TED | 你自以为了解的成瘾其实都是错的
| 音频
| 视频
（点击查看视频或下滑至底部点击“阅读原文”可以查看本次演讲视频）
| TED主题
你自以为了解的成瘾其实都是错的
| 讲师
Johann Hari
| 类型
社会 技能 TED 演讲
| 简介
究竟是什么导致了上瘾——从可卡因到智能手机?我们如何克服它?约翰·哈里亲眼目睹了我们目前的方法的失败，因为他亲眼目睹了所爱的人努力控制自己的毒瘾。他开始思考，为什么我们要像现在这样对待瘾君子，是否还有更好的方法。在这次深入的个人谈话中，他的问题把他带到了世界各地，并发现了一些令人惊讶和充满希望的方式来思考一个古老的问题。
| 中英文演讲稿
中文讲稿
（向上滑动查看讲稿）
00:12
我早年间的一个回忆，就是试图去叫醒一个亲戚，但却叫不醒他，我当时只是一个小孩，并不知道为什么，当我长大了后，我意识到我们家里有人吸毒上瘾了，到后来吸可卡因上瘾了。
00:25
我最近常常想这个问题，可能是因为现在是毒品第一次在美国和英国被禁止的第100年，我们接下来将这一项禁令推广到了全世界，我们做这一项生死攸关的决定已经有一个世纪了，对上瘾者进行惩罚，使他们痛苦，因为我们认为这样能够阻止他们，给他们一个停下来的激励。
00:48
几年之前，我看着那些在我身边的至亲，饱受毒瘾困扰，想找到一些能够帮助他们的方法，然后发现，有许多难以置信的问题，我不知道如何回答，比如，什么造成了上瘾，为什么我们仍在使用这种看起来并不管用的方法，是否还有一种更好的方法值得我们尝试？
01:10
我读了很多相关资料，然而却不能找到我想要的答案，所以我想，好吧，就去见见那些世界上各种。
01:18
以此为生的人和研究这些问题的专家，和他们聊聊看是否能够从他们中找到答案。
01:22
我一开始没想到自己最后竟然一走就是30,000多英里，遇见了许多不同的人，从布鲁克林区布朗斯维尔的变性毒贩，到花了许多时间喂猫鼬致幻剂，看它们是否对此感兴趣的科学家，结果是它们确实对此感兴趣，但只在特定的情况下，我也去了唯一一个对所有毒品合法化的国家，葡萄牙，在那从毒品到大麻都无罪，真正让我震惊的事情是，我们对毒瘾的认知几乎是全部错误的。
01:51
如果我们开始吸纳关于毒瘾的新的证据，我认为我们得改变包括毒品政策在内的许多东西。
01:58
但让我们先从我们认识的，我之前所以为的开始，想象中间这一排，想象你们从今天开始的20天，每天吸食海洛因三次，有些人听到这看起来比较兴奋啊，（笑声），别担心，这只是假想试验，想象你们这么做，好吗？会发生什么？这样的后果——过去的一百年我们都是如此被告知的，我们认为由于海洛因包含了化学致瘾剂，当你服用了一段时间之后，你的身体就会对它形成依赖，你开始从生理上需要它，20天后，你们所有人都会海洛因上瘾。对吗？这是我过去认为的。
02:34
第一件事，让我想到，我们过去一直认为的后果其实是错误的，如果我今天走出TED，Talk剧场，被车撞了，摔坏了髋关节，我会被送到医院，注射很多的二乙酰吗啡，二乙酰吗啡就是海洛因，甚至比你在街上买的品质更好，因为你从毒贩那买的已经被污染了，事实上，只有一小部分是海洛因，然而你从医生那拿的是医用纯度的，而且你还需要用上很长一段时间，这间房里有许多的人，你们可能没有意识到你们已经摄入了很多的海洛因，屏幕前面的各位也是一样，这已经发生了，如果我们对毒瘾的想法是对的，那些人都暴露在化学致瘾剂前，会发生什么呢？他们应该成为瘾君子，这项研究非常谨慎，你不会发现，当你的祖母换了一个髋关节后，就成为了瘾君子。
03:25
