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?

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.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's hard for me to accept issuing
addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution.

===

Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is
a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral
failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the
same old, same old.

On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's hard for me to accept issuing
addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution.

===

Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is
a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral
failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the
same old, same old.



It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue.
It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good",
an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:39:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's hard for me to accept issuing
addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution.

===

Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is
a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral
failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the
same old, same old.



It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue.
It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good",
an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors.

===

That's fine prior to physical addiction. Afterwards, not so much.

On 7/4/2015 8:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:39:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's hard for me to accept issuing
addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution.

===

Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is
a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral
failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the
same old, same old.



It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue.
It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good",
an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors.

===

That's fine prior to physical addiction. Afterwards, not so much.



Based on the conversations I've had with addicts ... both drugs (heroin)
and booze ... I don't think there is any question that the drugs are
more difficult to detox from and the process takes longer. That said,
I've also seen someone go into an alcohol withdrawal seizure right in
front of me on his forth day of medically supervised detox.

However, following a successful detox period it becomes a choice as to
staying clean for the rest of their lives.

I am no expert by any means and my opinion is based solely on some
personal experience over the past few years in trying to help someone
overcome a serious problem with booze. Countless detox sessions,
professional rehab and counseling at a nationally recognized facility
and a commitment in the VA's alcohol abuse program all failed.

What seems to be working (at least so far) is just some plain talk about
the pressures and reasons he has felt a need to drink to excess over the
years. Some confidence building and making him realize that his life
experiences are not unusual in the bigger scheme of things
and he has nothing to escape from or be embarrassed about. So far he
has chosen *not* to drink anymore.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 21:29:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 8:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:39:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's hard for me to accept issuing
addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution.

===

Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is
a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral
failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the
same old, same old.



It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue.
It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good",
an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors.

===

That's fine prior to physical addiction. Afterwards, not so much.



Based on the conversations I've had with addicts ... both drugs (heroin)
and booze ... I don't think there is any question that the drugs are
more difficult to detox from and the process takes longer. That said,
I've also seen someone go into an alcohol withdrawal seizure right in
front of me on his forth day of medically supervised detox.

However, following a successful detox period it becomes a choice as to
staying clean for the rest of their lives.

I am no expert by any means and my opinion is based solely on some
personal experience over the past few years in trying to help someone
overcome a serious problem with booze. Countless detox sessions,
professional rehab and counseling at a nationally recognized facility
and a commitment in the VA's alcohol abuse program all failed.

What seems to be working (at least so far) is just some plain talk about
the pressures and reasons he has felt a need to drink to excess over the
years. Some confidence building and making him realize that his life
experiences are not unusual in the bigger scheme of things
and he has nothing to escape from or be embarrassed about. So far he
has chosen *not* to drink anymore.

===

Good work, that's a great outcome.

All we need now is to get you into the inner cities and convince these
kids who are in poverty, from screwed up families, subject to all
kinds of peer pressure, and exposed to professional drug pushers.

On 7/4/2015 11:37 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:40:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/4/2015 6:22 PM, wrote:

There is certainly an "addiction" gene or some other genetic disorder.
The drug may change but the addiction problem doesn't usually change.
It can be diverted to religion, certain types of hard work or some
other drug but it will still be there.

I always considered myself luck I dodged it because it is in my family
but I have no problem walking away from anything. I can smoke with my
buddies for several days and never think about it again after I leave.
Same with anything else I am willing to try. I do avoid opiates at all
costs. I have gutted it put after a lot of things where I had a
prescription for some knock out drug I wouldn't fill.



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.


There is plenty of evidence that these problems run in families and
show up even when the kids live away from the rest of their people.
We can quibble about the meaning of "gene" and even "addiction"
(overused in my opinion) but it seems clear that something is being
passed down from the parents.

The fact that "Many medical docs and researchers" can't find a surgery
or pill to fix the problem dies not mean it is not there. We have
really just started drilling down on the human genome in any real
detail and it is not surprising they haven't found the silver bullet.
I am not sure they have their finger on the gay gene either but the
supreme court says it exists. ;-)

You still can't avoid the anecdotal evidence that some families share
a tendency for addiction far greater than others. Lifestyle, means and
parental supervision does not explain it all. Just look at the
Kennedys.



You are arguing nature vs nurture. There still is *no* medical evidence
that drug abuse or alcoholism is passed on in the gene pool.
In fact, there is *no* medical evidence either is due to a physiological
condition or abnormality. Sure, a kid that grows up in a family of
alcohol or drug abusers or in a neighborhood where they are prevalent
stands a higher chance of becoming hooked but that doesn't mean they
were born predisposed to becoming an addict.

Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by
kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis.
You can't convince me that specific areas of a state or country is
populated with people passing drug or alcohol genes. The
problem is due to the social environment. Participation in social
pressures is a choice.

On 7/5/2015 12:26 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:39:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue.
It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good",
an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors.

I guess you don't have a lot of experience with addicts. It is far
more with them than needing a "feel good ... escape".

After a while, they don't actually feel good or escape. That is why
the dosage keeps going up and they try stronger or just different
drugs.

You can't just tell them to cut it out, the most effective cures tend
to just replace one "drug" with another one ... even if it is just
"faith". (the opiate of the masses according to our progressives).




Greg, unfortunately I *do* have considerable experience dealing with
both drug addicts and alcoholics ... likely more than you realize. I
have spent hours and hours having private and personal conversations
with people I have become involved with in trying to help. I've driven
them to meetings and have attended several myself to learn more about
the problems and pressures they have. I've financed private rehab for
two people and discussed the programs at length with the staff at the
treatment facilities. For a long time I bought into the "disease" stuff
as a cause of their addictions but when those affected talk honestly it
becomes very apparent that the root cause is sociological.

The people pushing the "disease" theory are the treatment centers and
psychiatrists. In some ways it is beneficial because it diminishes the
stigma associated with substance abuse causing those affected to be more
open in seeking help. But the addicts aren't claiming to have a disease.

There is certainly a physical addiction that develops that must be
overcome. If you want to call that a disease, ok. But it's not
the cause. Talk to them. You will find that the root of the problem
is due to social pressures or environmental issues.

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by
kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis.

===

That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly
middle class with stable families. Am I wrong?