She was all over board/office dead pools, and for good reason. She was going to be dead or in rehab sooner or later.
I guess it was dead.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Yet another member of the 27 club. And another great talent wasted.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Didn't she just get out of rehab?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I do wonder what it is about 27.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Derrell: Didn't she just get out of rehab?
Despite the song where she says "no, no, no" she has been in and out of rehab several times.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do wonder what it is about 27.
Just one of those quirks.
We probably never would have heard about it all if not for four prominent musicians not only dieing at 27, but dieing within just a year or so of each other: Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison. That got it in everyone's head, so now we see all the others: Kurt Cobain, Robert Johnson, Pigpen, Kristine Pfaff (also a friend of Cobain and Hole bassist), Mia Zapata (a really grisly and tragic tale), Amy Winehouse and on and on and on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Derrell: Didn't she just get out of rehab?
A one week stint in what i think is a mental health place. Not what I would consider an actual rehab.
If it was, though, by the time her 'comeback' tour got publicized, it was pretty obvious she was not in any way clean. She actually seemed pretty close to collapse.
Actually, y'know, looking at her obit? No way was she going to live much longer. Even if she had survived this overdose, it would have given her another year at most. She'd already smoked enough crack to permanently damage her heart, and her lungs were all but permanently screwed, and she kept smoking despite doctors telling her that she faced a critical decline in lung function if she did. She wasn't going to stop.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just turned 27 last month.
Thank goodness I'm not a musician. But I tell you, it's super stressful to be alive right now.
One of my favorite musicians died when he was 26, about seven months shy of his 27th birthday. It's tragic in so many ways, because on the one hand I feel for the guy, who suffered from depression his whole life. He had a disease, and he died from it, but you want to believe that, unlike cancer or something, depression was something beatable. And on the other hand its tragic because his music was so beautiful, especially the album he made just before he died. I often wonder when I listen to it what he would have made if he'd had more time, or if he'd been with it enough to record something else before descending into darkness. I'll bet there was a lot of music left in him.
I'll bet there was a lot of music left in Amy Winehouse too, and everyone else who died at about that age.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Gotta have a hobby.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The pattern could be mostly chance, or it could be that when you have those common cases of meteoric young performers with something that's eventually going to kill them — depression, bad habits, pathology involving the newfound excesses and privelege of stardom — it takes until about that time to typically exhaust what resilience and youth they had that could keep them above water.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I've long had the theory that people who use pain to create their art self destruct pretty young.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I've long had the theory that people who use pain to create their art self destruct pretty young.
I read a quote from her that was somewhere to that effect - she said she had to go make some headaches to write about.
I'm not sure what it is about artists that can tend that way, but I think it's rather tragic. I definitely don't think you need the chaos to be an artist but there seems to be a correlation.
I actually heard the news on amazon first - I went to look up some mp3s and saw a little blurb on their front page, and it made me really sad. I'm not even a major fan; I know her more from the news than from her music. But I find it all incredibly tragic.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I disagree. "Incredibly tragic" is children dying of hunger. What happened here is "sad" for her family and "completely appropriate and predictable" do to her actions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
... completely 'appropriate' due to her actions?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why not? Didn't you just post that doctors told her to stop smoking crack or she would die? Well...she didn't stop.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't describe the death as 'appropriate.' just ruefully predictable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The pattern could be mostly chance, or it could be that when you have those common cases of meteoric young performers with something that's eventually going to kill them — depression, bad habits, pathology involving the newfound excesses and privelege of stardom — it takes until about that time to typically exhaust what resilience and youth they had that could keep them above water.
I'd sign off on that explanation. Being 26, I simply can't image how I could have found the emotional maturity to deal with a life of stardom beginning when I was 18-20. It's unthinkable to me how somebody can manage that kind of life. I'm just now getting to the point where I think I could handle that kind of fame and even survive- where I look at myself and say: "yeah, you could handle that." But six years ago? Hell no.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yesterday, on one of the newspaper websites there was a picture of her at 20 and a picture of her at 27. Her face had stayed young, but her eyes had aged about a hundred years.
I'm 27 too. I don't think it's really fair to try to decide whether her death was something inevitable or avoidable, something tragic or normal. It was a seven year suicide. It's just sad.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I disagree. "Incredibly tragic" is children dying of hunger.
Why, thank you, Richard Dawkins Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's so sad. Drugs are just the worse. The way they screw up your brain and it's so hard to recover.
I was hoping she would though. I wonder if there's more that can be done when it comes to getting people off drugs.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I disagree. "Incredibly tragic" is children dying of hunger.
Why, thank you, Richard Dawkins
Forgive me if I reserve my sympathy for non self inflicted injuries.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I understand what you mean.
But for me, part of the tragedy was that it was self-inflicted, and totally avoidable. That's the tragic part.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I get where you are coming from and am glad that there are people like yourself to help fill in the gap which is left by people like myself. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In classic tragedy, the seeds to the hero's fall had to come from within himself. If it was something that was done to him, without him being complicit in it at all, it wasn't a tragedy, it was just bad things happening.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
It's sad that someone could care about themselves so little, and sad that the love of others couldn't make a difference to how they saw themselves.
That's what I mean by it being a suicide - it's frustrating, and it makes you angry that someone would do that to themselves. And you naturally think that they had a choice.
But honestly - they were, whether in that moment, or here in those years, not well. They were who they were, and they really didn't believe that they had any choice at all. Because, honestly, when Amy Winehouse was younger and more mentally sound, I don't think she dreamt of killing herself young, desperate and alone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I disagree. "Incredibly tragic" is children dying of hunger.
Why, thank you, Richard Dawkins
Forgive me if I reserve my sympathy for non self inflicted injuries.
Sometimes there is something deeper going on that ISN'T their fault, and we don't know yet exactly what killed her. Addiction is a disease. And furthermore, if she was depressed, that's also a disease.
