The infant-shock model doesn't look at intoxication as fundamentally good or bad. The Sonora model sees intoxication as potentially antisocial, harmful or dangerous, but also potentially therapeutic and beneficial. It all depends on what the individual needs at a given time, and what the circumstances in that individual's life permits at that time.

In other words, there is no hard-and-fast rule regarding intoxication under the Sonora model. In some circumstances, it can be the best possible state for an individual to be in. In others, it can be the worst of all available options. And whether intoxication is good or bad at a given time for a given person depends as much on what's happening around that person as it does on what's happening inside them.

When the model is applied to cultures, or to the entire species, it seems to point in a startling direction. Private intoxication - consciousness-alteration for relief or pleasure, whether through substances or activities - is likely to become a public concern before we truly reach a point where addiction can be conquered as a global epidemic. As unthinkable as it may seem to most of us, we are likely to see a period of time - hopefully no more than a few years, but perhaps as long as a few generations - in which it becomes everyone's business whether we as individuals are overindulging at the expense of others and need to be restrained from harm...or underindulging, and presenting risks to ourselves or others through lack of sufficient relief or pleasure in our lives. Beyond this period in history, it seems inevitable that we'll find the means to insure large-scale efforts at preventing addiction early in life, and curing addiction where it exists.

Re-examining the meaning of intoxication

Before we dig into the meat of this issue, we need to agree on what intoxication actually means. The Sonora model doesn't redefine intoxication, but it practically begs us to broaden our interpretation of the term. At this time, we typically think of intoxication as an altered state of consciousness which involves impairment of function or judgement. The infant-shock model tells us that we live in a world in which addiction is far more pervasive than we've been taught, and that impairment of function is part and parcel of being an addict, even an abstinent one.

Here's a common example. Unless you're well-versed in addiction research or "dysfunction" literature, you probably don't think of the salesperson flush with a fix of dopamine (the neurohormone that provides the "up" high from alcohol and cocaine) as being impaired. But according to the Sonora model, that person is impaired until the rush wears off and their system is back to what is normal for that individual. That person has performed an action which has produced an unnatural ("toxic") rush of dopamine, and the neuropsychological abnormalities that this person possesses will cause this rush to alter their mood and thinking patterns from their normal state. The salesperson "flush with the rush" is obviously in an altered state of consciousness, and while in this state their judgement will be impaired to some degree, because the mind/body state which results from this rush will not likely be sufficiently normal to them that they can say that they're in full control. It's not an impairment that causes difficulty driving or walking a straight line, but people in this state tend to make plans and decisions as though they'll always be in that state, which they would normally know is neither rational nor beneficial.

Freedom from addiction doesn't mean freedom from altered states of consciousness. Non-addicted individuals still meditate, still fall in love, still feel the high of succeeding at a difficult task and the low of losing a friend or loved one. But the freedom from addiction also comes with a realization that care must be taken in these altered states to insure their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. In other words, non-addicted individuals don't voluntarily become intoxicated, because their bodies stop them from indulging to harmful levels, and their minds are whole enough to prevent them from being in these states when such a state might impair their ability to function or judge.

And as outrageous as it might sound, a large percentage of addicts seem to reach a point with their addictions where they are able to avoid intoxication for the most part. Having accepted their addictive or compulsive needs as an ongoing part of their lives, they understand their object of addiction well enough to get what they need from it with the least possible toxic side effects, and they structure their lives in such a way that indulging in their addiction doesn't significantly impair their ability to function or judge. Yes, the addiction imposes limits on them, but it would do so even if they were abstinent. "Successful" addicts simply accept these limits and work within them, rather than risk exceeding those limits and suffering the consequences of the impairment that would result.

Intoxication's risks...and benefits

We've all known people who actually seem to benefit from getting completely plastered every so often. Virtually every type of common drug addiction seems to provide some benefits under some circumstances. Even "senseless" compulsions such as hand-washing, superstition or gambling have literally saved lives from time to time.

Before we can address drug use in a manner which benefits all of society, we must come to grips with the fact that under the right circumstances, any activity or substance, from the most dangerous compulsion to the deadliest poison, can be beneficial. Military leaders recognize this fact, and the practice of allowing troops to "blow off steam" every now and then at a tavern or brothel improves both the morale and the performance of the army. Some religions promote the judicious use of mind-altering substances as a means of cleansing both body and soul. And nearly every religion supports the wise use of mind-altering behaviors - from singing and chanting to meditation and frenzied dance - for the same reason.

