Can they quit on their own?

[Jhony5]

I think you should also know that any disease can't be caught. Diabetes, bi-polar, any number of things, alcoholism, are disease, and they can't be "caught". AIDS can be caught, but it's a virus. Mislabeled and mis-talked about. But still a virus. It drives me crazy when people talk about things with the wrong verbage and labeling.

And from your bird's eye view of addiction, you have proved nothing. Looking at the stats any number of reliable health organizations, which I don't have time for right now, would prove you wrong in a nano second. Just because you didn't have a problem with hard core drugs doesn't mean true addiction doesn't exsist. I don't have a penis, but that doesn't mean they don't exsist.

Let me put it to you like this. ADDICTION IS THE ONLY DISEASE THAT SOMEONE CAN DECIDE NOT TO HAVE ANYMORE! You can't decide not to have diabetes. You can't wake up and decide to quit having AIDS.


Bi-polar is more akin to addiction then any actual disease. Because its better labeled as a "condition". A disease is a sickness, with real ****ing symptoms. What are the symptoms of alcoholism? Blurred vision. Slurred speech. Impaired motor skills. Nausea. How does one acquire these symptoms? By being drunk. Do people wake up and say to themselves "oh noes, I'm drunk again. I'm having another drunkenness outbreak"? **** NO! You get drunk by having no self control and sticking a bottle of booze in your mouth and drinking it.

Statistics by health organizations are skewed and biased toward influencing people to feel they have no personal fault for their alcoholism because they have a disease. Thusly they should report immediately to their local clinic and pay $$$ to get themselves better. A perpetuation of the profit margin for the national alcoholism treatment centers of America. Ya, their all connected and they want you to believe you need their help to battle your "disease". Its a business.

 

[manicmonday]

Let me put it to you like this. ADDICTION IS THE ONLY DISEASE THAT SOMEONE CAN DECIDE NOT TO HAVE ANYMORE! You can't decide not to have diabetes. You can't wake up and decide to quit having AIDS.

Show my one reliable source, besides you saying so and your buddies waking up and saying so, that addiction is something you wake up and not have anymore? I have my Masters in Psychology, as a refresher to you as you have been gone awhile, so find me ONE, reliable source beside you say so, because it is a disease, it has symptoms and is treatable.

Bi-polar is more akin to addiction then any actual disease. Because its better labeled as a "condition".

Newsflash buddy, we aren't back in the 1800's where we talk about bi-polar in hushed tones and use words like "conditions". It's not an addiction, by your definition where one wakes up and says, hey, I'm not bi-polar anymore. I have no more syptoms, I'm cured. Doesn't work like that.

A disease is a sickness, with real ****ing symptoms. What are the symptoms of alcoholism? Blurred vision. Slurred speech. Impaired motor skills. Nausea. How does one acquire these symptoms? By being drunk. Do people wake up and say to themselves "oh noes, I'm drunk again. I'm having another drunkenness outbreak"? **** NO! You get drunk by having no self control and sticking a bottle of booze in your mouth and drinking it.

No, but in saying all this, you show your lack of understanding of the mind. You don't have a clear understanding of how the body and body are intertwined. You are on the same par with nazz****er, who I have chose to ignore, because of his ignorance and inability to learn farther.

Statistics by health organizations are skewed and biased toward influencing people to feel they have no personal fault for their alcoholism because they have a disease. Thusly they should report immediately to their local clinic and pay $$$ to get themselves better. A perpetuation of the profit margin for the national alcoholism treatment centers of America. Ya, their all connected and they want you to believe you need their help to battle your "disease". Its a business.

Conspiracy theorist much? Been talking to builder?

 

[Jhony5]

Show my one reliable source, besides you saying so and your buddies waking up and saying so, that addiction is something you wake up and not have anymore?

PFFFT!

We all have addictions, lady.

Caffeine. Porn. Food. Sex. Alcohol. Adrenaline. Sex. Marijuana. Theft. Sex.

You escaped my point entirely. There is no known disease in which one can decide for themselves not to have the symptoms of said disease.

Its a ****ing cop-out. "I can't help it....I have a disease. The treatment center says so". Ya your sick alright. Sick in your ****ing head because your a weak minded **** that can't say no to something thats obviously destroying you.