I don't feel any worse for her than any other addict, but to write them all off as not worthy of sympathy is pretty callous to me. And frankly, I'm a little personally insulted as well.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
It's very likely that someone who has such a bad drug addiction also has other mental issues, and is using drugs to escape them. She also suffered of clinical depression, eating disorders, violent mood swings, and apparently used to cut herself.
So it's not really the drugs that killed her - It was the psychological stuff that caused her to use drugs. I don't know why she was self-destructive, but there are probably things in her past that made her so.
So the whole "self-inflicted injuries" argument seems pointlessly mean to me, since we don't really know the whole story.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Sometimes there is something deeper going on that ISN'T their fault, and we don't know yet exactly what killed her. Addiction is a disease. And furthermore, if she was depressed, that's also a disease.
I don't feel any worse for her than any other addict, but to write them all off as not worthy of sympathy is pretty callous to me. And frankly, I'm a little personally insulted as well.
Why are you personally insulted that I don't view an addict's death due to their addiction to be "incredibly tragic"?
I don't write them all off as not worthy of sympathy...I specifically said I was glad that there are people out there like Annie who feel that way. -I- simply do not feel sympathy for them. I feel sympathy for their family and friends.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Sometimes there is something deeper going on that ISN'T their fault, and we don't know yet exactly what killed her. Addiction is a disease. And furthermore, if she was depressed, that's also a disease.
I don't feel any worse for her than any other addict, but to write them all off as not worthy of sympathy is pretty callous to me. And frankly, I'm a little personally insulted as well.
Why are you personally insulted that I don't view an addict's death due to their addiction to be "incredibly tragic"?
I don't write them all off as not worthy of sympathy...I specifically said I was glad that there are people out there like Annie who feel that way. -I- simply do not feel sympathy for them. I feel sympathy for their family and friends.
Kind of a fine line to parse there, between personally not affording someone sympathy but feeling they're worthy of it.
Your wording, however, was still ill-considered. Winehouse, like many people suffering from "self-inflicted injuries," often have other very real problems going on beneath the surface that drive them to do what they do. Do you not feel sympathy when cancer patients succumb to their disease? At a basic level, it's really no different. You perceive it as different because you perceive addiction-related diseases as simply being a matter of willpower, or a choice, and since they CHOOSE to do what they do, they aren't suffering the same sort of random affliction as a cancer patient. Feel free to correct me, but that's what your feelings imply to me. I've seen it before, and you're fitting snugly right into the stereotype.
And it was that wording, not the "incredible tragedy" statement, that I found personally offensive. I guess you never know who you're going to offend with random statements that mischaracterize things like that, do you? And I'll admit to being somewhat sensitive, especially with the wording you used, though normally this is something I'd ignore. Go ahead and explain what you really meant, tell me I'm wrong for overreacting, and I'll apologize. I don't really want to argue about it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's very likely that someone who has such a bad drug addiction also has other mental issues, and is using drugs to escape them
It's also very likely that such mental issues were exacerbated by the use of drugs.
quote:since they CHOOSE to do what they do, they aren't suffering the same sort of random affliction as a cancer patient
I actually agree with this. There is an element of choice with such behaviors that is not there for most victims of cancer.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I guess you never know who you're going to offend with random statements that mischaracterize things like that, do you?
Is this a serious question? Everyone suffers at one level or another and saying that people who die due to drug use is a mischaracterization because they obviously had other issues is a cop out, and a really big assumption.
Some people suffer such heavy and tremendous damage at a formative age that living as a functional adult is nearly impossible, and if someone like that was to die, say from drug use, I would have sympathy...for their past, not their passing.
I am sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent. It doesn't change what I think about it though.
As to the idea that a cancer victim is the same thing as a drug addict, I don't agree. There are many reasons people become addicts, and many reasons they stop, and many reasons they don't and end up dying from it, I don't think any one generality on the topic is accurate (i.e. they clearly had other issues). I know that when I smoked a lot of pot I had to be careful not to let it take over my life, and it was always a game of balance. Knowing that at times I couldn't handle it, I never sought more powerful drugs. I'm -not- saying that "since I didn't die of drug addiction, then anyone can", but I am saying that even when I did make poor decisions and do harmful things (such as loose a great job for a positive drug test) that I still choose that path, and there are enough tragedies in the world which have victims which are truly and completely innocent, and it is to them that I feel sympathy for.
I don't require others to not give sympathy to those that I don't, heck, I encourage them to do so, as even really really bad people (not just those who die from their choices) are human and worthy of some consideration.
quote:Go ahead and explain what you really meant, tell me I'm wrong for overreacting, and I'll apologize. I don't really want to argue about it.
I meant what I said...I disagree with you...no apology necessary...nor any argument.
Reasonable people can disagree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i think, honestly, that when someone dies like this — at the end of a long road of dependencies and critical personal dysfunction — it is incredibly tragic. But not so much in the terms of the death itself. The death is just the outcome. The end of the process. What makes it tragic is the process and input that went into making it play out so predictably.
Someone I know recently was all but destroyed when her lover and long-time partner died of a tragic but IMMENSELY predictable heroin addiction. He was maybe 25.
He was not raised in a loving environment that shielded him from these impulses. He was raised in an environment which exposed him to it daily and was essentially abusive and capricious enough to have made him unstable enough to be easy prey to social pressures and addictions. The end result is an adult who would rely on drugs just to 'get by.' So much of the fault really lay with his parents and the environment they grew him in, willfully, and neglectfully.
It's easy to sit back and view the death only as some addict doing themselves in of their own accord. Just some junkie doing themselves in, as if he or she formed in a vacuum.
However, when you get to peel back the veil and look at both the birth and death of a junkie, the result is .. usually uncomfortable. In far too many cases. You find yourself forced to empathize rather than shrug it off. Which is why many people refuse to do so. It's so much easier to leave it at the junkie in the vacuum mentality.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: I doubt you were writing that directly at me, but instead more as a general truth. I would indeed look upon your friend's up bringing as a tragedy, to which I do have sympathy, as well as his lover who it affected so much.
