/head>
  Fondly and Firmly - the Gentlemanly Art of Spanking the Woman you Love
  Home    new/    misc/    1HouseholdDiscipline list    DisciplineandHarmony list    links/    Contact

More on addiction

Edited versions of several posts here:

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:55:46 +1100
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:43:21 +1100
Fri, 06 Oct 2000 19:41:42 +1100

Be sure to see the archives for other contributions to this discussion. My postings followed discussion on whether Domestic Discipline (DD) can or should be used to help an addicted person. Some people were adamant that it should not, and that no punishment could "cure" addiction. Discussions continued after the postings of mine which are reproduced below.

The the discussion started with message 3835.

Mr Fondman  16 October 2000

This is an edited and updated version of something I contributed to the 1HouseholdDiscipline discussion list.

The list's homepage is here: 1hd/ .

© 1999 to 2000. Let me know if you would like to quote from this or if you can suggest any improvements.

I don't think that the intention of DD (Domestic Discipline) is to 
change a person's underlying brain chemistry and function.  People's 
predisposition to addiction does vary in a number of ways, and there 
are some people who are pre-disposed to it for reasons which are 
genetically determined.  It would be pathetic to accept such a 
predisposition as justification for someone being addicted.  The 
predisposition means they have to be more careful - that they have 
greater challenges than most to overcome in order to remain healthy.

All of us face a challenge, since we all have the potential to be
addicted to certain things - not least of which is *spanking*!  Similar
endorphin addiction can happen with sex, long-distance-running and
extreme aerobics.  (Endorphins - endogenous morphine-like subtances -
are produced by the brain in response to intense pain, or perhaps in 
anticipation of intense pain.) Endorphin addiction is much the same as 
heroin addiction and, I think, in some ways, alcoholism (except that 
alcohol does far more damage than pure heroin or naturally produced 
endorphins).

DD is one of many methods by which people can more successfully overcome
their weaknesses.   That doesn't make the person any less predisposed to
addiction, but it could make the difference between overcoming this
predisposition and succumbing to it, perhaps fatally.  

Addiction is a terribly messy business, as can be DD.

I think the key article on a common genetically determined basis for
many addictions, including nicotine, alcohol, pot (yes it *is*
addictive, and like the US government used to say, it will drive you
insane if you smoke the modern stuff continually!) is from 1996:

Reward Deficiency Syndrome, by Kenneth Blum et. al. 

  (Dead link in 5005: 
   http://www.amsci.org/amsci/Articles/96Articles/Blum-full.html )

  Try:

  Abstract: http://www.biopsychiatry.com/rewarddef.htm

  I can't find the full article any more.

     http://scholar.google.com . . . Reward+Deficiency+Syndrome

Another article which may be of interest is:

  http://www.bma-wellness.com/addictions/Alcohol.html
  

Personally, I think that coffee and pot are the great under-rated drugs
of mental and relationship danger today.  Coffee will drive you nuts in
large quantities.  I think a cup a week should be the limit.  It makes
most people extremely irritable, stressed and erratic.  It exacerbates
fears, anger, crabbiness etc. all the things which can lead to the
conflict, corrosive behaviour etc. for which DD is often considered the
solution.  Pot causes paranoia, dullness, psychosis and can bring on
schizophrenia - not the occasional happy puff, but the continual heavy
smoking that addicts succumb to.  Both these addictive drugs can be fun
and relatively safe in small quantities, occasionally.

The dangers of tobacco/nicotine, cocaine/crack, alcohol and
opium/morphine/heroin are much better recognised than those of coffee and 
marijuana. 



Note: 29 December 2000:  An excellent 1981 paper on coffee is:
Caffeine: Psychological Effects, Use and Abuse
Sanford Bolton, Ph.D. and Gary Null, M.S.
http://www.garynull.com/Documents/CaffeineEffects.htm


To search Google Advanced ( http://www.google.com/advanced_search.html ) for "caffeinism" click here .
 

There are no doubt many papers on cannabis addiction.  One is from 1996:

Cannabis and Cannabis withdrawal
D. E. Smith and R. B. Seymour
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~apfdfy/Strategy.html
Google for "cannabis addiction" or "cannabis withdrawal" 
Perhaps if people got their endorphins naturally, legally, for free, on 
a regular basis from rousing spankings (and similar corporal-punishment- 
like chastisements) as part of ordinary life, then they wouldn't fall so
much for these addictive drugs and over-exertion!  I know one woman who
likes being spanked who did intense aerobics for the endorphins, the
music and the dance.  She admitted then to me that it was dangerous and
that spanking was safer - but she persisted with intense aerobics
several times a week for several years.  Now, she has so damaged her
tendons and joints that she can't run, dance or do aerobics.  Her
exercise addiction crippled her in her mid to late thirties - but the
equivalent spanking would have just left her with a sore bottom . . .
and her man with muscular arms and RSI . . . .  Maybe we need spanking
machines in gyms . . . . .

