That is my book and stroe based on this articles please
Title: Addiction is a D

That is my book and stroe based on this articles please
Title: Addiction is a Disease. My Parents Showed Me
Author: Sosha Lewis
Source: The Washington Post, August 3, 2018
———
I got out of bed and followed the smell of bacon and the sound of my parents’ voices to the kitchen. The Eagles were harmonizing from the tape deck, and I could hear laughter mixed with kissing.
Following the morning routine of fathers everywhere, mine poured a cup of coffee and flipped through the morning paper. He then noticed the time, grabbed a can of Easy-Off Oven Cleaner and sprayed it directly down his throat.
He swallowed hard, kissed my mom goodbye, told me to be good at school and left for work.
My dad. The pill hustler.
He would spend his day rocketing his white Chevy Nova over the twisting Appalachian Mountain roads to present his Easy-Off-blistered throat to local doctors in exchange for prescriiptions for narcotics.
When I got home that afternoon, our tiny apartment in Oceana, W.Va., looked as if it had been picked up and shaken. There was a lingering smell of stale beer and cigarette ash. Empty pill capsules and rolled-up dollar bills littered the coffee table and floor.
My mom, Starr, was sitting in her usual place on the couch, but her makeup had slid around and formed a garish mask, and her left eye was starting to swell from a jab by my dad. Her head was slowly slumping forward like a willow that had just started weeping.
This was a scene that would be played out again and again throughout my tumultuous ’80s childhood: my parents going from giddy at the prospects of scoring drugs to petulant and abusive when they ran out.
My parents. The drug addicts.
In 2012, four years after my mom’s overdose death, I began corresponding with my dad, Steve, then an inmate in jail. He and I had been estranged for years. I blamed him for making my mother an addict – essentially, for killing her. However, when my husband and I became parents, I had an overwhelming need to know how my parents came to choose drugs over me. Steve was the only one left to ask.
His letters were filled with soul- shaking guilt and regret. Despite dropping out of high school at 16, his grammar and spelling were solid from years of reading one paperback novel after another. We found we shared some favorites: “No Country for Old Men,” “Lonesome Dove” and “Beloved.”
Steve wrote about falling in love with my mom for the same reasons that everyone fell in love with my mom – her sparkling blue eyes and megawatt smile.
Let’s see, I was 14 and Starr was 16 when we met at school. We had to sneak around. They would meet up in alleys and sometimes sneak off to a secluded hollow to “smoke pot and drink wine.”
From his smeared southpaw scrawl, I learned that Steve’s stepfather was an abusive alcoholic and that he did his first “shot of dope” at 14. I’ve never been able to shake that feeling of warmth, it just totally engulfs you, it whispers to you that everything will be alright. I have done every drug you can imagine . . . I always come back to opiates, to that warmth. He and my mom didn’t choose to be addicts, he assured me, and he was sorry for how my siblings and I were raised. No one would chose the hell that comes with being an addict, Sosha. No one.
When I first read this, I burned with indignation. What a cop-out. I had chosen not to be a drug addict; it really wasn’t that hard.
Then I read through his letters again. I thought about Steve as a boy who protected his mom from her abusive husband and then curled up with the warmth of dope.
I made myself admit that I had often used alcohol as an escape route. I had not chosen addiction, but perhaps it was also that addiction hadn’t chosen me.
I’ve watched addiction swallow up loved ones, people who were smart and loving and charismatic, and it still took me decades to accept that, as then-Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy stated in his landmark 2016 report, addiction is a chronic illness, not a moral flaw.
And it is an epidemic with a stigma attached. An estimated 20.8 million people in the United States are living with a substance abuse disorder, which is more than the number living with all cancers combined. Yet people don’t pin colored ribbons to their lapels for substance-abuse awareness or lace up their sneakers to race for the opiate cure.
We must see beyond the statistics and headlines. We must remember that buried under disease are real people and real families. And some were once just a couple of teenagers who fell in love.
Article #2
Title: Is Addiction a Brain Disease?
Author: Sally Satel
Source: The Conversation, May 10, 2016
———————————
The opioid abuse epidemic is a full-fledged item in the 2016 campaign, and with it questions about how to combat the problem and treat people who are addicted.
At a debate in December Bernie Sanders described addiction as a “disease, not a criminal activity.” And Hillary Clinton has laid out a plan on her website on how to fight the epidemic. There, substance use disorders are described as “chronic diseases that affect the brain.”
The National Institutes for Drug Addiction describe addiction as “a chronic, relapsing brain disease.” But a number of scholars, myself included, question the usefulness of the concept of addiction as a brain disease.
