sillycybe
Bluelighter
Tis kin to saying masturbation is a disease.
and by that logic......... i have a chronic disease
and by that logic......... i have a chronic disease
Last edited by a moderator:
-
The Dark Side 💕 Welcome Guest 💕
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules Notable Threads Urgent Hotlines Bereavement Mindfulness Suicide Support Anger Management -
TDS Moderators: AlphaMethylPhenyl | paranoid android
Is addiction a disease?
- Thread starter sushii
- Start date
Chronik Fatigue
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 5,735
Same 
Ximot
Bluelighter
/\ if you think your excessive masturbation interferes with your life, then no doubt it is, by definition, a dis-ease. There is such a thing as sex addiction. Might even explain why you may have chonic fatigue 
drug addicts Pleasure is subjective: people find pleasure in harming themselves, murdering others, etc. For myself, a mixture of opiates and benzodiazepines provides a consistently pleasurable experience. Your own subjective experiences with opiate addiction may have felt unpleasant to you, however we share different definitions of 'pleasure' and thusly you cannot win this argument.
It seems rather childish to demand an adult with a different opinion to "grow up", also. I'd rather not have flames in threads, thankyou. This is your only warning, Ximot. I'll edit your post for you.
%)
It seems rather childish to demand an adult with a different opinion to "grow up", also. I'd rather not have flames in threads, thankyou. This is your only warning, Ximot. I'll edit your post for you.
%)
dunwich
Bluelighter
Ximot said:
Uhhhhh...
WE SHOULD. We dont need to but we SHOULD. Instead of jail, nurse em.
Ximot said:
So your depression wasnt a disease either eh?
Ximot said:
LOL you put a negative spin on people helping others regardless of circumstance. Thats called true kindness.
We SHOULD help people that dont "deserve" it. Who deserves what is just an opinion. What if you got "addicted" to depression again? I didnt think such a thing was possible but shit, if you relaps back into depression should you be helped? I guess not, since you destroyed all the positive effect of the help you got. Regardless...
CHOOSE to become addicted again? Do they really choose in full? Usually not. Their choice to use is in great part influenced by a PHYSICAL condition in their brains...a disease...called addiction. A choice to relapse is also usually influenced by depression, another diease. And once an addict, always one.
I guess i chose to tear into X rather than to tear into everyone who already made a statement which I believe to be ignorant in this thread.
In any case, I find the level of miseducation about drugs and addiction in this thread nauseating.
MR Candyslut
Greenlighter
sushii said:
I think this is a great thread, and wanted to make a decent reply to it yesterday but was already running late for the Peaches Concert (sorry, i am namedropping PS i got to touch her leg. w00t).
I, for one, certainly do not subscribe to the disease model in its entirety, and for that matter, i find any scientific theory that supports a biologically deterministic argument is incredibly naive and quite limited. I understand the disease model allows for some environmental factors to contribute to this 'addict' disease, but i certainly think the model, overall, places import on DNA as the major cause of addiction. To me, it is just the whole nature/nurture debate all over again, that if i recall from my psych electives, is one of the biggest debates within psychology.
Within that same debate, i think the answer lies within a theory that has a mixture of both biological and environmental factors. But, i must say, in terms of addiction, i place far more import on environmental factors such as early development, family structures, education and individual choice etc as the main factors that create an addictive personality.
That is not to say I think addiction is as simple as choice, either. I immensely dislike it when stupid people construct the argument in the context of choice, as if this somehow implies that not using/stopping drug abuse is as simple as saying no (ala Nancy Regan 8)). I definitely think an addictive personality / behaviours exist, but i think they are constructed through environmental/societal factors, rather than initially being created by some flawed DNA structure. This is not to discount the very plausible theory that certain personalities and traits, such as impulsiveness, may be more prone to addiction because i think that is highly likely. However, as to whether a group of certain personality trait/s equate to a specific disease such as addiction,is in my opinion, unlikely. Plus, then we have to talk about whether personalities are biological and/or environmental and that could go on all day.
Give me a nice, boring law degree any day of the week
Last edited:
So diabetes is not a disease then? How about schizophrenia? How about PKU (don't even know what that is do you?). I have never met an addict who set out to become one nor have I met one who is happy about it. Your response is bullshit. Many people are born with genetic aborations that can be controlled by the consistent use of certain substances. Others can't. I suppose you don't consider mental illness a disease? How about depression? Need I go on. Think!
Not going to get into one of these things again.
