%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 Items to fit into your overhead compartment |
|
This SciAm article is only half a year old, so maybe it's still relevant. Massive Study Flips Our Story of Addiction and the Brain  Brain differences in children and teens who experiment with drugs early show up before they take their first puff or sip For decades, Americans have been told a simple story about addiction... That by itself should be the first clue that the story is bullshit: it's simple. ...taking drugs damages the brain... I'm not going to argue with this, but I will point out that American football also damages the brain, so banning drugs without banning football is hypocritical as all hell. "Kids can damage their brains in this approved manner that involves violence, but not this unapproved manner that involves feeling good." "But, Waltz, football has other benefits." I disagree, but that's a topic for another time. ...and the earlier in life children start using substances, the more likely they are to progress through a “gateway” from milder ones such as marijuana to more dangerous drugs such as opioids. Okay, first of all, I'll say that kids shouldn't be "using substances" either. But kids do a lot of things they shouldn't do. Source: me, former kid. Second, there is no such thing as a "gateway" drug. If it seems like there's a "gateway," that's only because those so-called milder drugs are far more widely available.Third, no mention of alcohol or nicotine? Nicotine is highly addictive for almost anyone, though the problem with it is probably more its delivery system than the chemical itself. And alcohol is objectively a way worse drug than cannabis, though from what I understand, neither of those chemicals are inherently addictive like nicotine or opiods are. So if you're keeping track, every quote so far has been the "simple story" they mentioned. But a recent study, part of an ongoing project to scan the brains of 10,000 kids as they move through childhood into adulthood, complicates the picture. It found that the brains of those who started experimenting with cannabis, cigarettes or alcohol before age 15 showed differences from those who did not—before the individuals took their first puff or sip. You know how I keep harping in here about the hazards of confusing correlation with causation? Or about getting the causation arrow backwards? This. This is that. Now, as always, I caution against using just one study to draw firm conclusions, even though—no, especially since—it agrees with my predetermined notion. But let's at least acknowledge the possibility that it's not the drugs that are the problem, but the brains. That said, there are obvious issues with the methodology as reported here. In separate interviews, the participants and their parents also provided information on diet and substance use. Nearly a quarter of the children had used drugs including alcohol, cannabis and nicotine before the study began. Self-reporting is one of the confounding factors in nutritional studies. How much worse can it be with kids who, maybe, tried smoking a joint but refuse to tell the scientists the truth? Having a bulkier and more heavily creased brain is generally linked to higher intelligence, though these factors are far from the only ones that matter. Bigger and groovier isn’t always better... This really doesn't have much to do with the point I'm trying to make, but I wanted to point out the amusing absurdity of "Bigger and groovier." Other research has associated some of the brain differences found in the study with certain personality traits: curiosity, or interest in exploring the environment, and a penchant for risk-taking. So, if I'm reading this right, it's not the dumb kids who mess with drugs. It's the smart ones. They only become dumb later if they get addicted. If these early brain differences aren’t caused by drugs, where do they come from? They could reflect certain genetic variations or childhood exposure to adverse experiences—both of which have previously been associated with addiction risk. In other words, it's either genetics or environment. Thanks, that clears everything up! While it’s still possible that substances could chemically interfere with brain development, contributing to the elevated risk for addiction among those who start drinking or taking other drugs early, the study suggests that there are other, preexisting factors at play. I'd assume that, yes, "substances could chemically interfere with brain development." There is no reason why both can't be true. It would be more complicated, sure, but we've tried the simple answers and they don't work. Conrod emphasizes that “risky” traits have pluses as well as minuses. For example, a tendency to seek new experiences can be critical for success in science, medicine and the arts. A willingness to take risks is useful in occupations ranging from firefighting to entrepreneurship. The trick is to help young people manage such predilections safely. Of course, we could also work toward excising curiosity, risk-taking, and intelligence. We're already making great strides in that direction. So, as usual, let's not get ahead of ourselves on the jumping to conclusions train of thought with regards to this article. It's promising that the research is even being done, and at least some people are moving past the "drugs are bad" thing and into a more nuanced perspective. But nothing's certain yet. Except that I'm about 99% sure that there's no such thing as a "gateway drug." |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
Puzzle Hub
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