For me the lack of sympathy for self inflicted deaths stems from the belief that freedom and responsibility are different sides of the same coin. All parents impart, one way or another, issues onto their children, however, some try to raise their children into responsible adults, where it sounds like your friends parents were just negligent. At some point in each life it becomes the responsibility of that person to work on their own problems. Some of those problems are insurmountable, as I said before...and some people, despite their best efforts are just not given the tools to do so. And that is tragic, and I do have sympathy for those people, for the wrongs done them as children.
I do draw the line when a doctor says, "You are gong to die, and that soon, if you do not stop doing this." and the person doesn't stop.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Freedom, choice, and the ability to "draw lines" are not doled out in equal measure.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not understanding boots.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: All parents impart, one way or another, issues onto their children, however, some try to raise their children into responsible adults, where it sounds like your friends parents were just negligent. At some point in each life it becomes the responsibility of that person to work on their own problems.
Let me try a pretty out-there and admittedly pulling-it-out-to-the-extremes example. Let's say I'm a terrible parent, and I force my kid to work on combine harvesters in the field, and 'homeschool' him because I don't believe in them fancy educations with them maths and sciences and grammar. He grows up with no better than a second grader reading and math level. He might even be physically disabled (say, a combine accident).
I have subjected him to an upbringing, an environment of opportunity (or lack of, thereof) that through no fault of his own leaves him pretty much unable to expect much in the way of employment and the tools very much so needed for much in the way of economic and personal autonomy. If you had full knowledge of the neglect I fostered upon him, never giving him even BASIC reading skills, and you saw me say to him "These are YOUR OWN problems. Now they're your own responsibility, meaning that it's your own fault if you don't overcome them. Not mine! Sorry!" ... then close the door in his face.
Somehow, I hope you're not going to agree with me.
quote:I do draw the line when a doctor says, "You are gong to die, and that soon, if you do not stop doing this." and the person doesn't stop.
What if they were raised by, say, homeopaths. And don't believe the doctor because they don't believe in Western Medicine?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Those are extreme examples...of course I don't agree with them.
I'm not an unsympathetic person (at least I don't think so).
I do find it tragic that people are mistreated and raised poorly, and that it can echo into their adult lives as a negative.
I just don't have a lot of/any sympathy for deaths from drugs/suicide.
Is the argument that I should? Each and every human life (from Ghandi to Hitler) has intrinsic value, and even utterly evil people (if there is such a thing, more like, people who do utterly evil things) are deserving of some human compassion...and I'm glad there are people out there who can empathize enough to do that...I'm not one of them.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
What boots means, Stone Wolf, is that freedom is not given out to people based on whether they can handle it or have been prepared for it.
I guess... how about a different tack: When you see someone hired for a job they have no experience in, and no background in, and they are expected to know all those little things, including those safety things, to keep afloat, and nobody really bothered to tell them those things... when they get into an accident that kills them, do you also say "I would feel sympathy for their past... but not their passing" as though they won a Darwin Award or something? Or would you get angry at those who failed to prepare them, sympathize with the family of the deceased, and grieve (if close to) and/or simply feel bad at the thought that they died?
This is a hypothetical, of course. I've known drug users. I know that not all of them are worth sympathy. But I also know that sometimes people's bad decisions aren't something they can just pull out of.
Exceptional people, the ones who are big stories because they came from nothing and overcame severe troubles are... well, exceptional. The normal human being -and you are more likely to be that then the exceptional- is limited by circumstances far more than those special few. The normal person doesn't just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become wealthy story-book heroes.
The normal person stays in the same social class they were born in.
Now, does that say something bad about the normal person? I wouldn't be so sure...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is the argument that I should? Each and every human life (from Ghandi to Hitler) has intrinsic value, and even utterly evil people (if there is such a thing, more like, people who do utterly evil things) are deserving of some human compassion...and I'm glad there are people out there who can empathize enough to do that...I'm not one of them.
Now, keep in mind that even if I think everyone has intrinsic value (or, however the argument goes), it doesn't mean I would hesitate to fight, or kill, to stop them from doing what they want to do with what they would become.
The issue with pointing out the thorniness of the word 'responsibility' in these contexts is that if my Hypothetical Terribly Raised Kid ends up miserable, depressed, in chronic pain, and dying from a heroin overdose, plenty of people don't want to even KNOW about the varied factors that go into it. They WANT the surface variety only. They want to view the end product in a vacuum. Effects without causes. Short of the one in thirty to one in fifty of us who are actually, legitimately sociopathic, it is not comfortable to process the causes, and the degree to which an uncomfortably large amount of these tragedies (be they overdoses or suicides or starvation while indigent) come packaged with a situation where their upbringing/circumstances left them with a bar that was way too high for us to just sit there and say 'just jump over it, it's your responsibility alone.'
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This isn't a case of ignorance nor of social class. Drugs aren't a mystery when it comes to them being potentially lethal. I would also have very little to zero sympathy for a thrill seeking base jumper who died after trying more and more dangerous stunts.
When people do selfish things that put them into harms way, and then die from them, I shrug and say, well, they knew the risks. It's not that I hate them, or wish them dead, but I don't feel bad for them either...I just accept that they had the freedom to do what they did and their actions had consequences.
This is also why I let firefighters, police, EMTs and military personnel in front of me in line at stores and tell them that I appreciate them. They too are putting themselves in harms way, but not solely for personal gain, but for the greater good of society.
Please note that I have from the first said that I have sympathy for the families of bad choice repercussion deaths.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay Samp...I'm totally willing to stipulate that on a case by case basis, that some unfortunate people had problems unfairly gifted to them by their parents/upbringing/unavoidable circumstance that moves their premature death into the "tragedy" category and out of the "simply consequence of bad choices" category.
I'm not willing to have that be the assumption in all cases without persuasive info though.
So before I spoke out against Winehouse I should have done some research...or more to the point...just not said anything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not willing to have that be the assumption in all cases without persuasive info though.
Neither am I. There's also a pretty large category of people who are nearly impossible to sympathize with because their problems are more or less the result of being absolutely rotten individuals.
Here we go with anecdote time again: My mother had a longtime friend die of cancer when her boy was still a young kid. The kid was hit MASSIVELY hard by it. He grew violent and dysfunctional. Bounced through foster homes. Burned through his trust money as soon as he was able. Became a pathologically criminal idiot. Stole cars. B&E. Addict, I'm sure. I wouldn't have tried to stop him from self-destructing, since I don't think it would have made a difference. I said, even, that if it were up to me, he would be in jail until he was 50. That I would all but certainly shoot him if I caught him breaking into my house (which was a real possibility at the time). I'm sympathetic to the reasons why people end up like that — and usually, it's upbringing — and I can understand why his story is tragic, but that doesn't come (for me) with a passive attitude towards having to deal with what they have become.
Of course, he eventually ended up pretty much getting put away for good when he tried to steal someone's car and the guy was at home sleeping naked but jumped up and pinned him to the ground or something. Man, I wonder if I could even find a story about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: So before I spoke out against Winehouse I should have done some research...or more to the point...just not said anything.
There you go. That was a big part of my problem to begin with. My bigger problem is that you seem to not care at all about underlying mental health issues.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well I'm glad we didn't have to argue. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Not on the immediate subtopic that you guys are wrapping up now, but it occurred to me today (and I mentioned this elsewhere) that if someone had wanted to murder Amy Winehouse, it would have been incredibly easy to do without getting caught. We see what we expect to see, and Amy Winehouse has been so centrally in the spotlight as the celebrity who abused drugs so flagrantly that it's only a matter of time until she kills herself with them that if any effort at all were made to make her murder look like an overdose, it's unlikely that it would receive any serious scrutiny. I almost think that if the autopsy came back and said that she'd died from shooting up Draino, the assumption would just be that she obviously decided to give shooting Draino a try.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:My bigger problem is that you seem to not care at all about underlying mental health issues.
I've long debated with my uncle about mental health issues...it's which came first the chicken or the egg debate...does bad brain chemistry lead to poor decisions, or poor decisions lead to bad brain chemistry.
My grandfather was a bad person pretty much, not the worst in the world, but still...in the twilight of his life he had a major stroke and forgot why no one called him anymore (he told us not to bother as we were evil, even me at the age of ten).
My uncle thinks that if you have any mental issues, then you are just plain off the hook on every moral level.
I tend to think that people who are committed to their poor choices and delusions will do almost anything to maintain that delusion, pushing them further and further down the road to mental issues. Not everyone of course...some people are just bat sh*t crazy yo!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, yeah. That's a given. Hope-to-die drug addicts generally *die*. Kurt kobain conspiracies are convenient ways for people to cope with what they cannot otherwise hope to understand about people like this.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QUOTE]
My uncle thinks that if you have any mental issues, then you are just plain off the hook on every moral level. !
You strike me as one of those people who seems unable to countenance any shade of moral ambiguity. So your uncles attitude, according to you, since you're the one rendering it here, is just a mirror reflection of your own. NO responsibility is clearly silly, so therefore total responsibility is more likely. The best you can muster is to totally dehumanize the person you are talking about and hand wave their behavior away as just totally bat**** crazy. In my opinion that's an unhealthy attitude.
It's uncomfortable to imagine that victims of drug addiction and suicide are thinking, feeling people with many of the same human qualities that you have, and that they suffer from a distinction that could also strike you. Some amount of humility and understanding for them is an important step in addressing and solving societal problems of drug addiction. A clue: dehumanization of victims is not helpful in that process. And that is what you are doing, whether you are aware of it or not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You are saying that because I have summed up a view I disagree with...that I must agree with it...and then you lecture me on that belief that I disagree with? You're insane.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Here's an interesting perspective from a medical standpoint. This doctor, (and author of a textbook on treating addictions) states that alcoholism is 60% biological. Certainly gives a new angle to consider this issue from.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Tendency to alcoholism is considered genetic. Same thing with addictions in general - And depression.
Some people simply don't get clinical depression, no matter how awful their upbringing has been. Their bodies simply don't have that option coded into them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You are saying that because I have summed up a view I disagree with...that I must agree with it...and then you lecture me on that belief that I disagree with? You're insane.
Uh, no. I said that you summed up a view that you disagreed with, making *that* view appear to lack any room for ambiguity. I suggested that this is because your own view, the opposite view, probably also lacks room for ambiguity.
Essentially: you see your opposition as being unambiguous, and therefore your own view is likely unambiguous as well. In my experience, this is quite common.
Do you understand now?
ETA: Ah, I see your mistake. When I wrote "mirror reflection," I was indicating that your view was quite similar in many respects (those pertaining to ambiguity I have mentioned above), but was the *opposite* view. That was quite clear from the context, but nevertheless you were confused. Perhaps I should have stressed the point even more clearly. Now I hope I have made myself clear.
And, for future consideration, calling someone else crazy because you are having a hard time parsing their argument is not best, if you would like to indicate that you have an actual interest in discussion. If you don't have any interest, and are just saying things, and demanding that others listen without comment, then you may be posting in the wrong forum. That kind of attitude is not helpful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stone wolf -
I'll reiterate my point my simply pulling a couple quotes from Annie's article:
quote:Is there a different term that you would use to describe the medication-based approach?
I wouldn't call it a "rehabilitational" approach. I would use the term evidence-based treatment, which is really what I think is required. The medicines that work are better than the psychological treatment alone. To not have someone have a medicine is like tying your hands behind your back.
Alcoholism is about 60 percent genetic and biological—that's about the same percent as asthma or high blood pressure. And no one would dream of treating asthma with psychological methods alone. No one would dream of telling someone with high blood pressure to just relax and take it easy. Why then, with alcohol and drug dependence, would that be a reasonable treatment? With diabetes, yes, you can have behavioral control for diabetes—you tell them not to eat too much sugar or not to eat a whole cake, but at the end of the day you still give them insulin.
....
