Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Carbon Delirium: The Last Stage of Fossil-Fuel Addiction and Its Hazardous Impact on American Foreign Policy

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Carbon Delirium: The Last Stage of Fossil-Fuel Addiction and Its Hazardous Impact on American Foreign Policy

Friday, March 28, 2014

Massachusetts declares public health emergency over heroin overdoses and opioids addiction

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Massachusetts declares public health emergency over heroin overdoses and opioids addiction

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Debunking Some of the Biggest Myths About Addiction



Society is a long way off from understanding the "complex issues for why people really become addicted," says Dr. Carl Hart.









Democracy Now!was joined by the groundbreaking neuropsychopharmacologist Dr. Carl Hart. He is the first tenured African American professor in the sciences at Columbia University, where he is an associate professor in the psychology and psychiatry departments. He is also a member of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse and a research scientist in the Division of Substance Abuse at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. However, long before he entered the hallowed halls of the Ivy League, Hart gained firsthand knowledge about drug usage while growing up in one of Miami’s toughest neighborhoods. He recently wrote a memoir titled “High Price: A Neuroscientist’s Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society.” In the book, he recalls his journey of self-discovery, how he escaped a life of crime and drugs and avoided becoming one of the crack addicts he now studies.




Dr. Carl Hart, we welcome you to Democracy Now! The title of your book almost was the song we were just playing, “Trouble Man”?


Dr. Carl Hart: That was my vote, “Trouble Man,” but the publishers thought that it wasn’t 1973, so we should go with something more modern.


AG: Both your research findings will surprise many and also your own path in life. Let’s start by talking about, well, where you come from.


CH: Well, I come from — as you said, I grew up in the hood. And so, when we think about these communities that we care about, the communities that have been so-called devastated by drugs of abuse, I believed that narrative for a long time. In fact, I’ve been studying drugs for about 23 years; for about 20 of those years, I believed that drugs were the problems in the community. But when I started to look more carefully, started looking at the evidence more carefully, it became clear to me that drugs weren’t the problem. The problem was poverty, drug policy, lack of jobs — a wide range of things. And drugs were just one sort of component that didn’t contribute as much as we had said they have.


AG: So, talk about the findings of these studies. I mean, you’ve been publishing in the most elite scientific journals now for many years.


CH: Yes. So, one of the things that shocked me when I first started to understand what was going on, when I discovered that 80 to 90 percent of the people who actually use drugs like crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana — 80 to 90 percent of those people were not addicted. I thought, “Wait a second. I thought that once you use these drugs, everyone becomes addicted, and that’s why we had these problems.” That was one thing that I found out. Another thing that I found out is that if you provide alternatives to people — jobs, other sort of alternatives — they don’t overindulge in drugs like this. I discovered this in the human laboratory as well as the animal laboratory. The same thing plays out in the animal literature.


AG: What do you mean? You’re saying that crack is not as addictive as everyone says?


CH: Well, when we think of crack — well, we have a beautiful example now, the past year: the mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, for example. The guy used crack cocaine, and he did his job. Despite what you think of him and his politics, but he came to work every day. He did his job. The same is true even of Marion Barry. He came to work every day, did his job. In fact, he did his job so well, so the people of D.C. thought, that they voted for him even after he was convicted for using crack. But that’s the majority of crack cocaine users. Just like any other drug, most of the people who use these drugs do so without a problem.


AG: Compare it to alcohol.


CH: Well, when we think about alcohol, about 10 percent of the people — 10 to 15 percent of the people who use alcohol are addicted or meet criteria for alcoholism; for crack cocaine, about 15 to 20 percent — the same sort of thing when we look at the numbers. And we’ve known this in science for at least 60 years. We’ve known — I’m sorry, at least 40 years, we’ve known this sort of thing, but we haven’t told the public.


AG: So, you’re saying someone who has wine every night for dinner would not be considered an alcoholic in the same way if you take crack every day?


CH: Exactly. So, the criteria, to me — the way we judge whether someone is an addict is whether or not they have disruptions in their psychosocial functioning. Are they going to work? Are they handling their responsibilities? Or are they overindulging in the activity? And when we think about drugs like alcohol, wine every day, people can drink alcohol every day and still meet their responsibility. The same is true with crack cocaine. The same is true with powder cocaine. The same is true with marijuana. Think about it this way. The three most recent presidents all used illicit drugs, and they all have met their responsibilities. They’ve reached the highest levels of power. And we would be proud if they were our children, if they — despite the fact that they’ve all used illegal drugs.


AG: But they are saying they didn’t use them in a regular kind of way. I mean, who knows?


CH: Well, when we say “a regular kind of way,” for example, I use alcohol. I may use it once a month, twice a month, four times a month. It may vary, but that’s certainly regular. And so, when we think — I think the public, when they think of regular, they think of overindulging. And when people overindulge, like every day multiple times a day, it’s going to disrupt some of your psychosocial functioning. Now, that is a small number of people. Only a few people engage in behavior like that. And I assure you that if they engage in behavior like that, that’s not their only problem. They have multiple other problems.


AG: So why do some people get addicted to crack, and some people don’t?


CH: That’s a great question. People get addicted for a wide range of reasons. Some people have co-occurring or other psychiatric illnesses that contribute to their drug addiction. Other people get addicted because that’s the best option available to them; other people because they had limited skills in terms of responsibility skills. People become addicted for a wide range of reasons. If we were really concerned about drug addiction, we would be trying to figure out precisely why each individual became addicted. But that’s not what we’re really interested in. We are interested, in this society, of vilifying a drug. In that way, we don’t have to deal with the complex issues for why people really become addicted.


AG: Talk about brain science.


CH: Yeah, so we talk about — “talk about brain science,” that’s a real good question. Brain science, at some level, in terms of drug abuse, has become voodoo, in a sense, because people think — I mean, that’s not to be disrespectful, because that’s my favorite sort of science, by the way. But the way we have been thinking about brain science is that people show you pretty pictures, pretty images, and you think that that tells you something about how they behave. It doesn’t. And so, from that perspective, it concerns me deeply. But on the other side, I am — I marvel at what we are learning about how the brain works, in general. And so, we are not anywhere near being able to explain drug addiction with our brain science yet. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to try and figure out what’s going on in the brain.


AG: You’ve been testing humans. How does human experiments compare with rat and animal experiments?


CH: Depends on the question that you’re asking. For example, if you’re asking a question about simple neurochemistry. When we think about dopamine, and you’ve heard a lot about that neurotransmitter, it’s in the brains of rats, it’s in the brains of humans. If you want to know what dopamine — what cocaine does to dopamine, you can use a rat brain to figure that out as well as a human brain, and that’s pretty close. But when you start to talk about drug addiction and the complexities, drug addiction is a human sort of ailment, not an ailment in rats. What you can do in rats is maybe model one component, maybe two components of drug addiction, but understand that that model might be quite limited.


AG: Last year, one of the nation’s most prominent doctors announced he had shifted his stance in support of medical marijuana. That’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the chief medical correspondent for CNN, openly apologizing for his past reporting dismissing the medical uses of the drug.


Dr. Sanjay Gupta: I have apologized for some of the earlier reporting, because I think, you know, we’ve been terribly and systematically misled in this country for some time. And I — I was — I did part of that misleading. I didn’t look far enough. I didn’t look deep enough. I didn’t look at labs in other countries that are doing some incredible research. I didn’t listen to the chorus of patients who said, “Not only does marijuana work for me, it’s the only thing that works for me.” I took the DEA at their word when they said it is a Schedule I substance and has no medical applications. There was no scientific basis for them to say that.



AG: Your response to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Carl Hart?


CH: On the one hand, I applaud Sanjay. But on the other hand, I might be embarrassed if I was a physician and I’m this late in the game. The evidence has been overwhelming for quite some time. And if you read the literature and have been reading the literature, this position or this change should have come earlier. But still, it takes some courage to say you were wrong. But I think that it’s been overstated how much praise he deserves.


AG: Dr. Carl Hart, can you talk about your life’s journey, how you ended up being the first African American scientist to be tenured at Columbia University?


CH: Well, that’s a question that society should answer. I mean, when we think about the numbers of African Americans who are in neuroscience and why — they’re low — and why the numbers are low, that’s an issue that the society hasn’t grappled with. And it’s related to some of this marijuana talk that we’re talking about. You played something about Kennedy earlier. Those kind of people, they sicken me, quite frankly, when we think about the role that racism has played in our drug enforcement, and those people don’t knowledge that? Those kind of — those types of practices have played a role in why African Americans are not in many areas in the United States.


AG: I want to go back to that clip right now. This is — you’re talking about former Congressmember Patrick Kennedy, who battled addictions himself, you know, through his time in Congress. He was on “Cross — “


CH: Which does not give him any sort of special qualification. That’s one thing we want to make clear. Because you are an addict does not give you some special insight about addiction.


AG: So let’s go to what Patrick Kennedy said on CNN last week.


