How to fit in at Fornits.com

[Anonymous]

At that point, since they don't really have free will, it's no problem to deny them their rights and forcibly "treat" them to give them that "free will" back, right?  That's basically what you're saying, right?

You didn't answer the question.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. But the only right you are denying them, is their right to consume alcohol or drugs in suicidal quantities. You can't force adults into treatment. You can coerce, pressure, hope and pray they enter treatment and stick with it, but that's it. If it's a minor, that's a different story. As it is now, it's solely up to the parents. I would be fine with a review panel of some kind to prevent unnecessary child placements, but that could quickly spiral out of control into a bureaucratic nightmare.

Do you have any evidence showing forced treatment would have prevented those deaths?  One study by Jeffery Brandsma showed that forced AA attendence actually caused an *increase* in the probability of relapse.

It would of saved some of them. AA is OK, but most addicts need full intensive drug rehabilitation for months in the start of their recovery, at least. AA doesn't provide the kind of in depth treatment most addicts need. AA is a support group not a treatment system, although many involved with AA also run sober houses and other treatment programs. It's a good place to start and ask for help, at the very least.

Aha.  So the parent who doesn't like that joey is fucking adam is perfectly justified in sending his kid off for "treatment" to "fix" him.  I see.

As the law is now, this is allowed. If you have a problem with it I suggest you write to your lawmakers, because I am not the one who decides these things. I haven't mentioned gay people needing "treatment", and would not recommend it. Like I said, being gay doesn't kill you. Being addicted to deadly substances does kill, there is a big difference.

Did you know that in most states kids can refuse medical treatment after the age of 13 or so (even life saving treatment)?  The only way programs get around this is by masquerading as "boarding schools" and calling their treatment "emotional growth" and their counselors "coaches" since they're unlicensed.

So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it? Would you give them medication if it solved it? Would you lock them in a padded room? Would you force them to wear a helmet? Would you try to treat them and get them to stop through talking? Punish them every time they do it? Or do nothing and let them bash their brains in?

I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't be able to watch that gruesome scene without trying to intervene. Sure, the methods might not be perfect at first, but eventually I might figure something out that helps. If not, well, they can always go back to bashing their head into the wall.

[psy]

Being addicted to deadly substances does kill, there is a big difference.

No.  Consuming large quantities and/or impure substances can kill.  There is a big difference.  Even "addicts" can choose not to consume substances or to quit (unless you believe it's the rubber chicken and/or flying spaghetti monster that has that power).

No true "disease" can be cured with willpower alone.  That is one element that makes addiction not a disease.  It exists, sure, but it's not a disease.

Did you know that in most states kids can refuse medical treatment after the age of 13 or so (even life saving treatment)?  The only way programs get around this is by masquerading as "boarding schools" and calling their treatment "emotional growth" and their counselors "coaches" since they're unlicensed.

So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it?

Not without their explicit consent.

Would you give them medication if it solved it? Would you lock them in a padded room? Would you force them to wear a helmet? Would you try to treat them and get them to stop through talking? Punish them every time they do it? Or do nothing and let them bash their brains in?

I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't be able to watch that gruesome scene without trying to intervene. Sure, the methods might not be perfect at first, but eventually I might figure something out that helps. If not, well, they can always go back to bashing their head into the wall.

Maybe you can rig them with shock devices like at Judge Rotenberg center.  You can shock them whenever they do something that harms themselves or you plain don't like.  Eventually it can get to the point where they are shocked for saying a bad word or not combing their hair.  With that kind of power, that sort of stuff tends to happen.  But hey... it's for the kid's own damn good, right?

[Anonymous]

So you're saying addicts don't have the choice to abstain from substances (not load the gun, in your analogy?).  

Everybody has this choice. Of course you probably won't know you're an addict until after this choice is made. Why do some people enjoy one glass of wine with dinner, while others are totally consumed by it to the point of destroying their entire life? I don't think the answer is as simple as "it's a choice". I know non-addicts would like to believe that for a variety of reasons, but it's not true.

What you seem to be saying is that they have a "disease" are "powerless" over substances, right?  

Those who have become powerless in their ability to control the substances they consume have the disease of addiction.

As such, they must be incarcerated and "treated" against their will for their own damn good, right?