MR Candyslut
Greenlighter
It is disturbing, to say the least, to read some people's posts and their thoughts on choice and addiction.
No one sets out to be an addict. It is a series of poor choices that an individual makes, but really, how much can we posit that that same choice is a free one? I think many, many people speak from their own middle class backgrounds when they talk about addicts making choices of their own 'free will' when they use illicit substances.
It may be a 'choice' in the pure sense of the word, but tell me, what type of 'choice' is it for a homeless, indigenous youth who has no job prospects to boot up heroin? Sure, he made a choice to use drugs. But really, i would too if i were him. To say there are other choices he could have made is to really make a value judgment from our own backgrounds and experiences.
I guess my point is that whilst i do not believe addiction is a disease, inherited biologically, i think it is just as dangerous (and idiotic) to put the impetus back on choice and free will. And perhaps the latter explanation is one based on our own liberal democratic political culture rather than anything else.
No one sets out to be an addict. It is a series of poor choices that an individual makes, but really, how much can we posit that that same choice is a free one? I think many, many people speak from their own middle class backgrounds when they talk about addicts making choices of their own 'free will' when they use illicit substances.
It may be a 'choice' in the pure sense of the word, but tell me, what type of 'choice' is it for a homeless, indigenous youth who has no job prospects to boot up heroin? Sure, he made a choice to use drugs. But really, i would too if i were him. To say there are other choices he could have made is to really make a value judgment from our own backgrounds and experiences.
I guess my point is that whilst i do not believe addiction is a disease, inherited biologically, i think it is just as dangerous (and idiotic) to put the impetus back on choice and free will. And perhaps the latter explanation is one based on our own liberal democratic political culture rather than anything else.
sushii
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,415
Sandyclut pretty much summed up my feelings on this. I don't wholly disagree with the disease model, but I think it's taken way too far at times and becomes uneccesarily deterministic - similarly, arguing that drug-taking behaviours can always be reduced to 'choice' and nothing more simplifies and misconstrues a fairly complex issue that is yet to be properly understood.
There's certainly evidence - for alcohol, at least - that addiction may have a genetic componant, so there is a basis for the disease model's premise that some individuals have a biological abnormality that results in a loss of control over alcohol or other substances. The problem lies in the tendency for individuals (or groups) to then assume that this genetic componant precludes the influence of social or environmental factors. It doesn't. And there's not a lot of evidence to support claims that the 'disease' is irreversible and incurable, leading ultimately to continued deterioration unless total abstinance is practiced.
I can certainly accept that, for whatever reasons, controlling substance use may be harder for some people than others - just as some individuals may have a vulnerability towards developing certain mental illnesses. It doesn't mean, however, that drug addiction is inevitable. It saddens me to see posts on this site where people claim to have no control at all over their drug use because 'an addictive personality runs in my family.'![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
The determinism of the disease model - or some applications of it, anyway - is where I feel it has some fairly negative implications for treatment. Taking responsibility for change and playing an active role in recovery is important, yet the notion of a 'disease' seems to lead people to thinking that the solution must be in some form of medical quick fix. No matter what biological or genetic factors may or may not be involved, the development of an addiction is always going to be influenced by environmental and personal factors as well, and these can also be used to aid recovery.
What's more, the fact that the disease model locates the problem of addiction squarely within the individual and their internal characteristics also detracts focus from these external factors. More broadly, I tend to think that primary prevention should be focussed on the interactions that exist between the individual and their environment that might be conducive to substance abuse - rather than waiting for some vulnerability to be 'discovered' and treated.
Still, having said all that, construing the problem purely as one of 'choice' or 'willpower' pisses me off. Just like the argument that mental illness is a choice as such (ie, the person 'likes' being depressed and just can't be bothered to 'snap out of it'), I find it a little offensive and contrary to much of the existing evidence. So....I guess I'm sitting on the fence a little with this one. I'm quite prepared to agree that there are factors beyond our control that may influence our desire to take drugs, but I think there's certainly a major role for choice as well. Of those factors beyond our control, I tend to concieve them as environmental rather than biological....but I wouldn't totally rule out the latter either.
There's certainly evidence - for alcohol, at least - that addiction may have a genetic componant, so there is a basis for the disease model's premise that some individuals have a biological abnormality that results in a loss of control over alcohol or other substances. The problem lies in the tendency for individuals (or groups) to then assume that this genetic componant precludes the influence of social or environmental factors. It doesn't. And there's not a lot of evidence to support claims that the 'disease' is irreversible and incurable, leading ultimately to continued deterioration unless total abstinance is practiced.