Patrick Kennedy: Well, I’m also concerned about the minority community that’s now going to be targeted by these marijuana producers, because you look at the alcohol industry in this country. I’ll tell you what. More, you know, alcohol distributors are in minority neighborhoods by a factor of 10. I can’t even begin to tell you what the latest numbers are. You’re from the West Coast; you know what L.A. looks like.



Van Jones: Absolutely.



PK: Forget about it. There isn’t an equal — you know, and so, they have — it is insidious.



AG: That’s former Congressmember Patrick Kennedy, who co-founded the group Smart Alternatives to Marijuana. Dr. Carl Hart?


CH: So, when I think about what Patrick Kennedy says, if he was really concerned about the minority community, one thing that he would be talking about is this fact: Today, if we continue the same sort of drug enforcement policies, one in three African American males born today will spend some time in jail. I have three African American males; that means that one will spend some time in jail. If he was really concerned, he’d be worried about those kind of numbers. If he was really concerned, he’d understand that African American males make up six percent of this population, 35 percent of the prison population. That is abhorrent. And you never hear those people talking about those numbers.


And when we think about the dangers of marijuana from a scientific perspective, let’s really evaluate this. When we think about the dangers of marijuana, they are about the equivalent of alcohol. Now, I don’t want to somehow talk about the dangers of alcohol or to besmirch the reputation of alcohol, because I think that every society should have intoxicants. We need intoxicants. And every society has always had intoxicants. So alcohol is fine.


AG: Why do we need intoxicants?


CH: Makes people more interesting, decreases anxiety. Alcohol is associated with a wide range of health-beneficial effects — decreased heart disease, decreased strokes, all of these sorts of things. The same can be true of a drug like marijuana — helps people sleep better, can decrease anxiety at the right doses. All of these beneficial effects, we know.


And so, when we think — think about it this way. We have automobiles. They are potentially dangerous, particularly if you’ve been in New York City in these past couple of days, the icy roads and so forth. Now, in the 1950s, automobile accidents were relatively high. We instituted some measures — seat belts, speed limits, all of those sorts of things. That rate, even though we have more cars on the road, has dramatically decreased. If people are really concerned about the dangers of marijuana, we’d be teaching people how to use marijuana and other drugs more safely, because they’re not going anywhere.


AG: Go back to your life story, so how you ended up going from a real tough neighborhood in Miami to —


CH: Yeah, so, when we think about —


AG:  — Columbia University and being an adviser on some of the most elite drug policy panels in the country.


CH: Yeah, so, when we think about how one comes from point A, in the hood, to point B, where I’m at now at the highest levels of academe, there are some things that I point out in my book that are clear, if we were serious in this society. One thing was we had welfare. We had this safety net for families like mine. I had seven siblings, and all of us are taxpayers today, but we were raised on welfare. Make no doubt about it: Without welfare, I wouldn’t be here. Without some of the programs that the government instituted for minorities in science, by — in medical science, that helped me get a Ph.D., those kinds of programs. I had mentors, a wide range of mentors. And they were white, black; they were men, women — a wide range of mentors. And I had a strong grandmother, and I had five older sisters who made sure that I stayed as close to the sort of beaten path as possible, so I didn’t stray too far.


AG: You’ve talked about really recognizing racism, not when you lived here, but when you lived outside the country. So, where did you go to college?


CH: I went to college in the Air Force, and I went to college at the University of Maryland, who had college campuses on Air Force bases.


AG: Why did you go into the military?


CH: I went into the military because I didn’t get a scholarship, a basketball scholarship I thought that I would get. And so —


AG: You were a big basketball player.


CH: I was a big basketball player. I played on some of the best all-star teams in Miami and so forth. Yeah, so, I didn’t get the basketball scholarship that I thought I should get, and so I went to the Air Force. It was the only option. And while — my time in the Air Force primarily was spent in England. And while in England, I got quite an education about American racism. In England, they have programs on a regular basis like the U.S. PBS series “Eyes on the Prize.” And I learned a lot about the U.S. sort of civil rights movement and history while in England. And the British were not bashful in their criticism of American racism, because they didn’t have to look at their own. And so, I learned — well, more importantly, my reality was corroborated while I was in England.


AG: So you come back to this country, and how did you end up at Columbia?


CH: So I came back to this country, finished off my undergraduate degree at the University of North Carolina in Wilmington, went to the University of Wyoming to do my Ph.D. — it was the only program that accepted me in the neuroscience Ph.D. program — got quite an education from Charlie Ksir about not only neuroscience, about society, and did a number of post-docs from — at the University of California in San Francisco, at Yale, at Columbia. And this is how I came to Columbia.


AG: You begin your book talking about a human experiment that you recently did. Explain it.


CH: Yeah, so, this particular experiment was featured in The New York Times recently. I had read the literature, the animal literature, showing that when you allow an animal to self-administer, self — press a lever to receive intravenous injections of cocaine, they will do so until they die. But then, when I looked at the literature more carefully, if you provide that animal with a sexually receptive mate, with some sweet treats like sugar water or something of that nature, they wouldn’t take the drug. They would engage in those other activities. So I thought it would be interesting to find out whether or not crack cocaine addicts could also have their drug-taking behavior altered or changed by providing an alternative. And in that experiment, we used as low as $ 5 cash. And when you do that, you can see that they will take the cash on about half of the occasions —


AG: Wait, explain the scene.


CH: OK, when you explain the scene, you have a person, you bring a person into the laboratory. They’re seated in a chair in front of a Macintosh computer, so they can indicate their choice. On the left would be drug; on the right would be money. And they would have five opportunities, separated by 15 minutes, for example. So, every 15 minutes, a nurse will come in and ask them to indicate their option.


AG: Who are these subjects?


CH: These participants are people who meet criteria for crack cocaine addiction. These are people who smoke crack cocaine on five days a week about. They spend about $ 200 to $ 300 a week on the drug. They are committed cocaine users. And we pass all of the ethical requirements to bring them into the laboratory. They have physical examinations. They’re carefully monitored by a nurse, a physician, and so forth.


AG: So, you have them sitting in front of the computer.


CH: They’re sitting in front of the computer, and every 15 minutes a nurse will come in and ask them to indicate their choice. And once they indicate their choice, the nurse will bring in the option that they selected, whether it’s crack cocaine, whether it’s the $ 5 option. And when you provide an alternative like $ 5, they’ll choose $ 5 on about half of the occasions and drug on the other half. But if you increase the alternative amount to something like $ 20, they will never take the drug; they’ll always take the money.


And so, people say — sometimes people say, “Well, they’re only selecting the money so they can use drug when they leave the hospital.” Now, one thing that was said about crack cocaine users is that they couldn’t make rational choices once they have cocaine on board or once they’re faced with the choice to take cocaine. Well, they demonstrate — if that’s even what they’re doing, they demonstrate that they can display, or do, a delayed gratification, which is a good thing. But I know that most of the people in those studies did not simply take the money to go buy drug when they left the study, because we paid some of their bills. They asked us — they saved up the money and asked us to write a check for certain bills and that sort of thing.


AG: Were you surprised by your findings?


CH: I was absolutely surprised, when I started collecting these data in 1999, 2000, because I had been fooled or hoodwinked, just like the American public, that crack cocaine addicts, they — if you present them with a choice to take crack cocaine, they would take every dose, and they’d be crawling on the floor looking for more. And that’s just absolutely false. That’s a myth.


AG: Finally, Dr. Carl Hart, your assessment of the media in dealing with the issue of drugs?


CH: You know, since I’m a professor, so I give people grades, I would say a D, D-minus, and I’d say scientists deserve maybe a D-plus to C-minus, because it’s not only the media. Scientists also contribute to this misinformation, in part because scientists are so afraid that whatever they say will be interpreted as being permissive, and therefore they say very little. Scientists’ first goal is not communication, it seems. It seems like their first goal is not to be wrong. And we’re missing an opportunity to help educate the American public about how to decrease harms related to drugs.


AG: You just talked about your three boys, that you have three sons.


CH: Yes.


AG: What do you say to young people about drugs and alcohol?


CH: Well, so, I think of these things just like I do any other potentially dangerous behavior, like driving an automobile. I make sure that I educate my kids on how to be safe in driving their car, how to be safe when they have sex. The same is true with drugs. I make sure I let them understand the potential positive effects, the potential negative effects, and how to avoid the potential negative effects. I’ve written about this on AlterNet.org, a letter to my son about how to use drugs safely or what you need to be aware of.


AG: Dr. Carl Hart, I want to thank you for being with us. He is the author of the new book, “High Price: A Neuroscientist’s Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society.” Dr. Carl Hart is associate professor of psychology and psychiatry at Columbia University.


For a weekly roundup of news and developments in the drug reform movement and the injustices stemming from prohibition, sign up to receive AlterNet"s Drugs Newsletter here. Make sure to scroll down to “Drugs” and subscribe! 


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Debunking Some of the Biggest Myths About Addiction

Senior Gambling Addiction Rates Are Soaring in America, Driven by Corporate Greed and Bad Govt. Policy

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Senior Gambling Addiction Rates Are Soaring in America, Driven by Corporate Greed and Bad Govt. Policy

Debunking Some of the Biggest Myths About Addiction



Society is a long way off from understanding the "complex issues for why people really become addicted," says Dr. Carl Hart.









