Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf
Treating addiction as a disease rather than a decision doesn't accomplish anything.
Face it, it's a decision. You CHOOSE to pick up the pipe, the needle, or the bottle. Nobody every forced me to smoke a joint or take a drink. Neither has any of the couple thousand drug users or alcoholics that I've seen.
|
The American Medical Association has classified addiction as a disease for over 60 years now. Your statement is equivalent to saying that treating diabetes as a disease rather than a decision doesn't accomplish anything. People can choose to get treatment for their disease of diabetes, take their insulin and watch their diet. Or not. In the same way, people can choose to address their disease of addiction, get treatment, go to 12-step groups, and avoid the use of alcohol or drugs. Or not.
Our society condones the use of alcohol, even pot. Most people pick up their first drink, thinking nothing of it. Roughly 90% of the population can safely do this. The other 10% are genetically predisposed to the
disease of addiction and get into big trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout123
don't start to lecture me about addiction from the wealth of knowledge you haven't yet forgotten. i know about addiction in a very close and personal way. addiction can be physical or mental and it is extremely difficult to overcome. and yes, in many cases it is rightly called a disease, but let me ask you - how does an individual become addicted to a substance? is Joe Schmo walking down the street one day, never having tried heroin in his life and just get a craving for it? in every case i've ever known, Joe Schmo made a conscious decision to start a behavior. whether he becomes addicted or not, it is his choice to tempt fate. to say it is someone else's fault is ridiculous. to suggest that it is understandable that so many people in economic hardship become addicts is appalling. these are the very individuals who should know better - they see the consequences every day of their lives.
|
I'm not interested in trading war stories. You admit that addiction can "in many cases rightly be called a disease" after first stating that it is a "decision based on weakness." If you are going to make an argument, you need to begin by stating a clear premise and then backing that premise up with facts and logical conclusions based upon the facts you have presented.
I did not say "that it is understandable that so many people facing economic hardship become addicts." I am facing considerable economic hardship at the moment, and taking drugs is the last thing on my mind. What I wrote was "As for kids using drugs - there are days when I almost don't blame them." Note that I said "kids" and "almost."
I was not writing about any "Joe Schmo." Most of here understand that if we decide to trot down to the local heroin dealer's place one day and try shooting up that we are taking one hell of a big risk. In addition, most of us are not surrounded by people snorting meth or shooting up. A thirteen year old kid living on the streets is going to be influenced by those around him, and his situation is very different than yours or mine. Young kids think they are bomb proof. Most don't look at consequences down the road. Next week is a million years away to most of them, and forget about next year.
My memory is improving and I seem to recall having this same circular argument with you once before about choices. I agree that when a person makes a poor choice for himself, he has no one but himself to blame for it. However, an enlightened society will create an environment which is more conducive for ALL its members to make positive choices for themselves, rather than one in which a significant percentage of its youth feel there is little or no hope, so what difference does it make what they choose?
