RE: ADDICTS (Full Version)

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



Message


vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 7:54:20 AM)

quote:

My position here is not that addicts don't need some understanding and compassion, if they are ready to make that change, but that there cannot be any change without a conscious decision to make that happen for themselves.

That's a point we agree on, Rich. The problem is that we (society) are unwilling to spend the resources to get addicts to a clear state of mind where they can make that decision. Even then they fail and need to be pulled back.




EdBowie -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 8:03:55 AM)

But we will spend money getting death row inmates to a moment of lucidity so that the execution can be carried out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

That's a point we agree on, Rich. The problem is that we (society) are unwilling to spend the resources to get addicts to a clear state of mind where they can make that decision. Even then they fail and need to be pulled back.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 8:23:33 AM)

quote:

It is not necessary for the mind to be wholly independent or separate in order for there to be a mind-body problem. The mind-body problem arises because our inner subjective experience is fundamentally different from any formulation of objective electrochemical processes, and can be neither described nor explained by them.

This belief is rapidly becoming old and tired. To wit:

The massive parallelism of neural networks allows redundant populations of neurons to mediate the same or similar percepts. Nonetheless, it is assumed that every subjective state will have associated neural correlates, which can be manipulated to artificially inhibit or induce the subject's experience of that conscious state. The growing ability of neuroscientists to manipulate neurons using methods from molecular biology in combination with optical tools,[29] was achieved by the development of behavioral and organic models that are amenable to large-scale genomic analysis and manipulation. Non-human analysis such as this, in combination with imaging of the human brain, have contributed to a robust and increasingly predictive theoretical framework.

SOURCE

quote:

Moreover, your argument that our free will is very limited in scope effectively demolishes your entire position. Because the extent of it's scope is detail. No matter how little we may have, if we have any at all then we have free will.

You are right of course. Truth is I was being overly cautious here because I didn't wish to sidetrack this thread. Perhaps for another thread. My position is that free will is an illusion. Every decision we make evolves from antecedent decisions and events, and from the development of social personality . . . morals and ethics.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 8:25:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

But we will spend money getting death row inmates to a moment of lucidity so that the execution can be carried out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

That's a point we agree on, Rich. The problem is that we (society) are unwilling to spend the resources to get addicts to a clear state of mind where they can make that decision. Even then they fail and need to be pulled back.


Mind boggling, ain't it?




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 8:41:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
Some of you have diabetes or kidney disease in your family tree, in my family we have alcoholism from the maternal line and mood disorders from my paternal line. They're still diseases.


It's certainly possible to brain wash people into thinking somethings true by asserting it enough times. Thing is that doesn't actually make it true. I wouldn't doubt you that your family has a genetic defect making you suseptible to becoming alcoholics. Thing is there's a very simple choice which can be employed to prevent your family from ever becoming alcoholics, just don't drink ever. And that's a pretty clear difference.

The problem with this 'just say no' argument is that infants born into a family of drinkers also perceive stress and dysfunction, which they may incorporate into their emotional development.

"Some 30% to 70% of alcoholics are reported to suffer from anxiety and depression," Pandey says in a news release. "Drinking is a way for these individuals to self-medicate."

Pandey's research focuses on the CREB gene, so-named because it produces a protein called CREB -- cyclic AMP responsive element binding protein. The CREB gene regulates brain function during development and learning. The gene is also involved in the process of alcohol tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms, writes Pandey.

A section of the brain -- called the central amygdala -- is another piece of this puzzle. Both the CREB gene and the central amygdala have been linked with withdrawal and anxiety. When there is less CREB in the central amygdala, rats show increased anxiety-like behaviors and preference for alcohol.

Pandey's newest study puts it all together: It is "the first direct evidence that a deficiency in the CREB gene is associated with anxiety and alcohol-drinking behavior," Pandey writes.


SOURCE




Kirata -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 8:50:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The massive parallelism of neural networks allows redundant populations of neurons to mediate the same or similar percepts. Nonetheless, it is assumed that every subjective state will have associated neural correlates, which can be manipulated to artificially inhibit or induce the subject's experience of that conscious state.