Democracy Now!was joined by the groundbreaking neuropsychopharmacologist Dr. Carl Hart. He is the first tenured African American professor in the sciences at Columbia University, where he is an associate professor in the psychology and psychiatry departments. He is also a member of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse and a research scientist in the Division of Substance Abuse at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. However, long before he entered the hallowed halls of the Ivy League, Hart gained firsthand knowledge about drug usage while growing up in one of Miami’s toughest neighborhoods. He recently wrote a memoir titled “High Price: A Neuroscientist’s Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society.” In the book, he recalls his journey of self-discovery, how he escaped a life of crime and drugs and avoided becoming one of the crack addicts he now studies.




Dr. Carl Hart, we welcome you to Democracy Now! The title of your book almost was the song we were just playing, “Trouble Man”?


Dr. Carl Hart: That was my vote, “Trouble Man,” but the publishers thought that it wasn’t 1973, so we should go with something more modern.


AG: Both your research findings will surprise many and also your own path in life. Let’s start by talking about, well, where you come from.


CH: Well, I come from — as you said, I grew up in the hood. And so, when we think about these communities that we care about, the communities that have been so-called devastated by drugs of abuse, I believed that narrative for a long time. In fact, I’ve been studying drugs for about 23 years; for about 20 of those years, I believed that drugs were the problems in the community. But when I started to look more carefully, started looking at the evidence more carefully, it became clear to me that drugs weren’t the problem. The problem was poverty, drug policy, lack of jobs — a wide range of things. And drugs were just one sort of component that didn’t contribute as much as we had said they have.


AG: So, talk about the findings of these studies. I mean, you’ve been publishing in the most elite scientific journals now for many years.


CH: Yes. So, one of the things that shocked me when I first started to understand what was going on, when I discovered that 80 to 90 percent of the people who actually use drugs like crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana — 80 to 90 percent of those people were not addicted. I thought, “Wait a second. I thought that once you use these drugs, everyone becomes addicted, and that’s why we had these problems.” That was one thing that I found out. Another thing that I found out is that if you provide alternatives to people — jobs, other sort of alternatives — they don’t overindulge in drugs like this. I discovered this in the human laboratory as well as the animal laboratory. The same thing plays out in the animal literature.


AG: What do you mean? You’re saying that crack is not as addictive as everyone says?


CH: Well, when we think of crack — well, we have a beautiful example now, the past year: the mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, for example. The guy used crack cocaine, and he did his job. Despite what you think of him and his politics, but he came to work every day. He did his job. The same is true even of Marion Barry. He came to work every day, did his job. In fact, he did his job so well, so the people of D.C. thought, that they voted for him even after he was convicted for using crack. But that’s the majority of crack cocaine users. Just like any other drug, most of the people who use these drugs do so without a problem.


AG: Compare it to alcohol.


CH: Well, when we think about alcohol, about 10 percent of the people — 10 to 15 percent of the people who use alcohol are addicted or meet criteria for alcoholism; for crack cocaine, about 15 to 20 percent — the same sort of thing when we look at the numbers. And we’ve known this in science for at least 60 years. We’ve known — I’m sorry, at least 40 years, we’ve known this sort of thing, but we haven’t told the public.


AG: So, you’re saying someone who has wine every night for dinner would not be considered an alcoholic in the same way if you take crack every day?


CH: Exactly. So, the criteria, to me — the way we judge whether someone is an addict is whether or not they have disruptions in their psychosocial functioning. Are they going to work? Are they handling their responsibilities? Or are they overindulging in the activity? And when we think about drugs like alcohol, wine every day, people can drink alcohol every day and still meet their responsibility. The same is true with crack cocaine. The same is true with powder cocaine. The same is true with marijuana. Think about it this way. The three most recent presidents all used illicit drugs, and they all have met their responsibilities. They’ve reached the highest levels of power. And we would be proud if they were our children, if they — despite the fact that they’ve all used illegal drugs.


AG: But they are saying they didn’t use them in a regular kind of way. I mean, who knows?


CH: Well, when we say “a regular kind of way,” for example, I use alcohol. I may use it once a month, twice a month, four times a month. It may vary, but that’s certainly regular. And so, when we think — I think the public, when they think of regular, they think of overindulging. And when people overindulge, like every day multiple times a day, it’s going to disrupt some of your psychosocial functioning. Now, that is a small number of people. Only a few people engage in behavior like that. And I assure you that if they engage in behavior like that, that’s not their only problem. They have multiple other problems.


AG: So why do some people get addicted to crack, and some people don’t?


CH: That’s a great question. People get addicted for a wide range of reasons. Some people have co-occurring or other psychiatric illnesses that contribute to their drug addiction. Other people get addicted because that’s the best option available to them; other people because they had limited skills in terms of responsibility skills. People become addicted for a wide range of reasons. If we were really concerned about drug addiction, we would be trying to figure out precisely why each individual became addicted. But that’s not what we’re really interested in. We are interested, in this society, of vilifying a drug. In that way, we don’t have to deal with the complex issues for why people really become addicted.


AG: Talk about brain science.


CH: Yeah, so we talk about — “talk about brain science,” that’s a real good question. Brain science, at some level, in terms of drug abuse, has become voodoo, in a sense, because people think — I mean, that’s not to be disrespectful, because that’s my favorite sort of science, by the way. But the way we have been thinking about brain science is that people show you pretty pictures, pretty images, and you think that that tells you something about how they behave. It doesn’t. And so, from that perspective, it concerns me deeply. But on the other side, I am — I marvel at what we are learning about how the brain works, in general. And so, we are not anywhere near being able to explain drug addiction with our brain science yet. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to try and figure out what’s going on in the brain.


AG: You’ve been testing humans. How does human experiments compare with rat and animal experiments?


CH: Depends on the question that you’re asking. For example, if you’re asking a question about simple neurochemistry. When we think about dopamine, and you’ve heard a lot about that neurotransmitter, it’s in the brains of rats, it’s in the brains of humans. If you want to know what dopamine — what cocaine does to dopamine, you can use a rat brain to figure that out as well as a human brain, and that’s pretty close. But when you start to talk about drug addiction and the complexities, drug addiction is a human sort of ailment, not an ailment in rats. What you can do in rats is maybe model one component, maybe two components of drug addiction, but understand that that model might be quite limited.


AG: Last year, one of the nation’s most prominent doctors announced he had shifted his stance in support of medical marijuana. That’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the chief medical correspondent for CNN, openly apologizing for his past reporting dismissing the medical uses of the drug.


Dr. Sanjay Gupta: I have apologized for some of the earlier reporting, because I think, you know, we’ve been terribly and systematically misled in this country for some time. And I — I was — I did part of that misleading. I didn’t look far enough. I didn’t look deep enough. I didn’t look at labs in other countries that are doing some incredible research. I didn’t listen to the chorus of patients who said, “Not only does marijuana work for me, it’s the only thing that works for me.” I took the DEA at their word when they said it is a Schedule I substance and has no medical applications. There was no scientific basis for them to say that.



AG: Your response to Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Carl Hart?


CH: On the one hand, I applaud Sanjay. But on the other hand, I might be embarrassed if I was a physician and I’m this late in the game. The evidence has been overwhelming for quite some time. And if you read the literature and have been reading the literature, this position or this change should have come earlier. But still, it takes some courage to say you were wrong. But I think that it’s been overstated how much praise he deserves.


AG: Dr. Carl Hart, can you talk about your life’s journey, how you ended up being the first African American scientist to be tenured at Columbia University?


CH: Well, that’s a question that society should answer. I mean, when we think about the numbers of African Americans who are in neuroscience and why — they’re low — and why the numbers are low, that’s an issue that the society hasn’t grappled with. And it’s related to some of this marijuana talk that we’re talking about. You played something about Kennedy earlier. Those kind of people, they sicken me, quite frankly, when we think about the role that racism has played in our drug enforcement, and those people don’t knowledge that? Those kind of — those types of practices have played a role in why African Americans are not in many areas in the United States.


AG: I want to go back to that clip right now. This is — you’re talking about former Congressmember Patrick Kennedy, who battled addictions himself, you know, through his time in Congress. He was on “Cross — “


CH: Which does not give him any sort of special qualification. That’s one thing we want to make clear. Because you are an addict does not give you some special insight about addiction.


AG: So let’s go to what Patrick Kennedy said on CNN last week.


Patrick Kennedy: Well, I’m also concerned about the minority community that’s now going to be targeted by these marijuana producers, because you look at the alcohol industry in this country. I’ll tell you what. More, you know, alcohol distributors are in minority neighborhoods by a factor of 10. I can’t even begin to tell you what the latest numbers are. You’re from the West Coast; you know what L.A. looks like.



Van Jones: Absolutely.



PK: Forget about it. There isn’t an equal — you know, and so, they have — it is insidious.



AG: That’s former Congressmember Patrick Kennedy, who co-founded the group Smart Alternatives to Marijuana. Dr. Carl Hart?


