Not something I agree with: addiction

http://beyondmeds.com/2013/06/08/we-are-all-addicts/

I'm with you in this age-old discussion.  There is a difference.

Well, I'm totally on board with you two on the importance of language when discussing prescription drug addiction/dependence. 

 

This article is different though because in essence, I totally understand and even agree with the heart of what she's trying to say.  However, I will say that this is not exactly my favorite piece of writing.  It's a bit of a mishmash, in my opinion, and open to misinterpretation.  And it seems to me she's also somewhat missing the point, e.g: 

 

"Some people who are prescribed their drugs like the term accidental addict to differentiate from those who get their drugs illegally".

 

Dunno, is this really the real argument?  Legal vs. illegal? 

 

Anyhow, like I say, not my favorite piece of writing.

Hi all,

 

It is quite simple, really. Dependency describes a physical state. Addition describes a set of behaviours. Both those 'addicted to' and 'dependent upon' benzodiazepines are welcome at BenzoBuddies. It just so happens that those who are 'dependent' after taking benzodiazepines prescribed by - and as directed by - their doctor far outweigh the number of members who might be more accurately described as 'addicts'. The reality is that BB (and support groups like us) were formed by those who experienced very problematic 'dependency' to benzodiazepines. I, personally, do not like the word 'dependency' (I don't feel I was ever 'dependent' upon it for anything), but this is small semantic quibble, and is just opinion. Though, certainly, I would never choose to use the word 'addict' for what I went through, nor for the majority of our members. So, the majority of our members might prefer the term 'dependent', simply because that is a better (generally accepted) description of their situation. But, language being what it is, some who might be (objectively) described as being 'dependent' instead choose to describe themselves as being 'addicted'. And, vise versa. Although I can understand why some people are exercised by the (mis)use of these terms, and I think the words do have (pretty objectively) different meanings, we should not get bent out of shape by the term being used interchangeably. In the main, it is just people with different interpretations of the terms, and how it applies to them. I think both sides might make their points, but then just accept the (sincerely held) differing views of others on this matter.

 

However, what I really do not like, is when people try to tell others 'how it really is', without any regard to inherent inaccuracies of language, and that people will have different opinions about 'addiction' and 'dependency' (and most other matters too). To put that blog entry and blogger into perspective, we had a lot of problems with Gianna when she was a member of this community. She had what I can only describe as a 'hissy fit' when we rejected her calls (demands, actually) for us to have a 'bipolar' support board at this forum. She then habitually linked to her blog in most of her posts here (even adding a link in her signature line) after she was told by one of the BB Admins that she could not do this because she was soliciting donations at her website. She eventually stopped frequenting our forum. She did return, maybe a year or more later,; we eventually banned her account (for similar abuses of our linking policy).

 

After the ban, Gianna went on to misinform the readers of her blog of why she was banned from BB. I've long been aware of her blog entry about her ban from this site, but have not been previously motivated enough to address it (at least so fully).

 

http://beyondmeds.com/2012/06/06/ive-been-banned-from-benzo-buddies/

 

I was finally banned from Benzo Buddies which is rather amusing because I asked that I be removed from membership over a year ago since they would not let me freely share my experience of having been multi-drugged.  They refused to remove me. Since that time I’ve not visited as a member.

 

Actually, 'no', that is not what occurred. The blogger, Gianna, asked a third-party to intervene and request that I delete her account (this was after she left of her own accord the first time around). As a policy matter, we do not delete accounts unless requested to do so, directly, by the member concerned. At least twice I relayed back through to Gianna via the third-party that she would have to login and make the request herself. Instead, perhaps a year or more later, Gianna returned to BB, but never made a request for her account to be deleted. Instead, she continued from where she had left off, making lots of posts, usually with links back to her blog (with its requests for donations). This is why we banned her account! The original blog entry about her ban from BB is older than the updated one she has there now. The opening, updated information in the blog entry now reads:

 

Update: politics among us — I continue to be banned from benzo buddies and they continue to break the links their members post to my work (their members often post my work as they find it helpful) — the administrators of the site break the links to my site so they cannot be followed and misinform their readers that my blog is a commercial enterprise. I find this very sad. Very sad indeed. It’s also unethical and nasty to make out my site is commercial. I still link to them as being a reliable source of information to free oneself from benzos…there isn’t too much out there at the moment….and I care more about people’s ability to free themselves from drugs than politics. Still there are larger implications to this position they’ve taken with me that effect all their visitors. Essentially they deny the potential grave dangerousness of other psych drugs besides benzos. That is the bottom line.