当我知道这一点之后，我觉得很奇怪，与我之前所听的，所知道的都相反，我认为这不可能，直到我遇到一个叫布鲁斯·亚历山大的人，他是一个温哥华的心理学教授，正在进行一项不可思议的实验，这项实验可能帮助我们理解这个问题，亚历山大教授向我解释道，我们过去对毒瘾的了解，很多时候是因为在20世纪早期，做的一系列实验，实验都很简单，你回家后今晚就可以做，如果你有一点虐待狂的话，你把老鼠放到笼子里，给它两个水杯，一杯放水，另一杯添加海洛因或可卡因，如果你这么做，老鼠总是会选择有毒品的那一杯，常常会导致自己死亡，对吧，这就是我们如何上瘾的，在70年代，亚历山大教授开始注意这些实验，他发现了一些问题，他说，我们把老鼠放在了一个空的笼子里，它们除了毒品做不了别的事情，让我试一试其它的事情，所以亚历山大教授建造了一个笼子，他称之为“老鼠公园”，那是一个老鼠的天堂，在那有很多的奶酪、彩球，还有很多的隧道，最重要的是，它们在那又很多的同伴，方便交配，它们也有两个杯子，装着普通的水和有毒品的水，但有趣的事情是，在老鼠公园，它们并不喜欢有毒品的水，它们基本上不喝，它们中没有出现不得不喝的老鼠，也没有过量服用的，当他们被隔离时，百分之百的都过量服用了毒品，而当它们过着开心并与外界交往的生活时，比例是零。
04:59
当亚历山大教授第一眼看到这个现象的时候想，也许这个只是老鼠的情况，与我们的不同，但也许并不是与我们想象的那样不同，但幸运的是，有一个人类实验，基于同样的原则，在同一个时间，那就是越南战争，在越南，20%的美国军队使用了许多的海洛因，如果你看看当时的新闻报道，他们非常的担心，因为他们觉得战争结束以后，会有成百上千的瘾君子出现在美国的街头，这些担心都是符合常理的，如今这些当年服用海洛因的士兵回家，普通心理学杂志做了一个详细的研究，他们发生了什么？结果是他们没有去戒毒中心，95%的人就停止吸毒了，如果你相信化学制瘾的解释，这根本讲不通。
05:51
但是亚历山大教授开始思考，也许上瘾可以有另一种解释，他说，如果上瘾与化学制瘾物无关呢？如果上瘾是因为你的笼子呢？如果上瘾其实是一种对环境的适应呢？
06:04
看看接下来这个案例，另一个叫作彼得·科恩的荷兰教授，认为我们不应该称之为上瘾，也许我们应该称之为依赖，人类对于依赖有一种先天与自然的需要，当我们开心并健康的时候，我们会与其他人建立一种依赖关系，但是如果你做不到这一点，由于生活的创伤和隔离，你会依赖其他给你安慰的东西，这可能是赌博，可能是色情，可能是可卡因，可能是大麻，但你会依赖一些事物，那是我们的天性，这是作为人类，我们所需要的。
06:40
开始的时候，我很难想通这件事，但一个让我理解这件事的方法是，我能看见，我座位上有一杯水，对吧，我看见很多人都有一杯水，忘了毒品，忘了毒品战争，假设一种合法的情况，这些杯子里装的可能是伏特加，对吧?，我们都可能会喝醉，节目结束了我可能就会去（笑声），但我们没有，但由于你们能负担得起很贵的TED门票，我猜你们能够付得起，喝6个月的伏特加，你不会因此无家可归，你不会这么做，这样的原因，不是因为有人阻止你，这是因为你有着依赖和联系，那些你不希望错过的东西，你有你热爱的工作，有你喜欢的人，你有着健康的人际关系，而上瘾的核心，我认为，也是我坚信证据显示的，是对于现实生活的无奈。
07:38
这对我们有着深远的启发，在对毒品的斗争中最为明显，在亚利桑那，我与一个女性团体出游，她们被要求穿着T恤，写着“我是瘾君子”，排着队，被链子拴着，挖坟墓。而人们都取笑她们，当这些女性从监狱出来，她们会有犯罪记录，这意味着她们再也不能从事合法经济活动，当然，被铁链拴在一起使得这个例子有点极端，但事实上，几乎在世界的任何一个角落，我们对瘾君子多少都是这样的，我们惩罚他们，污辱他们，给他们犯罪记录，我们在他们重新与外界建立联系时施加阻碍，加拿大有一个教授，贾博.马特，他告诉我，如果你想要建立一个系统让上瘾变得更糕，你就应该建议一个这样的系统。
08:24
