to think that addictions should not neccessarily be inherant in our DNA, and so we do not *have* to develop them......

[psychomum5]

something in a book I read recently.

addictions are inherent (sp...sorry) in our DNA, so therefore we are not at fault for developing them, and cannot fight them.

I come from two parents that were drug/alcohol addicts. It ruined both lives, altho not sure how badly it has ruined my fathers as I no longer have contact, but it has ruined my mothers and she is mentally ill, and has been all my life, and will live out her live in care.

anyway

the way this comment read was that going on my parents, I have no choice but to also develop addictions, namely to the ones my parents chose....

how is this reasoning valid?? yes, DNA predisposes you to blue eyes, red hair, freckles for instance, but not addictions......they come partly from learnt behaviour surely??? or just simple fucking bad luck!

I do not have addictions to alcohol, nror to drugs....nor to anything else IMVHO.

well, maybe mumsnet

so, am being unreasonable to think that it is not DNA, it is our choices, or am I just looking at life too simply??

YANBU even if we inherited a tendancy our choices are still more important.

I believe you can have an addictive personality within your DNA but you still need to make choices to become exposed to addictive substances/behaviour to go down that path. So, 2 people could drink equally to excess but only one of them may become alcoholic, if that makes sense.

I don't think its one or the other, you need both (genes and environmental factors).

As a counsellor who specialises in drug/alcohol issues I believe that it is ALL nurture, not DNA.

However, nurture is the most important and if you have been around unboundaried drug/alcohol use it normalises it so you are more likely statistically to become addicted yourself.

Note, only statistically - not a personal comment

Both of my parents were alcoholics, I'm not but my sister is.

for the replies.......am off out with flame, she is taking me for coffee, so sorry, but please carry on in my absence

LaurieFairycake- that's really interesting. So, you personally don't think that there is a genetic predispositiion to addiction?

Even if addictiveness is genetic, not all offspring would necessarily inherit the trait, depending on whether it was recessive/dominant etc.

So it doesn't necessarily mean that because both parents have a trait that the offspring would also have it .

It's not the addiction as such that you inherit, but the tendency of less resistance. But it's not going to happen if you arrange your life accordingly. In my family there is a tendency to high blood pressure, but because we know about it we can try to avoid the triggers.

Besides, remember that we don't necessarily inherit the traits that show in our parents: sometimes less dominant traits are inherited instead. Two brown-eyed parents can have a blue-eyed child, if both had a non-dominant blue trait. Both your parents may well have a non-addiction gene as well, and there is no saying you haven't inherited that.

Arctic - I have seen no evidence for it in my work however my work is biased towards people taking emotional responsibility for their choices and them believing that they can change. (I am not a geneticist)

I find the genetic discussion can get in the way of that with clients.

There can be a feeling of powerlessness involved if clients start to only believe its genetic as 'everyone knows you can't change your genes'.

Does that make sense?

I'm for the "nurture" side. A great book to read about this:

"They F* You Up" by Oliver James. Debunks the DNA argument quite effectively.

LaurieFairycake- yes, totally makes sense.

I guess one of the other issues with determining genetic predisposition is that there's also the issue that not all "problem drinkers" are alcoholics (i.e physically addicted to alcohol), even though the term alcoholic gets applied across the board to anyone who frequently drinks to excess.

Therefore predisposition to "physical addiction" may not explain why some people do/dont become problem drinkers.

I think it is genetic from seeing family members because even the way they drink is the same not just the effect

I think there may be a slight genetic pre-disposition in some for alcoholism. Medicines have more of an effect on some people than others, and I think alcohol can affect different people differently.

But I think that effect is dwarfed by the influence of how people are brought up. If you grew up seeing adults regularly drinking to get drunk and, in particular, drinking to change how they feel ("I'm fed up, I'm going to have a drink", "I've just had some good news, let's have a drink to celebrate!", "Oh no, that's awful, here have a drink"), then I think you're much more likely to end up with a drink or other drug problem yourself.

maryz - there is no proven link to mental health issues with regards to DNA - again a lot of people think it is nurture (including Oliver James - thats a great book that Whatnolunchbreak).

The reason they ask you that mary can be one of two things - they think it's possible that the nurture has been received from people around the child who have drug/alcohol/mental distress or because they think genes play a part in it (some mental health professionals believe it - just because I don't agree doesn't mean they are wrong).

