This forum

[DaMan]

This forum can be used to have private debates between 2 or more members.

Only the member that starts the thread and the members the thread starter approved will be able to reply. Mods and admins can reply even if not included.

How do you start a private debate you ask?

Click the new thread button.

In additional options just a bit below the editor you'll see a text box that says private debates.

Fill in the user id, not the usename, the numerical ID

To find the ID that goes with the username look at any thread and you'll see, just below location, the user id. Mine is 1 so look up above the post near the rep and you'll see the IDs.

I will tweak it a bit for use with usernames. Until then use the user ID.

[cool_dude]

Private debates is not a solution. You're just giving thread derailers another alternative.

[manicmonday]

Afraid to go head to head with some one Mr Gigolo?

[eddo]

Private debates is not a solution. You're just giving thread derailers another alternative.

 

How so? If they cannot reply, then how can they derail?

[Jhony5]

I'm not sure but I believe this was implemented because myself and others suggested that this board have some avenue for serious uninterrupted debate, without chat room fodder distracting from the debate.

I'm glad to see that this was implemented and I suggest we use it. I would have dragged MM in here for a proper ass clowning over our "addiction disease" debate. If she or any one else wants to get into it, just open the thread an I'll be there.

[manicmonday]

I'm glad to see that this was implemented and I suggest we use it. I would have dragged MM in here for a proper ass clowning over our "addiction disease" debate. If she or any one else wants to get into it, just open the thread an I'll be there.

 

 

Oh really? From what I have seen from you, you believe that addiction is something people choose, but you have no education to back you up except from you and buddies. Now there is some evidence. You've chosen to give up some bad habits for the sake of your daughter during a custody battle, but after that battle is over, you freely admit you will pick up your "recreational" hobbies. Good choice.

 

There is nothing to debate with you. Your GED chatter doesn't interest me.

[Jhony5]

Oh really? From what I have seen from you, you believe that addiction is something people choose, but you have no education to back you up except from you and buddies. Now there is some evidence. You've chosen to give up some bad habits for the sake of your daughter during a custody battle, but after that battle is over, you freely admit you will pick up your "recreational" hobbies. Good choice.

 

There is nothing to debate with you. Your GED chatter doesn't interest me.

 

You aren't the first person to attempt to cite my educational background as a reason why my logic fails. My lack of proper education does NOTHING whatsoever to prove your point of view. If I was ashamed of my education I would have hidden the details from the members of this forum. I'm very open about where I'm from and what I've done. Unlike some of the fake motherfuckers that come here and live out their alter ego's. Heres a fucking hint. Make an intelligent point of your own since you have such lofty education. I fucking tore you apart in that debate, and everyone here knows this. Review it yourself, you waived the white flag within minutes.

 

You posted a link to an article that you thought would confuse me. You also thought that article somehow backed up your claim. In reality you had no fucking idea what that article was saying, despite your extensive education. Read the article again. It had NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, which was the status of addiction as a disease. What the article was about was the relation between drug addiction and human evolution and the subsequent theories being developed by a French University.

 

 

I cited my own real life experiences as precedent for my opinion. What experiences do you have in this realm? Sitting in a sterile classroom reading psychology text books? Pffftt....get real.

 

Its in black and white. You lost hands down to a high school dropout. Grats on that.

 

Using personal insults as a debating tactic shows inferiority.

 

You've chosen to give up some bad habits for the sake of your daughter during a custody battle, but after that battle is over, you freely admit you will pick up your "recreational" hobbies. Good choice.

What does that have to do with anything being discussed? I have a good job, a home of my own and I'm an exemplary parent. Smoking marijuana when I'm hangin with my buddies has done nothing to hinder my capacity as a parent or otherwise. Again, be real and don't use insults to make you claim. You aren't the first person of "superior intelligence and education" that I fucking raped on this forum, nor will you be the last. Many of the other members recognize this and respect me for it.

[manicmonday]

You won't be the first person to attempt to cite my educational background as a reason why my logic fails. My lack of proper education does NOTHING whatsoever to prove your point of view. Heres a fucking hint. Make an intelligent point of your own since you have such lofty education. I fucking tore you apart in that debate, and everyone here knows this. Review it yourself, you waived the white flag within minutes.

 

Tore me about? Hardly. You think because you have an opinion it makes it scientific. Hardly.

 

You posted a link to an article that you thought would confuse me. You also thought that article somehow backed up your claim. In reality you had no fucking idea what that article was saying, despite your extensive education. Read the article again. It had NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, which was the status of addiction as a disease. What the article was about was the relation between drug addiction and human evolution and the subsequent theories being developed by a French University.

 

Since you have no experience in reading abstracts, and such, how would you know? I didn't think it would confuse you, I made an inaccurate assumption that you would follow the statistics and bionary's that followed. My bad.

 

 

I cited my own real life experiences as precedent for my opinion. What experiences do you have in this realm? Sitting in a sterile classroom reading psychology text books? Pffftt....get real.

Do your own research that is right here on GF of before you speak Jhony boy. I have spoke very plainly about past addictions. Let's see, I did heroin for 4 years before going to rehab at 17. I have track marks in between my toes still after 14 years of being clean. Also drank a little too much for most of those years. Woke up a few too many times in an alley that was unfamiliar. Slept with a few too many that I didn't know the name of. Smoked excessively till I got pregnant and quit. Even now, after 10 years of not smoking (except my few I allow myself once in awhile), I dream of inhaling the sweet dark aroma of nicotine and allowing it to take over my body for the briefest of moments. I flirt with the notion that I wouldn't do it full time, just to relieve stress here and there. Even now after 14 years, in the darkest hour, I remember what it was like when the high of heroin would take me to the fifth demension and erase all cares, responsibilites and demons. A $200 a day habit wasn't just for fun, it was life. The giving up of that addiction wasn't for fun, it was for life as well.

 

I didn't learn about addictions in a class room. I learned about it from the darkest pit of hell and decided to do something with my life. First hand knowledge? I know all too well.

 

But to debate with you personally? The point of debate is to open your eyes to the other persons perspective. Not change their mind, per se. But open their minds. Do I see that happening on your side? Maybe if I did, I would consider it not a waste a of time. Until then, it is.

[Jhony5]

Since you have no experience in reading abstracts, and such, how would you know? I didn't think it would confuse you, I made an inaccurate assumption that you would follow the statistics and bionary's that followed. My bad.

You tell me WTF this non-sense is and I'll be delighted to concur with you that I'm ignorant as its meaning. Because this was what you posted as proof of your opinion. I dare you or anyone else to explain to me, the idiot drop-out, what the hell is the meaning of all this, and why it is pertinent to this discussion? You didn't think it would confuse me? FUCKING L O L ! Thats exactly what you thought, and when I asked you to explain what this shit meant, you ducked. Why do you think that is?

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

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.

 

If you expect people to follow you when you post nonsensical shit like this, you are sadly misguided.

 

Even now after 14 years, in the darkest hour, I remember what it was like when the high of heroin would take me to the fifth demension and erase all cares, responsibilites and demons.

First of all before I continue, congrats on bucking your addiction. I never even thought to try heroin. Admittedly, no experience whatsoever in this realm of depravity.

 

That being said, I'm glad you posted this. It should serve well as an example of why I think the way I do about addiction.

 

When you recall the unbridled euphoria of a heroin high, is that symptomatic of a disease? Or is it simply association? By that I mean to say, do you think that your just recalling the pleasurable aspects and associating that with the use of the drug. Or do you think that the association you have between pleasure and heroin abuse is a symptom of disease?

 

But to debate with you personally? The point of debate is to open your eyes to the other persons perspective. Not change their mind, per se. But open their minds.

Well ya know it helps when you fire back with information as you did above, as opposed to just saying I'm a "lackey" and uneducated. What I've stated about addiction isn't based on just my own opinion. Its based on a combination of logic and the information thats available from reputable sources, including psychologist and physicians, thats in tune with my opinion. I showed this when I linked you to a resource from the Baldwin institute, which mimicked exactly what I stated previously. That there is a tie between financial gain and the classification of addiction as a disease.

 

Despite their best efforts, the American Medical Association hasn't been able to prove the presence of disease in addicts, only theoretical conjecture.

 

Fact is, social predispositions are more often shown to be the catalyst for addiction, than any physical anomalies. i.e. stress, divorce, death of a loved one etc. Behavioral dysfunctions stemming from indulgence in euphoria should never be termed as symptomatic of disease. Rather a cause and effect situation stemming from choice.

[manicmonday]

You tell me WTF this non-sense is and I'll be delighted to concur with you that I'm ignorant as its meaning. Because this was what you posted as proof of your opinion. I dare you or anyone else to explain to me, the idiot drop-out, what the hell is the meaning of all this, and why it is pertinent to this discussion? You didn't think it would confuse me? FUCKING L O L ! Thats exactly what you thought, and when I asked you to explain what this shit meant, you ducked. Why do you think that is?

