On 7/4/2015 7:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:40:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I disagree with you about the "addiction" gene. A responsible gene
suggests physiological evidence that can be isolated and identified.
To my knowledge, no such gene has ever been discovered. Many medical
docs and researchers have reported that there is "no" evidence or proof
of a medical reason for addiction. The ones claiming "disease" are
shrinks and other addicts.

===

It is generally accepted, and there is fairly solid proof, that some
people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. If alcohol, why not
opiates or other addictive substances? It doesn't really matter
however because once addicted it is extremely hard to kick. That's
why the war on drugs is doomed to failure. As long as the demand is
there someone will try to be the supplier.

The countries that supply free drugs to addicts have much less of a
crime problem than we do and there is no incentive for drug dealers to
recruit new users because there are no dealers. Who would pay
extortionate prices to a dealer if you can get it for free?



Can you provide some medical evidence .... not psychiatry ... of the
"fairly solid proof" of a genetically predisposition to alcoholism?

I've done a lot of research on this subject. There isn't any *medical"
evidence. A lot comes down to the classic Sociology 101 "nature vs
nurture" argument.

Choice or disease ... it really doesn't matter except for the methods
used to mitigate the problem. It's hard for me to accept issuing
addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution.