

Rat Park Experiment: A New Theory of Addiction - rfreytag
http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morphine-its-the-size-of-the-cage-rat-park-experiment-upturns-conventional-wisdom-about-addiction

======
greenyoda
This doesn't seem to add anything new to the article about drug addiction and
"Rat Park" that was posted and extensively discussed two days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6379522](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6379522)

 _" So, if Rat Park is to be believed, drug addiction is a situation that
arises from poor socioeconomic conditions. From literally being a rat in a
cage. If you're a rat in a park, you'd rather hang out with your friends and
explore the world around you."_

It's a pretty big leap to extrapolate from research on rats in cages to
socioeconomic conditions in human societies. For one thing, poor humans don't
live in cages, and thus have a lot more freedom and much richer environments
than rats in a lab. Also, poverty doesn't seem to lead to drug addiction
across all human societies and cultures, so there are probably other factors
involved.

~~~
BIair
Source: My brother died of chronic alcoholism at 42, and
[http://www.drugscience.org/dl/dl_comparison.html](http://www.drugscience.org/dl/dl_comparison.html)

Addiction rates: Marijuana 9-10%, Alcohol 15%, Cocaine 15-20%, Tobacco 20-30%,
Heroin 23-25%

Dependence (ordered higher to lower): Nicotine, Heroin, Cocaine, Alcohol,
Caffeine, Marijuana

When first seeing these stats, I was surprised how low the additication rates
were for heroin and cocaine. Growing up in the DARE era, I thought simple
consumption was enough for everyone become an addict. Instead it appears a
game of roulette based in genetic makeup.

The more one researches, the more one realizes the the legal drugs of nicotine
and alcohol are more dangerous than those targeted by the "war on drugs".

~~~
gnaffle
Yet, nicotine don't destroy families and make people lose their jobs (unless
they smoke it for many years), so there is a real difference in the
consequences for the people who do get addicted to alcohol or the harder
drugs. So grading drugs on a simple "danger scale" isn't very helpful.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Yet, nicotine don't destroy families and make people lose their jobs (unless
> they smoke it for many years)

That's a pretty big "unless". As for the immediate effects, nicotine is easier
to come by - you don't have to go to a sketchy dealer in an alley to pay an
outrageous markup to get your cigarette fix.

Also, heroin doesn't have this effect either, contrary to popular belief. Look
up the success rates of diacetylmorphine maintenance programs - programs in
which chronic drug users are given a steady supply pure, uncut heroin (ie, no
fiberglass/etc.).

These people are able to hold steady jobs while using heroin only at night,
the same way a habitual drinker might have a shot of whiskey every night.

The incidence rate of negative social externalities (such as crime) has
actually _dropped_ for people who are enrolled in such programs.

~~~
waps
Ever since I was 8 I've seen both of these camps every now and then. One side
claiming drugs are extremely evil and you can never touch them even once.
Other side claiming that any kind of addiction is perfectly fine to indulge
in, some of them even if it hurts others to varying degrees.

These were long stupid discussions, and like every 8 year old, I was on the
side of "why not ?". And then, you know, you start studying, never giving it a
second thought.

And then I visited a "home" (a prison, really) for the mentally ill (where
they keep addicts here, perhaps that should be mentally ill and criminal), and
had a few (mandatory - grmbl) talks with them to see and analyse their
reaction patterns (lots of paper writing after the visit). They had an addict
that had only arived the day before, which we had to talk to.

There was no more doubt after that in my mind. Cocaine heroin and other opiate
addictions are indeed evil itself. You get addicted and overdose, or you lose
interest. If you get addicted. Either that kills you, or it leaves you
addicted, attempting to cure yourself. Even if you manage to "cure" yourself
(not really possible, but yes you can learn not to touch the drug, you can't
learn not to crave it), you will leave with a seriously handicapped brain, and
nowhere near the emotional control you had before you started on the drug. The
fresh arrivals in the clinic, fresh off the drug, are ready to kill, or rape
themselves, and worse just for one more ml of the drug (a fact they claim is
frequently exploited by prostitution and crime).

Yes alcohol addiction is bad. Especially the medical effects are not fun.
Psychologically they're not much fun either. However to claim that an alcohol
addict is anywhere near the same level of addiction/danger as an opiate addict
is insanity, and only illustrates your complete lack of experience on the
subject. And nicotine addicts detoxing are downright pleasant people, in firm
control of their emotions, nothing at all like recovering opiate addicts.

And these numbers ... they're not going to convince anyone who's ever worked
with these people. If they claim any opiate is harmless, or even on par with
alcoholism, then there's quite simply something very wrong with your
measurements.

