No. Once you are addicted I imagine it's very hard to give up anything.
And it's that knowledge that has informed my decision not to take addictive substances.
If there's one thing I know about heroin is that it's very "moorish".
I think the issue people have is not with addicts that are already addicted but that they voluntarily took addictive substances in the first place.
I don't jump out of buildings.
I don't walk in front of speeding cars.
I don't stroke tigers.
I don't take heroin.
The connection is that I know all four actions have massive potential to be detrimental to my health and wellbeing so I don't, and won't ever, do them.
Actually yes they do. They chose that path when they picked it up and did it in the first place being well aware of the dangers of doing so. It doesn't matter what type of life you live. I was homeless from the age of 13 and slept on the streets up until the age of 17 (in which I ended up in Her Majesty's Royal Custody for two years). I had many many chances to go down paths like that in my life, but I knew the consequences and said "no"!
I've lived the type of life where I've been around alot of this sort of stuff when I was younger (thankfully I straightened myself out and now have a happy and stable life), I even worked as a volunteer at Base 51 in Nottingham (which is a support facility for homeless people, underage parents, teens suffering from abuse, etc) for a while to try and help people like this. Alot of them quite simply don't want the help, or are beyond it.
It's a sad thing to see and if they can be helped I'm all for it, sure, but I have no sympathy for people like this because they chose their path in life, they knew the consequences their actions would have regardless of what anyone here may try to argue. It's a harsh truth, but it's a truth none the less.
I don't think cutting benefits will help, I think it will cause them to become desperate and commit more crime. However I don't think they should be given money to feed their habit either. The Government should do something more radical to tackle the issue.
As for stopping an addiction via willpower, I used to be a 20 a day smoker (how on earth I got through my military years like this I'll never know) from the age of 14 until Summer 2011 (I'm 32 now so do the math). I haven't smoked a single cigarette since last Summer. I don't use patches, didn't go to a Doctor, or any other special types of medication, I just stopped. Smoking is an extremely hard habit to kick, but it is doable on willpower alone. If someone wants to stop they will find a way to, even if they cannot do it by themselves.
Lastly, for it being a disease, whether it is or not, it is self induced under their own free will (in most cases). Why should they be supported for their choice to ruin their life and the lives of others around them? All you're/we're doing is fueling their addiction and making the problem worse.
I'm with CrowZero on this one. I have a fairly meager background in addictions counseling. But enough to know that there's more to it than choice. We all make stupid choices. But some of us pay more dearly for them for various psychological and physiological reasons. Of course it would have been better if they'd never chosen to use. That's not really the point.
I don't think they should have a blank cheque, mind you. But I certainly don't think they should just "die." (Chadderz, my friend, seriously?!)
I used to be a lot more judgmental about substance abuse. I didn't drink, have never smoked, and have certainly never tried drugs. So substance abuse was a strange place to do my internships in some ways. But I was very surprised, once I got to know these people, how differently I began thinking about it.
As one of my supervisors told me early on (and CrowZero reiterated above), nobody chooses to lose their job, their home, their family, their dignity... For people with a psychological and/or physiological proclivity, the consequences of a stupid decision far outweigh those paid by other people making similar choices. And, while people need to be accountable for themselves, it's very, very easy for someone who lacks that proclivity to judge those who don't.
It just another ridiculous attempt to score brownie points with Daily Mail readers.Duncan-Smith is a total moron who comes up with idiotic ideas on a weekly basis.Most of them are impossible to implement and end up being binned.
You mentioned cancer, do people who smoke choose to have lung cancer? No.
Do people who make bad lifestyle choices choose to have heart disease? No.
Are they diseases? Yes. I looked through the links you provided, psychology which is quite a fishy subject anyway and psychologists seem to think it isn't a disease. Whereas people who specialise in treating addiction The American Society of Addiction Medicine seem to disagree with you. My opinions are based on the studies and findings of these experts, not psychologists. There are also people who still think homosexuality is a choice and not something people are born with. There were many studies supporting that ignorant statement a few years ago. Addiction is quite commonly accepted and treated as a disease in rehab clinics, in Alcholics Anonymous and other places.
