why do people praise recoverd drug addicts

[Done_And_Done]

they AREN'T praised by the general public...only praised by other addicts and loved ones


That is the entire reason that AA is a "secret cult"...because the public stigma of someone in AA (or NA) is a negative one, they are looked down on as someone who is less. I know AA members that don't even call it "AA"...they will call it "the gathering"..."the following"...something of that nature.

People would be shocked if all of the names in AA (and NA) were released...it would be a list full of every type of human, from high paid CEOs to bums on the street. There are LOTS of rich successful men and women in AA and they attend knowing that them being there is a secret to the public. All ages, all races, all salary types...addiction does not discriminate.

One of the best posts in this entire thread. I invented that last line btw :)

[Dresta]

yes, some humans have one drink and there is absolutely no urge for another...while others have one drink and all they can think about is another drink. Each was born with different brain chemistry.

And I suppose you can say that about many addictions, like Alpha did...however with alcohol in particular it is something given at birth and not acquired. Like tobacco for example, tobacco addicts all get there by smoking lots of cigarettes and there aren't many smokers who "just have one" every week or so.

I am sure there are other addictions that have DNA links as well...but alcoholism is very buried in DNA roots. I read some study that had it as high as 80%, the other 20% got there from other things like PTSD, severe depression, etc etc

And there are thousands of minute gradations in-between those two extremes that we know very little about. When you are talking about the brain things are never black and white, and you need to accept that we are always working from a position of relative ignorance. Alcoholism is not special, and works through stimulating the same GABA receptor as benzos or barbituates. As i said, all addictions are buried in the 'root' of a person and controlled largely by their subconscious; again, alcoholism is not special in this regard.

Science is also highly politically driven, and that's the result of credulous study readers like you who buy everything that has the label of science on it. My girlfriend studied neuroscience, and i remember quite early on, they were told that research into empathy had shown we have a higher empathic response the more similar a person is to us, which could actually really help our basic understanding of things like racism, but of course, ANY inquiry into things related to race is completely taboo and therefore will never get any funding - therefore we won't look at it, says the lecturer (politics has decided it isn't important already).

[Derka]

Because it is insanely more difficult to quit the stuff once you're addicted than it is to not try to the stuff to begin with.

Also, people who never touch the stuff are absolutely praised plenty.

[GimmeThat]

yes, some humans have one drink and there is absolutely no urge for another...while others have one drink and all they can think about is another drink. Each was born with different brain chemistry.

And I suppose you can say that about many addictions, like Alpha did...however with alcohol in particular it is something given at birth and not acquired. Like tobacco for example, tobacco addicts all get there by smoking lots of cigarettes and there aren't many smokers who "just have one" every week or so.

I am sure there are other addictions that have DNA links as well...but alcoholism is very buried in DNA roots. I read some study that had it as high as 80%, the other 20% got there from other things like PTSD, severe depression, etc etc

so again, since alcoholism is buried in DNA roots.

can we even call it an addiction? or simply just genetically different than others.

I would like to think that an addiction may be something that one chooses to re-enforce over and over again, instead of having no power over so.


does addiction involve ones conscious choice, or is it simply subconscious?

since one may argue vaguely that our brain chemistry functions subconsciously



I guess we'd have to classify addicting behaviors/pattern and addicting substances

[Dresta]

so again, since alcoholism is buried in DNA roots.

can we even call it an addiction? or simply just genetically different than others.

I would like to think that an addiction may be something that one chooses to re-enforce over and over again, instead of having no power over so.


does addiction involve ones conscious choice, or is it simply subconscious?

since one may argue vaguely that our brain chemistry functions subconsciously



I guess we'd have to classify addicting behaviors/pattern and addicting substances

All your conscious decisions are made before you are aware of having made them.

[ArbitraryWater]

Oh my god... what a dumb ****ing question.

You're just trying to be controversial, right?

[~primetime~]

And there are thousands of minute gradations in-between those two extremes that we know very little about. When you are talking about the brain things are never black and white, and you need to accept that we are always working from a position of relative ignorance. Alcoholism is not special, and works through stimulating the same GABA receptor as benzos or barbituates. As i said, all addictions are buried in the 'root' of a person and controlled largely by their subconscious; again, alcoholism is not special in this regard.

Science is also highly politically driven, and that's the result of credulous study readers like you who buy everything that has the label of science on it. My girlfriend studied neuroscience, and i remember quite early on, they were told that research into empathy had shown we have a higher empathic response the more similar a person is to us, which could actually really help our basic understanding of things like racism, but of course, ANY inquiry into things related to race is completely taboo and therefore will never get any funding - therefore we won't look at it, says the lecturer (politics has decided it isn't important already).

You're contradicting yourself here. You start out by telling me we still know little about the brain, things aren't black and white, etc. Then you go on to make a very black and white statement of alcohol isn't special, all addictions work the same. But that isn't the case at all, we know different drugs effect the brain differently obviously.

Alcohol may function the same way as benzos, we know these two effect serotonin levels the same way, but alcohol does not function the same way as say tobacco, or video game addiction, etc. Its NOT that black and white, and different addictions can have different roots and can be spurred from different sources.

[Nowitness]

Seems like most people are so one sided.

They don't deserve mass praise. Just like people who do it don't deserve mass criticism.

[~primetime~]

so again, since alcoholism is buried in DNA roots.

can we even call it an addiction? or simply just genetically different than others.

I would like to think that an addiction may be something that one chooses to re-enforce over and over again, instead of having no power over so.


does addiction involve ones conscious choice, or is it simply subconscious?

since one may argue vaguely that our brain chemistry functions subconsciously



I guess we'd have to classify addicting behaviors/pattern and addicting substances

It's an addiction regardless of you were born addicted or not. A crack baby is an "addict"

[Dresta]

You're contradicting yourself here. You start out by telling me we still know little about the brain, things aren't black and white, etc. Then you go on to make a very black and white statement of alcohol isn't special, all addictions work the same. But that isn't the case at all, we know different drugs effect the brain differently obviously.

Alcohol may function the same way as benzos, we know these two effect serotonin levels the same way, but alcohol does not function the same way as say tobacco, or video game addiction, etc. Its NOT that black and white, and different addictions can have different roots and can be spurred from different sources.

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.

[~primetime~]

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.

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.

[shlver]

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.

Cite sources please.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...ry/famhist.htm
[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

[~primetime~]

Cite sources please.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...ry/famhist.htm

Directly contradicts your idea that "80% of alcoholism is buried in DNA roots;" whatever that means.

that does NOT contradict it...it completely backs it up.

"half of all children of alcoholics do not become alcoholic"

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

[~primetime~]

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


^^^ 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"...

[Myth]

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

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