Choices are not diseases
Printable View
Choices are not diseases
As far as illegal drugs and the law, the law should deal with it as the law was broken and punishment should be applied the law breaker. I think you do have people that can use recreationally and some others that can not control their usage once they start. On the psychological side I think fishing can be the same way. Some can get their fix in an hour and some could fish for days and still not get their fix. This may be the very reason why the #1 commandment is Thou shalt have no other gods before me. If we could keep and uphold this commandment everything else would not become an obsession or addiction.
There's another confounding factor to the "It's in your genes" answer. Geneticists have shown that even though one might have a gene that predisposes a person to certain conditions, environmental factors can "flip a switch" and turn that gene off so that it does not have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff La
Please, not yet....I'm still screwing for virginity! :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cestratton
The question as it is presented isn't open to the facts of whether there was a *choice* that was NOT biological.
As for addiction. Addiction is generally coined when a person engages in something that that is rewarding to them (internally), to a level that compels them to repeatedly act out the behavior, even though there may very well be detrimental consequences. It need not include "illicit substances", as it can also include behavior such as gambling, working out, and of course sex, which is INDEED why some end up "turning gay", or at the very least, participating in acts that would not otherwise be the social and/or societal norm.
Scientific studies however have shown that addictive substances AND behaviors do indeed have a neurobiological link, which activates reward/reinforcement activities and of course can increase dopamine output in the brain.
That said, I don't believe we have so much an "opioid crisis", rather that we have people with a freaking drug problem. The SAME people that have always looked for that 'high', that 'escape', that thing that makes them stand out in a crowd even.
Case in point. My brother was 11 years younger than myself. Back in 99 when our mother became ill with cancer, she was put on narcotics. He took care of her. Now he did an EXCELLENT job of that, better than any health care provider would/could have. At first it wasn't so bad for mom, and it was 3 years before she really started getting bad. (Even though they really didn't give her 6 weeks.) Then as time went by we had a nurse that'd stop by 3 times a week, and one day I get this call, the nurse supervisor was in the house and she was dumping all the drugs in the toilet. My brother was GOING NUTS! He was screaming and raving and the supervisor had to call the local PD. So I get there and calm things down, and he was saying he couldn't take care of her (mom) because they were throwing all her meds away.
Come to find out... her 'counts' were off. The supervisor felt that someone was misusing them, or giving her too much, so the started over.
Fast forward 5~6 years, Mom had been gone since 03. I get a call, my brother is in an ER, circling the drain. I drive 2 hours to get there, walk in and looked at him, shaking my head. Looked at the nurse and said "Let me guess, drugs right? Probably prescription narcotics."
You see.... he was always *THAT GUY*. In school when the fellas would go get a 12 pack and say go watch a game. He had to have a 12 pack for himself. Get a bottle of Jack to have some Jack-n-Coke, and he'd get a bottle and start drinking out of the bottle (till it was gone). He was always *that guy*.
But the rest of the story is ALSO back in 98 I was put on pain management. I was given some of the meds that my mom was given. Then a couple years later, all of them, and then some. But I WAS NOT DYING! I took some, as I needed them, but never all of them, and never more than I needed. At one time they were giving me MORE than what my mother was allowed and I was like "Look, this is too much. I know I'm in pain, and I know all this helps, but I can't take all this stuff."
Today I take less than I was taking 2 years ago, which is less than I was taking 5 years ago. There are days that I can take ½ of one tablet of short acting pain med (hydromorphone), no time release pain med (oxymorphone), and no muscle relaxer at all (Soma, which I've been taking for 43 years off and on). Other days I might have to take 3 short acting ones in 24 hours. Plus of course Tylenol. There will be weeks that I don't take ANY of the 10 mg time release oxymorphone, and others where I take it 3~5 days a week (maybe one, maybe twice a day). Every study, or doctor for that matter, will tell you that if you are on time release narcotics that you ALWAYS take them, whether you need them or not. That is what stops you from having 'break through pain'. They tell you that you cannot stop taking them, and your body cannot physically take more or less. Guess MY BODY didn't get the memo! :laugh:
But what if you have OTHER ways of coping with your pain? What if you just don't GET 'high'? Or you don't LIKE to get 'high'?