而有一个地方决定建立一个完全相反的系统，我去那边看了下那是否有用，在2000年的时候，葡萄牙有着欧洲最严重的毒品问题，百分之一的人海洛因上瘾，令人震惊，每年他们都尝试使用更加强硬的美国的方法，他们不断惩罚瘾君子，诬蔑并羞辱他们，但是每年这个问题都变得更加严重，有一天，首相和反对党领袖坐在一起，大概是说，我们再也不能这样继续下去了，那样全国会有越来越多的人海洛因上瘾，我们来建立一个由科学家和医生组成的小组，想一个能真正解决这个问题的办法，他们建立了一个由约翰·华谷劳博士领导的小组，审视所有的新证据，最后他们说，“将毒品合法化，不论是大麻还是毒品，但是，最重要的一点，撤回我们过去用来对付毒瘾的费用，撤回我们用来隔离瘾君子的费用，用这些钱来帮助他们回到社会”，这并不是我们认为的解决毒瘾的方法，不论是在美国还是英国，他们也确实在家里做康复治疗，他们也做心理指导，这有些帮助，但最重要的事情与我们过去做的完全不同，就是为瘾君子创立大量就业机会，提供微型贷款以帮助他们做小本生意，假设你过去曾是一个机械工人，当你准备好了后，他们会去你工作的车库，说，如果你们雇佣这个人满一年，我们会付他一半的薪水，这个方法是为了确保葡萄牙的每一个瘾君子，在早上起床之后都有一些事情可做，当我在葡萄牙去探访那些瘾君子时，他们说的是，由于他们重新找到了目标，他们重新找到了与外界社会的依赖和关系。
09:59
今年是这个实验开始的第15个年头，结果是，注射毒品在葡萄牙的使用量降低了，根据英国犯罪学杂志的统计，50%，也就是一半，过量服用毒品的案例大量减少，毒品导致的艾滋病毒传播减少，在每个研究中上瘾指标都大量下降，一个比较令人信服的说明这很有用的事实就是，在葡萄要几乎没有人想要回到原来的系统里去。
10:24
这是一个政治上的影响，事实上，我开始思考又一个层面的影响，所有的研究都会受之影响，我们生活在这样一种文化之中，人们对各种上瘾源，越来越脆弱，不管是智能手机，还是购物或者饮食，在这个演讲开始之前，你们知道，我们被告知关掉智能手机，我得说，你们中的许多人看看起来很失落，就好像瘾君子被告知在接下来的几个小时，都不能见到毒贩了一样（笑声），许多的人觉得，听起来可能有点怪，我一直在谈与外界的失联是导致上瘾的主要因素，非常奇怪的是这种现象正在增长，因为我们都以为自己正处于联系最紧密的社会，但我逐渐开始思考，我们拥有的这种联系，或我们以为的联系，就像是对人际关系的一种拙劣的模仿，如果你在生活中遭遇了危机，你总会注意到一些事情，你推特上的粉丝不会坐在你身边，你脸书上的伙伴不会帮你走出困境，只有你血肉相连的朋友，那些与你关系很深，细致入微，那些与你有着藕断丝连，面对面关系的朋友才会来帮你，我从环境作家比尔·麦克哪里了解到的一个研究，告诉了我们很多相关的道理，这个研究调查了美国人平均拥有的在危急时可以，电话求助的亲密朋友的数量，这个数量自从1950年就开始下降，而每个人在家里的空间，却一直稳定地增长，我认为这更像一个隐喻，就是做选择的文化，我们拿朋友交换房屋面积，拿联系交换物品，结果就是我们成为了最孤独的社会中人，那个做了老鼠公园实验的布鲁斯·亚历山大说，我们一直在讨论个人层面的上瘾恢复，这是正确的，但我们更应该讨论社会层面上的恢复，我们出问题了，不仅仅是个人，更是整个集体，我们创造了一个社会，对于许多人来说，生活就像一个孤立的笼子，远远不如老鼠公园。
12:16
诚实地说，这并不是我深入调查这些的原因，我当时并未想去探索这些政治和社会相关的问题，我只想知道如何去帮助那些我爱的人，而当我结束了这段漫长的旅程，我却学到了这么多，我想着自己生命中的那些上瘾者，如果你真的够坦率，会承认爱一个上瘾者很困难，这里会有很多人都知道这件事情，你常常生气，我认为，这个讨论如此热烈的原因之一在于，因为我们每一个人都在心里思考过这个问题，每一个都多少会看着上瘾的人想，我希望有人可以阻止你，我们被告知对待生活中上瘾者的办法，一种非常典型的办法其实来自，我认为，真人秀“介入”，不知你们看过没有，我认为生活中任何事都能在真人秀中反映出来，不过这是另一个Ted演讲的内容了，如果你曾经看过“介入”节目，一个非常简单的假定：找一个上瘾者，以及他们生活中的所有人，聚到一起，就他上瘾的事情对他说，如果你不戒掉，我们就疏离你，他们所做的就是拿其与上瘾者的联系，来威胁他；结果取决于，上瘾者会不会按他们想的去做，我开始思考，意识到为什么这种方法不起作用，我想这就好像是引入了毒品战争中的逻辑，到我们的私人生活中来。
