why do people praise recoverd drug addicts

[QUOTE=Dresta]You can make general statements like the one i made because they are logical, not because of any particular information we may or may not have. I never said all addictions are the same, just that your singling out of alcoholism as special is foolish. All addictive behaviour is rooted in various genetic traits in combination to how the brain, and particularly the unconscious, reacts to external stimuli. This can be asserted because it is logically congruous, not because we have detailed, specific and enlightening knowledge about the brain.

Nor is your definition of an alcoholic as someone who 'just can't have one drink' make any sense. Many people who can't just have one drink are not alcoholics, and plenty of people who are commonly viewed as alcoholics are capable of abstaining and sensible social drinking. This is you defining alcoholism under your own criteria.

These things work on a scale, like depression, like anxiety etc.: it is foolish and reductionist to divide the world into 'addict' and 'non-addict' because that isn't the way things work. There are individuals who struggle with substance abuse and there are those who do not, with a big grey area in-between. Plenty of addicts are high-functioning individuals, whereas plenty of non-addicts die of alcohol and drug abuse. Many people drink normally most of their lives, and then succumb to alcoholism as they get older etc.

In fact, statistically, the most common uniting factor in all mental illness is a predisposition for insomnia, which brings things like depression, anxiety, and substance abuse along with it.[/QUOTE]
No some addictions have little to nothing to do genetic traits and everything to do with the actual substance being addictive, like tobacco. To my knowledge there is no DNA linkage in tobacco addicts, unlike alcohol. They only got to where they are by smoking lots of cigarettes.

I also said that FOR ME the one thing that dictates alcoholism more than anything else is a human that is incapable of having just one drink. YES, that is my own criteria and I made that clear.

Honestly I'm not even sure what you're getting at anymore...if you're trying to declare that alcohol is just like everything else and that all addictions are equal in terms of genetic linkage? I'm going to say what you said to me, it's not that black and white.

[QUOTE=~primetime~]No some addictions have little to nothing to do genetic traits and everything to do with the actual substance being addictive, like tobacco. To my knowledge there is no DNA linkage in tobacco addicts, unlike alcohol. They only got to where they are by smoking lots of cigarettes.

I also said that FOR ME the one thing that dictates alcoholism more than anything else is a human that is incapable of having just one drink. YES, that is my own criteria and I made that clear.

Honestly I'm not even sure what you're getting at anymore...if you're trying to declare that alcohol is just like everything else and that all addictions are equal in terms of genetic linkage? I'm going to say what you said to me, it's not that black and white.[/QUOTE]
Cite sources please.

[url]http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/FamilyHistory/famhist.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]Many scientific studies, including research conducted among twins and children of alcoholics, have shown that genetic factors influence alcoholism. These findings show that children of alcoholics are about four times more likely than the general population to develop alcohol problems. Children of alcoholics also have a higher risk for many other behavioral and emotional problems. But alcoholism is not determined only by the genes you inherit from your parents. [B]In fact, more than one

[QUOTE=shlver]Cite sources please.

[url]http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/FamilyHistory/famhist.htm[/url]

Directly contradicts your idea that "80% of alcoholism is buried in DNA roots;" whatever that means.[/QUOTE]
that does NOT contradict it...it completely backs it up.

[I]"half of all children of alcoholics do not become alcoholic"[/I]

so the other half DO??? that could EASILY be 80%+ of all alcoholics

[I]These findings show that[B] children of alcoholics are about four times more likely than the general population to develop alcohol problems[/B].[/I]


^^^ did you even read what you posted ???

It completely backs up everything I am saying

many other addictions don't have "4x more likely if parents"...

[QUOTE=NZStreetBaller]More then they praise people who never touched it in the first place. I mean yeah it takes alot of will power to quit drugs but it takes will power to say no to drugs sometimes. Especially when people are trying to peer pressure you[/QUOTE]

Because they [I]need[/I] the praise more than those who never touched it. A kid struggling in school also needs more support than those who are doing fine.

[QUOTE=~primetime~]that does NOT contradict it...it completely backs it up.

[I]"half of all children of alcoholics do not become alcoholic"[/I]

so the other half DO??? that could EASILY be 80%+ of all alcoholics[/QUOTe]
YES it does contradict it and your misunderstanding is because of your ignorance about genetics and heritability. The fact that more than half of the children do not get it suggests the SNP's linked with alcoholism are not dominant and/or environmental factors play a larger role than the linked SNP's.
And again, you haven't linked a study that supports your 80% number. You are horribly uneducated on so many subjects you speak so confidently on.