 

This is the same kind of tone she used when she practically demanded that BB have a bipolar support board. We have a policy of not allowing 'active' (clickable) links to commercial websites (this includes sites requesting donations). And, actually, the links are not 'broken' at all - they were just made non-clickable. And Gianna's BB signature line link persists to this day (albeit, deactivated too). But, if we had decided to remove the links entirely, and/or any mention of Gianna and her blog from BB, that would be our decision, not hers. Gianna seems to have a problem understanding the limits of her domain; she demands that we change our policy as it is somehow unfair to her. What is "unethical" is to register with a group, agree to abide by their rules, to  knowingly and continuously break those rules when pointed out to her, and then lie about the reasons for her ban. It is also generally considered very bad form to enter someone else's 'house' and demand that they make changes to accommodate your particular interests.

 

So, anyway, that blog entry fits with what I already know about Gianna. I thought, given enough time, she would have thought better of it and remove the blog entry about her ban from BB. Gianna was wrong to demand that BB be structured to her own preferences; she is wrong to label all those going through benzodiazepines withdrawal as 'addicts'.*

 

I'd prefer to not write anything about Gianna. In reality, I am not particularly bothered about her (false) accusations regarding the circumstances of her ban from this forum. But, I see the same general (poor) attitude on display in the blog entry linked in the opening post here, so I felt I would comment more generally (probably more than I needed to).

 

* I mean no disrespect to those who might be more properly described as addicts (or choose to term their situation as 'addiction'). But, given the general stigma associated with the use of the term (and its generally accepted associated behaviours), it should come as little surprise that people who have problems with benzodiazepines, when taken as prescribed by their doctor, might prefer a different (and more descriptive) term.

"Some people who are prescribed their drugs like the term accidental addict to differentiate from those who get their drugs illegally".

 

Dunno, is this really the real argument?  Legal vs. illegal? 

 

It is part of the argument, but unfortunately some folks who believe that addiction and dependence should be treated the same seem to focus on this point without acknowledging the rest of the issue.

 

I still don't completely understand the reasoning behind some people's insistence that addiction and dependence are one and the same, but a lot of it seems to stem from a perceived sleight. Some believe that any attempt to "distance" dependence from addiction is a slap in the face to people who were truly addicted to something.

 

I can kind of understand why some folks might have an emotional investment in reducing the stigma of addiction by trying to lump dependence and addiction into the same category. The problems is that there is a price for obscuring medical definitions and terminology, and the people who end up paying that price are the people who are or will become victims of these prescription drugs and the medical system that dispenses them.

 

The thing that I have a really hard time wrapping my head around is the stubborn insistence that both are and should be treated the same, even despite clear evidence that muddying the waters has the potential to cause great harm to people. How anyone who has been through this can think that it is acceptable to throw benzo victims under the bus to avoid hurting someone else's feeling is a mystery to me, especially when it comes from someone who has supposedly experienced this nightmare personally.

 

For anyone who wishes to explore the reasons why it is harmful to conflate addiction and dependence, here is a two part article that explains it in far more detail than I ever could:

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/11/language-surrounding-benzodiazepines/

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/11/language-surrounding-benzodiazepines-part-ii/

 

 

I didn't know that Monica=Gianna. Well, it doesn't matter. It's not as if I'm a fan, I just stumbled on the post.

Interesting backstory, Colin, I wasn't aware of Monica until very recently so knew very little about her.   

 

I didn't elaborate that much on why it wasn't my "favorite piece of writing", was too cog fogged and in too much discomfort to articulate.  Admittedly, I was hoping one of the many deep thinkers here with mad writing skills (such as yourself and FG) might chime in and possibly do my dirty work for me.   

 

See, what was quite interesting to me was that, in addition to finding the actual content of the article (including the sensationalist headline) to be somewhat sloppy/arbitrary, it was also the overall *tone* of her writing that made me raise an eyebrow.  Rather than imparting passion and compassion, which I would have expected given her history and the message she was attempting to convey, somehow I sensed someone with an axe to grind, a chip on her shoulder and, yes, a holier than thou attitude.  Off putting.  I won't be running back for seconds any time soon.

 

Well, there you have it, my lazy Sunday amateur critiquing. 

 

In closing. 

Personally, when discussing these meds with family/friends, I use the words "addiction" and "addictive" freely and without hangup.  But it's in context and it's perfectly understood what I'm saying.  In the mainstream media and medical literature, however, I think distinguishing between the differences, and clarity of language is critical.  For all the reasons that have already been thrown out here many a time before. 

