RE: ADDICTS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Kirata -> RE: ADDICTS (12/16/2013 5:07:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Knowing my choices are determined by a myriad of precedents: genetic, development, prior choices, education, culture, etc., doesn’t necessarily mean I know in advance which road I will take. Only on reflection might I learn why the choice was inevitable, or I may never know.

It's marvelous how determinism moves in mysterious ways its wonders to perform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

If you believe free will is absolute then I take it you believe sexual preference and gender identity are freely chosen and can just as freely be reversed. If you identify as heterosexual male you can lickity split choose another road and become a gay female in your orientation tomorrow. But then switch back the following day. Would you say that’s easily done???

Who said anything about free will being absolute? Besides you, I mean. This notion that, unless you can enact whatsoever you will, you don't really have free will, while common among children who have not yet come to terms with their limitations, is hardly a claim that merits credit. Free will does not require that everything be within your realm of choice, or that your choices carry the imprimatur of omnipotence.

K.




TheHeretic -> RE: ADDICTS (12/16/2013 8:14:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
In the past 40 years we have witnessed the tragically ineffective Big Government program called the War on Drugs. Do you wish that to continue? And if we recognize addiction as a personal medical ill would you prefer society refrain from lending assistance through public health resources as we do to cardiac patients, or to the mentally ill? Just curious on where your lines are drawn.
[:)]



I've clearly answered all of these questions previously in the thread Vince, and my position on the war on drugs has also been covered far more extensively, elsewhere in this forum, on multiple occasions. The thread topic is of interest to me. Further engagement with you regarding it, is not.

Have a nice night.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/17/2013 8:05:52 AM)

quote:

Who said anything about free will being absolute? Besides you, I mean. This notion that, unless you can enact whatsoever you will, you don't really have free will, while common among children who have not yet come to terms with their limitations, is hardly a claim that merits credit. Free will does not require that everything be within your realm of choice, or that your choices carry the imprimatur of omnipotence.

So then please tell me what it does require in your opinion.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/17/2013 8:08:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
In the past 40 years we have witnessed the tragically ineffective Big Government program called the War on Drugs. Do you wish that to continue? And if we recognize addiction as a personal medical ill would you prefer society refrain from lending assistance through public health resources as we do to cardiac patients, or to the mentally ill? Just curious on where your lines are drawn.
[:)]



I've clearly answered all of these questions previously in the thread Vince, and my position on the war on drugs has also been covered far more extensively, elsewhere in this forum, on multiple occasions. The thread topic is of interest to me. Further engagement with you regarding it, is not.
Have a nice night.


[:(]




Kirata -> RE: ADDICTS (12/17/2013 5:04:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma

Take it to a new topic if you want to hijack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Who said anything about free will being absolute? Besides you, I mean. This notion that, unless you can enact whatsoever you will, you don't really have free will, while common among children who have not yet come to terms with their limitations, is hardly a claim that merits credit. Free will does not require that everything be within your realm of choice, or that your choices carry the imprimatur of omnipotence.

So then please tell me what it does require in your opinion.


Issues of free will and personal responsibility in addiction were raised as central to how we conceive of the problem and approach addressing it. Vincent staked out his position in the OP (Free will? Not so much.) and invited us to share our thoughts. So with all due respect, I'm not clear on where precisely the hijack is here.

K.




VideoAdminGamma -> RE: ADDICTS (12/17/2013 7:52:20 PM)

As long as it stays tied into addiction, then carry on. If it slips out of relation to addiction then it will get pulled as a hijack. Snipes back and forth that are just sniping for the sake of sniping will be pulled as violations as well.

Otherwise, have a good discussion :)

Thanks,
Gamma




TheHeretic -> RE: ADDICTS (12/17/2013 9:17:18 PM)

I'm a little curious just where it ties in to addiction and treatment. If addicts bear no responsibility for their condition, as suggested in the foolish TEDx we started from, and they have no free will with which to choose to alter the path they find themselves on, AND the coercive efforts of the war on drugs are an impossible failure (which they are), then what, exactly, are we left with? Pure nannyism? And if that is it, then by whom exactly? After all, the most addictive drug of all for our species, is power. Who forces the nannies into perpetual rehab?




GotSteel -> RE: ADDICTS (12/17/2013 10:52:53 PM)

Or we could go with compatibilism and have situations where addicts have a desire to seek drugs AND the ability to make choices.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 2:04:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma

Take it to a new topic if you want to hijack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Who said anything about free will being absolute? Besides you, I mean. This notion that, unless you can enact whatsoever you will, you don't really have free will, while common among children who have not yet come to terms with their limitations, is hardly a claim that merits credit. Free will does not require that everything be within your realm of choice, or that your choices carry the imprimatur of omnipotence.

