Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: Anonymous on March 04, 2009, 10:37:27 AM
-
This part of AA is good (although I'm not arguing for AA as a whole here). If these problems are caused by a disease then what right does society have to imprison these people, put them in the gulag treatment centers, ruin their lives with criminal records, etc.? Do we imprison those who have diabetes?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news ... olism-gene (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene)
-
First, alcoholism/addiction are NOT diseases, IMO. Second, I would assert that calling it such actually empowers the "do-gooders" to lock us up for our own safety. Because we're so "sick" that we can't be trusted to know what's best for us. We know why the neo-con/fundies like programs.....get tuff on kids/crime. But the libs/hippies/new-agers like the 'alternative' approach. They look at it as "rehabilitation/therapy" and helping them avoid prison. Those are the people that actually BELIEVE the crap they're spouting, which IMO makes them even more dangerous than the neo-con/fundies. At least you know[/b] they're twisted fucks. A lot of these "alternatives" supporters reach people (and their kids sometimes) because they're sincere in wanting to help and believe what they're doing is good and right and true.
-
First, alcoholism/addiction are NOT diseases, IMO. Second, I would assert that calling it such actually empowers the "do-gooders" to lock us up for our own safety. Because we're so "sick" that we can't be trusted to know what's best for us. We know why the neo-con/fundies like programs.....get tuff on kids/crime. But the libs/hippies/new-agers like the 'alternative' approach. They look at it as "rehabilitation/therapy" and helping them avoid prison. Those are the people that actually BELIEVE the crap they're spouting, which IMO makes them even more dangerous than the neo-con/fundies. At least you know[/b] they're twisted fucks. A lot of these "alternatives" supporters reach people (and their kids sometimes) because they're sincere in wanting to help and believe what they're doing is good and right and true.
IMO, people calling AA NA a cult actually empowers the do-gooders to lock us up as it makes "us" look crazy with no clue what a cult entails or brainwashing involves or our ideas of "abuse" non conforming to legal definitions of abuse. IMO I think going with the science on the issue is the best idea. Saying there's no such thing as addiction...just really is not accurate. You cant be locked up lunless youre an immediate danger to yourself or others, disease or not. Depressed people arent locked up, nor should be drug addicts if legal precedent is followed and respected. The whole idea of locking people up for enjoying drugs...ugh...dont get me started
-
First, alcoholism/addiction are NOT diseases, IMO. Second, I would assert that calling it such actually empowers the "do-gooders" to lock us up for our own safety. Because we're so "sick" that we can't be trusted to know what's best for us. We know why the neo-con/fundies like programs.....get tuff on kids/crime. But the libs/hippies/new-agers like the 'alternative' approach. They look at it as "rehabilitation/therapy" and helping them avoid prison. Those are the people that actually BELIEVE the crap they're spouting, which IMO makes them even more dangerous than the neo-con/fundies. At least you know[/b] they're twisted fucks. A lot of these "alternatives" supporters reach people (and their kids sometimes) because they're sincere in wanting to help and believe what they're doing is good and right and true.
IMO, people calling AA NA a cult actually empowers the do-gooders to lock us up as it makes "us" look crazy with no clue what a cult entails or brainwashing involves or our ideas of "abuse" non conforming to legal definitions of abuse.
I'm not sure I can decipher that. What are you saying?
]quote] IMO I think going with the science on the issue is the best idea. Saying there's no such thing as addiction...just really is not accurate.
Well, yes it is.
You cant be locked up lunless youre an immediate danger to yourself or others, disease or not. Depressed people arent locked up, nor should be drug addicts if legal precedent is followed and respected.
:eek: What color is the sky in your world? People are locked up every day regardless of diagnosis.
The whole idea of locking people up for enjoying drugs...ugh...dont get me started
Yep. Pretty fucking stoopid.
-
First, alcoholism/addiction are NOT diseases, IMO. Second, I would assert that calling it such actually empowers the "do-gooders" to lock us up for our own safety.
Precisely. The idea becomes that since a person is not in control of their own facilities they do not really have free will to be taken away. This means that imprisoning them and re-educating them is really helping them get their freedom back. Now let's argue for a moment that it was true and that there were some people that truly could not control themselves... I don't agree with that, but even if it were true, who gets to make that distinction? Who gets to decide who is an "addict" and who is not? Who gets to decide who needs forced "treatment" (incarceration + re-education)?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under live robber barons than under omnipotent moral busibodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C.S. Lewis
Interesting Essay by C.S. Lewis if you read the whole thing. He describes this exact system, where people are locked up and forced to reform their beliefs for their "own good". He was applying it to religious beliefs but any personal choice that does not affect another person directly falls under the same paradigm. It is better and safer for everybody if nobody has the power to lock people up and change the way they think without their knowledge and consent. Freedom of thought is sacred and forced "rehabilitation" is nothing more than a euphemism for re-education.
This isn't even mentioning the scientific evidence pointing to the fact that addiction is *not* a disease. If you think alcoholism/addiction is a disease, you might consider viewing the evidence for the "other" side of the argument:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
The Supreme Court agrees:
In 1988, the US Supreme Court upheld a regulation whereby the Veterans' Administration was able to avoid paying benefits by presuming that primary alcoholism is always the result of the veteran's "own willful misconduct." The majority opinion written by Justice Byron R. White echoed the District of Columbia Circuit's finding that there exists "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"
http://supreme.justia.com/us/485/535/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/485/535/case.html)
NOT A DISEASE. It's a CHOICE. People should not be condemned for what they put in their bodies. At the same time, people should not be excused by what they have in their bodies (it's not my fault, it was my disease).
pardon my programmese, but that's a fuckin cop out
I can understand how a drunk/addict can find the idea palatable so he/she can blame everything he/she has done wrong on "the disease", but it doesn't make it true. Furthermore, it just gives pre-emptive absolution for any further actions... encouraging irresponsible behaviors that harm others under the guise of "the disease".
-
WRONG - the Supreme Court agreed in 1988 before the 2004 gene isolation evidence was found. If it's a disease treat it like one, don't put people in prison over it. There is no justifiable reason to do some. I'm not suggesting to send them to the gulags either. Also if there is a reasonable treatment for a disease, people are still responsible - if someone has cancer and they just sit around and do nothing about it, then they face the consequences on their own.
-
WRONG - the Supreme Court agreed in 1988 before the 2004 gene isolation evidence was found. If it's a disease treat it like one, don't put people in prison over it. There is no justifiable reason to do some. I'm not suggesting to send them to the gulags either. Also if there is a reasonable treatment for a disease, people are still responsible - if someone has cancer and they just sit around and do nothing about it, then they face the consequences on their own.
Genetic predisposition to a chemical does NOT mean disease. It does *not* mean people are out of control. It does *not* mean some gene causes people to pick up a drink ( a behavior ) and another and another.
hereditary baldness is a disease. there is nothing a person can do to avoid it. drinking, on the other hand, is a CHOICE. C H O I C E. If somebody who knows he has a hard time controlling his alcohol decides to drink anyway he/she is fucking stupid. Fucking stupid is a subset of C H O I C E. *NOT* disease. A *disease* is out of a person's control and cannot be controlled with willpower. People DO quit drinking by willpower alone. There are so many differences between what constitutes a "disease" and what AA labels a "disease".
Let me ask you a flat simple question here: Do you favor treating people against their will if they "cannot" control themselves?
-
Genetic predisposition to a chemical does NOT mean disease. It does *not* mean people are out of control. It does *not* mean some gene causes people to pick up a drink ( a behavior ) and another and another.
Why is it that some people can go to dinner, have a glass of wine and that's it? Others need to continue drinking until they've thrown themselves into the gutter and are rummaging through dumpsters near bars looking for spiders (empty bottles with small amounts of alcohol left in them). I'm not talking about anyone who uses alcohol or drugs here, I'm talking about people who have gone too far even by the standards of other drug users. Most people attending those AA meetings probably don't really belong there by the standards of that program itself.
Let me ask you a flat simple question here: Do you favor treating people against their will if they "cannot" control themselves?
This would depend on several factors. What is the treatment? Is it some half-baked theory of some charlatans like the guys who founded AA or the gulags? If a guy is lying in the street bleeding to death and I am a doctor, I bandage him even though he is telling me not to touch him, is that an evil thing? Secondly, what are the consequences of this "cannot control themselves" state. Are they freaked out perverts trying to rape their neighbor's wife because they're so spun out on meth? Who are their actions effecting? Does putting them in prison make any sense? IMHO, no, it's contradictory to the underlying meaning of a legal system.