I can certainly accept that, for whatever reasons, controlling substance use may be harder for some people than others - just as some individuals may have a vulnerability towards developing certain mental illnesses. It doesn't mean, however, that drug addiction is inevitable. It saddens me to see posts on this site where people claim to have no control at all over their drug use because 'an addictive personality runs in my family.'
The determinism of the disease model - or some applications of it, anyway - is where I feel it has some fairly negative implications for treatment. Taking responsibility for change and playing an active role in recovery is important, yet the notion of a 'disease' seems to lead people to thinking that the solution must be in some form of medical quick fix. No matter what biological or genetic factors may or may not be involved, the development of an addiction is always going to be influenced by environmental and personal factors as well, and these can also be used to aid recovery.
What's more, the fact that the disease model locates the problem of addiction squarely within the individual and their internal characteristics also detracts focus from these external factors. More broadly, I tend to think that primary prevention should be focussed on the interactions that exist between the individual and their environment that might be conducive to substance abuse - rather than waiting for some vulnerability to be 'discovered' and treated.
Still, having said all that, construing the problem purely as one of 'choice' or 'willpower' pisses me off. Just like the argument that mental illness is a choice as such (ie, the person 'likes' being depressed and just can't be bothered to 'snap out of it'), I find it a little offensive and contrary to much of the existing evidence. So....I guess I'm sitting on the fence a little with this one. I'm quite prepared to agree that there are factors beyond our control that may influence our desire to take drugs, but I think there's certainly a major role for choice as well. Of those factors beyond our control, I tend to concieve them as environmental rather than biological....but I wouldn't totally rule out the latter either.
B9
Bluelight Crew
Much of the problems that are seen in modern societies are not seen in the "stone age" tribal cultures ,of which few still exist!
The problems come from alienation on subtle levels ~ the ancient tribal system bound people together so tightly we cannot imagine it!
The need for self preservation gathering food being strong enough and large enough in number to protect and survive !
Today the international message is "undercut your neighbor(stab him in the back) do better than the next man ~ obey the law ~ what do you do with all this spare energy/time ~ and comparative aloneness ??? Well some achieve and consume and ego feed !
In the past ~ way back for hundreds of thousands of years humankind lived radically differently ! Our minds have become unprepared for these changes which are taking place at an incredible pace ~ now you are unsuccessful if you do not achieve XYZ by whenever (seen by society as this and many individuals)
Lacking deep closeness of other humans the lack of needing other humans, we have services now, not KIN !
Intend to post a link to another post I feel may have some relevance upon what it is I am attempting to convey .
The link I see in it is the idea of people developing as a communal tight small bunch with common core centres ~ if i am correct then (perhaps originally we came from one creature ? ,creationists go swim in a lake) then much of the deepest most inaccessible (sub emotions I'll label them ) are commonly held ~ physiological/social/psychological/cultural parameters are also very strong influences !
Bottom line ~ we don't really care if someone else gets way out of line these days plenty more to take there place and they are much more dispensable than they used to be tribally ! Added to the desire for the perfect, the aspiration of so many with modern comms ,advertising designed by psychological parameters ! The day of looking after the tribe has gone ! Now is the time to rape any member of the tribe to make oneself more like the heroes they wish to be ~ very sad ~ not all fall for this ~ but it's increasingly difficult not be ensnared in the technological web !
Just a theory ~ addiction is mainly psychological in nature ~ the psyche has changed radically, th individual is valued less ?(see the vicious circle ?) and on ! Not a disease but a predisposition within certain parameters whose boundaries increase exponentially it seems at times !
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=4733928&postcount=48
The problems come from alienation on subtle levels ~ the ancient tribal system bound people together so tightly we cannot imagine it!
The need for self preservation gathering food being strong enough and large enough in number to protect and survive !
Today the international message is "undercut your neighbor(stab him in the back) do better than the next man ~ obey the law ~ what do you do with all this spare energy/time ~ and comparative aloneness ??? Well some achieve and consume and ego feed !
In the past ~ way back for hundreds of thousands of years humankind lived radically differently ! Our minds have become unprepared for these changes which are taking place at an incredible pace ~ now you are unsuccessful if you do not achieve XYZ by whenever (seen by society as this and many individuals)
Lacking deep closeness of other humans the lack of needing other humans, we have services now, not KIN !
Intend to post a link to another post I feel may have some relevance upon what it is I am attempting to convey .