CH: So, when I think about what Patrick Kennedy says, if he was really concerned about the minority community, one thing that he would be talking about is this fact: Today, if we continue the same sort of drug enforcement policies, one in three African American males born today will spend some time in jail. I have three African American males; that means that one will spend some time in jail. If he was really concerned, he’d be worried about those kind of numbers. If he was really concerned, he’d understand that African American males make up six percent of this population, 35 percent of the prison population. That is abhorrent. And you never hear those people talking about those numbers.


And when we think about the dangers of marijuana from a scientific perspective, let’s really evaluate this. When we think about the dangers of marijuana, they are about the equivalent of alcohol. Now, I don’t want to somehow talk about the dangers of alcohol or to besmirch the reputation of alcohol, because I think that every society should have intoxicants. We need intoxicants. And every society has always had intoxicants. So alcohol is fine.


AG: Why do we need intoxicants?


CH: Makes people more interesting, decreases anxiety. Alcohol is associated with a wide range of health-beneficial effects — decreased heart disease, decreased strokes, all of these sorts of things. The same can be true of a drug like marijuana — helps people sleep better, can decrease anxiety at the right doses. All of these beneficial effects, we know.


And so, when we think — think about it this way. We have automobiles. They are potentially dangerous, particularly if you’ve been in New York City in these past couple of days, the icy roads and so forth. Now, in the 1950s, automobile accidents were relatively high. We instituted some measures — seat belts, speed limits, all of those sorts of things. That rate, even though we have more cars on the road, has dramatically decreased. If people are really concerned about the dangers of marijuana, we’d be teaching people how to use marijuana and other drugs more safely, because they’re not going anywhere.


AG: Go back to your life story, so how you ended up going from a real tough neighborhood in Miami to —


CH: Yeah, so, when we think about —


AG:  — Columbia University and being an adviser on some of the most elite drug policy panels in the country.


CH: Yeah, so, when we think about how one comes from point A, in the hood, to point B, where I’m at now at the highest levels of academe, there are some things that I point out in my book that are clear, if we were serious in this society. One thing was we had welfare. We had this safety net for families like mine. I had seven siblings, and all of us are taxpayers today, but we were raised on welfare. Make no doubt about it: Without welfare, I wouldn’t be here. Without some of the programs that the government instituted for minorities in science, by — in medical science, that helped me get a Ph.D., those kinds of programs. I had mentors, a wide range of mentors. And they were white, black; they were men, women — a wide range of mentors. And I had a strong grandmother, and I had five older sisters who made sure that I stayed as close to the sort of beaten path as possible, so I didn’t stray too far.


AG: You’ve talked about really recognizing racism, not when you lived here, but when you lived outside the country. So, where did you go to college?


CH: I went to college in the Air Force, and I went to college at the University of Maryland, who had college campuses on Air Force bases.


AG: Why did you go into the military?


CH: I went into the military because I didn’t get a scholarship, a basketball scholarship I thought that I would get. And so —


AG: You were a big basketball player.


CH: I was a big basketball player. I played on some of the best all-star teams in Miami and so forth. Yeah, so, I didn’t get the basketball scholarship that I thought I should get, and so I went to the Air Force. It was the only option. And while — my time in the Air Force primarily was spent in England. And while in England, I got quite an education about American racism. In England, they have programs on a regular basis like the U.S. PBS series “Eyes on the Prize.” And I learned a lot about the U.S. sort of civil rights movement and history while in England. And the British were not bashful in their criticism of American racism, because they didn’t have to look at their own. And so, I learned — well, more importantly, my reality was corroborated while I was in England.


AG: So you come back to this country, and how did you end up at Columbia?


CH: So I came back to this country, finished off my undergraduate degree at the University of North Carolina in Wilmington, went to the University of Wyoming to do my Ph.D. — it was the only program that accepted me in the neuroscience Ph.D. program — got quite an education from Charlie Ksir about not only neuroscience, about society, and did a number of post-docs from — at the University of California in San Francisco, at Yale, at Columbia. And this is how I came to Columbia.


AG: You begin your book talking about a human experiment that you recently did. Explain it.


CH: Yeah, so, this particular experiment was featured in The New York Times recently. I had read the literature, the animal literature, showing that when you allow an animal to self-administer, self — press a lever to receive intravenous injections of cocaine, they will do so until they die. But then, when I looked at the literature more carefully, if you provide that animal with a sexually receptive mate, with some sweet treats like sugar water or something of that nature, they wouldn’t take the drug. They would engage in those other activities. So I thought it would be interesting to find out whether or not crack cocaine addicts could also have their drug-taking behavior altered or changed by providing an alternative. And in that experiment, we used as low as $ 5 cash. And when you do that, you can see that they will take the cash on about half of the occasions —


AG: Wait, explain the scene.


CH: OK, when you explain the scene, you have a person, you bring a person into the laboratory. They’re seated in a chair in front of a Macintosh computer, so they can indicate their choice. On the left would be drug; on the right would be money. And they would have five opportunities, separated by 15 minutes, for example. So, every 15 minutes, a nurse will come in and ask them to indicate their option.


AG: Who are these subjects?


CH: These participants are people who meet criteria for crack cocaine addiction. These are people who smoke crack cocaine on five days a week about. They spend about $ 200 to $ 300 a week on the drug. They are committed cocaine users. And we pass all of the ethical requirements to bring them into the laboratory. They have physical examinations. They’re carefully monitored by a nurse, a physician, and so forth.


AG: So, you have them sitting in front of the computer.


CH: They’re sitting in front of the computer, and every 15 minutes a nurse will come in and ask them to indicate their choice. And once they indicate their choice, the nurse will bring in the option that they selected, whether it’s crack cocaine, whether it’s the $ 5 option. And when you provide an alternative like $ 5, they’ll choose $ 5 on about half of the occasions and drug on the other half. But if you increase the alternative amount to something like $ 20, they will never take the drug; they’ll always take the money.


And so, people say — sometimes people say, “Well, they’re only selecting the money so they can use drug when they leave the hospital.” Now, one thing that was said about crack cocaine users is that they couldn’t make rational choices once they have cocaine on board or once they’re faced with the choice to take cocaine. Well, they demonstrate — if that’s even what they’re doing, they demonstrate that they can display, or do, a delayed gratification, which is a good thing. But I know that most of the people in those studies did not simply take the money to go buy drug when they left the study, because we paid some of their bills. They asked us — they saved up the money and asked us to write a check for certain bills and that sort of thing.


AG: Were you surprised by your findings?


CH: I was absolutely surprised, when I started collecting these data in 1999, 2000, because I had been fooled or hoodwinked, just like the American public, that crack cocaine addicts, they — if you present them with a choice to take crack cocaine, they would take every dose, and they’d be crawling on the floor looking for more. And that’s just absolutely false. That’s a myth.


AG: Finally, Dr. Carl Hart, your assessment of the media in dealing with the issue of drugs?


CH: You know, since I’m a professor, so I give people grades, I would say a D, D-minus, and I’d say scientists deserve maybe a D-plus to C-minus, because it’s not only the media. Scientists also contribute to this misinformation, in part because scientists are so afraid that whatever they say will be interpreted as being permissive, and therefore they say very little. Scientists’ first goal is not communication, it seems. It seems like their first goal is not to be wrong. And we’re missing an opportunity to help educate the American public about how to decrease harms related to drugs.


AG: You just talked about your three boys, that you have three sons.


CH: Yes.


AG: What do you say to young people about drugs and alcohol?


CH: Well, so, I think of these things just like I do any other potentially dangerous behavior, like driving an automobile. I make sure that I educate my kids on how to be safe in driving their car, how to be safe when they have sex. The same is true with drugs. I make sure I let them understand the potential positive effects, the potential negative effects, and how to avoid the potential negative effects. I’ve written about this on AlterNet.org, a letter to my son about how to use drugs safely or what you need to be aware of.


AG: Dr. Carl Hart, I want to thank you for being with us. He is the author of the new book, “High Price: A Neuroscientist’s Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society.” Dr. Carl Hart is associate professor of psychology and psychiatry at Columbia University.


For a weekly roundup of news and developments in the drug reform movement and the injustices stemming from prohibition, sign up to receive AlterNet"s Drugs Newsletter here. Make sure to scroll down to “Drugs” and subscribe! 


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Debunking Some of the Biggest Myths About Addiction

Thursday, November 7, 2013

VIDEO: ABC Anchor Elizabeth Vargas Checks Into Rehab for Alcohol Abuse







ABC News anchor Elizabeth Vargas has admitted a problem with alcohol and has checked into a treatment center.













Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.







To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.







VIDEO: ABC Anchor Elizabeth Vargas Checks Into Rehab for Alcohol Abuse

Friday, November 1, 2013

Sweden’s cellphone addiction may hinder child development – study



Published time: November 01, 2013 13:02

AFP Photo / Jonathan Nackstrand

AFP Photo / Jonathan Nackstrand




Swedish children may be suffering emotional harm because of their mobile phone-dependent parents, a study has found. One in five parents in Stockholm confessed to having lost sight of their child in a “dangerous place” while focusing on a mobile device.