Its not the addiction itself that can be classified as a sickness. Its the mental defect called LACK OF SELF CONTROLISM.

it has symptoms and is treatable.

Treatable? HAHAHAHAHAHA OO AND HA HA! The one ****ing medical sickness thats "treatable" by simply deciding not to be sick anymore.

Newsflash buddy, we aren't back in the 1800's where we talk about bi-polar in hushed tones and use words like "conditions". It's not an addiction, by your definition where one wakes up and says, hey, I'm not bi-polar anymore. I have no more symptoms, I'm cured. Doesn't work like that.

You can call it bi-polar. You can call it a ham sandwich if ya want. I call it....being a ****ing nut job.

No, but in saying all this, you show your lack of understanding of the mind. You don't have a clear understanding of how the body and mind are intertwined.

I understand this perfect. What I said was spot-on. There is no such thing as an involuntary reflex that causes one to drink alcohol. Its a decision. A decision that can be controlled. PERIOD!

Conspiracy theorist much? Been talking to builder?

Its not a conspiracy. Its a business. Do you honestly think those multi-million dollar treatment facilities/companies want people to think they have it within themselves to stop drinking? Do you honestly think they dream of a day when they have cured all of this "disease" and now they have no job?

Why then? Why has alcoholism been deemed a medical condition by medical professionals? Ill tell ya why. INSURANCE!

INSURANCE

INSURANCE

INSURANCE = CASH FLOW

By recognizing addiction as a disease, they have secured their ability to bring in millions of dollars annually. All paid for by insurance.

 

[manicmonday]

PFFFT!




Treatable? HAHAHAHAHAHA OO AND HA HA! The one ****ing medical sickness thats "treatable" by simply deciding not to be sick anymore.

You can call it bi-polar. You can call it a ham sandwich if ya want. I call it....being a ****ing nut job.

And with this you prove that you are a uneducated lackey who refuses to learn anything but what his buddies tells him.

Thank you for telling me now, so I don't waste my time.

 

[Jhony5]

And with this you prove that you are a uneducated lackey who refuses to learn anything but what his buddies tells him.

Thank you for telling me now, so I don't waste my time.

Admitting defeat already? That was too easy.

I want a better opponent.

This is a ****ing debate forum. Not a friendly chat room. If ya want to make buddies with people and talk nice, go to myspace.com. Don't act like an easily offended woman and get all upset. ****ing debate, take the heat, or get you sweet little ass outta here. This is not the place for weak hearted debaters.

Instead of countering my point like an intelligent person, you want to try and insult my intelligence.

I noticed the only part of my previous post you choose to respond to was the one part in which I was just joking. Lighten up girl.

I know nothing about bi-polar syndrome, nor is that what we are discussing. What we are discussing is the classification of addiction as a disease. I say its not a sickness. Its a choice. Yes, if someone inundates their body with a chemical than physical dependency will result. There will be withdrawal symptoms. Because the abuser CHOSE to make himself sick this way. However, after a few days or possibly weeks of sobriety, the body is rid of its detoxification symptoms. Any relapse is caused by the individuals CHOICE to succumb to urge. We aren't talking about a virus. We aren't talking about a bacterial infestation. We aren't talking about an actual physical anomaly causing symptomatic responses. We are talking about people that haven't the courage nor the desire to thwart their addiction. People get high because it makes them feel good. NOT because they are actually sick. Convince me of otherwise.

Why don't ya gather up your considerable training in the field of psychology and use it to discuss what I had to say about the tie between the classification of addiction as a disease and the benefit, both to the "patient" and the treatment facility, of this classification as being a way to garnish insurance benefits?

 

[manicmonday]

This is a ****ing debate forum. Not a friendly chat room. If ya want to make buddies with people and talk nice, go to myspace.com. Don't act like an easily offended woman and get all upset.

You don't know me. I'm not upset, offended or hurt.

****ing debate, take the heat, or get you sweet little ass outta here. This is not the place for weak hearted debaters.

I asked you to bring facts, and you didn't. You stated your position, and then left. What's to debate after that? I can't refute you if you don't bring facts to the table in the first place. Isn't that how it works? I'm just a little woman, you might need to teach me.