Does overcoming addiction really depend on a person's decision and willpower to do so? It's a complete myth. And it's one of the myths that has to be dispelled. One of the presumed tragedies of Amy Winehouse,—if this turns out to be related to drug and alcohol use—is that she didn't want to go to rehab. But rehab might not have been necessary. Maybe medical treatment from a personal doctor would have been an option.
The key to addiction treatment is that anyone who wants treatment gets effective treatment. And it doesn't depend on any power—higher power, lower power, willpower. It takes the level of compliance of anyone going to a doctor to get checked out.
When people realize it might be possible to get treatment without superhuman power, maybe it will make people want to seek treatment. It's a message of hope.
Is this getting through at all? It's not about excusing behavior, it's about explaining it. You can come back at me again with "but that's not EVERYONE," and that's all well and good, but, in this thread anyway, you've shown a willingness to paint all sufferers with a single brush, with no sense of nuance or specificity whatsoever.
Out of curiosity, have you ever listened to Winehouse's "Rehab," and have you really stopped to think about what she's saying?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sadly, that's just a big myth all around. The twelve step approach (just as an example) is almost completely focused on submission, rather than personal willpower. It takes such enormous personal willpower for a lot of addicts to *continue* using drugs. It's silly to imagine that these people actually *lack* willpower. I often think it clarifies a common misconception about what willpower actually is: the will is not logical- it doesn't do what is best or most sensible. So, considering that, willpower can be destructive, as well as fortifying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the degree to which willpower based intervention therapy just flat-out doesn't work is staggering to me. I mean, I'm no Libertard BOOTSTRAPS type but it depresses me to look that grimly on those factors. I'd legitimately prefer it if you could rely upon or otherwise take in virtues that could be anticipated to reliably manage these conditions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, one must consider whose "will" is involved in any intervention. The will of an interested party is an opposition to the will of an addict. And people have strong wills. Simply defeating the will is impossible. People die, daily, rather than surrender. My personal theory is that if ever big pharma and the medical community get really serious about looking for addiction cures, the cure is going to be akin to temporary lobotomization. Completely shutting off the personality of the sufferer in a sAfe way, so as to allow diversion to take place. Interesting idea for a short story...
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You're insane.
This rhetoric is not helping you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Orincoro: Instead of stating that you're insane, here's what I should have said: It is bad form to assign someone a view by conjecture and then lecture them about that view. Add to that that the person you are assumptive lecturing is someone who stated in no uncertain terms a strong dislike for you, and you have...a really bad idea. Miscommunications over a text medium are so easy to achieve that assuming people's stances is dangerous at best, and ill advised in general. Personally, I have very little interest in discussing anything with you, so when you add a layer of presumption and scolding my motivation for have a useful discourse with you drops to near zero.
Lyrhawn: I understand your view that addiction is a disease, and I disagree with the level that you take it to. Yes, people do have predilections towards addictive behaviors, not limited to intake of drugs. But I don't share your sentiment when it comes to how to view these unfortunate losses of life where choice is involved, unlike, say, cancer, where no choice is involved. I have not really listened to "Rehab", except if I was feeling lazy and didn't change the radio when it came on, as I am not a big fan of Winehouse's music.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, try thinking about it this way. Two people are caught in an earthquake and pinned under rubble. One of the people is a big, young guy and fairly strong and he is able to lift the rocks. The other is a small, frail woman who is too weak to lift the rocks and she dies. Did she choose not to lift the rocks? Or was she just too weak? Should we despise her weakness or should we mourn her?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's not a fair analogy boots...because an earthquake is an external circumstance where as putting a pipe/bottle to your lips is a choice. And again, yes, some people have less ability to defend from the evils of addiction then others, but that simple fact alone does not alleviate all responsibility.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I understand your view that addiction is a disease, and I disagree with the level that you take it to.
It's not just his view.
quote:That's not a fair analogy boots...because an earthquake is an external circumstance where as putting a pipe/bottle to your lips is a choice.
Having a propensity to addiction is a choice?
An example from myself: I smoked pot twice when I was 17-19-ish. It did nothing for me, I got a bit high but I had absolutely no interest in doing it again. It wasn't a matter of willpower, it just did nothing for me. I didn't have interest in doing it again in the same way I've got no interest in being an auto mechanic. Likewise with alcohol. I didn't grow up in an abstaining family or anything, so it's not in my background to be apathetic, but I got really drunk a few times around the same period at parties, but I only ever drank at parties, and rarely to any kind of excess. I enjoyed the buzz, but it didn't...pull me. It took no willpower for me to avoid alcoholism.
Is my willpower superior to an alcoholic's? Sure, he chooses to hoist that bottle, but he doesn't choose to need it more than (in some cases) he needs the respect of his family, his health, his job, etc.
I was born loving seafood, I'm told by my parents. I was born without a predilection to enjoying alcohol to a dangerous extent. I'm fortunate that the thing I was born loving is tasty and doesn't kill me, cooked right.
[ July 26, 2011, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, you seem to believe that choices are easy things to make and that all people are just as free to make them as you are. That is simply not the case. You may as well say that the frail woman could have made the choice to lift the rocks. After all the strong guy made that choice.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
So, what exactly are you suggesting boots? That addicts should be completely let off the hook morally and legally for all their negative actions which are associated with their uncontrollable "disease"?
So a crack head that shoots up a 7/11 should be set free?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So a crack head that shoots up a 7/11 should be set free?