If you expect people to follow you when you post nonsensical shit like this, you are sadly misguided.

This my friend, is the many many abstracts a grad student has to sift through to get their degree. It's tedious, boring, frustrating, fascinating and interesting all wrapping into one.

 

First of all before I continue, congrats on bucking your addiction. I never even thought to try heroin. Admittedly, no experience whatsoever in this realm of depravity.

 

Well thank you. Heroin was what followed the nose candy and other stuff. It isn't a fun drug.

 

 

When you recall the unbridled euphoria of a heroin high, is that symptomatic of a disease? Or is it simply association? By that I mean to say, do you think that your just recalling the pleasurable aspects and associating that with the use of the drug. Or do you think that the association you have between pleasure and heroin abuse is a symptom of disease?

 

Just a symptom of an addicted personality. I have many other addictions, no I'm not telling you what they are, some are good some are bad. But it's just a symptom of a disease. I don't want to re-live the heroin days, it's the mode of escape that I'm looking for. If a bottle of Coke Zero would do it for me, then that would become my next addiction. Escape is what I seek, not the high. Instead, I act like an adult and deal with the shit that I would much rather hide from. I've learned coping skills many other addicts lack. However, I have to remind myself of that daily, because it is easy to slip back into the darkness. Heroin? No. But something just as evil? Yes.

 

Its based on a combination of logic and the information thats available from reputable sources, including psychologist and physicians,

thats in tune with my opinion.

 

Yeah, David Koresh had that same attitude. Not being snarky here. Just saying, you can find a source to say anything and agree with anything you want it to. You can find a source to say that drinking toilet water will make you live longer and have long lasting erections. Doesn't mean anything.

 

I showed this when I linked you to a resource from the Baldwin institute, which mimicked exactly what I stated previously. That there is a tie between financial gain and the classification of addiction as a disease.

 

And I generally dismiss people as conspirasy theorists when they believe that the medical profession is just out to make money. Are some of the organizations out there just for money? Sure. But not all of them. Not even the majority.

 

 

Despite their best efforts, the American Medical Association hasn't been able to prove the presence of disease in addicts, only theoretical conjecture.

 

99% of all science is theory. Evolution, creation, Freud, ect ect ect. Theory. What does that have to do with anything?

[Jhony5]

This my friend, is the many many abstracts a grad student has to sift through to get their degree. It's tedious, boring, frustrating, fascinating and interesting all wrapping into one.

Thats not what I wanted to hear. I ant to know, what EXACTLY does this mean.........

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

 

Explain. Cuz it looks alot like an index at the beginning of a medical journal.

 

Just a symptom of an addicted personality. I have many other addictions, no I'm not telling you what they are

Please say blow jobs is one of them........

 

Just saying, you can find a source to say anything and agree with anything you want it to. You can find a source to say that drinking toilet water will make you live longer and have long lasting erections. Doesn't mean anything.

One thing is true with all this. A debate has raged for decades over this issue, within the medical profession itself, as well as the psychology field. Both sides have their theories and circumstantial evidence. Admittedly the bulk of opinions goes against what I'm saying. However history has taught us that beliefs in the fields of science and medicine can often be overturned with time. In short, often previously held majority opinions can be shown to be untrue given the proper advances in technology.

 

When you consider that the side of this debate that has embraced the disease theory also has much to gain by its validation, you can see where the compromise in integrity can occur.

 

The proclamation of the disease of addiction goes against personal responsibility for ones actions. Absolving the addicts of their faults.

 

Where I have trouble is this. The studies showing physical anomalies in addicts always has a qualifier, and that is one must already be an addict to be studied. Once a person decimates their body with addictive chemicals, damage will occur. Thusly, they are studying a damaged sample.

 

If they were to do a CAT scan on a 10 year old child that has never taken drugs and show the precursors for addiction (i.e. specific defects or abnormalities in the brain), than years later also show that this individual indeed developed an addiction. Then it could be proven that this individual had a preexisting disease/condition that caused them to become an addict.

 

Its an oxymoron. They can't show the abnormalities until after the addiction has taken root by way of drug use. SO......did the drug use cause the disease or did the disease cause the drug use?

 

Its this which causes this debate to offer drastically varying opinions to both sides. But when one side cashes in on it, it takes away from the validity of their claims.

[manicmonday]

Thats not what I wanted to hear. I ant to know, what EXACTLY does this mean.........

