mamatutu
mama to two
I didn't say an addict couldn't stop or seek help. But, I do believe addicts are predisposed in some fashion to becoming an addict. That's all.
The Life of an Addict
- Thread starter Chasey_Lane
- Start date
I didn't say an addict couldn't stop or seek help. But, I do believe addicts are predisposed in some fashion to becoming an addict. That's all.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
This whole thing is akin to the 'certainty' of man made global warming cool change climate; it is a debate where facts and science are intentionally withheld in order to reach a predetermined conclusion. In this case "Drugs are bad, m'kay."
Kevin has a new sales guy, 25, BA in biology, worked the last 3 years in a lab working at DNA sequencing and that sort of stuff, the 3 million pairs, the 'switches', point being he is current and very familiar with research, proper scientific research; he's been doing it.
We all sat around getting hammered last week and talked DNA for hours. One of the realities of our world is that research on dope got cut off a long time ago when initial research started to indicate it is nearly harmless to adults, has numerous beneficial characteristics and is WAY better, in addition to being cheaper, than many BIG pharma solutions; you can't make no money of it; ban it.
In any event, new research is severely restricted. i have verification of this from a PhD in biology who is working with G and M on their big deal and she said the same thing in another context.
The bottom line is dope isn't bad for adults. It is not good for kids with developing brains (up to early/mid 20's) so there is rational reason to be concerned about kids getting high but then, there is WAY more reason to be concerned about kids and alcohol. And, for adults, alcohol is exponentially more destructive than grass.
We just don't like having open, informed debate as a people. Dope, alcohol, foreign policy, environment, energy, health care, economics, none of it. And all these people, researchers, scientists, trained experts in their fields, know this stuff and know their place, their position, all they have worked for, is constantly in peril if they say the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong people.
That's why the kid got out. Research has so many ideological, non scientific handcuffs to it, it just made it too boring.
Calling dope a 'gateway' makes as much scientific and rational sense as calling 'being a teenager' a gateway.
Your pal has been mainlining too much of his research materials. All you have to do is take a look in a rehab facility or watch someone detox from that crap in order to realize, first hand, with your own eyes, that dope is indeed bad for adults. Ask a recovering addict if dope was bad for him.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
My bad. Grass. Mary Jane. Ganja. Herb. Weed. That dope.
Roman
Active Member
I was a Medic in a Jail House, and assisted in many a detox. It isn't a pretty sight either.
hoo rah
Last edited:
mamatutu
mama to two
There is a lot of info out there about this subject. We take that info and form our opinions, which will vary.
Causes
By Mayo Clinic Staff
Like many psychological disorders, drug addiction and dependence depends on several things. Two main factors include:
•Environment. Environmental factors, including your family's beliefs and attitudes and exposure to a peer group that encourages drug use, seem to play a role in initial drug use.
•Genes. Once you've started using a drug, the development into addiction may be influenced by inherited traits.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/drug-addiction/basics/causes/con-20020970
So, now I am done here. There is no point in discussing it further, as far as I am concerned. Thanks for your input!
MMDad
Lem Putt
If there was no inhereted trait that predisposes groups of people to addiction then it wouldn't "run in the family." Alcoholism is rampant among Native Americans. You'd have to completely ignore that fact in order to conclude that there is no inhereted trait.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/drug-abuse-addiction
Last edited:
But I wonder if that is truly genetic or if it's learned behavior. If Daddy beats Mommy, it's highly likely that the kids will have that type of relationship with their spouses. But it's not genetic, it's just what they learned growing up.
It isn't learned behavior. Otherwise, we'd all have some personal responsibility. Not just for ourselves, but for others as well.
And we JUST. CAN'T. HAVE. THAT!
MMDad
Lem Putt
I've been told that siblings separated at birth tend to have the same susceptibility. It's hard to say - there is not an "addiction gene." I believe that hereditary factors make people more susceptible, but that life experiences can either mitigate that or make it worse. There are families where two kids end up as addicts and two end up "normal." Same environment, same heritage. Who knows? The experts don't, but they've only been studying this for a few centuries.
