It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: HeyAHuman
...
But when there is a feeling of genuine acceptance and love, and the addicts feel that their societal roles are important, the rate of success is much higher.
originally posted by: freedom7
From personal experience of abusing alcohol,gambling and drugs heavily in my past, I can honestly say.. It was when I turned my back on the faith and felt no purpose in life, felt like I was an accident of the universe destined for misery, and when my family fell apart and my Dad left us.. that's when the addictions starting getting out of control.
This backs up the thesis of this study as shown by the OP to be true. In that environment plays a crucial role.
If science and faith every collide in intertwine and we begin seeing the duality within, as opposed to going to war with one another. If we ever see that science in facts points to God. and see all the rainbow as opposed to black and white, this world would be a much better place.
originally posted by: sputniksteve
This is pretty sad. 80% of addicts are addicts because they inherited the propensity to use abuse drugs and alcohol, and would become addicts regardless of what their home lives were like or their happiness. They don't chose to become addicts, there is no choice for them. Their brains work differently then non addicts.
The other 20% abuse drugs and alcohol until they become physically and mentally dependent on them. From there they change their brain chemistry and neuro pathways to resemble the addict that was born with the disease.
This study and findings are just furthering along the incorrect idea that it is some kind of moral choice, and if adopted as fact could set back addiction recovery a whole century. This is exactly how addiction was viewed prior to the early 1900's when they agreed that it was a disease and not a moral choice or moral shortcoming of the addict.
I have a wonderful wife, wonderful children, owned my own business and made $100k+ a year, and am a recovering heroin addict. In the peak of my addiction I was living the american dream. I am living proof that this study is pure BS. I know that this can be hard to swallow as a non addict, I also didn't believe it for most of my life. I have addiction going all the way up both sides of my family tree. I never chose to be an addict, it chose me long before I or my parents or grandparents were ever born.
I pray to god that this is buried in a deep dark hole, and that minds much more intelligent than this guys prevail in shutting this idea down. This is dangerous information to the addicts still suffering today that need lots of help. Society would be all to happy to go back to adopting this model of addiction, dooming many to a fate they don't need to suffer.
originally posted by: Tangerine
Are you saying there is no choice in using drugs/alcohol? I've never used heroin. I chose not to. Are you saying that the genetic propensity is to use drugs/ alcohol or to become addicted if one chooses to use drugs/alcohol? There's a whopping big difference between the two.
On the one hand, you're relying on claims about body chemistry and on the other you're relying on an invisible supernatural deity. Don't you see the conflict there? If a genetic propensity causes one to use drugs/alcohol how does belief in an invisible supernatural deity prevent one from becoming addicted or stop one from using?
originally posted by: sputniksteve
originally posted by: Tangerine
Are you saying there is no choice in using drugs/alcohol? I've never used heroin. I chose not to. Are you saying that the genetic propensity is to use drugs/ alcohol or to become addicted if one chooses to use drugs/alcohol? There's a whopping big difference between the two.
On the one hand, you're relying on claims about body chemistry and on the other you're relying on an invisible supernatural deity. Don't you see the conflict there? If a genetic propensity causes one to use drugs/alcohol how does belief in an invisible supernatural deity prevent one from becoming addicted or stop one from using?
No I am not saying there is no choice to use drugs/alcohol. I said there is no choice on whether you have the disease of addiction.
Where did I mention any supernatural diety's? Did you mean when I said "I pray to God that this is buried....Etc"? I didn't mention God being involved at all, if you call genetics a Supernatural Diety I don't know what to tell you. I would be happy to discuss my view point as much as you would like.
originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Tangerine
You don't choose whether you are an addict or not, you chose whether you use the drugs in the first place.
Sorry that simple God statement threw off, let me reprhase: I hope this is buried in a deep dark hole". Should be no confusion on the rest of that paragraph now.
Again, 80% of addicts are born with the disease of addiction, it is up to them if it manifests itself or not by taking the drugs or drink to begin with. The other 20% alter their brain function and neuro pathways and after extended periods of use become addicts both physically and mentally or either or.
I am not trying to be rude, but I feel this is pretty clear. I think you are approaching it with a preconcieved notion and biased towards my argument without really taking the time to think about it and instead just blindly arguing against it.
originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Tangerine
No I am good thanks though. I said what I wanted to say and don't have time to argue statistics when it is such a small part of a large post that you have no valid argument for other than semantics. Take care.
originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa
In essence yes, I just don't like the part about saying if you have a happy life you will no longer be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Improving your surroundings and well being a part of recovery and for some people I suppose could be enough but for others it takes quite a bit more. My concern was just with the allusion that it is some kind of moral choice being made by the user to be addicted (not whether they use in the first place, for clarification).
originally posted by: RobinB022
a reply to: Honcho
Let's say you have someone who works for a grocery store. And another person who is a very famous musician. Now, let's say both of them get real heavy into drugs and start having a nervous breakdown for the people around them to see. And end up losing their job/career because of it, maybe even friends/significant others. Who do you think will scrutinized/demonized the longest and hardest?
The person working the grocery store, more than likely. Just because it isn't public doesn't mean much in the mind of the person being scrutinized. If it's a small town it's likely to be much worse for the average person, because small towns are made up of a lot of folks with very long memories, and people who make even one mistake may never live it down. Whereas, the media oftentimes are very forgiving in their views-to those who make even huge mistakes.
No doubt-your average person suffers just as much, if not more, than those in the spotlight.