I don't think I've seen or heard of a "program" that I would confide in today. Maybe someone will come up with a drug that allows these people to control their drinking/usage and we won't need to even talk about the programs anyway. That would seem to be a nice ending to a sad story.
-
Are they freaked out perverts trying to rape their neighbor's wife because they're so spun out on meth?
OK. Here' you're venturing into future-crime. Either a person raped the neighbor's wife or he didn't. In one case, lock him up *for rape*, in the other case... well it's his business if he messes up his body.
Who are their actions effecting?
then judge them by those actions, not by what's in their own body or how fucked up they are. They can swing their arms all they want but that right ends precisely with another person's face. If and until that happens, there is no point condemning them or forceably treating them for what they have not done.
Does putting them in prison make any sense?
not unless they have violated the rights of anothe person or harmed somebody else *directly*. (neigher self harm, nor offense (such as the grief of a family member at the situation) is enough to warrant it).
I don't think I've seen or heard of a "program" that I would confide in today. Maybe someone will come up with a drug that allows these people to control their drinking/usage and we won't need to even talk about the programs anyway. That would seem to be a nice ending to a sad story.
That's already been done.
I could list off a page of legal and illegal pharmaceuticals for dealing with various addictions. Problem is that the 12 steppers lobby against such things as they believe alcoholism is a "spiritual disease" requiring their special brand of "recovery" which doesn't really mean recovery. They think that a pill to cure alcoholism is missing curing the "spiritual" part.
It's batshit fucking crazy 12 step religious zeal gone awry is what it is. Moral busybodies... like CS Lewis said... that and greedy members of the recovery industry who don't want to lose customers.
-
Why is it that some people can go to dinner, have a glass of wine and that's it? Others need to continue drinking until they've thrown themselves into the gutter and are rummaging through dumpsters near bars looking for spiders (empty bottles with small amounts of alcohol left in them).
Choice.
You're presuming the alcohol itself is what caused the people to want to engage in such self-destructive behavior. That's simply not always true. Some people drink to run away and because it works to dull the pain. The pain is the problem, their past is the problem. It's not the alcohol itself.
Either way. Whatever the motivation for a choice (not forced), whether genetic propensity (not guarantee) or depression or what have you... it's still a choice and nobody, especially not the state, has any right to interfere with it. It's a personal choice and does not affect anybody else directly.
-
I could list off a page of legal and illegal pharmaceuticals for dealing with various addictions. s.
I've been down that road and didn't find anything that really worked.
It sounds like you are in favor of some complete legalization. This could make sense but remember what Zappa said about the U.S. being some corporate dictatorship. The slave system would not tolerate anything like this because it would bear a risk on production. Same reason the U.S. fought so hard against communism.
-
It sounds like you are in favor of some complete legalization.
I am, personally, but I don't speak for anybody else here on the matter.
-
You're sounding gulag here. The pain and the past, to me that's all pure b.s. - gulag rhetoric. I liked to use because I loved the effect, frequently I would use to celebrate some good event like a raise and not using to deal with some negative situation. Some drugs will cause many people to act in a certain fashion that doesn't work very well with society. The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.
My point in leveraging the disease concept would be to take a step in the right direction, not necessarily as a final answer. You talk to people about legalizing heroin and you'll be laughed out of most towns in America. But at least if you can keep people out of prison and avoid screwing up their future employment via their criminal records, it has to be better than what it is today. Some people are suffering gravely for some drug mistake - a bunch of hard time and now can't get a decent job due to the record. Many others just didn't get caught.
Choice.
You're presuming the alcohol itself is what caused the people to want to engage in such self-destructive behavior. That's simply not always true. Some people drink to run away and because it works to dull the pain. The pain is the problem, their past is the problem. It's not the alcohol itself.
Either way. Whatever the motivation for a choice (not forced), whether genetic propensity (not guarantee) or depression or what have you... it's still a choice and nobody, especially not the state, has any right to interfere with it. It's a personal choice and does not affect anybody else directly.
-
People are entitled to their personal beliefs about what addiction . But there is more evidence and data for and about it an illness than for just about any mental illness which is why majority scientific opinion, the AMA, etc, recognize it as such . Internet battles wont really change that. Google link v google links battles get somwhat ridiculous. Imo a group of people who claim they have been "brainwashed" really have no buissiness telling people that their brain function and their actions are determined only through "willpower" as they should be able to understand others' struggles through their own expereince, but waddy gonna do
-
The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.
No. You're missing the point entirely. Say I were to pull up statistics showing that African Americans comitted more crimes. Even if that were true, it would not justify locking up all African Americans even if it would reduce crime. Similarly, simply because more drug users commit crimes does not mean that it is justifiable to lock up or forceably treat ALL drug users. Some can and do use responsibly (even hard drug users) and judging them as a whole instead of individually by their actions is prejudice.
Furthermore, you could say "well drug users are prone to rape" all you want but it might be just as accurate to say "rapists are prone to drug use". Coincidence does not mean causality. Rapists might choose certain drugs to enhance sexual performance or any number of reasons. Criminals might also be more prone to drug use since they are already breaking the law. Etc etc... Saying "drugs cause crime" is oversimplifying greatly. Even if it were true, statistically... as i've said, judging the group based on the actions of a few individuals is prejudice.
-
People are entitled to their personal beliefs about what addiction . But there is more evidence and data for and about it an illness than for just about any mental illness which is why majority scientific opinion, the AMA, etc, recognize it as such . Internet battles wont really change that. Google link v google links battles get somwhat ridiculous. Imo a group of people who claim they have been "brainwashed" really have no buissiness telling people that their brain function and their actions are determined only through "willpower" as they should be able to understand others' struggles through their own expereince, but waddy gonna do
I wouldn't call this an "internet battle". I respect him for having his opinion, it's a ballsy one at that. If I were a genie and could just wish something like that true, I'd probably do it. BUT, we're in the real world and I'm in the U.S. and focus on all the close-minded attitudes here. I think in this discussion, whether or not addiction is a disease doesn't really matter. I think I'm coming from a feasibility position, the feasibility of how we can at least stop the atrocities we see and hear of every day - the laws, the gulags, the prisons, etc.
-
You talk to people about legalizing heroin and you'll be laughed out of most towns in America.
It reduces crime and helps addicts quit in Switzerland:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html)
Plus. If heroin were legal it would not have the same impurities it does today and would result in fewer overdoses. Techincally, people don't overdose on heroin. They have alleregic reactions to toxins (such as quinine) and other impurities or reactions with other drugs/alcohol.
http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html)
You want harm reduction... legalizing heroin could do it. Heroin overdose was pretty much unheard-of back before it was criminalized. Back then it's purity was 40 times that of current heroin too...
-
If I were a genie and could just wish something like that true, I'd probably do it. BUT, we're in the real world and I'm in the U.S. and focus on all the close-minded attitudes here.
And a moderate is a necessary role. I respect that. I am not one, however. I do not tone down my views because they are unpopular or viewed as unrealistic. Sometimes a repeated kick to the head is just what people need. I can defend my positions and in doing so cause people re-think what they "know".
-
it has to be better than what it is today
I beg to differ. Mandatory forced treatment for non-violent consensual crimes could be *far* worse than just incarceration. At least in prison they don't try and reform your thinking. Think of the long-term consequences. Where do so many of the program staff come from?
You want another Synanon spawning ground, or you want to kill this thing? That starts with stopping forced treatment of any kind.
-
The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.
No. You're missing the point entirely. Say I were to pull up statistics showing that African Americans comitted more crimes. Even if that were true, it would not justify locking up all African Americans even if it would reduce crime. Similarly, simply because more drug users commit crimes does not mean that it is justifiable to lock up or forceably treat ALL drug users. Some can and do use responsibly (even hard drug users) and judging them as a whole instead of individually by their actions is prejudice.
Furthermore, you could say "well drug users are prone to rape" all you want but it might be just as accurate to say "rapists are prone to drug use". Coincidence does not mean causality. Rapists might choose certain drugs to enhance sexual performance or any number of reasons. Criminals might also be more prone to drug use since they are already breaking the law. Etc etc... Saying "drugs cause crime" is oversimplifying greatly. Even if it were true, statistically... as i've said, judging the group based on the actions of a few individuals is prejudice.
just so this doesn't get missed.