There are so many studies by neurobiologists who have actually spent 4 years studying and experimenting with addicts to reach a general concensus (amogst experts who actually studied and know what they are talking about) that addiction is a disease. Now Psychologists who are just forming an opinion as in your links (specifically link two, which is total ignorance).
This will always be one of the classic dileofftopics for the Western world. These type of issues don't fit very well with a polarized mindset. The black/white or yes/no or good/bad constructs simply don't address the issues accurately.
On one hand I hate junkies. I grew up around far to many people that threw their lives away because they couldn't get off the junk. On the other hand... I have an uncle who was strung out for about all 12 years in the state pen... and then when he got out he got cleaned up.... got married had a kid and he's turned out to be one of the most productive and amazing people/parents I know. Go figure. Twelve years earlier I'd have written him off and said just execute him and save my family the misery.
So yeah... never going to be a black and white issue methinks.
Well yeah...but there's stupid choices (that hair cut and earring I had in the 80's for example) and then there's STUPID choices (like taking heroin).
At what point do people become accountable for their stupid choices?
Why isn't it the point? I think that's the point where most people take exception to what people are choosing to do, knowing full well the consequences (for the most part).
There is a HUGE difference between saying it is not a disease and being judgemental about it.
Recognising that help is needed and should be provided to these people is paramount - but to say "it is a disease" takes away the responsibility, accountability and ability to change that each individual posesses.
If you can remove the cause of your problem in any way then it is not a disease - it is a consequence. And again this is not to say they should "just die"; far from it. I am for residential, closed programs as I outlined earlier. This would help the individual confront the reason they are addicted amd help them defeat the habit.
If you are not willing to enter such treatment you should get nothing because you can get help to stop such behaviour, you just refuse to do so.
Well done for quitting but I don't think you can compare tobacco with cocaine and heroin.Talk to anyone who has had a pre-med before an operation and they will tell you its one of the best things they have ever experienced.Heroin gives very similar effects but far more intense,so it shows why people get addicted to it.I have never heard anyone saying that tobacco is better than sex but I have heard that said about class A drugs.
I had a similar mindset to you, and Hannibal when I was a kid. My opinions changed during Uni as I met people who were former addicts, who convinced me to work with some of the charities so I can see first hand what people go through, "junkies" and "crackheads" as you call them do not choose to end up like that. No one does, I've met people with horrible horrbile stories. That really shocked my views.
I agree with this, I was a smoker, I quit on willpower. I smoked 30-40 a day. I know smokers, I know ex heroin/crack addicts. Nicotine addiction is something very different to Opium and Crack.
Hey whaddayaknow...there's another reason not to take heroin or crack.
It's harder to quit that than smoking.
This is not rocket science. EVERYONE knows heroin is highly addictive.
You take it and chances are you'll want more of it and then pretty soon you can't live without it.
That's exaclty why I want no part of it no matter how good the high is.
I don't think it really does, though. People know that they're addicts. Their self concept is totally different from, say, a cancer patient. They know that they've ruined their own lives and the lives of everyone who cares about them. I've yet to meet an addict who wasn't acutely aware of the complete cowpat they've made of their lives.
Calling it a disease simply makes treatment possible. From an insurance and clinical standpoint. There are physiological symptoms, suggesting a disease. But even that aside, compare it with other psychological diagnoses. People generally seem fine with a diagnosis of depression. We don't say "they chose to date people who treated them like crap, so it's on them." We don't dismiss stories of awful childhoods, abuse, etc. We accept that, in that case, there's more to the story.
Addiction sets off a different set of reactions though. And, believe me, I have those same reactions myself frequently. But that's never the whole picture.