Psychologists such as Gene Heyman in his 2012 book, “Addiction a Disorder of Choice,” Marc Lewis in his 2015 book, “Addiction is Not a Disease” and a roster of international academics in a letter to Nature are questioning the value of the designation.
So, what exactly is addiction? What role, if any, does choice play? And if addiction involves choice, how can we call it a “brain disease,” with its implications of involuntariness?
As a clinician who treats people with drug problems, I was spurred to ask these questions when NIDA dubbed addiction a “brain disease.” It struck me as too narrow a perspective from which to understand the complexity of addiction. Addiction is not a problem of the brain, though the brain is surely involved: it is a problem of the person.
Why call addiction a brain disease?
In the mid-1990s, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) introduced the idea that addiction is a “brain disease.” NIDA explains that addiction is a “brain disease” state because it is tied to changes in brain structure and function.
True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, alcohol and nicotine do change the brain with respect to the circuitry involved in memory, anticipation and pleasure. Some observers consider addiction a form of learning: as people discover that a substance – or an activity, such as gambling – helps them assuage pain or elevate their mood, they form a strong attachment to it. Internally, synaptic connections strengthen to form the association.
But I would argue that the critical question is not whether brain changes occur – they do – but whether these changes block the factors that sustain self-control for people.
Is addiction truly beyond the control of an addict in the same way that the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease or multiple sclerosis are beyond the control of the afflicted?
It is not. No amount of reinforcement or punishment can alter the course of an entirely autonomous biological condition. Imagine bribing an Alzheimer’s patient to keep her dementia from worsening, or threatening to impose a penalty on her if it did.
The point is that addicts do respond to consequences and rewards routinely. So while brain changes do occur, describing addiction as a brain disease is limited and misleading, as I will explain.
Recovery is possible
Take, for example, the case of physicians and pilots with drug or alcohol addiction. When these individuals are reported to their oversight boards, they are monitored closely for several years. They are suspended for a period of time and return to work on probation and under strict supervision.
If they don’t comply with set rules, they have a lot to lose (jobs, income, status). It is no coincidence that their recovery rates are high.
And here are a few other examples to consider.
In so-called contingency management experiments, subjects addicted to cocaine or heroin are rewarded with vouchers redeemable for cash, household goods or clothes. Those randomized to the voucher arm routinely enjoy better results than those receiving treatment as usual.
Consider a study of contingency management by psychologist Kenneth Silverman at Johns Hopkins. Addicted subjects were offered US$10 an hour to work in a “therapeutic workplace” if they submitted clean urine samples. If the sample tests positive or if the person refuses to give a sample, he or she cannot attend work and collect pay for that day. Workplace participants provided significantly more opiate-negative urine samples than people in the comparison arm of the study and worked more days, had higher employment income and spent less money on drugs.
Through drug courts, the criminal justice system applies swift and certain sanctions to drug offenders who fail drug tests. The threat of jail time if tests are repeatedly failed is the stick, while the carrot is the promise that charges are expunged if the program is completed. Participants in drug courts tend to fare significantly better in terms of rearrest and alcohol use than than their counterparts who have been adjudicated as usual.
These examples show the importance – indeed, the possibility – of behavioral shaping through external incentives and sanctions.
A disease of choice?
In a choice model, full-blown addiction is the triumph of feel-good immediate decisions – to quell psychological discomfort or regulate mood – over long-term consequences such as family deterioration, job loss, health and financial problems.
But if addiction is a choice, why would anyone “choose” to engage in such a self-destructive behavior? People don’t choose to use addictive drugs because they want to be addicted. People choose take addictive substances because they want immediate relief.
Let’s follow a typical trajectory. At the start of an episode of addiction, the drug increases in enjoyment value while once-rewarding activities such as relationships, job or family recede in value. Although the appeal of using starts to fade as consequences pile up – spending too much money, disappointing loved ones, attracting suspicion at work – the drug still retains value because it salves psychic pain, suppresses withdrawal symptoms and douses intense craving.
In treatment, medications like methadone and buprenorphine for opiate dependence, or Antabuse or naltrexone for alcoholism, can certainly help suppress withdrawal and craving, but rarely are they sufficient in the absence of counseling or therapy to help patients achieve lasting recovery. Motivation is essential to make needed changes.
Understanding capacity for choice needs to be part of treatment
The disease-versus-choice dichotomy does have some value because it leads to emphasis on treatment over incarceration. But it deemphasizes the kind of treatment that works best: namely, treatment that relies on improving patient choice-making and self-control and that leverages the power of incentives and sanctions. This is what addicted people deserve to help them make better decisions in the future.
It is far more productive, in my view, to view addiction as a behavior that operates on several levels, ranging from molecular function and structure and brain physiology to psychology, psychosocial environment and social relations.