A new survey by YouGov revealed that one in five Swedish parents have been asked by their children to put their mobile phones down. The problem appears to be particularly prevalent in Stockholm where 1 in 3 children complain about their parents’ dependence on mobile devices.


“Parents put down their kids and pick up their phones. It’s like this all the time,” preschool teacher Anna Lindelöf told Swedish newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet. “Kids have to play by themselves while parents sit and stare at Facebook.”


The study included 521 parents from across Sweden, posing them the question: Have your children ever complained about your smartphone or tablet usage during activities or vacation?


The investigation’s findings have drawn the attention of medical professionals who believe the lack of attention could have detrimental effects on a child’s development.


Pediatrician Lars H. Gustafsson told the newspaper, Expressen, that it was unusual to observe a phenomenon usually associated with depressed parent in mentally healthy ones.


“I often see parents who don’t answer when their children talk to them,” Gustafsson said. “Smaller children need interaction all the time, in everything they discover. The absence of that interaction is very bad for children’s development.”


The Swedes are avid smartphone users, with 63 percent of adults using smartphones, according to Google data. Moreover, Internetbarometer, a Nordic statistics company, found that the number of adults between the ages of 25 and 35 who own a smartphone increased by 32 percent from 2011 to 2012.


Cases of child neglect because of internet addiction have become more commonplace over the last few years. Perhaps the most extreme case was recorded in South Korea in 2010 when a couple caused their three-year-old daughter to starve to death because of their addiction to online games.


Police authorities said the couple spent up to 12 hours every night at internet cafes playing a game called “PRIUS” which allows you to create your own virtual life.


The husband, 41, and wife, 25, also confessed to police that they had fed rotten, powdered milk to their daughter and had often spanked her.




RT – News



Sweden’s cellphone addiction may hinder child development – study

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The United States of War: An Addiction to Imperialism


us-machine


The U.S. is Number One is weapons of war and domestic civilian gun deaths – and very little else. Historically, peace has not been a priority for the United States, which has waged war every decade since 1776. “The people must demand an end to war, not because it costs trillions of dollars, but because it cost millions of lives.”


A common description for the term addiction is, the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences, or a neurological impairment leading to such behaviors…” This definition is most appropriate in regard to the world’s most destructive killing machine – the United States military. The United States government has long developed an acquired taste for war. And because much of the US population is completely obsequious to whatever their duplicitous government tells them, they, too, have become complacent to a perpetual state of war. Americans punch-drunk on nationalism fail to realize that “their” government is beholden to the interests of imperialism, not their general well being. Like well controlled puppets they chant, “USA number one”, over and over and over again, failing to ever question what “their” country is actually number one in.


The mental sickness of “American Exceptionalism” maintains the asylum known as American society. American Exceptionalism designs baseless sayings like, “USA number one.” US society is an extremely competitive and insecure environment. Ultimately, a place that encourages its citizens to ritualistically chant how good they are is not so sure of itself. Either that, or it does not wish the Hoi Polloi to ever question their government at all. The US is not number one in quality of life, education or overall healthcare. The USA is not even the happiest nation in the world, by a long shot. However, a few things the United States is number one in are: incarceration, gun related deaths and yes, military expenditure.


These are among some of the unsavory rubrics in which the US reigns supreme. If Americans meant any of those areas when they blindly chant, “USA number one”, then they would be spot on, especially when it comes to military “firepower.” With around 1,000 military bases, well over 10,000 nuclear warheads, and an almost constant state of war, the US is numero uno, without rival. The US is an imperialist monster with a voracious appetite for destruction. It has an uncontrollable appetite for war, caring little what it murders on its way toward global domination. This is evident in the vast number of civilians killed as a result of the US’s military campaigns. The vast majority of people murdered when the US decides to unleash its war machine, are, in fact, civilians. This is news to most Americans because they have been socially programmed to not even think about civilian casualties. They only worry about US military casualties as if those are the only lives that matter. Thinking about the catastrophic impact their government’s wars inflict upon innocent people, in “far off lands”, is well beyond many Americans’ social radar. This mode of thinking (or lack there of) has conditioned numerous Americans to lose vast segments of their humanity.


It is of little surprise that the United States government cares little about the “adverse consequences” that come with being constantly entrenched in war and global conflict. However, when the populace have adopted that inhumane way of thinking it paves a destructive road that we are traveling upon. The people are the ones whose responsibility it is to, not request, but demand an end to these wars of imperialism. Unfortunately, the United States’ mind control program, otherwise known as corporate media, has had a firm grip on the conscience of many Americans. This fact continues to prevent Americans from understanding that the people being terrorized by the US’s imperialist wars, are human beings – just like them. It especially prevents them from understanding that people in places like Afghanistan are, in fact, being terrorized by the US military.


Americans have bought into the orchestrated mythology that “their country,” when it enters/instigates a war, is doing so for some sort of benevolent reasons. Historically speaking, this could not be further from the truth, especially when we consider the number of civilians killed. Since World War I there has been a complete reversal of civilian deaths. During World War I, 10% of all casualties were civilians. During World War II, the number of civilian deaths rose to 50%. During the Vietnam War 70% of all casualties were civilians. In the war in Iraq, civilians account for 90% of all deaths. And when we look at the number of civilians killed by way of George Bush and Barack Obama’s drone strikes (alone), more that 90 percent of the victims have been civilians. However, don’t look at the fourth branch of the US government (the corporate media), to inform you of this. They, like the Pentagon and White House, could not give a damn about the number of innocent civilians killed. When former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and Secretary of State) Colin Powell was asked, in 1991, about the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US Gulf War against Iraq, he simply stated: “Its not a number I’m terribly interested in.” It is important to note that the Associated Press at the time quoted US military officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, estimating that the number of Iraqi dead at 100,000. However, other independent estimates place the number much higher. Not surprising, the Pentagon refused to provide an estimate of the number of dead Iraqi civilians.


The shear lack of regard for human life, especially that of civilians, is akin to that of a serial killer. The US military apparatus operates like that of a pathological killing machine with lust for war. The history of the United States more than backs up this assertion, especially when we consider the fact that since the US’s “founding” in 1776, this country has been at war 216 of those years. That’s right, out of the US’s 237 year existence it has been engaged in military conflict 216 of those years. If that is not an addiction to war, this author does not know what is. The US has never gone a decade without being engaged in some sort of military conflict.


United States imperialism is destroying the world, one nation at time. And within those nations are living breathing human beings. Is it really hard to fathom why many people despise the US? It has nothing to do with Americans’ so-called “freedoms” – instead, it has everything to do with the military destruction of their countries. The politicians that ultimately control the US military care little about the soldiers they command to fight in their capitalist conquests of wealth and resources. And they certainly could not give a damn about the innocent civilians in places like Libya, Pakistan and Yemen. They are not concerned with how they are perceived by much of the globe; they are only concerned with maintaining their imperialist advancements and control. You are either “with them” or “against them”; there is no middle ground. And for these reasons it should be crystal clear why people living within the United State must care.


Organized critical masses of concerned people must serve as the moral compass, and rehabilitation, needed to end the US’s addiction to war. Bluntly put, humanity depends on it. The people must demand an end to war, not because it costs trillions of dollars, but because it cost millions of lives. There is no dollar amount that can be used to measure a human’s life. All human life must be seen as invaluable, period. An American life is no more valuable than that of someone from any country in which the U.S. is waging war. The financial cost of war is enormous and is an issue, in and of itself – however, this cost pales in comparison to the cost of human life.


We must unite and be prepared to organize to end the culture of war within the US. Ending the culture of war in this country will pave the way for wars to cease globally, especially since the US global war footprint is virtually everywhere. Creating a culture of peace begins with changing our acceptance of the United States’ addiction to war. Demanding this radical, yet humane, change to take place is paramount if we are to mold a brighter future for subsequent generations. Peace starts with all of us. It is one of the most important tasks before us. We must be firmly against war, in addition to being for peace. They go hand in hand. Now is the time to start building that brighter and more humane future.


Solomon Comissiong is an educator, community activist, author, and the host of the Your World News media collective (www.yourworldnews.org). Mr. Comissiong is also a founding member of the Pan-African collective for Advocacy & Action. Solomon is the author of A Hip Hop Activist Speaks Out on Social Issues. He can be reached at: [email protected].




Global Research



The United States of War: An Addiction to Imperialism

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Renowned Doctor Gabor Mate on Psychedelics and Unlocking the Unconscious, From Cancer to Addiction



Drug addiction expert speaks on the mind-body connection and the medical and emotional potentials of psychedelics.








Gabor Mate, M.D., says the “unconscious mind” can cause medical afflictions like cancer, addiction and trauma. In his speech at the MAPS conference, Mate rejects the assumption that the human mind and body are separate entities, and points to an inherant connection between psychological/environmental experiences and medical afflictions. He contends that the war on drugs is actually a war on drug addicts, and speaks to the addiction cessation potential of psychedelic substances. He also discusses the potential ability of psychedelic substances, particularly ayahuasca, to reverse medical issues like cancer and addiction when coupled with therapy.The following is the transcript of Dr. Gabor Mate"s speech, ”Psychedelics and Unlocking the Unconscious; From Cancer to Addiction,” which he delivered at the MAPS conference in Oakland Calif., on April 20, 2013.


