Seriously though, I tend to take the view that “addictive personality” is likely in the sense that some individuals are at increased liability for addiction and others are at decreased liability. Duh. We have some targets for a final common pathway for some aspects of drug addiction like “reward” and “negative affect”. We have correlations from human studies looking at all kinds of factors from specific genes (like the serotonin transporter promotor) to loci to environmental and developmental influences. and yes “personality” factors.

Nevertheless we don’t really know the definitive answer yet to what makes the difference in the substance addict. It may be many things or we may yet find a couple of smoking guns. Therefore, no definitive answer on what might be the underlying genes/circuits/neuropharmacology of “addictive phenotype”.

Not being in that aspect of behavioral science, I’m loathe to entertain “personality” as a contributing factor. As you might suspect my worldview suggests that “personality” is an interaction of genetic endowment and the environment. again, duh. but since it isn’t a satisfying level of analysis of behavior to me i don’t tend to go there. it isn’t something that seems readily treatable or even mutable so again, I tend to focus elsewhere. not to say it might not hold value for others as a level of explanation and even treatment/prevention.

getting back to the point of my post, you land square on the difficult interaction of science with public policy goals. the science side wants to explain as much as possible about possible contributions to drug abuse, one of which might be “personality”. But it is known that we are dealing in the realm of probabilities, not binary outcomes. Politics believes (with some justification) that people are only able to understand binary. To, say, identify your third grader as “nonaddictive” and therefore think “well she’ll never become addicted”. To understand “one drink a day good, five drinks a day and you are an addict”. Science understands there is no such thing as perfect prediction, policy does not. And the perception is that there is no cost to an abolitionist perspective so why not go beyond the “truth” as we know it and say “no drugs for anyone- else you’ll be having opiate withdrawal before you know it”?

My trouble with this formulation is that I *do* think that there is a cost and it has to do with the real risks being overlooked because the individual has figured if the cartoonish lies-to-children is wrong, there must be NO risk. This is a particularly prominent feature of the MDMA-advocate and the cannabis-legalize-eet-mon perspective.

On a personal note, I have kept a square perspective about drug use because I learned early on that once I develop a habit, it is very difficult to stop. As an elementary schoolkid during the Regan years, I feared that about drugs. My parents never lied to me about drugs, but I am sure my teachers did. That says something on its own.

By the way, I appreciate the pun in your filing scheme. Is it the drug that’s abused or the science?