Nobody is forcibly incarcerated and treated for addiction, unless they commit some kind of crime in additional to using itself. Society takes action against an individual at the point they begin to negatively effect other people within the society. Drunk driving is a good example of this. It kills a lot of innocent people on the roads, that is why the society is trying to prevent it. I wish we were more effective.

If it were totally up to me, there would be some kind of health professional committee where family members or loved ones could bring a case against individuals. If granted, the committee would temporarily rescind the freedom of the individual to consume the substance causing them problems. Whether this is through drug treatment attendance, or some kind of pill or something that would prevent the person from being intoxicated is up to debate. Andy Dick was on the Tyra Banks show and proudly displayed his ankle bracelet which actually monitors his alcohol blood level through his skin, transmitting to the NY state authorities in real time. If he takes a drink, the police will be contacted and he will be arrested. You know what? Andy Dick said he is thankful, because without it he wouldn't be able to stop drinking. Then they started talking about the disease of addiction with other guests and I didn't see anybody claiming it wasn't a disease.

No, But i'd talk to my kid and offer a therapist to talk to.  I'd relate my own experiences about getting dumped and explain that no matter how horrible it feels, it goes away in time, etc...  I wouldn't lock my kid up.  In my experience, programs merely make depressed kids much, much, worse.

Then you should help find alternatives that work better. I think we can all agree that depressed kids should receive help. What type of help? This is also up for debate. I don't argue on behalf of programs, I just think some people need help, even if they don't realize it, or want it. Instead of being against one form of treatment, I want to know what are people for in it's place.

Programs aren't the only option.  However, if a person decides to kill themselves, nothing really can be done about that.  Killing their free will is much worse than killing their bodies.

I couldn't disagree more. But the fact you would be willing to sacrifice your fictitious 15 year old child to the altar of a particular philosophical belief is hard core. You can't "kill" free will. To argue that the short term mental distress of dealing with unwanted treatment is better than ceasing to exist altogether is absurd. "If a person decides to kill themselves" there is plenty that can be done, and no options should be off the table. Suicide is a 100% preventable cause of death, and shouldn't happen in our society. The attitude you take that people have a right to destroy themselves is wrong. People with sound thinking and a sound mind do not commit suicide. It's a mental illness that is very much treatable.

Some European countries are toying around with the idea of euthanasia clinics, where adults can come and have themselves put to sleep like a sick old dog. If people want to know the difference between Europe and America, that right there is a good place to start.

[Anonymous]

No.  Consuming large quantities and/or impure substances can kill.  There is a big difference.  Even "addicts" can choose not to consume substances or to quit (unless you believe it's the rubber chicken and/or flying spaghetti monster that has that power).

Then why doesn't everyone quite before they destroy their life and/or die from it? Do you really believe alcoholics and drug addicts want to be that way?

No true "disease" can be cured with willpower alone.  That is one element that makes addiction not a disease.  It exists, sure, but it's not a disease.

Overeating is a choice. Obesity is a disease. Do addicts have the choice whether to start using or not? Of course they do. Just in the same way overweight individuals have the right to not eat. But when an obese person goes in for gastric bypass surgery, do you think the surgeon badgers them on the fact overeating is a "choice"? Or do you think they are more concerned with the negative effects of overeating (heart disease, diabetes, early death) and do what they need to do in order to treat it?

So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it?

Not without their explicit consent.

Well obviously if they are bashing their head into the wall over and over, their psychological condition is not too good. You are asking a person who is illogical, to engage in logical thought. You wouldn't even both putting a helmet on this obviously mentally distressed person? Wow.

Maybe you can rig them with shock devices like at Judge Rotenberg center.  You can shock them whenever they do something that harms themselves or you plain don't like.  Eventually it can get to the point where they are shocked for saying a bad word or not combing their hair.  With that kind of power, that sort of stuff tends to happen.  But hey... it's for the kid's own damn good, right?

You claw at the moral high ground here, yet you just admitted you would stand by and watch the brick wall person spill their brains right in front of you. This positions is analogous to your overall position on programs. You want people to sit back and watch their loved one's destroy themselves. You are quick to point out what you view as controversial tactics to control mentally distressed people, while your solution is to let them bang their head into the wall until they kill themselves. Your position is not located in the safe haven of a moral high ground. In fact, quite the opposite. At least the people who so easily criticize are trying. I'd like to see how well you'd do. (but we both know you won't, since your position is to sit back and watch people self destruct)

[psy]

Then why doesn't everyone quite before they destroy their life and/or die from it? Do you really believe alcoholics and drug addicts want to be that way?

