Addictions and destiny

89 posts in this topic

 

Depends if you are talking someone with a 'simple' physical addiction or individuals who have an addictive personality.

 

They are two different things entirely. I'm sure one of our internet 'Scientists' can back this up for you.

But where is the boundary? Is a person who goes out three times a week with friends and drinks four pints each time physically addicted to holding an alcoholic drink, or is s/he an alcoholic who needs the booze to function and ups the blood alcohol level every second day?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't care what flavor of looser it is.

 

Just pointing out the inconsistency thats all. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen of alcoholics they need it all the time. They don't go out 3 times a week.

 

One of my ex-girlfriends Dad was/is a life alcoholic and would pretty well put it on his cornflakes if he could, though as his stomach was fucked he would eat any breakfast.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i see it is that addiction has more to do with the compulsion than the actual act so you could, in theory, drink a lot and often not be an addict but most of the time the things go hand in hand as the behaviour in large quantities is harmful and people tend not to willingly participate in behaviour that is obviously harmful. On the other hand you could also drink very little and still be an alcoholic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The generalization of addicts being losers is interesting in this context. Is an addict weak and therefore a loser, or can s/he not fight against the tendency to addiction and therefore a loser. Or are they maybe not losers at all, just that: Addicts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But where is the boundary? Is a person who goes out three times a week with friends and drinks four pints each time physically addicted to holding an alcoholic drink, or is s/he an alcoholic who needs the booze to function and ups the blood alcohol level every second day?

A lot of times you can see the boundary simply by creating a situation where $addictive substance is unavailable and seeing what happens. Or, in your scenario, simply replacing the questionable variable (the alcohol in the glass) with nonalcoholic beer. Physiological responses are obviously different in the physically addicted.

 

Addicts aren't necessarily losers, although it tends to head in that direction when the level of addiction hits the point where it interferes with normal functioning in a negative way. Someone who likes the way it feels to smoke a cigarette is going to be a bit irritable on a long-haul flight; someone who has a serious nicotine habit is likely to be a fucking nightmare.

 

Many, but not all, addictions are physiological. The compulsion arises out of a physical necessity. Heroin actually changes brain chemistry so it becomes required for normal or quasi-normal functioning. It's nowhere near as simple as "addicts are weak and losers". They may make poor choices that get them to the point of being addicts, but it doesn't necessarily denote weakness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I don't care what flavor of looser it is.

I'm afraid describing people as loosers like this just demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding on the topic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The generalization of addicts being losers is interesting in this context. Is an addict weak and therefore a loser, or can s/he not fight against the tendency to addiction and therefore a loser. Or are they maybe not losers at all, just that: Addicts.

Nah - only ones that don't do ANYTHING to improve their situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Kommentarlos - That's just it: If an addictive personality is determined by whatever factors - genetics, society, up-bringing - can this person even try to fight although s/he recognizes the addiction and the harm it can do/has done? And if s/he fights and fails, is s/he still a loser?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid describing people as loosers like this just demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding on the topic.

Are we discussing adicts or recovering adicts?

 

If we are discussing the former, then you are right. Tis the families, colleagues and friends that end up being the loosers by propping up those that have no inclination to help themselves. As they drink, drug, gamble etc their way into an early death, the collatoral damage should not be underestimated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say both.

 

From what I've seen of addicts they don't wake up one day and decide they fancy being a drug/alcohol or whatever addict. They are escaping something and probably not got the support they needed. Some perhaps see them as not taking responsibility for themselves, which in part may be true, but sometimes society fails as well by not giving the opportunities.

 

Very few people will react well to being called a 'looser' and just decide to sort the situation out because of it. They need to see there is another solution and a better place to be. The best way to deal with people in this position is compassion not insults. Sadly yes sometimes there are lost causes, my ex girlfriends alcoholic Dad being the worst I've seen. He's been an alcoholic for 50 years. I would still never describe him as a looser , even though his alcoholism is responsible for huge difficulties in the lives of his children.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex was an alcoholic. I didn't even fully realize until he joined AA after I split with him. He kept it well hidden (drinking at work). I learned from friends that upon quitting booze, he took up pot again (something I urged him to quit). It's not a personality that I could personally live with... 8 years was enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would say both. From what I've seen of addicts...

With your extremely broad and extensive knowledge of the subject you would say that. You would also be wrong. And by "would be" I mean "are".

 

They are escaping something

BZZT! Wrong. You're only referring to substance abusers and ignoring entire segments of additive behaviour, most of which is pleasure-seeking (including junkies and alcoholics) rather than escapism.

 

Why the hell are all of you arguing with the one person on this thread who actually knows what she's talking about, who works in the field and who gets paid to to write considerably more complicated and detailed answers than what she put up yesterday for free for the collective TT benefit? Utter insanity. That's like arguing with SpiderPig about how to aim a satellite dish to get the best signal without knowing what the fuck "azimuth" means.

 

woof.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some perhaps see them as not taking responsibility for themselves, which in part may be true, but sometimes society fails as well by not giving the opportunities.

Hence, my distinction between doing ANYTHING whatsoever at all, and those who prefer to actively live in delusion land. What society? You can't really say that there is an utter absence of opportunites in Germany for example. It is the looser that chooses not to ADMIT that they need to avail themselves of them in anyway shape or form.

 

 

Very few people will react well to being called a 'looser' and just decide to sort the situation out because of it. They need to see there is another solution and a better place to be. The best way to deal with people in this position is compassion not insults. Sadly yes sometimes there are lost causes, my ex girlfriends alcoholic Dad being the worst I've seen. He's been an alcoholic for 50 years. I would still never describe him as a looser , even though his alcoholism is responsible for huge difficulties in the lives of his children.

We have to disagree on that one. I prefer to save my compassion for the victims of such hugely self indulgent actions. As long as society condones these loosers and 'compassionately' covers up their abuse of themselves and those around them, it makes loosers of those who suffer around.

 

Addicts of all flavors should be afforded any help that they need. But to minimise the problem of denial to a few anecodotal aquaintences is doing a huge swathe of the global population a massive disservice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BZZT! Wrong. You're only referring to substance abusers and ignoring entire segments of additive behaviour, most of which is pleasure-seeking (including junkies and alcoholics) rather than escapism.

That's a fair point. Though it's an area I'm defiantly reviewing.

 

The pleasure-seeking is defiantly another segment but there I suspect the problem is that you go in thinking it's a pleasure thing and then end up learning you're not as strong as you thought you were and the substance takes over.

 

What I've not really worked out, and I'm not sure there is a clear line anyway, is the difference between a destructive abuse where you harm yourself and those around you and 'just' being addicted to something. Is addiction always bad or is it just something we all do with some things worse than others and some addictions being more physically/chemically induced than others. Eventually it all seems to come down to chemicals in the brain making you feel good and that being something we seek.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now