-
The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.
No. You're missing the point entirely. Say I were to pull up statistics showing that African Americans comitted more crimes. Even if that were true, it would not justify locking up all African Americans even if it would reduce crime. Similarly, simply because more drug users commit crimes does not mean that it is justifiable to lock up or forceably treat ALL drug users. Some can and do use responsibly (even hard drug users) and judging them as a whole instead of individually by their actions is prejudice.
Furthermore, you could say "well drug users are prone to rape" all you want but it might be just as accurate to say "rapists are prone to drug use". Coincidence does not mean causality. Rapists might choose certain drugs to enhance sexual performance or any number of reasons. Criminals might also be more prone to drug use since they are already breaking the law. Etc etc... Saying "drugs cause crime" is oversimplifying greatly. Even if it were true, statistically... as i've said, judging the group based on the actions of a few individuals is prejudice.
I can't agree with this one. Being an African-American and being a drug user are very different things. You don't have much choice about being an African-American whereas from what you were saying before, you have every choice to be a drug user. The drug and its effects are the issue, if I show 80% of all meth users show propensity to commit rape then I probably need to get that drug out of circulation (assuming my statistics are correct which here they obviously aren't). That doesn't even mean that I need to do anything in particular about those people. Some drugs are harmful, maybe none of our popular street drugs are, but you certainly wouldn't want to guzzle some hydrochloric acid, would you?
-
I can't agree with this one. Being an African-American and being a drug user are very different things. You don't have much choice about being an African-American whereas from what you were saying before, you have every choice to be a drug user.
Ah but you're changing your argument here and you contradict yourself. In either case, the choice/genetic does not matter to this portion of the argument. Let's use religion instead. If I could show that Muslims were more prone to blow themselves up on planes or commit terrorist acts, would that give me justification to search them more than others, or detain them without trial or so on and so forth. Religion is a personal choice. Drug use is a personal choice. People should not be persecuted for either. Judging the whole of ANY group by the actions of a portion of that group (even a majority) is wrong. It's prejudice. No sugarcoating it. It's not fair to those who can and do use drugs responsibly. People have a right to put what they want in their own bodies. Self ownership is one of the most basic rights of all. The state has no business messing with that.
-
This depends upon what you mean by treatment. For now, it could be very mellow - just take you out of the game and do some vocational training. Of course, you're right, they could screw it up and do a Synanon easily. Incarceration in a state prison here is no cakewalk, I know, I did 2 in Chino not too long after CEDU. Luckily my attorney made a deal where they expunged my record so I don't have that part of it to deal with and in this economy I sure wouldn't want to.
it has to be better than what it is today
I beg to differ. Mandatory forced treatment for non-violent consensual crimes could be *far* worse than just incarceration. At least in prison they don't try and reform your thinking. Think of the long-term consequences. Where do so many of the program staff come from?
You want another Synanon spawning ground, or you want to kill this thing? That starts with stopping forced treatment of any kind.
-
This depends upon what you mean by treatment. For now, it could be very mellow - just take you out of the game and do some vocational training.
Why not offer it free of charge to addicts who want to participate. You don't even have to require they quit using (just not during the training for safety reasons). In some studies, such as those in Switzerland and one in Vancouver, the addicts quit on their own or with therapy once they find meaning in life that doesn't revolve around drugs.
I have no doubt that if such a program existed, with such a condition (you don't have to quit), addicts would be lining up to help get their lives on track. No need to incarcerate or forceably treat them when you can give the ones who want to quit a viable way out. Sure it would be an unpopular idea, but results from elsewhere in the world prove it works.
From a practical standpoint, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than incarceration too!
-
Why not offer it free of charge to addicts who want to participate. You don't even have to require they quit using (just not during the training for safety reasons). In some studies, such as those in Switzerland and one in Vancouver, the addicts quit on their own or with therapy once they find meaning in life that doesn't revolve around drugs.
I have no doubt that if such a program existed, with such a condition (you don't have to quit), addicts would be lining up to help get their lives on track. No need to incarcerate or forceably treat them when you can give the ones who want to quit a viable way out. Sure it would be an unpopular idea, but results from elsewhere in the world prove it works.
From a practical standpoint, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than incarceration too!
I think that's a very good idea. Some problems people have are with life too and when they use drugs their actions are pinned on drugs while their other problems are really the root. What really helped me the most was to get a career going and start seeing some value in life.
-
It sounds like you are in favor of some complete legalization.
Personally, I am. Look at what happened with the prohibition of alcohol. Al Capone and the gangs rose to power precisely BECAUSE liquor was illegal.
This could make sense but remember what Zappa said about the U.S. being some corporate dictatorship. The slave system would not tolerate anything like this because it would bear a risk on production. Same reason the U.S. fought so hard against communism.
Remember what Zappa said about drugs.....
A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole.
-
The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.
There's no way you can demonstrate prevention. No one can. Are you seriously suggesting that people be locked up for things they MIGHT do?
You talk to people about legalizing heroin and you'll be laughed out of most towns in America.
By some, but there is a growing segment of the population that understands what an utter and complete FAILURE the "drug war" has been. Look into LEAP. http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)
-
People are entitled to their personal beliefs about what addiction .
Wow, thanks.
But there is more evidence and data for and about it an illness than for just about any mental illness which is why majority scientific opinion, the AMA, etc, recognize it as such .
Please cite your sources. And the AMA???? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.
Internet battles wont really change that.
No, but sometimes it does cause people to regain their critical thinking skills and that's always good.
Imo a group of people who claim they have been "brainwashed" really have no buissiness telling people that their brain function and their actions are determined only through "willpower" as they should be able to understand others' struggles through their own expereince, but waddy gonna do
I can agree with that the same that I can agree that a bunch of so-called "reformed addicts" should NEVER be able to dictate public policy.
-
I can't agree with this one. Being an African-American and being a drug user are very different things. You don't have much choice about being an African-American whereas from what you were saying before, you have every choice to be a drug user.
Ah but you're changing your argument here and you contradict yourself. .
Moving the goalposts. Common tactic.
-
This depends upon what you mean by treatment.
So you're really OK with forcing someone into treatment? Why? What purpose would it serve? Virtually everyone agrees that no form of "help" will actually help unless the person in question believes they need help, right? How is forcing anyone helpful at all? And do you NOT see that that's EXACTLY how our parents were able to "admit" us into Straight?
-
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1891 (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1891)
this is just a student papaer but it summerizes the sit pretty well. The comments beneath are truly tragic and their stories make the 'drug addicts are just weak willed loser' line..,especially coming from people who insist they lost their willpower and ability to think clearly from brainwashing, materialize as so stupid and heartless.
-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/index.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/index.html)
@@@@ Introduction: Addiction as a Disease
By Janet Firshein
Most Americans have been affected in some way by addiction to drugs of abuse such as alcohol, nicotine, and illicit substances. Yet addiction to alcohol and other drugs is a phenomenon that has been clouded by myth, misunderstanding, and moral judgments. The very nature of the problem -- what addiction is -- has long been debated. Most people probably continue to think of addiction -- particularly to illicit drugs -- as primarily a moral or character problem, something caused by degeneracy or lack of willpower.
Scientific research into addiction, however, has led experts to conclude that addiction is actually a disease, a chronic illness like diabetes or hypertension. The American Medical Association broke new ground approximately forty years ago when it declared alcoholism to be a disease. And in the past decade, dramatic advances in technology have allowed scientists to examine the brain itself in search of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of addiction. Today, scientists and physicians overwhelmingly agree that while use and even abuse of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine is a behavior over which the individual exerts control, addiction to these substances is something different. Scientists have begun to understand why addicted people may sacrifice everything that's important to them -- their jobs, their families, their homes -- in the quest for a chemical fix.
"When you get into an addicted state, it's a disease of the brain," says Alan Leshner, Ph.D., director of the federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Leshner says the stigma associated with alcohol and drug addiction is one of the biggest problems experts continually face in dealing with it. Leshner says that the public has little sympathy for addicts, but he adds that "whether you like the person or not, you've got to deal with [their problem] as an illness."