More than they want to quit, yes.  Otherwise they would quit.

No true "disease" can be cured with willpower alone.  That is one element that makes addiction not a disease.  It exists, sure, but it's not a disease.

Overeating is a choice. Obesity is a disease.

Drinking too much is a choice (not a disease).  Cirrhosis is a disease.

Do addicts have the choice whether to start using or not? Of course they do. Just in the same way overweight individuals have the right to not eat. But when an obese person goes in for gastric bypass surgery, do you think the surgeon badgers them on the fact overeating is a "choice"? Or do you think they are more concerned with the negative effects of overeating (heart disease, diabetes, early death) and do what they need to do in order to treat it?

Do you think the fat person in question should be coddled and told that their overeating is a "disease" that they are powerless over (like in OA).  I know plenty about OA.  I had a GF who was in OA.  I saw her got a LOT worse as she progressed through that program.  She felt she was powerless and had a "disease" so she didn't bother to try to control herself, so she ate and ate and ate and threw up and threw up...  It was her choice.  I told her of the health consequences and how much it hurt me to see her hurt herslef like that, but I knew that ultimately I *was* powerless over her choices.

At the time (shortly after program), I thought she truly had a "disease" over which she was powerless over so I didn't bother to encourage her that she could control herself, or to suggest an alternative...  hindsight is 20/20

So if someone had a chemical imbalance in their brain that caused them to run repeatedly into a brick wall head first, would you do anything to stop it?

Not without their explicit consent.

Well obviously if they are bashing their head into the wall over and over, their psychological condition is not too good. You are asking a person who is illogical, to engage in logical thought. You wouldn't even both putting a helmet on this obviously mentally distressed person? Wow.

So are you saying the person slams his/her head into the wall 24/7 and has never stops so that one might ask a question such as "do you want help with that?".  As I understand it, most such behavior is in fits.  If a person truly is not competant to make his/her own decisions (legally retarded and parents have extended custody), well than that is a different situation.

That situation does not apply to an addict/alcholic, however.  Using drugs is not an involuntary behavior.  It's a choice.

Maybe you can rig them with shock devices like at Judge Rotenberg center.  You can shock them whenever they do something that harms themselves or you plain don't like.  Eventually it can get to the point where they are shocked for saying a bad word or not combing their hair.  With that kind of power, that sort of stuff tends to happen.  But hey... it's for the kid's own damn good, right?

You claw at the moral high ground here, yet you just admitted you would stand by and watch the brick wall person spill their brains right in front of you.

IF they were of sound mind otherwise and made the choice to do so... sure.  I'd probably even suggest a less painful method.  If the action was truly involuntary and a person was not of sound mind to consent to treatment, then maybe treatment would be appropriate...  otherwise it's interfering with a person's right to self ownership.

This positions is analogous to your overall position on programs. You want people to sit back and watch their loved one's destroy themselves. You are quick to point out what you view as controversial tactics to control mentally distressed people, while your solution is to let them bang their head into the wall until they kill themselves. Your position is not located in the safe haven of a moral high ground. In fact, quite the opposite. At least the people who so easily criticize are trying. I'd like to see how well you'd do. (but we both know you won't, since your position is to sit back and watch people self destruct)

Show me research showing that addiction is a progressive incurable disease over which one is powerless.  Prove that.  A mentally challenged person's involuntary headbanging is hardly a good comparison to a voluntary action such as picking up a drink or cooking heroin.

[Anonymous]

I misspoke in relation to over eating. What I meant to say was that when you first start eating is a choice, or eating an extra desert now and then is a choice. For people like your GF, that definitely sounds like it is not a choice. I didn't mean to belittle Overeaters Anonymous in any way and apologize for suggesting that in any way. I realize my statement came across really bad. Because who would choose to be like that?

