Talk:Harris Isbell

Content Discussion copied from βox73's talk page

I noticed your change to the article on Harris Isbell. Long quotes, such as you included in your bibliography entry, are often risky as potential violations of fair use and copyright (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations). In addition, although I don't have time to locate a Wikipedia citation, I believe quotes in reference entries (which are usually intended to be pointers to sources, with the actual material included in the main text) are also discouraged. I don't have time right now to look in detail at what you added, but you might consider what the long quote actually adds in terms of content, and try to trim it down and place the useful content in the text.

Finney1234 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the article you cite is a nice find. However, I don't think the long quote should be in the Wikipedia article, particularly since the full text is available on line. A sentence or two summarizing what the quote says, in an appropriate section of the article (*not* physical dependence studies), with a pointer to the reference, would be a nice addition. If you can do that, great, otherwise I'll probably do it in a few weeks when I have time (I'll need to do a careful read of the Jaffe article).

Thanks,

Finney1234 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Finney1234: Forgive my delay. I am researching the etymology of euphoria which is how I fell on this, Isbell seemingly the turning point where ordinary well being started to become stripped away. See the third footnote here. I suppose my long quote is influenced by the other refs at euphoria. Sorry and I could trim it, but it would be fine if you do so as I'm new to this fellow.

I'm not sure what you mean, "with the actual material included in the main text" since when the quote doesn't appear in the article space, the (ref) quote either clarifies a specific point or elaborates somewhat on the material. I see the style you're using now.

Actually the entire Isbell article isn't freely available online, just long quotes included in Jaffe. Jaffe's use is also partly why I included so much. FYI the original material (but not the Isbell quotes) in the NIDA monographs is public domain, and free of copyright concerns. On that topic, do you think [this photo of Isbell] (from another NIDA monograph, page 20/544) would fall into public domain? If so I can extract it from the pdf.

Can paraphrases be placed in refs? As above.

Several comments

The general methodology for the addiction studies consisted of first getting subjects drug-free (with apparent exceptions for cigarettes and coffee)...

• Is this "(with apparent exceptions for cigarettes and coffee)" statement attributable? It reads like an original editorial comment. (It seems irrelevant.)
       Further, Although nicotine certainly produces persistent dependence, persons dependent on nicotine and caffeine weren't (aren't) considered "addicts", neither drug is controlled, ordinarily causes euphoria, marked tolerance or dose escalation.
• Instead of saying "first getting subjects drug-free", wouldn't saying involved or used or accepted former addicts or drug free addicts etc. be better? maybe "once subjects were successfully withdrawn from drugs" or at least "once subjects were drug-free." Also avoids a slight inference that other prisoners/patients could continue their illicit drug use. Wasn't drug withdraw a general protocol for inmates/patients and Isbell's methodology was actually to select drug free inmates/patients (who were previously addicted)? This is similar to selecting inmates who had at least six months imprisonment remaining post-study, so as to not influence a return to drug use. (Don't know if he continued this policy, which made sense but also a way of redeeming his methods,)
• Didn't Isbell also sometimes perform limited testing on non-addicts, and the different observations led to his addictive personality notion? (Of course Wikipedia's addictive personality article makes no mention of him.) You covered this.
• In psychedelics consider grouping psilocin with psilocybin, as psilocybin is simply the prodrug.
• Remainder added... re Drug Policy, early on Isbell etal seemed much less liberal:

Many defenders of the existing legal structure viewed the "reduction" in the number of addicts between the inception of the narcotic laws and the end of World War II as evidence that punitive policies were actually an effective deterrent against addiction. In 1948 several physicians employed by the government wrote: "This reduction has been largely due to vigorous enforcement of the Harrison Act and the Federal facilities for the treatment of addicts" (Vogel, Isbell, and Chapman 1948)
— Goode, Erich. "Drugs and the Law" in Drugs in American Society, First Edition, Chapter 7 (interior quote from: Vogel, Victor H., Isbell, Harris, and Chapman, Kenneth W. 1948. "Present Status of Narcotic Addiction." The Journal of the American Medical Association 138: 1019-1026.)