I didn't know this was the same person, either, though upon reading Colin's post I remember the brouhaha at the time since I was involved in it as a team member.  Not an easy person to deal with.

Hi,

 

I just wish to add, on the face of it, Gianna/Monica went through a really rough time. She is, quite evidently (and understandably) angry about what occurred to her. For this reason, I think she lacks objectivity. For similar reasons, this is why I caution members about extrapolating from the specific (their own experience) to the general; and is why BB has far more rules about writing style than content.

 

If Gianna is going to have such a 'crusading' blog, she will have to expect criticism. It comes with the territory. For the reasons I've already explained here and elsewhere, I do not think it sensible (or ethical) to make blanket (negative) statements about psychiatry and/or the medical profession. Things go wrong in every profession. And, of course, by the very nature of medicine, it is less exact than we might hope. Criticism and critiques are fine (and can be very useful too), but when we go further and make blanket statements based upon our personal experience (or the experiences of self-selecting groups), we are making the same kind of mistakes of which the self-interested medical trials by the pharmaceutical industry are sometimes accused.

 

So, I do not dismiss Gianna's experiences. I just take issue with some of her generalisations. Well, that and her explanation of why she was banned from BenzoBuddies.

I would like to thank Colin for adding his educated and learned voice to the 'debate' about language in treating benzodiazepine withdrawal.  Many of us have been anxiously waiting for him to speak out and are grateful he took the time to do so.  I suspect his words will be echoed in the many more threads that will surely pop up again here. 

 

It seems like I see links to Mad in America here all the time and they have a donation button.  How is that different from Monica's site?  How come Liberty is free to put a link to Monica's site but she herself can't?

 

I suspect this has a lot more to do with conflicts other than the issue of whether a site is commercial, and I just can't feel as down on her as you all seem to think we should be.  I've looked at her site and it seems to me she's knocking her lights out genuinely trying to help people.

It seems like I see links to Mad in America here all the time and they have a donation button.  How is that different from Monica's site?  How come Liberty is free to put a link to Monica's site but she herself can't?

 

I suspect this has a lot more to do with conflicts other than the issue of whether a site is commercial, and I just can't feel as down on her as you all seem to think we should be.  I've looked at her site and it seems to me she's knocking her lights out genuinely trying to help people.

 

Hi FJ,

 

Unless I'm mistaken, donations to MIA do not go to an individual (I could be wrong - please let me know if this is the case). Additionally, the position taken by a BB admin about Gianna's links to her blog (with its appeal for donations) was a reasonable interpretation of our rules. There is no specific rule about this. Edge cases like this are prone to possible inconsistencies (not that I think that the MIA case is a proper comparison to Gianna's). What I mean is, just maybe I (or another admin) would take a different view in either or both of these cases. Sometimes, it is a judgement call. Since I did not make the call, it is not possible for me to now post an unbiased view about what I would have done in either of those particular (edge) cases. But what I can say is this, I think the decision in each case is consistent with our rules (certainly not inconsistent) and that my guess is that I probably would have made similar determinations.

 

As for Liberty (or me) linking to Monica (Gianna's) site and how is that different? Simple. When Gianna did it, it was self-interested promotion. When Liberty (and I) did it, it was in the aid of discussion.

 

This has nothing to do with "conflicts". Gianna was banned from BB for consistently breaking our rules before blogging her (false) comments about the reasons for her ban from BB. The linked article, "we are all addicts" reminded me of other attitudes displayed by Gianna in the past. It was not an ad hominem attack precisely because I made clear it was her attitude with which I took issue. I addressed the content of her article separately. I don't have a problem with criticisms or critiques of BB, but if sufficiently motivated, I might point out flat-out falsehoods - this should hardly come as a surprise. Here's an example of how I react to criticisms of BB:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=151694.msg2037304#msg2037304

 

Hardly the most eloquent critique of BB policies, but the poster is entitled to her views.

 

As for MIA (where the above appeared): I am not a great fan. Specifically, I don't agree with their reasons for allowing so-called 'information' originating from Scientology to be posted at their website. Indeed, Scientologists are welcome to participate there. As I've written many times, Scientology are not honest brokers of information (they have an agenda to spread their own brand of 'therapeutic counselling', Dianetics - the abolition of psychiatry is part of that agenda). Further, allowing the dissemination of 'information' from Scientology invites unnecessary ridicule and skepticism, damaging their aims (and the aims of others) to make psychiatry more accountable.* So, I do not have a positive bias towards MIA. However, from what I have read there, I think they do provide some good information, and potentially useful critiques and discussion. If Gianna's article had instead appeared at MIA, I would have been just as critical about it. And, if I might add, not withstanding my specific criticisms, I'm sure Gianna posts a lot of useful and/or interesting articles at her blog too.