If it was as easy as switching a mental button on or off, then people would do so as soon as they recognize a problem. Yet we persist in our self destructive behaviors even when we know what we are doing is going to kill us.
We live in a time of relative excess and the science of addiction is still relatively new. We have excess alcohol, drugs, food, tobacco, and gambling. In the future they might even refer to this as the "time of excess". When our biggest killer become a disease caused by eating unhealthy foods and inactivity and smoking, with insane regularity, a product that has no benefit but death.

I know people want to believe they are in full control of their life. Some have an extreme desire to convince themselves of this and start heretical cults to garner supporters to confirm their egotistical and arrogant claims of complete control. Some of us know we aren't fully in control, it takes losing control despite your best efforts to realize you are not in full control.  

At the time (shortly after program), I thought she truly had a "disease" over which she was powerless over so I didn't bother to encourage her that she could control herself, or to suggest an alternative...  hindsight is 20/20

Well what would you suggest as an alternative? The treatment centers for eating disorders are not created on another planet, they are very similar to drug treatment centers. What if a person starves themselves to the point at being at risk of death? Would you still not support forced treatment for this person? Would you let a loved one starve to death if they were anorexic, and that was their intention or direction?

How exactly would you of "encouraged her that she could control herself"? That sounds like the same things some of the "alternative" adolescent treatment centers do (non medical based).

[psy]

I misspoke in relation to over eating. What I meant to say was that when you first start eating is a choice, or eating an extra desert now and then is a choice. For people like your GF, that definitely sounds like it is not a choice. I didn't mean to belittle Overeaters Anonymous in any way and apologize for suggesting that in any way. I realize my statement came across really bad. Because who would choose to be like that?

Maybe they don't see themselves accurately and feel such methods deal effectively with their problems.  Lots of reasons one might choose to abuse substances (even food).  It feels good, and lots of people think more about the short term and not enough about the long term...  lots of reasons... however consuming excess food in itself is not a disease.

If it was as easy as switching a mental button on or off, then people would do so as soon as they recognize a problem. Yet we persist in our self destructive behaviors even when we know what we are doing is going to kill us.

That's a choice.  Some people want to die but just aren't brave enough to commit suicide... so they do it slowly.  There are a myriad of reasons.  Many of them causes, some of them diseases... but drug abuse is a symptom, not a disease in itself.

We live in a time of relative excess and the science of addiction is still relatively new. We have excess alcohol, drugs, food, tobacco, and gambling. In the future they might even refer to this as the "time of excess". When our biggest killer become a disease caused by eating unhealthy foods and inactivity and smoking

And those things are choices, not disease in themselves, though those *behaviors* can cause diseases (dangerous weight gain, heart attacks, lung cancer, etc...).  I smoke cigarettes.  Why?  because it feels good, is a stimulant that keeps me sharp, etc... I know it might kill me, but what the fuck..  gotta die someday.  That's a choice.

I know people want to believe they are in full control of their life. Some have an extreme desire to convince themselves of this and start heretical cults to garner supporters to confirm their egotistical and arrogant claims of complete control. Some of us know we aren't fully in control, it takes losing control despite your best efforts to realize you are not in full control.

Of course people aren't in full control of their lives (that's lifespring / est / Scientology / human potential movement).  People are, however, in full control of their own actions.  Sure there are desires for substances, but none of them overpower free will.  You can't argue in court that you killed somebody because you really really needed money for smack.  You can't argue you killed somebody driving drunk because you couldn't control yourself not to drink and drive.  The courts realize people are responsible for their actions and there is significant evidence addiction is not a disease, much less one that absolves people of personal responsibility for their actions (supreme court ruled this, writing in 1988 "a substantial body of medical literature that even contests the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, much less that it is a disease for which the victim bears no responsibility ... Indeed, even among many who consider alcoholism a "disease" to which its victims are genetically predisposed, the consumption of alcohol is not regarded as wholly involuntary.").

At the time (shortly after program), I thought she truly had a "disease" over which she was powerless over so I didn't bother to encourage her that she could control herself, or to suggest an alternative...  hindsight is 20/20

Well what would you suggest as an alternative?

Therapy to improve self image.  Anything to help the girl see herself as she is: beautiful inside and out.  She wasn't fat by any means...  she just thought herself that way.  All OA does is to teach people that they have a lifelong disease that they are powerless over, which is bullshit since so many people with eating disorders grow out of it (the vast, vast, majority).  All OA does is to create meeting addicts who becomes obsessed with their problem to the point where it becomes their identity.  It's fucking nuts.