My subject is the use of ayahuasca in the healing of all manner of medical conditions, from cancer to addiction. And you might say what can possibly a plant do to heal such dire and life-threatening medical problems? Well, of course, that all depends on the perspective through which we understand these problems.


Now, the medical perspective, the allopathic Western medical perspective in which I was trained is that, fundamentally, diseases are abnormalities that occur either due to external causes such as a bacterium or a toxin, or they’re accidental or due to bad luck, or their due to genetics. So, the causes are outside of the usual internal experience—the emotional and psychological and spiritual life—of the individual. These are biological events, so the medical assumption goes, and the causes are to be understood and the treatments are to be administered purely in a biological fashion.


Underlying that set of assumptions are two other assumptions. One is that you can separate the human body from the human mind, so what happens to us emotionally and psychologically has no significant impact on our health. Number two: that the individual is to be separated from the environment. So, what happens to me if I get cancer? That is just my poor personal, pure personal, misfortune, or maybe because I did the wrong things like smoked cigarettes. But, that my cancer might have something to do with the lifelong interaction which I’ve engaged in with my environment—particularly the psychological social environment—that doesn’t enter into the picture.


But what if we had a different perspective?


What if we actually got that human beings are bio-psycho-social creatures by nature, and actually bio-psycho-spiritual creatures by nature—which is to say that our biology is inseparable from our psychological emotional and spiritual existence—and therefore what manifests in the body is not some isolated and unique event or misfortune, but a manifestation of what my life has been in interaction with my psychological and social and spiritual environment?


Well, if we had that kind of understanding then we would approach illness and health in a completely different fashion.


What if, furthermore, we understood something in the West which has been the underlying core insight of Eastern spiritual pathways and aboriginal shamanic pathways around the world, which is that human beings are not their personalities, we’re not our thoughts, we’re not our emotions, we are not our dysfunctional or functional dynamics, but that at the core there is a true self that is somehow connected to—in fact not connected to but part of—nature and creation.


An illness from that perspective represents a loss of that connection, a loss of that unity, a loss of that belonging to a much larger entity. And therefore, to treat the illness or the symptom as the problem is actually to ignore the real possibility that the symptom and the illness are themselves symptoms, rather than the fundamental problems.


It’s in that perspective then, that I’ve come to understand, quite before my acquaintance with ayahuasca, but that"s how I’ve come to understand human illness and dysfunction. Which is to say that illness and dysfunction represent the products or the consequences of a lifelong interaction with our environment, particularly our psychological and social environment, and that they represent a deep disconnection from our true selves.


I mention particularly cancer and addiction, but those are only two examples. Allow me to read you something from an article that appeared in last February’s edition of Pediatrics, which is the major pediatric journal in North America, and this is an article from the Harvard Center on the Developing Child, and it’s called “An Integrated Scientific Framework for Child Development.” Here’s what they say:


Growing scientific evidence also demonstrates that social and physical environments that threaten human development because of scarcity, stress, or instability can lead to short term physiologic and psychological adjustments that may come at a significant cost to long-term outcomes in learning, behavior health and longevity.



In other words, that the emotional and behavioral patterns that as young children we adopt in order to survive stressors in our environment allow us to deal with the immediate problem, but in the long term they become prisons. They become sources of dysfunction, illness and even death, if we’re not able to let go of them.


So, in other words, what was a short-term state, or meant to be a short-term state, in a helpful way, when it becomes a long-term state, when it goes from state to a trait, now it becomes a problem.


Let me give you a few obvious examples of that. I myself have been diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactive disorder, a characteristic of which is tuning out, absentmindedness. Now, ADD in North America is seen as a disease, and we see many kids that have been diagnosed with it. Now we have 3 million kids in this country who are on stimulant medications for it. The rates are going up and up and up.


According to the New York Times last week, 20 percent of American boys at one time or another have been diagnosed with it and 10 percent are, at any one time are on medication. Three million at least are on stimulants right now. It’s seen as a genetic disease. It isn’t at all. What the tuning out represents, as we all know, is actually a coping mechanism. Our brains tune out when the stress becomes overwhelming, too much to bear. And at that point the tuning out is a survival dynamic.


The real question is: why are so many kids tuning out? What’s happening in their lives? What of course is going on is that the stress in this society, and the stress in the pending environment are greatly increasing. So, the child’s brain is actually affected by the stresses in the environment.


And here’s further, from the same Harvard article, they talk about brain development and how the human brain actually develops, and here’s what they say about that:


The architecture of the brain is constructed through an ongoing process that begins before birth, continues into adulthood, and establishes either a sturdy or fragile foundation for all the health, learning and behavior that follow.



So, in other words, the architecture of the brain is actually constructed by the interaction with the environment. And they continue:


The interaction of genes and experiences literally shapes the circuitry of the developing brain and is critically influenced by the mutual responsiveness of adult-child relationships, particularly in the early childhood years.



Well, I can’t make this into a lecture on brain development; the point is that which circuits in the brain develop, and which patterns are engrained, has everything to do with the environment, particularly the mutual responsiveness of adult-child relationships. And therefore whatever interferes with that mutual responsiveness will actually interfere with the brain development of the child, including the neurochemistry of the child’s brain as well as the psychological emotional patterns.


Cancer


So then, if you look at cancer and addiction as two adaptations to stress, what do we find? Well, prior to my work with addictions, which is my most recent work —and I did that for 12 years— I worked for seven years as the medical coordinator of the palliative care unit at Vancouver hospital working with terminally ill people. And both in family practice and palliative care I had ample opportunity to see who gets sick and who doesn"t get sick. I noticed the people that got ill with chronic conditions invariably followed certain emotional dynamics that were ingrained in them so much so that these were unconscious and compulsive and for that reason all the more difficult to let go of. And, so who got cancer and who didn’t was no accident, nor was it for the most part genetically determined.


And, I’ve collected a few clippings from the Global Mailnewsletterwhich is Canada’s newspaper of record, or at least it thinks it is—and these clippings illustrate the patterns that I found in people who get sick.


And I’m saying all this because in talking about my work with ayahuasca and the potential healing that ayahuasca can induce in people, we have to understand what is being healed here. What is the underlying basis of these conditions?  


So, these newspaper clippings, then, illustrate something about what I have found in people who get sick chronically. And when I say chronic illness I mean cancer, I mean diabetes, rheumatic arthritis, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Lou Gehrig"s disease, chronic asthma, psoriasis, eczema, almost any chronic illness you care to name.


The first of these clippings is written by a woman who is herself diagnosed with breast cancer. She goes to her doctor, Harold, and you have to know that her husband’s name is [Hye], and [Hye]’s first wife died of breast cancer, and not Donna, the second wife, who’s diagnosed with the same condition. So she writes:


“Harold tells me that the lump is small, and most assuredly not in my lymph nodes, unlike that of [Hye]’s first wife whose cancer spread everywhere by the time they found it. You’re not going to die, he reassures me. ‘But I’m worried about [Hye],’ I say, ‘I won’t have the strength to support him.’”


What you notice is she’s the one diagnoses with the potentially fatal condition and her automatic compulsive thought is, “While I’m getting radiation and chemotherapy, how will I support my husband emotionally?” So, this automatic regard for the emotional needs of others, while ignoring your own, is a major risk factor for chronic illness.


These others are obituaries and obituaries are fascinating to me because they tell us not only about the people who died but also about what we as a society value in one another. And often what we value in one another is precisely what kills us. And the expression “the good die young” is not a mis-statement. Often the good do die young because “good” often represents compulsive self-suppression of their own needs.


So here’s a man, a physician, who dies at age 55 of cancer, and the obituary says:


Never for a day did he contemplate giving up the work he so loved at Toronto Sick Children’s Hospital. He carried on his duties throughout his year-long battle with cancer, stopping only a few days before he died.



So if you had a friend who was diagnosed with the same condition, would you say to him or her, “Hey buddy, here’s what you do: You got cancer, go back to work tomorrow, and not for a moment consider your life, and the meaning of your life, and the stresses that you’re generating. Just continue working while you’re undergoing chemo, radiation or surgery,”?


So this automatic identification with duty, role, and responsibility rather than the needs of the self is a major risk factor for chronic illness.


The next one— [applause] thank you, but if you’re going to applaud every time I say something smart, you’ll be applauding the whole afternoon. The next one, the next obituary, is about a woman who dies at age 55 of cancer.  Her name is Naomi. And this obituary is written by the appreciative husband:


In her entire life she never got into a fight with anyone. The worst she could say was “phooey” or something else along those lines. She had no ego, she just blended in with the environment in an unassuming manner



Now, I’m sure that many of you who are in relationships, sometimes you wish that your partner would blend into the environment in an unassuming manner, but the point is that the suppression of healthy anger that this woman engaged in all of her life actually suppresses the immune system. And I’m not going to go into the details of that, but the science of psychoneuroimmunology has amply shown that you can’t separate the mind from the body and when you’re repressing yourself emotionally you’re actually diminishing the activity of your immune system and therefore you"re less capable of responding to malignancy or to invasion by bacteria.


