"Weak minded people get addicted to drugs" - master_bates

[YouVantOption]

A lovely display of your ignorance to what drug addiction is all about.

Ya gotta be kidding man...

I'm only talking about myself as I do not personally know anyone addicted to drugs. I have experienced in the past with many hard drugs and never actually got addicted but thats not the topic of this thread....

Ok, but it is the topic of this thread.

So ... yes, weak-minded people do get addicted to drugs. As do strong-minded people. Drug, and other addiction seems to be genetically based, and independent of the tensile strength of a given mind.

Discuss.

 

[Regular Guy]

He may have meant people with weak character. But I do agree that this does not begin to scratch the surface of the phenomenon of addiction. The physical addictiveness of certain drugs alone outweighs the element of character though character may play a role.

 

[YouVantOption]

He may have meant people with weak character. But I do agree that this does not begin to scratch the surface of the phenomenon of addiction. The physical addictiveness of certain drugs alone outweighs the element of character though character may play a role.

Absolutely. Take a kid, have the parents break up after violent arguments, make sure some of the violence is physical, have one of the parents actively abuse substances, and if possible diddle the kid, and the character that results is pretty likely to be a drug addiction, or chronic substance abuser.

But not always. I know two brothers, brought up under precisely the same circumstances, they are less than a year apart in age. One is a (recovering) crack-head, the other an accountant at a top firm in Toronto, never had a problem with drugs or booze, or gambling, or sex.

Of the two, I'd say the crack-head is actually the stronger mind, he is certainly more creative, funny, and 'intelligent' (although YMMV for this latter).

Nurture? Nature? The biopsychosocial model is generally accepted as being the defining role underlying our characters, laying addiction on the doorstep of a 'weak' mind (whatever that is) is, as Ronnie so rightly said, ignorant. Or intentionally inflammatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial

 

[Gotsome]

I've seen both weak minded and strong minded people get addicted to drugs big time. What's happening is that the "designer" drugs they're making today is several times more potent than they were a few decades ago. In the past you could "try" and then leave it alone without withdrawal symptoms. Not today, as they're specifically designed to be addictive. Some pushers even disguise maryuana with cyristal meth to get their clients addicted.

 

[hormone]

Also remember that there are 2 types of dependance: psychological and physiological.

All drugs have a psychological dependance. They make you feel good, hence you want to have more. But some-- example heroin and other true narcotics-- also have a physiological dependance that comes along at a variable time afterward. Variable, because it is usually dependant on doing a certain amount over a certain time period, for your body to "adapt" to it...

Though one may say that psychological is only a biochemical hence also physiological of mind addiction-- pure physiological, has to do with your system developping tolerance and then physical withdrawl symptoms once deprived. It is these unpleasant withdrawl symptoms which make you want to return to the non deprived state, hence crave the drug. For example, the nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shivers, stomach aches of heroin withdrawl are purely physiological. Some drugs like cocaine have a much stronger -if not exclusively psychological according to some reasearchers-- psychological addictive power.

So explaining drug addiction by "weakness of the mind" is inappropriate. You can say weakness is having succumbed to try it... or to re-do it... But this is plain wrong. It does take a good dose of willpower to resist certain temptations... But addiction-prone personalities have been recognized for years and they have nothing to do with the "classical" strong vs weak minded personalities. It has much more to do with thrill seaking personalities. For example, someone who does extreme sports (sky diving, bungee, deep diving, free climbing... ) is much more at risk of getting addicted to multiple things than people who like a comfy grand-pa no waves type of life...

 

[Techman]

One thing to note about marijuana is that what is being sold today is many many times more potent than what was on the street 20 or even 10 years ago. Much of the reason for this lies with new methods of growing such as hydroponics which have led to purer and more potent strains of the plant being developed.

When it comes to addiction of whatever type, it eventually reaches a point where the drug is required just for the addict to function on a normal level, forget about the pleasurable effects of the high that was the original goal of using the drug.

And for whatever reason, either psychological or physiological, some people seem to be more prone to addiction than others. I, for example, have experienced just about every drug I know of and never became addicted in any way to any of them while others I have known have lost everything, some their lives, to one drug addiction or another.

Whatever the reasons for that may be I will leave to experts in the field of addiction to determine or explain, but I am quite sure it has nothing to do with them being 'weak minded' individuals as some of these victims were among the most capable and stable people I have ever known.

 

[naughtylady]

Also remember that there are 2 types of dependance: psychological and physiological.

All drugs have a psychological dependance. They make you feel good, hence you want to have more. But some-- example heroin and other true narcotics-- also have a physiological dependance that comes along at a variable time afterward. Variable, because it is usually dependant on doing a certain amount over a certain time period, for your body to "adapt" to it...

Though one may say that psychological is only a biochemical hence also physiological of mind addiction-- pure physiological, has to do with your system developing tolerance and then physical withdrawl symptoms once deprived. It is these unpleasant withdrawl symptoms which make you want to return to the non deprived state, hence crave the drug. For example, the nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shivers, stomach aches of heroin withdrawal are purely physiological. Some drugs like cocaine have a much stronger -if not exclusively psychological according to some researchers-- psychological addictive power.

