In the matter of The Current Addiction Model being invalid, we, the Convocation House of the Oxford Neurological Society, hereby announce that the motion is carried.
Thus, the verdict shall be entered in the favour of the Prosecution.
Presiding adjudicator: Christopher Schpackenbaum, FNS
Read the Prosecution’s argument [WON]
Read the Defence argument [DEFEATED]
My learned colleagues, fellow members of the Convocation House – I believe that the Prosecution have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the current addition model is indeed invalid.
I believe that the personal circumstances of one’s life and general health bear more weight towards the notion of being addicted than the chemical neurosensory pathway suggested by the defense. It is unquestionable that one can be addicted to items reaching beyond intoxication, e.g. gambling, games or internet. However, the current model fails to explain the methods and means of being addicted to a non-drug agents.
I was particularly convinced by Prosecution’s argument about the Vietnam War. Indeed, one may think that the massive-scale abuse of heroin (which was also present during IIWW) would lead to a true abundance of addicts. This, as the Prosecution have proved, was not the case, because the soldiers were returned to their previous roles, whereby their needs were satisfied by families, employment and leisure, thus generating no need for heroin intake.
Similar situation is reported in anaesthesia or palliative medicine. A mere exposure to morphine, even over a long period of time, does not cause morphine in postoperative patients.
I also agree with the argument that the current model is harmful for the Public Health. The vast funding committed to persecution did not result in any measurable effect and thus should be re-prioritised, if not discontinued. I strongly believe that the future generations will find it extremely baffling that we have selectively allowed alcohol and cigarettes, whilst meticulously banning morphine or heroin. These strategies, which are all based on the current model, fail to produce any measurable effect and lead to breakdowns of communities, civil wars, and international conflicts.
It may be very true that the experiments on the rats, used to prove this theory, were constructed inadequately. However, I believe that there is enough evidence outside of the laboratory, to successfully challenge the current model of addiction.
I understand it may lead to many current research efforts becoming clinically and scientifically irrelevant. Thus, I recognise that the addiction-related research generated many insights into the neurobiology of the brain, and may be deemed beneficial, despite being constructed on the invalid model.
The House stands adjourned.
Oxford, 1st April 2016