*snort* Please, complain some more about people misrepresenting your position.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...You are never going to leave me alone are you? Too much fun right? Well, that's your bad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By all means, use that as an excuse to avoid addressing the points I made. Rather like you did just now. She was making the point that people might be less free to choose the pipe than you think. Your response? "Psht, so what, crackhead robbers should be set free?"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dobbie: Yes, not all forms of cancer lack responsibility...but I have a real serious question for you...why is the Family Guy clip in German?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh, please understand that when you try and bring points of discussion to me, you guarantee I won't address them, as I do not in any shape or form wish to discuss anything with you. You are hostile, argumentative and so focused on proving me wrong at every turn that the resulting bickering derails legitimate topics even when on every important point of discussion we agree. You at times have very good points, and I tend to agree with you on half or more of your opinions. It doesn't change the fact that our posting styles are similar enough, and emotionally charged enough that our direct interactions are horribly unproductive and frustrating and I choose to not engage in them. You can continue to beat your head on a wall if you choose. I have nothing further to say to you, ever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ok, then. How about from me? Might you consider rethinking or rereading what I wrote and come up with a more realistic idea of what I was writing?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was a pretty solid bet you weren't going to address them anyway. You already weren't, with your straw-manning of crackhead robbers.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure boots! Let's make it a less biased and more realistic question:
Exactly what level of responsibility does having an addiction alleviate by your suggestion? I am unclear on exactly what you are indicating.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, weak woman under rocks was responsible for not getting in shape. We are all responsible for a lot of things but that does not preclude some compassion for human frailty. We all have some - not about the same things not in equal measure.
We could all use a lot less, "It's their own fault" and a whole lot more, "There but for the grace of God* go I."
*or blind luck if you prefer.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, what exactly are you suggesting boots? That addicts should be completely let off the hook morally and legally for all their negative actions which are associated with their uncontrollable "disease"?
So a crack head that shoots up a 7/11 should be set free?
This sounds like a straw-man argument.
People, including Kmboots, are disagreeing with you about your idea that a serious drug addiction is a choice.
They are not disagreeing on the idea that criminals should be punished. I would assume that pretty much everyone here agrees that criminal actions should be punished, even if the criminal is himself a "victim" of unfortunate circumstances that made him a criminal. So you are trying to argue a stance that nobody has taken.
BTW, Amy Winehouse didn't kill anyone, or commit any other serious crimes, except for taking illegal substances.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
boots...That is very confusing....I thought the point was that the relative strengths of the people under the rocks was innate to them, not a choice or responsibility...I get the part about compassion is good and judgment is less...but that's not my question.
With the assumption that addiction is a disease comparable to cancer as Lyr suggested on the last page...i.e. like your earthquake scenario where some outside tragedy is happening to someone, how much of their bad behavior is not their fault? Continuing to take drugs to the point of their death? Stealing to get money for their drugs? Prostituting to get money for drugs? Not caring for their minor children to the children's detriment? Where does the buck stop?
Tuukka...yes, those were biased questions...sorry.
Even if continuing a serious drug addiction is not a choice (which is relative to effort and desire to quit, right?) then is a least trying illegal, and nearly universally known to be dangerous drugs in the first place a choice?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fault is not the point. Assessing blame is not the point and won't help. All it does is allow those of us lucky enough not to be subject to addiction to feel superior and to decide that it isn't our problem.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If that is all that is keeping you from answering the question...then replace the word "fault" with "responsibility".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:With the assumption that addiction is a disease...
This is one of those 'assumptions' that, y'know, medical professionals experienced in treating rather than judging addicts make. Medical organizations, too.
(Now, hopefully someone else will make that point so you'll semi-address it, and drop this 'their choice to be addicts!' rhetoric which according to medicine as it's understood now is bunk.)
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Since you haven't listened to "Rehab," Stone Wolf, here are some of the lyrics that I think are very telling about this situation:
quote: I didn't get a lot in class But I know it (the things you want to teach me) don't come in a shot glass
…
The man said, "Why do you think you here?" I said, "I got no idea" I'm gonna, I'm gonna lose my baby So I always keep a bottle near
He said, "I just think you're depressed Kiss me, yeah baby and go rest"
…
I don't ever wanna drink again I just, ooh, I just need a friend I'm not gonna spend ten weeks Have everyone think I'm on the mend
And it's not just my pride It's just 'til these tears have dried…
What's the point of the song? The point of the song is that the underlying problem isn't her addiction, it's her depression. Rehab doesn't fix people who don't want to be fixed. She doesn't want to be fixed because the substances are the only escape from her mental illness and the horror of the real world.
It's terribly tragic; I stand by that statement. And though I believe that alcohol and substances are all very bad things, I don't think that Amy Winehouse is a very bad person. I think she is an extremely unfortunate person who deserves our empathy and compassion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If that is all that is keeping you from answering the question...then replace the word "fault" with "responsibility".
It still doesn't matter. It was that woman's responsibility to get out from under the rocks. She was too weak to manage that responsibility. We can blame her or we can help her.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Dobbie: Yes, not all forms of cancer lack responsibility...but I have a real serious question for you...why is the Family Guy clip in German?
Because Germans cause cancer.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
SW, you are arguing here with others about whether it is a choice, but deeper than that, you seem to hold the view that if it is a choice, then the choice is clear. And it may be for you. These drugs/alcohol are dangerous and I shouldn't do them.
Have you considered that, if it is a choice, that the addict doesn't choose the drugs they take because they are so good, but because his life without them is so bad? To the point of being unendurable? That perhaps the crackhead puts the pipe to his lips hoping that he doesn't wake up again and have to figure out how he is going to endure yet another day? That each morning, when he opens his eyes and remembers who he is, that he wishes he hadn't woken up at all? That for him, it may be a horrifying thought that he might still be alive a year from now? A person who has reached a point like this in their lives is not worth your sympathies?
If not, :shrug: so be it. Have you considered that perhaps the reason Lyr was insulted, and perhaps others who have not voiced it, is because, aside from Amy Winehouse, the people about whom you are announcing your non-sympathy are people they personally know, or are people who are actually reading your words here? People, who are at, or who have been, at this point?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Annie...again, I'm glad you (and those like you) to provide that empathy and compassion, I don't share those sentiments. My empathy and compassion goes to her family and loved ones.
boots...I hear you loud and clear...and just like Annie, I'm glad you feel that way and in no way shape or form are calling for everyone to feel as I do. But please answer my questions. If an someone who suffers the disease of addiction allows their child to suffer from negligence do to said addiction, are they morally and legally responsible or not? And why?
Nighthawk...I thought Germans cause strudel.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, you are not hearing me at all.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: And though I believe that alcohol and substances are all very bad things...
