@Irontruth nobody said anything about "invisible skyman." Lots of people - motivation irrelevant - argue that a particular lifestyle results in unhappiness, legal consequences, health consequences, and sometimes activity of dubious morality or legality. If the lifestyle is being gay, society says, nothing wrong with that. If the lifestyle is using drugs, society says, there is something wrong with you, you're an addict and need medical treatment (or you're a criminal and need incarceration). And in fact, people who are anti-gay do indeed often make that argument, they find it persuasive, they would-if-they-could have it enshrined in law for the same reason that all these punitive measures against drug users are enshrined in law.
You can see how the same logic could apply in one situation as the other, yes? Even if it currently doesn't under the prevailing current social / cultural climate?
It shouldn't be necessary for me to advertise that my opinion is there's nothing wrong with being gay for you to be able to evaluate that statement.
And my apologies for violating my earlier orders to "shut up about homosexuality", I do so dislike disobeying orders from my superiors but in this case I had to explain myself to Irontruth.
No Sissyl, I don't write them off as loonie. While folks get themselves into the mess, most require help getting out, depending on the addiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disease, no. Mental illness, most definately.Do you think there's something to be gained from parsing the difference between disease and the "illness" aspect of mental illness? Before your proceed to actually determine what that difference is, I want to hear what the benefits of this will be. How will the conversation on the topic improve?A disease is something that you can vaccinate against or provide some other medical cure or treatment for.
A mental illness usually takes a different approach to fix, like therapy.Which do you think better qualifies?
Addiction is a mental problem. I don't, however, see how 'mental illness/disease/disorder' is meaningfully different than 'disease' in this context.
Lots of mental disorders are treated by drugs, surgeries, and other medical procedures. Lots of more conventional diseases have no real treatment.
I really don't see what is gained by splitting that hair.
Ok, fair enough.
@ Ross Byers I'm interested in people thinking out their conclusions thoroughly, I noted what I thought was an inconsistency / cognitive dissonance. As is typical of such inconsistencies, the dichotomy was (surprise!) one conclusion is socially acceptable to express ("nothing wrong with gay people!") and one conclusion less so ("using drugs doesn't mean you're an addict who needs treatment!").
And, not surprisingly, the social signaling has aligned in just such a way, with everybody helpfully telling me how wrong my opinions are, because even though I agree with them, I had the temerity to report the existence and opinions of people who do not.
@Irontruth and others - it's relevant what "people" argue / believe / think when you're talking about something with political dimensions. If you're going to start treating every trivial "addiction" as a disease, you have to consider the legal and political ramifications of that decision, i.e. involuntary commitment. As previously alluded. Actual objective reality is not decided by consensus, but political and legal reality can be, even (horrors!) in contravention to the truth.
And I would think it was obvious from my example re: drinking bleach is - when someone drinks bleach, you don't say "this person is a bleach drinker", as though it were a pathology, you say, "this is a person who has drunk bleach," as though it was a one-time occurrence/accident.
Standard Disclaimers: I hope this clears it up, I know I'm inarticulate at times, don't bear anyone any malice.
The thing is, the classification of"addict" removes the possibility of a one time occurrence/accident definitionally, you see? Addiction is a repetition of behavior, which may well be as self destructive as drinking bleach. (Well, that's overstating it, but only because bleach isn't a gateway drug.)
Edit: Not that I think that "Gateway Drug" is a very useful distinction; whatever drug is most accessible to you is is your own personal gateway drug.
Lots of mental disorders are treated by drugs, surgeries, and other medical procedures.
There are some that are better treated by cognitive therapy because they are errors in cognition / mental processes rather than identifiable physical or chemical imbalances in the brain itself.
Of course in the end it's all chemicals, but you understand what I mean?
The thing is, the classification of"addict" removes the possibility of a one time occurrence/accident definitionally, you see?
I understand that which is why it's problematic, if you're going to say everybody who comes in with drugs in their system is an addict and must be treated as such. I feel like the law, and often the "recovery" industry / establishment, lacks that distinction(not any individuals in this thread, who are all very sophisticated and nuanced in their thinking).
Lots of mental disorders are treated by drugs, surgeries, and other medical procedures.There are some that are better treated by cognitive therapy because they are errors in cognition / mental processes rather than identifiable physical or chemical imbalances in the brain itself.
