Slashdot Mirror


Firing a Laser Into Your Brain Could Help Beat a Drug Addiction

An anonymous reader writes "The prelimbic region of the prefrontal cortex in the human brain is thought to play a key role in drug addiction, and researchers at the National Institute on Drug Abuse wanted to see if manipulating cells there had a positive or negative impact on that addiction. They got some rats addicted to cocaine but not before loading them up with light sensitive proteins called rhodopsins that were placed in their prefrontal cortex, attaching to the neurons there. By shining a tuned laser light on to the prefrontal cortex, it was possible to activate and deactivate the cells. By turning them on with the laser, the addictive behavior of the rats was removed. Turning them off, even in non-addicted rats, saw the addictive behavior return or introduced."

156 comments

  1. A laser to the brain by Divebus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could also cure breathing.

    --

    Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    1. Re:A laser to the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just looked at the paper and...Where is the scatter plot between lever presses and cocaine infusions??? NATURE EDITORS, DEMAND TO SEE THE ACTUAL DATA AND NOT JUST AVERAGES. Put it in the supplements if it is too complicated for the normal audience.

    2. Re:A laser to the brain by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded down?

    3. Re:A laser to the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it's not just a lame attempt at a joke, but a valid scientific query.

      Most of the proper scientists abandoned slashdot years ago, though. It's interesting to go back 10 years or so and compare the quality of the posts to what we have today.

    4. Re:A laser to the brain by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Redundant is appropriate, by definition the raw data is redundant after it has been properly analyzed, by definition a published paper is a "proper" analysis. It may be wrong but if it's the only analysis then by definition it is the best analysis we have. Einstein's famous 1905 paper was 3 pages long and had zero references, it was quickly recognized as a work of uncommon genius by other physicists.

      The first thing they teach you in statistics is to create a scatter plot and just eyeball it for a one of several standard curves that MIGHT fit, the next step is averages (or some other metric) to see if your guess holds up to scrutiny. Thing is, eye-balling is not evidence and publishing only the calculated curve is normal practice. I don't have a Nature account so I can't easily confirm/deny the AC's claim that the raw data is unavailable (ironically because the AC did not publish his raw data). However since this looks like government funded research I think it's more likely the AC just eye-balled the paper and missed it.

      Besides all that, a real scientist wouldn't bitch and moan if they couldn't find the raw data, they would just contact the author and ask politely, if that didn't work they would run their own experiments. At the end of the day the scientific way to overturn the results from one experiment is run one or more independent experiments that convincingly refute the original results.

      To paraphrase one of the best science teachers to ever walk the earth - "The key to science is that if your beautifully presented, leather bound, iron-clad logic disagrees with experiments, it's wrong". - Feynman

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:A laser to the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "properly analyzed"? There is no such thing. There is always room for debate, even if there is none at the time of publishing there will be some time down the road. Not providing raw data because it has been "properly analyzed" means, in reality, that you are nervous of having you work scrutinized.

    6. Re:A laser to the brain by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      Most of the proper scientists abandoned slashdot years ago, though. It's interesting to go back 10 years or so and compare the quality of the posts to what we have today.

      I am afraid I cannot accept that information on just face value. Please provide the study you used so we can critique the results properly.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    7. Re:A laser to the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      A simple CITATION NEEDED would have sufficed. Get off my lawn.

    8. Re:A laser to the brain by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Great video, thanks for link.

      A comment on your post, if you have the stats ability & tools, it's fun & quick to check the raw data.
      Certainly cheaper and faster than trying to reproduce the experimental data.
      I've found a few problems with the data, and/or in the analysis in my time; most are due to simple ignorance, (not all 'real scientists' *gasp* are stats experts), or falling into the trap of 'finding what you are looking for'.
      Granted peer review is supposed to catch this, but I wonder how many go back to the basic data and redo the stats analysis?

    9. Re:A laser to the brain by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Could also cure breathing.

      Been done many times

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    10. Re:A laser to the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I am a big proponent of plotting all the points no matter what, even better publish tables of your data so everyone can perform the subjective process of choosing how to analyze for themselves. And if you have measured two parameters of the same subject and claim a relationship, there should always be a scatterplot. There is really no excuse for not showing this. It is reflective of widespread failed training in scientific thought and a failed peer review process.

    11. Re:A laser to the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Besides all that, a real scientist wouldn't bitch and moan if they couldn't find the raw data, they would just contact the author and ask politely, if that didn't work they would run their own experiments. "

      Yes, I have heard such excuses before. There is no reason that this burden should be placed on the audience. It is the cheapest part of the entire process to include your actual data.

      Actually this paper is better than most because they recognized the presence of subsets in their data and investigated it rather than "dropping outliers".

      Also, "by definition a published paper is proper analysis"? If the paper includes these types of charts, it is not proper analysis:
      http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/twiki/pub/Main/TatsukiRcode/Poster3.pdf

    12. Re:A laser to the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it can cure 'Gay", too. But I know it can't cure stupid or nigger.

      That's too bad, since you'd post less if it could.

    13. Re:A laser to the brain by joeboomer628 · · Score: 1

      It sure beats the previous popular method of firing a 9mm projectile into the brain.

      --
      JoeR
    14. Re:A laser to the brain by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      IF you've been here for more than 10yrs you wouldn't need any proof. You'd of lived it and now be sad because of it.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    15. Re:A laser to the brain by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      IF you've been here for more than 10yrs

      I have less digits than you.

      you wouldn't need any proof.