The so-called disease model doesn't mean that addicts cannot stop using drugs -- only that doing so is difficult and often requires treatment and major lifestyle changes. Addiction is a disease that causes changes in the brain, which then drive certain behavior -- taking the drug compulsively -- but addicts can learn to change the behavior. Treatment of and recovery from addiction are possible. Steven Hyman, M.D., who directs the National Institute of Mental Health, compares the disease of addiction to heart disease, which may also necessitate major lifestyle changes. "Take heart patients. We don't blame them for having heart disease," he says, but we ask them to follow a certain diet, to exercise, to comply with medication regimes. So it is with the addicted person -- we shouldn't blame them for the disease, but we should treat them as having responsibility for their recovery. "@@@@
-
Scientific research into addiction, however, has led experts to conclude that addiction is actually a disease, a chronic illness like diabetes or hypertension.
Citation please.
The American Medical Association broke new ground approximately forty years ago when it declared alcoholism to be a disease
Forty years ago. Let's start to list the things that were believed to be true 40 years ago compared to what evidence we have now.
. And in the past decade, dramatic advances in technology have allowed scientists to examine the brain itself in search of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of addiction. Today, scientists and physicians overwhelmingly agree that while use and even abuse of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine is a behavior over which the individual exerts control, addiction to these substances is something different. Scientists have begun to understand why addicted people may sacrifice everything that's important to them -- their jobs, their families, their homes -- in the quest for a chemical fix.
Citation please.
"When you get into an addicted state, it's a disease of the brain," says Alan Leshner, Ph.D., director of the federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
how many of us want to start listing NIDA peeps that are financially connected to "the industry"?
Leshner says the stigma associated with alcohol and drug addiction is one of the biggest problems experts continually face in dealing with it.
Now that part I can agree with. The mis-information that's floating around is astounding!!!
Leshner says that the public has little sympathy for addicts, but he adds that "whether you like the person or not, you've got to deal with [their problem] as an illness."
Yes, as we do now with alcohol and tobacco. Regulate and tax it.
The so-called disease model doesn't mean that addicts cannot stop using drugs -- only that doing so is difficult and often requires treatment and major lifestyle changes.
But that's NOT a "disease". At all.
Addiction is a disease that causes changes in the brain, which then drive certain behavior -- taking the drug compulsively -- but addicts can learn to change the behavior.
No, ABUSING heavy drugs or alcohol for a number of years MAY......MAY cause some of those "symptoms".
Treatment of and recovery from addiction are possible. Steven Hyman, M.D., who directs the National Institute of Mental Health, compares the disease of addiction to heart disease, which may also necessitate major lifestyle changes. "Take heart patients. We don't blame them for having heart disease," he says, but we ask them to follow a certain diet, to exercise, to comply with medication regimes. So it is with the addicted person -- we shouldn't blame them for the disease, but we should treat them as having responsibility for their recovery. "@@@@
And how many people who have heart disease do we forcibly lock up???
-
I mean, come on!!!! I've been guilty before of doing the 'cut & paste' of certain articles I feel are relevant, but at least I back them up with the sources they're quoting.
-
Do you think I'm arguing to lock people up forcibly? Hardly. Yeah, it was declared a diesease 40 years ago, that article was about all the evidence compiled since then backing that up and charting on its pathology. Read it with an open mind if you feel like it
-
Do you think I'm arguing to lock people up forcibly?
Ummm....yeah, I do.
Yeah, it was declared a diesease 40 years ago, that article was about all the evidence compiled since then backing that up and charting on its pathology. Read it with an open mind if you feel like it
Really? I didn't see any recent studies quoted but I may very well have missed them. If I did, please post them here.
-
I mean, come on!!!! I've been guilty before of doing the 'cut & paste' of certain articles I feel are relevant, but at least I back them up with the sources they're quoting.
lol. i didnt claim to write the article. OK. So i shouldnt just cut and paste the relevent article but, I guess, demand this journalist's source notes for my internet arguments. Well, apparently this material is ammassed from at least 50 sources including The Scripps Research institue, Geroge Koob M.D,National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) director Alan Leshner, Ph.D.Steven Hyman, M.D, and the NiDA brain imaging center. So if you think PBS is lying, contact these folk and see if they feel misrepresented. But You DO realize the science supports that addiction is real, an illness, a disease, whatever you want to call it, right?-Even if you don't agree with that? I'm sure this isnt the first youve heard about this information. I mean, this isnt some tiny, crazy, obscure opinin by a doctor in kallamoozoo, this is mainstream verity , supported by mainstream legitimate research for half a century.
There are 1000s or more studies on, and around this subject all supporting and charting this pathology. Anyway, good night
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/sci ... ssing.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/html/crossing.html)
***No one becomes addicted the first time they try a drug," says George Koob, M.D., a professor in the neuropharmacology department at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. Although there are some cases where a person's reaction to first use is so positive that they immediately begin to abuse a drug, Koob says most addiction has a subtler start. It usually doesn't take place until the person has been using chronically. The person has become an addict when his or her brain has literally been changed by this chronic use of the drug, University School of Medicine
Many substances and activities, from food to sex, exert control over human behavior by motivating us to indulge in them. But addictive drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, and heroin, can affect the structure and function of the brain -- and hence our motivations -- in long-lasting ways. They can actually alter and "usurp," in one scientist's term, the "circuits" in the brain that are involved in the control of emotions and motivation, impairing an addicted person's will. "What addiction really is, is a result of brain changes that over time get translated into behavior changes," says National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) director Alan Leshner, Ph.D.
If a person uses drugs, at a high enough dose, frequently enough and for a long period of time, these drugs change the way the brain works. "You change the way nerve cells communicate in such a way that you develop this compulsive, out-of-control use despite knowing that all kinds of terrible things can happen to you, and despite even experiencing many of those things," says National Institute of Mental Health director Steven Hyman, M.D.
Studies using new technologies show the precise effects of drugs on the brain. "In many cases, we can actually see changes in the structure of synapses and in the shapes of [brain] cells," says Hyman. A NIDA study released in 1996 provided the first direct evidence that chronic use of opiates (such as morphine and heroin) is linked with structural changes in the size and shape of specific neurons. Researchers at the Yale University School of Medicine found that rats chronically given morphine experienced marked structural changes in critical brain "circuits." Other NIDA studies have shown that altered brain circuits could be responsible for the major differences in brain functioning between an occasional cocaine user and a cocaine addict.
-- Janet Firshein
Image: Courtesy of NIDA Brain Imaging Center***
-
Do you think I'm arguing to lock people up forcibly?
Ummm....yeah, I do.
.
Well, that's the trouble with mind reading then. Nope, not pro forcfully locking people up except if they pose an immediate danger to themselves or others. Any attempt to hold anyone in med confinement should be of course only exist within the context of the target's right to due process and habeous corpus.
-
Nope, not pro forcfully locking people up except if they pose an immediate danger to themselves or others.
By what or whose standards do we apply that? Do you not see how easily that could be corrupted? How easily it WAS corrupted?
Any attempt to hold anyone in med confinement should be of course only exist within the context of the target's right to due process and habeous corpus.
And to date, at least from my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "right to due process" or even habeas corpus in TTI programs.
-
Of course addiction is a disease. I got addicted to drugs and alcohol at separate points in my life and I would of killed myself both times from overdose or driving intoxicated sooner or later. It's not about forcing people to go to drug rehab, it's the people in your life watch you degenerate into someone who has a difficult time doing everyday things. It becomes obvious to friends and family you are deteriorating from substance abuse and they want to get help. It's not sinister or complicated, it's just people who care about another person helping them get the help they need. If someone gets cancer it's the same thing, we help people who are sick get better and help them get back into a regular life after recovering. Addiction recovery is no different. The obsession here with being against any form of treatment whatsoever is laughable. All the professionals and colleges and peer organizations agree that drug rehab works and it's the standard way of dealing with people with addiction problems. There are different types of rehab so people can pick and choose what type of recovery they want. It's an industry totally designed to help people, and somehow you guys found it and accuse it of being evil. I don't understand whether you are crazy or just misguided, but it really takes away from credibility when talking about programs. Fornits sure isn't what it used to be. Soon it will probably just be a board for people who went to AA and didn't like it, to complain about it. I can see why this would be beneficial because AA is so big and programs are all going out of business, that no new visitors will come to fornits unless the topic shifts to AA. You can dismantle my post and quote it and point out what you view as things I said that are wrong but let me tell you there's no point since I am not going to respond. The anti drug treatment thing is more of a cult than AA is and so there's no point in arguing with any of you. Just try to remember some people need drug and alcohol treatment and you have no right to tell them they don't. You try to make people feel shame for being addicted just like decades ago. You want to erase all progress made in the science of addiction and treatment and go back to a world in denial and shame. Thanks but no thanks .