Radiant1
Soul Probe
I have a genetic predisposition to diabetes, so I don't go eating gobs of sugar. :shrug: Whether there is a genetic predisposition or not is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. An alcoholic doesn't become an alcoholic after one drink, nor does a drug abuser become an addict after one hit.
I'll repeat what lt said, emphasis mine:
I'll repeat what lt said, emphasis mine:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok, but, now we're really getting in the deep grass here and this is the fun stuff DNA man was getting into. Look at what that is saying:
Vulnerability. Effects of environmental factors and expression of gene's. Stage of development.
You take an Native American out of his natural environment at an early age, put him in a busy environment where he is surrounded by people who don't drink much and encourage achievement and responsibility, we'd agree you've made a profoundly positive impact, yes? So, the thing is, can we figure out what switches his old environment typically switch AND what happens in the new environment AND switch them? The argument is that environment has a genetic impact.
Point being to be able to, genetically, reduce or eliminate predisposition to given behaviors and promote others. That opens fascinating, and terrifying, doors.
Another member of the group has animal husbandry in his background and he made the observation of how dumb we are to thing on terms of 'race'. None of us are racists. We are ALL the same race. We are different breeds and, just like dogs, for example, there are different characteristics associated with different breeds. That concept opens more fascinating and terrifying doors.
For those who recoil and suggest that is stepping towards Nazi-esque ideas and thoughts, you gotta step back and consider what they were about; they were not about improving and/or making a better breed. They were about purity, affection and belief in a specific narrow breed. That's the opposite of seeking to breed, say, a dog, a person, who isn't likely to addiction and has better ability to focus and keep to a task.
That's over simplification but, it points the conversation in the right direction. Why WOULDN'T we be interested in knowledge that could lead to, say, naturally stronger hearts, less susceptibility to joint decay, better temperament, better overall health and fitness? I mean, you can take a perfectly fine dog that has room to run, squirrel to chase, the things it needs, genetically, to be a happy animal and change that environment, we see it all the time; anxiety, deterioration of health, bad behaviors, etc.
That leads to two choices; better, more appropriate environments and genetic improvements. One of those is simply not practical on a mass scale; we can't just put everyone where they, genetically, belong, where they'd be healthier and happier.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
(and to what lt said, as well)
MMDad
Lem Putt
The difference is that the alcoholic does not know that he cannot drink "normally" until it is too late. They try to drink socially but they keep losing control. They try things like quitting for a month to prove they have control, then go right back at it. By the time they realize that there might be a problem, changes to the brain have happened and it is no longer as easy as just making the choice.
I realize that logically all one would have to do is not drink or use and voila, problem solved. But we are dealing with humans, and logic doesn't really help. As long as there has been alcohol there have been alcoholics, and people have said "well just don't be so weak." That attitude has failed for thousands of years.
With diabetes, you know that you can eat reasonable amounts of sugar, but if you exceed that you will have problems. For some people the reasonable amount of alcohol is zero, and they don't know that until they find out the hard way.
I don't think most people really understand addiction. I know I don't. What is the line between being a user and being an addict? You get hammered once a year and make a fool out of yourself; you wish you hadn't done that; but the following New Years Eve you do it again. Are you an alcoholic, or just someone who gets drunk at NYE parties?
I get accused by the Smoke Nazis of being a nicotine addict - so what does that mean? If I smoke two cigarettes a day, is that addiction? What if I smoke one a day? Or one a week? Where's the cutoff between casual usage and addiction?
bulldog
New Member
I think that addiction is pretty easy to spot. Take something away from someone and watch them go bat #### crazy missing it.
Getting drunk at two NYE parties means you lack self control (or don't care) to curve that bahavior. As to your smokes; if someone took them away for a day or two, would you start missing them, want to go out and buy more, threaten bodily harm if they did not give them back? If so, probably addicted. A craving is a bit different too, I think. I can crave a drink, but not really care if I have one or not. That is not an addiction.