Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(11,463 posts)
12. Shippenberg
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:49 PM
Jul 2016

(From #8)[font color = blue]>>If you read the linked article (Shippenberg) you will get a sense of the discussion as it currently is. <<[/font]

(From #6)[font color = blue]>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939016/<<[/font]

Would reading the abstract and conclusions be sufficient? And if we both agree that there's more to addiction than that, would we be somewhat more on the same page?

But would agreeing that there's more to addiction than that prove that addiction is not a disease somehow? But merely a sickness, a malady, a disorder?

Myself, I have a big interest in understanding what the brain is like before the addiction begins, or in the very early pre-addiction stages (recognizing that some people are hooked from the very beginning). Why do some people manage to moderate or quit before things get too far along, while others just progress and progress?

The Shippenberg link seems to be more about those who are deeply ravaged by the chemical, when the neurotransmitters and receptors and all that get fucked up.


Latest Discussions»Support Forums»Addiction & Recovery»Is addiction really a dis...»Reply #12