-
Of course addiction is a disease.
Why? Because you say so?
I got addicted to drugs and alcohol at separate points in my life and I would of killed myself both times from overdose or driving intoxicated sooner or later.
I'm confused. How does that make it a disease?
It's not about forcing people to go to drug rehab, it's the people in your life watch you degenerate into someone who has a difficult time doing everyday things.
And again....who's to decide that? Who is all knowing enough to decide when someone is having "too" difficult of a time??
It becomes obvious to friends and family you are deteriorating from substance abuse and they want to get help.
THEY want to get help. Fine. Let "them". Let the "addict" decide if he/she wants help. Afterall, it won't work unless they want it, right????
It's not sinister or complicated, it's just people who care about another person helping them get the help they need. If someone gets cancer it's the same thing,
Bullshit and don't diminish cancer by comparing it to something someone CHOOSES to do. That's just sick.
we help people who are sick get better and help them get back into a regular life after recovering.
By who's standards???????????
Addiction recovery is no different. The obsession here with being against any form of treatment whatsoever is laughable.
I seriously doubt ANYone here is against true, VOLUNTARY treatment. We're against forced/coerced rehab. Without due process....without consent.
All the professionals and colleges and peer organizations agree that drug rehab works
All of them?? Are you sure?? And which rehab?? What are the cutoffs of someone using v. abusing??
and it's the standard way of dealing with people with addiction problems. There are different types of rehab so people can pick and choose what type of recovery they want.
What if they don't want it?
It's an industry totally designed to help people, and somehow you guys found it and accuse it of being evil
Bullshit. It's an industry designed to squeeze the most out of the parent insurance/savings that they can.
Fornits sure isn't what it used to be. Soon it will probably just be a board for people who went to AA and didn't like it, to complain about it. I can see why this would be beneficial because AA is so big and programs are all going out of business, that no new visitors will come to fornits unless the topic shifts to AA. You can dismantle my post and quote it and point out what you view as things I said that are wrong but let me tell you there's no point since I am not going to respond. The anti drug treatment thing is more of a cult than AA is and so there's no point in arguing with any of you. Just try to remember some people need drug and alcohol treatment and you have no right to tell them they don't. You try to make people feel shame for being addicted just like decades ago. You want to erase all progress made in the science of addiction and treatment and go back to a world in denial and shame. Thanks but no thanks .
:boycott: :boycott: :boycott: :boycott: :boycott: :boycott: :boycott:
-
It's obvious that what I said bother you. Instead of me responding to you point by point, I think you should explore the reason why someone getting help for their problems bothers you so much. It might go deeper than you think. Don't be afraid to get help, there's no shame in it. God bless..... I hope you do better than me with drugs and drinking.
-
It's obvious that what I said bother you.
Now, seriously. Why on earth would you say that?
Instead of me responding to you point by point, I think you should explore the reason why someone getting help for their problems bothers you so much.
Well of course you do. That's called an "ad hominem" reply. You can't refute or even attempt to answer the pointed questions I've posed, so you assume I have some deep seeded problems. Sweetie, I can tell you that any problems I may have had were caused by my unfortunate and wholly inappropriate incarceration. I might also add that this is/was a common tactic in programs. No dissent or critical thinking is allowed. It's met with baseless accusations and cheap shots at one's character because you cannot refute what I'm saying or back up what you are. How many times have we all seen or lived this?
It might go deeper than you think. Don't be afraid to get help, there's no shame in it.
No thanks. I've had just about all the "help" I can stand. It damn near killed me.
God bless..... I hope you do better than me with drugs and drinking.
I have.
-
Do you think I'm arguing to lock people up forcibly?
Ummm....yeah, I do.
Yeah, it was declared a diesease 40 years ago, that article was about all the evidence compiled since then backing that up and charting on its pathology. Read it with an open mind if you feel like it
Really? I didn't see any recent studies quoted but I may very well have missed them. If I did, please post them here.
There are over 1/2 million google hits for the CREB gene. I don't understand why you don't like this. If they know and accept it as a disease then these behavioral modification programs are invalid.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=CREB+gene&aq=f&oq= (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=CREB+gene&aq=f&oq=)
-
Nope, not pro forcfully locking people up except if they pose an immediate danger to themselves or others.
By what or whose standards do we apply that? Do you not see how easily that could be corrupted? How easily it WAS corrupted?
Any attempt to hold anyone in med confinement should be of course only exist within the context of the target's right to due process and habeous corpus.
And to date, at least from my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "right to due process" or even habeas corpus in TTI programs.
Anything is easily corrupted, but holding adults in medical confinement is heavily formatted and due process and habeas corpus have been working quite well. Minors should have the same rights as adults. I am agaisnt the TTI, but pro-science and helping the wounded.
-
Genetic predisposition to loss of control with a chemical does NOT mean disease. It does *not* mean people are out of control. It does *not* mean some gene causes people to pick up a drink ( a behavior ) and another and another.
hereditary baldness is a disease. there is nothing a person can do to avoid it. drinking, on the other hand, is a CHOICE. C H O I C E. If somebody who knows he has a hard time controlling his alcohol decides to drink anyway he/she is fucking stupid. Fucking stupid is a subset of C H O I C E. *NOT* disease. A *disease* is out of a person's control and cannot be controlled with willpower. People DO quit drinking by willpower alone. There are so many differences between what constitutes a "disease" and what AA labels a "disease".
Plus. All the CREB gene (studied in *rats*) shows is that people with that gene are more prone to anxiety. People who have anxiety problems are more prone to deal with it using alcohol. This does not mean that the gene causes alcoholism of that the gene somehow means a person has a disease.
Research with identical twins and children of alcohlics shows that there is an incereased chance (something like 20%) or problem drinking activity, but it does NOT mean that these people are somehow born diseased or that they cannot drink normally.
Check out the genetic section of this chapter in this book:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
The Genetics of Alcoholism
AA originally claimed that alcoholics inherit an "allergy" to alcohol that underlies their loss of control when they drink. Today this particular idea has been discarded. Nonetheless, a tremendous investment has been made in the search for biological inheritances that may cause alcoholism, while many grandiose claims have been made about the fruits of this search. In 1987, almost two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) agreed that "alcoholism can be hereditary"; only five years earlier, in 1982, more people had disagreed (50 percent) than agreed (40 percent) with this statement. Furthermore, it is the better educated who agree most with this statement.15 Yet widely promulgated and broadly accepted claims about the inheritance of alcoholism are inaccurate, and important data from genetic research call into doubt the significance of genetic influences on alcoholism and problem drinking. Moreover, prominent genetic researchers themselves indicate that cultural and environmental influences are the major determinants of most drinking problems, even for the minority of alcoholics who they believe have a genetic component to their drinking.
Popular works now regularly put forward the theory — presented as fact — that the inherited cause of alcoholism has been discovered. In the words of Durk Pearson and Sandra Shaw, the authors of Life Extension, "Alcohol addiction is not due to weak will or moral depravity; it is a genetic metabolic defect... [just like the] genetic metabolic defect resulting in gout." One version of this argument appeared in the newsletter of the Alcoholism Council of Greater New York:
Someone like the derelict. . . , intent only on getting sufficient booze from the bottle poised upside-down on his lips. . . [is] the victim of metabolism, a metabolism the derelict is born with, a metabolic disorder that causes excessive drinking.16
Is it really possible that street inebriates are destined from the womb to become alcoholics? Don't they really have a choice in the matter, or any alternatives? Don't their upbringings, or their personal and social values, have any impact on this behavior?