[QUOTE=~primetime~][I]These findings show that[B] children of alcoholics are about four times more likely than the general population to develop alcohol problems[/B].[/I]


^^^ did you even read what you posted ???

It completely backs up everything I am saying

many other addictions don't have "4x more likely if parents"...[/QUOTE]
Despite this likelihood, it is a fact that more than half of the children do not develop alcoholism. This logically suggests that there is more to addiction than genetics.

[QUOTE=~primetime~]that does NOT contradict it...it completely backs it up.

[I]"half of all children of alcoholics do not become alcoholic"[/I]

so the other half DO??? that could EASILY be 80%+ of all alcoholics[/QUOTE]

that still doesnt prove your genetics argument at all.. the simple act of [I]watching[/I] the two(or one) adults that raised you drink all the time could condition you to think that behavior is normal.. and of course there will be waaay more opportunity to get booze at a young age when your parents have it lying around the house all the time.

shlver, I know wtf I am talking about here...I've been entrenched in this shit for years now. Dresta asked me not to post scientific studies because they are all BS in his eyes:

FROM THE SITE YOU JUST POSTED:

[url]http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa60.htm[/url]


Enviornment CAN play a role...it is not the dominate role

if 50%+ of all children with ONE alcoholic parent go one to be alcoholic that could make up ALL of them, why can't you understand that?

If you fell off a steep cliff but managed to survive and climb back up, should people praise those who never fall off a cliff?

WTF OP. :biggums:

I mean there are ENDLESS studies linking alcoholism to genes, many genes have been identified even

[url]https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=alcoholism+genes+identify[/url]

just pick one

Still no reply to my posts contextualizing that statistic in the context of genetics/heritability. Probably because primetime doesn't understand it. Another waste of time on ish.

[QUOTE=shlver]Still no reply to my posts contextualizing that statistic in the context of genetics/heritability. Probably because primetime doesn't understand it. Another waste of time on ish.[/QUOTE]
I've replied to that twice now, if 50% of all children with one alcoholic parent does go on to be an alcoholic, that group could potentially make up ALL alcoholics.

This is like the last time where it took me the pages to pound a simple point into your head while you're only intent is to troll and call me out.

Overcoming drug addiction is worthy of praise. It takes a lot to climb out of the rabbit hole.

[QUOTE=~primetime~]I've replied to that twice now, if 50% of all children with one alcoholic parent does go on to be an alcoholic, that group could potentially make up ALL alcoholics.

This is like the last time where it took me the pages to pound a simple point into your head while you're only intent is to troll and call me out.[/QUOTE]
This is an assumption you haven't even proven. Assuming it is true, what is its implication on genetic inheretability of alcoholism?

Knowing primetimes very limited knowledge. I'l just write a post concerning addiction that deals with this. Dresta has covered most of it but I'll cover my expertise in biochemistry.

As primetime pointed out that there are shared SNP's in alcoholics called haplotypes.

[url]http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Alcoholism[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism[/url]

Now primetime, wrongly assumes, that because of similar mutations or change in gene expression found in alcoholics that these changes can be genetically inherited. But primetime, if he researched this topic, would find that many of these similar changes are responses in gene expression to the excess consumption of alchohol. In laymans terms, if people excessively consume alcohol, the cells in your body will change to process that extra alcohol similarly in most people. This coupled with the fact that more than half of the children of alcoholics do not become alcoholics suggests that genetic inheritability does not tell the whole story. We can argue percentages, but they aren't based in reality.

As Dresta and others have pointed out how a person is introduced to alcohol, how people around that person have acted while under the influence of alcohol, how a person is taught to use alcohol by his parents, peers, etc all play a role in how a person experiences alcohol throughout his or her life and whether or not it develops into addiction and alcoholism.

Last post to this thread, waste of time debating with primetime.

^^^ you're not reading my posts, I never said genetics was the "whole story"....I clearly said that things like environment/PTSD/depression/etc can also lead a person to alcoholism.

I am stating that unlike many other addictions it is predominately genetic...and if YOU actually researched this topic you would find there are tons of studies that back it up.

There are studies with twins proving genetic links IN THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED

the implications of genetics and alcoholism are easily found with a simple google search

[url]https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=alcoholism+linked+to+genetics[/url]

[QUOTE][B]Whether a person decides to use alcohol or drugs is a choice, influenced by their environment--peers, family, and availability. But, once a person uses alcohol or drugs, the risk of developing alcoholism or drug dependence is largely influenced by genetics.[/B]

Research has shown conclusively that family history of alcoholism or drug addiction is in part genetic and not just the result of the family environment. And, millions of Americans are living proof, based on personal, firsthand experience, that alcoholism and drug addiction run in families.

