Suicide split

[PapersAndPaychecks]

There's also a civil rights issue: why SHOULD the government control your recreational drug use? I can see justification only if you're driving or operating heavy machinery or something.

And if there's a good reason why the government should control that, then how can we justify alcohol being legal? After all, it's a drug associated with risk-taking and violence--not massively addictive, but if you ever do get addicted, it's one of the few that can be fatal if you quit.

[Algolei]

There's also a civil rights issue: why SHOULD the government control your recreational drug use? I can see justification only if you're driving or operating heavy machinery or something.

And if there's a good reason why the government should control that, then how can we justify alcohol being legal? After all, it's a drug associated with risk-taking and violence--not massively addictive, but if you ever do get addicted, it's one of the few that can be fatal if you quit.

Also coffee and cigarettes. Both highly addictive, each with some health concerns.

On one extreme, you can't protect anyone; on the other, you're oppressing everyone. I can't agree with either extreme, but I do want something in between.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

There's also a civil rights issue: why SHOULD the government control your recreational drug use? I can see justification only if you're driving or operating heavy machinery or something.

That was my main point, the only legitimate reason I can put forward for government interfering in drug use is that drugs demonstrably make people more dangerous to those around them. If we're talking about personal liberty, then liberty has to come with responsibility and part of that responsibility, arguably, is not engaging in behavior that predisposes you to use your liberty harmfully toward others. If drug use were merely a personal risk one could choose to take I would 100% agree that people should be able to do what they want, but once it becomes a question of drug use also endangering people around you, I don't think it falls solely under the heading of a personal liberty issue.

And if there's a good reason why the government should control that, then how can we justify alcohol being legal? After all, it's a drug associated with risk-taking and violence--not massively addictive, but if you ever do get addicted, it's one of the few that can be fatal if you quit.

Alcohol doesn't have the same long-term effects as narcotics and stimulants. Barbituates and hallucinogens also don't have this effect (although hallucinogens, like PCP, can have other, much stronger, long-term effects that cause the user to be a danger to themselves and society). Alcohol can lower risk aversion and increase violent tendencies while someone is under its effects, but those effects don't last past the presence of the drug in their body. Theoretically, that means that as long as someone makes arrangements to place themselves is a situation where they aren't likely to harm themselves or others during the period of their intoxication, they can meet their obligation to exercise their liberty responsibly. Of course, that's theoretical and in practice that rarely, if ever, happens. So, yeah, it's a conundrum.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I disagree there, though, BPoM.

You're correlating taking illegal narcotics with a tendency towards risk-taking behaviour, and you appear to be assuming that it's the illegal narcotics that cause the risk-taking behaviour. I rather think it's the other way around: a tendency to risk-taking behaviour makes you more likely to take illegal narcotics.

[mjollnir]

I think the imposition of the "suicide is a sin" taboo has to do with the fact that -
1) medeval peasants lived a miserable, hopeless life with no chance of improvement. Mothers frequently die in childbirth; children and babies drop like flies; you farm the land by hand trying to eek out meager sustenence; and each winter everyone you love faces hypothermia and starvation.
2) Heaven awaits, a blissful paradise with no pain, no starvation, no disease, and all your departed loved ones are waiting for you there.

Without making a special "don't kill yourself" clause, suicide is simply too logical a solution. And it would do no good for an agarian economy if all the miserable workers offed themselves.

Suicide can be a rational conclusion
- life is pointless and I don't like it, I quit
- life sucks, maybe in the next life I'll be rich and famous
- life sucks and I hear heaven is awesome

[AxeMental]

Agreed. But, suicide is almost universally looked down on (perhaps universally) even in societies not suffering under the same stresses. For instance, we still have it today. It also goes against the inborn survival instinct (why I think more people don't try it, and why its very rare in the animal kingdom). Oddly the taboo doesn't seem to be as strong as others (such as incests). As P&P pointed out their are cases where it can be considered good and nobel. I don't think thats typcial of most taboos. When for instance would it be considered good or nobel for incest to occur (in our society)?


As far as good and evil and how it relates to suicide.
I think THE ACT of suicide is generally "evil" though the people who commit it clearly are not (it is not their intention to hurt or take anything). They are suffering in some extreme way, and see life as too difficult to lead. Of the people I know who have tried or succeeded (and I get this feedback from others I've talked to about this) they almost always seem like nice gentle people (probably internalizing alot of stress rather then taking it out on others). Or, Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I don't know too many dirt bags. But it does kinda bug me that the assholes of the world rarely take this option.