Several well-publicized studies have found that close biological relatives of alcoholics are more likely to be alcoholics themselves. The best-known research of this kind, examining Danish adoptees, was published in the early 1970s by psychiatrist Donald Goodwin and his colleagues. The researchers found that male adoptees with alcoholic biological parents became alcoholics three to four times more often than adoptees without alcoholic relatives. This research has several surprising elements to it, however. In the first place, only 18 percent of the males with alcoholic biological parents became alcoholics themselves (compared with 5 percent of those without alcoholic parentage). Note that, accepting this study at face value, the vast majority of men whose fathers are alcoholics do not become alcoholic solely because of biological inheritance.17
Some might argue that Goodwin's definition of alcoholism is too narrow and that the figures in his research severely understate the incidence of alcoholism. Indeed, there was an additional group of problem drinkers whom Goodwin and his colleagues identified, and many people might find it hard to distinguish when a drinker fell in this rather than in the alcoholic group. However, more of the people in the problem drinking group did not have alcoholic parents than did! If alcoholic and heavy problem drinkers are combined, as a group they are not more likely to be offspring of alcoholic than of nonalcoholic parents, and the finding of inherited differences in alcoholism rates disappears from this seminal study. One last noteworthy result of the Goodwin team's research: in a separate study using the same methodology as the male offspring study, the investigators did not find that daughters of alcoholic parents more often became alcoholic themselves (in fact, there were more alcoholic women in the group without alcoholic parents).18
Other studies also discourage global conclusions about inheritance of alcoholism. One is by a highly respected research group in Britain under Robin Murray, dean of the Institute of Psychiatry at Maudsley Hospital. Murray and his colleagues compared the correlation between alcoholism in identical twins with that between fraternal twins. Since the identical pair are more similar genetically, they should more often be alcoholic or nonalcoholic together than twins whose relationships are genetically equivalent to ordinary siblings. No such difference appeared. Murray and his colleagues and others have surveyed the research on inheritance of alcoholism.19 According to a longtime biological researcher in alcoholism, David Lester, these reviews "suggest that genetic involvement in the etiology of alcoholism. . . is weak at best." His own review of the literature, Lester wrote, "extends and. . . strengthens these previous judgments." Why, then, are genetic viewpoints so popular? For Lester, the credibility given genetic views is "disproportionate with their theoretical and empirical warrant," and the "attraction and persistence of such views lies in their conformity with ideological norms."
Several studies of male children of alcoholics (including two ongoing Danish investigations) have not found that these children drink differently as young adults or adolescents from their cohorts without alcoholic relatives.20 These children of alcoholics are not generally separated from their parents, and we know that for whatever reason, male children brought up by their alcoholic parents more often will be alcoholic themselves. What this tells us is that these children aren't born as alcoholics but develop their alcoholism over the years. In the words of George Vaillant, who followed the drinking careers of a large group of men over forty years:
The present prospective study offers no credence to the common belief that some individuals become alcoholics after the first drink. The progression from alcohol use to abuse takes years.21
What, then, do people inherit that keeps them drinking until they become alcoholics? Milam asserts in Under the Influence that the source of alcoholism is acetaldehyde, a chemical produced when the body breaks down alcohol. Some research has found higher levels of this chemical in children of alcoholics when they drink22; other research (like the two Danish prospective studies) has not. Such discrepancies in research results also hold for abnormalities in brain waves that various teams of researchers have identified in children of alcoholics — some find one EEG pattern, while other researchers discover a distinct but different pattern.23 Psychiatrist Mare Schuckit, of the University of California at San Diego Medical School, found no such differences between young men from alcoholic families and a matched comparison group, leading him to "call into question. . . the replicability and generalizability" of cognitive impairments and neuropsychologic deficits "as part of a predisposition toward alcoholism."24
Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger (along with several other researchers) claims that an inherited antisocial or crime-prone personality often leads to both criminality and alcoholism in men.25 On the other hand, antisocial acting out when drinking, as well as criminality, are endemic to certain social and racial groups — particularly young working-class and ghetto males.26 The Cloninger view gets into the slippery realm of explaining that the underprivileged and ghettoized are born the way they are. In addition, Schuckit has failed to find any differences in antisocial temperament or impulsiveness to differentiate those who come from alcoholic families and those without alcoholic siblings or parents.27 Instead, Schuckit believes, one — perhaps the — major mechanism that characterizes children of alcoholics is that these children are born with a diminished sensitivity to the effects of alcohol28 (although — once again — other researchers do not find this to be the case29).
In Schuckit's view, children of alcoholics have a built-in tolerance for alcohol — they experience less intoxication than other people when drinking the same amounts. (Note that this is the opposite of the original AA view that alcoholics inherit an allergy to alcohol.) In the Schuckit model, alcoholics might unwittingly drink more over long periods and thus build up a dependence on alcohol. But as a theory of alcoholism, where does this leave us? Why do these young men continue drinking for the years and decades Vaillant tells us it takes them to become alcoholics? And even if they can drink more without experiencing physical effects, why do they tolerate the various drinking problems, health difficulties, family complaints, and so on that occur on the road to alcoholism? Why don't they simply recognize the negative impact alcohol is having on their lives and resolve to drink less? Certainly, some people do exactly this, saying things like "I limit myself to one or two drinks because I don't like the way I act after I drink more."
One insight into how those with similar physiological responses to alcohol may have wholly different predispositions to alcoholism is provided by those who manifest "Oriental flush" — a heightened response to alcohol marked by a visible reddening after drinking that frequently characterizes Asians and Native Americans. Oriental flush has a biochemical basis in that Asian groups display higher acetaldehyde levels when they drink: here, many believe, is a key to alcoholism. But individuals from Asian backgrounds who flush do not necessarily drink more than — or differ in their susceptibility to drinking problems from — those who don't flush.30 Moreover, groups that show flushing have both the highest alcoholism rates (Native Americans and Eskimos) and the lowest rates (Chinese and Japanese) among ethnic groups in the United States. What distinguishes between how people in these two groups react to the same biological phenomenon? It would certainly seem that Eskimos' and Indians' abnegated state in America and their isolation from the American economic and achievement-oriented system inflate their alcoholism rates, while the low alcoholism rates of the Chinese and Japanese must be related to their achievement orientation and economic success in our society.
Not even genetically oriented researchers (as opposed to popularizers) deny that cultural and social factors are crucial in the development of alcoholism and that, in this sense, alcoholism is driven by values and life choices. Consider three quotes from prominent medical researchers. Mare Schuckit: "It is unlikely that there is a single cause for alcoholism. . . . At best, biologic factors explain only a part of " the alcoholism problem31; George Vaillant: "I think it [finding a biological marker for alcoholism] would be as unlikely as finding one for basketball playing. . . . The high number of children of alcoholics who become addicted, Vaillant believes, is due less to biological factors than to poor role models"32; Robert Cloninger: "The demonstration of the critical importance of sociocultural influences in most alcoholics suggests that major changes in social attitudes about drinking styles can change dramatically the prevalence of alcohol abuse regardless of genetic predisposition."33 In short, the idea that alcoholism is an inherited biological disease has been badly overstated, and according to some well-informed observers, is completely unfounded.
Also check out this post:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453&start=15#p322193 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453&start=15#p322193)
-
I think there is semantical confusion about the term 'disease' and how it defines mental illness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease)
A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1][2][3] It may be caused by external factors, such as invading organisms, or it may be caused be internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases.
In human beings,"disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes extreme pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories.
http://www.myaddiction.com/education/ar ... sease.html (http://www.myaddiction.com/education/articles/addiction_disease.html)
Here is drug addiction disease as defined by the genetic science learning center at the University of Utah
“Drug addiction is a chronic disease characterized by changes in the brain which result in a compulsive desire to use a drug. A combination of many factors including genetics, environment and behavior influence a person's addiction risk, making it an incredibly complicated disease. The new science of addiction considers all of these factors - from biology to family - to unravel the complexities of the addicted brain.”
Research indicates that drugs have an intense and immediate effect on the brain’s physiology. Over time the changes contribute to profound alterations or ‘hard-rewiring’ within the brain because in effect the brain reacts to the presence of the drug and tries to adapt to it.
So, if there is an element of choice in the development, intensity, syndromatic display of addiction (there is) that is neither here nor there. “Disease” in general, and as used neurologically, designates the presence of pathological, biological abnormality, and thusly, is used appropriately. Addiction has to do with basic science, not linguistical tautologies.
-
You want to erase all progress made in the science of addiction and treatment and go back to a world in denial and shame.