Great job building this article! — βox73 (৳alk) 11:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) / 11:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments here, and your recent good edits. I just got back in town, and will respond more thoroughly in a few days. I still believe (for various reasons, including general wikipedia style) that the long quote is inappropriate, and I'll probably go ahead with an edit that removes the long quote but includes the main sense, as well as a pointer. You, of course, can revert my edit if you wish :-).

Finney1234 (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think a photo of Isbell would be great, but I wasn't willing to sort through what the restrictions/constraints were. If you think there's a photo which meets Wikipedia copyright guidelines, please add it.

Finney1234 (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The concept of "addictive personality" didn't jump out in my own readings of the cited Isbell articles. If it's a theme that he focuses on, then possibly something should be added.

I'd also be very interested in why you think Isbell was a "turning point" re: Euphoria. I don't follow you there, and I'm interested in your thinking.

"Drug-free except for caffeine and cigarettes": the factual basis is a general reading of the cited sources (e.g., some reason to believe subjects were still allowed to smoke tobacco), but I didn't provide any specific reference. I believe it's reasonable to consider both caffeine and nicotine as mind-altering drugs, regardless of their legal status (also alcohol) (that's a large part of why people consume them, right?). I also believe all three can also be considered as (loosely) "addictive" (i.e., capable of causing abstinence symptoms in at least some users). It strikes me as interesting in this context that caffeine and nicotine were not considered as drugs, which is why I mentioned it.

Finney1234 (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Finney1234: Welcome home!

Re ref quote. Go for trimming or paraphrasing the quote. You'd do a better job than me.

Re photo. I recently added such a photo under fair use but the photo I found is likely public domain, but scratchy. I'm on a borrowed computer but as soon mine's in business I'll get to it.

Re addictive personality, it was an early remark or I might be confusing Isbell with his predecessors. It's in line with your quote of, "character disorders or inadequate personalities".

Re euphoria turning point. Euphoria was initially referred to a medicine's effect making a person feel well and hopeful. Freud referred to cocaine causing "normal euphoria of a healthy person". In the mid-late 19th century it started to be used referring to psychosis, psychoactive drugs and some later stage terminal illnesses. In 1940 an article in The Journal of Psychology defined euphoria as a "state of general well being ... and pleasantly toned feeling.

Isbell corresponded with Keats & Beecher who included this footnote in their 1952 article[1] (you have to save the jpg of the free first page and zoom into the bottom of the page, footnote 3):

[Footnote 3] Since matters of some interest hang upon the definition of "euphoria", direct enquiry [sic] of Dr. Isbell brought the following comment (letter of November 1, 1951). "I think it would be wise to exercise a certain degree of care in our use of the term 'euphoria'. We use it here in the sense of a train of effects similar to those seen after the administration of morphine. These effects include changes in behavior and objective signs, such as constriction of the pupil, depression of the respiratory rate and volume, drop in rectal temperature, etc. We do not use it in the sense of 'feeling of well-being', as this is something that I have been utterly unable to evaluate." The present authors prefer to limit the definition of euphoria to "a sense of well-being".

(Writing about the etymology of euphoria, I am collecting uses building on bare bones dictionary etymologies. I have not posted any of this yet and need to avoid crossing into original research or synth. The following is subjective.)

Isbell seems to have discounted the normal euphoria definition, probably because it was hard to discriminate or meaningless to his studies. Of course he did note/describe the mental states distinct to his subjects. My impression is that his prominence began to influence others in the field. I've let this effort stall temporarily except that a 1957 article didn't consider euphoria detrimental but an effect that "enhance[s] the value of a major analgesic." Euphoria is a major reason people use or begin to use drugs recreationally, but addiction comes from plastic changes in the brain; it becomes a compulsion.

Re cigarettes/coffee. Mind altering? Depends on the definition. To me, mind altering alludes more to psychedelics and marijuana. They Cigarettes/coffee are psychoactive, but their effect is mild as commonly used and produce adverse side effects in higher doses. I don't think of coffee or cigarettes as producing euphoria. (Last time you drank Coke or iced tea did you get high?)