      If I was approaching this scientifically, I would.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    16. Re:A laser to the brain by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      While I don't have fewer digits than you, I do have a hell of a lot smaller number.
      I think the GP is right, although I haven't done a real study, either. Then there used to be reasoned scientific debates and discussions in just just about every story. Sure, there were troll posts, oft repeated memes about Natalie Portman and hot grits, but now we just get goatse, MyCleanPC spam, and stupid, rambling shit by apk that goes on for pages of unintelligible, psychotic nonsense.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    17. Re:A laser to the brain by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      I can see a whole new branch of science comming out of Answering this simple question:

      "What things, when shot into the brain, do NOT eliminate addiction?"

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

  2. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original article clearly was not read. These rats had their genome changed to have more rhodopsins in their prefrontal cortex. This will not happen with humans in advance of any drug addiction issues (it would have to be done with the sperm/egg?). tldr; not going to happen.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The rhodopsins just let you turn the cells on remotely with a laser.

      We can do this in humans, we just have to drill a hole in their face and wire 'em up.

    2. Re:Really? by durrr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Optogenetics (as the technique is more commonly called) can be 'installed' with gene therapy vectors in adult mammals, the technique can be used for both activating and silencing cells.

      It have not been tried in humans due the excessive caution around everything that is gene therapy, along with the requirement for some mildly invasive neurosurgery.

    3. Re:Really? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      And the award for most horrifically insane misinterpretation of an optogenetics paper goes to... Geek.com!

      Based on actually skimming the paper, I would guess that the kind of excitation they're doing is probably safe in humans, although likely to cause interesting sensations.

      Also, the blood-brain barrier makes it rather hard to perform gene therapy on the human nervous system, doesn't it?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:Really? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gene therapy is just hard in general. The exact effect of a virus is unpredictable, it'll only alter a small number of cells at best and will likely kill a lot more in the attempt, or turn them cancerous. It isn't even out of clinical trial yet. The blood-brain barrier shouldn't pose any difficulty though: Simply inject directly into CSF and bypass it entirely.

    5. Re:Really? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the update. I work with microbe ecology (metagenomics) most of the time, so it's hard to keep up on the actual neat parts of biology in humans.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:Really? by durrr · · Score: 1

      Gene therapy is not particularly hard, and there's clinical trials and decades old cases where it have had success. Why is this myth propagated?
      Did the major fuckup and misconduct in the Jesse Gelsinger case really have that much publicity?

      Though I guess, every religious nut, moral-code internet warrior, environmentalist nutcase and anti-GMO opinionist would of course latch onto this outlier case and present it as a rule rather than exception, because some delusion of purity is more important than saving and improving lives.

    7. Re:Really? by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      Yes but it's mandatory to add the tag "may cure drug addiction" - or some other socially useful claim - to any research involving the brain. That way you get media coverage and a better chance of funding.

    8. Re:Really? by Niedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gene therapy is not particularly hard, and there's clinical trials and decades old cases where it have had success. Why is this myth propagated? Did the major fuckup and misconduct in the Jesse Gelsinger case really have that much publicity?

      Though I guess, every religious nut, moral-code internet warrior, environmentalist nutcase and anti-GMO opinionist would of course latch onto this outlier case and present it as a rule rather than exception, because some delusion of purity is more important than saving and improving lives.

      Disclaimer: I work in neuroscience and have used viral transfection quite a lot.

      Myth? It's not trivial to get the infectous titer and purity of the virus right and it's even harder (read: almost impossible) to predict the exact expression levels that the virus will cause in an actual brain. Much less if such a potential overexpression of a non-native protein will mess up regular cell trafficking/function. Even if the protein is thought to be harmless (as is the case with Channelrhodopsin or Halorhodopsin), the sheer fact that the cell now has to produce, store and process large numbers of something it usually doesn't have can cause problems and take resources away from the normal function. Plus any virus that will stably integrate into the genome can cause all kinds of fuck up down the road since you don't know WHERE it will integrate and what other function it might overwrite.

      Don't get me wrong, it is interesting, it is potentially very beneficial but I'd still be cautious when applying it in the brain (as opposed to applying it in muscle or skin cells) since adult neurogenesis isn't really happening much...

    9. Re:Really? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      We can do this in humans, we just have to drill a hole in their face and wire 'em up.

      How does this differ from Electroconvulsive therapy?

    10. Re:Really? by durrr · · Score: 1

      Adult myogenesis in skeletal muscles isn't really happening much either.
      As for integration into the genome, I was under the impression that you can actually chose the place in the genome it would integrate in, but that this is mostly irrelevant as adenoviral vectors are preferred over lentiviral ones.

    11. Re:Really? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      so what you are saying is that it has the potential to turn out like resident evil?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    12. Re:Really? by Niedi · · Score: 1

      Adult myogenesis in skeletal muscles isn't really happening much either. As for integration into the genome, I was under the impression that you can actually chose the place in the genome it would integrate in, but that this is mostly irrelevant as adenoviral vectors are preferred over lentiviral ones.

      True, but I would say that a few lost muscle cells are less problematic than a few neurons lost in the wrong part of the brain. AFAIK there is no reliable way to control the site of lentiviral integration. Plus, purifying lenti properly is nasty, the stuff can be either quite neurotoxic or not infectious at all if something goes wrong during that step.
      Recombinant Adeno Associated Virus is much less problematic, it's dead simple to manufacture and only the potential protein overload problem remains (and in mice we're using them a lot without any apparent problems). However, in an adult brain, the effect of rAAV is only temporary since it doesn't integrate and gets degraded over time.

    13. Re:Really? by Niedi · · Score: 1

      so what you are saying is that it has the potential to turn out like resident evil?

      No, I was thinking of something still lethal but less freaky: cancer. Plus, even if one of the patients goes insane for whatever strange one-in-a-billion chance, it's not really infectious unless he's still capable of drilling a hole into your skull and injecting a tiny amount of purified virus into precisely the correct area of the brain (think micrometer precision). So no zombie apocalypse there, sorry.