Of course in the end it's all chemicals, but you understand what I mean?
Yes, you're quoting a single sentence without its context so you can disagree with it in a way that has nothing to do with the actual truth of the statement or the point that was being conveyed.
I don't see how cognitive therapy is meaningfully different than physical therapy (other than that one is a more mature and better understood field.)
@Ross Byers I'm not trying to quote out of context I'm trying to avoid walls and walls of text and endless quotes of quotes of quotes. You said you don't understand how mental disease is different from regular old disease in this context, I attempted to explain. Nobody gets over emphysema by changing the way they think about breathing. Right?
Maybe not, but people get over foot and joint problems by changing the way they walk.
Once again, I'm really not sure where you're trying to go with this argument.
My point, in replying to Kryzbyn, was that mental illnesses are still medical problems. Humanity may be better at treating diseases of the body than it is at treating diseases of the mind, but that doesn't make them less valid.
Your reply, apparently, was to say 'Well, we treat some mental problems differently.' That's, frankly, obvious. I didn't say 'all' or even 'the majority'. I said there exist multiple examples. Your statement does not undermine my point, nor the statement I made. Nor does it seem to be trying to agree, since it is a question. It is a non-sequitor disguised as a rhetorical question. If you HAD quoted my whole post (even if you removed Kryzbyn's post to avoid an ever-growing wall of replies), it would have been obviously nonsensical. This drives me to the conclusion that you chose what you did deliberately.
I understand what makes a mental disease different than a physical one: what I said I do not understand is why that distinction is meaningful in this context. That is, not a purely semantic or taxonomic context.
The thing is, the classification of"addict" removes the possibility of a one time occurrence/accident definitionally, you see?I understand that which is why it's problematic, if you're going to say everybody who comes in with drugs in their system is an addict and must be treated as such. I feel like the law, and often the "recovery" industry / establishment, lacks that distinction(not any individuals in this thread, who are all very sophisticated and nuanced in their thinking).
Sarcasm, can I ask where you're posting from? Here in the U.S. (since the Reagan Administration's "Just Say No" campaign in the mid-80's) "Drug-User" has been much more pertinent as a legal classification than "Addict" has as a medical one.
Edited for clarity.
@Hitdice I'm in the US. I'm thinking specifically about things like court-ordered AA / Rehab. Where basically the law is stepping in and pseudo-diagnosing people and prescribing treatment. Like as in "You got in an accident and had a certain level of alcohol in your bloodstream, therefore you are an addict and need addiction treatment." Which logic would not apply in the case of, e.g., food poisoning.
EDIT: But I am not speaking from personal experience. So I welcome the experiences of any who might be.
Maybe not, but people get over foot and joint problems by changing the way they walk.
Once again, I'm really not sure where you're trying to go with this argument.
My point, in replying to Kryzbyn, was that mental illnesses are still medical problems. Humanity may be better at treating diseases of the body than it is at treating diseases of the mind, but that doesn't make them less valid.
Your reply, apparently, was to say 'Well, we treat some mental problems differently.' That's, frankly, obvious. I didn't say 'all' or even 'the majority'. I said there exist multiple examples. Your statement does not undermine my point, nor the statement I made. Nor does it seem to be trying to agree, since it is a question. It is a non-sequitor disguised as a rhetorical question. If you HAD quoted my whole post (even if you removed Kryzbyn's post to avoid an ever-growing wall of replies), it would have been obviously nonsensical. This drives me to the conclusion that you chose what you did deliberately.
I wasn't trying to argue "validity" of it. It's entirely possible that I merely misunderstood you, for which I apologize. There's no need to cast aspersion at my motives.
|
I've never found conversations where someone is playing Devil's Advocate, just to play Devil's Advocate, to be particularly fruitful. It's as useful as declaring "all of reality could just be a program fed to my brain, which is really in a jar some where". It doesn't really take the conversation any where interesting OR useful.I disagree!
Seriously, you don't think there's any benefit in having your thinking challenged or critiqued?
Sure, if there is a point behind it. Not just if you are doing it for critique's sake.
