![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 31, 2004, at 11:43:34
In reply to Re: Addiction defined, posted by Chairman_MAO on January 30, 2004, at 14:09:50
> I agree with you. And yet I still wonder why, in a "free" society, a group of people designated as "elite"--physicians--and the government collude to decide what is "medical treatment", what is not, and who is entitled to it. People should stop scapegoating drugs and drug addiction for social ills and look at the three most prevalent types of addict that are never defined because they'd be too insulting to popular culture: loveaholic (not sexaholic), godaholic, and moneyholic.
Posted by 64Bowtie on January 31, 2004, at 12:18:50
In reply to Re: Addiction defined « Chairman_MAO, posted by Dr. Bob on January 31, 2004, at 11:43:34
>>>People should stop scapegoating drugs and drug addiction for social ills and look at the *FOUR* most prevalent types of addict that are never defined because they'd be too insulting to popular culture: god-aholics, money-aholics, control-aholics, and love-aholics (may, or may not, be sex-aholics).
>
<<<Thank you for saying what I would have if I didn't fear being blocked............lol
<
<<<Seriously, I find it very profound and useful.Rod
Posted by KellyD on January 31, 2004, at 13:04:43
In reply to Re: Addiction defined - Profound in the absolute » Dr. Bob, posted by 64Bowtie on January 31, 2004, at 12:18:50
I think I understand your post. My post was specific to assumptive comments made to posters by other posters that use of certain meds, at a certain dose, for a certin length of time constituted "addiction".
Posting personal experiences is fine with the understanding that one is to not make judgements of others based on those unique experiences or information of the "I heard/saw that...." type. That manner of posting is presumptive, judgemental, disrespectful, and can be absolutely wrong.
I also have a problem with med "bashing", in general, for any med..... by "bashing", I mean posts that contain blanket, generalized, alarmist proclaimations. Sharing information is fine, but there are specific ways to responsibly go about it.
Posted by EscherDementian on February 1, 2004, at 2:20:50
In reply to Re: Addiction defined - Profound in the absolute » Dr. Bob, posted by 64Bowtie on January 31, 2004, at 12:18:50
i always chuckle out loud when i remember this one post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010907/msgs/78442.html
It really is worth reading in the context of this thread.
Escher
Posted by KellyD on February 1, 2004, at 8:21:43
In reply to Re: Addiction defined - Profound in the absolute, posted by EscherDementian on February 1, 2004, at 2:20:50
I think I need to give up on the "educating" a world that will not be educated. I would have thought a board dealing with mental health issues would be a bit more receptive to the flip side of some issues... but alas, there will always be some...
Posted by Chairman_MAO on February 1, 2004, at 10:18:38
In reply to Thank you for that... » EscherDementian, posted by KellyD on February 1, 2004, at 8:21:43
> I think I need to give up on the "educating" a world that will not be educated. I would have thought a board dealing with mental health issues would be a bit more receptive to the flip side of some issues... but alas, there will always be some...
Don't give up! I used to think the same way until I realized that if I didn't stand up for what's right, I had no reason to expect anyone else to. This is one of the driving forces behind my recovery (both from a lifetime of dysthymia/depression and a recent pattern of drug addiction/self medication) and my goal of returning to college in the fall so that I have some chance of affecting change in the world.
"Uncommon sense" is more common than you think.
"Darkness must come out to light, stay alive!"
--Bob Marley
Posted by KellyD on February 1, 2004, at 10:52:31
In reply to Re: Thank you for that... » KellyD, posted by Chairman_MAO on February 1, 2004, at 10:18:38
I do appreciate your words. Good for you on your quest and your successes. I have found that the "odds" are indeed against my truth and my stand. I do understand my truth isn't the truths of others. I'm not saying that's a reason to really stop telling my story. I have tried and I probably will continue, but there are hugh amounts of information that dispute me. This information has been harmful to some who could benefit in a responsible use of "questionable" meds that are tagged with a stigma because the have, in circumstances - certain people, caused BIG problems... that is not always the case.
I probably wear this issue too close to the vest.
Posted by lil' jimi on February 2, 2004, at 1:32:07
In reply to The orginal reason for this post got lost, posted by KellyD on January 31, 2004, at 13:04:43
i know i am addicted now ...
i didn't use very much at first ... i was young ..
... so young then ...
but soon it was all the time ...
... now i can't do without it ...
... and i always need more ...
... it really wasn't that much at first ...
... now i have to have 8 or 9 times as much to get the same effect ... ...
... and the withdrawals?
... i know if i try to quit it will kill me
... like if i try? ... i feel like i'm suffocating ... i am not kidding ...
... ... cold turkey is lethal ...... yeah, you know what i use ...
...
...
......
...
...
...