So then please tell me what it does require in your opinion.


Issues of free will and personal responsibility in addiction were raised as central to how we conceive of the problem and approach addressing it. Vincent staked out his position in the OP (Free will? Not so much.) and invited us to share our thoughts. So with all due respect, I'm not clear on where precisely the hijack is here.

K.


Thank you, K. Much appreciated. My reply to Gamma was erased.




Kana -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 2:50:55 PM)

quote:

If addicts bear no responsibility for their condition,

But they do. If nothing else, they originally picked up despite all sorts of social conditioning to the contrary. Besides, see my comments re personality and how it ties into addiction. We may not be responsible for the external conditions surrounding us,but we are all, each and every human, responsible for how we react. We are who we make ourselves to be
quote:

as suggested in the foolish TEDx we started from, and they have no free will with which to choose to alter the path they find themselves on,

But they obviously do. The millions of documented recoveries bear testament to that fact. I can see an argument that prior to being exposed to treatment or the concept thereof an addict may not bear responsibility (Which in this day and age,where everyone has heard of rehab, is damn near impossible.) but once exposed to the fact that they can recover, the responsibility is on them.
I can say that in the many years and thousands of people I saw walk through the doors, I have, on rare occasion, encountered someone who was just to damaged to recover,but those were very few and far between. I should also mention that I can say that only in hindsight simply because I've seen equally destroyed people recover.
quote:

AND the coercive efforts of the war on drugs are an impossible failure (which they are),

Yep. The WOD is the abject failure of the last 50 years.
quote:

then what, exactly, are we left with?

Which is one of the points of this thread.
quote:

Pure nannyism?

Already occurs. We call em prison guards.Or,when I was in the joint, screws
quote:

And if that is it, then by whom exactly?

The Department of Corrections. What? You want to call it anything else when we incarcerate (and thus control) millions of Americans nationwide
quote:

After all, the most addictive drug of all for our species, is power. Who forces the nannies into perpetual rehab?

Consider this-the last polls showed something like 70% of Americans favor legalizing pot.
Why hasn't it happened?
Just cruised through, especially when one considers the tax benefits desperately needed by near bankrupt states.
The answer is simple. Because the powers that be, the criminal justice system, has so many billions of dollars and jobs,agencies and infrastructure, foreign policy manifestations, funding of illegal US operations (Can we, in unison, all say Contras puuuullllleeeeze), defense ramifications that, as you just stated, it's almost impossible to wean the nannies from the power.

The WOD has led to
-The destabilization of our closest neighbor, with whom we share an open border
-Almost destroyed Colombia,who had their Supreme Court assaulted and judges slaughtered
-Supporting despicable regimes across South America as well as establishing CIA sponsored and led torture training centers in which thousands of peasants were slaughtered
-Creating funding for revolutionary groups in SA-see the FARC/NARC connection
-Opium grown in Afghanistan funds the Taliban
-Currently helps fund fundamentalism in Northern Africa
-empowered and funded gangs nationwide, the Crips and Bloods, being the most famous

And I'm just getting started. The list goes on forever.

It's also been the excuse for...deep breath time here...
-incarcerating vast tracts of the Black population
-creating ghettos and war zones of most American cities
-Asset forfeiture laws
-Internal checkpoints
-Illegal wiretapping
-A massive expansion of the criminal industrial complex to the point where not to far down the road it's going to threaten state budgets
-Police swat teams armed like Navy Seal squads

Basically, there's not a single constitutional liberty that hasn't been weakened by the WOD...which is the real truth of the WOD.

It's an excuse to seize power, strip freedoms, pour government money into projects, keep a population in check with fear, oppress and repress minorities, and in general trample the rights of what was once a free citizenry underfoot.
The WOD is the single greatest travesty of post WW2 American policy.
50years. Millions of lives ruined. Countless trillions spent. More lost in opportunity cost from taxes never gained.
And drugs are cheaper,more plentiful and more available than ever. And not just the old drugs,new designer drugs too.
Fuck, it's a Sisyphean task, like fighting Hydra-cut one arm off and a hundred more take it's place.

But maybe we shouldn't call it a war, because as The Wire put it so succinctly, "Wars end."