 

I think it also worth me stressing that even BB members sometimes post (at BB) critiques of this place, its policies, me, etc. None of that, in of itself, is a problem or moderation issue. In example, I point you to the following BB thread, which questioned if BB could be more detrimental than positive for some people:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=48083.0

 

My initial response, here:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=48083.msg650876#msg650876

 

You might also read our feedback board.

 

Please keep in mind that BB is, first and foremost, a discussion space. And I am as entitled as any other member to post my views.

 

 

Edited to remove some repetition, for typos, and clarifications.

THAT discussion is walking around in my head for way too long. I live in a culture where everyone is on Drugs (drinking at 11 years old - me). Yes, Everyone. That tiny omount NOT (ab)using Drugs (including drugs like beta blockers, Pain medication, and so on)....i have not seen anyone and I keep looking. I am 30 Years old. See an talk to many People.

 

Getting prescribed ritalin at 12 yearso old - me.

 

Taking Drugs. My Father took pharmashet (non-Psychiatric) drugs all his life. For "Prevention of disease". Finally he got every disease these drugs have been promoted to prevent him from getting. (e.g. damaged Heart, blood Pressure...)

 

Self Medicating? Using drugs for fun or reliev of pain? Distract from harsch truths?

 

BUT (!) Being PHYSICALLY dependent! On Benzos. Is what it is. No one should ever be called a "Junkie". Everyone who has to experience THAT is a fek'n hero. You a warriors.

 

In Gernany there is that word for addiction: "Sucht". Ich have read many thousands of books throuout my life and love language". Today "Sucht" equals "addiction" - they call "Junkies" "Suchties/Süchtige/Sucht haben".

 

I love language: "Sucht" has its roots in "Siechtum" wich equals sickness.

 

In Germany "Sucht/addiction" DOES NOT equal "dependence". It seems frustrating but i can see it.

 

be well, stay. love u. Felix

Hi FJ,

 

Unless I'm mistaken, donations to MIA do not go to an individual (I could be wrong - please let me know if this is the case).

 

I know they recently posted that they are now a non-profit, so I'm sure whatever donations they get are required to go into a specific non-individual account.

THAT discussion is walking around in my head for way too long. I live in a culture where everyone is on Drugs (drinking at 11 years old - me). Yes, Everyone. That tiny omount NOT (ab)using Drugs (including drugs like beta blockers, Pain medication, and so on)....i have not seen anyone and I keep looking. I am 30 Years old. See an talk to many People.

 

Getting prescribed ritalin at 12 yearso old - me.

 

Taking Drugs. My Father took pharmashet (non-Psychiatric) drugs all his life. For "Prevention of disease". Finally he got every disease these drugs have been promoted to prevent him from getting. (e.g. damaged Heart, blood Pressure...)

 

Self Medicating? Using drugs for fun or reliev of pain? Distract from harsch truths?

 

BUT (!) Being PHYSICALLY dependent! On Benzos. Is what it is. No one should ever be called a "Junkie". Everyone who has to experience THAT is a fek'n hero. You a warriors.

 

In Gernany there is that word for addiction: "Sucht". Ich have read many thousands of books throuout my life and love language". Today "Sucht" equals "addiction" - they call "Junkies" "Suchties/Süchtige/Sucht haben".

 

I love language: "Sucht" has its roots in "Siechtum" wich equals sickness.

 

In Germany "Sucht/addiction" DOES NOT equal "dependence". It seems frustrating but i can see it.

 

be well, stay. love u. Felix

 

I was already vaguely aware that there are greater (additional) distinctions between these two terms in German because a past German BB moderator made mention of it. But, I don't recall that Patrick59 posted the details.

 

Thank you for the information.

Hi FJ,

 

Unless I'm mistaken, donations to MIA do not go to an individual (I could be wrong - please let me know if this is the case).

 

I know they recently posted that they are now a non-profit, so I'm sure whatever donations they get are required to go into a specific non-individual account.

 

Good to know.