    14. Re:Really? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2

      Electroconvulsive therapy is broad, and even its most targeted implemented sends electricity to places it doesn't need to go. It must also pass through tissues that have no therapeutic reason to be exposed to electric current.

      An internally-mounted system could be far more precise; possibly even as good as this experiment.

      The best analogy I can come up with is: ECT is like trying to chisel a sculpture with a jackhammer.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    15. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss the days when articles were tagged with pithy comments such as "IAmLegend" and "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

  3. Firing a Laser Into Your Brain to cure addiction by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would work for sure.... probably want to carefully define "cure" however.

  4. I'd rather have this bottle in front of me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Than to have to have a laser lobotomy!

    1. Re:I'd rather have this bottle in front of me... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Actually, the target and rhodopsin chosen causes stimulation of normal functions that atrophy in an addiction state. Nothing gets suppressed or removed.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  5. Apropos by m_chan · · Score: 1

    "I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain." - Leia Well, now we know Han was trying to kick and lasers were his methadone. .. And, from the footer on /. right now.. "It's easier to take it apart than to put it back together. -- Washlesky"

  6. optical icepick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lobotomy?

  7. Finally ... by Skapare · · Score: 2

    ... a use for my Wicked Laser. Oh wait, which one should I use? Teh green one? Teh blue one?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Finally ... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Ohhhhh... colors....

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Finally ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...just what I always wanted, rats with friggen laser beams attached to their heads.

    3. Re:Finally ... by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      well the path of least resistance to get light to the brain is the optic nerve. You might want to mount the laser on a stand first, this is brain surgery after all.

  8. This is medical research at its best by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    Addicts will be able to experience a split second of addiction-free bliss before the laser-bearing shark eats their head..

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  9. Sure by no-body · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lobotomy was used once as a remedy for many things...

    Folks changed after that. Some think to the better for society.

    Depends on perspective.

  10. Addiction by geekymachoman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, this might be an end to nicotine/cigarettes ?

    I'm just mentioning it. Since people obviously think that "drug addiction" means "cocaine/heroine addiction".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Addictive_potential

    How many people are cocaine/heroin addicts and how many are nicotine addicts ?

    1. Re:Addiction by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Also, that pesky "alcohol" thing.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:Addiction by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      We may never know! It all depends on who sets the NIH funding agenda and who has deep pockets. Cocaine addiction seems to be the primary focus of most addiction research, presumably because the effect is so sudden and there's no one to lobby against its prohibition.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Addiction by Yomers · · Score: 1

      Because if you would have a lab rats, what would you rather give them - pure medical cocaine or nicotine? considering that you can save some of this for yourselve?

    4. Re:Addiction by fishybell · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, I say the answer is quite likely yes, and probably better than it would treat drug addiction.
      Unfortunately, as people aren't rats — and probably the best thing I took away from rehab — you don't have a drug problem, you have drug solution to your person problems. People use drugs to turn off their shitty lives. Of course, drugs lead to shitty lives and the cycle continues, but fixing the "I'm not addicted to drug X" problem won't fix the fact that people relapse after years and years not because they are still dependent, but because drugs work very well at turning your life off, if even for just a little while.

      --
      ><));>
    5. Re:Addiction by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not a chance. You know how much money the tobacco industry pumps into politicians each year?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Addiction by Hartree · · Score: 2

      It's more than just the political reasons. Cocaine is a pretty direct and uncomplicated way to manipulate a dopamine pathway like the reward system.
      Heroin and alcohol have more complex modes of action to hit the reward system. When you're still trying to work out the pathway and its dynamics you want to avoid complicating effects.

      It's sort of the lab rat of addictions to study.

    7. Re:Addiction by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"I'm just mentioning it. Since people obviously think that "drug addiction" means "cocaine/heroine addiction".

      That's because there isn't much of an altered-state "high" with nicotine or caffeine. Although they can be addictive (especially nicotine), being "on" them doesn't really alter perception, warp senses, and severely impair judgement, memory, motor skills, productivity, cognition, etc, like being high on alcohol, cocaine, heroine, marijuana, meth, LSD, PCP, etc.

      With nicotine, there is just being compelled to continue to use it. Which, when obtained from tobacco, leads to health problems.

    8. Re:Addiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I'd expect a cure for addiction to increase usage rates.

      There are a lot of people who avoid stuff because of fear of addiction. If addiction can be reliably cured there a lot less reason not to try it and see if you like it.

    9. Re:Addiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one here seems to get the implications of this - "curing" addiction would not cause drug use to decline in any way, more the opposite - the point is that, since the main reason to not do many drugs is their addictive nature, once we can easily cure/suppress addiction, the drawback to using many drugs is then removed.

      If there were a way to safely blast away drug addiction by just a 5 minute bask in laser light, the use of opiates, cocaine and whatever else becomes a helluva lot more attractive. Go on a major binge during vacation, come back, go in and have a small laser light show, and all is well until the next time you've got a few days off.

    10. Re:Addiction by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      Anybody else notice that a good chunk of that article's references are articles by a Scientology front group?

    11. Re:Addiction by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      Bah, ignore me. I misread; only the section on MDMA references a Scientology article. That part was still bullshit, though.

    12. Re:Addiction by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant by "the effect is so sudden," yes.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:Addiction by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1
      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    14. Re:Addiction by Hartree · · Score: 1

      "That's what I meant by "the effect is so sudden," yes."

      Yeah, I figured you knew with your bio background. Just wasn't as clear to the general reader that there are good reasons for using cocaine over other less regulated substances.

      I ran into this one here on Slashdot before when there was a lot of laughter over a study giving cocaine to bees and watching their dance behavior.