Instead of countering my point like an intelligent person, you want to try and insult my intelligence.

It wasn't hard to do

I noticed the only part of my previous post you choose to respond to was the one part in which I was just joking. Lighten up girl.

Do your research, I don't joke about mental disease ever. Ever. You called it a nut job. Conversation over. It will happen every time. I didn't go to school for 6 years just in Psychology alone to listen to your psychobabble say "nut job". That's not a debate. It's also personal. I don't care if it's funny, if it's meant to be a joke, if you think I should lighten up. It's not funny now, it will never be funny. Read some of my posts on here. I have a sense of humor. Read me in shout. I have a sense of humor. Joke about mental disorders, diseases and "nut jobs" and the conversation is over. Debate over.

Why don't ya gather up your considerable training in the field of psychology and use it to discuss what I had to say about the tie between the classification of addiction as a disease and the benefit, both to the "patient" and the treatment facility, of this classification as being a way to garnish insurance benefits?

So far, Mr Jhony, your debate has been that addicted people are just using politically correct jargon for insurance companies to make money. I haven't seen you offer any evidence to this besides "me and my buddies". I asked you for some evidence to back you up, but you blew me off. But I again ask you for some. Am I up to speed with your inexperienced, uneducated, tunnel vision, if it didn't happen to me it can't happen to any body else train of thought?

 

[Jhony5]

I couldn't have said this better myself. Well, I guess I kinda did.

Alcoholism: A disease of speculation
"In 1976, the writer Ivan Illich warned in the book, Limits to Medicine, that 'the medical establishment has become a major threat to health'. At the time, he was dismissed as a maverick, but a quarter of a century later, even the medical establishment is prepared to admit that he may well be right. (Anthony Browne, April 14, 2002, the Observer)"

History and science have shown us that the existence of the disease of alcoholism is pure speculation. Just saying alcoholism is a disease, doesn't make it true. Nevertheless, medical professionals and American culture lovingly embraced the disease concept and quickly applied it to every possible deviant behavior from alcohol abuse to compulsive lecturing. The disease concept was a panacea for many failing medical institutions adding billions of dollars to the industry and leading to a prompt evolution of pop-psychology. Research has shown that alcoholism is a choice, not a disease, and stripping alcohol abusers of their choice, by applying the disease concept, is a threat to the health of the individual.

The disease concept oozes into every crevice of our society perpetuating harmful misinformation that hurts the very people it was intended to help. It is a backwards situation where the assumptions of a few were adopted as fact by the medical profession, devoid of supporting evidence. And soon after, the disease concept was accepted by the general public. With this said, visiting the history of the disease concept gives us all a better understanding of how and why all of this happened.

The disease concept originated in the 1800s with a fellow by the name of Dr. Benjamin Rush. He believed alcoholics were diseased and used the idea to promote his prohibitionist political platform. He also believed that dishonesty, political dissention and being of African-American decent were diseases. The "disease concept" was used throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s by prohibitionists and those involved in the Temperance Movement to further a political agenda. Prior to this time, the term alcoholic did not exist. Alcohol was freely consumed, but drunkenness was not tolerated. Many sociologists contribute its non-existence to the very stigma that the disease concept removes. In fact, "Despite an ardent search, however, temperance adherents never identified an account of a drunkard before the 1800s who reported that he has lost control of his drinking." (Stanton Peele "Diseasing of America" pg. 37) "Drunkenness was not so much seen as the cause of deviant behavior-in particular crime and violence- as it was construed as a sign that an individual was willing to engage in such behavior." (H.G. Levine, "The Good Creature of God and the Demon Rum," in Alcohol and Disinhibitition, eds. R. Room and G. Collins.) During this period of time social ties and family played a much more influential role in an individual's life. Therefore, deviant behaviors were undesirable and less likely to occur. It was not until industrialization began, when the importance of social and family ties diminished, that alcoholism became a problem. We now live in a society that encourages binge drinking as a social norm, but at the same time, we live in a society that discourages it.