I haven't argued the contrary. But the influence goes both ways. Just as changes in our physical state affect our experience, changes in our mental state affect our physical state. Subjective and objective interact. When we change our subjective state, we change our physical state. It is not a one-way street, and they are not the same thing. Claims to the contrary amount to ecclesiastical nonsense being offered in disregard of reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I was being overly cautious here because I didn't wish to sidetrack this thread... My position is that free will is an illusion.

If it will put your mind at ease, I don't think you fooled anyone. [:D]

K.




TheHeretic -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 9:05:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem is that we (society) are unwilling to spend the resources to get addicts to a clear state of mind where they can make that decision.



And that's where your lack of knowledge about this stuff keeps leading you to say things that are idiotic, Vince. NOBODY can get the addict to that resolution, except the addict him/herself. Neither is it about a clear state of mind. It has to happen in the mind they have.





vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 1:30:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem is that we (society) are unwilling to spend the resources to get addicts to a clear state of mind where they can make that decision.



And that's where your lack of knowledge about this stuff keeps leading you to say things that are idiotic, Vince. NOBODY can get the addict to that resolution, except the addict him/herself. Neither is it about a clear state of mind. It has to happen in the mind they have.



We know that drugs and addictive behaviors change the brain. The onslaught of opiates diminishes the production of natural pain relieving endorphins to zero. The addict is not likely to make a decision for the long term when she is desperate for relief in the immediate moment. Twenty million untreated addicts over age 12 at last count. No intervention for them? The current social model is not working is it? Plain as day.




vincentML -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 1:55:25 PM)

quote:

I haven't argued the contrary. But the influence goes both ways. Just as changes in our physical state affect our experience, changes in our mental state affect our physical state. Subjective and objective interact. When we change our subjective state, we change our physical state. It is not a one-way street, and they are not the same thing. Claims to the contrary amount to ecclesiastical nonsense being offered in disregard of reality.

I never said it is a one-way street between our physical and our subjective states. That is not the issue upon which we disagree. I think we disagree on agency.





Kirata -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 2:59:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I haven't argued the contrary. But the influence goes both ways. Just as changes in our physical state affect our experience, changes in our mental state affect our physical state. Subjective and objective interact. When we change our subjective state, we change our physical state. It is not a one-way street, and they are not the same thing. Claims to the contrary amount to ecclesiastical nonsense being offered in disregard of reality.


I never said it is a one-way street between our physical and our subjective states. That is not the issue upon which we disagree. I think we disagree on agency.

Of course you didn't, and I wouldn't expect you to, because in my understanding of your position you don't think there's any street in the first place. As it seems to me, at least, you've made that clear. There's only the brain. The mind is the brain in action. And accordingly, there is no mind-body problem either, because there is only the body. So I hope you can come back soon to explain how dead matter came to find itself sitting at a keyboard posting to a message board, helplessly experiencing the choices of a brain it cannot control. Because that's a dark and peculiar view of life, Vincent.

K.




TheHeretic -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 3:24:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

We know that drugs and addictive behaviors change the brain. The onslaught of opiates diminishes the production of natural pain relieving endorphins to zero. The addict is not likely to make a decision for the long term when she is desperate for relief in the immediate moment. Twenty million untreated addicts over age 12 at last count. No intervention for them? The current social model is not working is it? Plain as day.



I have no idea what talking point website, email, or TEDx chat you are getting the number from, Vince, and I don't see where it has anything to do with the conversation anyway.

You've added a new "well, duh" statement to your parade though, so I will speak to that. Of course no addict in withdrawal, or getting edgy for the next hit is going to decide that this is the moment to quit.

What happens with drug addiction though, is that users eventually get to a new normal, and must have the drugs just to maintain that. They must have moved through the stage of denial (which sometimes doesn't come until they have tried to quit, and failed) and be in a state of acceptance about the reality of their addiction. And, big one here that you may not really grasp from what I've seen so far, they have to not be lying when they admit it.