      It sounds kinda silly, but for what they were doing, it was a pretty direct route to what they wanted which was modulating some of the dopamine related pathways, and using the directly observable dance behavior of the bees to gauge the results without have to do all kinds of complicated chemical monitoring.

    15. Re:Addiction by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Where I live it is 1 in 384 people for Heroin and I guarantee the number is higher than that.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  11. Good call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The War or Drugs will be stopped once and for all when this laser comes out.

    1. Re:Good call by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The War or Drugs will be stopped once and for all when this laser comes out.

      The War on Drugs could be stopped by making drugs legal.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:Good call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The War or Drugs will be stopped once and for all when this laser comes out.

      This would only be able to help with certain drugs that are only psychologically additive and not physically addictive.

      Cocaine, weed, meth.. sure.

      Heroin or other opiates? Not at all.

      Sure it might make you stop craving it, but there is a very large percentage of people who continue using opiates not because they want to, but because of the extream agony for months you go through by not taking them.
      This laser will do nothing to stop that, so the primary reason to continue using opiates is still there.

  12. Would this work on any other addiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously need to stop drinking coffee.

    1. Re:Would this work on any other addiction? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Caffeine dependence goes away after a week or so. Many people are so tolerant of caffeine that the stimulant doesn't give them much more energy than they'd normally have in a day; it's just that you get it more rapidly and can control when it's available.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  13. Really? by thoughtspace · · Score: 1

    Firing lasers while stoned - whoa man!

  14. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drug abuse counselors... with friggin LASERS attached to their heads!

  15. this doesn't solve the problem. by Nyder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's take heroin addiction for example. You know how many heroin addicts that get clean, yet go back to using the heroin? Pretty much all of them. Turning off the "addictive" cell won't change that. It's not about the addiction, it's about the high. It's about how the drug makes you feel.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re: this doesn't solve the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the beginning of an addiction the amount needed to get high is very small. That amount grows the longer you use. Take away the addiction and the whole dynamic changes.

    2. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not turning off anything, actually; they're restoring normal function that's destroyed by the addiction. This is the sort of stuff that stays behind after recovery and that makes it easy to relapse. The behavioural studies they performed more-or-less modelled the situation you describe: the researchers found that after four doses of cocaine, rats would normally ignore electric shocks in order to get at the drug. After treatment, the rats became less obsessed with the high and would not risk getting electrocuted again in order to have it. It wasn't as much of a return to normal function as a rat that had only had cocaine once, but it took a while to return to full addict behaviour.

      So, yes, it does address the functional problem that normal rehab fails to remedy. The area they chose to stimulate was specifically implicated as being responsible for loss of control in addicts.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 2

      No, they go back because it alleviates serious pain from major mental illness, which the vast majority of addicts have. By "major mental illness" I don't mean just garden-variety depression or anxiety, but disorders that cause wild mood swings to enraged/suicidal/terrified out of the blue, scary hallucinations, and so forth. They also don't develop coping skills for daily life, so the problems we quickly deal with & move beyond accumulate for them until they can reach their method of coping (e.g. the substance). That's why they go back to cocaine or whatever their substance of choice is -- and also why so many of them end up on the streets.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    4. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      > Let's take heroin addiction for example. You know how many heroin addicts that get clean, yet go back to using the heroin? Pretty much all of them. Turning off the "addictive" cell won't change that. It's not about the addiction, it's about the high. It's about how the drug makes you feel.

      Ok, feel a need to state the obvious.

      Feeling the high won't destroy your life. Feeling a constant need for getting high (addiction) will destroy your life.
      Many drugs are actually beneficial if used wisely. Same as everything else in this world. Thinking that something is exclusively bad or good, is just plain stupid.
      When it comes to drugs, you can find loads of documentaries about psychedelics (for example) used to treat hard addictions, and some other things.

      Many drug users (I know few of them) don't want to be heroin addicts. Yes, they want the high.. because they can't function without it .. as in .. feel sick without it.
      Nobody likes feeling sick. That's why we have medicine today advertised on TV massively about curing flu/cold symptoms.

      I'm assuming that taking heroin let's say.. once every couple of weeks / month .. without feeling that you 'need' to repeat the experience after short time, would be a great achievement in steps toward helping addicted people maintain some sort of normal life.

    5. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is manifest nonsense. The standard "treatment" for heroin addiction is methadone, which serves the addiction but doesn't get you high. It has nothing to do with the high, it's all about the addiction. How the drug makes you feel is the addiction.

    6. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I tend to think (mostly from talking to a close friend of mine who is a social worker) that it's less about how the drug makes you feel but rather how you feel without it...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Feeling the high won't destroy your life. Feeling a constant need for getting high (addiction) will destroy your life."

      Actually, for mind/reality-altering drugs (which excludes caffeine, nicotine, sugar, etc) the actual high *can* contribute to destroying lives. While high, judgement and functionality are so severely impaired that there is a huge risk of injury to one self and to others. And all the while, the person is completely unproductive- can't work, can't learn, can't do much of anything useful to society or for themselves.

      So yes, the need for getting high does contribute to "destroying your life", and can be the longest part of the destruction, the actual high contributes too.

    8. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former heroin addict I can tell you this is not true, methadone and now suboxone are used mostly because of their long half life but they will most certainly get you high if taken in a high enough dose.

    9. Re:this doesn't solve the problem. by anon208 · · Score: 0

      No. It is very emphatically about the addiction. They don't want get high again.

  16. Yes.... yeeeesss... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the Journal of Mad Science: A Cure for Addiction

    Crazy they called me! CRAZY! But it is not _I_ who have surrendered the war on drugs! I know drugs - and the only real cure is PAIN. And the best PAIN? Direct laser to the brain!