P&P, I liked my rational (druggies offing themselves) better. It might work (what your saying) but would be a big risk in trying Govt. has every incentive to keep things as they are. Think about all the money they make and laws they can pass under the guise of "fighting crime".

BPoM, it does make you wonder, if the druggies got all the drugs they wanted wouldn't they be too stoned to actually commit the crimes (espl. if the deal was you had to take the drugs under supervision, like giant crack houses run by private enterprise). It would be an interesting experiment. I think what stops this sort of thing from happening is that many would consider legalizing drugs evil. Because it destroys lives, and everyone has moments of weekness (peer preasure, depresssion etc.) where they could faulter.

[TRP]

BPoM, it does make you wonder, if the druggies got all the drugs they wanted wouldn't they be too stoned to actually commit the crimes (espl. if the deal was you had to take the drugs under supervision, like giant crack houses run by private enterprise). It would be an interesting experiment. I think what stops this sort of thing from happening is that many would consider legalizing drugs evil. Because it destroys lives, and everyone has moments of weekness (peer preasure, depresssion etc.) where they could faulter.

Not to put words in BPoMPhD's mouth .. or on his monitor .. but unless a junkie had a 24/7 nanny-cop, I guarantee you that many, if not most of them, would still get into serious, and often totally avoidable, eff'd-up she-ite.

[JDJarvis]

Not to put words in BPoMPhD's mouth .. or on his monitor .. but unless a junkie had a 24/7 nanny-cop, I guarantee you that many, if not most of them, would still get into serious, and often totally avoidable, eff'd-up she-ite.

Yes, because they have to associate with criminals to get drugs.

[JDJarvis]

Suicide can be a rational conclusion
- life is pointless and I don't like it, I quit

If it's pointless, why take an action? Doesn't it imply there is a point if there is something worth quiting?

- life sucks, maybe in the next life I'll be rich and famous

The "next" life?

- life sucks and I hear heaven is awesome

Not if you don't get in because you commit suicide .

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I disagree there, though, BPoM.

You're correlating taking illegal narcotics with a tendency towards risk-taking behaviour, and you appear to be assuming that it's the illegal narcotics that cause the risk-taking behaviour. I rather think it's the other way around: a tendency to risk-taking behaviour makes you more likely to take illegal narcotics.

Obviously, those with a tendency toward risky behavior are more likely to do risky things (like take drugs). As I said before, it's somewhat difficult to tease apart personality from the long-term effects of drugs, but it's been done in some very good neuropsychological studies. The drugs do cause neurophysiological changes that enhance users' tendency toward violence and decrease their ability to inhibit impulsiveness in a way that goes well beyond mere personality.

One of the better studies on this, by Antoine Becchara, tracked drug users over several years (I think he targeted heroine and methamphetamine users over something like 5 years) and showed that there was a measurable dose-effect response over time (i.e. the longer people used those drugs, the stronger the effect) and that the behavioral patterns matched up with fMRI activity changes in the amygdala* (more activity) and prefrontal cortex** (reduced activity) that weren't present in the short-term users' profiles. In fact, the study also compared drug users to people with brain trauma in those two regions of the brain and found that the behavior patterns they were measuring exactly matched between long-term drug users and those with brain lesions in the amygdala or prefrontal cortex (for an example of the effect such injuries can have, google Phineas Gage).

*The amygdala is the region of the brain that generates behavioral options and visceral emotions (lust, anger, jealousy, etc.). Increased activity indicates someone is having more impulsive urges and stronger emotional responses.

**The prefrontal cortex is the region of the brain responsible for conscious decision-making, comparing alternatives and rejecting poor options based on learning and experience. Usually it inhibits impulsive behavior based on long-term consequences or goals. The prefrontal cortex, for example, is the part of the brain that is defective in people who suffer from Turret's Syndrome.

[TRP]

Not to put words in BPoMPhD's mouth .. or on his monitor .. but unless a junkie had a 24/7 nanny-cop, I guarantee you that many, if not most of them, would still get into serious, and often totally avoidable, eff'd-up she-ite.

Yes, because they have to associate with criminals to get drugs.