13:34
我当时想，我如何才能像葡萄牙人那么做？如今我已尝试过的，也不能说很好地坚持了，因为这一点也不简单，是对那些在我生活中的瘾君子说，我想要加深与他们的联系，告诉他们，我爱你，不管你是否还在服毒，我爱你，不管你在什么阶段，如果你需要的话，我可以随时来到你身边，因为我爱你，不希望你独自一人，或是感到孤单。
14:01
我认为这条讯息，“你并不是孤身一人，我们爱你”的核心，是它必须体现在我们对待瘾君子的每一个层面上，社会层面、政治层面及个人层面，我们向瘾君子们宣战了100年，我认为从一开始我们就应该对瘾君子展示关怀，因为上瘾的对立面，不是清醒，而是联系。
14:28
谢谢。
The End
继续下滑查看英文讲稿
↓↓↓
英文讲稿
（向上滑动查看讲稿）
00:12
One of my earliest memories is of trying to wake up one of my relatives and not being able to. And I was just a little kid, so I didn't really understand why, but as I got older, I realized we had drug addiction in my family, including later cocaine addiction.
00:25
I'd been thinking about it a lot lately, partly because it's now exactly 100 years since drugs were first banned in the United States and Britain, and we then imposed that on the rest of the world. It's a century since we made this really fateful decision to take addicts and punish them and make them suffer, because we believed that would deter them; it would give them an incentive to stop.
00:48
And a few years ago, I was looking at some of the addicts in my life who I love, and trying to figure out if there was some way to help them. And I realized there were loads of incredibly basic questions I just didn't know the answer to, like, what really causes addiction? Why do we carry on with this approach that doesn't seem to be working, and is there a better way out there that we could try instead?