The treatment centers for eating disorders are not created on another planet, they are very similar to drug treatment centers. What if a person starves themselves to the point at being at risk of death? Would you still not support forced treatment for this person? Would you let a loved one starve to death if they were anorexic, and that was their intention or direction?

If that was their desire, yes.  I would, however try to talk a person into getting help, etc.  However the ultimate choice is up to them.  I believe even AA teaches you can't help a person unless they want help.

How exactly would you of "encouraged her that she could control herself"? That sounds like the same things some of the "alternative" adolescent treatment centers do (non medical based).

No, programs generally tell kids they are powerless.  If you know of a program that does not teach that, i'd be fascinated.

[Froderik]

Basically if you want to get in good with the posters at fornits I can tell you how. You have to say these things but don't list it off because that's kind of obvious. Just bring up these things now and then and you'll see how quickly you rise in the ranks of fornits.

#1 Mormons are evil

Did you know that Mormons are behind most programs? Yep, it's true. They also hate fags and don't want them to get married. Mormons are EVIL and the world would be bunnies and kisses if they just converted to Catholicism already.

#2 Addiction is NOT a disease

Despite decades of scientific research and studies, and what every single professional and school has ever told you, they are wrong. Addiction is NOT a disease and claiming so gives those stupid addicts an excuse not to get better. If you know an addict, kick them out on the street and they will choose to get better. if they don't, who cares. It's not like they can't just stop whenever they want.

#3 Alcoholics Anonymous is evil
 
AA is a CULT that sucks people in and ruins their life and their families life. BEWARE OF THE EVIL AA! (I heard the coffee is poisoned and donuts contain brainwashing drugs that make you come back every week)

#4 Ron Paul isn't insane

Ron Paul, the biggest political supporter of programs that could possibly exist, isn't crazy. No, just because his politics would create more programs and no way to regulate or shut them down, doesn't mean he shouldn't win. Let's take the country back to the stone age and elect the only candidate who appears to have a mental illness. RON PAUL!

#5 If a kid dies from drug addiction any point in their life and went to the program, ITS THE PROGRAM's FAULT

Let's say a kid went to a program when they were 15. If they die of a drug or alcohol overdose in their 20's or 30's, or anytime for the rest of their life, the blame lies solely with the program they attended. If programs worked, then they should of been cured of addiction (which isnt a disease), right? RIGHT!

#6 Nobody is at fault

Program parents were suckered. Staff were kind-hearted, but misguided do-gooders. Owners just want to make a buck. Peer abuse happens because they are brainwashed. Nobody is at fault really, it's the 'system' that's bad.. yeah.. man... that's it.

#7 Having a website will solve the problem

Internets to the rescue! If parents don't find this website then they didn't do enough research.

#8 Child abuse will end when the program I went to is shut down

Since I only care about the abuse that happened to me, when the place I was at is shut down then abuse will no longer happen to any other kid!

#9 All kids in programs are innocent

All the kids in programs are sweet 14 year old, straight A students who were sent away for no reason at all.  Which leads into...

#10 All program parents are EVIL

They send their kids away for no reason to the worst place they can find so they can have their kid tortured. They want their kid to be abused in horrible ways and pray every night their kid is away the kid is being beaten into a submissive pulp.


There you go, if you want to one day make it to moderator status these will help you fit in here. They might also help you gain access to the secret forum... oh wait, nobody posts in that forum anymore. Never mind!


And just one more thing...












 :moon:

:bump:

[Anonymous]

"In the US DOT publication "The Economic Costs Of Motor Vehicle Crashes,"  NHTSA investigator Lawrence J. Blincoe reports that in 1994, motor vehicle crashes accounted for 40,676 fatalites, and 4,100,000 injuries (of which 533,000 or 13% were serious). The total lifetime cost to the US economy for automobile accidents that occured in 1994 was $150.5 billion.  The 1996  NHTSA report "1996 Traffic Safety Facts" (pdf) came up with similar though somewhat improved  statistics: 41,907 fatalities and 3,511,000 injuries, 456,430 of them serious.  The 1997  NHTSA report "Traffic Safety Facts 1997" reports 41,967 fatalities and 3,399,000 injuries, 441,870 of them serious.  The 1998  NHTSA report "Traffic Safety Facts 1998 Annual Report" reports 41,471 fatalities and 3,192,000 injuries, 414,960 of them serious."


