Writing from Spain, where we've lived for over a decade, we can confirm what you've said about the absence of drunks and the omnipresence of alcohol. A Spaniard once summed it up for me: "Here, everyone's an alcoholic but nobody's a drunk." I think he meant to say that most everyone drinks quite a bit, but they know their limits. As for liver damage, I'd wager that this is largely due to the fact that it's unusual to drink without eating (think: tapas) and that wine and beer are far more prevalent than cocktails, in terms of daily dosing.

Culture influences biological processes, just as the amount of light influences sleep/wake cycles. Addiction is more easily understood in the laboratory where you can eliminate culture, and hundreds of other factors. For example, alcoholic or cocaine addicted rats. Some people say diabetes is now a cultural disease in the USA, very much influenced by the eating habits. But, we can treat it because biologists took interest.

Your article reminds me of the silly nature vs. nurture debates. The answer is: It's both!

Is Stanton Peele's open letter to Nora Volkow merely a pathetic attempt to sound informed and insult someone who actually understands the nuances of addiction that Stanton attempts to explicate in a manner resembling the crudity of sophomoric intellectualism?

I hope no one else has had the misfortune of wasting their time reading this letter to Nora Volkow.

Stanton,
You can't choose to believe things.
Nora is asking Nature what addiction is, and Nature is responding.
Nora isn't talking to anyone when Nature shows the addicted brain on an MRI scanner, Nora isn't talking to anyone when injecting a past cocaine addict with methyphenidate causes them to experience the same 'high' as cocaine.

I think you'll have to square your other knowledge about the world with how the brain works, and until you start reading other books, mainly biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, literature, etc. you'll always have a close minded view of the world, and argue with other humans about results which has directly to do with what Nature is telling us, not Nora Volkow.

Your message is to anyone who wants to listen to the Brain and how it works - via the biology of addiction. You can't willingly be close minded and have a religious bent and expect to find out about addiction.
Your personal letter is more a letter to God and Nature, pleading with them so you can keep a childish belief that addiction has something to do with human will or worse yet, the devil.

I pray you visit the library for answers instead of being a recluse, or using 'authority' (i noticed you listed some sort of 'PHD' degree underneath your profile - why? - the beauty of science is your opinion is just as liable to truth as a 6 year old. You should know this).

May books and Nature guide you, not arguments, stupidity, reluctance to use experiment, and childesh hopes of ambition and desire for debate. Never forget, in Science there is no need to talk to humans.. it's the world that you are questioning and it responds.. I hope this message changes your life and causes you to seriously question your aims in life.

:)

cheers

Early childhood and adolescent culture (or environment) can modify genes (epigenetics) and/or modify behaviors (including the handling of stress) that can modify genes. Scientists have been studying the effects of environment on addiction as well (stress and exercise as separate examples).

There is a brain biology underlying addiction. It is factual, not a theory. However, it is your prerogative to test YOUR hypothesis...THEN write your a letter to Nora.

I can't really understand what Mr. Peele is saying.
I can understand what Ms. Volkow is saying.
The first time I drank I got roaring drunk. (And have ever since.)
The picture of Mr. Peele is telling. He looks like an idiot.

When I sit in my class about the neuroscience of addiction, as a recovering person (not through AA), I pretty much am like, oh, that is me, about every minute. I now have the science to describe all my feelings. It is truly fascinating. I also see a lot of hope in it as there is so much more research to be done. Our treatment system falls way short and this is where major strides can be made.

I didn't quite understand what you were saying in your letter to Dr. Volkow. I am here to say that for me the neuroscience concurs with my experience— sometimes it almost shocks me. Mr. Peele, I understand you mainly as an anti-AAer. I may be wrong in that impression. It may be more broad and more about not believing that addiction is a chronic disease treatable only by abstinence. However, it is one thing to disagree with an ideology (AA), it is quite another to disagree with science and cells. BTW while my understanding of the science is that it confirms that addiction is a chronic brain disease, I do think science will make many more treatment modalities possible, including a higher tolerance for harm reduction methods and pharmacological interventions. When it comes to treatment, rigidity is never a good thing.