Addicts lie. They lie to themselves constantly, never mind the lies they will tell anyone (everyone) else. This part of the consciouness that lies in your ear is what would make the metaphor of a demon so useful to the conversation, but someone of course then takes it literally, and the train derails into the stupid weeds of, "you think we should call in an exorcist." Let's stick with addicts lying to themselves then.

Denial doesn't end, until the addict knows not to believe the lies he tells himself. Their friends and loved ones can nudge them in that direction. We can plant seeds we hope will germinate and resonate in their minds. They have to get there themselves.

As far as treatment when it is time, I'm all in favor of taking a piece of the money we would save by ending the ridiculous war on drugs, and some of the increased revenues from all that black market money brought into the light, and establishing a solid and easily accessible network of treatment centers. (Addiction is contagious, put it under the public health budget.)





GotSteel -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 5:13:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The problem with this 'just say no' argument is that infants born into a family of drinkers also perceive stress and dysfunction, which they may incorporate into their emotional development.

"Some 30% to 70% of alcoholics are reported to suffer from anxiety and depression," Pandey says in a news release. "Drinking is a way for these individuals to self-medicate."


Vincent explaining how fucked some of these people are isn't a compelling argument to ingroup them.




LafayetteLady -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 6:35:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
Some of you have diabetes or kidney disease in your family tree, in my family we have alcoholism from the maternal line and mood disorders from my paternal line. They're still diseases.


It's certainly possible to brain wash people into thinking somethings true by asserting it enough times. Thing is that doesn't actually make it true. I wouldn't doubt you that your family has a genetic defect making you suseptible to becoming alcoholics. Thing is there's a very simple choice which can be employed to prevent your family from ever becoming alcoholics, just don't drink ever. And that's a pretty clear difference.

The problem with this 'just say no' argument is that infants born into a family of drinkers also perceive stress and dysfunction, which they may incorporate into their emotional development.

"Some 30% to 70% of alcoholics are reported to suffer from anxiety and depression," Pandey says in a news release. "Drinking is a way for these individuals to self-medicate."

Pandey's research focuses on the CREB gene, so-named because it produces a protein called CREB -- cyclic AMP responsive element binding protein. The CREB gene regulates brain function during development and learning. The gene is also involved in the process of alcohol tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms, writes Pandey.

A section of the brain -- called the central amygdala -- is another piece of this puzzle. Both the CREB gene and the central amygdala have been linked with withdrawal and anxiety. When there is less CREB in the central amygdala, rats show increased anxiety-like behaviors and preference for alcohol.

Pandey's newest study puts it all together: It is "the first direct evidence that a deficiency in the CREB gene is associated with anxiety and alcohol-drinking behavior," Pandey writes.


SOURCE



There are several realities that tend to get ignored when it comes to addiction. I won't say whether there is or is not an "addiction" gene. However, let's face it, it isn't an alcoholic gene as much as all addictions. Let's say this gene does exist. You could study a family with two alcoholic parents, and five children. I have read nothing that all would become alcoholics like the parents. In fact, some of those five children won't drink at all due to the bad memories of childhood.

What I have found, however, is that one must possess both the addiction gene, as well as the psychological issues to be an addict, which is evidenced by vincentML's statement above. Without both contributing factors, addiction is not likely to occur. And yes, I have dealt with and researched the subject.

As for incarcerating addicts, they aren't locked up for being an addict, they are locked up for the laws the addiction caused them to violate. Being an addict is not an excuse to break the law. However, because there is a high percentage of addicts incarcerated, funds should be budgeted for addiction programs much more than they currently are.

It is a well known statistical fact that current "recovery" programs are not long enough to prevent recidivism. A MINIMUM of twelve months in a residential program has shown to provide the best results for recovery from addiction. Currently, addicts are lucky if they get ninety days, and more often it is only thirty. Simply not enough time to learn the coping skills or deal with the underlying issues that caused the addiction.