Holy shit Batman, if this is the case, I'd best git myself to a Driver Rehab Center to help with my Driving Addiction Disease Disorder... 40,676 deaths and over 4 MILLION injuries, just driving a car or truck? WOW, I am really really sick!! I need help now!!! Where's the nearest Driver Rehab Center?    :roflmao:

[FemanonFatal2.0]

If I may be welcomed to interject my opinion here, I think that what the "disease vs not a disease" argument is missing here is the cause of said compulsions. Is it genes, chemical deficiencies or just an obsession? If Addiction were say a disease in itself, which would require that the symptoms stood alone and affected an otherwise perfectly healthy and mentally stable person, in scientific terms, it would be classified as a disorder. My opinion is however that a disorder like depression, OCD, ADD and various others that require medication to level the brain chemistry can be the cause for an addict to consume substances, its plainly self medicating. MANY if not MOST of the people I met in AA, NA or other chemical dependency classes were struggling with other underlying disorders and their drug of choice was usually the kind of substance that they would be prescribed legally through pharmaceutical treatment. (for instance Meth = Ritilin or Alcohol = Anti-depressants) The existence of other noteworthy mental disorders makes the addiction simply a symptom of the pre-existing disorders, not a disorder itself and especially in this instance calling it a disease would in fact be pseudo-scientific. I note that this kind of addiction is way more common then physical addition.  

Which brings us to the question, Is physical addiction a disease?... one can argue that it can certainly be considered an ailment, being as the drug itself creates a chemical and physical change in the body when it is being used and if the patient stops using the body goes into physical and mental withdrawls. Although the initial choice to start using the drug is an action of free will, I would never say that a physical addiction is a choice. However I think that even in the state of withdrawl, a physical addiction can't accurately be classified as a disease, but more like an allergic reaction.

I can understand, that through a doctor's eyes it is better to air on the side that addiction is a medical condition so that people can seek treatment instead of the state stepping in and just doling out jail time. That I agree with, that addicts should seek PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL help for their addictions however I find it a very hard stretch that the 12 step program is anywhere close to what you would call treatment. The main reason I don't personally agree with AA adopting the disease concept is because they have twisted what medical professionals have done to go out on a limb for patients in order to preach a false dogma of powerlessness, and exerting power of the group, the addiction and "a god" over the person. I find it hard to believe that this kind of backward thinking really helps anyone. Especially when recovery from a substance addiction honestly takes enormous amounts of willpower.

My question is, if addiction were a disease, what could possibly be the cure? Can medical professionals even find any kind of treatment for such an aliment or is the cure really just the same as the affliction? A choice.

[Anonymous]

If I may be welcomed to interject my opinion here, I think that what the "disease vs not a disease" argument is missing here is the cause of said compulsions. Is it genes, chemical deficiencies or just an obsession? If Addiction were say a disease in itself, which would require that the symptoms stood alone and affected an otherwise perfectly healthy and mentally stable person, in scientific terms, it would be classified as a disorder. My opinion is however that a disorder like depression, OCD, ADD and various others that require medication to level the brain chemistry can be the cause for an addict to consume substances, its plainly self medicating. MANY if not MOST of the people I met in AA, NA or other chemical dependency classes were struggling with other underlying disorders and their drug of choice was usually the kind of substance that they would be prescribed legally through pharmaceutical treatment. (for instance Meth = Ritilin or Alcohol = Anti-depressants) The existence of other noteworthy mental disorders makes the addiction simply a symptom of the pre-existing disorders, not a disorder itself and especially in this instance calling it a disease would in fact be pseudo-scientific. I note that this kind of addiction is way more common then physical addition.  

Which brings us to the question, Is physical addiction a disease?... one can argue that it can certainly be considered an ailment, being as the drug itself creates a chemical and physical change in the body when it is being used and if the patient stops using the body goes into physical and mental withdrawls. Although the initial choice to start using the drug is an action of free will, I would never say that a physical addiction is a choice. However I think that even in the state of withdrawl, a physical addiction can't accurately be classified as a disease, but more like an allergic reaction.

