An addict dies. How do you feel? (cost, dollars, rating)

[kayanne]

Originally Posted by Aredhel

Sad at the unnecessary waste of life. No one really chooses to become an addict; the drug or the booze does the choosing for them. If only they'd known what they were setting in motion with that first hit or drink, how different their life would have been!

Yes, I couldn't have said it better. I feel an extra layer of sadness at the unnecessary-ness of it all, the "if only," the inability of all who loved the person to prevent what ultimately happened.

[Stripes17]

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

I continue to disagree and since it is I you are talking about, I reserve the right to say I know more about myself than you do. Your extreme judgments of people with normal human failings are very sad to me.

First, congratulations on getting back on the right track and thank you for sharing your experiences.

To this thread, I have to say that with age, comes the opportunity to acquire wisdom. Thankfully my attitude about addicts has changed over the past 7 or 8 years as I've watched a younger loved one slip into the grasp of addiction and struggle to get out of it.

I can tell you that this person led a great life in their youth, but he found the cheap thrill of drugs through the company he kept. I'm convinced that he didn't go looking for the drugs, but he didn't turn down the opportunity when it presented itself to him. He put on a good front for a long while, abiding by all of the other rules and expectations of his young life, but masked the addiction until he just couldn't manage it any longer.

That took its toll on the immediate and extended family to a place where none of them had any experience or expectations of what to expect. Heart and gut wrenching to say the least as I observed what was happening. Watching this 19 year old suffer while trying to straighten out was difficult. Watching his family try to deal with it was equally bad.

Thankfully his condition has improved considerably over the past few years. He has been clean, he's made amends with his loved ones and has been earning a steady paycheck.

All I can say is this one "hit home". It really changed my attitude towards addicts. Hopefully some other posters will see the light, without having to go through the experience.

[Yakscsd]

Originally Posted by jamies

They're dead. Wasted their time. Caused too much pain. More air for the rest of us.

Sorry, no tears.

This is sad. Especially in today's world. Many heroin deaths are directly attributed to a sever injury where the medical community over prescribed opiate paid medicine. When the injury healed, the patients were left addicted and unable to secure more prescriptions. That leads to trying heroin one time and the spiral continues. There are opiate treatments available, like Suboxen and Methadone, but with the insurance situation the way it is, those aren't available to everyone. These people did nothing, except have a genetic predisposition to addiction. They are as much a victim of a failed medical/insurance system as the drugs themselves. To not feel some sadness for these situations, which are very common, is to ignore the problem.

[j_k_k]

I think that the medical industry's definition of addiction as a disease, that one is or is not, regardless of whether one ever uses a substance, is objectively the most ridiculous thing they've ever come up with. Addiction is a habit that has become physiologically or psychologically compulsive. One who never develops the habit is not an addict, never has been. Some people may be more prone to addiction, some less, but I will never call anyone an addict who does not use. If you were a drunk, and you quit drinking, I will think of you as a former alcoholic susceptible to relapse. (For that reason, I will go out of my way not to expose you to temptation, any more than I would offer an ex-smoker a cigarette when she was stressed out.)

Subjectively and practically, I also think it is a very useful fiction that seems to help addiction and recovery centers lead willing addicts away from using whatever they're addicted to. By telling them that it's a disease rather than a bad habit, it implies that medicine can treat their disease, and by helping them to feel less like lily-livered crap and failures at life (which I think most of them do feel like), that is probably very good for their kicking the addiction. So it's kind of like voting and politics. It's all a load of feelgood hogwash meant to keep the masses quiet while powerful people play power games, but it's probably valuable hogwash because without the illusion of participation in their own government, the masses would get together in large masses and do what large masses of people always do: dumb things.

So no, I'm not going along with this whole 'it's a disease' line, not from a reasoning standpoint. The medical industry disagrees with me, but since the medical industry is about profit over health, its classifications are tinged with self-interest and thus not objective (any more than an energy company's classification of fracking as safe is to be taken at face value). However, when people are at rock bottom and desperate, their reasoning is probably impaired and they need someone to shine a light toward an exit. If it helps them quit the addiction, to think of it as a disease, great. If thinking of it as a capybara helped them quit, I'd be for that too. If thinking of themselves as toasters led even 1% of them to quit, and they came to me and said "I've come to realize I am a toaster," I at least wouldn't contradict them. I'd congratulate them on their progress and smile. I'd rather know someone who is clean and sober and thinks she is a toaster, so to speak, than know a sloppy, abusive drunk. So by all means let the rehab industry tell them whatever they will believe in order to get them to stop, with my blessing.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Shrug. Oh well.

It's their choice and there is no way to stop an addict until he decides for himself that it is time to quit. In the meantime, until they decide to straighten up, they are nothing but a big expensive drain on society and they are also supporting terrorists (heroin users) and drug cartels ( users of just about anything else). Supporting crime and murder indirectly and very often supporting crime personally.

Not a lot of loss, although, I always hope they don't take an innocent family with them in a fiery car crash.