...diatomic molecular oxygen ...
we call it by its street name:
O2
... "Oh, Too" ....... ... the hard stuff
~ jim, air breather, another O2-junkie
Posted by EscherDementian on February 2, 2004, at 8:37:32
In reply to i am an addict, posted by lil' jimi on February 2, 2004, at 1:32:07
lil' jimi ! Hello there.
i enjoyed your post *smug grin*
> i know i am addicted now ...
> i didn't use very much at first ... i was young ..
> ... so young then ...
> but soon it was all the time ...
> ... now i can't do without it ...
> ... and i always need more ...
> ... it really wasn't that much at first ...
> ... now i have to have 8 or 9 times as much to get the same effect ... ...
> ... and the withdrawals?
> ... i know if i try to quit it will kill me
> ... like if i try? ... i feel like i'm suffocating ... i am not kidding ...
> ... ... cold turkey is lethal ...
>
> ... yeah, you know what i use ...
> ...
> ...
> ...
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
> diatomic molecular oxygen ...
> we call it by its street name:
> O2
> ... "Oh, Too" ...
>
> .... ... the hard stuff
>
> ~ jim, air breather, another O2-junkie
Posted by lil' jimi on February 2, 2004, at 9:27:39
In reply to Re: i am an addict » lil' jimi, posted by EscherDementian on February 2, 2004, at 8:37:32
hi e.d.
your appreciation is much appreciated ... thanks!
breath on,
~ jim
Posted by Chairman_MAO on February 2, 2004, at 11:59:20
In reply to Re: Thank you for that... » Chairman_MAO, posted by KellyD on February 1, 2004, at 10:52:31
Check out this debate:
From http://www.szasz.com/addiction.pdf :
DR. SZASZ: I am professor of psychiatry emeritus at State
University in Syracuse. The question, "Do drugs cause
addiction?" is prima facie nonsensical. Addiction is a form of
behavior. Behavior is not caused; it has reasons. Drugs can no
more cause addiction than sex hormones or genitals can cause
perversions or sexual acts. Some drugs, when ingested--which
itself is a decision--some drugs make people feel in certain ways
which they like to repeat. If you want to call that an addiction,
which is already a value judgment, because there are many
behaviors which are now called addictions--for example,
smoking-- Nobody called Churchill or Roosevelt an addict.
Now they would be called nicotine addicts. So addiction is not
a descriptive term, it is a stigmatizing term which is culturally
conditioned. And it reflects not a property of the drug, but a
property of the culture. So in sum, drugs cannot cause addiction.How can one dispute that argument? I don't get it, probably because any attempted at refuation, is, as Szasz says, prima facie absurd.
One can also ask this question: if the "moral majority" and our healthcare/addiction treatment system is so correct these days, why do we have more people with drug problems today than ever before? Our current "drugs cause addiction" craze is simply "demon possession causes addiction" masquerading as medicine.
Remember, masturbation amongst children and homosexuality used to require "treatment". In 1973, the APA no longer acknowledged homosexuality as a pathology. Let us hope someday they'll follow suit with addiction so addicts will stop being persecuted and blamed for social ills.
If addiction has a "chemical" cause, why is the prevailing treatment for it pseduo-spiritual cult-like 12-step groups? And if someone deemed an addict dares claim that they do not have such a disease, they are said to be "in denial". Sounds like the way Jews were treated in the inquisition, doesn't it?
Posted by Ilene on February 8, 2004, at 12:06:14
In reply to Re: Thank you for that..., posted by Chairman_MAO on February 2, 2004, at 11:59:20
Mao, I have a lot of time on my hands...
The distinction between addiction and dependence is important in understanding the phenomenon, but focussing on the behavioral side doesn't lessen the problems of physiological dependence.
(Nicotine and alcohol are our biggest socio/medical problems, obviously, but prohibition was already tried. Public health campaigns and taxation are working, somewhat. Smoking is down now, compared to where is was in the 1950s and 60s. I don't know about drinking rates, but people are certainly aware of the need to have a designated driver. At least some people. My aunt was killed by a drunk.
I found an effective way to explain the power of my irrational depressive and anxious thinking. It only works with smokers and other, ahem, "addicts" (substance-dependent persons?). I told my friend to think rationally about her cigs. She could tell herself how smoking wasn't good for her, how it had rotted her lungs (she's got emphysema) and given her cataracts, and how she wasn't going to pick up another cigaret. Does it work? Need I say more?)
The distinction between addiction and dependence fails certain real-life tests. I've read that barbituates and alcohol are so powerful that abrupt discontinuation can be fatal. So, how does that differ from the facetious O2 addiction? (Other than that barb/alc intake began volitionally.)
BTW, the Inquistion had no power over Jews. Only over heretics, which included Jews who had been "convinced" to convert.
I.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.