    Now, I know what you're all thinking! Dr. Madd, you're thinking, the brain doesn't have any pain receptors! You're thinking I just want to cure addiction with death! Ha! Death is no cure - it is FAILURE.

    For you see - this is not some fleshy-burny laser, oh no! This is a laser set to trigger two particular threshold states in the neurotransmitter pathways... specifically, the pathways relating to heat, and cold.

    And as any CHILD knows, both of those combined equate to the sensation of PAIN. Raw, sweet PAIN - far sweeter than any drug. Such an all-encompassing PAIN.

    Such ecstasy an horror is unleashed, that the mind scrambles through everything it can, just to make sense of it. The end result is usually one of two things - a hyper-receptive state, where the ... subject is willing to accept instruction in thanks for the experience, or a simple silence that at least commits no more crimes such as seeking out drugs.

    Such a cure! Were I a less modest man, I would call it a REVOLUTION in treatment!

    I expect to be able to roll out full production within the next two to five years, and am highly interested in investments.

    -Dr Maddeus Maddington Madd III, esq.

    1. Re:Yes.... yeeeesss... by fishybell · · Score: 1

      yep. That pretty much sums up rehab.

      --
      ><));>
    2. Re:Yes.... yeeeesss... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      I totally read that in Dr Steel's voice.

    3. Re:Yes.... yeeeesss... by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      I totally read that in Dr Steel's voice.

      I read it in Dick Cheney's voice. I didn't even realize it until I read your comment, but we all probably read it in one villain-voice or another.

  17. trial and error = cure? by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 1

    could be tested immediately in humans

    Better still, just pick up some homeless drug addicts from the streets, inject their brains with genetically engineered chemicals and fire electromagnetic radiation at them. This would represent enormous savings in medical care for drug addicts, and the best part is, the more you do it .. the more you save!

    Time for the medical industry to get a bill drafted.. call it the "Cocaine User National Treatment of Substances" act. The genetically engineered chemical* would be far cheaper than the combined medical, social, environmental, law enforcement, organisation, legislational and incarceration costs of the war on drugs over the last 50 years and it's a realistic solution to the massive problem of drug addiction in the United States. 9 out of 10 doctors agree with the contents of the pending draft legislative framework for guided treatment of repeat abusers.

    *patent pending

    1. Re:trial and error = cure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Genetically engineered chemicals"? Sorry, not sure you're allowed to talk about science anymore.

  18. Re:Firing a Laser Into Your Brain to cure addictio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not to be captain obvious.. But this is a terrible idea, first off it is not an addiction due to the brain, it is because of the effects drugs cause. And that chemical reaction that gets destroyed by zipping "prelimbic region of the prefrontal cortex in the human brain" would also destroy any normal chemical reaction one would have without drugs.

    This reminds me of how doctor thought brain lumbotomies were a great idea!!!

    And cocaine was a terrible example since it really is not addictive to begin with..

  19. Frickin' sharks with laser beams! by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    So now there's a medical use for those frickin' sharks with laser beams! The only confound while doing the longitudinal study will be whether the rats were scared straight from addiction by the laser beam or by being confronted by the shark in the first place. So an extra experiment will have to be done using sharks that do not have laser beam capabilities.
    ;>)
    Now the only problem is in getting the tiny little scuba suits for the rats, or the very large land-shark suits for the sharks (that have the appropriate wavelength-transparent ports [quartz glass? sapphire glass?] to let the IR laser through)...
    .
    So this is good for investigational experiments, but I don't see how it would be useful for clinical and therapeutic uses in humans unless you insert the optogenetic materials into the brain regions you're interested in ahead of time.

    1. Re:Frickin' sharks with laser beams! by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1
  20. Re:Firing a Laser Into Your Brain to cure addictio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firing a Gun Into Your Brain will also cure addiction.

  21. A wire and a current works even better by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    just ask Luis Wu...

    1. Re:A wire and a current works even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice :-)

  22. You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 3, Informative
    re: cocaine was a terrible example since it really is not addictive to begin with.. [emphasis mine]
    .
    Dude! You think cocaine is not addictive? You're completely wrong. It is addictive because of its effect on the mesolimbic reward pathway. I link you to wikipedia's article on cocaine because the medical articles I found are behind paywalls and you might not be able to get to them unless you're on a university network that has medical journal access like UCSD does: Data from The Lancet suggests cocaine is ranked both the 2nd most addictive and the 2nd most harmful of 20 popular recreational drugs.

    another quote from the same article:

    It is addictive because of its effect on the mesolimbic reward pathway.

    You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive.

  23. Could help? by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    If the laser was over a couple of kilowatts I guarantee it would solve the problem of drug addiction. Duh!
     

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  24. Brain surgery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's an addict going to get the money for brain surgery?

    1. Re:Brain surgery? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Hollywood?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  25. Effective treatment, at last! by Meeni · · Score: 1

    I heard that death is also an effective treatment to ingrown toenails.

  26. what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck these fascists and their "innovative" neo-lobotomy technique. I think they need to be cured of their psycopathy with innovative new sleghamer brain surgery.

  27. 1. Scientist: "What could possibly go wr---" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2. (*handed cocaine and grant money*)

    3. Profit!!!

  28. Think of the marketing possibilities by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
    This opens an opportunity for corporations to fund this research and eventually monetize it. According to TFA, they can induce addictive behavior in previously unaddicted rats with the combination of rhodopsins and lasers. All they have to do is extend the technique to work with television illumination. Then they can load up processed food with the rhodopsin and get viewers addicted to anything they put in their mouths.