That's only one thing that gets them in trouble. Junkie's often do eff'd-up stuff whether they are high or clean for awhile. They'll get in more trouble when they're scoring, but they're still a messed-up individual, even when they're "straight". They're people with serious issues, high or straight. Giving them free drugs will not keep them out of trouble. I'll stick a 100% guarantee on that.

Please note that I am speaking specifically about junkies, and not Ol' Mary Jane Rottencrotch that sometimes gets high on a little weed after the school dance.

[Juju EyeBall]

Heroin junkies die from the lifestyle more than the drug. Yes, there are overdoses but those can be attributed to unclean drugs or taking too much after not being able to find it. Any doctor will tell you that heroin actually almost no negative effects on the human body (besides addiction) if taken in a controlled manner. You could use it your whole life if you could control yourself (which is never the case). I'm not advocating drug use by any means by-the-way.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Obviously, those with a tendency toward risky behavior are more likely to do risky things (like take drugs). As I said before, it's somewhat difficult to tease apart personality from the long-term effects of drugs, but it's been done in some very good neuropsychological studies. The drugs do cause neurophysiological changes that enhance users' tendency toward violence and decrease their ability to inhibit impulsiveness in a way that goes well beyond mere personality.

One of the better studies on this, by Antoine Becchara, tracked drug users over several years (I think he targeted heroine and methamphetamine users over something like 5 years) and showed that there was a measurable dose-effect response over time (i.e. the longer people used those drugs, the stronger the effect) and that the behavioral patterns matched up with fMRI activity changes in the amygdala* (more activity) and prefrontal cortex** (reduced activity) that weren't present in the short-term users' profiles. In fact, the study also compared drug users to people with brain trauma in those two regions of the brain and found that the behavior patterns they were measuring exactly matched between long-term drug users and those with brain lesions in the amygdala or prefrontal cortex (for an example of the effect such injuries can have, google Phineas Gage).

*The amygdala is the region of the brain that generates behavioral options and visceral emotions (lust, anger, jealousy, etc.). Increased activity indicates someone is having more impulsive urges and stronger emotional responses.

**The prefrontal cortex is the region of the brain responsible for conscious decision-making, comparing alternatives and rejecting poor options based on learning and experience. Usually it inhibits impulsive behavior based on long-term consequences or goals. The prefrontal cortex, for example, is the part of the brain that is defective in people who suffer from Turret's Syndrome.

I see several points to respond to there.

I think it's quite likely that long-term heroin and methamphetamine use is correlated with changes in the brain, but I would just like to point out that we were talking about crack, which is very dissimilar in its chemistry and its effects.

I think it's possible that it's not so much the drugs, but rather associating with the generally pro-criminal, pro-risk-taking social scene involved with drug taking, could be the cause, or a cause, of the changes you mention. The only way I see to clear this up is to compare it against drug users in a society where heroin is legal, and I don't foresee a satisfactory scientific experiment along those lines happening any time soon!

I'm wary of ascribing Tourette's syndrome to an atrophied prefrontal cortex. Again, I fear there could be confusion of cause and effect there.

I agree that some parts of the brain do seem to have a specific function--Broca's area and Wernicke's area are convincingly associated with language from studies of brain-damaged patients--but in Tourette's syndrome which is present from birth, changes in the frontal lobes could again be an effect rather than a cause.

You see, in young infants there's a very high degree of brain plasticity (which is the ability of the brain to adapt to damage--so for example, a young infant with a damaged visual cortex can learn to see again by using a different part of the brain to assume the visual cortex's functions).

So I think the cause of Tourette's and other present-from-birth behavioural disorders such as ADHD or ODD--probably doesn't lie in physical atrophy of a part of the brain, but in some form of chemical imbalance (for example), which would be a causal factor in both the behavioural disorder and the atrophy.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I see several points to respond to there.

I think it's quite likely that long-term heroin and methamphetamine use is correlated with changes in the brain, but I would just like to point out that we were talking about crack, which is very dissimilar in its chemistry and its effects.

In this case, no. Crack is essentially the same as methamphetamines in terms of the neurophysiological changes it induces in those two brain areas.

I think it's possible that it's not so much the drugs, but rather associating with the generally pro-criminal, pro-risk-taking social scene involved with drug taking, could be the cause, or a cause, of the changes you mention. The only way I see to clear this up is to compare it against drug users in a society where heroin is legal, and I don't foresee a satisfactory scientific experiment along those lines happening any time soon!