ETA
End rant.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled channels




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 2:58:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I'm a little curious just where it ties in to addiction and treatment. If addicts bear no responsibility for their condition, as suggested in the foolish TEDx we started from, and they have no free will with which to choose to alter the path they find themselves on, AND the coercive efforts of the war on drugs are an impossible failure (which they are), then what, exactly, are we left with? Pure nannyism? And if that is it, then by whom exactly? After all, the most addictive drug of all for our species, is power. Who forces the nannies into perpetual rehab?


If you will refer back to the OP hopefully you will understand that the main thesis of this thread was to question attitudes towards addicts and their plight. I was trying to explain that the notion that addicts are responsible for their ailment was a counterproductive approach to lasting therapy. The addiction is often a result of some environmental circumstances in the individual’s life history that left her traumatized and indulging in behavior intended (knowingly or not) to ease the pain of past events. The behavior leads to first a dopamine surge followed by a dopamine deficit and other neurochemical changes. The intention to get ‘dry’ or to reach out for help is overwhelmed by distorted brain chemistry. So, the addict is doubly damned: trying to overcome some causative injury with self-defeating behavior plus a resulting quagmire of altered brain soup. That’s why saying the addict must have the WILL to change is problematic. Her will is shackled.

Sheisreeds suggested there are techniques to overcome these problems. But society has not been particularly supportive and politicians are in fact cutting back on funding with the misguided excuse that addicts are to blame for their illnesses and should damn well just be able to say no.

Fears about the power of a totalitarian nanny state are a matter of differences in political ideology, I think, and are a throwback in my opinion to a time when neighbors were scattered on the prairies and in small towns. Those were times when people had to be self-sufficient or die. Too often they died. We are a nation of 330 million people united in greater density by fast air travel and digital communications. My pov is that we really should be willing to help each other a lot more without worrying over blame. Also, let me point out something I’m fairly certain you will agree with. It is the DEA who is busting doors and making arrests in the middle of the night; not the NIH. The greater danger of totalitarian tactics lies in the enforcement of Prohibition.




Kirata -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 3:02:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Thank you, K. Much appreciated.

I was compelled by antecedent conditions. [:)]

K.





vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 3:06:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Thank you, K. Much appreciated.

I was compelled by antecedent conditions. [:)]

K.



[:D] [:D]




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 3:21:44 PM)

quote:

But they do. If nothing else, they originally picked up despite all sorts of social conditioning to the contrary. Besides, see my comments re personality and how it ties into addiction. We may not be responsible for the external conditions surrounding us,but we are all, each and every human, responsible for how we react. We are who we make ourselves to be


Unfortunately, many people have overwhelming compulsions that make them who they are. Pedos come to mind.

quote:

I can say that in the many years and thousands of people I saw walk through the doors, I have, on rare occasion, encountered someone who was just to damaged to recover,but those were very few and far between. I should also mention that I can say that only in hindsight simply because I've seen equally destroyed people recover.


And what about those who never made it to the door?




Kirata -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 4:09:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

That’s why saying the addict must have the WILL to change is problematic. Her will is shackled.

See, this is where things go awry. You keep talking about the addict's will. It is overcome. It is shackled. Yet, your expressed position is that we do not have free will. So what are we to make of it when you talk about something that we do not have being overcome and "shackled" in the addict?

K.




Kana -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 5:06:58 PM)

quote:

Unfortunately, many people have overwhelming compulsions that make them who they are. Pedos come to mind.

As I said, I've encountered folk who,in retrospect,were simply too damaged from their pasts to be able to stop.
That said,I'm not talking many people.Most people can pull together periods of not using for various states of time. That implies some sort of choice.
Also, again, I've seen people who have utterly destroyed their lives get sober too, people who came from utterly appalling places and situations. I've never yet anyone who could tell the difference until it was too late.
There quite literally is hope as long as breath remains
quote:

And what about those who never made it to the door?

Yeah-but they knew the door was there. In this age of celebrity rehabs and instant media,I find it almost impossible to believe that any American doesn't know that there exists some form of treatment for addiction.
Now, whether they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary-well, that's a whole different ballgame.

I will note that one of the core fundamentals of 12 step programs is the concept of powerlessness-that each and all addicts in and of themselves are powerless over the compulsion to use and that they inevitably will use again and again unto death,barring intervention of a power greater than themselves. That root idea is why historian Ernest Kurtz titled his seminal work on AA,"Not God."
Seen in that light, 12 steps groups agree with your thesis of overwhelming compulsion.