Spanking is addictive and potentially dangerous.  There will soon be
Spankoholics Anonymous.  

- Mr Fondman


Regarding addiction, I wasn't suggesting that DD could cure the
underlying physical processes which make people *want* to keep taking
the drugs, doing the activities etc. to which they are addicted.

I suggested that it could be useful in helping people not to *do* these
things.

Probably all of us could easily be addicted to various drugs - but we
don't have a craving for them unless we have indulged.  Those who have
indulged and become addicted will probably always have a strong craving
for the drug or activity.  DD can't change that.

Having a craving is not such a problem, but. (Using the Queensland
practice of placing "but" at the end of the sentence!)  It must be
frustrating to be eternally wanting something - but that alone is not a
life- or health-threatening condition.   The real problem with addiction
is that if the temptation is given into, then people take way too much
of something, or repeat an activity far too often.  The person does this
for the short-term pleasure (or short-term avoidance of withdrawal
symptoms) even if their long-term wiser decision is not to do so. 
There's nothing necessarily wrong with following short-term priorities
over long term - but if the long term is wiser then the short-term, then
overall, more suffering will result.  In this case the excessive levels
of drugs or activities damage health and happiness.  

In some circumstances, I believe DD can help people change their 
behaviour so they never take or go near the drugs or activities to which 
they could be addicted.   

Imagine there is a huge, stinking, deathly tar-pit.  We are probably all
in danger of going near it, slipping into it and perhaps being killed by
it.  We could all become opium/morphine/heroin addicts, for instance.  
Maybe some of us would not need or benefit from DD to get ourselves out 
of it, or to avoid the pit once we knew both its pleasures and sorrows.  
But if there are people who are more successful at avoiding the pit and 
its vicinity with a disciplinary arrangement, than without, then this 
sounds like an excellent use of DD!

 - Mr Fondman

[The following has been edited so as not to quote from or refer directly
 to other people's contribution to the discussion.  The following text 
 does not attempt to convey what they contributed - be sure to see the 
 archives to read their full contributions to the discussion.]

I am responding to a posting on addiction.  I agree with some of the 
points made and not others.  

When trying to clarify what I thought was a misunderstanding of my
original post, I wrote:

   Regarding addiction, I wasn't suggesting that DD could cure the
   underlying physical processes which make people *want* to keep taking
   the drugs, doing the activities etc. to which they are addicted.
  
   I suggested that it could be useful in helping people not to *do* 
   these things. 

I don't think that DD (or probably anything else) could change 
underlying brain chemistry and wiring.

The major health consequences of addiction are not the desire and the
underlying mental wiring, habits or whatever, but the actual over-use of
the drug or the over-doing of the activity.  If DD can contribute to
curtailing that over-use and over-doing - and if it can do so better
than alternative approaches, then DD is a good thing in this instance.  

DD would not *cure* addiction - rather it would help someone avoid the
horrible and often deathly consequences of giving into their addicted
impulses.

If everyone knew the long-term consequences of over-use of addictive
drugs etc. and if everyone always acted responsibly (maximising the
health and happiness of themselves and others), then no-one would be
addicted to anything!  In such a world, there would be no need for
Domestic Discipline or any other kind of discipline.

DD can be valuable for helping one person overcome their weaknesses. 
Typically the weakness takes the form of a short-term propensity to do
things which in the longer, wiser, sense the person knows are wrong,
unhealthy or in some other way are not what they want to do.

In general, I think DD should not be used to achieve goals which the 
recipient does not already agree with - but matters of health and
safety can be an important exception.

I do not think it is desirable to use DD to change a person's long-term
priorities.  That would be oppressive.  (Arguably, if you could forcibly
change someone's well-considered desire to engage in life-threatening or
suicidal activities, and you did so - saving their life - and the person
later thanked you, then this would not be oppressive.  But this is an
uncertain principle - since this could be a form of brainwashing. 
People have a right to kill themselves and make themselves sick if they
really want.  But there are contrary arguments such as their
responsibility to others - including their children - and their
responsibility not to burden society with the consequences of their
self-destructive behaviour.)


The fact that many, many people do suffer disastrous consequences, for 
themselves and their families, shows that an intervention could be 
regarded as successful if it prevented these outcomes, even if the 
intervention had some pretty serious, but lesser, problems of its own.