The link I see in it is the idea of people developing as a communal tight small bunch with common core centres ~ if i am correct then (perhaps originally we came from one creature ? ,creationists go swim in a lake) then much of the deepest most inaccessible (sub emotions I'll label them ) are commonly held ~ physiological/social/psychological/cultural parameters are also very strong influences !
Bottom line ~ we don't really care if someone else gets way out of line these days plenty more to take there place and they are much more dispensable than they used to be tribally ! Added to the desire for the perfect, the aspiration of so many with modern comms ,advertising designed by psychological parameters ! The day of looking after the tribe has gone ! Now is the time to rape any member of the tribe to make oneself more like the heroes they wish to be ~ very sad ~ not all fall for this ~ but it's increasingly difficult not be ensnared in the technological web !
Just a theory ~ addiction is mainly psychological in nature ~ the psyche has changed radically, th individual is valued less ?(see the vicious circle ?) and on ! Not a disease but a predisposition within certain parameters whose boundaries increase exponentially it seems at times !
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=4733928&postcount=48
Last edited:
Ximot
Bluelighter
So your depression wasnt a disease either eh?
/\ yes, it was. But I am more or less healed. More or less.
LOL you put a negative spin on people helping others regardless of circumstance. Thats called true kindness.
/\ I don't. Can you not read?
... a PHYSICAL condition in their brains...a disease...
/\ Not all diseases are of a physical nature in my book. and if you truly believe that it's all physical, then by all means do - but I don't. If my chemicals are all wrong then the reason for that may well be how I process my world. And not vice-veresa. Again, that is what I believe, based on my personal experience with adapting the way I process my world.
And once an addict, always one.
Yeah yeah. The best way to shun responsibility. I relapse because that's the way it is, I read it somewhere, it must be true. Don't give me that, I don't buy it.
What if you got "addicted" to depression again? I didnt think such a thing was possible but shit, if you relaps [sic] back into depression should you be helped? I guess not, since you destroyed all the positive effect of the help you got. Regardless...
Bloody hell. You know next to nothing about human psychology, imho. certainly not about depression. Did you know that one can be addicted behaviorally as much as chemically? Sex addicts, emotion addicts, gambling addicts... it's all the same chemical reaction in the brain, in the reward center... same as with opiates, cocaine, whatever it is... that's the nature of addiction. Whatever floats your boat will get you off.... it's all because addicts run away from some uncomfortable aspect within.... it's escapism, and it can become compulsive.
Yeah, if I relapse back into depression I sure hope I can find my own way out. I have done, again for years and I have always found my own way out in recent years. if the going gets tough I sure hope I can get help... but if I keep going down down down and start not even trying to actually get better and just remain negative as soon as the help is goneand indulge my moods instead of doing somethign the fuck about it, then who am i to ask for help? help with what???
And regarding the nursing of addicts, maybe i didn't express myself very well. What I meant was that I have no problem nursing someone who has a disease back to health - but not nursing them while they keep insisting on being addicts. You genuinely wanna get better? let me nurse you, I'm happy to help. But I won't nurse the junky who keeps shooting up and cries for help every time cold turkey is nigh. get real, I'm outta here, I don't wanna watch that. Nursing a junkie while they're still shooting up, possibly even giving them free dope at the taxpayer's expense would be like giving the gambler free credit... absurd, no?
I find the level of miseducation about drugs and addiction in this thread nauseating.
Then please vomit. I find your attitude as irritating. But if you want to know better, please do. The statement "once an addict, always an addict" doesn't exactly HELP anyone, now does it! Dunwich, if anyone in this thread has got a lot to learn, it's you. Sorry if I sound like I'm on a high horse here, but what you are saying is so ignorant imho.
/\ yes, it was. But I am more or less healed. More or less.
LOL you put a negative spin on people helping others regardless of circumstance. Thats called true kindness.
/\ I don't. Can you not read?
... a PHYSICAL condition in their brains...a disease...
/\ Not all diseases are of a physical nature in my book. and if you truly believe that it's all physical, then by all means do - but I don't. If my chemicals are all wrong then the reason for that may well be how I process my world. And not vice-veresa. Again, that is what I believe, based on my personal experience with adapting the way I process my world.
And once an addict, always one.
Yeah yeah. The best way to shun responsibility. I relapse because that's the way it is, I read it somewhere, it must be true. Don't give me that, I don't buy it.