So explaining drug addiction by "weakness of the mind" is inappropriate. You can say weakness is having succumbed to try it... or to re-do it... But this is plain wrong. It does take a good dose of willpower to resist certain temptations... But addiction-prone personalities have been recognized for years and they have nothing to do with the "classical" strong vs weak minded personalities. It has much more to do with thrill seeking personalities. For example, someone who does extreme sports (sky diving, bungee, deep diving, free climbing... ) is much more at risk of getting addicted to multiple things than people who like a comfy grand-pa no waves type of life...

Yes but once physically addicted, drugs will twist your mind, morals, and values until you no longer recognize the person.

There does seem to be some common characteristics among addicts. These include impulsiveness, being emotionally sensitive, thrill seeking behaviour, feelings of being different from everyone, there are more but you get the idea.

Nobody takes their first taste alcohol thinking I am going to become an alcoholic. In the same way nobody tries any drug thinking I will become an addict.

I remember in the 80's when it seemed to me EVERYBODY sniffed cocaine occasionally. I snorted myself with all kinds of professionals as well as "regular folk". I admit I abused the drug severely at that time of my life. Why did I not become hooked then? Who knows? I knew many so called weak minded people who would partake just to be included, to feel like they were part of the group who did not become hooked, I also knew some extremely strong willed apparently psychologically stable people from "normal" homes who became sever addicts.

There is a reason that medically, addiction is considered a disease.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[naughtylady]

One thing to note about marijuana is that what is being sold today is many many times more potent than what was on the street 20 or even 10 years ago. Much of the reason for this lies with new methods of growing such as hydroponics which have led to purer and more potent strains of the plant being developed.

When it comes to addiction of whatever type, it eventually reaches a point where the drug is required just for the addict to function on a normal level, forget about the pleasurable effects of the high that was the original goal of using the drug.

And for whatever reason, either psychological or physiological, some people seem to be more prone to addiction than others. I, for example, have experienced just about every drug I know of and never became addicted in any way to any of them while others I have known have lost everything, some their lives, to one drug addiction or another.

Whatever the reasons for that may be I will leave to experts in the field of addiction to determine or explain, but I am quite sure it has nothing to do with them being 'weak minded' individuals as some of these victims were among the most capable and stable people I have ever known.

Well said. I also have lost friends and acquaintances to the disease of addiction both drugs and alcohol). The disease of addiction is deadly. Some die by overdose, or drug interactions, others by driving while intoxicated or stoned, it is easy to get hit by a car if you are high or drunk when you cross the street, and there are a million ways drugs kill.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[YouVantOption]

There is a reason that medically, addiction is considered a disease.

No it isn't. That is what the 12 Step groups call it, incorrectly.

 

[Techman]

No it isn't. That is what the 12 Step groups call it, incorrectly.

Most 12 step groups are ultimately based on some religious belief and those who go through them are only trading one dependancy on drugs for another one based on religion.

As for addiction being a disease, I think that is a copout and a way for those who are addicted to absolve themselves of responsibility.
While there may indeed be genetic factors as to why some are more susceptible than others to addiction, I would hardly call it a disease.

 

[hormone]

sorry, Techman but you are wrong...

As for addiction being a disease, I think that is a copout and a way for those who are addicted to absolve themselves of responsibility.
While there may indeed be genetic factors as to why some are more susceptible than others to addiction, I would hardly call it a disease.

Well... alcoholism is a recognised disease in which you are addicted to alcohol. Narcotics addiction is a disease... in which you are addicted to narcotics. These are recognised in the DSM-IV, the bible of psychiatric disorders classification. And there are more! It is not like more "traditional" diseases nor a communicable disease (albeit somehow sexually, maybe? ), but it still is one...

Addiction has a physiological basis, related to change in neurotransmitters and neuronal circuits, to make it "simple". (Physiological) dependance is also neurotransmitter based (both are different, though somewhat related phenomenons, although some authors equate them).

Now that you believe that some people use the "disease" excuse to cop out, that is very possible, just like many people are trying to avoid responsability for being very obese... "Not my fault"... It has been shown that these people (addicts or obese who deny responsability) do not succeed in solving their problem...

 

[rollingstone]

I would agree with what Techman said about some people being more prone to addiction than others. And people are prone to addiction to different things. Some people combine addiction to cigarettes, alcohol...etc and others don't. And it seems that when people kick a habit, they take up a different one, hopefully not as self destructive.

 

[Regular Guy]

Some things fade with time!

I would agree with what Techman said about some people being more prone to addiction than others. Even though I never tried any controlled substances of any kind (not even weed), I struggled to quite smoking. I failed several times, and each time I would come back as a much heavier smoker. It reached the point where I was smoking 4 packs a day. It's been 5 years since I quit, and I still get strong cravings to this day. Whether its after sex, a big meal or when I am stressed out, I feel like I would do anything for a cigarette. I distinctly feel like something is missing from my hand, a phantom pain of sorts (though I would never compare myself to an amputee).