The definition of "alcoholic" is not 100% agreed on.  For some people, 
it describes a person who, through excessive drinking, has developed
the changed brain wiring (or chemistry or whatever) which makes them
either crave alcohol or at least which would cause them to be 
at risk of continuing drinking without proper self-control.

My medical dictionary has a long definition centred on "chronic 
alcohol abuse".  This seems to focus not directly on the state of 
the person's brain and capacity for lost control, but on the actual
usage of alcohol.

By the first definition, once a person becomes an alcoholic, there 
is no cure - they will always be an alcoholic, even if they have not
drunk at all for many years.  By the second definition, alcoholism 
involves current overuse of alcohol - so a person who was addicted 
but now does not drink at all would not be classed as alcoholic.

I don't mind about the exact definition of the word "alcoholic" but 
if it is understood in different ways, then needless disagreements
can arise.

It is a serious matter to develop a desire to drink which is so strong
that the person cannot control their behaviour according to their
long-term desire.  This is certainly not a good state to be in, but 
he really serious health problems are caused by actually succumbing 
to this desire to drink excessively.


Since a person cannot be watched over 24 hour a day, if they are to be
free from drug abuse etc. (including gambling, too much spanking or
exercise etc.) then they need to have made up their own decision to be 
healthy.  They must develop new habits, rules and motivations which 
prevent a relapse.

Simply punishing someone is unlikely to achieve this, because they 
should already have developed the desire to be healthy because of the 
more substantial reasons than avoiding punishment: that they want to 
live well and because they know that giving into their addictive urges 
is a sure path to misery and perhaps death.

Perhaps spanking and other forms of direct intervention - such as
grasping the poison sticks (as I refer to "cigarettes") or drink and
ceremoniously flushing them down the toilet - can help break an 
addictive cycle long enough for the addict to realise that their 
actions are not benign or normal and that they carry the risk of 
illness and death.  So perhaps DD or intervention could be a 
*catalyst* for the person deciding to be healthy.  This could be by 
halting their decline long enough for them to think clearly and/or
by impressing upon them that someone cares and that their actions are
very seriously wrong.


Alcoholism, heroin addiction and other addictions are often referred 
to as "diseases".  Certainly these ravage the person as much as the 
serious infectious diseases.  Also, the behaviours and resulting 
addictions tend to spread from one person to another, so it seems
as if the society is being infected by a contagious disease.  This is
particularly so with illegal drugs, where the easiest way of supporting
a habit is to sell the drug - including to people who have never 
used it before.  

I am wary of characterising addiction as a disease.  In one sense it is
a diseased condition of the body - the addicted brain is different
because it has learnt intense short-term pleasure will result from the
drug or activity.  This addictive wiring is a problem when the intense
pleasure over-rides the person's longer-term, wiser, desire to be
healthy and drug-free.

However, addiction is different from infectious, developmental and
degenerative disease and cancer.  Infectious disease starts with a
virus, bacteria or other pathogen invading the body.  Usually, this
happens in a way unrelated to the person's behaviour.  The course of
infectious disease is not affected much or at all by the person's
behaviour or thinking.  Developmental disease results from genetic
abnormalities or something going wrong as the body develops. 
Degenerative diseases are caused by age, diet, exercise etc. - or by
prior infections and injuries.  Cancer is the body allowing, or being
unable to fight, a cell which mutates so its descendants multiply
without limit.  Behaviour has little or nothing to do with the onset or
problems caused by these diseases.

In contrast, addiction only occurs because the person takes excessive
drugs or over-indulges in some particular activity - such a gambling,
endorphin-inducing levels of exercise etc.

Addiction requires two things.  Firstly the human potential we all have
for the addicted state to develop in our brains.  Secondly the behaviour
which causes those changes.

Addictive desire on on its own - without the drug consumption - is not
life-threatening, though an addicted person who continually resists the
urge to indulge would be unhappier and perhaps suffer some other
complications compared to a normal person.

The real problem with addiction is behavioural - the behaviour of
excessive drug use or engagement in the dangerous activity.  Such use is
a serious health problem whether or not the person is an addict.


Addicts sometimes say "I can't give up".   I think that this is never
true and that it does no good to agree with them.  This feeling that
they cannot give up is the product of the addicted brain - which has
turned its creative energies to elaborate justifications for gaining its
addictive pleasures.

If someone says "I can't give up.", "Addiction is a disease which never
goes away, so I am helpless." or "I can't overcome my addiction unless
my self-esteem improves." then I think these statements are false and
that it would be doing the person a disservice to agree with them.

Continuing to satisfy the addictive urge is an active, conscious process
which involves multiple steps over a period of time - obtaining the 
drugs (alcohol is a drug in this discussion), going to a casino or 
whatever.  (However, in the extremes of addictive over-use of the drug, 
the person's thought processes are so degraded that they have little or 
no self-control and may be so unaware of their situation that they are 
not really "conscious" in the normal sense.) 

People can change their behaviour - unless they are certifiably insane,
or so thoroughly incapacitated as noted above. 

It can be very difficult and painful.  Having sympathy for them does not
mean agreeing with their idea that giving up is an impossible task.  
With a few exceptions (such as recent personal crisis or death of a
loved one) I don't think it does much good to agree with them if they
say they will find it easier to give up in a month's time.  To do so is
to allow their addicted brain to cave into their short-term desire and
so to further deepen their addiction by more and more doses of the drug
or behaviour.

If addiction is understood as a disease, I believe this understanding
should never gloss over the important distinction that addiction's cause
and primary problems depend crucially on behaviour - which is not true
of other diseases.


I don't think that any responsible person should stand by passively and
let a loved one - or anyone you cared for or were responsible - do
something which would seriously harm their health.

There are delicate, deeply frustrating, questions about how best to
support an addicted person.  Is it better to let them act of their own
free will and learn from the consequences (the short term, less serious
consequences) that they must overcome the addiction?  They have to make
their mind up themselves if they are to survive in the long term.  Or
would letting them continue their drug taking etc. simply give them a
message that their health-destroying behaviour was acceptable or safe -
or that it would be easier to recover from addiction later rather than
sooner?  Every extra dose of the drug or behaviour surely strengthens
the lasting addictive connections in the brain. 


I perceive what I call a "self-esteem movement" in the 1980s and 1990s.
A web search indicates that the term is in common use.  It is not a 
formal movement or organisation - but a diffuse but generally common 
set of beliefs which have grown over time and which are often accepted 
as self-evidently valid.

A brief critique can be found at: 

  (Dead link in 2005:
    
     http://voice.bloomu.edu/10-12-95/opinion/why.html

  OK, here it is at archive.org:

  http://web.archive.org/web/20021116101006/http://voice.bloomu.edu/10-12-95/opinion/why.html

  Why I pulled my kids from the self-esteem  By Ann Symonds  The Washington Post  )


In my view, the "self-esteem" movement holds that in most people there 
is no stupidity and no evil - that if someone does something harmful to 
themselves or to others then this is simply a consequence of them 
lacking sufficient "self-esteem".   I think this is crap.  There are 
systematic and personal reasons why people are tempted to do stupid,
unhealthy things.  Instead of fussing over "self-esteem" and waiting
around for the person to wise-up and act responsibly, a better form of

support is straight-talking about consequences, responsibility and how
you want them to be living happily, healthily and probably with lots of
fiendish but safe pleasures for a long time!  So a pep-talk about how
concerned you are about someone's behaviour and how you want to help
them overcome dangers is more constructive than being a complimentary
jellyfish and floating around while the person continues to act stupidly
and hurtfully.


I think that DD and other interventions may, in some circumstances,
reduce a person's slide into addiction, give them the strong emotional
messages that someone cares and that the situation is critical, and so
prevent immediate damage and hopefully foster long-term wise decisions
by the addict.  DD would probably be innappropriate where the person's
thinking has degenerated so far that they cannot make proper, conscious
long-term decisions or that their self-control and self-awareness has
degenerated so far that learning improved behaviour is possible.

[Some of the discussion on the list focuses on the bitter depths of
alcoholic over-consumption or alcohol.  That would be an example where
DD would probably be pointless and where mrdical intervention and 
preventing the person from accessing alcohol would probably be better 
approaches.  My discussion here also refers to less desperate 
situations - such as not starting or not continuing to smoke tobacco.  
A number of correspondents of mine have requested disciplinary help 
in overcoming their tobacco addictions and have reported that this 
has been successful.]


DD's primary purpose is to change short-term behaviour - ideally in
accordance with the recipient's wiser long-term desires.  The changed
behaviour should lead to better health and catalyse better thinking,
better communication and the addicted person making a lasting decision
to be free of their addiction-induced behaviours for good.

DD will not change underlying brain chemistry and addictive urges.  

I think that DD will not directly cause or force a person to really
decide to be healthy.  

If addiction is thought of as a "disease", DD is not punishing the
person for having a "disease" - for being an addict.  It is helping the
person avoid the really dangerous behaviour which the addiction would
otherwise lead them to.  


- Mr Fondman

.