If they turn their life around, more power to them. But they wouldn't be dying of a drug overdose if they have turned their life around.

[Eascoaswing]

It sucks really bad to watch someone you love deal with something you know is going to get the best of them.

[Jukesgrrl]

Originally Posted by Hollytree

Addiction can be described as a "disease" only once the person has made the choice to do drugs or to drink. The body then becomes physically addicted. The main reason the word "disease" instead of "addiction" made it into the DSM was so insurance would cover rehab. and/or counseling.


What do we think of as a disease? Something that can be caught or can develop through no fault of our own?
You can't catch addiction and it can be consciously avoided. I sure wish all "diseases" worked that way.

There are many "diseases" that could sometimes be avoided with altered behavior on behalf of the sufferer. Diabetes springs immediately to mind. How many people are told to lose weight and stop eating certain foods to avoid diabetes, yet they do not. I certainly think of that as addictive behavior. Smoking is, of course, another one. Certain cancers can be caused by smoking, yet people still do it because after a certain point their smoking is the result of addiction to nicotine.

Other people get skin cancer long after they've been warned that their sun bathing is dangerous to their health. We have one of those in my family. If she gets melanoma that will certainly have been a choice option in my opinion. It's less common but some people end up in the ER because of overdosing on energy drinks or male performance drugs. That was certainly their "fault."

Then there are other types of behaviors that cause insurance costs to go up, yet no one is encouraging these active people to stop what they're doing. Blue Cross runs a series of commercials that show people doing things like sky diving and downhill skiing. The photos are offered with commentary that says something on the order of, "Go ahead ... you're covered."

Every time I see one I think, "How many people in my insurance pool are jacking up the monthly fees I pay because they get terrible injuries engaging in dangerous activities?" In some European nations that have universal health care, people who are covered under it are required to take out special short-term policies before they will be covered for injuries suffered in some dangerous activities. The public is not asked to cover their dangerous hobbies.

So to my mind, the word "disease" is barely relevant. People suffer and require health care, sometimes extraordinarily expensive health care, because of a variety of behaviors — some labeled "bad" by our society and others that are lauded (men with active sex lives into their dotage ... hooray? ... yes or no?) I no doubt could have avoided the last cold I had if I had locked myself in my house and not gone to public places.

[Jukesgrrl]

Originally Posted by Marc Paolella

Correct. I was presented with all manner of drugs and substances as I grew up. It was never a difficult decision to refrain. Why? Logic! The evidence presented in popular culture, in school, in the news, among my friends, among family members who chose alcohol and drugs, in the entertainment industry, everywhere, all led to the same conclusion. The body is destroyed by these substances and you would have to be a blithering idiot to ingest them. So I looked for other ways to have fun that did not involve suicide.

But if I had made a different choice? CHOICE! The drugs don't mingle with your molecules unless YOU PUT THEM THERE. Choice, voluntary action. If I had chosen to put the poison in my blood, I WOULD NOT BE DISEASED! I would be an idiot and I would be weak and I would be self-destructive. Those would be my problems, and the best way to fix a problem is to accurately identify it.

Seeing potential bad in ourselves is the only way to choose the good. But only if we know what the bad is and why it is. All of this comes down to reason and logic.

So I guess you've never CHOSEN to engage in these potentially deadly behaviors:

Driving a car
Smoking
Having a cocktail
Having sex without a condom
Going to work when your co-workers are ill
Looking at your phone while you walk down the street
Playing any sport more dangerous than golf
Having a child (those little buggers bring all kinds of germs into the house)
Taking care of a sick loved one
Riding a subway

And, for heaven sake, don't ever go into a hospital, you can't imagine the bacteria found there

[Marc Paolella]

Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl

So I guess you've never CHOSEN to engage in these potentially deadly behaviors:

Driving a car
Smoking
Having a cocktail
Having sex without a condom
Going to work when your co-workers are ill
Looking at your phone while you walk down the street
Playing any sport more dangerous than golf
Having a child (those little buggers bring all kinds of germs into the house)
Taking care of a sick loved one
Riding a subway

And, for heaven sake, don't ever go into a hospital, you can't imagine the bacteria found there

Is this intentional? Confusion of this magnitude cannot be accidental.

"Potentially deadly behaviors", many of which are productive and good, but may have RARE AND MINIMAL incidental risk, are not the same as "blithering idiot consciousness-obliterating weak conformist-escapist asinine useless retard intentionally self-destructive 100% of the time" behaviors.

So in the retard group (Group 2) we would have taking mind altering drugs, getting drunk (not having a cocktail, I am talking getting stupid), smoking, and walking plus texting.

The other items (Group 1) are productive and rational behaviors that carry a minimal incidental risk that is too small to worry about for a competent and constructively engaged human being.

Perhaps someone was exploring Group 2 when they submitted this absurdity? In which case Juke should find a new grrl.

[Tobiashen]

Sorrow that they endured so much suffering, put loved ones through so much suffering, and relief that they no longer suffer.