The "recovery" community's adoption of the disease concept began with an early AA member named Marty Mann. Her efforts, combined with a somewhat dubious scientist named E.M. Jellinek, began national acceptance of the disease concept. It was Jellinek's "scientific" study that opened the door for the medical communities' support. E.M. Jellinek's study was funded by the efforts of Marty Mann and R. Brinkley Smithers. And, like so many other circumstances involving Jellinek and Marty Mann, the study was bogus if not outright fraudulent. The surveys he based his conclusions on were from a hand picked group of alcoholics. There were 158 questionnaires handed out and 60 of them were suspiciously not included. His conclusion was based on less than 100 hand picked alcoholics chosen by Marty Mann. Ms. Mann, of course, had a personal agenda to remove the stigma about the homeless and dirty alcoholic or "bowery drunk" in order to gain financial support from the wealthy. By removing the stigma, the problem becomes one of the general population, which would then include the wealthy. The first step was Jellinek publishing his findings in his book "The Stages of Alcoholism" which was based on the selective study. Later, E.M. Jellinek was asked by Yale University to refute his own findings. He complied. E.M. Jellinek's Stages of Alcoholism did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Early in the 20th Century, the validity of the disease concept was often debated in medical circles. However, in 1956 the American Medical Association (AMA) proclaimed alcoholism an "illness." Then, in 1966, the AMA proclaimed alcoholism a disease. The decision was wrapped in controversy. Historically, Marty Mann had her hand in much of this and manipulated information and doctors into agreeing with the disease concept. Marty Mann used her position as founder of the NCA (National Counsel for Alcoholism) to promote the disease concept through Jellinek and a somewhat clandestine relationship with the founder of the NIAAA (National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse) whose founder worked with Marty Mann during the institute's early development. The founder of NIAAA (R. Brinkley Smithers) was a major contributor to and promoter of the disease concept. It was his money that actually funded Jellinek's work at Yale. Smithers was also responsible for gaining insurance coverage for patients in treatment (hence the 28 day program). Smithers was certainly not altruistic in his efforts. At that time he had already launched a treatment program for which he was lobbying for insurance payments. Acceptance by the medical community was the only way this could happen; alcoholism had to be a medical problem in order for medical insurance to pay for programs. We can see the influence of these "advances" everyday in treatment programs. Today the treatment industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, with insurance paying the lion's share of the costs.

While it can be argued that Smithers's efforts played an important role, it was Jellinek's study that was such a monumental turning point for the supporters of the disease concept. The current disease paradigm was, in part, developed and promulgated by Jellinek and various other partial participants with personal agendas. Today, Jellinek's "Stages of the Alcoholic" is still widely used to diagnose substance abusers. But, these stages are based on a corrupt study that the author, himself, later refuted. Jellinek not only published a fraudulent study, he defrauded members of his academic community, and apparently lied about his educational background to gain acceptance. Nonetheless, it was Jellinek's "Stages of the Alcoholic" that led to diagnosing alcoholism as a disease and eventually to the medical acceptance of alcoholism as a disease. Astoundingly, the inception of the current disease and treatment paradigm is based on fraud.

While many advocate for its benefits, the disease concept has proven to be far more damaging to the substance abuser then anyone could have predicted. Therapists claim the disease concept helps the patient to understand the seriousness of [his/her] problems. But in reality, this idea has backfired. The disease concept strips the substance abuser of responsibility. A disease cannot be cured by force of will; therefore, adding the medical label transfers the responsibility from the abuser to caregivers. Inevitably the abusers become unwilling victims, and just as inevitably they take on that role. In retrospect then, the disease concept has effectively increased alcoholism and drug abuse. Furthermore, its only benefit has been vast monetary reward for the professionals' and governmental agencies responsible for providing recovery services. Specifically, it has not offered a solution for those attempting to stop abusive alcohol and drug use.

Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. interviewed 545 self-acknowledged substance abusers. Out of the 545, 454 of them had been to at least one conventional, disease-based treatment facility prior to the interview. Some had been to as many as 20 or more conventional, disease-based treatment facilities prior to the interview. Of the total 545 substance abusers, 542 never thought they had a disease. Rather, they thought they had made poor choices regarding their substance use. Three thought they had a disease, and it should be noted that those three were continuing to abuse substances. For those who did not think they had a disease, more than 400 of them falsely stated during conventional treatment that they believed they had a disease. The pressure to conform to the treatment rhetoric and the built-in excuse to relapse were the primary reasons given by treatment clients for saying they had a disease even when they believed wholeheartedly that it was not true. Many substance abusers embrace any excuse to be insincere and abdicate responsibility for themselves, even if they know in their heart it's a lie.

