There is a basic, common-sense distinction between
what a person can do but won’t (because they are not motivated)
and what a person wants to do but can’t (because they lack the ability)
Normal people can ignore heroin ... even when it is plentiful in their environment, and they can use these drugs with little likelihood of addiction ... Rats from Rat Park seem to be no less discriminating.
prevalence of drug addiction in USA
Illicit drug use in the United States has been increasing. In 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older—9.4 percent of the population—had used an illicit drug in the past month. This number is up from 8.3 percent in 2002.
Survey results suggest between 2.5 and 2.9 million Afghans use drugs – 11% of the population – and 1.9 and 2.3 million use opiates – about 7% of the population. Approximately 0.9-1.1 million use cannabis, about half the rate of opioid users.[1]
The evidence shows that the majority of addicts have the ability
to refrain from use in many ordinary circumstances. But it does not demonstrate they have
the ability in all possible circumstances.
This evidence is strong, but we need nonetheless to be careful in drawing conclusions.
There is a basic, common-sense distinction between what a person can do but won’t (because
they are not motivated) and what a person wants to do but can’t (because they lack the ability)
(Pickard 2012, 2017a). The evidence shows that the majority of addicts have the ability
to refrain from use in many ordinary circumstances. But it does not demonstrate they have
the ability in all possible circumstances. The attribution of an ability to refrain from use is
consistent with there being occasions where, due to any variety of constraints, it cannot be
exercised. Nor does the evidence demonstrate beyond doubt that the minority of addicts who
do not respond to incentives have the ability to refrain but don’t exercise it, rather than not
having the ability at all. In the absence of any clear marker between different sub-groups of
addicts that would explain the difference between the majority who refrain and the minority
who don’t, the evidence suggests the latter are like the former in having the ability and
unlike them in not exercising it, but it does not conclusively establish this. Finally, there is
the important question of how to understand conflicting self-reports from addicts, who often
oscillate both intra- and inter-personally between using the language of compulsion and the
language of choice (for discussion see Booth Davies 1992; Pickard 2012, 2017a). For all these
reasons, caution is needed in interpreting the evidence. Nonetheless, our understanding of
addiction should reflect what the evidence clearly does show, namely that, for many addicts,
on many occasions, they are not compelled to use. For this reason, an appeal to compulsion
understood as irresistible desire cannot be the fundamental explanation of the puzzle of
persistent use despite negative consequences. It is simply not true, of too many addicts, too
much of the time.
what a person can do but won’t (because they are not motivated)
and what a person wants to do but can’t (because they lack the ability)
Normal people can ignore heroin ... even when it is plentiful in their environment, and they can use these drugs with little likelihood of addiction ... Rats from Rat Park seem to be no less discriminating.
prevalence of drug addiction in USA
Illicit drug use in the United States has been increasing. In 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older—9.4 percent of the population—had used an illicit drug in the past month. This number is up from 8.3 percent in 2002.
Survey results suggest between 2.5 and 2.9 million Afghans use drugs – 11% of the population – and 1.9 and 2.3 million use opiates – about 7% of the population. Approximately 0.9-1.1 million use cannabis, about half the rate of opioid users.[1]
The evidence shows that the majority of addicts have the ability
to refrain from use in many ordinary circumstances. But it does not demonstrate they have
the ability in all possible circumstances.
This evidence is strong, but we need nonetheless to be careful in drawing conclusions.
There is a basic, common-sense distinction between what a person can do but won’t (because
they are not motivated) and what a person wants to do but can’t (because they lack the ability)
(Pickard 2012, 2017a). The evidence shows that the majority of addicts have the ability
to refrain from use in many ordinary circumstances. But it does not demonstrate they have
the ability in all possible circumstances. The attribution of an ability to refrain from use is
consistent with there being occasions where, due to any variety of constraints, it cannot be
exercised. Nor does the evidence demonstrate beyond doubt that the minority of addicts who
do not respond to incentives have the ability to refrain but don’t exercise it, rather than not
having the ability at all. In the absence of any clear marker between different sub-groups of
addicts that would explain the difference between the majority who refrain and the minority
who don’t, the evidence suggests the latter are like the former in having the ability and
unlike them in not exercising it, but it does not conclusively establish this. Finally, there is
the important question of how to understand conflicting self-reports from addicts, who often
oscillate both intra- and inter-personally between using the language of compulsion and the
language of choice (for discussion see Booth Davies 1992; Pickard 2012, 2017a). For all these
reasons, caution is needed in interpreting the evidence. Nonetheless, our understanding of
addiction should reflect what the evidence clearly does show, namely that, for many addicts,
on many occasions, they are not compelled to use. For this reason, an appeal to compulsion
understood as irresistible desire cannot be the fundamental explanation of the puzzle of
persistent use despite negative consequences. It is simply not true, of too many addicts, too
much of the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment