|
After discussing Laurel's addiction on the Arrow thread, the thread spiraled into discussing addictions.
Let's not do that. Let's discuss addictions here.
The reason people do drugs is because it feels good.
Give them something that feels better and they'll stop doing drugs.
Except LSD, cuz LSD is amaaaaaaaazing.
I wonder what skill you roll for peer pressuring the stuff onto people... diplomacy? Intimidate? Profession [merchant]?
I am no authority on the ways drugs work, but I'm certain one of the greatest drives for getting into it is liberation. Some people simply can't cope with the reality of their situation. This makes them seek out drugs as a way to forget and get lost. Obviously, this only makes their life's problems worse, but the initial allure of drugs is potent enough to send someone spiraling forward and even when they realize just how bad they have gotten, by then the addiction's taken full control.
Well when it comes to drugs i hate to hear "it's a disease not a crime" when the first few times you did it (and broke the law) you had no addiction to "force"you.
It is a fallacy to equate 'illegal' with 'wrong', but I think what you're trying to say is that one should have enough good sense not to trying heroin or meth, since they pretty much have no other purpose other than to be addictive and ruin a person's life.
But tobacco and other nicotine products are not illegal: but they're certainly addictive. And they still ruin people's lives: just with cancer after decades instead of mental illness and lost jobs after a much shorter period of time.
Alcohol is not illegal. But there are plenty of alcoholics in the world. People who drink even though they know it is costing them their livelihood, health, and personal relationships.
I'm not sure 'disease' is the right word, but I don't think that English has a better one, unless you want to be tautological and just say 'addiction' again. But the fact of the matter is that an addiction starts where 'free will' starts to erode. An addict is no longer completely responsible for their actions: it takes a whole different level of willpower to stave off an addiction. That doesn't absolve them completely. If it did, then it absolves everyone everywhere, because everything anyone ever does is ultimately just brain chemistry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So instead of teaching the kids that drugs are bad, we should be teaching them that pot and booze aren't that bad in moderation, but don't touch cigarettes or meth or its back behind the woodshed for you.
Absolutist teachings brooks no room exception. It is thus that, when exception is inevitably found, everything else has the potential to be dismissed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well when it comes to drugs i hate to hear "it's a disease not a crime" when the first few times you did it (and broke the law) you had no addiction to "force"you.It is a fallacy to equate 'illegal' with 'wrong', but I think what you're trying to say is that one should have enough good sense not to trying heroin or meth, since they pretty much have no other purpose other than to be addictive and ruin a person's life.
But tobacco and other nicotine products are not illegal: but they're certainly addictive. And they still ruin people's lives: just with cancer after decades instead of mental illness and lost jobs after a much shorter period of time.
Alcohol is not illegal. But there are plenty of alcoholics in the world. People who drink even though they know it is costing them their livelihood, health, and personal relationships.
I'm not sure 'disease' is the right word, but I don't think that English has a better one, unless you want to be tautological and just say 'addiction' again. But the fact of the matter is that an addiction starts where 'free will' starts to erode. An addict is no longer completely responsible for their actions: it takes a whole different level of willpower to stave off an addiction. That doesn't absolve them completely. If it did, then it absolves everyone everywhere, because everything anyone ever does is ultimately just brain chemistry.
You choose to jump. once you do you can do nothing but fall but the choice to jump was always yours alone. many say it is wrong to blame them for how they fall, i blame them for choosing to jump.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[bubble bubble bubble]
You choose to jump. once you do you can do nothing but fall but the choice to jump was always yours alone. many say it is wrong to blame them for how they fall, i blame them for choosing to jump.
That's ridiculous. It is insane to blame an alcoholic for drinking the first time when the majority of people drink.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You choose to jump. once you do you can do nothing but fall but the choice to jump was always yours alone. many say it is wrong to blame them for how they fall, i blame them for choosing to jump.That's ridiculous. It is insane to blame an alcoholic for drinking the first time when the majority of people drink.
Did the first time do it? the tenth? EVERY drink taken was a choice, and they know damn well what can happen. its insane to think it was anyone else at fault
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did the first time do it? the tenth? EVERY drink taken was a choice, and they know damn well what can happen. its insane to think it was anyone else at faultYou choose to jump. once you do you can do nothing but fall but the choice to jump was always yours alone. many say it is wrong to blame them for how they fall, i blame them for choosing to jump.That's ridiculous. It is insane to blame an alcoholic for drinking the first time when the majority of people drink.