EdBowie -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 6:41:59 PM)

That's once aspect.  Another is parents or others who think it is funny to ply very young kids with drugs and alcohol at far too young an age to imagine that all it takes is free will for the individual to not be set on a path not of their choosing.    
Likewise for people who wind up addicted to heavy narcotics through medical malpractice, or a combination of senility and medical negligence.  There are too many real life elements at world in the overall issue, to buy the 'just say no' line.

If people are able to make good choices, it would be a good thing if they did.  But not everyone is handed the same set of choices.


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem with this 'just say no' argument is that infants born into a family of drinkers also perceive stress and dysfunction, which they may incorporate into their emotional development.




cloudboy -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 7:49:24 PM)

I would agree that the war on drugs is a war on addicts. When I'm in district court in Baltimore City it just looks the like the BALTO City police are picking upon the poor and the downtrodden when it comes to drug offenses. The policing is expensive, intrusive, and it diverts resources away from more serious crimes. The illegality of the drugs spawns an expensive black market and an incentive for theft and robbery crimes. Incarceration v. treatment --- seems it would be better to offer addicts treatment.

I would much rather the USA modeled itself after Belgium than a police state.

Clearly addiction is a problem and we could use better methods as society to deal with it.

------------

Vintage Heretic: He's critical but offers no solutions.

-------------

quote:

The problem with this 'just say no' argument


....is that it doesn't work.




cloudboy -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 7:57:20 PM)

quote:

Some people are a horrible blight upon society, *shrug* fuck them.


I'm not sure I follow you. What is your recommended solution to dealing with addicts? No solution is going to be perfect, but the "just say no" / "police state" model can surely be improved upon.

This thread has me wondering what the libertarian solution to treating addicts is / should be.




TheHeretic -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 9:14:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Vintage Heretic: He's critical but offers no solutions.




Was there some part of my post above you missed, Cloudboy?

quote:

As far as treatment when it is time, I'm all in favor of taking a piece of the money we would save by ending the ridiculous war on drugs, and some of the increased revenues from all that black market money brought into the light, and establishing a solid and easily accessible network of treatment centers. (Addiction is contagious, put it under the public health budget.)




Aynne88 -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 9:57:42 PM)

War on drugs lol....biggest exercise in futility ever. http://www.upworthy.com/every-war-on-drugs-myth-thoroughly-destroyed-by-a-retired-police-captain




TheHeretic -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 11:31:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

A MINIMUM of twelve months in a residential program has shown to provide the best results for recovery from addiction.



Totally unrealistic, in pretty much any case I can think of, but very nice, if you can afford it, I'm sure





tweakabelle -> RE: ADDICTS (11/30/2013 11:40:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

NOBODY can get the addict to that resolution, except the addict him/herself. Neither is it about a clear state of mind. It has to happen in the mind they have.

This is true. No one but the person concerned can make and stick to a decision to get healthy. And that decision might be made in the fuzziest of circumstances. Because they may be the only circumstances available.

Does this mean the rest of us don't have to do anything but sit around and wait for the person to arrive at this significant marker? NO. Does it mean that understanding and compassion should be withheld until such time as they are going to produce results? NO. Does it mean that there is nothing that can be done until the person is ready to make and commit to the decision to get healthy? NO.

Theres is a whole range of things that can be done to assist addicts until they get to the point where they begin recovery. Keeping them alive is one very obvious thing. Ensuring they use in hygienic situations and minimise the risk of infections and disease is another. Making safe using equipment freely available. Ensuring that appropriate support and recovery services are nearby and accessible. Even very basic things like ensuring they have access to good food showers and shelter

Services such as those just outlined will not only help addicts survive their addictions, minimising the negative impacts of an addict's lifestyle, they will also subtly influence decisions to stop using and start living healthier lifestyles. The knowledge that ultimately recovery is in the hands of the addict alone should not be used as an excuse to do nothing, to wash society's hands of addicts completely, and to just sit around waiting for a miracle. It doesn't justify a 'tough love' approach.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625