01:10
So I read loads of stuff about it, and I couldn't really find the answers I was looking for, so I thought, okay, I'll go and sit with different people around the world who lived this and studied this and talk to them and see if I could learn from them. And I didn't realize I would end up going over 30,000 miles at the start, but I ended up going and meeting loads of different people, from a transgender crack dealer in Brownsville, Brooklyn, to a scientist who spends a lot of time feeding hallucinogens to mongooses to see if they like them -- it turns out they do, but only in very specific circumstances -- to the only country that's ever decriminalized all drugs, from cannabis to crack, Portugal. And the thing I realized that really blew my mind is, almost everything we think we know about addiction is wrong, and if we start to absorb the new evidence about addiction, I think we're going to have to change a lot more than our drug policies.
01:58
But let's start with what we think we know, what I thought I knew. Let's think about this middle row here. Imagine all of you, for 20 days now, went off and used heroin three times a day. Some of you look a little more enthusiastic than others at this prospect. (Laughter) Don't worry, it's just a thought experiment. Imagine you did that, right? What would happen? Now, we have a story about what would happen that we've been told for a century. We think, because there are chemical hooks in heroin, as you took it for a while, your body would become dependent on those hooks, you'd start to physically need them, and at the end of those 20 days, you'd all be heroin addicts. Right? That's what I thought.
02:34
First thing that alerted me to the fact that something's not right with this story is when it was explained to me. If I step out of this TED Talk today and I get hit by a car and I break my hip, I'll be taken to hospital and I'll be given loads of diamorphine. Diamorphine is heroin. It's actually much better heroin than you're going to buy on the streets, because the stuff you buy from a drug dealer is contaminated. Actually, very little of it is heroin, whereas the stuff you get from the doctor is medically pure. And you'll be given it for quite a long period of time. There are loads of people in this room, you may not realize it, you've taken quite a lot of heroin. And anyone who is watching this anywhere in the world, this is happening. And if what we believe about addiction is right -- those people are exposed to all those chemical hooks -- What should happen? They should become addicts. This has been studied really carefully. It doesn't happen; you will have noticed if your grandmother had a hip replacement, she didn't come out as a junkie. (Laughter)
03:26
And when I learned this, it seemed so weird to me, so contrary to everything I'd been told, everything I thought I knew, I just thought it couldn't be right, until I met a man called Bruce Alexander. He's a professor of psychology in Vancouver who carried out an incredible experiment I think really helps us to understand this issue. Professor Alexander explained to me, the idea of addiction we've all got in our heads, that story, comes partly from a series of experiments that were done earlier in the 20th century. They're really simple. You can do them tonight at home if you feel a little sadistic. You get a rat and you put it in a cage, and you give it two water bottles: One is just water, and the other is water laced with either heroin or cocaine. If you do that, the rat will almost always prefer the drug water and almost always kill itself quite quickly. So there you go, right? That's how we think it works. In the '70s, Professor Alexander comes along and he looks at this experiment and he noticed something. He said ah, we're putting the rat in an empty cage. It's got nothing to do except use these drugs. Let's try something different. So Professor Alexander built a cage that he called "Rat Park," which is basically heaven for rats. They've got loads of cheese, they've got loads of colored balls, they've got loads of tunnels. Crucially, they've got loads of friends. They can have loads of sex. And they've got both the water bottles, the normal water and the drugged water. But here's the fascinating thing: In Rat Park, they don't like the drug water. They almost never use it. None of them ever use it compulsively. None of them ever overdose. You go from almost 100 percent overdose when they're isolated to zero percent overdose when they have happy and connected lives.
04:59
Now, when he first saw this, Professor Alexander thought, maybe this is just a thing about rats, they're quite different to us. Maybe not as different as we'd like, but, you know -- But fortunately, there was a human experiment into the exact same principle happening at the exact same time. It was called the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, 20 percent of all American troops were using loads of heroin, and if you look at the news reports from the time, they were really worried, because they thought, my God, we're going to have hundreds of thousands of junkies on the streets of the United States when the war ends; it made total sense. Now, those soldiers who were using loads of heroin were followed home. The Archives of General Psychiatry did a really detailed study, and what happened to them? It turns out they didn't go to rehab. They didn't go into withdrawal. Ninety-five percent of them just stopped. Now, if you believe the story about chemical hooks, that makes absolutely no sense, but Professor Alexander began to think there might be a different story about addiction. He said, what if addiction isn't about your chemical hooks? What if addiction is about your cage? What if addiction is an adaptation to your environment?