I think the studies so far are not convincing at all but I also think we're right at the beginning of our knowledge on DNA so of course it is possible.

I think that genetics play a part - insofar as people have different brain chemistries which dictate how they react to stimulants/depressants.

So for some people an alcoholic drink will simply be pleasant, while for others the alcohol will make the "pleasure/reward" centres in their brain light up like a christmas tree. However it's a predisposition - not something that definitely will be or has to be.

I agree that lots of people are labelled as alcoholic who aren't - some very heavy drinkers may not be dependent while relatively light drinkers are.

I can tell you which of my friends, acquaintances and family have the brain chemistry which makes them more likely to become alcoholics, for example. There is a look in the eye when drinking is on the cards, of excitement and anticipation, and they tend to keep going and going (no off switch). These people aren't alcoholics, but their relationship with drink is unhealthy - they are more at risk of developing a dependency than others IMO.

I find the idea that a predisposition will mean people feel powerless etc simplistic TBH, people know that there are no absolutes in life.

Don't know where I stand on this.

My experience as an ex problem drinker is that I was not at fault for developing my addiction (I honestly cannot pinpoint anything I did differently around drink to my friends, but none of them became alkies and I did) and that, without help, I couldn't fight it - complicated by the fact that I honestly did not realise I needed that help for a long time, because of the nature of the mental illness called alcoholism.

BUT at the same time I am not at all sure that alcoholism is inherent in my DNA, nore even that that is significant - for example, there must be a lot of genetic alcoholics in Iran but, if most of them never drink, their alcoholism is not going to develop according to the classic pathology ...

I think the key is that, whether or not the logic holds up, the "born addiction" is a very useful MODEL for describing alcoholism that rings a lot of bells with addicts themselves and therefore helps in their treatment - but that, like all models, it is open to abuse and can become an excuse for not taking any action.

I personally think that diabetes is a better model - you can't always avoid getting it, you can't necessarily get rid of it once you've got it, but, by becoming aware, taking it seriously and managing your behaviour and lifestyle accordingly, you can often still have a relatively noraml life.

But that's just me. Also, again, it's only a model so, if I've offended anyone who actually has diabetes, sincere apologies.

YANBU I am in control !

thnakyou everyone......so far it seems to be agreed that choices outway the inherant-ness and even if it is to do with genetics (which I am clearly not on the side of), it still boils down to choice. therefore it is not in anyway a guarantee that you will become an addict.

I think there is a bit of truth in both

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the likelihood of developing an addiction is genetic - the so-called 'addictive personality'

So if you take 2 people, 1 with the gene and 1 with out, and feed them equal amounts of booze/drugs/gambling, there is a strong chance that 1 will develop an addiction.

HOWEVER, there is nothing stopping someone with a family history of addiction recognising this and therefore keeping themselves away from those situations.
Essentially, will-power is stronger, but genes/DNA make a convenient excuse for people who don't want to take responsibility for their own behaviour

MIFLAW, I have Type I diabetes and so do both my DCs and fwiw I don?t find your comments offensive in the slightest.

However, I would just add that you are referring to Type II diabetes ? Type I is an autoimmune condition and you can no more avoid getting it than you can MS or cancer.

I was going to post that about Type I and Type II: they are very different diseases.

i would agree with that psycho

it would be useful for people to know if they were predisposed, not because it would mean that they would know their inevitable fate, but because it would alert them to keep an eye on their behaviour and consumption. Like with miflaw's diabetes analogy, if you know you are in a high risk group (like my DH) it empowers you to do something about it (which he doesn't but anyway you get my drift)

Type 2 diabetes that is

But that's sort of my point - I couldn't avoid becoming an alcoholic so, for me, it is more like the Type I. (Actually, that's a moot point - I would contend that, whether it was genetic or behavioural, there was no sign it would happen until it happened and then it was too late - for example, I drank less and in a more moderate way than some people I was at uni with, but I'm an alcoholic and they're not, so how could I reasonably foresee it?) I didn't become an alcoholic because I drank too much - I drank too much because I was an alcoholic.

BUT once I found out about my alcoholism I was in a position to "manage" my illness - something I simply couldn't do previously.