I can understand, that through a doctor's eyes it is better to air on the side that addiction is a medical condition so that people can seek treatment instead of the state stepping in and just doling out jail time. That I agree with, that addicts should seek PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL help for their addictions however I find it a very hard stretch that the 12 step program is anywhere close to what you would call treatment. The main reason I don't personally agree with AA adopting the disease concept is because they have twisted what medical professionals have done to go out on a limb for patients in order to preach a false dogma of powerlessness, and exerting power of the group, the addiction and "a god" over the person. I find it hard to believe that this kind of backward thinking really helps anyone. Especially when recovery from a substance addiction honestly takes enormous amounts of willpower.

My question is, if addiction were a disease, what could possibly be the cure? Can medical professionals even find any kind of treatment for such an aliment or is the cure really just the same as the affliction? A choice.

There are medications that are supposed to help with cravings, support groups like AA have been shown to be beneficial--I  dont think AA "preaches" powerlessness, the idea that I get from their material is that the individual is 'powerless' in the sence its not their fault they have a disease i.e. they are powerless over having a disease, individual therapy is supposed to be helpful. AA has no official stance on what addiction is other than that its an illness of some sort, they also use the term "allergy" to describe alchohalism. You can skip any of their "steps" you want to, and if you like start your own AA group without any of their material. I researched and confirmed this a while back. You can do it too if you want to take the time. Remember to look for original source material or other legitimate sources. I think its a fine organization, it would be great if some changes in their literatire were made, but they cant really change anything without, i think, 2/3s? of their members voting for a change, so nothing really changes--one of the drawbacks of a democratic organization.

JAI, if an individual is using alchohal as a psych crutch missing holes in their lives need to be filled, anti depressants utilized, --a doctor or a competant person in some regard should help them manage their lives for a while, imo

[FemanonFatal2.0]

There are medications that are supposed to help with cravings, support groups like AA have been shown to be beneficial--I  dont think AA "preaches" powerlessness, the idea that I get from their material is that the individual is 'powerless' in the sence its not their fault they have a disease i.e. they are powerless over having a disease, individual therapy is supposed to be helpful. AA has no official stance on what addiction is other than that its an illness of some sort, they also use the term "allergy" to describe alchohalism. You can skip any of their "steps" you want to, and if you like start your own AA group without any of their material. I researched and confirmed this a while back. You can do it too if you want to take the time. Remember to look for original source material or other legitimate sources. I think its a fine organization, it would be great if some changes in their literatire were made, but they cant really change anything without, i think, 2/3s? of their members voting for a change, so nothing really changes--one of the drawbacks of a democratic organization.

JAI, if an individual is using alcohol as a psych crutch missing holes in their lives need to be filled, anti depressants utilized, --a doctor or a competant person in some regard should help them manage their lives for a while, imo

I see your point, and I agree that in dire situations medications can help, but the sad truth is that they are simply different versions of the drug they were getting on the streets. For instance, heroin users are often detoxed by using Oxycotin to ween off the substance the body craves but Oxycotin is simply a scientifically engineered version of heroin and is just as addicting and potentially fatal as heroin. As well Oxycotin is often the source for creating a heroin addiction. In the case of my good friend, she started using Oxy socially, then more than occasionally with her boyfriend who sold the pills. They got addicted when it was easily accessible and in their situation affordable. However soon he couldn't sell anymore but the habit remained, they quickly went from taking prescription pills to intervieniously injecting black tar heroin. The same goes for some meth heads, I knew a guy who took Ritilin and Aderal most of his life until he lost his health insurance. He soon found that meth had the same effect and got to the point he is now that he shoots up and has to steal cars to support his habit. This all goes back to the argument that what actually caused these people to become addicted. In both cases I am more than positive it was an underlying, pre-existing mental disorder that they were at first seeking to medicate themselves and became phycially addicted to their drug of choice.

It's funny you say I could open up my own AA meeting. Maybe someday I will have the degree's necessary to facilitate a properly devised treatment center for truly addicted patients, however at this point, just opening up a free AA meeting and making up a new dogma would really be against my values. I don't think that addicts should find treatment from ex addicts, support yes, possibly in a medical setting with at least one medical doctor and one psychologist there to give professional opinions. But that's not what AA is, its JUST a religion, not treatment and shouldn't be perpetrated as such.

