Re: Drug Addiction

On Nov 25, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Daniel Needles <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In [email protected], "johnr" <keltonburg@...> wrote:
>> 
>> --- In [email protected], "hibbsa" <asbbih@> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would like to better understand the position coming out of the
>>> philosophy on this matter. Something that puzzles me is this. Let's say
>>> there is one camp that believes drug addiction is very real - perhaps we
>>> could call this the mainstream camp. Then there is the Popper/Deutsch
>>> camp that argue the whole concept of addiction is in error...that it's
>>> about preferences, ideas, and so on.
>>> Now, assuming that something both sides could agree on, is that there is
>>> a phenomenon of, scare quotes "addiction" in society.  For example,
>>> there are people who say they are addicted to something, who report that
>>> they 'don't want' to take the drug but can't stop, as well as various
>>> other self-reported or observed behaviors. Then on top of that, there
>>> are the statistics that associate crime with drug "addiction".
>>> Prostitutes report they are only selling their body to pay for their
>>> habit, burglars that they are trying to feed a habit and so on.
>>> The above are just examples that come to mind. But all I'm depending on
>>> here, is that there is *some* agreement on *some* features of, scare
>>> quotes "addiction".
>>> Or that, for example, someone who is "addicted" to crack, is more
>>> frequently in a disordered life, cannot hold a job down, looks awful,
>>> experiences social isolation. Or whatever. Not requiring any of that to
>>> be agreed on, only that there would be some agreement around some list
>>> of lifestyle impacts.
>>> 
>>> So here's my question: What difference does it make to the phenomenon of
>>> "addiction" and its consequences, who is right about what "addiction"
>>> really is? I mean, would not that phenomenon still be there?
>>> One obvious answer is that with good philosophy, drug taking would be
>>> legalized, not stigmatized, and much more cheaply available. That's fair
>>> enough.  OK sure, but then what about the life-style impacts of, say,
>>> crack addiction such as not being able to hold down a job. If that was
>>> happening now, it would still be happening if drugs were legalized,
>>> surely?
>>> So yeah...what would be different on the ground if Popperians are right?
>> 
>> As a former addict,starting from the age of 13. Also having an unmanageable life either schooling or work.Attending AA for many years,involved with addicts and prostitutes for many years ,the conclusion of my life it all was due to mental illness,Bipolar.This OS something that's denied in AA circles they day its a disease,that it isn't ,neither is it a spiritual menstrual and physical illness ,it is mental.The spiritual part is if you believe in a higher power your life Will change,a banana could be your higher power,you would still change. But you would still have a mental illness, the reason stability is in some peoples lives is they focus on the one day at a time program.So nothing is ever out of the mindset. It's just hibernation no more no less.
> 
> 
> I can answer but not exactly from Popparian lens. In particular I had one son with ADHD/ODD/OCD and another with Autism/bipolar. The autistic is ~90% cured. That is, he went from no eye contact at age 3 to being enrolled and competitive with his peers by Kindergarten.

You forced your kid to be obedient and normal, and live up to your standards of how a person should be?

Sounds immoral. You're an intolerant person.

Someone has different ideas than you -- your own kid -- and you interpret that as something being wrong with him and force him to change.

You've made a huge mistake but it's not too late to:

1) improve yourself and learn
2) make changes that help your kids instead of hurting them
3) learn about some of the people who fooled you and continue to fool others
4) spread awareness
5) apologize to your kid

and more

Interested? Or do you want to continue hurting your children? (Or from your perspective, doing something that may or may not hurt your children, without understanding the ideas about why it does.)

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/