My favorite movie about addiction is about a woman who becomes addicted to a particular chemical substance, like methamphetamine. Her brain cells are constantly dying, and addiction is leading her to become addicted to the chemical substance. It is a good thing for some because that is the real problem- it should be the root cause.
The film’s director/writer/scriptwriter, Elizabeth Chai, has an interesting theory about addiction and addiction treatment. She argues that addiction is like a disease, and like a disease, it can only be cured by a cure or an antidote to the disease. In her view, the antidote to drug addiction is to find a cure for the disease.
This is a pretty big leap from the classic idea that addiction only exists because of the addiction, to the idea that addiction is a disease from which there is no cure. I think it is a good idea, especially as the world continues to develop more and more drugs to replace drugs.
I think that’s a big leap. I also disagree that addiction is only the result of a disease. While I don’t dispute the idea that addictive behavior is a disease (I mean, if it’s not, everyone who is a drug addict is a drug addict, right?), I tend to believe it’s more like a disease that is treatable with a cure, rather than a disease that is a cure for.
Addiction can have many causes. If it is a disease, we must look into how the disease can be treated. As a disease, it is more of a puzzle that needs to be solved. The only cure that is currently available is medication, so we need to work out the symptoms of addiction, and then find a cure. I think that is a good idea.
The problem, as I see it, is that addicts don’t have a cure. With a drug addiction, the treatment is the cure. So the question is whether addiction is a disease, or a treatable condition, or a combination of the two. It’s a really difficult question. At the moment, one of the best studies of brain structure and function is the drug addict’s brain. This study shows how the brain works in the addict’s brain.
In this study, the addicts brain was compared to the brains of control subjects and to the brains of people who died from alcohol addiction. The addicts brain was in fact smaller than the brains of the people who died from alcohol addiction and the control subjects, again in contrast to other published studies. This could mean its a disorder in a sense, but more likely it is a condition that could be treated.
In the study, the addicts brains had much smaller hippocampal neurons, which are brain regions that play a key role in memory. The hippocampus is also involved in processing sensory information from the visual, auditory, and olfactory systems. This means that the addicts brain had very little processing power and thus very little ability to learn. These small hippocampal neurons could be a cause of addiction, as could other neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease.
One other study found that the addicts hippocampal neurons were much larger than normal, and had a lower number of dendritic spines, which are the small spines on the dendrites of the neurons that carry incoming signals. This means that the addicts brain had even more processing power and was able to learn. This study was conducted on rats, which was a good thing because it indicated that the addicts brain was so screwed up that rats didn’t have the same problem.
This is actually a kind of mind-control, like a lot of the other tests the researchers applied to their study. The study showed that rats could learn much faster than non-drunk rats.
The study did have a few limitations. One of the limitations was that the study only went as far as the end of their test. This meant that the rats had to know all about the test but not all about the addicted person. It also meant that the addicted person had to guess about the correct answers.