Whitney Houston dead at 48
- Thread starter Darrell
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
114Replies
-
3KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Crack babies all over the world are glaring at you
They weren't just randomly born addicted to crack. They are addicted to crack because the host that they were developed in FORCE FED them crack through an umbellical cord.
Are you trying to say there are people who are just randomly born into the world addicted to some chemical substances without someone having chosen to abuse that substance first?
Let me be a little more clear about what I'm saying here:
I'm am NOT saying that it's easy to end a a chemical dependence once someone has one. Yes, the characteristics of a chemical dependency are such that the medical world classifies them the same as other "diseases." And yes, once a chemical dependency has taken hold it's extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases to stop. I don't think addicts who cannot kick their habit simply have a "lack of will power." But chemical dependencies don't randomly occur in nature.
I AM saying that unlike what most people think of as a "disease," chemical dependencies are 100% absolutely preventable. I can say with certainty that I will NEVER become addicted to cocaine. Because I can say with certainty that I will never USE cocaine. And in that regard, it's pretty simple.
I'm am NOT saying that it's easy to end a a chemical dependence once someone has one. Yes, the characteristics of a chemical dependency are such that the medical world classifies them the same as other "diseases." And yes, once a chemical dependency has taken hold it's extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases to stop. I don't think addicts who cannot kick their habit simply have a "lack of will power." But chemical dependencies don't randomly occur in nature.
I AM saying that unlike what most people think of as a "disease," chemical dependencies are 100% absolutely preventable. I can say with certainty that I will NEVER become addicted to cocaine. Because I can say with certainty that I will never USE cocaine. And in that regard, it's pretty simple.
My brother was telling me this morning that they had a t-shirt on T-shirt Hell that said that.
Let's try it this way.
Crack babies have a choice in being addicted to drugs?
Crack babies "use" cocaine? Clearly the answer to both of these questions is no, they're exposed indirectly, but you left it open to this interpretation in your haste.We're all versed in your opinion on addiction, but opinions aren't protected from truth around here
I'm not sure enough is known about the brain and addiction to say chemical dependencies are 100% preventable. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Alcoholism runs in my family and I don't drink. I don't believe I ever will, but I'm just one anecdote.
Let's try it this way.Crack babies have a choice in being addicted to drugs?Crack babies "use" cocaine? Clearly the answer to both of these questions is no, they're exposed indirectly, but you left it open to this interpretation in your haste.We're all versed in your opinion on addiction, but opinions aren't protected from truth around here
Read what I wrote above. You know full well that your example is completely different than what we are talking about. Repeating it doesn't make it any less out of place, or silly. If you want to play that I would simply say that until they are born they ARE NOT a person, they are part of their mother because they are physically connected to them. So YES, they only PERSON in the equation DID make a choice.
So you're not an alcoholic.
They are 100% preventable because if you NEVER ingest the substance to begin with, you CAN NOT become addicted to it. In order for it to "run in your family", every person that it has affected had to actually drink alcohol first. Had they not, there would be no alcoholics.
I've battled food addiction since I was about 7-8, but my addiction has never been alcohol. Tastes horrible to me!
I'm not so sure every person born with a genetic predisposition for addiction, with the 'right' environmental circumstances can avoid taking the drink/drug that propels them into addiction. There are theories addiction exists without substances, and is a personality type alone. The substance use/abuse, then, would be peripheral and unavoidable. It's just one school of thought, where "fuck 'em they did it to themselves" is another.
I think I fall somewhere in between with my beliefs, but as accountable and responsible a person I like to think I am, I've struggled in some incredibly stupid ways. In my case, I can't avoid my struggles all together, else I die
I just think there's a lot we don't know about addiction. Maybe more than just the obvious "don't do ____________ and you won't be an addict".
But how would you know if you had a proclivity for alcohol (or another substance) addiction without ever ingesting the substance to begin with. It's like saying that you couldn't get fat if you never ae food. As Panacea has already stated, people have food addictions. Is it your opinion that people shouldn't eat food?
I think there is a vast difference between a chemical or physical dependency and a psychological dependency. Both are referred to in lay terms as "addictions" but they are not remotely the same thing. I this context I believe the whole conversation has been about chemical.
As for how you'd know you had a proclivity? Perhaps you wouldn't. But "knowing you have a proclivity" is an explanation for something that has already happened. It is irrelevant if you never partake to begin with. I will never know if I have a proclivity to addiction to heroin. But I don't need to know that to decide that I will never inject it into my body.
I see the urge that everyone has to use alcohol as the barometer. It's "legal" and in many ways encouraged by our society, so we consider it absurd to think people won't try it. And when some discover that they are addicted and have a proclivity to alcoholism - it is somehow perceived as tragic. But I think the flaw there is the idea that we somehow "expect" drinking alcohol to be no big deal. There is SO much evidence and history or it's damaging and dangerous effects, in my mind that erases the idea that "I had no idea I would become an alcoholic" so it's not my fault. There are obvious risks. You know them when you take your first sip.
MainerMikeBrown
Active Member
I hate it when they say "Whitney Houston is dead!" It sounds so tactless to me.
Instead they should say that she passed away, for example.
Instead they should say that she passed away, for example.
Ehh, semantics. I have a bigger problem w/ pictures and video of her body being brought out on a stretcher...or all the sordid details being reported (for example, David Carridine's death...we didn't need to know all that).
MainerMikeBrown
Active Member
Pictures of her body is a bigger problem, no doubt.
But them saying she's "dead" is still inappropriate as well.
But them saying she's "dead" is still inappropriate as well.
I don't have a problem with either. I think we as a society put WAY too much stigma on death.
Would it somehow be better if they had said "found dead?" Getting upset about words is quite stupid, in my opinion. (See Carlin, George)
Would it somehow be better if they had said "found dead?" Getting upset about words is quite stupid, in my opinion. (See Carlin, George)
Agreed. She was a great talent that didn't have the strength to get the help she needed.
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members