TheHeretic -> RE: ADDICTS (12/18/2013 10:03:06 PM)

Well that's a funny thing, Kana. My own experience with the criminal justice system has been limited to a few sittings in the back of a police car, and a felony citation the DA wasn't interested in picking up, but I'd have thought the slang would have moved on a bit from the Mickey Spillane novels. Are you like, really old? [8|]

I am of the slightly radical position that we should make all recreational drugs available through some sort of legal avenues, from being able to buy marijuana as easily as we now buy a six-pack of beer or pack of cigarettes, on through energy drinks with real legs (put the coke back in Coke), into psychedelics with heavy duty warning labels, and right on up to prescription heroin.

Then we deal with abuse and addiction as public health issues, not criminal ones.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/19/2013 7:51:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

That’s why saying the addict must have the WILL to change is problematic. Her will is shackled.

See, this is where things go awry. You keep talking about the addict's will. It is overcome. It is shackled. Yet, your expressed position is that we do not have free will. So what are we to make of it when you talk about something that we do not have being overcome and "shackled" in the addict?

K.


I did not say Will or Intention were lacking. I said Will was not Free. FREE is the operative word. Intention and choice are determined by our personal history. Please note I am not talking about absolute materialistic determinism although in many cases, maybe all, some neurochemistry is involved. I say 'maybe all' because I do not have sufficient knowledge to make an absolute claim. However, if decisions are made by the brain I don't see how we can avoid the essential participation of chemicals.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (12/19/2013 8:03:11 AM)

quote:

Yeah-but they knew the door was there. In this age of celebrity rehabs and instant media,I find it almost impossible to believe that any American doesn't know that there exists some form of treatment for addiction.
Now, whether they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary-well, that's a whole different ballgame.


Whether they are willing or ABLE maybe.

quote:

I will note that one of the core fundamentals of 12 step programs is the concept of powerlessness-that each and all addicts in and of themselves are powerless over the compulsion to use and that they inevitably will use again and again unto death,barring intervention of a power greater than themselves. That root idea is why historian Ernest Kurtz titled his seminal work on AA,"Not God."
Seen in that light, 12 steps groups agree with your thesis of overwhelming compulsion.


Thank you, Kana.

Here is a higher power we may all someday agree upon:

Researchers led by Pitt neuroscience professor Yan Dong used rat models to examine the effects of cocaine addiction and withdrawal on nerve cells in the nucleus accumbens, a small region in the brain that is commonly associated with reward, emotion, motivation, and addiction. Specifically, they investigated the roles of synapses -- the structures at the ends of nerve cells that relay signals.

When an individual uses cocaine, some immature synapses are generated, which are called "silent synapses" because they send few signals under normal physiological conditions. After that individual quits using cocaine, these "silent synapses" go through a maturation phase and acquire the ability to send signals. Once they can send signals, the synapses will send craving signals for cocaine if the individual is exposed to cues that previously led him or her to use the drug.

The researchers hypothesized that if they could reverse the maturation of the synapses, the synapses would remain silent, thus rendering them unable to send craving signals. They examined a chemical receptor known as CP-AMPAR that is essential for the maturation of the synapses. In their experiments, the synapses reverted to their silent states when the receptor was removed.

"Reversing the maturation process prevents the intensification process of cocaine craving," said Dong, the study's corresponding author and assistant professor of neuroscience in Pitt's Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences. "We are now developing strategies to maintain the 'reversal' effects. Our goal is to develop biological and pharmacological strategies to produce long-lasting de-maturation of cocaine-generated silent synapses."

SOURCE




Kirata -> RE: ADDICTS (12/19/2013 12:28:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

That’s why saying the addict must have the WILL to change is problematic. Her will is shackled.

See, this is where things go awry. You keep talking about the addict's will. It is overcome. It is shackled. Yet, your expressed position is that we do not have free will. So what are we to make of it when you talk about something that we do not have being overcome and "shackled" in the addict?

I did not say Will or Intention were lacking. I said Will was not Free. FREE is the operative word. Intention and choice are determined by our personal history.

Aw c'mon, Vincent. When the tide comes in, we don't attribute will and intention to the water. Will and intention are attributes of free agents. You cannot assert that free will is an illusion and continue to bandy words like will and intention. Moreover, claiming that the addict's failure is a failure of will is pure presumption on your part. Willing something is one thing, knowing how to do it is another. Failure attendant upon a lack of skillful means cannot be parlayed into an indictment of the addict's will and intention.

K.





Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875