I can honestly turn it on and off at will (the taking of the meds). The pain is always there, ALWAYS! After 4 back surgeries, needing likely at least 2 more, with multiple spine and nervous disorders I know there's not a cure. Yet I can go from working around the house to not being able to hardly walk at the flip of a coin. Good days, bad days, and sometimes bad WEEKS. I can go for a week and never leave the house at times. No rhyme or reason to the slipping of a disc, the pinching of a nerve. You learn to take what you're dealt.
Taking what you're dealt is EXACTLY what the OP's question is about.
Yet with all that, is the idea of taking "illicit substances" physical, social, physiological, biological, or psychological? For my brother... it was the latter. He seemed to never be able to get a handle on running away from his problems. Or actually MAKING UP problems. Yet he didn't HAVE any problems! All his... were made up. Especially as my Mom paid for everything in his life. From buying him cars, a home, raising his kids, you name it. His problem was once she passed, the "money train" had ended. THAT made it psychological.
For me... it's all physical. I take what I can, when I can. Be that pain, or be that meds. Of course lets not kid ourselves here.... there is a fine line between abuse, addiction, and dependence. I'd have to say that if anything, the latter would be the closest to my daily situation. Yet in a clinical term, I still don't fall within those parameters as a purely dependent situation would require not only daily participation of a given stimuli (IE narcotics, sex, gambling, smoking etc.), but it would remain at a given level, and it increases with use. Yet it's clear with my situation, being on pain management for over 20 years now, that I have the ability to 'take' or 'not take' the drugs.
Of course now I'm allowed 3 short acting a day, then a single 6~8 hour time release, and that's it. Pray tell how does one 'manage' pain over 24 hours with a 6 hour medication? Yet for YEARS I was given a patch that lasted 72 hours, with zero ill effects.I was literally told back over 2 years ago when they REALLY started cracking down that if I needed 'help' with my pain that perhaps I have a drink *with my friggin' narcotics!* ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!! I've since had TWO more back surgeries just over 8 months apart in 2017 and 2018. Scheduled for another MRI that I've been putting off for thoracic surgery btw.New studies however have shown that with all these ever increasing rules, regulations, laws, etc. regarding the Oh My God "opioid crisis" especially with the CDC guidelines now in effect and programs such as the PDMA here in Georgia..... that people with REAL intractable pain are now being forced to live with, that what can, and HAS happened can indeed be a situation that can lead to death, just not by opioids (which makes the politicians feel oh so much better) if for no other reason that individuals feel they have no other option. I was literally told back over 2 years ago when they REALLY started cracking down that if I needed 'help' with my pain that perhaps I have a drink *with my friggin' narcotics!* ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!
With all that....
That is a SAD state of affairs my friends!
So which answer is that? When it comes to government oversight and lack of choice in ones on healthcare?Seems it is none of the above diagnoses. Certainly not physiological, not biological, not psychological.
Yet at the end of the day... it may very strongly fall under a philosophical heading. :yesnod: :wink:
And if you think psychological discussions can get uh.... 'wordy'. Don't EVEN start towards a philosophical heading. That was my daughters thing in college, philosophy and law. Lots and LOTS of philosophical business and philosophical legal ethics papers. *yaaaawwwwnnnn*
The girl is a bit of a...…. well..... over thinker! :wink:
Someone who has cancer did not have a choice. Someone who is addicted had a choice to start. When you have a disease you dont get a choice. Me and my wife talk about this all the time sorry if I offend anyoine but im not buying the disease thing its a choice to just stop. If you had cancer and had a choice to stop it what would you do. You would stop it of course. Problem may be that the penalty is a slap on the wrist therefore the risk does not outway the benefit (getting high of course being the benefit). Charge them higher taxes to help pay for law enforcement salaries. I will just bail out now. Sorry if I offended anyone.
From a law enforcement standpoint I dont believe it's a disease. It's an addiction. What blows my mind is people know what it does to their bodies yet they continue to do it.
Holy crap Jeff Hahn, remind me never to get in an argument with you. That is quite a dissertation and if not plagiarized is profound. I agree with almost all you said, that is the parts I understand. What I have derived from some of it is once the path to addiction has been taken it isn't possible to determine if there was a predilection of an individual being susceptible to drug abuse.
Since nobody can tell, the question addresses a moot point.
This is just my opinion, so don't shoot me, but I do think that certain people have a more addictive personality. By that I mean they can easily become addicted to something, be it drugs, alcohol, gambling, or fish bait collecting. I am one of those who has a a addictive personality, but I can control it to a fault. I can easily just drink one beer a night to calm the days aggravations, but racing dirt bikes was my drug of choice and I dumped tens of thousands of dollars doing it. I race injured and would do anything that wasn't illegal to get enough money to race on sunday. I since have stopped racing, but there isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish I was back out there, and I know if I still raced it would be a divorced single man, because there was not time for anything or anyone else.
