addictive drugs and don’t get addicted to them no matter what, and, 2. People with the genetic disease that causes their addictions as well as their initial use of drugs, and other behavioral addictors, Hypoism. In other words, the seeming choice of initial use of addictors, drugs and behaviors, in these people, hypoics, is not a choice but actually part of the disease itself. They have no choice. Moreover, addictions are not diseases, as stated in the Goldman article, but are symptoms of the disease, Hypoism, that causes the addictions as well as the initial use of the addictor. Because Dr. Goldman and the entire addiction field are unamenable to this scientific reality, because of their unscientific bias, they are stuck in what he calls the paradox of heritability. But, there is no paradox because use of addictors by hypoics is not a choice but determined by the disease that causes the whole shebang, initial drug use and ultimate addiction. Goldman and the rest of the field of addictions who misuse the word choice and the HBH theory of addiction causation are deliberately misleading people about the cause of addictions because, in fact, they know they are wrong but push it anyway for the sake of the drug war and the government which pays them to maintain this untruth. Goldman and others from the NIH are the government funded hit men paid to maintain a wrong theory of addiction causation for the sole purpose of maintaining the drug war, the moral war against drugs and addicts. This is the biggest scientific and medical scandal of all time.

            The Hypoism paradigm of addictions, the complete genetic hypothesis with its implications on prevention, treatment, and public policy, answers the “choice” issue and is available at: www.hypoism.com. The book that describes this paradigm is available there. My review article that goes through much of the science but little of the prevention, treatment, and public policy implications is at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ The evolutionary reasons for why the genes that cause addictions are in the gene pool and how and where in the brain they work is at: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/thehypoismaddictionhypothesis/

Now, you can ignore this argument and explanation and stick with the addiction field and Dr. Goldman, and help keep addictions where they are today, epidemic, or read my writings, let your readers and friends know about Hypoism, so all addicts and their families can use it to stop the epidemic currently maintained by the wrong theory of addiction causation, the HBH.

Aside:

To Decide: Verb, to arrive at a solution that ends uncertainty or dispute about which alternative to select.

To Choose: Verb, the act of selection between alternatives following a decision.

Choice: Noun, that which is selected from alternatives.

Thus, a choice involves a decision between alternatives and the action that manifests that choice. When someone uses the word choice this is what they mean. The critical caveat within this definition is that there are alternatives and that the decision is between relatively equal (free) alternatives, in other words that there are no preexisting constraints on the individual alternatives, and that there are actual alternatives, not just the appearance of alternatives.

Hypoism, the genetic disease, rules out any choices about addictor use and addictions for people with this disease. Thus, choice cannot be used when discussing addictions. If it is used it is used solely for moral purposes, not scientific.