Plain and simple, alcoholism and drug dependence run in families.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://ncadd.org/for-parents-overview/family-history-and-genetics/226-family-history-and-genetics[/url]

^^^ a good article for you shvler, you should actually read it



environment mostly just dictates how often alcohol is thrown in front of someone, it does not dictate how their brain will react to it, that part is mostly genetic.

[QUOTE]“Twin studies offer a chance to compare the influence of genetics versus environment. Identical twins (one-egg twins) share exactly the same set of genes while fraternal twins (two-egg twins), like ordinary siblings, share only one-half their genes. A higher rate of concordance (similarity) between identical twins compared with fraternal twins would argue for heredity. In other words, how often are both twins affected together rather than only one. The evidence favors heredity with figures like 60% (identical) versus 39% (fraternal) in one Scandinavian study.

“Even more interesting are the results from adoption studies. When adopted in infancy and studied into adulthood, sons of alcoholics were 4 times as likely to be alcoholic as were sons of non-alcoholics. And this risk was not affected by the alcoholism status of the adopted parent![/QUOTE]


^^^ higher alcoholism can be found in twins and adoption studies of those with gentic links, their chance of becoming an alcoholic was unaffected by their the adopted parent figure being a non-alcoholic

See my POV of this is different. I think society is ****ed. Especially American society. You can see it in the way shit happens with our celebs. Jealousy, picking at their faults, hating them, then kind of cheering them on.

Britney Spears is a slut... she's an addict... **** her... oh now she's broke and she's recovering from addiction. Go Britney!

I think people praise them because they know they are no threat. Sure, it's good to overcome, and it does take a lot to stop, but do you see what I mean? The same people would, if shit got real, probably use it against you. Bet.

To me, it's not so much addiction as the underlying cause. Some drugs are really good, but the issue is there are people just trying to escape or numb the pain. Those people do need praise. Starting drugs, in my opinion, isn't like some dude passes you something at a party, you try it once and are hooked. Depends on what it is, sure, but I think even if you get addicted, if you are enjoying life outside of it, you'll step away.

Drug addiction is like committing suicide without really dying. It's very arguable if people ever recover from that mind state. That's why it's so easy to relapse.

It's not that, at least from what I've seen, people go to Passages and listen to the waterfalls and get a new outlook on life (that lasts), they just (hopefully) decide I'm never gonna do drugs again. Because, ultimately... beyond every sugar coating drugs really 'are bad.'

-Smak

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXGtSjn5h0Q"]now i know i have one more high left in me; but i doubt very much i have one more recovery[/URL]

[QUOTE=~primetime~][url]https://ncadd.org/for-parents-overview/family-history-and-genetics/226-family-history-and-genetics[/url]

^^^ a good article for you shvler, you should actually read it
[B]


environment mostly just dictates how often alcohol is thrown in front of someone, it does not dictate how their brain will react to it, that part is mostly genetic.


[/B]

^^^ higher alcoholism can be found in twins and adoption studies of those with gentic links, their chance of becoming an alcoholic was unaffected by their the adopted parent figure being a non-alcoholic[/QUOTE]


If you are trying to say that there is some percentage of people who will drink, and be genetically predisposed to severely abusing alcohol, then I agree with that.

If you are trying to say the [I]vast majority[/I] of [B]all[/B] alcoholics are alcoholics due to genetic factors, then that is not what the science shows. And I think that is shlver's point.

[QUOTE=oarabbus]If you are trying to say that there is some percentage of people who will drink, and be genetically predisposed to severely abusing alcohol, then I agree with that.

If you are trying to say the [I]vast majority[/I] of [B]all[/B] alcoholics are alcoholics due to genetic factors, then that is not what the science shows. And I think that is shlver's point.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that the majority of alcoholics are so because of genetics, yes. Not all but most, there is no proven percentage. I have read dozens of articles on this, just read the one you quoted.

Shlver was just out on a mission to show I don't know anything.


Me: smoking cigarettes leads to lung cancer.
Shvler: you have no understanding of cancer cells or how they originate.
Me: *posts mountain of evidence linking cigarettes to lung cancer*
Shvler: *ignores all articles* So you haven't the slightest clue about how cancer works, waste of time. Most cigarette smokers don't get lung cancer and you can't explain why because you don't understand it.

^^^ that's exactly what shvler just did

[QUOTE=The Macho Man]Tiddy brainwashed by the A

Everything is genetic though, if you're a dick who can't handle his booze you were born a dick who can't handle his booze[/QUOTE]
The being a dick part is likely environmental

Not being able to handle booz is likely genetic

:)