I am post some more questions for more thought provoking discussions.
Wa waaaaa wa what, hold on... I'm sorry I feel asleep reading Dixie Chicken's reply... Dan :wink:
Is that an addiction or a passion, something you really enjoy. I know quite well that if I don't manage myself I could get addicted to both gambling and alcohol. At one time I would have qualified as being an alcoholic. I came to the realization that it was affecting others and wasn't really beneficial so I quit. For those who continue on without regard for how it's affecting others, well they are the typical selfish individual they were before they became addicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdub176
We very well know that science is not exact, those environmental factors are referred to by non scientific individuals as, making a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hahn
Bobh4656... I understand that being prescribed meds for pain can cause the addiction. I'm talking about the user who took it upon themselves to start in the first place. And I understand that some people are more prone to be addicted to the drug. I work in corrections and see addicts everyday. I have conversations with them. Very few go into rehab to get clean. The majority of them go into rehab to get out of jail. I guess I'm jaded due to what I see every day. I'd rather that the money go to people with cancer who never had a choice. I've had friends and family lose their house because of medical bills. Even with health insurance the bills add up. I can go on but I won't. Y'all have a good day.
Not plagiarized...I cited my sources! The one thing I didn’t go into detail on was Joseph Gusfield’s work. He argued that prohibition was the last great “hurrah” for rural, middle class, Protestant, native born values. Those folks were strongly anti-alcohol and prohibition was enacted as a reaction to the values represented by recent (late 1800’s to early 1900’s) immigrants from Western Europe. Those folks came from societies were alcohol consumption was accepted as a major part of their culture...Irish, Italian, etc. Those immigrants at that time were obviously foreign born, lower class, predominatly Catholic, and living in urban areas. The situation was truly a class of cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by billnorman1
I do think that Gusfield underestimated the power of his argument. While the cultural divisions represented by religion (at least between Protestants and Catholics) have diminished significantly, there are still major cultural divides based on foreign vs native born (the current debate over immigration is a great example), class divisions, and particularly urban vs rural values.
In fact, I think that the rural vs urban based value conflict is just as powerful today as it was 100 years ago. As an illustration, look at the map of the US broken down by how counties voted in the last several Presidential elections. It’s clear that we still have a major rural vs urban distinction in values. That distinction in values underlies a variety of current political issues like gay rights, abortion, tobacco use, abolition of the electoral college, etc. The term “deplorables” was used by those who hold urban values as a derogatory term for those who hold values rooted in rural culture, just as “metrosexuals” is a term used by those with rural values to describe those who hold urban values. Maybe the meme showed Phil Robertson and Pajama Boy best captured this rural vs urban division.
Jamie,
I'm in total agreement with you. I've been on Rx meds for pain myself but I didn't become an addict. Actually it amazes me why anyone would become an addict but they do. I have no idea why?
I wish there were a simple solution to this problem but I fear the problem will continue to persist for a long time.
If you understood why, you'd be an addict too. Kind of works that way. Doesn't mean it's not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobh4656
I don't sleep with other men, have no desire. But plenty of men do it and I know it to be true.
Science isn't about personal choices, it's about studying a group, stimulus, environment, outcomes.
Over and over, we've proven that addiction is genetically influenced and a true disease.
Yes, choices are made, but that doesn't lessen the outcome or remove the need for intervention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TampaJim
The above bolded quote is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. There are studies calling it a disease and there are just as many disabusing that notion. As of today there is no definitive peer reviewed medical publication that has categorically concluded that addiction is an organic disease. It is theoretical conjecture at it's best. There are many who wish to classify it as such and their research tends to start with that conclusion and work it's way backward in an effort to prove it.
Most debilitating and often fatal diseases come upon you with no choice. Drug addiction starts with a poor one.
Like visiting your doctor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Basscatfrank
Unfortunately science and scientist will never admit some things can't be explained. Scientist main goal is to explain their basis of study. Saying you can't explain something is like admitting you have failed in your research. Coming up with a plausible thesis is making yourself look good while not admitting defeat. Until proven otherwise, which in many cases happens, your research is regarded as plausible. Many people choose to divest this information as fact, when and if it suits their ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basscatfrank