An alcoholic who has never had a drink doesn't know she/he is an alcoholic... until that first drink at the earliest. If they are genetically predisposed to substance addiction, blaming them is the least helpful method to helping them beat the addiction.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of American adults drink. Most don't become alcoholics. Some do. How are the few that do supposed to know they can't behave in the same way as their peers?
Is your point that no one should touch potentially addictive substances ever? Because that includes food, since eating disorders and addiction are closely related. Or is it just that people are somehow magically able to know which drink will change them over from being a regular drinker to being an alcoholic? Because that's a tautology: 'people shouldn't become addicted to things because addiction is bad'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well when it comes to drugs i hate to hear "it's a disease not a crime" when the first few times you did it (and broke the law) you had no addiction to "force"you.It is a fallacy to equate 'illegal' with 'wrong', but I think what you're trying to say is that one should have enough good sense not to trying heroin or meth, since they pretty much have no other purpose other than to be addictive and ruin a person's life.
But tobacco and other nicotine products are not illegal: but they're certainly addictive. And they still ruin people's lives: just with cancer after decades instead of mental illness and lost jobs after a much shorter period of time.
Alcohol is not illegal. But there are plenty of alcoholics in the world. People who drink even though they know it is costing them their livelihood, health, and personal relationships.
I'm not sure 'disease' is the right word, but I don't think that English has a better one, unless you want to be tautological and just say 'addiction' again. But the fact of the matter is that an addiction starts where 'free will' starts to erode. An addict is no longer completely responsible for their actions: it takes a whole different level of willpower to stave off an addiction. That doesn't absolve them completely. If it did, then it absolves everyone everywhere, because everything anyone ever does is ultimately just brain chemistry.
Disease might be the only comparable word, but I think addiction as its own thing works just fine. There's really nothing else like it.
Or, if it is a disease, it's a self-inflicted one, and the "addiction is a disease" statement shouldn't be used as some kind of defense IMO, or to try to evoke sympathy for what someone has done to themselves, by their own choice.
Now, alcohol is a bit of a gray area. It's become a social staple for pretty much every culture in the world, and in moderation there's no problem.
But people abuse it far too often. Know your limits. If that means "be the designated driver because you have no self-control once you get started", do that.
Everything in moderation, even if that moderate amount is 0 (as it is for most drugs).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Ross, are you no longer a Paizo goon?
Every time I see your name in a thread I think "g@*!*%mit I got censored again!"
|
|
The vast majority of American adults drink. Most don't become alcoholics. Some do. How are the few that do supposed to know they can't behave in the same way as their peers?
Is your point that no one should touch potentially addictive substances ever? Because that includes food, since eating disorders and addiction are closely related. Or is it just that people are somehow magically able to know which drink will change them over from being a regular drinker to being an alcoholic? Because that's a tautology: 'people shouldn't become addicted to things because addiction is bad'.
And yet we all KNOW what it can do and make that choice. You know it can be addicting, you know you could be an adictive person. You can pull the trigger 5 times in russian roulette and have nothing happen. still dumb to play the game
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, if it is a disease, it's a self-inflicted one, and the "addiction is a disease" statement shouldn't be used as some kind of defense IMO, or to try to evoke sympathy for what someone has done to themselves, by their own choice.
It's not an absolution or a defense, but it is meaningful. Laying all of the blame on an addict is the worst way to treat it - It's equivalent to saying 'Snap out of it, you wuss.' and expecting a meaningful result.
So, Ross, are you no longer a Paizo goon?
Every time I see your name in a thread I think "g@%#!~mit I got censored again!"
Not since last May.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disease might be the only comparable word, but I think addiction as its own thing works just fine. There's really nothing else like it.
Or, if it is a disease, it's a self-inflicted one, and the "addiction is a disease" statement shouldn't be used as some kind of defense IMO, or to try to evoke sympathy for what someone has done to themselves, by their own choice.
Anaphylactic shock kills much quicker, but most people don't go around blaming people severely allergic to bee stings or peanut butter, especially if they've never been exposed before.
I don't see the "'addiction is a disease' statement" as anything other than that... a statement of a medical condition. Cast blame however you wish, but keep it to yourself, and instead focus on how to ensure those addicted receive the appropriate medical treatment in a timely manner.
