posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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>
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am advocating more than just decriminalizing. We need to provide resources to help people as well.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
"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."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Hard to see how I missed it.