What you say was the reasoning for many years. And addictive drugs can cause abstinence symptoms, but doesn't mean one is addicted or the drug is highly addictive. Addiction creates a compulsion to use the drug, even when one is past abstinence symptoms. Abstinence symptoms occur with substances not even psychoactive.

Nicotine is addictive. It is difficult for most people to stop. But it doesn't cause euphoria or much euphoria. Nicotine is stimulating at low doses and smokers usually don't continue to escalate the dose. That is different from those chasing euphoria, such as with opioids or cocaine. Addiction to caffeine is controversial.

Consider too:

• Drug screens are given for employment, to persons on parole, and regularly to persons on Methadone maintenance but don't screen for nicotine/caffeine.
• I'm not aware of DWIs given for nicotine/caffeine.
• Similar to coffee... For centuries the Indians in Peru chewed coca leaves when traveling in the mountains to compensate for the altitude. In this form, the dose of cocaine is low and gradual. Addiction didn't occur.

Personally I'd probably only comment on coffee or cigarettes if they effected the studies, this differed from other researchers, or there was some intention behind it. Otherwise, if you keep it, I'd either add something like "as typical at the time" or put it in a footnote. But use your judgement.

βox73 (৳alk) 03:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC) editied βox73 (৳alk) 05:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, cool comments. The "inadequate personalities or character disorders" is just a quote from Isbell; to tell the truth, I think it's fairly meaningless (my guess, as I wrote, is that it's based on MMPI test results, because they clearly administered that test, but I don't know enough about MMPI usage at that time to be sure).

I'd like to leave the "coffee and nicotine" in. For me, the point is that I believe these *are* drugs (even if the effect is mild, and even if they don't cause euphoria). So to say "drug free" when the subjects are allowed to use mild, socially acceptable substances that alter mood would not (to me) be precise and accurate. We both understand that "drug" (in this context) and "addiction" are tricky terms (I tried to be careful and non-committal in what I wrote, accepting that people use "addiction" in many different ways).

I had never run into the euphoria slant (or known that that was one of the evaluations that Isbell did of new substances: oops, I need to reread the Jaffe to see exactly what it says), so that's a very cool addition. I will make that point in text, remove the quote, and include the online citation reference (but I'll reread the Jaffe first). At some point, I'll try to locate the full original article.

The 1967 San Rafael citation about marijuana is new to me, and very interesting. I need to read that carefully too.

However, it seems to me (from what you wrote) that Isbell wasn't discounting "euphoria", just saying that (as a scientist) it wasn't something he could measure. Coming up with an acceptable "euphoria" scale would be contentious (though with psychedelics he did try to come up with some sort of scale, though I don't remember if he made claims about just what it was measuring). So it seems strange to me that Isbell's disinclination to measure "euphoria" would have had any effect on the field (that is, "euphoria" is simply not mentioned in most of his work, it is not criticized or claimed to be a worthless concept).

You might have fun reading the "Narco Brat" reference; Marjorie Senechal is a mathematician who grew up at Lexington. I actually wrote to her in hopes that she still had the full Isbell interview that she excerpts from (which included the important information that the psychedelics research was actually *initiated* by the CIA), but she didn't think she did.

My .02 :-)

Thanks very much,

Finney1234 (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, there are experimentally well-established "Caffeine Withdrawal Symptoms", though the effects are generally pretty mild (in my opinion, about the same as the documented "Marijuana Withdrawal Symptoms": largely irritability for a few days). Obviously, I'm not going to make any claim about whether this equates to "addiction" :-).

Finney1234 (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I edited the writeup of the 1967 San Rafael reference; hopefully you'll approve. I'm pretty sure it's an accurate summary. Great reference; I don't think I'd encountered the dosage data in any of the existing references or I would have included it.

Finney1234 (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Harris Isbell image

My friend, I finally extracted, uploaded and added Dr. Isbell's image to the article. It's not a great image but it is public domain and at some point I'll Photoshop it. — βox73 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)