This article proves that its not just "me and my stoned buddies" forming this opinion. This article backs up EXACTLY what I ****ing told you to begin with. Its a business and your a part of it. Thusly blinding you to the real nature of pseudo-science.

http://www.baldwinresearch.com/alcoholism.cfm

Go ahead and think that because I didn't attend a university, that I'm unintelligent. Personally I'd feel embarrassed to get verbally raped by a high-school drop-out,

 

[snafu]

You know, I am going to have to go out on a limb here and agree with J5 on most of his points ( except the glorification & justification of weed)

ADDICTIONS:
An addiction is not a diseases it is a choice. Those with addictions give into "consuming" the substance they are addicted to. If they had no access to the substance they would no longer have issues with that substance. Unlike a REAL disease, the symptoms and negative effects of an addiction simply go away after the user stop using, and strangely enough their health gets better also. addictions are not a disease. and neither is obesity

DIABETES:
The majority of diabetes cases are brought on by the individual life style choices, it is karma, natures pay back. So in some ways diabetes is also a choice. The individual chose to live a certain way and the consequence was diabetes. Natures just desert.

.
.

I'm gonna agree with J5 on the glorification of pot and his interpretation of addiction. However I will disagree with Nazz partly about diabetes. Children are born with type one diabetes. It wasn't induced by a bad life style. Although some diabetes can be treated and prevented, it is hereditary. Age and your ansesrty are two thirds of the cause of type two diebetes. Overweight is the other third.

 

[smutt butt]

I guess i was a "good" crack smoker. Way back in '88 we used to cook our own "crack". I would smoke it that night, run out, "jones" for a while, wake up the next day and not think anything about it until i bought some more coke a month or 2 later.

 

[snafu]

I guess i was a "good" crack smoker. Way back in '88 we used to cook our own "crack". I would smoke it that night, run out, "jones" for a while, wake up the next day and not think anything about it until i bought some more coke a month or 2 later.

I remember the cooking was a high in it's self. Watching it melt down into and oil and you swirl just at the right time.

 

[smutt butt]

I remember the cooking was a high in it's self. Watching it melt down into and oil and you swirl just at the right time.

And think O **** i just put $200 worth of coke in there!!! LOL!!!

 

[manicmonday]

Well, I thought you would give a factual debate, not just the first hit of Google.

Laboratoire Physiopathologie du Comportement - Inserm U.588, Institut Francois Magendie, 146 rue Leo Saignat, 33077 Bordeaux Cedex, France.
Drug addiction is a medical condition, a chronic relapsing disease. As in other domains of experimental medicine, appropriate experimental investigations are needed in order to better understand the disease. However, to understand the diverse facets of drug effects and of the underlying pathophysiology it is necessary to keep in mind the complexity of the psychopathological processes. The main symptoms that characterize addiction correspond to expressions of dysfunctions within specific circuits and regions. Pathways to addiction are numerous and comorbidity and in the real world poly-drug use are common. Some of these aspects will be examined as well as the role of life events and stress. Theoretical considerations will be proposed [see also: Koob, G.F., & Le Moal, M.. 2005a. Neurobiology of Addiction. Elsevier. 570 pp] to account for the stages of the disease from impulse control disorder to compulsive disorders, for affective dynamics and for the relations between the symptoms and pathophysiology.
PMID: 17169534 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


And from one of the latest abstracts:

PMID- 11964061
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DA - 20020419
DCOM- 20020530
LR - 20061115
PUBM- Print
IS - 0965-2140 (Print)
VI - 97
IP - 4
DP - 2002 Apr
TI - The role of brain emotional systems in addictions: a neuro-evolutionary
perspective and new 'self-report' animal model.
PG - 459-69
AB - The evolutionary significance of neurochemical events in the brain has
received minimal attention in the field of addiction research. Likewise,
the general failure of neuroscientists to postulate how basic brain
circuits might mediate emotional urges has retarded the development of
scientific perspectives that could inform new inquiries into the
underlying dynamics and treatment of addictions. In this paper, we revisit
the argument that prototypically abused substances activate or alter
specific emotional brain systems that were evolutionarily designed to
signal potential increments or decrements in fitness. We then discuss two
distinct emotional systems (reward seeking and separation distress) which
may track different types of potential changes in fitness. Based on this
evolutionarily inspired approach, we illustrate how a mammalian model of
emotion (i.e. rodent ultrasonic vocalizations) may enable scientists to
predict drug-related phenomena such as abuse potential, anatomical
location of mediating neural substrates, and the psychological impact of
withdrawal. We conclude by discussing some therapeutic and social
implications of examining drug addiction processes with multiple emotional
brain systems in mind.
AD - Department of Psychology, J.P. Scott Center for Neuroscience, Mind and
Behavior Bowling Green State University, OH 43403, USA.
jpankse@bgnet.bgsu.edu
FAU - Panksepp, Jaak
AU - Panksepp J
FAU - Knutson, Brian
AU - Knutson B
FAU - Burgdorf, Jeff
AU - Burgdorf J
LA - eng
PT - Journal Article
PT - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PT - Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
PT - Review
PL - England
TA - Addiction
JT - Addiction (Abingdon, England)
JID - 9304118
SB - IM
CIN - Addiction. 2002 Apr;97(4):470-1. PMID: 11964062
CIN - Addiction. 2002 Apr;97(4):472-3. PMID: 11964063
CIN - Addiction. 2002 Apr;97(4):473-4. PMID: 11964064
MH - Animals
MH - Behavior, Addictive/ physiopathology/psychology
MH - Brain Chemistry/ physiology
MH - Emotions
MH - Evolution
MH - Models, Animal
MH - Sociology
MH - Substance-Related Disorders/physiopathology/therapy
RF - 92
EDAT- 2002/04/20 10:00
MHDA- 2002/05/31 10:01
AID - 25 [pii]
PST - ppublish
SO - Addiction. 2002 Apr;97(4):459-69.


You know, from a real University, from real funding, with
real publishing. The long story short? Addtiction is a hard
thing to understand and even doctors don't always get it right. However, a jo/slmo saying, it didn't happen to me, why did it happen
to you doesn't cut it.

And I noticed I responded to you and you conveniently ignored that, but berated me
for ignoring yours. I see how you are.

 

[Jhony5]

Did you even read that garbage before you posted it?

What gives with all the abbreviations and goofy ass numbers? That **** makes about as much sense as that article. I didn't just post the first thing I googled. I actually put some effort into it as I wanted to find a reputable resource that stated the EXACT same information I've been trying to impress upon you.

Okay, lets take a look at this bullocks you just posted, shall we?

Laboratoire Physiopathologie du Comportement - Inserm U.588, Institut Francois Magendie,

My French isn't so good (is that French?) but I think this is a biased report from a medical institute. Exactly what I expected from you. Go with independent research and see what ya come up with. Instead of quoting from sources that I have already shown to be biased toward enforcing the "addiction disease" theory. And yes, its theory. The one thing that this article does omit.

As in other domains of experimental medicine, appropriate experimental investigations are needed in order to better understand the disease.

Already they are going with the assumption that this is a disease. Please note the use of the word "experimental". As in, we aren't sure what the **** we are dealing with. However it is an omission that they are dealing with an unknown quantity.

The main symptoms that characterize addiction correspond to expressions of dysfunctions within specific circuits and regions.

Translation from gibberish to English: The brain of a drug addict displays anomalies. Is it just me or is that to be expected by someone whom abuses drugs?

Theoretical <<<<<<There we are again...))))considerations will be proposed [see also: Koob, G.F., & Le Moal, M.. 2005a. Neurobiology of Addiction. Elsevier. 570 pp] to account for the stages of the disease from impulse control disorder to compulsive disorders, for affective dynamics and for the relations between the symptoms and pathophysiology.

Theoretical???????? Thats a solid base for your argument.

What we have here is the injection of million dollar words and complex medical jargon into what is basically a brief article regarding theory, rhetoric and experimental science.

the argument that prototypically abused substances activate or alter
specific emotional brain systems that were evolutionarily designed to
signal potential increments or decrements in fitness.