Detailed animal studies in rats, rabbits, monkeys, etc. show the same changes in fMRI patterns. Obviously, studying humans is more complex because they aren't in a controlled laboratory environment. However, it's important to note that controls are done and some of the controls done include using people who are non-drug-using criminals (mimicking environmental factors) and non-criminal opoid users (patients taking opoids for pain control for example). The non-drug-using criminals don't display the behavioral abnormalities of drug users. The non-criminal drug users do display the noted behavioral abnormalities.

I'm wary of ascribing Tourette's syndrome to an atrophied prefrontal cortex. Again, I fear there could be confusion of cause and effect there.

I agree that some parts of the brain do seem to have a specific function--Broca's area and Wernicke's area are convincingly associated with language from studies of brain-damaged patients--but in Tourette's syndrome which is present from birth, changes in the frontal lobes could again be an effect rather than a cause.

There are numerous documented cases of people who sustain injury to a specific region of the prefrontal cortex immediately developing Tourette's symptoms (the proper name Tourette's is reserved for non-traumatic childhood onset, but these cases are functionally indistinguishable from actual Tourette's). There have also been several studies done with electrical de-activation of specific areas of the PFC where the subjects develop Tourette's-like behaviors during the 1-2 hours that the region remains inactive. This is well-established science and is actually the basis for some of the more effective treatments of severe Tourette's that involve electrical stimulation of certain prefrontal areas with inserted electrodes.

You see, in young infants there's a very high degree of brain plasticity (which is the ability of the brain to adapt to damage--so for example, a young infant with a damaged visual cortex can learn to see again by using a different part of the brain to assume the visual cortex's functions).

Interestingly, the occurence of plasticity isn't limited to infants. In one extremely interesting experiment for example, a scientist named George Stratton built an apparatus he wore on his head that inverted his vision so that everything he saw was upside down. After about 8 weeks of wearing this apparatus 24/7, his visual pathways remapped themselves so that he was actually seeing things upright again. He then took the apparatus off and saw everything upside down for about 8 weeks until his visual pathways returned to their original orientation. He was middle-aged when the experiment took place (I'm guessing in his 50s).

So I think the cause of Tourette's and other present-from-birth behavioural disorders such as ADHD or ODD--probably doesn't lie in physical atrophy of a part of the brain, but in some form of chemical imbalance (for example), which would be a causal factor in both the behavioural disorder and the atrophy.

As I pointed out above, some instances of Tourette's are, in fact, caused by damage, but you're right that it's not the only mechanism for these types of behavioral abnormality. And that's just it, the effects of the drugs we're talking about aren't the result of physical atrophy or damage. The behavioral results are reproduced by certain forms of physical damage, but the drugs don't cause any loss of brain tissue. Instead, they exert their effect by changing the neurotransmitter emissions and receptor profiles of synapses in the amygdala and PFC. There is no doubt that this is some form of plasticity at work, with the brain permanently altering itself in response to the stimulus it receives as a result of using drugs.

The behaviors the drugs induce aren't as simple as a loss of cognitive function (i.e. people lose the ability to think clearly). The studies I'm talking about control for cognitive functioning very stringently to ensure that changes in behavior aren't linked to changes in the ability to process information. The changes in behavior are strongly linked to changes in the ability of the long-term planning, impulse-control parts of the brain to overpower the impulse-generating, emotional parts of the brain. In fact, the people involved in these tests cognitively KNOW that the choices they are making are suboptimal. They KNOW the choices they should be making and can explain in great detail WHY the choices they are making are suboptimal. But they are (spookily) unable to stop themselves from making the poor choices that the impulsive parts of their brain prefer.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

In this case, no. Crack is essentially the same as methamphetamines in terms of the neurophysiological changes it induces in those two brain areas.

I'm surprised, and would be interested to read more about this.

Detailed animal studies in rats, rabbits, monkeys, etc. show the same changes in fMRI patterns. Obviously, studying humans is more complex because they aren't in a controlled laboratory environment. However, it's important to note that controls are done and some of the controls done include using people who are non-drug-using criminals (mimicking environmental factors) and non-criminal opoid users (patients taking opoids for pain control for example). The non-drug-using criminals don't display the behavioral abnormalities of drug users. The non-criminal drug users do display the noted behavioral abnormalities.