AA is not science. Science changes over time. AA members believe Bill Wilson's writing is inspired by GOD and as such has not been changed much at all since it's first publishing. That's not science. It's religion masquerading as science and cancerously influencing the treatment industry.
If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).
AA advertises "recovery" but in AA, recovery means something entierly different in AA, as does "serenity" and even "sanity:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cul ... cult_speak (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a0.html#ca_cult_speak)
AA may not technically be a cult, but it is a CANCER. Not a cure.
AA believe that those who quit drinking without their program are "merely abstaining" or "dry". In other words, if you don't do it with them, your not really "recovering" since they believe only they have "recovery" which means a lifelong program of "spiritual" horse shit.
Spiritual is not science. Spiritual does not even fucking exist. AA, is a cancerous boil on science's ass that needs to be lanced off.
-
If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).
.
What a horrible thing to say. You are indistinguishable from the programmies who arrive to tell people suffering from PTSD that they are merely "failures' who blame their problems on fictional induced mental problems.
I’ll never understand the utter lack of compassion that enables people who were brainwashed to claim their experience was one of mental disorder, life altering PTSD and DD, but not allow that for others. Shame on you.
And if you werent so fixated on AA, you would note that this is not a discussion of it. Were you even in a program and which one was it?
-
If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).
.
What a horrible thing to say. You are indistinguishable from the programmies who arrive to tell people suffering from PTSD that they are merely "failures' who blame their problems on fictional induced mental problems.
Truth sucks, huh? People who won't control themselves I have no compassion for, no. I have no condemntation for it either. People have a right to self harm. On the other hand, When people say "wwaaaahhhh. the disease made me do it" it makes me hope the disease puts them out of their misery sooner rather than later.
Putting alcohol in one's body is a choice. Same with drugs. No disease causes it or takes away control. Study after study shows that people can control themselves. If they choose not to and then later say "waaah...". Well they're weak. Tough shit if they kill themselves. Cleans out the gene pool (if it is, indeed, genetic).
There's another point. If alcoholism really was genetic, and alcoholics are more prone to die early or kill themselves, why are there still alcholics? Shoudn't natural selection have taken them out of the game?
I’ll never understand the utter lack of compassion that enables people who were brainwashed to claim their experience was one of mental disorder, life altering PTSD and DD, but not allow that for others. Shame on you.
PTSD results when other people do things to you. That I have compassion for. What I don't have compassion for is when people harm themselves and then whine about it or blame it on some fictional disease instead of simply saying "well.. shouldn't have done that, i guess... should probably quit doing that".
And if you werent so fixated on AA, you would note that this is not a discussion of it.
AA and the disease concept are one in the same and insperable.
-
It doesnt really make sense to me that AA agrees with the idea of Alcoholism being a genetic disease....hence a physiological impairment (simplification)....and yet they only offer a mental rehabilitation process to reverse the effects of this "disease".
It seems like the equivalent of someone walking up to a guy on the ground with a compound fracture in his leg and hurling health care insurance pamphlets at it to try and get it to re-set. Its not only ludicrous it cancels their ideology out altogether in my opinion.
I know there are all sort of factors that run the entire length of the argument....but I see it as pretty basic. I teach Anatomy and Physiology on an intermediate level so that my students can get a working knowledge of how things conduct physically....they in turn apply learned techniques that directly address the physiological issue in one way or another (again a simplification here) but you'll never see one of them sitting down trying to convince a person that if they just re-organize their thinking their chronic pain will stop.
Just to touch on the genetic issue....I agree that a genetic pre-disposition does not constitute a malfunction or impairment of some sort. I think here is where society comes in alot....for example being born with brown eyes instead of blue eyes isnt a problem at all......but if you want to join a club that only admits people with blue eyes, then does your genetic make-up become sub standard and your condition labeled a disease?
-
If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).
.
What a horrible thing to say. You are indistinguishable from the programmies who arrive to tell people suffering from PTSD that they are merely "failures' who blame their problems on fictional induced mental problems.
Truth sucks, huh? People who won't control themselves I have no compassion for, no. I have no condemntation for it either. People have a right to self harm. On the other hand, When people say "wwaaaahhhh. the disease made me do it" it makes me hope the disease puts them out of their misery sooner rather than later.
Putting alcohol in one's body is a choice. Same with drugs. No disease causes it or takes away control. Study after study shows that people can control themselves. If they choose not to and then later say "waaah...". Well they're weak. Tough shit if they kill themselves. Cleans out the gene pool (if it is, indeed, genetic).
There's another point. If alcoholism really was genetic, and alcoholics are more prone to die early or kill themselves, why are there still alcholics? Shoudn't natural selection have taken them out of the game?
I’ll never understand the utter lack of compassion that enables people who were brainwashed to claim their experience was one of mental disorder, life altering PTSD and DD, but not allow that for others. Shame on you.
PTSD results when other people do things to you. That I have compassion for. What I don't have compassion for is when people harm themselves and then whine about it or blame it on some fictional disease instead of simply saying "well.. shouldn't have done that, i guess... should probably quit doing that".
And if you werent so fixated on AA, you would note that this is not a discussion of it.
AA and the disease concept are one in the same and insperable.
'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors
AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.
And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid
-
It doesnt really make sense to me that AA agrees with the idea of Alcoholism being a genetic disease....hence a physiological impairment (simplification)....and yet they only offer a mental rehabilitation process to reverse the effects of this "disease".
It seems like the equivalent of someone walking up to a guy on the ground with a compound fracture in his leg and hurling health care insurance pamphlets at it to try and get it to re-set. Its not only ludicrous it cancels their ideology out altogether in my opinion.
I know there are all sort of factors that run the entire length of the argument....but I see it as pretty basic. I teach Anatomy and Physiology on an intermediate level so that my students can get a working knowledge of how things conduct physically....they in turn apply learned techniques that directly address the physiological issue in one way or another (again a simplification here) but you'll never see one of them sitting down trying to convince a person that if they just re-organize their thinking their chronic pain will stop.
Just to touch on the genetic issue....I agree that a genetic pre-disposition does not constitute a malfunction or impairment of some sort. I think here is where society comes in alot....for example being born with brown eyes instead of blue eyes isnt a problem at all......but if you want to join a club that only admits people with blue eyes, then does your genetic make-up become sub standard and your condition labeled a disease?
just curious, are you a college professor or hs teacher?
-
[
And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid
sorry i called you stupid. didnt mean to. i thought i edited that out
-
'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors
As I said. I have no condemnation for people who use drugs to cope with problems or even diseases (induced or otherwise). I actually encourage it if it works. Lots of survivors find that pot, for example, helps deal with the symptoms of PTSD. It's "self medication" and frowned on by the 12 stepping proselytizers, but it's really none of their fucking business if it works. Heal they self.
All I have a problem with and no compassion for is when people claim they have some fictional disease and can't control themselves. They use it as an excuse to, like Zappa said, act like assholes. If you break in to my house. I don't give a fuck whether you're doing it for drugs or something else you have a desire (not need) for. You get two in the brain pan. Problem solved. Disease didn't cause it. As Psy implied, "fucking stupid" caused it.
AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.
And homosexuality was once a disease. Authorites are not infallible and they should be challenged when they make mistakes. It should be noted that even if the AMA recognizes addicition as a disease (after they interviewed AA MEMBERS (the only population they could find)), the APA does not. "Addition" is not in the DSM, and the closest thing in that book bears very little resemblance to what AA defines "disease" as.
And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid
And you have a problem with reading comprehension. I said AA and the disease concept are the same. Addiction exists, yes, but it is not a disease, much one that is always progressive or fatal or bla bla bla. That's AA spiritual horse shit.
-
It doesnt really make sense to me that AA agrees with the idea of Alcoholism being a genetic disease....hence a physiological impairment (simplification)....and yet they only offer a mental rehabilitation process to reverse the effects of this "disease".
It seems like the equivalent of someone walking up to a guy on the ground with a compound fracture in his leg and hurling health care insurance pamphlets at it to try and get it to re-set. Its not only ludicrous it cancels their ideology out altogether in my opinion.
I know there are all sort of factors that run the entire length of the argument....but I see it as pretty basic. I teach Anatomy and Physiology on an intermediate level so that my students can get a working knowledge of how things conduct physically....they in turn apply learned techniques that directly address the physiological issue in one way or another (again a simplification here) but you'll never see one of them sitting down trying to convince a person that if they just re-organize their thinking their chronic pain will stop.