    Think about nicotine style consumer addition on things that are normal and legal. Genus! They can move beyond the current list of salt, sugar and fat without have to bother with laws against opiates or stimulants. If you consider how much drug companies are raking in with "legal" oxycontin/oxycodone, other market segments would go crazy for that kind of "customer loyalty".

    It wouldn't be a stretch to see soft drink makers use this to bring consumers back to sugar laden beverages. Sales have been dropping, and this could reverse the trend. Corporate manipulation at it's finest. The US is wonderland if you can use "campaign contributions" and PACs to keep those pesky regulators out of your hair.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  29. Possible side effects may include death. by sven_eee · · Score: 1

    Also possible to use high speed metal projectiles.

  30. Is this where the war on drugs will take us? by thelukester · · Score: 1

    Moving from NYC to Shanghai cured my taste for blow. First month here kinda sucked but not s bad as getting my skull open and having lasers pointed at my neocortex.

    Genetic engineering and laser is not how we end this problem. End the "war on Drugs," end the "war on Terror". Use the trillions saved to educate people and provide rehab. Our economy would be stronger, schools better, streets safer, and Mexico could get regain control from the vicious drug cartels.

  31. Special training by maroberts · · Score: 1

    ...for sharks to operate these lasers will commence shortly ....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  32. Fire a bullet instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullets are still much more efficient than lasers...

  33. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by thelukester · · Score: 1

    So you are saying that cocaine is addictive the same way sex is addictive? You are an idiot. Stop spreading war on drug FUD.

    I don't know if I would be classified as an addict, but I used blow on the every weekend and occasionally to get by at work for about 5 years. I moved cities after a nasty breakup and had to go cold turkey on both. I missed the sex more than the coke. The war on drugs is a sham.

  34. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by durrr · · Score: 1

    "The medical community is wrong because my anecdote"

    Sure thing bro, I cured my amputated leg with homeopathy by the way.

  35. Re:Firing a Laser Into Your Brain to cure addictio by durrr · · Score: 1

    You're not captain obvious, you're captain misunderstanding-the-whole-fucking-concept.
    The laser doesn't destroy any chemical reaction. It simply excites neurons that have a regulatory effect on addiction, the same effect could likely be had with electrode stimulation, or transcranial magnetic stimulation, only that the optogenetic approach have much better targeting resolution and neuron selectivity.

  36. Suddenly a huge influx of addiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suddenly there is a huge influx of party goes interested in trying new things. But wait, it turns out to be an April Fools joke executed on the wrong day by, well, a fool. Ooops, Sorry for that addiction! It was only a harmless joke! http://rawcell.com.

  37. Do not look directly in to laser ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... with remaining good lobe.

  38. PEW PEW PEW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is why you don't turn gamers into surgeons.

  39. Sharks by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    Now I know how to help all those sharks on drugs (lab animals from my other evil experiments)....

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  40. I'd rather by hughbar · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy [with a laser]...

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  41. ECT (electro convulsive therapy) from mid-century by KrazyDave · · Score: 0

    ...was supposed to be a cure-all for everything from depression to criminal behavior. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    --
    www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
  42. No such thing as 'addiction'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a joke. There is no such thing as 'addiction'.

    Read 'Addiction is a Choice' by Jeffrey Schaler (but of course, you would actually have to THINK and be open to alternative points of view, and that might be too much for most Slashdotters...)

    Rats don't get 'addicted', this is more fraudulent, pointless 'research' on animals, money for old rope.

    1. Re:No such thing as 'addiction'. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, then what made them go back for the drug? They must have gotten some kind of beneficial effect out of it. Animals don't tend to do pointless things without a good reason.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:No such thing as 'addiction'. by oreaq · · Score: 1

      Animals don't tend to do pointless things without a good reason.

      Really?

    3. Re:No such thing as 'addiction'. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What happened here is that the animals were put under stress, and tried to develop some kind of behaviour they hoped would result in the stress to go away. From their point of view, it "worked". It's self conditioning, not "pointless".

      Quite the opposite, from the pigeons' point of view, what they did made the food appear. They tried to appease their "god" if you want, so he would give them food.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. Maybe its just that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the rats just got scared of the manipulation and thats why didnt take any drugs afterwards.

  44. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Considering how sex is one of the few things that can motivate even animals to kill their own kind for "no good reason" (i.e. neither food nor defense of their own life), I'd say that sex is one pretty powerful motivator.

    It would be interesting to see whether animals would also kill each other to get another load of some drug after you get them addicted.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy#Transorbital_lobotomy ...
    I'd rather keep all my addictions...

  46. Forget Transorbital, try an Orbital Multi Lobotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many lobotomies all at the same time from space orbit
    Operation: Problem, Reaction, Solution

    Kit in place? Check,
    Media spewing out the problem? Check.
    People reacting, and begging for solution? er,, Now to just get the people to demand for it to happen.
    After they demand it. Provide the solution.

    Welcome to Hell on Earth, would you like to get yourself fucked over, or just fuck someone else over today?

  47. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to see whether animals would also kill each other to get another load of some drug after you get them addicted.

    With a spare arena, and some guns, or simply knives and axes, experimentation on this matter could even help solve 'the meth problem.'

  48. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the F modded this troll? It should be "Informative" because it is CORRECT.

    It's addictive kids, quit trying to claim it isn't.

  49. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by markdavis · · Score: 1

    Sex is a hugely powerful motivator but few higher species will kill each other for mating. Most will carefully regulate their "fighting" to be mostly display and instinctively know when they are outmatched and stop aggression and retreat. It is not in the species' best interest for lots of their own kind to die in such activities.

  50. addiction bench marking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I get that firing a laser beam into a living being is Soooo much more fun than the ice pick lobotomies of the 60"s. Didn't China claim that they just banned a similar type of brain surgery? Maybe the researchers in the above were asking the wrong question to start with. What is the incidence of addiction for the people who live in the country with the highest rate of Gross National Happiness? How is their "War on Drugs" going?

  51. Modern lobotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XXI century lobotomy at its finest. Let's crank that wattage Doc. After this they will not have a clue where to even get the drugs

  52. So, modern day trepanning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drill a hole into the head to let all the demons out.

  53. Not only lasers! by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    A simple .22 will do the trick as well!

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  54. addiction is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_park

    if you feel like your life is shitty then you will become an "addict" because the sensations produced by the substance or activity are your substitute for the good feelings that come from a normal, healthy life

    the solution to addiction is to make sure everyone has a good life

  55. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having been around addicts and non addicts for awhile now. The only ones who claim it is 100% addictive is the non-addicts and the ones who claim it is 100% not are the full blown 'cant get thru my day without it' addicts.

    A bump once and awhile whatever. Do big fat rails 2-3 times a day? Maybe you have a problem?

    A guy I used to work with was a fighter pilot. Many of the older guys in the older stuff were quite jacked out (dont know about the newer guys). They like the speed as he would say. He said he quit it because of what he saw in his fellow pilots. If you met these guys they are usually quite laid back. What he observed is the more they did the more violent they would get. He knew, two guys on death row, and decent amount of others in prison for other violent crimes. It changes your brain chemistry slowly but surely into something much more violent.

    Now crack and meth those are pretty addictive very quickly. All the addicts I know say it and say 'dont mess with it'.

  56. Caution by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    Do not look into laser with remaining brain.

  57. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's true but the reason for it is less unwillingness to kill than unwillingness to expend any more effort than strictly necessary to accomplish their purpose. If you keep fighting after the other animal has surrendered, you put your own life/health/opportunity to mate in danger to no purpose.

    Killing in such conflicts is very much abnormal for humans as well, in fights that involve only our natural weapons (hands, feet, heads and teeth). People are very capable of killing one another with these but it's really very rare because the instincts that govern the violence were tuned by a five million years of evolution to apply what violence was necessary to establish dominance and then stop before risking any more. When a knife or worse a gun is involved, the enough is enough response is way too slow to engage before excessive harm is done. It also drastically changes the equation of risk-to-self vs. removal of problem.

  58. Re:Could also cure breathing. by DougOtto · · Score: 1

    Which. technically, solves the addiction problem.
    Brilliant!

    --
    Solving Unix problems since 1989...
  59. cheaper by juenger1701 · · Score: 1

    a .45 will do the trick as well

  60. "even in non-addicted rats" by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Turning them off, even in non-addicted rats, saw the addictive behavior return or introduced.

    Well that must be some kind of special hell - being addicted, but not knowing to what.

    .

  61. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, using it on the weekends doesn't make you an addict. If you'd been addicted, you and everyone else would have known it. For one thing, you'd have spent every dime you had on it and missed so much work that you would have been fired.

    Snort, shoot, oe smoke it three times a day for a year and you'll be addicted.

  62. rats addicted to cocaine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, were the rats like simply eating it or snorting it with a straw provided to them?

  63. They got some rats addicted to cocaine by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 1

    am i the only one that chuckled when they read this?

  64. Brain lasers sound wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An easier cure for drug addiction would be to start making Ibogaine again, and we don't have to fire lasers at brains to do it.

  65. Because you need that addiction by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Like you need a hole in the head.

  66. That reminds me. by niftymitch · · Score: 1
    That reminds me of a .sig....

    "Keep an open mind. Just not so open that your brain falls out"

    So they sensitize an active portion of the brain, flip open the skull and zap the brain.... OUCH.

    Oh wait the brain has almost no pain cells so this is OK.

    The part that worries me are the modern, often abused, drugs that reform the structures of the brain. To fix this, well this is not a fix.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  67. Some naive comments here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a recovering alcoholic, and I can assure you that by the end of my drinking I did not want to drink anymore. Just like most heroin users don't want to use heroin.

    The problem with addiction is that it's a trap. Once you get to the point you think you may have a problem, you are already addicted. And once your addicted, your ability to choose to stop using your drug of choice (and that includes alcohol), is removed. It's gone. Nada, zip. You can tell yourself a million times "I won't use again", and yet you do.

    When you couple in physical addiction to the mix (and yes, alcohol is very physically addictive, and unlike heroin, withdrawal from alcohol can easily result in death, which is why detox centers exist), it's even more difficult to stop.

    Achieving sobriety from alcohol was the most important and yet most difficult thing I have ever done. Getting a CS degree, being successful in my career, where all nothing compared to combating addiction. And I'll be doing so, for the rest of my life.

  68. Rat studies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of these doctors actually prefer that you don't talk to them. They would rather observe your physical behavior and write a heady analysis by only that observation. They are very unwilling to believe anything a subject (patient) tells them. That is especially true with the sadistic ones. Even after a prefrontal labotomy, they pretty much ignore you and laugh at you behind your back.

  69. Over Kill by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Laser shots to the brain for addicts are a case of applying too much technology. Even a Colt 45 is a waste of effort. It is my thought that a guillotine can repair a lot of jerks and do so with almost no investment or maintenance at all.. It doesn't even need to be sharp if the blade is heavy enough. Then again a sledge hammer is even simpler. It is a cure. It is inexpensive. It solves a social nightmare. It is an object that inspires others to reform. And if we ever get smart enough we could compost these addicts for some kind of fuel. Or at least start large alligator farms so that we could grow some nice leather by making use of the corpses. And as far as chilling out there is nothing chiller than a corpse at room temperature. Never heard one moan about stress or bad memories even a tiny bit.