As someone who's made of substances, I find that offensive. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
SM: Thank you for your thoughtful reply...I have acknowledged that every human, regardless of situation deserves some understanding and compassion...and while some addictions no doubt are fueled by incredibly tragic circumstances, to deny that there is no choice involved is...um...unrealistic to me. I know someone who was raped by her father at the age of 4 and was used as a sex slave by her father and brothers until she left home at age 18, who's mother blamed and abused her for it and who was used as a sex slave party favor by her father with strangers, who gave birth to her father's child, who was so malformed by incestuous genes that the baby died. She by all accounts shouldn't be alive considering the vast majority of humans who suffer such atrocities at such a formative age by those who should love and treasure them end up dead by addiction or intentional suicide. She struggles on a day to day basis even decades later to quiet the ghosts in her head. But she also works her butt off in therapy and with PTSD/depression/BiPoloar meds to be able to live in this world which has caused her so much pain.
She has attempted suicide many times. And at times struggles to not abuse her medications as you described above, in an attempt to numb the pain.
As I said on page one, I of course do feel compassion for people who have suffered like this. But to assume that all addicts have suffered such catastrophic lives is too much. And while even acknowledging that trauma has lasting and real damage in lives, personal responsibly is undeniable. While I am glad people can look past it and feel compassion and empathy to see all the stops along the road that lead to the ultimate destination, I still do not agree for myself that people who do destructive and self destructive things should be above personal responsibility.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf, you are not hearing me at all.
I think we are cross talking...what words from me would make it clear to you that I understand your point?
And what will it take to get you to answer my question, which, by the way, isn't a point/rhetorical question, it is a real, "I want to know your answer" question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe your asking questions in good faith would be a start, such as by not suggesting (as you already did) that she thinks violent addicted criminals should be released because none of it is their fault.
But, hey, you don't have to listen to me. Regardless of how relevant something I say might be, you can just say, "Not listening la la la la!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Your not asking about whose responsibility it is would be a start.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My understanding of boots point: It isn't a question of fault, but a question of being compassionate and helping people who are suffering an aliment which might have struck us and is not their fault.
How's that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. You still seem to think that it matters whose fault it is.
ETA: Look, you can point out that the woman under the rocks should have been working out or that she shouldn't have been where the rocks where likely to fall or that if she were a better person she could move the rocks.
Or you could work out the best way to help her move the d*** rocks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. You still seem to think that it matters whose fault it is.
ETA: Look, you can point out that the woman under the rocks should have been working out or that she shouldn't have been where the rocks where likely to fall or that if she were a better person she could move the rocks.
Or you could work out the best way to help her move the d*** rocks.
For the sake of argument, assume it does matter whose fault it is. Who makes that decision? Actual professionals with experience beyond the anecdotal seem to think it's a disease.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay how about this...boots point: Addiction isn't about fault, it could happen to anyone and those lucky enough to not have it happen should have compassion and try and help?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It's a start, but even bigger than that. We all need compassion and help for things that are too big for us to lift by ourselves. And for most of the things we do manage to lift, we have more help than we know.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm trying to earn the right to disagree here boots...by showing you that I do in fact listen and comprehend your point...just not agree with it.
It's not like I'm calling for people to not help addicts...everyone sure does need help sometimes...
I still would like you to answer my question...that is, does addiction alleviate wrong doings against others in your opinion?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, have you ever listened to Winehouse's "Rehab," and have you really stopped to think about what she's saying?
Not speaking g for SW, but the part of the song I always found most tragic is when she says, "I'm not gonna spend ten weeks / Have everyone think I'm on the mend."
It's like she knows, to her core, that she will not get better and can't stand the thought of giving people that hope.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm trying to earn the right to disagree here boots...by showing you that I do in fact listen and comprehend your point...just not agree with it.
It's not like I'm calling for people to not help addicts...everyone sure does need help sometimes...
I still would like you to answer my question...that is, does addiction alleviate wrong doings against others in your opinion?
Blaming people doesn't alleviate those harms either. In fact, it usually exacerbates them. Focusing on fault and blame gets in the way of alleviating or even preventing those harms. It obscures the need for assisting those that need assistance and the only alleviating it does is to our sense of compassion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My question is not about blame, it is about responsibility, legally and ethically. I doubt you are suggesting that we disregard those concerns for everyone, let alone for addicts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am saying that it isn't helpful. Yes. Disregard it for a minute. We disregard questions of blame while we treat people who are injured in an accident or an illness (and addiction is an illness as is depression). We don't say to a diabetic, "it's your own fault for having crappy insulin" or to a breast cancer victim that she should have had better genes. We treat them. We help, to the best of our ability, move the rocks.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have disregarded it...to understand your point of view.
Please regard it to answer my question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Then why are you still asking? My answer is that it doesn't matter.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not making any point, just found it fascinating:
quote:The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), revised in 2000, does not include the diagnosis of addiction. Rather, the manual lists substance dependence, defined as:
When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use may result in tolerance to the effect of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance abuse Substance Use Disorders...."
The next edition of the DSM is due out in 2013.
Although the Centers for Disease Control2 website mentions that excessive alcohol use is the third-leading lifestyle related cause of death in the U.S., neither alcoholism or addiction appears in their list of diseases.
In October of 2008, as part of the Economic Recovery Act, a provision to require insurance companies to treat “substance abuse disorders” in the same manner as chronic physical diseases passed the U.S. Congress. This marked a large step forward for the idea of addiction as a disease, if not medically, at least legislatively.
Source. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This site has a pretty good article about both sides of the "disease/choice" debate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, what exactly are you suggesting boots? That addicts should be completely let off the hook morally and legally for all their negative actions which are associated with their uncontrollable "disease"?
So a crack head that shoots up a 7/11 should be set free?