Translation from gibberish to English: Drugs cause brain damage. They could have spared themselves a few syllables and just said "Brain Damage". Again, not symptoms of disease, rather the result of abuse.

All one needs to read to understand that this article is BUCKING FULLSHIT is this>>>>>>.....

Drug addiction is a medical condition, a chronic relapsing disease. As in other domains of experimental medicine, appropriate experimental investigations are needed in order to better understand the disease.

A paper that provides no proof of any sort whatsoever. A self-serving bunch of shat most likely contrived in order to garnish funding for their "experimental theoretical" research.

Google again, MM. This time actually take a minute to decipher your sources in order to make sure they are pertinent to the discussion, like I did.

This whole article actually goes to prove MY point. That there is no proof at all of any sort of disease relating to addiction. Only theories and conjecture that hope to build on the business of addiction treatment.

 

[manicmonday]

This whole article actually goes to prove MY point. That there is no proof at all of any sort of disease relating to addiction. Only theories and conjecture that hope to build on the business of addiction treatment.

Like a child covering his eyes and saying, I can't see you mommy.

Tunnel vision redneck.

 

[Jhony5]

Like a child covering his eyes and saying, I can't see you mommy.

Tunnel vision redneck.

Snappy comeback.

I seem to have understood your cute little article better then you yourself did.

Did ya even read it? In summation, all that article said was this: 'Drug abuse causes brain damage. The specific areas of the brain that are affected are being studied as to better understand the disease of addiction.'

Dude, lady, whatever the **** you qualify as, this article says nothing but ****. They call it a disease, like in a way that suggests they are sure of this. Then they go on about the mysterious nature of the experimental research and the various theories they are trying to prove to be correct. In short, they assert the reality of a situation that they themselves admit isn't provable.






DISPUTE THAT!

Go ahead brainiac. Try and translate that **** like I did, line for line. Did I make an error? Yes? No? Do it. Prove to me that you actually understand what you quoted. I did, and you ducked it, responding with only a childish insult. OR....or you could admit I'm right and apologize for wasting my time.

Or maybe you thought all those big city fancy words would scare off the dumb redneck?

 

[phreakwars]

Like a child covering his eyes and saying, I can't see you mommy.

Tunnel vision redneck.

Your weakening.
.
.

 

[manicmonday]

Your weakening.
.
.

No, I just don't have the time for this mouse that I used to. Or the energy.

 

[phreakwars]

No, I just don't have the time for this mouse that I used to. Or the energy.

Uhm, ya, I just said that...

You just said it with a longer explanation.
.
.

 

[Phantom]

Ohhhhh c'mon Phanny. Thats a ****ing cop-out. I smoked crack before. Several times in the past. We bought some powder, used a spoon, a candle, a dab of water and some baking soda. Heated it while stirring just like pudding, and smoked it while cat fishing. It was fun. No one died. No one started sucking dick or stealing radios to pawn for another fix. Its not as addictive as people might lead you to believe. If you're smoking crack everyday and making a mess of your life, than ****ING STOP IT!!! You don't need treatment. You don't need counseling. You need to ****ing stop smoking so much crack. If you abuse crack, than flat out you're a piece of **** and you choose this. Its not a contagious virus. Its a habit. STOP IT! If crack didn't exist, then I ****ing guarantee that these same hobo ass losers would be tanking their lives via some other form of intoxicant.
Its not the crack that ruins lives, its the people that smoke it.

But you weren't neglecting your child for another fix like Atlantic's friend.

It wasn't a cop out- just friendly advice. The woman had already claimed to quit, lied about her past drug use, then dumped her daughter off on a friend so she could go get high. The child shouldn't have to stay in that situation while us adults try to ****ing figure out the definition of addiction.

My comment was submitted prior to this post taking a heated turn so I won't "go there." If you want to get high I might not approve but it isn't any of my business. Do what you want to do. However, if I see a child being hurt or neglected, I have to intervene.

No one started sucking dick or stealing radios to pawn for another fix.

I LOVED that line!

 

[Phantom]

.

Bob Saget asks, "Have you ever sucked dick for weed?"