"To deny addicts access to relief, however morally objectionable their chosen form of relief may be, is a form of cruelty. However, to allow unrestricted, unsupported access is an act of negligence. A balance must be struck."

Addicts suffer from neurophysiological abnormalities which are for all practical purposes permanent until reliable cures become available. The only possible forms of relief from the distress caused by these abnormalities are isolation from the causes of that distress or the use of an addictive object for temporary relief. To deny addicts access to relief, however morally objectionable their chosen form of relief may be, is a form of cruelty.

However, to allow complete, unrestricted and unsupported access to the object of addiction, when a known symptom of these abnormalities involves inability to exert voluntary control over the use of these objects, is an act of negligence. A balance must be struck for the benefit of both the addict and the society in which the addict lives.

The debate over how this balance should be struck will likely rage hotly for decades between moral purists who insist that any addictive behavior is wrong, and those who insist just as strongly that any restriction of addictive behavior is wrong. History teaches us that hot issues with sharply-divided camps can't be settled by a middle course. They can only be settled by a new course.

That new course, when it emerges, will involve a wholesale restructuring of our cultural perspectives on addiction and compulsion. The end result of this restructuring will undoubtedly be a society in which both abstinence and overindulgence are discouraged. In addition, we'll find a new cultural viewpoint on intoxication which demands that we all take sufficient care of our needs, however "odd" or "unhealthy" they may be, to avoid the risks of irresponsible behavior which stems from excessive need. At the same time, we'll all have to become more vigilant and compassionate with our neighbors, insuring that their needs are met to a reasonable degree - again, however "odd" or "unhealthy" those needs may appear to us - and more tolerant of others' interest in our needs.

This isn't mere speculation. It's an inevitability if we are ever to come to grips with the problems we'll face in the future. When virtual/augmented reality technology matures, it will have a sledgehammer impact on society and very likely surpass everything from alcohol to crack cocaine as the most serious and potentially costly addictive threat in history. New cultural attitudes similar to those outlined above will be the only way to insure that we get both the benefits of VR/AR and avoid the potentially catastrophic side effects.

Hopefully, our understanding of addiction will have progressed substantially from where it sits currently. If we are able to take sufficiently effective steps today to prevent addiction from being a risk to the next generation, we should be able to produce a generation sufficiently addiction-free, and with sufficient capacity for a balanced perspective on the issue (a capacity most addicts today don't have and will likely never achieve) that we can achieve the appropriate balance. Risky addictive behavior will be discouraged, as will suffering in abstinence, and those who don't need or want addictive relief will be free to make their own choices.

The question isn't whether, but when we'll find this balance. And two of the best-known works of speculative fiction, George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World point to the extremes we need to avoid. At present, much of the world, including North America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where cultural attitudes are determined in large part by the prevailing religions of Christianity and Islam, and in Japan, where attitudes are shaped largely by historic events, are living at least some of the tortuous nightmare of 1984 in which the suffering of abstinence is imposed on the public and praised as virtuous. In Europe, and perhaps China and India as well in coming years, we could be witnessing the advent of Brave New World's dystopic vision, in which indulgence is encouraged regardless of individual need. Areas of the world where abstinence is seen as virtuous could also endure a period of backlash in which indulgence is mandated by law much as abstinence is mandated today.

The most successful and long-lived hunter/gatherer cultures learned to navigate a middle path, in which neither was specifically encouraged nor discouraged. But as we move forward, we'll need to find a new, untried means of dealing with addictive need: a cultural landscape in which indulgence is encouraged for those who need it and discouraged for those for whom it is harmful or risky, and where we are all encouraged to watch over each other.

With any luck, cure will be inexpensive and widespread enough that we won't need to worry about this. But luck doesn't appear to be on our side. Before cure arrives, it seems virtually certain that we'll have to endure a period - let's hope it's only a few years - in which we see intoxication as a necessary part of life for the vast majority, something we need to insure we all have access to in appropriate measure, and something which we all need to play a role in insuring is both safe and beneficial for those who need it.

For better or worse, the current cost bottleneck western nations are facing with health care may provide the cultural training we'll need to make this work. As spiraling health care costs begin to affect all of us, our personal health is increasingly becoming the concern and responsibility of our communities, and our rights to take risks with our health may have to be balanced against the rights of our communities to insure that we are not unnecessary burdens on resources. Navigating this tricky passage in our cultural development could be the cultural training we need to face the much more difficult moral passage we face relative to addiction and compulsion.

Home Page | Section Map Copyright ©2003 Cub Lea Some rights reserved