06:04
Looking at this, there was another professor called Peter Cohen in the Netherlands who said, maybe we shouldn't even call it addiction. Maybe we should call it bonding. Human beings have a natural and innate need to bond, and when we're happy and healthy, we'll bond and connect with each other, but if you can't do that, because you're traumatized or isolated or beaten down by life, you will bond with something that will give you some sense of relief. Now, that might be gambling, that might be pornography, that might be cocaine, that might be cannabis, but you will bond and connect with something because that's our nature. That's what we want as human beings.
06:40
And at first, I found this quite a difficult thing to get my head around, but one way that helped me to think about it is, I can see, I've got over by my seat a bottle of water, right? I'm looking at lots of you, and lots of you have bottles of water with you. Forget the drugs. Forget the drug war. Totally legally, all of those bottles of water could be bottles of vodka, right? We could all be getting drunk -- I might after this -- (Laughter) -- but we're not. Now, because you've been able to afford the approximately gazillion pounds that it costs to get into a TED Talk, I'm guessing you guys could afford to be drinking vodka for the next six months. You wouldn't end up homeless. You're not going to do that, and the reason you're not going to do that is not because anyone's stopping you. It's because you've got bonds and connections that you want to be present for. You've got work you love. You've got people you love. You've got healthy relationships. And a core part of addiction, I came to think, and I believe the evidence suggests, is about not being able to bear to be present in your life.
07:38
Now, this has really significant implications. The most obvious implications are for the War on Drugs. In Arizona, I went out with a group of women who were made to wear t-shirts saying, "I was a drug addict," and go out on chain gangs and dig graves while members of the public jeer at them, and when those women get out of prison, they're going to have criminal records that mean they'll never work in the legal economy again. Now, that's a very extreme example, obviously, in the case of the chain gang, but actually almost everywhere in the world we treat addicts to some degree like that. We punish them. We shame them. We give them criminal records. We put barriers between them reconnecting. There was a doctor in Canada, Dr. Gabor Maté, an amazing man, who said to me, if you wanted to design a system that would make addiction worse, you would design that system.
08:24
Now, there's a place that decided to do the exact opposite, and I went there to see how it worked. In the year 2000, Portugal had one of the worst drug problems in Europe. One percent of the population was addicted to heroin, which is kind of mind-blowing, and every year, they tried the American way more and more. They punished people and stigmatized them and shamed them more, and every year, the problem got worse. And one day, the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition got together, and basically said, look, we can't go on with a country where we're having ever more people becoming heroin addicts. Let's set up a panel of scientists and doctors to figure out what would genuinely solve the problem. And they set up a panel led by an amazing man called Dr. João Goulão, to look at all this new evidence, and they came back and they said, "Decriminalize all drugs from cannabis to crack, but" -- and this is the crucial next step -- "take all the money we used to spend on cutting addicts off, on disconnecting them, and spend it instead on reconnecting them with society." And that's not really what we think of as drug treatment in the United States and Britain. So they do do residential rehab, they do psychological therapy, that does have some value. But the biggest thing they did was the complete opposite of what we do: a massive program of job creation for addicts, and microloans for addicts to set up small businesses. So say you used to be a mechanic. When you're ready, they'll go to a garage, and they'll say, if you employ this guy for a year, we'll pay half his wages. The goal was to make sure that every addict in Portugal had something to get out of bed for in the morning. And when I went and met the addicts in Portugal, what they said is, as they rediscovered purpose, they rediscovered bonds and relationships with the wider society.
10:01
It'll be 15 years this year since that experiment began, and the results are in: injecting drug use is down in Portugal, according to the British Journal of Criminology, by 50 percent, five-zero percent. Overdose is massively down, HIV is massively down among addicts. Addiction in every study is significantly down. One of the ways you know it's worked so well is that almost nobody in Portugal wants to go back to the old system.