 

Took me 6 years of Psychology major to learn what all it means. And you think that can be condensed into a board such as this?

 

 

 

 

 

Please say blow jobs is one of them........

Maybe...but I'm just an overeducated snob, what would you want with a silly thing like me?

 

One thing is true with all this. A debate has raged for decades over this issue, within the medical profession itself, as well as the psychology field. Both sides have their theories and circumstantial evidence. Admittedly the bulk of opinions goes against what I'm saying. However history has taught us that beliefs in the fields of science and medicine can often be overturned with time. In short, often previously held majority opinions can be shown to be untrue given the proper advances in technology.

This is true. And then sometimes advances show us what we knew all along.

 

When you consider that the side of this debate that has embraced the disease theory also has much to gain by its validation, you can see where the compromise in integrity can occur.

I'm going to assume you mean me here. What do I have to gain? Personally, nothing. I don't even work in a profession with my major. I have my MBA and Masters of Psychology and I work as a Office manager and freelance writer/graphics designer/web designer/PR manager. So what do I have to gain professionally either? Nothing. It's not always about the money. I will grant you that some times it is, but in my heart of hearts, I still believe that the majority of the medical profession is still in for personal gain, not monetary gain.

 

The proclamation of the disease of addiction goes against personal responsibility for ones actions. Absolving the addicts of their faults.

If I had a dime for every time I heard this from family members who were dealing an addict in their family. And you know what? To a tiny degree, I agree with you. However, it bothers me when people say this, because the personal struggle that goes on inside, really doesn't matter if it was a disease or a just a crutch. When the addict is facing the choice of good and bad, it just.doesn't.matter. At that very moment, it doesn't matter. Getting family and friends who are supposed to be supportive to understand that, is a struggle.

 

For pure unscientific evidence, look at my life. I freely admit that addiction is something I fight. I don't use it as a crutch, I don't use it as a means of getting out of responsiblity. I still have to get up every day and take care of the shit every one else has too. But I still have the symptoms of the disease. Just like the symptoms of a diabetic or a heart patient, I have to take care of those. No, I don't go to AA or anything like that (nor am I denouncing programs like that although that would make a good debate in itself). But I do take care of my symptoms on a daily basis. I take the accountablity for my addictions. This is where most people fall away. They see FAR too many people who don't take responsiblity and therefore lump all addicts into the same category. It is a natural easy thing to do. Unfair, but natural.

 

Its an oxymoron. They can't show the abnormalities until after the addiction has taken root by way of drug use. SO......did the drug use cause the disease or did the disease cause the drug use?

So here is my question. What does it matter? Are you trying to abolish addiction itself or help an addict personally? The former, yes then it matters. The latter? It.doesn't.matter. At the end of the day when you go home and leave them alone, they are still left with their addiction and knowing the root cause at 2 am on a bad doesn't do shit for them. Knowing how to handle the symptoms they have and having the coping mechanisms is what is going to help them. Having a support system in place, and knowing how to take care of the problem. That is what will eradicate the addiction.

[Jhony5]

Took me 6 years of Psychology major to learn what all it means. And you think that can be condensed into a board such as this?

Just an example. Partly out of curiosity, partly because I think those abbreviations and random numbers mean nothing. I may be wrong, but I feel you were jerking my chain. I INSIST you explain that shit.

 

Maybe...but I'm just an overeducated snob, what would you want with a silly thing like me?

Guilt free sex?

 

This is true. And then sometimes advances show us what we knew all along.

Touch

[snafu]

Is one of you gonna start a private thread or derail the hell out of the information thread?

[RegisteredAndEducated]

Is one of you gonna start a private thread or derail the hell out of the information thread?

 

I was wondering the same thing... though i thought of derailing the thread some more and interjecting... I just didn't...

[manicmonday]

Just an example. Partly out of curiosity, partly because I think those abbreviations and random numbers mean nothing. I may be wrong, but I feel you were jerking my chain. I INSIST you explain that shit.

All I can say to you is this, go to school of six years to learn. They mean something. But that's one of those things you get to know when you graduate.

 

 

 

Neither. I just like to argue with people. Seriously though, I despise exculpatory bullshit from failures such as drug addicts. I see the disease theory as pop-science, nothing more.

Seeing as how I am in that category, do you really look at me as a failure? Raising my child on my own, self supporting, all together 8 years of post high school education, successfully self employed and helping another business start from scratch. That is failure? Hmmmmmm.......