And yet we all KNOW what it can do and make that choice. You know it can be addicting, you know you could be an adictive person. You can pull the trigger 5 times in russian roulette and have nothing happen. still dumb to play the gameThe vast majority of American adults drink. Most don't become alcoholics. Some do. How are the few that do supposed to know they can't behave in the same way as their peers?
Is your point that no one should touch potentially addictive substances ever? Because that includes food, since eating disorders and addiction are closely related. Or is it just that people are somehow magically able to know which drink will change them over from being a regular drinker to being an alcoholic? Because that's a tautology: 'people shouldn't become addicted to things because addiction is bad'.
You didn't answer my question. Are you calling 2/3rds of Americans 'dumb to play the game'?
|
|
Disease might be the only comparable word, but I think addiction as its own thing works just fine. There's really nothing else like it.
Or, if it is a disease, it's a self-inflicted one, and the "addiction is a disease" statement shouldn't be used as some kind of defense IMO, or to try to evoke sympathy for what someone has done to themselves, by their own choice.
Anaphylactic shock kills much quicker, but most people don't go around blaming people severely allergic to bee stings or peanut butter, especially if they've never been exposed before.
I don't see the "'addiction is a disease' statement" as anything other than that... a statement of a medical condition. Cast blame however you wish, but keep it to yourself, and instead focus on how to ensure those addicted receive the appropriate medical treatment in a timely manner.
With legal substances it is hard to solve. with heroin and meth the answer i think is to crush the source. To hell with catching a buyer, hunt down and eliminate to producers and distributors.
|
|
You didn't answer my question. Are you calling 2/3rds of Americans 'dumb to play the game'?And yet we all KNOW what it can do and make that choice. You know it can be addicting, you know you could be an adictive person. You can pull the trigger 5 times in russian roulette and have nothing happen. still dumb to play the gameThe vast majority of American adults drink. Most don't become alcoholics. Some do. How are the few that do supposed to know they can't behave in the same way as their peers?
Is your point that no one should touch potentially addictive substances ever? Because that includes food, since eating disorders and addiction are closely related. Or is it just that people are somehow magically able to know which drink will change them over from being a regular drinker to being an alcoholic? Because that's a tautology: 'people shouldn't become addicted to things because addiction is bad'.
Yes, and not many alcoholics drink 4 a week. that is moderate maybe. now when you are doing 4 a day you know better.
that is moderate maybe. now when you are doing 4 a day you know better.
So the latter, then.
The problem there is that you don't know if the 4 a day is a symptom or a cause. It's easy to figure out a person is addicted after they've become addicted.
We've established that 4 a week is fine and 4 a day is probably too many. Where in that 7X difference do you draw the line between responsible drinking and 'you should have known better'?
when you are doing 4 a day you know better.
.. than to drink american?
You can't shut down meth suppliers. Thats the main source of the drugs popularity. Anyone that failed high school chemistry can make the stuff out of readily available ingredients.
why isn't there this sort of moral outrage against people who break their legs skiing?
|
|
when you are doing 4 a day you know better... than to drink american?
You can't shut down meth suppliers. Thats the main source of the drugs popularity. Anyone that failed high school chemistry can make the stuff out of readily available ingredients.
You kill of enough of them and people might rethink it as an option. you kill off enough pushers that it becomes hard to distribute. make it not worth the risk
So instead of teaching the kids that drugs are bad, we should be teaching them that pot and booze aren't that bad in moderation, but don't touch cigarettes or meth or its back behind the woodshed for you.
I can't say I've ever tried meth, but given my own experience with quitting smoking, that's exactly what I'd tell my (hypothetical) children.
Personally, having been addicted nicotine, and having managed to quit it, I don't think people who haven't been addicted to one substance or another have the experience to form a relevant point of view on it. Just my two cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've been treating addiction as a crime and a moral sin for decades. Where has it gotten us? Which worked better? Prohibition or AA?
I could be wrong, but I think that AA also treats alcoholism as a moral failing. At least it insists that the alcoholic is responsible for his situation.
Start treating it as a medical problem not a criminal one and maybe we'll make some progress.
Maybe. I'm not sure that this problem is simple enough to solve with just one strategy. Excessive criminal penalties are counter-productive, but a simple medical approach may not reduce the number of addicts by itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anaphylactic shock kills much quicker, but most people don't go around blaming people severely allergic to bee stings or peanut butter, especially if they've never been exposed before.
Yes, because obviously people choose to be allergic to bees and nuts. /sarcasm.