And again this idea that external things cause illness—take a condition like, uh, the flesh-eating disease, Necrotizing fasciitis is the medical term. And we think we know the cause, the cause is a bacterium, the strep bacterium. It isn’t. Because if we did swabs on the people in this audience, we did swabs of the throat or the crevices of the body, we’d identify the strep bacteria in probably 25, 30 percent of the people here. But there’s nobody here with necrotizing fasciitis, nobody here with flesh-eating disease.


In other words, the presence of the bacterium does not explain the disease. What happens is that the self-suppressive patterns in somebody’s life at some point will suppress the immune system, and that bacterium that has been living on your body in perfect unity with your immune system all of a sudden becomes a deadly enemy. It’s not just a bacterium, but the self-suppression that suppresses the immune system that actually causes the illness.


And I’ll leave you with one more obituary, and this is almost too incredible to believe except it is directly from the same newspaper. This is a physician who died of cancer:


Sydney and his mother had an incredibly special relationship, a bond that was apparent in all aspects of their lives until her death. As a married man with young children, Sydney made a point to have dinner with his parents every day as his wife Roslyn and their four young kids waited for him at home. Sydney would walk in greeted by yet another dinner to eat and to enjoy. Never wanting to disappoint either woman in his life, Sydney kept eating two dinners for years, until gradual weight gain began to raise suspicions.



Now, what this man believed, what he actually believed—and notice that there are core beliefs underneath all of this. The first one believes that she’s responsible for her husband’s feelings more than she is for herself. The second guy believes that he is nothing other than his responsibilities and duties and role in the world. There’s no true self there he can actually be with and be touched with. Naomi, the woman, believes, “If I am angry, I am a bad person.” And this man believes that he’s responsible for how other people feel and that he must never disappoint anybody.


Now, these beliefs don’t come out of nowhere. They’re actually coping mechanisms in a certain parenting environment. If the parents can’t handle your anger, if they can’t handle your emotions, if they’re too needy to trouble themselves then the child starts taking responsibility for the parent as a way of maintaining the relationship. In other words, the psychological coping mechanisms of the child then become part of his or her personality, and these same patterns that helped to cope with the original stress now become the major contributors to his or her illness and possibly death. What we’re talking about here are core beliefs that reflect the child’s early experience, that become ingrained into the brain and body as automatic and compulsive responses to the world. That’s my take on chronic illness.


And you begin to see now how some experiences could enlighten you that you are not those patterns, and if it can give you a sense that these patterns are simply adaptations, and that there’s a true self underneath that, and if they can put you in touch with the experiences that led you to adopt these patterns, then perhaps you can be liberated; then, perhaps you can let go; then, perhaps you can find the true self that doesn’t have to behave in those ways anymore. That’s where the liberation is. So, that’s with chronic illness.


Addiction


Now addiction. For 12 years I worked in what’s known as North America’s most concentrated area of drug use, the downtown eastside of Vancouver, where in a few square block radius thousands of people are ingesting, inhaling, or injecting all manner of substances.


And the question again is why do people do that? Why do people do such terrible thing to themselves to the point of risking their health? They lose everything, they lose their wealth, their relationships, their families, their homes, their teeth, their dignity—and they still continue with it.


The North American answer to that question is twofold. The legal answer, the socially sanctioned answer, is that these people are making a choice, they’re making a bad choice, destructive to themselves and harmful to others and the way to deter that choice is to deter them by means of draconian punishments. 


The so-called war on drugs.  But there is no war on drugs because you can’t war on inanimate objects. A war on drug addicts is what there is. And as a result of such retrograde social beliefs and governmental practices, the United States which contains 5 percent of the world’s population contains 25 percent of the world’s jail population, which is to say that every fourth person in the world that is in jail is a citizen of the land of the free. And all because of the belief that we’re talking about a choice here.


The other dominant belief, which is not identical—and you’d think would at least obliterate the first belief but it doesn"t—and it’s the one held by most medical doctors, is that addictions represent illness of the brain and particularly on a genetic basis.


The American Society of Addiction Medicine considers that up to 50 percent of the predisposition to addiction is actually caused by genetic inheritance. That is more forward looking in a way than our choice hypothesis, because at least you can’t blame people for the genes they either inherit or pass on to others, but it is no more right than the other hypothesis.


Actually, if you look at it closely and if you understand human brain development which I alluded a little bit earlier in my talk you realize that if five percent of addictions are genetic. That’s not radical to say—and I doubt that anything more than five percent is genetically determined. In fact nothing is genetically determined because we know that even people that inherit genes, and there are some, that are predisposed—not predetermined by predisposed to addiction—some people that inherit genes, in the right environment those genes are never activated. Genes are turned on and off by the environment. Therefore, what is in an environment that causes the addiction?


Of course the belief again then, among the many false beliefs about addiction, is that drugs are addictive. But we know that they"re not. Nothing is addictive in itself. I mean, is alcohol addictive? If I asked a question, “How many people have had a glass of wine in your life,” most people would put their hand up. Many of you would put your hand up. But if I asked you, “How many of you have had an alcohol problem,” a much smaller minority would put their hands up.


Now if alcohol was addictive in and of itself then anybody who ever tries it could become an addict. So, the power of an addiction does not reside in a substance. Whether that substance is crystal meth, or heroin, cocaine, cannabis, alcohol, or whether it’s behaviors like sexaholism, internet addiction, gambling, shopping, work and so on, it’s not the actual activity or substance that induces that addiction, it’s that internal relationship to it, the susceptibility. What creates susceptibility? It’s very simple: trauma.


Trauma


The drug addicts I worked with in the downtown eastside Vancouver, every single one of them had been abused as children. In the 12 years I worked there, out of hundreds of women I interviewed in the course of my professional work, there was not one who hadn’t been sexually abused as a child. And that’s not just only my personal opinion; it’s also what the large-scale population studies show. Not even controversial. Not controversial, but completely impenetrable to the medical profession and certainly to governments.  


So, the people who are in jail—there’s an American psychiatrist Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, many of you may know his work on stress and trauma, and he says that 100 percent of the inmates of the criminal justice system in this country are actually traumatized children.


Now, trauma induces its own set of beliefs and coping styles. One coping style is to shut down emotionally so as not to feel. Now you become alien to yourself. So you don’t feel the pain, and as one patient of mine said very eloquently, pardon the language, “The reason I do drugs is because I don’t want to feel the fucking feelings I feel when I don’t do the drugs.”


And Keith Richards, the Rolling Stones’ guitarist, in talking about his heroin habit in his book on addiction, sorry, book on his life —same thing—uh, [life], he called it, talking about his heroin habit, “It’s about the search for oblivion,” he says. The contortions we go through just not to be ourselves for a few hours.


Now why would somebody would not wish themselves to be themselves for a few hours? Because they"re suffering, and why are they suffering? Because the early trauma, early emotional loss, induces certain beliefs. One belief is that “I"m worthless.” Because children are pure narcissists, and I mean narcissists in the pure sense of the word. In other words, when something happens to a child, particularly a young child, it’s happening because to him, and happening because of him. So bad things happen, it"s because I’m a bad person. Good things happen because I’m a good person. But if bad things happen, I’m a bad person. If I’m hurt, I deserve it. I caused it. I’m unworthy.


So there’s deep shame at the core of addictions; there’s also a sense that the world is indifferent and hostile, and of course the child who suffers them is abused—the world was indifferent and hostile as they experienced it. But, as the Buddha said it, “it is with our mind that we create the world.” But, what the Buddha didn"t say was that before “with our mind we create the world,” the world creates our minds. And those minds are then shaped by those early experiences.


So, to the addict, the world is hostile—is indifferent—in which he or she has to manipulate and find some way to soothe themselves because there ain’t no soothing in this world, there’s no healing in this world.


Those are some of the core beliefs at the heart of addiction. And there’s a deep emptiness here, because as the spiritual teacher— and this leads me directly to speak about the ayahuasca experience—as a spiritual teacher here in California said, “The fundamental thing that happened, and the greatest calamity, is there was not any love or support,” speaking of childhood.


The greater calamity, which was caused by that first calamity, is that you lost the connection to your essence. That is much more important than whether your mother or father loved you or not.


In other words, the greatest loss we endure is the loss of connection to ourselves, and that’s then when we experience a deep emptiness that we’re so afraid of.


And this culture is all about stuffing full of products, and stuffing full of relationships, and stuffing full of activities, and stuffing full of false meaning. But of course the more we do that, the more addicted we become, because these things can never be truly satiating. So, that emptiness can never be filled from the outside. The way through the emptiness is through the inside—is from the inside. And that’s where the spiritual experiences, and the healing experiences, empowered by ayahuasca come into it.


Now, my book on addiction came out four years ago now, and I never heard about ayahuasca until after it was published. While I was writing it I began to get emails and inquiries from people, “What do you know about ayahuasca and the healing of addiction?” and I would say, “Nothing, I don’t know anything about it.”A week later, the same question. And this went on persistently for months.