 

 

 

You're the one with the psychology degree, answer me this. Is mental illness labeled as a disease, or is that considered under its own title? Because I feel the answer to this question is the answer to this debate.

Mental illness is classified as a disease. A few of the more severe have their own classifications, but they are disease.

 

Addiction itself doesn't seem to be a mental illness. Its the lack of self control that allows otherwise normal well functioning people to decimate themselves for a high, that would seem to qualify as a mental illness. I feel addiction and self control are separate entities. Addiction being physiological, and self control being 100% mental.

 

Here's the real quandry. Go to any mental hospital, internships, studies and you will see that addictions and mental illness's intertwine. Self medication comes in many forms. Did the chicken or the egg come first? A good internship at good facility will show you that the line is grey. Many people self medicate a mental condition that leads to an addiction that leads to misdiagnose. From the outside looking in, it is very easy to judge and just say "Get some self control". Glass house and all that.

[Jhony5]

Seeing as how I am in that category, do you really look at me as a failure? Raising my child on my own, self supporting, all together 8 years of post high school education, successfully self employed and helping another business start from scratch. That is failure? Hmmmmmm.......

No no no.

 

Sorry my bad, shoulda worded that better. What I meant was people that ARE failures. I'm a pothead by all conventional means. However I function well in society and cannot by any means be called a failure in life. I do not allow my habits to dictate my level of success. I wouldn't smoke pot if it inhibited my performance at work, my parenting or otherwise. This is why I no longer do cocaine. I realized quickly that it would destroy my quality of life substantially.

 

You may consider yourself an addict, however I would term you as a recovered addict. Big difference.

 

Mental illness is classified as a disease. A few of the more severe have their own classifications, but they are disease.

So then is it fair to say addiction could be defined as a mental illness that manifests itself in a total loss of self-control?

 

You see the problem I'm having is this. Some addicts could be considered diseased (having a mental illness), and some addicts cannot be considered diseased because they have self-control and suffer no ill-consequence. Yet the AMA seems to label anyone that repetitively uses a controlled substance as diseased. Am I making sense?

 

I used marijuana regularly for many years, yet I suffered no ill-consequence. If I told a physician how often I used drugs, he would term me as an addict. If I'm an addict, by default I'm diseased. If I'm diseased I must be sick right? If I'm diseased with addiction, then by the AMA's definition of addiction I am afflicted by a disease which cannot be cured. But where's the damage? I have a life long incurable disease that has no apparent symptoms. No apparent ill-effects. Hell I don't need to get high. I'm going to resume recreational use of marijuana, but only because I enjoy it and it doesn't ruin my life by any means. So no physiological symptoms are apparent. Fuck I don't know MM. It seems to me that the term "disease" is being seriously abused and overused in a generalizing way. This seems a dangerous practice.

 

Is it that the word "disease" just has a stigma attached to it and its definition is misunderstood?

 

 

 

Well I'm getting very sleepy and I'm not very sharp right now. You're gonna end up bending me over and making me cry uncle if I don't get some sleep before I continue this.

 

All I can say to you is this, go to school of six years to learn. They mean something. But that's one of those things you get to know when you graduate.

Ohhh c'mon, don't placate me. Just attempt in a rudimentary fashion to convey the idea of that shit. Or admit it was bullocks.

[manicmonday]

No no no.

 

Sorry my bad, shoulda worded that better.

Ok, just wanted to know.

 

You see the problem I'm having is this. Some addicts could be considered diseased (having a mental illness), and some addicts cannot be considered diseased because they have self-control and suffer no ill-consequence. Yet the AMA seems to label anyone that repetitively uses a controlled substance as diseased. Am I making sense?

 

Making perfect sense. I, however, don't have any easy answers for you. It's not an easy situation.

 

Is it that the word "disease" just has a stigma attached to it and its definition is misunderstood?

 

DING DING DING, we have a winner. Disease is a nasty word. Mental illness is a nasty word. That is why the ADA stepped in to help regular functioning adults who might have a mental disease that with proper monitoring, med checks and such, would make excellent employees. But all the employer sees is "mental patient, needs time off to see shrink". Well, yes they do. So what? I need time off to get my fix of coffee, but that isn't frowned upon yet, so I'm allowed.

 

 

Ohhh c'mon, don't placate me. Just attempt in a rudimentary fashion to convey the idea of that shit. Or admit it was bullocks.

 

It would be like you trying to explain to me how the insides of a car work. I would look at you with my bright blue eyes and be envisioning myself in the Bahama's licking honey off of LL Cool J.......oh where was I??????.........