EDIT: Ninja'd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Hitdice I'm in the US. I'm thinking specifically about things like court-ordered AA / Rehab. Where basically the law is stepping in and pseudo-diagnosing people and prescribing treatment. Like as in "You got in an accident and had a certain level of alcohol in your bloodstream, therefore you are an addict and need addiction treatment." Which logic would not apply in the case of, e.g., food poisoning.
EDIT: But I am not speaking from personal experience. So I welcome the experiences of any who might be.
My understanding, which is also not from personal experience, is that those sentences are usually part of a plea deal. That is, "We can imprison you for 30 days, or you can agree to attend an AA meeting once a week for six weeks."
Not that that makes them less compelled, since plea deals are so common (and the only way judicial systems can keep up with the workload) that modern sentencing guidelines are often written under the assumption that they will be a threat to be used in offering a plea, rather than an actual sentence.
I joked earlier but this thread more and more seems about people addiction to debating.
I really want to jump in but I should probably call my sponsor.
-MD
|
|
Addiction is a mental problem.Disease, no. Mental illness, most definately.Do you think there's something to be gained from parsing the difference between disease and the "illness" aspect of mental illness? Before your proceed to actually determine what that difference is, I want to hear what the benefits of this will be. How will the conversation on the topic improve?A disease is something that you can vaccinate against or provide some other medical cure or treatment for.
A mental illness usually takes a different approach to fix, like therapy.Which do you think better qualifies?
No. It's also a physiological problem.
And all the surgery was originally developed to help people with horrible scars & disfigurements (except for boob jobs as far as I know, those are just ridiculous). Cosmetic surgeons make a lot of money, but as far as I know they dont re-invest it much in research.
Reconstructive surgery, e.g. after a mastectomy in the case of breast cancer.
Forgot about that, thanks.And all the surgery was originally developed to help people with horrible scars & disfigurements (except for boob jobs as far as I know, those are just ridiculous). Cosmetic surgeons make a lot of money, but as far as I know they dont re-invest it much in research.Reconstructive surgery, e.g. after a mastectomy in the case of breast cancer.
I, personally, don't mind other reasons either. ;-)
Although plastic surgery has become an addiction to some too...| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew R, are you familiar with the Fundamental Attribution Bias? It's the thing that makes people say 'that guy is an a+%#&&#' when they are cut off by a guy speeding down the highway, but then do the same thing the next week when they are running late for work.
That's not to say the other driver is never an a&&*%&*, or that the 'reason' would hold up to scrutiny. My point is that, most of the time, people think they have a good reason for what they do.
It is better to understand those reasons before passing judgement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even when that something is tobacco, which until quite recently was almost expected by default? Or alcohol, which is still considered standard in social situations? Or pain medication, prescribed by a Doctor?
People get addicted to things for all sorts of reasons. And even when those reasons are incredibly stupid, I'd rather congratulate someone for asking for help than condemn them for needing it in the first place. Because if you do the latter, people don't ask for help.
Well, I know "self-medication" is a very popular term in many communities. The idea is that you're doing drugs BECAUSE you're depressed.
Sorry, that's not a thing.
You're doing drugs because you've got a drug problem. The depression is a CONSEQUENCE of the drugs, usually. If you have recurring depressions before you start doing drugs, well, that's the absolute best way to make the depressions worse. You think it's better because you feel better during the drug high, but most of your time isn't spent in a drug high, right?
@Irontruth nobody said anything about "invisible skyman." Lots of people - motivation irrelevant - argue that a particular lifestyle results in unhappiness, legal consequences, health consequences, and sometimes activity of dubious morality or legality. If the lifestyle is being gay, society says, nothing wrong with that. If the lifestyle is using drugs, society says, there is something wrong with you, you're an addict and need medical treatment (or you're a criminal and need incarceration). And in fact, people who are anti-gay do indeed often make that argument, they find it persuasive, they would-if-they-could have it enshrined in law for the same reason that all these punitive measures against drug users are enshrined in law.
You can see how the same logic could apply in one situation as the other, yes? Even if it currently doesn't under the prevailing current social / cultural climate?
It shouldn't be necessary for me to advertise that my opinion is there's nothing wrong with being gay for you to be able to evaluate that statement.