I finally began to be both irritated, and curious. And then it turned out that there was an opportunity to experience ayahuasca up in Vancouver; a Peruvian shaman was coming up and leading some ceremonies, and I did do a ceremony. And I sat there in the dark with my heart open and a feeling of delicious nurturing warmth, the tears of joy rolling down my face, and I got love. And I also got how many ways in my life I had betrayed love and had turned by back on it, which is a coping pattern, because when you’re as vulnerable and hurt as a child as I was as a Jewish infant under German occupation in Hungary, then you close down to love because it’s too painful to be open to it.


The ayahuasca got rid of my coping mechanisms in a flash, and there I was experiencing something, and I knew then that this is something to work with. And within half a year I was working with people shamanically trained in Peruvian Shipibo tradition, and beginning to lead retreats. We’ve led a number now, and the results are increasingly but uniformly astonishing.


So I’m going to read you some communications sent to me by people that have participated in our ayahuasca retreats and then I"ll talk about their experiences and why ayahuasca is so potentially helpful. Although, as the previous speaker said, nobody should ever say that it’s a panacea.


So this is Dr. Stuart Krichevsky, who writes about ayahuasca. …


Decoctions like ayahuasca, similar to many forms of meditation, has salutogenic potential. Salutogenic meaning health-giving potential i.e. can enhance physical mental and spiritual health by calling into play what is referred to as participating consciousness.



So if you can become conscious of your patterns and your beliefs, these core beliefs, and how you attain these beliefs, then you can let go of them. Rigid feeling, thought, and behavioral patterns can unclench; the self can rearrange itself and develop its inner and outer resources more deeply. So there we get to the concept of a true self and one that can be reconfigured, or at least rediscovered with the help of the psychoactive plants, particularly ayahuasca.


So I’ll read you now what some people have said about their experience at our retreats, and I’ll talk to you more about the retreats and how they function.


“The last two nights have been challenging, but I"m getting good practice. Negative thoughts as they come up, under the effect, I can feel the physical sensation of fear in my gut as the thought arises and returns to a safer place.”



In other words, when you have a certain thought, like you have a negative thought pattern—when I say negative, I mean a self defeating, self-deprecating, self invalidating thought pattern—that’s not just the thought up here, that’s immediately a physical impact on the body. You feel it in the gut, you feel it in the heart, if affects your whole nervous system, your cardiovascular system, your immune system, and this person is getting in touch with how their thoughts are influencing your body.


“In the past I’ve made many bad, irresponsible choices with hurtful consequences to myself in others. Despite knowing that right now, I’m presented with new choices I can make from a place of love towards myself and the people in my life. It’s hard to push despair aside. The despair that tells me I will continue to make the same poor choices over and over again.



That’s the core belief showing up again that “there’s something wrong with me.” But this person at least is conscious of it.


This is a physician, by the way, who has nearly lost his license because of addictions, and his marriage is falling apart, and he came to the retreat. And he thought he had a perfect childhood, by the way, and I won"t even go into the details.


“The other very powerful moment I had involved looking at the sense of being too much for my parents. I know no matter how much love they felt for me, they probably were all alone with their own fears and anxiety. Well yeah, the father had a near-fatal heart attack at age 28. I’ve experienced myself as a child when this child was a one-year old. I’ve experienced myself as too much for the world for a long time. I’ve made a grand effort over the years to prove that true, which is why it cracks my heart open so wide to feel welcomed in the hearts of you and the people here, knowing that my feelings, my hurt, fear, sadness, and need for connection are not too much. I feel that the world can hold me, in fact, always has. And maybe I can learn to hold myself. It’s painful to think that Miles, my son, may feel himself to be too much for me. I desperately don’t want that to happen. Much love and gratitude.”



[break]


I won’t read you the other experiences, but they’re all the same sort of people experiencing love, gratitude, connection to themselves, experiencing the childhood trauma.


My daughter did an ayahuasca retreat. She said that she revisited all the sad places in her childhood, and because I was a workaholic, and was very stressed, and a very undeveloped adult when I was a father to my young kids, she’s has plenty of sorrow in her life. And she said that she revisited those sad places but did so with the loving consciousness and empathy and the compassion of an adult, and if you look at the brain scans on ayahuasca … what you see is activation of the temporal lobe, where childhood memories are stored; of the limbic system where our emotions are modulated and they live, and the front part of the brain where insight is made available to us.


We can connect the childhood experience, no matter how traumatic—and it sometimes comes up for people. Some really deeply disturbing, traumatic experiences come up for people during the ayahuasca experience. And those experiences may take the form of direct memory, direct recall of an image, or what happened to them, such as a body invasion, or other kinds of trauma, or it may take the form of really scary images and creatures, but it’s like a dream. In the dream, when somebody’s chasing us, we’re not afraid because somebody’s chasing up—somebody’s chasing us because we’re afraid. In other words, during sleep, the centers in the brain where childhood memories are stored get activated, and then the brain makes up a story to explain the emotion. And I believe that much of the same is true of the scary visions that people have during the ayahuasca experience.


The beautiful images, of course, represent more the core self. We get to see both the experiences in response to which we develop these coping mechanisms that give us addiction or cancer or other form of illness. We get to experience that core self and the beauty of the world, as it actually is, when we don’t see it through a screen of suffering and misinterpretation induced by our early experience. So, we get to see both what we’ve been running from and trying to cope with, and trying to manipulate, but we also get to see that true connection that true love, that true beauty, that true vision, that pure insight, that pure strength, that pure compassion. And when we do that, we realize we don"t have to cope anymore. We don"t have to run anymore. We can just be right where we are.


Now, that’s not to say that because you have that experience it’s going to stay like that.  That takes work that takes practice. If you don"t put in some practice afterwards, if you don"t get follow up, if you don"t put it into the context of your life, this experience just becomes a beautiful memory. But the impact of it will fade. So it’s transformative, but it’s only transformative if you allow it to be transformative. And it you work with it so that it becomes transformative. But if you do, it can be very, very powerful, it can be life-changing for many, many people.


I have to say something here about context here. I don’t lead ayahuasca ceremonies, I’m not on ayahuasca, I don’t chant, I just participate in the ceremonies. Leading the ceremonies are people who wouldn"t call themselves shamans, but I would call them that because their work is that effective. They chant, and they work with people energetically. And they pick up on peoples’ energies in the dark. I don’t do that.  I pick up people’s energies in the light. I hear it in the tone of their voice, facial expression, choice of words. They sit there in the silence while they chant and they are reading the energies of the people as they emanate from each individual in that circle, where they might be 30 of us in the Malacca. And then they chant to people specifically to unblock particular energies, or particular energy blockages.


Like a person with cancer recently—two weeks after she signed up she became diagnosed with breast cancer. I’ve told you my view of breast cancer, or cancer in general: it’s a repression of anger as one of the major dynamics in it. The shaman sits there in the dark and feels the blocked anger in that woman’s breast, and then works with it to unblock that energy. So, it’s not just the chemical effect of the plant, and I’m sure other people have emphasized the same point. … It’s the context, it’s the responsiveness and supportive interaction of the environment.


Remember what I said when I was quoting from that Harvard article about how the brain develops in response to the mutual responsiveness of child and adult? In the same way the healing benefit of something like ayahuasca is not simply the chemical effect of the plant, although that of course is inseparable from its other effects. It"s also the responsiveness of the environment in which people experience the ayahuasca. So, the experience has to be in a safe context, in a context where there’s guidance.


People sometimes have negative experiences, or they think they do because they had an experience they didn"t like, and so they resist the experience. And also, the personality has a way of invalidating our essential self. 


I’ll give you a quick example of that. There was a woman in a recent retreat who wanted to experience what was blocking her from engaging with life and herself in a full and passionate way. Next she reports with great disappointment and even resentment what she experienced during the ayahuasca ceremony.


“I just got psychedelic colors, for example, there was a psychedelic Indian elephant. I didn"t come here to get a trip with Indian elephants.”



The Indian elephant is Ganesh, the god-figure who unblocks difficulties. That’s what she experienced. And in some part of her brain she knew that. But because she was resisting the experience rather than being open to it, she actually missed the point. Now, that’s okay. If you go through it that way you’ll still learn what you need to learn, so I’m not negating her experience. In fact, it turned out to be a beautiful experience for her. But people sometimes need the guidance to understand the experience. It’s not enough, the experience. We have to find the meaning of the experience, and that’s where my role comes in. That’s what I help people with. But that wouldn’t be possible without the astonishing work of the ayahuasceros, the ayahuasceras, that I work with.


So it’s an overall gestalt; the plant, the ceremony, the chanting, the energetic work, and the psychological-emotional preparation beforehand, integration afterwards, and the joint exploration and the identification of meaning.


[applause]


Well, thank you.





Gabor Mate is a Canadian physician, speaker and author of four books. He teaches and leads seminars internationally. He has worked in family practice and palliative care and for 12 years worked on Vancouver"s downtown eastside, notorious as North America’s most concentrated area of drug use. For more information visit DrGaborMate.com.





 
AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



Renowned Doctor Gabor Mate on Psychedelics and Unlocking the Unconscious, From Cancer to Addiction