There's No Urban-Rural Divide On One Thing: Drugs

[btrswiet7u4ia]

I wouldn't attack my self by saying addiction is a weakness of character. I know that it's not. It doesn't discriminate, and I believe most addicts are genetically predisposed to have an 'addictive' personality. Anybody can become addicted to drugs, alcohol, food, sex you name it. Its really a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mentally, emotionally, or physically.

I guess what I was trying to get at is the fact that addiction can't be treated like other diseases. It's more of a manageable condition than a disease. Or a mental condition. I personally don't feel like it would be morally right of me to excuse my addiction on the basis that it's a disease. I have some amount of control over it. And because most diseases are not able to be controlled by the person suffering I feel like I would be doing them wrong. I don't want to put myself in the same boat as kids with leukemia. It would feel immoral to me.
Its a mental condition, a disorder more than it is a disease.

 

[btrswiet7u4ia]

I think the whole "drugs bring destruction" argument is purely analogous to the "guns kill people" argument. People kill people (using guns). People destroy things (using drugs). Objects don't do things.

People like to blame their actions on objects. (or other people) It's been going on since the beginning of time...

 

[AphexAcid93]

This is a complete fallacy. Addiction is not a curable illness.
Hence talk of mandatory Naltrexone injections/implants coming from people who still believe addiction isn't a disease but a weakness of character. Makes me feel filthy thinking about such people.

A-fucking-Men, brother!

And congrats Capt.Heroin, you're truely an inspiration for the rest of us, still trying, man! keep up the fantastic work.