What if you got "addicted" to depression again? I didnt think such a thing was possible but shit, if you relaps [sic] back into depression should you be helped? I guess not, since you destroyed all the positive effect of the help you got. Regardless...
Bloody hell. You know next to nothing about human psychology, imho. certainly not about depression. Did you know that one can be addicted behaviorally as much as chemically? Sex addicts, emotion addicts, gambling addicts... it's all the same chemical reaction in the brain, in the reward center... same as with opiates, cocaine, whatever it is... that's the nature of addiction. Whatever floats your boat will get you off.... it's all because addicts run away from some uncomfortable aspect within.... it's escapism, and it can become compulsive.
Yeah, if I relapse back into depression I sure hope I can find my own way out. I have done, again for years and I have always found my own way out in recent years. if the going gets tough I sure hope I can get help... but if I keep going down down down and start not even trying to actually get better and just remain negative as soon as the help is goneand indulge my moods instead of doing somethign the fuck about it, then who am i to ask for help? help with what???
And regarding the nursing of addicts, maybe i didn't express myself very well. What I meant was that I have no problem nursing someone who has a disease back to health - but not nursing them while they keep insisting on being addicts. You genuinely wanna get better? let me nurse you, I'm happy to help. But I won't nurse the junky who keeps shooting up and cries for help every time cold turkey is nigh. get real, I'm outta here, I don't wanna watch that. Nursing a junkie while they're still shooting up, possibly even giving them free dope at the taxpayer's expense would be like giving the gambler free credit... absurd, no?
I find the level of miseducation about drugs and addiction in this thread nauseating.
Then please vomit. I find your attitude as irritating. But if you want to know better, please do. The statement "once an addict, always an addict" doesn't exactly HELP anyone, now does it! Dunwich, if anyone in this thread has got a lot to learn, it's you. Sorry if I sound like I'm on a high horse here, but what you are saying is so ignorant imho.
Last edited:
Ximot
Bluelighter
MR Candyslut said:
I agree, and I am one of those people I guess. I did relativise what i said at first in a later post anyway - social factors do play a role. But unless the person started as a fairly young teenager I really do think they asked for trouble they should have known about. All it takes to see where the abuse of certain substances tends to lead to for many people is to open one's eyes and look around.
I'm all for kindness, don't get me wrong. I'm all for help. But there comes a point when a person is so obviously beyond any help from the outside I truly believe the only help they can get is FROM THEMSELVES. Some support from others around them (people or some institution) in that case is obviously very beneficial and thus desirable. But unless the person is willing to help themselves, just forget it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
Ever been to a meditation retreat? if not, what do you know about how one CAN gain insight into one's though processes and how one IS indeed responsible for one's thought processes. If one isn't, then who is? Are we robots? Do robots have the right to voe? (sorry, I'm winding people up again with my borderline fascist remarks but I like provocation, it tends to trigger strong emotions, accelerates processes, might bring about change)
Ximot
Bluelighter
zophen said:
Nice post. food for thought and I agree that a key reason why we ache is due to the way we live together as a society. I do wonder whether it really was all so much better way back when. I dunno. I agree that the way it is now, a totally free market and who gives a fuck about anyone, all that is a shame. maybe it all came with money. have none and you're fucked, have it and realise it's not gonny make you happy but rather increases fear. catch-22
I also think the reason why most of us like to live in families is that humans are very selective in who they're nice to and who they're indifferent to or even aggressive towards. Human nature is pretty nasty and it requires much spiritual work to counter that animal nature, tostimulate the growth of our nobility potential. So... in the meantime we need families as a safe haven to protect us from the harsh reality of most other humans out there. When, in reality, we're no better than them... if we think we are, who are we fooling?
if we were all noble and if we loved unconditionally, perhaps we wouldn't need family or special friends... allies in a nasty world full of evil people ... "don't talk to strangers" - whwo wasn't told that as a kid?
B9
Bluelight Crew
Needing technology means we need close people less ~ alienation ~ loneliness ~ neediness ~ becoming a number ~ all contribute to the load, then one day the straw that breaks the camels back !
Nothing wrong with technology just the way GREED /LUST for power utilises it !
Are we headed for Damnation alley ?
Revolutionary changes are needed for both enviromental and societal reasons !
I note people taking the piss at times out of a certain SLR poster (who is eccentric yes), but has the sig, myspace i think , along the lines of money being evil , well in itself it's innoccuous like all drugs ~ but systems that are so simply abusable need taking down ~ lots of small independent states etcetera are more resilient as an organism than one or three big ones ~ interdependence no way ~ short cut to WORLD DOMINATION ~ independence = probably strife discontent etcetera ~ safety or freedom ~ CHOOSE !
