This strik­ing image of hur­ri­cane Katrina sur­vivors risk­ing drown­ing to load them­selves down with beer and cig­a­rettes illus­trates a remark­able fea­ture of human decision-making. We can become extra­or­di­nar­i­ly moti­vat­ed to seek out and con­sume psy­choac­tive sub­stances. Nicotine, alco­hol, hero­in, cocaine, amphet­a­mines, and the like.

A man in chest-deep water pulling along a makeshift raft with a woman on it surrounded by some supplies, though mostly cans of beer.

Darwin might’ve been flum­moxed by this. How did our species sur­vive when our sur­vival instincts can be cast aside in favor of drugs that kill us? Well, the answer’s two-fold. First, neu­ro­science research reveals that the drugs that addict us work on pre­cise­ly the same brain sys­tems as nor­mal­ly guide our sur­vival deci­sions. Second, only in the mod­ern era of indus­tri­al glob­al cap­i­tal­ism was psy­choac­tive sub­stance expo­sure near­ly uni­ver­sal.

A fac­to­ry work­er in the 1800s could roll maybe five hun­dred cig­a­rettes a day. A mod­ern cig­a­rette rolling machine can pro­duce twen­ty thou­sand per minute. And mod­ern trans­porta­tion sys­tems can deliv­er those cig­a­rettes to every city and town all over the world. 

These two com­bined real­i­ties, our evo­lu­tion­ar­i­ly con­served vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to addic­tion, and the devel­op­ment of the pro­duc­tion and trans­porta­tion sys­tems that can deliv­er sen­tences world­wide, is why one in six deaths on the plane and among adults is attrib­ut­able to psy­choac­tive sub­stance use. And this pro­por­tion is like­ly to rise in the future.

Primate research indi­cates that there may be a polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic dimen­sion to this. When low­er pri­mates form a hier­ar­chy, those at the bot­tom under­go a change in their dopamine sys­tem. This makes them more like­ly to con­sume drugs in an addic­tive fash­ion. Now, if this turns out to be true of our species, that would mean that human beings are par­tic­u­lar­ly vul­ner­a­ble if they’re in some way dom­i­nat­ed or don’t have any pow­er.

Luis Felipe Salas, "Poverty"

Luis Felipe Salas, Poverty”

Now, addic­tion could hap­pen to any­one at any lev­el soci­ety, but if you look in wealthy soci­eties, peo­ple who have less eco­nom­ic and edu­ca­tion­al resources are more prone to addic­tion. So as inequal­i­ty wors­ens, we real­ly have a risk of cre­at­ing a dis­em­pow­ered under­class of peo­ple who are lit­er­al­ly sedat­ed by ever more avail­able psy­choac­tive sub­stances.

Our Stanford University team is going after this prob­lem in two main ways. First, we’re using the tools of neu­ro­science to unrav­el the basic mech­a­nisms of addic­tion in the brain. This includes imag­ing stud­ies where we try to pre­dict whether or not patients in treat­ment will relapse. If we had a reli­able sig­nal of who need­ed more care, we could then tai­lor treat­ment and help more peo­ple recov­er.

We also work direct­ly with nation­al and inter­na­tion­al pub­lic pol­i­cy­mak­ers. For exam­ple, peo­ple who reg­u­late the tobac­co, alco­hol, and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try, and those who over­see the health­care sys­tem and the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. We com­mu­ni­cate to our friends in the pol­i­cy world what sci­ence has to teach about addic­tion and how you can use that infor­ma­tion to make poli­cies that do a bet­ter job pro­tect­ing peo­ple and pro­mot­ing pub­lic health.

One of our key mes­sages is that psy­choac­tive sub­stances are not ordi­nary com­modi­ties. With many things that are for sale you can assume that what­ev­er peo­ple con­sume reveals their ratio­nal pref­er­ences. So if you just dereg­u­late it’ll all aggre­gate up to a pub­lic good. That’s prob­a­bly true for broc­coli. But it’s not true for psy­choac­tive sub­stances, because they impair our brain’s abil­i­ty to val­ue things.

That’s why any poli­cies in this area have to take into account evo­lu­tion­ar­i­ly con­served cir­cuits and func­tions in the brain. Prevention pro­grams the tell teenage boys that if you smoke you might get lung can­cer in thir­ty years don’t work. Prevention pro­grams that tell them that girls don’t like to kiss smok­ers make them go pale with fear.

Think of anoth­er prob­lem. People who drink and dri­ve over and over again. What most gov­ern­ments do is they threat­en them. They say you know, Someday you’re going to have an acci­dent and we’ll send you to prison for a long time.” Now faced between the choice between a swift and cer­tain reward from drink­ing and a dis­tant prob­a­bilis­tic cost, most peo­ple do what evo­lu­tion teach­es them to do. They eat their dessert first, and they go on drink­ing.

But imag­ine a dif­fer­ent approach that is tai­lored to the real­i­ties of the human brain. This is what’s being done in the US state of South Dakota: People who are con­vict­ed of drunk dri­ving mul­ti­ple times are sen­tenced not to be allowed to drink. And this is backed up by mul­ti­ple breath tests every sin­gle day. Those peo­ple who are on this pro­gram and then are caught drink­ing are giv­en the kind of con­se­quence to which our brain is attuned, some­thing swift and cer­tain. The con­se­quence is mod­est. Twelve hours, twenty-four hours in a jail cell. But because it’s swift and it’s cer­tain, it’s high­ly moti­vat­ing for peo­ple to change their behav­ior.

After over eight mil­lion sched­uled tests, the rate at which peo­ple show up and have a neg­a­tive test (mean­ing they’ve not been drink­ing) is over 99%. This pro­gram has evi­dence of reduc­ing drink dri­ving arrests, domes­tic vio­lence arrest, and pop­u­la­tion mor­tal­i­ty. But it’s just one exam­ple of a gen­er­al prin­ci­ple. We can use what we’re learn­ing in sci­ence to make poli­cies towards addic­tion that pro­tect the pub­lic, that improve pub­lic health, and most impor­tant­ly, too, they also help the per­son that has the addic­tion.

The mag­nif­i­cent decision-making organ that evo­lu­tion has bequeathed us is vul­ner­a­ble to addic­tion. Perhaps par­tic­u­lar­ly if we live in the low­er tiers of soci­ety. This cre­ates a risk for human­i­ty. Karl Marx was wor­ried that reli­gion would become the opi­ate of the mass­es. But if we don’t use neu­ro­science to make bet­ter treat­ments and bet­ter poli­cies regard­ing addic­tion, the opi­ate of the mass­es will be opi­ates.

Further Reference

Keith Humphrey's faculty profile at the Stanford Medicine site.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.