Just to touch on the genetic issue....I agree that a genetic pre-disposition does not constitute a malfunction or impairment of some sort. I think here is where society comes in alot....for example being born with brown eyes instead of blue eyes isnt a problem at all......but if you want to join a club that only admits people with blue eyes, then does your genetic make-up become sub standard and your condition labeled a disease?
just curious, are you a college professor or hs teacher?
Neither one....I teach Massage Therapy for state licensure. We teach about 325 hours of A&P, Kinesiology (which is like more A&P) and Clinical Pathology, I'd call it equivalent to your beginning college courses, however its structured a little differently to compliment our application.
-
'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors
As I said. I have no condemnation for people who use drugs to cope with problems or even diseases (induced or otherwise). I actually encourage it if it works. Lots of survivors find that pot, for example, helps deal with the symptoms of PTSD. It's "self medication" and frowned on by the 12 stepping proselytizers, but it's really none of their fucking business if it works. Heal they self.
All I have a problem with and no compassion for is when people claim they have some fictional disease and can't control themselves. They use it as an excuse to, like Zappa said, act like assholes. If you break in to my house. I don't give a fuck whether you're doing it for drugs or something else you have a desire (not need) for. You get two in the brain pan. Problem solved. Disease didn't cause it. As Psy implied, "fucking stupid" caused it.
AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.
And homosexuality was once a disease. Authorites are not infallible and they should be challenged when they make mistakes. It should be noted that even if the AMA recognizes addicition as a disease (after they interviewed AA MEMBERS (the only population they could find)), the APA does not. "Addition" is not in the DSM, and the closest thing in that book bears very little resemblance to what AA defines "disease" as.
And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid
And you have a problem with reading comprehension. I said AA and the disease concept are the same. Addiction exists, yes, but it is not a disease, much one that is always progressive or fatal or bla bla bla. That's AA spiritual horse shit.
The AMA and western medical philosophy in general should ALWAYS be questioned about MANY MANY things.
-
'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors
As I said. I have no condemnation for people who use drugs to cope with problems or even diseases (induced or otherwise). I actually encourage it if it works. Lots of survivors find that pot, for example, helps deal with the symptoms of PTSD. It's "self medication" and frowned on by the 12 stepping proselytizers, but it's really none of their fucking business if it works. Heal they self.
All I have a problem with and no compassion for is when people claim they have some fictional disease and can't control themselves. They use it as an excuse to, like Zappa said, act like assholes. If you break in to my house. I don't give a fuck whether you're doing it for drugs or something else you have a desire (not need) for. You get two in the brain pan. Problem solved. Disease didn't cause it. As Psy implied, "fucking stupid" caused it.
AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.
And homosexuality was once a disease. Authorites are not infallible and they should be challenged when they make mistakes. It should be noted that even if the AMA recognizes addicition as a disease (after they interviewed AA MEMBERS (the only population they could find)), the APA does not. "Addition" is not in the DSM, and the closest thing in that book bears very little resemblance to what AA defines "disease" as.
And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid
And you have a problem with reading comprehension. I said AA and the disease concept are the same. Addiction exists, yes, but it is not a disease, much one that is always progressive or fatal or bla bla bla. That's AA spiritual horse shit.
What youre saying, in so many words, is ‘addiction’ does not exist. As you repeat, “it’s fucking stupidity” not addiction “that’s the problem.”
But addiction, scientifically speaking is quantified as disease, NOT “stupidity.”
Google addiction and disease. Read scientists, not AA members, explainations of why their research proves addiction is pathology, a disease. You will find slides of brains which capture the character of addiction and show addicts’ brains rewritten through addiction. Neurologists are not AA members. MRIs are not AA members
The pathology of addiction is not “spiritual AA horse shit” Mainstream scientific consensus is that addiction is real, a disease, a pathology, NOT “stupidity,” there is as much overwhelming consensus on this as there is on that global warming is real. If you feel that addiction is not a disease, recognize your opponents are scientists, neurologists, pathologists, geneticists, and every medical body I can think of. Your adversary is science, not AA.
So, AA and the "disease concept are not one in the same." That is some unbelievable ignorance about even the existence of modern day science, right there
-
The AMA and western medical philosophy in general should ALWAYS be questioned about MANY MANY things.
I’m all for questioning. Compassionless dismissal of addicts as “losers with bad choices” I don’t like. Ignorance of even the occurrence science (ie. The belief that AA, not the medical community purports and supports the “disease concept”) horrifies me.
-
Once someone becomes physically[/b] dependent on the drug (has physical w/d when stopped)....then you have an addiction. Someone who compulsively uses, while it may not be healthy for them or their relationships, is NOT an addict.
There. Feel better now?
Jesus fucking christ!! Can you really NOT see this?? Compulsion does NOT equal addiction. Addiction is a PHYSICAL dependency on a substance. There are no food addicts, there are no sex addicts, no internet addicts, gaming addicts or whatever other behavior you try to associate with the word addiction.
-
Genetic predisposition to loss of control with a chemical does NOT mean disease. It does *not* mean people are out of control. It does *not* mean some gene causes people to pick up a drink ( a behavior ) and another and another.
hereditary baldness is a disease. there is nothing a person can do to avoid it. drinking, on the other hand, is a CHOICE. C H O I C E. If somebody who knows he has a hard time controlling his alcohol decides to drink anyway he/she is fucking stupid. Fucking stupid is a subset of C H O I C E. *NOT* disease. A *disease* is out of a person's control and cannot be controlled with willpower. People DO quit drinking by willpower alone. There are so many differences between what constitutes a "disease" and what AA labels a "disease".
Plus. All the CREB gene (studied in *rats*) shows is that people with that gene are more prone to anxiety. People who have anxiety problems are more prone to deal with it using alcohol. This does not mean that the gene causes alcoholism of that the gene somehow means a person has a disease.
Research with identical twins and children of alcohlics shows that there is an incereased chance (something like 20%) or problem drinking activity, but it does NOT mean that these people are somehow born diseased or that they cannot drink normally.
"Research has shown that alcohol addiction is a complex disease, with both genetics and a tendency toward anxiety playing "crucial roles," writes researcher Subhash C. Pandey, PhD, a psychiatrist with the University of Illinois at Chicago.
"Some 30% to 70% of alcoholics are reported to suffer from anxiety and depression," Pandey says in a news release. "Drinking is a way for these individuals to self-medicate."
Pandey's research focuses on the CREB gene, so-named because it produces a protein called CREB -- cyclic AMP responsive element binding protein. The CREB gene regulates brain function during development and learning. The gene is also involved in the process of alcohol tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms, writes Pandey.
A section of the brain -- called the central amygdala -- is another piece of this puzzle. Both the CREB gene and the central amygdala have been linked with withdrawal and anxiety. When there is less CREB in the central amygdala, rats show increased anxiety-like behaviors and preference for alcohol.
Pandey's newest study puts it all together: It is "the first direct evidence that a deficiency in the CREB gene is associated with anxiety and alcohol-drinking behavior," Pandey writes. "
-
I value physical evidence above statistical. The gulags loved to say things like "90% of the people who didn't listen to us are now in prison". Suppose alcoholism were the type of disease that went into remission? We notice nothing about these cases when we do our studies but when it comes back, the study would have changed drastically. DNA is a molecule, composed of nucleotides, it can be empirically described and expresses proteins, other molecules. This is the same whether this is occurring in plants, humans or rats. Chemistry is a well-known science. Sure, the poll studies or whatever can be useful but what evidence is really stronger here?
I'm still somewhat curious that you people oppose the disease concept (as being considered separate from the rest of AA jargon). You claim to want to condemn the gulags and help those who are wrongly persecuted due to drug use - consider this analogy: (i) I kick a man who is considered immoral while he is down on the pavement (ii) I kick a man who is considered medically ill in some fashion while he is down on the pavement. Which case is more socially unacceptable? Certainly the majority of your everyday people out there would choose (i). In the case (ii) they would feel sympathy for the persecuted whereas in (i) there is more likelihood that they would agree with the persecutor. In the case of the gulags, this sympathetic view would create greater outrage over the injustices that occur. Sure, in history, the mentally ill have been abused but much of that has changed. Certain better than doing 20 in San Quentin. You can go do your own research there if you don't believe me.