But NIDA researchers claim that the more we understand the neurobiological elements of addiction, the more we will see that addiction is a brain disease. To me, this makes as much sense as concluding that because now we know more about the role of personality traits, such as anxiety, in increasing addiction risk, we can, at last, recognize that addiction is a disease of personality. It’s neither. Addiction is not a problem of one dimension.
Official rhetoric does addicts a disservice when it implies they are merely helpless victims of their own hijacked brains.
Guidelines: Writing the Project 2 Paper
In this paper, we continue working with the ideas from the discussion–what makes a writer trustworthy and persuasive–and we dig deeper with a formal analysis.
This paper requires much more than Project 1, so the guidelines here are detailed. Please take your time reading this page and use it as your guide to writing your paper.
Before You Write
Make sure you see my comments on your Project 1 final draft. Most likely, I’ve indicated what I want you to focus on in addition to the requirements below
Make sure you see my comments on your Week 4 Discussion
Read the Discussion Update (a new item this week, available no later than Wednesday) for important information you should consider in your paper
What Kind of Paper is This?
This paper is an academic analysis of the two essays from Week 4.
Complete instructions are below.
Basic Requirements
You will submit a complete draft of your paper on Sunday. Next week, we will peer review each other’s papers, then you will revise and submit your final draft for a grade.
Grading rubric is at the bottom of this page
Length: approx. 700-1,000 words
Quoting: your paper must include at least 3 direct quotations from the op-eds you’re analyzing. Every quote should apply the lessons in the Week 5 lecture on quoting.
Editing/Proofreading: the paper you submit will be read by one of your classmates, so your paper should be edited, proofread, and free from sentence errors.
Format: double-spaced, 1″ margins, standard font, first line of each paragraph indented. Include a header in the upper left corner with your name, date, and course number.
Detailed Instructions
What Is My Task?
Write a formal analysis of two op-eds: Sosha Lews and Sally Satel from Week 4. Focus your analysis on a single main idea–your thesis. Your thesis should consider both essays together. See the sections below on Introduction and Thesis for a video lesson on thesis and for sample thesis statements.
An analysis is a close examination of how something works. See the section on writing your body paragraph for more details.
Who Am I Writing For?
Unlike the first paper, I’m asking you to imagine your audience here as a panel of writing instructors. (In Project 1, I asked you to write to your classmates, as well). In other words, you’re writing for an academic audience, so these particular academic conventions apply:
Quoting. See this week’s lecture on how to quote properly for this academic audience.
Introduction, thesis, and structure. Your readers expect a formal introduction, including a thesis statement, that follows the guidance below.
Citation of sources. Your readers expect to see accurate MLA-style citations of your two sources. See section below on citing.
How Should I Build My Paper?
Generally, your paper must include an introduction, body, and conclusion. The number of body paragraphs will vary, depending on your individual needs, but your introduction should be one paragraph and your conclusion should be one paragraph.
Specifically, this is what each section should do:
Introduction
Begin your paper with a single-paragraph introduction. In an academic essay like this, you should begin by introducing the topic generally, then narrowing to your thesis about the topic.
Think of your introduction as a funnel: wide at the top, narrow at the bottom.
Image of a funnel as an analogy for an introduction: wide (general) at the top and narrow (specific) at the bottom.
The wide opening should give your readers context and introduce the general topic. Some people say that you should hook your readers at the beginning. If you do use a hook at the beginning, remember that the hook must also bring your readers into your topic.
Do not use quotes in your introduction.
For this paper, the general topic is the definition of addiction (this is the topic that both authors are addressing). You should know enough about the topic after reading Satel’s essay. After you introduce the general topic, introduce both authors and their points of view. Include these details:
The complete names of both authors
The titles of both op-eds
The publications where the op-eds were published
Each writer’s position or argument (their thesis) on the topic of addiction
>>Note: after you first introduce the writers by their full names, refer to them all times afterward by their last names only (e.g. refer to Sally Satel as “Satel”).
Next, build a brief transition (a “connector”) that leads into the final piece of your intro: your thesis. Your thesis should appear as the last sentence of your introduction.
Thesis
The last sentence of your introduction should state your thesis. A thesis is an idea–your idea–and it’s a foundation of academic writing. A thesis is not the same thing as a topic; a thesis is an idea; it’s not a fact. That is, people can disagree over a thesis.
Check out the video below for a more detailed explanation of thesis.
In Project 2, your thesis should be based on your reading of the two authors’ strategies. It should state your position / opinion on what was most persuasive for you. The section below on body paragraphs will explain more. Here are two sample thesis statements.
Sample thesis statement:
“I find Lewis’s emphasis on personal experience more effective than Satel’s approach of citing research.”