I don't see the "'addiction is a disease' statement" as anything other than that... a statement of a medical condition. Cast blame however you wish, but keep it to yourself, and instead focus on how to ensure those addicted receive the appropriate medical treatment in a timely manner.
No, I will not "keep it to myself". It's a medical condition you inflicted on yourself. Sure, get medical treatment. Don't expect me to be sympathetic towards you any more than someone who decided to chop off their own leg because they felt like it.
This is where the argument originated, that I should "have empathy or sympathy for those struggling with substance abuse".
No. I will not. Being sympathetic towards that kind of behavior validates it, makes them think it's okay to make those kinds of choices, and just pulls you in with them in their death spiral.
If you quit, make an honest effort and follow through with it? Sure, I'll give you a pat on the back.
But "Woe is me, I can't help it, I'm addicted and I can't stop"? No. There's 7 billion people in this world I could be associating with. Those people don't need to be one of them.
why isn't there this sort of moral outrage against people who break their legs skiing?
Because skiing is a sport, is not inherently harmful to your body, and risk is minimized with skill, practice, and safe actions? And doesn't indirectly put your friends and family in harms way from your likely erratic behavior while on these drugs?
If you guys are going to use analogies, pick ones that are at least slightly relevant to the topic at hand.
Because skiing is a sport
irrelevant.
is not inherently harmful to your body
Neither are minor quantities of most drugs.
and risk is minimized with skill, practice, and safe actions?
That sounds a LOT like drinking.
And doesn't indirectly put your friends and family in harms way from your likely erratic behavior while on these drugs?
You've seen people ski right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, these substances are clearly addictive. Stay away from them.
Not everyone is allergic to bees and peanuts, and especially in the case of bees it's another creature attacking you in the first place so you're doubly not responsible.
You ARE responsible for getting addicted to something.
Cigarettes are not what I'm talking about either. At the very least, the most harmful physical symptoms of cigarettes don't take place until years down the line most times, if at all, and they don't really change your mood as much as a lot of drugs do (making the collateral damage avoidable if you don't smoke around other people).
I've seen meth addiction take someone down, destroy their appearance and attitude in a matter of months, at most.
And I can't find it in myself to feel sorry for them when they die of a heart attack, or hit rock bottom, jobless and homeless, because they've given their life to this addiction. It's something they did to themselves, and I can't afford to be around them when it's not absolutely necessary. It's the reason I cut ties with most of my family a few years back, I was finally ABLE to once I turned 18.
Alcohol addiction I don't find much better. It's probably the most despicable of the lot in a way, because a lot of alcoholics use it as a crutch or an excuse for any action they make.
Start a bar fight? "Sorry officer, I was drunk."
Kill 3 people in a car accident? "I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing."
Beat your wife and kids? "Sorry guys, I was drunk. I love you, you know that."
F$$+ you.
In general, I mean. Not you Jeff.
Neither are minor quantities of most drugs.
When were we talking about minor quantities?
and risk is minimized with skill, practice, and safe actions?That sounds a LOT like drinking.
And if you know your limits and play it safe, you're probably not addicted, so...are we having the same conversation?
And doesn't indirectly put your friends and family in harms way from your likely erratic behavior while on these drugs?You've seen people ski right?
Yes.
What's your point?
I haven't seen someone "high on skiing" go home and hurt their family, or spend all their money on "skiing equipment" and leave their family destitute, or "leave their skiing equipment out" where one of their kids can get into it and kill themselves from accidental inhalation.
If you've seen something like that, maybe your analogy is valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the ones who die in skiing accidents, leaving their children down a parent?
I dunno, I don't see a lot of potheads beating their wives, but I guess YMMV...
I'd like to reiterate that LSD is fawwesome....
Except the ones who die in skiing accidents, leaving their children down a parent?
Fair enough.
I suppose that makes being a firefighter, a policeman, or a soldier despicable professions too, since we're extrapolating loss of life to be willful harm.
Edit: Blarg. Topic is starting to get under my skin, the sarcasm is starting to flow like mana. I'll go do something else for a while.
I dunno about firefighter, but policeman and soldier seem like dbag jobs to me...
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not an addict but I have experienced folks close to me who have struggled with addiction. A good friend, more like a brother to me, struggled with depression and alcoholism. His close friends one by one turned their backs on him. This had a devastating effect on him. I was really young at the time and not sure what to do. 15 years later I am still not sure what I could have done. He eventually took his life one day while alone.