 

Links and active links are taken on a case-by-case basis. Websites which request donations are probably going to be the most scrutinised. It would be, for example, highly unlikely that we would allow links (even inactive, non-clickable) to say, a Gofundme page. Conversely, links, even active links, are not only tolerated, but actively encouraged when discussing an article from a (legitimate, usually commercial) news organisation - that Infowars website, for example, does not count. We generally do not allow active links to specific products, but an inactive (non-spammy) link is usually OK if it aids discussion. The whole point of having limits on links is to discourage the posting of spammy content or financially-driven hyperlinks.

Addiction - where I live, somewhere in Europe, details will remain unknown.

 

It is generally associated with craving and abuse of drugs, tendency to dose escalations, criminal/antisocial behavior, lack of willpower, lack of morality. (a few other 'modern' 'medical' definitions as well)

 

Heroin, amphetamines, alcohol, tobacco (these days, not fourty years ago), cannabis, cocaine, and a few others.

 

These days: addiction to benzodiazepines (!), but not antidepressants or antipsychotics, statins, blood pressure drugs and many others.

 

 

i forgot to name the other german word- the one is " "Sucht" "the other one "Abhängigkeit".

 

 

tkank u and best gerards, Felix

True; theRe is a difference in how the definitions can be interpreted, just like most things, call it what you want. If you don't feel that you were dependent on the benzo, you're kidding yourself. Put a title on it to make one's self feel better if that's what you have to do. I'm an addict who was dependent on benzos. Doesn't hurt my feelings, I am true to myself. My opinion and my opinion only. Peace.

I could call myself polytox. I could lie. but i won't I have read the books Pihkal and Tihkal of shulgin and......long story.

True; theRe is a difference in how the definitions can be interpreted, just like most things, call it what you want. If you don't feel that you were dependent on the benzo, you're kidding yourself.

 

I don't know of anyone who denies being dependent on benzos.

 

The point of contention is with the term addiction. It is dangerous to treat dependency as addiction. Most people here are or were dependent on benzos but if you were also addicted to them that is something that requires a different kind of treatment.

 

As outlined in the links I posted earlier in this thread "Calling it what you want" can be detrimental to the health and well being of people who have been harmed by these drugs or who might be harmed by them in the future. In order for proper treatment protocols to become standard everyone has to be on the same page with the terminology. Until then people will continue to be misdiagnosed and mistreated.

 

Having been a victim of that myself my hope is that one day these drugs will be understood and respected in the medical community and by the general public for what they are, and untangling the conflation of the terminology used is the only way that is ever going to happen.

How would you treat someone who was addicted different than some who was dependent ? Are you referring  to addictive behaviors  like drug seeking? To that affect I somewhat agree. All kinds of people need mental health treatment, some go about all wrong ghough, I'll agree. I also agree that the medical community needs more understanding of the addiction or as it's said in the pharmacy, habit forming. They need to undrstand the hold benzos and many other drugs have on a person and their family. If I'm addicted, I become dependent, if I'm  dependent , I'm  addicted. If you're worried about social dogmas regarding addiction vs. dependency, you probably have more work to do on your self esteem. Why would it matter what you are called?  People call others much worse than that, at least people who have sought help or treatment have decided to better themselves. Their ways  of doing things weRe proven ineffective. I know plenty of people who prescribed benzos  and went to treatment, or stopped on their own. The ones who sought treatment understand the underlying cause that brought them to start using in the first place. The others are just miserable. If you feel that I'm wrong and the medical community pharmaceutical  companies  don't know exactly what they're doing by never ever prescribing therapy instead of pills you have been misled. It's much more profitable  to make customers instead of cures. My opinion only. Peace.

Hi Valiumheadnomore,

 

There are several problems with conflating addiction with dependency. If a doctor (particularly in the US) feels their patient is 'addicted', when in realty they are dependent, there is a good chance that the doctor cease to prescribe them benzodiazepines, necessitating a cold turkey withdrawal. We know this, because it has happened to many members of BB. Then, even if the doctor does not suddenly withdraw their medication, they might instead be forced (under threat of a cold turkey withdrawal) to attend a detox facility (which might be a reasonable option for some of those 'addicted', but not those who are properly described as being dependent).

 

Plus, the reality is that there is a stigma associated with labelled 'an addict' - it is just a fact of life. And that label can have consequences for relationships, work, as well as medical treatment options.

I understand  the label of an addict. I understand where you're going now. I'd like to bring this up with my doctor and different people I know with these afflictions. Thank you for providing the opportunity  for friendly banter.

I just corrected a couple of typos in my last post, but I trust that you understood my intention. Seems that you did.