10:24
Now, that's the political implications. I actually think there's a layer of implications to all this research below that. We live in a culture where people feel really increasingly vulnerable to all sorts of addictions, whether it's to their smartphones or to shopping or to eating. Before these talks began -- you guys know this -- we were told we weren't allowed to have our smartphones on, and I have to say, a lot of you looked an awful lot like addicts who were told their dealer was going to be unavailable for the next couple of hours. (Laughter) A lot of us feel like that, and it might sound weird to say, I've been talking about how disconnection is a major driver of addiction and weird to say it's growing, because you think we're the most connected society that's ever been, surely. But I increasingly began to think that the connections we have or think we have, are like a kind of parody of human connection. If you have a crisis in your life, you'll notice something. It won't be your Twitter followers who come to sit with you. It won't be your Facebook friends who help you turn it round. It'll be your flesh and blood friends who you have deep and nuanced and textured, face-to-face relationships with, and there's a study I learned about from Bill McKibben, the environmental writer, that I think tells us a lot about this. It looked at the number of close friends the average American believes they can call on in a crisis. That number has been declining steadily since the 1950s. The amount of floor space an individual has in their home has been steadily increasing, and I think that's like a metaphor for the choice we've made as a culture. We've traded floorspace for friends, we've traded stuff for connections, and the result is we are one of the loneliest societies there has ever been. And Bruce Alexander, the guy who did the Rat Park experiment, says, we talk all the time in addiction about individual recovery, and it's right to talk about that, but we need to talk much more about social recovery. Something's gone wrong with us, not just with individuals but as a group, and we've created a society where, for a lot of us, life looks a whole lot more like that isolated cage and a whole lot less like Rat Park.
12:16
If I'm honest, this isn't why I went into it. I didn't go in to the discover the political stuff, the social stuff. I wanted to know how to help the people I love. And when I came back from this long journey and I'd learned all this, I looked at the addicts in my life, and if you're really candid, it's hard loving an addict, and there's going to be lots of people who know in this room. You are angry a lot of the time, and I think one of the reasons why this debate is so charged is because it runs through the heart of each of us, right? Everyone has a bit of them that looks at an addict and thinks, I wish someone would just stop you. And the kind of scripts we're told for how to deal with the addicts in our lives is typified by, I think, the reality show "Intervention," if you guys have ever seen it. I think everything in our lives is defined by reality TV, but that's another TED Talk. If you've ever seen the show "Intervention," it's a pretty simple premise. Get an addict, all the people in their life, gather them together, confront them with what they're doing, and they say, if you don't shape up, we're going to cut you off. So what they do is they take the connection to the addict, and they threaten it, they make it contingent on the addict behaving the way they want. And I began to think, I began to see why that approach doesn't work, and I began to think that's almost like the importing of the logic of the Drug War into our private lives.
13:34
So I was thinking, how could I be Portuguese? And what I've tried to do now, and I can't tell you I do it consistently and I can't tell you it's easy, is to say to the addicts in my life that I want to deepen the connection with them, to say to them, I love you whether you're using or you're not. I love you, whatever state you're in, and if you need me, I'll come and sit with you because I love you and I don't want you to be alone or to feel alone.
14:01
And I think the core of that message -- you're not alone, we love you -- has to be at every level of how we respond to addicts, socially, politically and individually. For 100 years now, we've been singing war songs about addicts. I think all along we should have been singing love songs to them, because the opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is connection.
14:28
Thank you.
The End
查找、收集、整理不易
支持墨墨请点这里
↓↓↓
#留下你的名字，让我知道你是谁#
喜欢TED，看动图学会置顶。
| 往期推荐
你好
我是@墨白
在北方努力生活的南方姑娘
很高兴在这里认识你
希望今后的日子，有你陪伴。
本文仅供分享，一切版权归TED所有。
↓↓↓看视频，点这里