Years later I began to see some troubling signs with my brother. He was in college and partying using some hard substances. Eventually, I noticed he wasn't going out much. Spending huge amounts of time with the same people. I realized he was in deep with addiction.
I tried to pull him out of it and open his eyes to the reality. He shut me out. I had no choice but to take this to my family. My mother was not open to listening to what I had to say. She just wouldn't believe it. Later, she kind of agreed maybe he's getting a little into trouble nothing a talk couldn't straighten out. I was livid and had a serious falling out with my family. Earlier I watched one brother die and I was dammed if I was going to do it again. Finally, my brother and mother came to grips and he went to rehab. Then, he became an alcoholic and went to rehab again. Substance abuse may be a life long struggle for him.
To this day the people who turned their backs on my friend question that choice. I don't feel like a hero, but my brother credits me with saving his life. I cant give specific advice on what to do in these situations but I can say an addicts life is worth saving. There is a point where a person doesn't want to save them self, and until then I wont give up on them. I cant tell if addiction is a disease or a mental problem or a spiritual one. I can say its a community problem even if that's not fair to everyone. Leaving it up to somebody else to deal with is weak.
I once heard addiction described as "Superficially similar to a disease. Its difficult to treat and prone to relapse." That seemed a good a description.
Disease might be the only comparable word, but I think addiction as its own thing works just fine. There's really nothing else like it.
Or, if it is a disease, it's a self-inflicted one, and the "addiction is a disease" statement shouldn't be used as some kind of defense IMO, or to try to evoke sympathy for what someone has done to themselves, by their own choice.
Anaphylactic shock kills much quicker, but most people don't go around blaming people severely allergic to bee stings or peanut butter, especially if they've never been exposed before.
I don't see the "'addiction is a disease' statement" as anything other than that... a statement of a medical condition. Cast blame however you wish, but keep it to yourself, and instead focus on how to ensure those addicted receive the appropriate medical treatment in a timely manner.
Exactly. "Addiction is a disease" isn't about blame or anything else, it's about how to treat the problem.
We've been treating addiction as a crime and a moral sin for decades. Where has it gotten us? Which worked better? Prohibition or AA?
Start treating it as a medical problem not a criminal one and maybe we'll make some progress.
The problem is that for most it is a criminal problem not a medical problem. There are people out there that after one, two, or a few uses are addicted, and no matter how hard they try they stay addicted. But the majority are using because they want to or don't want to stop, for them it is a criminal matter.
|
|
Anaphylactic shock kills much quicker, but most people don't go around blaming people severely allergic to bee stings or peanut butter, especially if they've never been exposed before.Yes, because obviously people choose to be allergic to bees and nuts. /sarcasm.People don't choose to be addicted either. Some people quit cigarettes with no trouble after years of smoking. Others try and try and can't do it. We'd probably seem similar patterns with addictive illegal drugs, if they were legal enough to get good studies of.
Addiction isn't simple and usually the physical symptoms are far from the worst of it.
Really. A person who takes meth or heroin doesn't choose to get addicted? A guy who gets wasted 7 days a week doesn't choose to be an alcoholic? A dude who gets lung cancer because he smokes 2 packs a day didn't choose to become addicted to tobacco? Give me a break.
Yes. They had a choice. They could have done things in moderation, or not at all for illegal drugs. They chose not to.
They did it to themselves. Nobody else is to blame.
I am obese. I weigh around 220 pounds and am 5'7" tall. Because I eat a lot of candy and drink a lot of soda. And other stuff. Whose fault is that I am that fat? My own fault. Noone elses.
People can go looking for excuses like "my father beat me when I was a kid", or "i was abused in school" or "Life is too stressful".
It's still just an excuse.
It doesn't change the facts.
So what did I do when some of my friends became junkies? I stopped associating with them. I don't need their sick influence in my life. And i feel sorry for their families.
My father is an alcoholic, he ruined our family. It's been 10 years and we are still not back to normal, nor do I think we will ever be.
I don't drink, apart from an occasional glass of beer when with friends.
yeah smartass goblin your addiction is like cigarettes, it'll kill you but take plenty of time. Not that i can say too much as a cigar smoker.
You should see my eating habits...
Well when it comes to drugs i hate to hear "it's a disease not a crime" when the first few times you did it (and broke the law) you had no addiction to "force"you.
Do you think there is a difference between understanding the causes of behavior and making an excuse for behavior?