Nothing wrong with technology just the way GREED /LUST for power utilises it !
Are we headed for Damnation alley ?
Revolutionary changes are needed for both enviromental and societal reasons !
I note people taking the piss at times out of a certain SLR poster (who is eccentric yes), but has the sig, myspace i think , along the lines of money being evil , well in itself it's innoccuous like all drugs ~ but systems that are so simply abusable need taking down ~ lots of small independent states etcetera are more resilient as an organism than one or three big ones ~ interdependence no way ~ short cut to WORLD DOMINATION ~ independence = probably strife discontent etcetera ~ safety or freedom ~ CHOOSE !
Last edited:
asking what a disease is resembles the paradox between love and romance or religion and spirituality, for some its splitting hairs for others they are worlds apart. I know people if they do somethuing 3 times they think they have crossed over to another addiction are disease so transferable or all including. I think classifying a repetitive behaviour is a person choice and usually relates to the solution, treatment or judgement. Its only the active addict who generally doesnt view there desire to follow through with their comopulsions as a disease.
MR Candyslut
Greenlighter
Ximot said:I agree, and I am one of those people I guess. I did relativise what i said at first in a later post anyway - social factors do play a role. But unless the person started as a fairly young teenager I really do think they asked for trouble they should have known about. All it takes to see where the abuse of certain substances tends to lead to for many people is to open one's eyes and look around.
I'm all for kindness, don't get me wrong. I'm all for help. But there comes a point when a person is so obviously beyond any help from the outside I truly believe the only help they can get is FROM THEMSELVES. Some support from others around them (people or some institution) in that case is obviously very beneficial and thus desirable. But unless the person is willing to help themselves, just forget it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
Ever been to a meditation retreat? if not, what do you know about how one CAN gain insight into one's though processes and how one IS indeed responsible for one's thought processes. If one isn't, then who is? Are we robots? Do robots have the right to voe? (sorry, I'm winding people up again with my borderline fascist remarks but I like provocation, it tends to trigger strong emotions, accelerates processes, might bring about change)
Ximot, for the record, i agree with much of what you have said within this post. I think it it integral for a person who has a drug addiction to actually want to stop drugs themselves. And whilst i have not been to a meditation retreat (New Age gimmicks have never been my thing), i have battled for 3 years with an ice addiction and am all too familiar with how thought processes and self-responsibility are crucial to successfully stopping drugs.
I have also had numerous people try and help me when i was a train wreck, and to no avail because i never wanted to help myself. I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say that help can only start with the individual.
However, what i do not like is when people make comments such as
and other such comments. In my experience, addiction is something that typically affects people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. I understand that is a generalisation, but there is a causal link between poverty and drug addiction. And whilst i do not know the backgrounds of most Bluelighters, i can bet you that when we talk about addicts 'knowing better', we are most definitely speaking from our own bourgeois experiences with drug use/abuse. For the most part, addiction is a public health issue that in my experience has a greater impact on people from lower class backgrounds. Accordingly, there are issues of education, access to support and a plethora of other issues that most of us here on Bluelight, take for granted.
As i said before, saying that 'someone should know better' is really quite an absurd statement to make, and one rooted in our own prejudices and experience. The fact is, for many people, they have not been able to 'know better' for so many different reasons. I find it a callous and selfish remark for people to make because it essentially is a value judgment someone is making about such a subjective and complex issue. I am not saying that we should absolve individuals of the need to take responsibility for their actions (and their consequences) but simply that telling others they should know better etc is in no way helpful, and really quite idiotic.
Last edited:
Ximot
Bluelighter
meditation has been a tool for self-exploration for thousands of years and depending on what techniques one learns, what one learns is in no way "new age" - quite the opposite actually.
I used ice fairly extensively for a year of my life and had my own periods of compulsive use and all that entails and i guess now that it has become a rather unimportant thing in my life if I now called ice a mere "gimmick" you might disagree. So be careful when you label something a "gimmick" just because to you it is meaningless and thus you reject it.
I used ice fairly extensively for a year of my life and had my own periods of compulsive use and all that entails and i guess now that it has become a rather unimportant thing in my life if I now called ice a mere "gimmick" you might disagree. So be careful when you label something a "gimmick" just because to you it is meaningless and thus you reject it.
alucard369
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 53
No Because Its Curable