~~~
duaneb
I have met quite a few addicts and I would describe very few of them as
immoral, violent, or emotional cripples. I would strongly recommend not saying
these things until you've talked to these people.... Anyone can rustle up an
addict to scare an 8 year old. This is pure misinformation.

~~~
waps
The comment did mention that a majority of people can take heroin and lead
stable lives while enjoying that drug. It is, however, not reasonable or moral
to simply ignore what happens to the ones who can't and are destroyed by it. I
have met plenty of drug addicts, from all 3 cases. Those who can simply live
with and without the drug, those who can as long as the supply is stable (this
group, not the first, is the majority) and those who get destroyed by it in a
matter of weeks no matter what.

~~~
duaneb
Well said. I would never encourage the use of addictive drugs and didn't
intend to come across as such—of course it also ruins many lives, a fact that
I find so obvious it seems absurd to me to refute. All I mean to say is that
drugs and addiction are complicated and can virtually every effect imaginable
on people, including very positive ones (though for "hard", physically wasting
drugs I struggle with this idea).

------
bjourne
Has anyone ever tried to repeat the Rat Park study except for Bruce Alexander?
Since the study only involved 16 - 20 rats, there surely could have been
something in their genetic markup that made them more resistant to addiction
than average rats. Also, Bruce Alexander had a hypothesis that flew in the
face of common sense and set up a study that validated his hypothesis. Even
assuming absolutely no foul play the result could be tainted by the
researchers hopes.

~~~
gcb0
I doubt after week 1 that there were only 16-20 rats.

Those things reproduce _exponentially_ if left with space/food/mates.

~~~
loup-vaillant
If it's because of some genetic immunity to drug addiction, the children are
likely to benefit as well.

~~~
tomjen3
The rats that were made addicted to the heroin did experience minor withdrawl
symptoms so they are able to get addicted.

~~~
duaneb
Withdrawal is a symptom of physical dependence, not addiction (which is harder
to define/identify).

------
rlwolfcastle
_There have been criticisms of the study’s design and the few attempts that
have been made to replicate the results have been mixed._

It's tempting to read too much into these types of results when they are not
reproducible.

------
shele
I'd like to keep in mind that tons of behavioural science is tainted by doing
research on broken great apes in boxes.

------
gcb0
So, it is not that middle aged woman like farmville games... it is because
their house/apartments are small?

~~~
speeder
The women that I met that expended too much time (as in: it bothers other
people) in slot machine style games ( ie: farmville is, candy crush not) had
some really bad aspects on their life, usually severe relationship issues,
unemployment, or having a job that has bad environment, like working 70 hours,
or working in a prison.

~~~
gcb0
wow. never thought about adding slot machine to that abhoral genre of game...
but actually, no, slot machine has /some/ good outcome at least. even if
infinitesimal...

------
AznHisoka
So does this also give credence to the idea there would be less suicide
bombers if they had access to more/better sex? [1]

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-maher-burka-suicide-
bomb...](http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-maher-burka-suicide-bomber-
video-2011-4)

~~~
theorique
The problem with suicide bombers is that they are already "addicted" (in some
sense), to a toxic, and extreme, strain of their religion. It's possible that
they could be weaned from their fanaticism and ideology via a substitute like
sex.

On the other hand, many of them already have access to plenty of sex - for
example, UBL had four wives, and the 9/11 terrorists are known to have
patronized prostitutes and strip clubs in the days prior to their suicide
hijackings. So it may not be a perfect substitution for someone who is that
dedicated to the cause.

------
hariis
IME, The mental impressions of an addiction override a lot of the other
factors including socio-economy, social interaction/integration

------
FooBarWidget
Why didn't the original experiment notice this? Didn't they use a control
group like a proper scientific study should do?

~~~
GeneralMayhem
You can't control for something you don't realize is a variable.

~~~
FooBarWidget
The whole point of a control group is ensure that unknown variables don't
interfere. If they had designed the original experiment so that one group of
rats get a placebo and the other group drug water, but with all other factors
being exactly equal, then they should have noticed something.

~~~
GeneralMayhem
My point is that you have to take positive action to control for a factor.
Since there's a practically infinite number of factors that could have an
effect, you can't assume that only the experiment variable is changing,
because that would require first enumerating an infinitude of factors. You can
list the things that you think are most likely to be confounding and make sure
that they're either controlled for or randomized, but eventually you have to
make a judgment call of when the groups are similar enough.

Here's a couple more silly but vaguely possible examples: what if one cage was
nearer the window, and UV exposure had a significant effect? Or what if the
big-pen rats were in the corner where the air was more stagnant, and rats
don't like to get high when it's humid? Nobody would have predicted those as a
possible hypothesis, so there would be no effort taken to account for them.
That's not poor science, it's a necessary part of the process.

------
toadi
I think there are to many variables to know for sure what the reason is people
get addicted.

~~~
swombat
There are too many variables to know anything at all. Let's just give up and
go back to the caves, then, right?