Sample thesis statement :
“While Lewis effectively appealed to my emotions, I find Satel’s methodical approach of explanation and research more persuasive.”
Both examples include an opinion on both Satel and Lewis.
>>Note: your thesis declares your overall view, and you may not know it yet. You may need to write your thesis after you write your body paragraphs. At the very least, plan to revise your thesis after you write your body paragraphs.
Body
The body paragraphs are where your analysis happens. The Week 4 Discussion may have provided some raw material you could use; if you do find something useful from the discussion, just be sure to craft it into a formal analysis in your body paragraph(s). Do not copy-and-paste anything from the discussion into this essay.
Our goal here is to critically analyze how the writers try to connect with us and persuade us–and how well those strategies work on us, individually. That is, we want to explain their strategies, then evaluate them. We want to do this as critical readers, thinking about how to be effective writers.
To help you think about strategies that writers use, revisit our Week 4 discussion. We looked at things like:
How writers show awareness of audience knowledge (what knowledge do they assume we have on the topic?)
How writers build their credibility on a topic (how are they knowledgeable on the topic?)
How writers try to respect their readers’ own experiences and opinions
For each article, choose which strategies you thought were effective or ineffective. Be sure to look at what worked and what didn’t work for you, personally.
For example, if you thought Sally Satel’s use of research studies was effective because it built her credibility, then you would find a specific example of her using that strategy. In your analysis, you would describe the example, quote the most important part of it, and explain why that example persuaded you. This last part–how and why the example persuaded you–is most important. See this week’s lecture on quoting for more details.
The body of your paper should contain multiple paragraphs; the exact number will depend on your thesis. Let your thesis guide your planning of your body paragraphs.
Example: to think about body paragraphs for the second thesis above, the thesis keywords are “emotions,” “explanation,” and “research.” Each keyword gets its own body paragraph. The first keyword “emotions” applies to Lewis’ essay; the second two keywords “explanation” and “research” apply to Satel’s. You should write three body paragraphs–one for each keyword. Remember: your thesis guides your body paragraphs.
The image below shows how keywords in a thesis connect to topic sentences in body paragraphs.
In each body paragraph, you should describe details from the op-ed that illustrate the topic. For instance, if you’re writing a paragraph about how Satel’s use of facts is persuasive, then you should show (and quote) facts that you find persuasive and explain why you find them persuasive. Really dig into the details, and think about persuasion and trust.
>>Quoting
Your body paragraphs should contain at least three quotes from the essays you’re analyzing. Use the quotes to show your readers the most important lines that illustrate the strategy you’re analyzing. Make sure each quote follows the guidelines in the Week 5 quote lecture, including the use of template phrases for introducing and explaining a quote.
Conclusion
Unlike the funnel analogy for introduction paragraphs, conclusions don’t generally lend themselves to easy formulas. However, here you should focus on the lessons you’re taking away from your analysis. You should:
revisit your thesis statement
discuss the kinds of strategies you were most persuaded by in the two essays
discuss what, if anything, would have made each essay more persuasive for you
think ahead to writing your own opinion essay (in Project 3)
How Should I Cite My Sources?
Your paper will analyze two op-ed essays; these are your two “sources.” You must list a certain set of details about those sources in a specific order; these details are the “citations.”
You should cite your two sources at the end of your paper. The citations should follow MLA guidelines. For this paper, I’ve done the citations for you, so you just have to copy these and place them at the end of your paper.
Lewis, Sosha. “Addiction is a Disease. My Parents Showed Me.” The Washington Post, 3 Aug. 2018.
Satel, Sally. “Is Addiction a Brain Disease?” The Conversation, 10 May 2016. The Conversation US, Inc.
Grading Rubric
This scoring rubric applies the same simple structure of the Project 1 rubric. And, as with that paper, you will receive individualized comments from me. However, some categories are new:
Thesis: does the introduction end with a clear statement about both authors’ strategies?
Quality of Analysis: Does the paper accurately represent the authors’ opinions and precisely state each authors’ overall thesis? Does the paper carefully and thoroughly examine the authors’ strategies at persuasion and trustworthiness?
Paragraphing: does the paper contain a clear introduction, body, and conclusion? And is each body paragraph focused on a single, clear topic that supports the thesis? (A thesis should be supported with convincing examples from the articles).
Use of Quotes: does the paper contain at least 3 quotes that illustrate the points in the body paragraphs? Do the quotes consistently apply the lessons and templates from the Week 5 Lecture: Quoting Requirements?
Other Criteria: is the paper the required length? Does the paper contain cleanly proofread sentences, are sources cited completely and correctly, and does it follow the page formatting guidelines?