Specifically which behavioural abnormalities?

There are numerous documented cases of people who sustain injury to a specific region of the prefrontal cortex immediately developing Tourette's symptoms (the proper name Tourette's is reserved for non-traumatic childhood onset, but these cases are functionally indistinguishable from actual Tourette's).

Tourette's does rather strongly appear to be an inherited condition.

It's not particularly common, but there's significant overlap between the population of young people with Tourette's, and the population of young people in the criminal justice system, which means I meet a fair few of them (as well as a fair few crack users!) None of the cases I've encountered have ever been trauma-induced.

I imagine it's possible for brain injury to produce tics, though. This is the frustrating thing about clinical psychology--it's horribly vague and full of special cases, which makes it very difficult to get a handle on. I think it's quite likely that all of the commonly-diagnosed syndromes or illnesses (schizophrenia, autism, Tourette's, OCD, ADHD, bipolar, and even Alzheimers) are actually families of conditions--in other words, "Tourette's" is about as specific as "heart disease". There's a lot of research to go before we can diagnose neuropsychological conditions as specifically as "myocardial infarction" (if you follow the analogy).

Interestingly, the occurence of plasticity isn't limited to infants. In one extremely interesting experiment for example, a scientist named George Stratton built an apparatus he wore on his head that inverted his vision so that everything he saw was upside down. After about 8 weeks of wearing this apparatus 24/7, his visual pathways remapped themselves so that he was actually seeing things upright again. He then took the apparatus off and saw everything upside down for about 8 weeks until his visual pathways returned to their original orientation. He was middle-aged when the experiment took place (I'm guessing in his 50s).

That must be one of the most famous psychology experiments ever. I imagine every psychology undergraduate comes across it in the first year of their degree, along with the split-brain patients (those who had their corpus callosum severed to treat grand mal epilepsy) and the Milgram Experiment.

It's interesting, though.

The important thing is that plasticity is very much more prevalent for young infants--in other words, if a baby's brain is somehow harmed, it recovers much more fully than an adult's brain. This is what makes me think inherited conditions like Tourette's can't be directly caused by brain injury or atrophy--except in extreme cases the brain would adapt and recover in infancy. I conclude the atrophy seems to be a comorbid effect.

As I pointed out above, some instances of Tourette's are, in fact, caused by damage, but you're right that it's not the only mechanism for these types of behavioral abnormality. And that's just it, the effects of the drugs we're talking about aren't the result of physical atrophy or damage. The behavioral results are reproduced by certain forms of physical damage, but the drugs don't cause any loss of brain tissue. Instead, they exert their effect by changing the neurotransmitter emissions and receptor profiles of synapses in the amygdala and PFC. There is no doubt that this is some form of plasticity at work, with the brain permanently altering itself in response to the stimulus it receives as a result of using drugs.

Semi-permanently altering itself, at least (plasticity again!)

I'm sympathetic to the idea that drugs change your brain chemistry--that seems to be a no-brainer, if you'll forgive the pun.

The behaviors the drugs induce aren't as simple as a loss of cognitive function (i.e. people lose the ability to think clearly). The studies I'm talking about control for cognitive functioning very stringently to ensure that changes in behavior aren't linked to changes in the ability to process information. The changes in behavior are strongly linked to changes in the ability of the long-term planning, impulse-control parts of the brain to overpower the impulse-generating, emotional parts of the brain. In fact, the people involved in these tests cognitively KNOW that the choices they are making are suboptimal. They KNOW the choices they should be making and can explain in great detail WHY the choices they are making are suboptimal. But they are (spookily) unable to stop themselves from making the poor choices that the impulsive parts of their brain prefer.

Now that's a bit slippery. Those of us who're accustomed to trusting our judgment tend to post-rationalise our decisions and contend we're making good choices. It seems instinctive.

But people who're accustomed to being lectured on their behaviour learn to respond in ways that bring the lecture to an end as fast as possible--in other words, they say, "Yeah, I made a bad choice. I'm so sorry, doctor (or Your Honour!), but I can't seem to help myself."

That's the way normal people behave as well, if there's a part of their past they've found is often challenged. They admit to being wrong, so as to be forgiven.

It's a familiar and frustrating pattern to those who work with offenders: verbalising that something was a bad choice doesn't mean the person won't make exactly the same choice again. Because their learned verbal responses don't reflect the underlying cognitive process.