[Anonymous]

There are medications that are supposed to help with cravings, support groups like AA have been shown to be beneficial--I  dont think AA "preaches" powerlessness, the idea that I get from their material is that the individual is 'powerless' in the sence its not their fault they have a disease i.e. they are powerless over having a disease, individual therapy is supposed to be helpful. AA has no official stance on what addiction is other than that its an illness of some sort, they also use the term "allergy" to describe alchohalism. You can skip any of their "steps" you want to, and if you like start your own AA group without any of their material. I researched and confirmed this a while back. You can do it too if you want to take the time. Remember to look for original source material or other legitimate sources. I think its a fine organization, it would be great if some changes in their literatire were made, but they cant really change anything without, i think, 2/3s? of their members voting for a change, so nothing really changes--one of the drawbacks of a democratic organization.

JAI, if an individual is using alcohol as a psych crutch missing holes in their lives need to be filled, anti depressants utilized, --a doctor or a competant person in some regard should help them manage their lives for a while, imo

I see your point, and I agree that in dire situations medications can help, but the sad truth is that they are simply different versions of the drug they were getting on the streets. For instance, heroin users are often detoxed by using Oxycotin to ween off the substance the body craves but Oxycotin is simply a scientifically engineered version of heroin and is just as addicting and potentially fatal as heroin. As well Oxycotin is often the source for creating a heroin addiction. In the case of my good friend, she started using Oxy socially, then more than occasionally with her boyfriend who sold the pills. They got addicted when it was easily accessible and in their situation affordable. However soon he couldn't sell anymore but the habit remained, they quickly went from taking prescription pills to intervieniously injecting black tar heroin. The same goes for some meth heads, I knew a guy who took Ritilin and Aderal most of his life until he lost his health insurance. He soon found that meth had the same effect and got to the point he is now that he shoots up and has to steal cars to support his habit. This all goes back to the argument that what actually caused these people to become addicted. In both cases I am more than positive it was an underlying, pre-existing mental disorder that they were at first seeking to medicate themselves and became phycially addicted to their drug of choice.

It's funny you say I could open up my own AA meeting. Maybe someday I will have the degree's necessary to facilitate a properly devised treatment center for truly addicted patients, however at this point, just opening up a free AA meeting and making up a new dogma would really be against my values. I don't think that addicts should find treatment from ex addicts, support yes, possibly in a medical setting with at least one medical doctor and one psychologist there to give professional opinions. But that's not what AA is, its JUST a religion, not treatment and shouldn't be perpetrated as such.

I dont think AA is a religion. I think it is a support group. I think support groups can be helpful for people who are struggling. I am a member of a support group (not aa) Its an informal internet thing. Its nice to have people who have been through the same thing to talk to and share techniques to fix your crappy situation. People dont  care about other people in general and arent necessarily there to listen to you bitch and help guide you. Support groups can be useful as center where people can gather to be caring in a symbiotic fashion.  I wish there was something like that for survivors. I really do.

This is how i think AA can be helpful to people. Particualy for people who have become isolated from society in general do to their problems, or just as likely were isolated from the get-go due to abusive parents and became more isolated due to their problems. JMI

[Anonymous]

Obesity is a disease.

Studies that show fat people live longer than thin people and have a better chance of surviving surgeries, and a few other things.

(Obesity Paradox #1and Obesity Paradox #2)

Suggested Reading: Paul Campos' The Obesity Myth.

[psy]

I dont think AA is a religion.

Law of the land is that it is.  Legally, courts have ruled AA to be a religion.

http://orange-papers.org/orange-spirrel.html#judges

I wish there was something like that for survivors. I really do.

That would be nice.  A lot of people have found just talking to people they meet on fornits to be helpful...  There are some private email lists as well (especially for specific programs).  Check the fornits wiki for information on a support group / email list for your program.

This is how i think AA can be helpful to people.

Well.  There are support groups that don't have steps, sponsors, the flying spaghetti monster, and moral inventories.  Statistically, AA's sucess rate is non-existant.  That being said, I have never had a problem with people doing just about anything voluntarily... even things that are self-destructive.  All I have a problem with is when treatment is forced and people are sentenced to a religion (or a program using a religion).  Technically, Judges aren't supposed to do it anymore, but some still do.