And my apologies for violating my earlier orders to "shut up about homosexuality", I do so dislike disobeying orders from my superiors but in this case I had to explain myself to Irontruth.
My point, is that if you want to say being gay is a disease, you have to show the harm that is caused to the individual by them being gay. I wouldn't consider violence inflicted upon them by others as actually resulting from being gay, as that would be blaming an actual victim for the crimes of others.
Under the diagnostic systems today, the well-being of the person in question or the person's environment must be impacted by the condition for it to even be a diagnosis. Secondary effects, like "society hates people with kidney stones" do not count. Many people forget this. Homosexuality does not in any need to impact the well-being of the person in question, and certainly not others. Even so, I GUESS it's possible that someone COULD consider their well-being seriously impacted by being gay, perhaps because it conflicts with their self-image or something, and then you could start discussing if it would be worthy of being called a diagnosis. More clearly, this is relevant to the diagnosis of sexual sadism. As long as the person doesn't suffer from it, and expresses this condition in consensual ways, it's not a diagnosis. If the person feels it's a serious problem to him, or hurts others non-consensually because of it, you can call it a diagnosis.
Exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self-medication is not medication. It's a word used to excuse your drug habits. So, it's not a thing. And exactly, because what A Man in Black wrote is correct. Sadly, there is an overrepresentation of substance abuse in groups of mentally ill people.
And unless you count the part where you feel better during your drug high, no, it doesn't help at all. At most, you can get a bit better sleep from it, but there are far better ways to get that.
|
Addiction treatment in both physical and mental and can be seen as a medical process but that should never remove the burden of personal choice in so much of it.What role do you feel the burden of personal choice plays? S$+!ting on people for making the wrong choices only makes things worse, almost always.
What part does it play? if you are doing illegal drugs you get treatment in jail, not told how sorry the world is for not being perfect and not punishing the law breaking. And double down on them if they CHOOSE to go back to using after treatment. Once might have been a bad choice, twice is a pattern and basicly proof they have no intention on stopping.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self-medication is not medication. It's a word used to excuse your drug habits. So, it's not a thing. And exactly, because what A Man in Black wrote is correct. Sadly, there is an overrepresentation of substance abuse in groups of mentally ill people.
And unless you count the part where you feel better during your drug high, no, it doesn't help at all. At most, you can get a bit better sleep from it, but there are far better ways to get that.
That's why i think pretty much all drug users and heavy drinkers are just too damn stupid to assess what it is doing to them
|
|
Even when that something is tobacco, which until quite recently was almost expected by default? Or alcohol, which is still considered standard in social situations? Or pain medication, prescribed by a Doctor?
People get addicted to things for all sorts of reasons. And even when those reasons are incredibly stupid, I'd rather congratulate someone for asking for help than condemn them for needing it in the first place. Because if you do the latter, people don't ask for help.
Im all for treatment if they ask, but when it is because of doing something illegal do not pull any punches when they get caught red handed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah smartass goblin...
I wish all Citizen R. posts started, "Smart-ass goblin..."
That's why i think pretty much all drug users and heavy drinkers are just too damn stupid to assess what it is doing to them
So no one intelligent has ever abused drugs or alcohol? That's a relief!
Everyone is trying to find a solution to addiction. Few results are encouraging. Two stand out, however, society intervention-wise. After the communist party taking over in China, they put the opium addicts in camps for the purpose of quitting the addiction or dying trying. After that, opium addiction wasn't happening at any appreciable scale in China. More recently, Japan decided to lock up every addict they could find for two years. So, the addicts went to jail. The distribution networks collapsed, pushers changed careers, drugs more or less disappeared for years afterward.
And it may well be that self-medication started as a term in medical writings. That doesn't give it much validity today, considering that medicine moved on. The drug addicts love using it, however. Seriously, ask any of them and you'll hear it.
The big difference between self-medication and prescribed medication is the "self" part. Is some one self-medicating with illegal pot doing something entirely different than some one getting a prescription and taking pot in areas where that's legal?
I think a bigger difference is what doctor have access to vs. what the general public does. If alchohol is the only pain medication you can get your hands on well then guess what you're using. A doctor can't know how much pain= how many pills, thats something a patient has to feel out for themselves.