See, where you lectured me on supposedly not knowing your viewpoint? I absolutely did. You didn't like it, because it sucks to be caught out with such a shallow, unevolved point of view. But I did. I am quite sure. This demonstrates it perfectly.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
At worst I was doing the same thing wrong as you...assuming...but unlike you I had the decency to make them questions, and apologize for asking biased questions, instead of just lecture based on assumption.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did I miss an apology?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ...yes, those were biased questions...sorry.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...I thought you were talking about an apology to me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Um...despite my poor labeling...it was an apology to you...sorry for the confusion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hard to see how I missed it.
Why does it fault matter so much to you? The only thing I can see it doing is freeing you from having to care but maybe I am missing something?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
People here are saying (with some medical backing, the depute rages on, as far as I can tell) that addiction is involuntary...it just begs the question to me, if so, where does that line stop? I just wanted your opinion.
It's not so much about fault.
I've long believed that the other side of the coin of freedom is responsibility...in other words, you can't be free if you aren't responsible for yourself.
In removing the responsibility from addicts, we remove the expectation of freedom, and while for some this might be true, it also creates a culture where people are more likely to become addicts because they believe themselves to be powerless even if they are not one of the unlucky few.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If someone's child is suffering neglect because of their addiction, instead of saying, the mom/dad is at blame, what should happen is society would see the need and step up. Ideally, there would also be help for the addict. My father was involved with a substance abuse group and was constantly frustrated at how few resources there were to help if you were poor. We shouldn't waste time and resources trying to decide who was to blame and punishing people. Supposedly Portugal legalized drug use and put all its resources that were used in prosecution towards helping addicts and they have had great success, far better than they did through laws.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I am ALL for legalization (decriminalization, whatever).
It's not like putting people in jail for drug use helps the problem even a little.
I'm going to borrow Samp's philosophy on this one and just be comfortable that the change is already in the air and sit back and not worry.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: People here are saying (with some medical backing, the depute rages on, as far as I can tell) that addiction is involuntary...
<nitpick> More accurately, that a predisposition toward addiction has biological factors involved, and is not entirely a matter of choice. </nitpick>
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am advocating more than just decriminalizing. We need to provide resources to help people as well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: At worst I was doing the same thing wrong as you...assuming...but unlike you I had the decency to make them questions, and apologize for asking biased questions, instead of just lecture based on assumption.
So I should do what you do, and pretend that I'm not stating my assumptions by "asking questions?" You think everyone here is so stupid that they can't tell you aren't "asking questions" at all? Are you so out of touch with the way that you sound that you think "asking questions" excuses you from the base assumptions that your "questions" betray, because they're only "questions?" Do have any idea how obvious that is?
I'm just asking questions... right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
SM: Good nitpick (seriously)
Sette: I'm for that too.
Orincoro: I like you, let's be friends.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I've long believed that the other side of the coin of freedom is responsibility...in other words, you can't be free if you aren't responsible for yourself.
And what I am saying is that you can't assume that everyone has the same freedom that you or I might.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes, but, even stipulating that some people do have a biological predisposition for addiction, what of the people who simply do make bad choices for bad reasons...and then society tells them it's not their fault, they have a disease...which they don't...and instead of challenging them to try and improve their lives and take responsibility they are told they are victims, much like a cancer victim, and they need medical help...(and sure, that point they probably do)...but after all that, they never learn how to make good decisions and go back on the pipe or needle, because after all, it's a disease, and they have no control over it, so why try?
My point is this attitude can cause damage if not tempered with encouraging people to take responsibility for their actions.
Oh, and a juicy little tidbit from my second link (emphasis mine):
quote:Leshner and Volkow view addiction in terms of disease, because the brain of the addict is fundamentally different from that of a non-addict. Where they might agree with the non-disease camp is at the beginning of a person’s experience with drugs. When a person uses heroin, for example, at the beginning there is no particular change in brain chemistry. But as the person continues to use, that’s when the changes occur. That’s the “metaphorical switch” Leshner talks about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Hey, you with the rocks on her chest. Yeah, you. No, I am not going to help you. If I do, you won't learn to make better choices. Get those rocks moved yourself. Take responsibility. Yeah, that not being able to breath isn't fooling anyone. Oh, you're dead? Well, it's your own fault so no sympathy from me, missy."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
"Hey, you with the rocks on her chest, I'll help you get those off. For next time, this is a rock slide area, see the sign? I'm awefull sorry you have these rocks on your chest...but have you ever heard of cross word puzzles, oh, yes, they are way more fun and safer then standing under rock slides. Your welcome, so glad I could help."
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Stone_Wolf_, I am reading the thread and came across the DSM-IV reference. Yes, it absolutely true that "addiction" is not defined.
There are definitions for disorders of substance use, though: namely, "substance abuse" and "substance dependency." The latter is what is often meany by "addiction" in the colloquial usage. This is a thorny nest of issues, but the key point for this discussion is (I think) that disorders of problematic substance use are indeed defined and addressed in the medical literature, one way or the other.
I'll post more on this when I have time.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: "Hey, you with the rocks on her chest, I'll help you get those off. For next time, this is a rock slide area, see the sign? I'm awefull sorry you have these rocks on your chest...but have you ever heard of cross word puzzles, oh, yes, they are way more fun and safer then standing under rock slides. Your welcome, so glad I could help."
To continue this analogy- for an addict, the problem is they live/work/etc under the rock slide and simply saying stop being there isn't feasible. They have no where else to go. So, yeah, we got the rocks off this time, but the problem isn't gone. And since the rock slide is the only place they know to work and get food, odds are, they'll be needing help again and again, until the actual symptom is taken care of.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That sets aside the question, too, of whether or not their parents stood under rockslides, and most of their friends and acquaintances, and that most of the warnings not to stand under rockslides came from cheesy, easily dismissed school programs such as 'Just Don't Stand Under Rockslides!'
We're not getting over the problem this country has has with tobacco by just telling smokers, "Psh, just will your way off that nic addiction, and don't start in the first place, so there won't be a problem."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh god... this analogy is seriously tortured. It's a disease. Just think of it like cancer. In fact, think of it as a particularly aggressive form of cancer, because it has a survival rate lower than many.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Forgive me if I reserve my sympathy for non self inflicted injuries.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)