  70. Re wrong! by almechist · · Score: 1

    >"Feeling the high won't destroy your life. Feeling a constant need for getting high (addiction) will destroy your life."

    Actually, for mind/reality-altering drugs (which excludes caffeine, nicotine, sugar, etc) the actual high *can* contribute to destroying lives. While high, judgement and functionality are so severely impaired that there is a huge risk of injury to one self and to others. And all the while, the person is completely unproductive- can't work, can't learn, can't do much of anything useful to society or for themselves.

    So yes, the need for getting high does contribute to "destroying your life", and can be the longest part of the destruction, the actual high contributes too.

    Sorry, this is total bullshit. For example, let's look at opiate drugs like heroin, which all act similarly upon the brain. It has been shown that as long as the opiate addict has a steady high-quality supply of the drug, very little in the way of harm occurs either physically or mentally. There are many famous historic examples of high-functioning opium addicts, the poet Coleridge is perhaps the best known example. More importantly, and more recently, experiments in Switzerland and elsewhere have demonstrated that when you allow heroin addicts access to cheap and legal heroin, they tend to obtain and hold down jobs, and in general simply get on with their lives. Heroin addiction is no bar to achievement. Any basic pharmacology textbook will show that aside from being highly addictive heroin has virtually no long-term physical side-effects, which is in stark contrast to a legal drug like alcohol. It turns out that virtually all the negative effects we tend to associate with heroin, all the physical and mental deterioration that comes to mind when one hears the word heroin, that's all caused indirectly or directly by the legal prohibitions imposed upon the user and upon society. If you use unclean injection equipment in filthy surroundings, are constantly in and out of prison, go through withdrawal every few days because you lack the money or access to the drug, and the drug itself is polluted with manufacturing impurities plus whatever unknown and dangerous cutting agents were added, well of course, you're bound to see some deterioration. None of that is caused by the drug itself, however. Do some historical research, before heroin and the other opiate drugs were made illegal there were indeed cases of addiction to be found, but no more than we see today, and perhaps a lot less. What there wasn't, strangely enough, was much of the kind of societal harm that drug prohibition is supposed to prevent. Look for examples of criminals supporting their habit through crime, drug-fueled violence, you won't find any of that. In those days most heroin addicts were bored housewives, unassuming little old ladies who purchased their "tonic" cheaply at the nearest drug store. No crime, no deterioration, minimal harm to society. Then prohibition came along... And all the havoc and death and destroyed lives and emotional pain that you see today, it all flowed directly from that. Opiates by themselves simply aren't all that destructive. Until you make them illegal.

    1. Re:Re wrong! by markdavis · · Score: 1

      No, what I said certainly is not total bull****.

      Yes, there can be high-functioning drug addicts with many drugs, especially opiates as you pointed out. It can vary greatly depending on the drug and how it is used. I didn't mean to imply it is not possible, just that there are, indeed, many cases where the high *is* a problem for the user and society, not just the seeking of it. A quick look at drunk driving or productivity/reasoning while on pot will show that. And I am not sure there is any high-functioning high with hallucinogens.

      Plus, although there CAN be high functioning people on maintenance doses of opiates (and many other drugs), many of such people will still choose go beyond maintenance at times and into an "altered" (high) state which can be very destructive for themselves and those around them. And despite what you seem to dismiss, those "episodes" can cause fatal car crashes, loss of jobs, accidents, overdoses, saying things that hurt those who love you, forgetting to do important things, etc.

      I am not a prohibitionist, but I also don't try to dismiss that there are serious issues surrounding all types of drug use which vary wildly depending on many factors.

  71. Lasers and Starfighters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lasers bored into heads is a common method for motivating the last of the Starfighters.

  72. Re:You are wrong. Cocaine IS addictive. by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    You are so wrong it isn't funny. I know several high functioning Heroin addicts who do not blow all their money on their drug of choice. One of them owns and runs a company of over 500 employees.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  73. Yes, really. by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

    The easy answer is precision.

    Electroconvulsive therapy is the mental / medical equivilent of pounding on the TV to "fix" it, and is a last ditch treatment used when the simptoms cannot be treated any other way.

    It, as the name implies, creates a seizure in the paitent by applying voltages across rather wide areas of the brain. Originally uncontrolled voltages (because it came through skin, bone, etc) into, nearly random brain tissues (because it was applied in ignorance, through multiple barriers, with no guarentee as to where the potentially (and often actually) damaging current went. Just as pounding on older electronics minutely shifted ALL components, sometimes cleaning a little bit of oxidation, or closing a curcit board crack, allowing current to flow where it had been blocked.

    Today, the seisures are usually limited to purely electrical storms in the brain, and usually do not present themselves as convulsions, or uncontrolled muscle spasms.

    I assume that the procedure has improved over the years, but I do know for a fact that ECT, to this very day, often destroys short and mid-term memory. Who knows what subtler damage it can cause?

    On the other hand, Stimulating one, or a small group of cells, is nothing like ECT.

    In fact brain surgeons will stimulate small pockets of brain cells before and during surgery (invoking memories, sights, sounds, tastes, sensations and smells) to minimise the chance of damaging or removing cells unrelated to the surgery. Something like that could never be done with ECT.

    --

    THINK! It's patriotic

  74. all well and good, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as long as it doesn't affect my sex addiction

  75. Sharks ... by Dabido · · Score: 1

    ... with lasers in their brains!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  76. Procrustes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: Procrustes
    Home > Library > Literature & Language > Webster 1913

    n.
    (Gr. Antiq.) A celebrated legendary highwayman of Attica, who tied his victims upon an iron bed, and, as the case required, either stretched or cut of their legs to adapt them to its length; -- whence the metaphorical phrase, "the bed of Procrustes".