Even when I am walking behind someone smoking on the street and catch an accidental whiff, its pleasure instead of disgust. I know this isn't the same as drug addiction, but knowing this about myself makes me avoid any sort of experimentation at any cost.

I quit smoking 15 years ago after having done a pack a day for many years. In time the cravings will disappear with not even a memory of what it was like to smoke. At one time in your life before you ever became acquainted with cigarettes you had no idea of the experience of smoking. You will return to that point eventually. Something to look forward to.

 

[naughtylady]

No it isn't. That is what the 12 Step groups call it, incorrectly.

Check out DSM IV

By the way define disease. This is a summary of what I found on on-line dictionaries:

Lack of ease; a condition that impairs normal functioning; something that is considered very bad in people or society; any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition of the mind or society; a condition or tendency regarded as abnormal and harmful. A disease is usually deep-seated and permanent; to disquiet; to trouble; to distress. To derange the vital functions of; a condition of abnormal functioning; a harmful deviation from the normal functional state of an organism; a diseased organism commonly exhibits signs or symptoms indicative of its abnormal state. Thus, the normal condition of an organism must be understood in order to recognize the hallmarks of disease.

Addiction seems to fit the definition.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[naughtylady]

Most 12 step groups are ultimately based on some religious belief and those who go through them are only trading one dependancy on drugs for another one based on religion.

As for addiction being a disease, I think that is a copout and a way for those who are addicted to absolve themselves of responsibility.
While there may indeed be genetic factors as to why some are more susceptible than others to addiction, I would hardly call it a disease.

Which religion? From my understanding it is spiritually based not religiously. There is a difference. Religiously based implies a religious dogma where spiritually does not.

I just googled the 12 steps. They talk about a god of one's own understanding. Seems spiritual rather than religious to me.

Also regarding it being a copout and a way for those who are addicted to absolve themselves of responsibility; those steps included something about making amends to those you have harmed. This seems like the opposite of what you are talking about to me. Making amends, to me means saying you are sorry, paying back debt, and making righting your wrongs in general (at least that is what my mom taught me.)

How do you define a disease? Something with a genetic influence that is abnormal and harmful, that deranges the vital functions of an organ or organism, something that impairs normal functioning... if the shoe fits...

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[Techman]

Check out DSM IV

By the way define disease. This is a summary of what I found on on-line dictionaries:

Lack of ease; a condition that impairs normal functioning; something that is considered very bad in people or society; any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition of the mind or society; a condition or tendency regarded as abnormal and harmful. A disease is usually deep-seated and permanent; to disquiet; to trouble; to distress. To derange the vital functions of; a condition of abnormal functioning; a harmful deviation from the normal functional state of an organism; a diseased organism commonly exhibits signs or symptoms indicative of its abnormal state. Thus, the normal condition of an organism must be understood in order to recognize the hallmarks of disease.

Addiction seems to fit the definition.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

By this definition, lack of money, being homeless, being out of work or being on welfare could all qualify as 'diseases'. Addiction in most cases is the result of certain behaviour that is undertaken by the specific person and only seems to be termed a disease after extreme abuse of a substance. If a cocaine addict had never tried cocaine, he would never have gotten the 'disease'. The same thing applies to an alcoholic or any other drug abuser. Some people are addicted to porn, television, the Internet and in some cases MERB. Are all these people suffering from a disease as well? While certain drugs do induce a chemical dependancy and extreme abuse can lead to medical problems, I feel that addiction is more of a condition than a disease.

As far as 12 step programs are concerned, you are most likely correct when you speak of spirituality as opposed to my term of religion. Personally I have no particular spiritual beliefs of my own and do not believe in any 'higher power' or god so to speak. So a 12 step program would be useless to someone such as myself.

 

[YouVantOption]

Check out DSM IV

Yes, please do. See where it says 'disorder'?

By the way define disease. This is a summary of what I found on on-line dictionaries:

Lack of ease; a condition that impairs normal functioning; something that is considered very bad in people or society; any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition of the mind or society; a condition or tendency regarded as abnormal and harmful. A disease is usually deep-seated and permanent; to disquiet; to trouble; to distress. To derange the vital functions of; a condition of abnormal functioning; a harmful deviation from the normal functional state of an organism; a diseased organism commonly exhibits signs or symptoms indicative of its abnormal state. Thus, the normal condition of an organism must be understood in order to recognize the hallmarks of disease.

Those are not medical dictionaries, manuals, or reference books. Those are dictionaries.

Addiction is not a disease and is not recognized as one by the medical community.

Further reading:

The Lancet
New England Journal of Medicine

 

[YouVantOption]

As far as 12 step programs are concerned, you are most likely correct when you speak of spirituality

That would be very incorrect. They were formed by very religious protestants who were part of the temperance that was behind Prohibition. There is a huge undercurrent of religiousness that continues to this day (absolute belief in a higher power, confession, evangelism, mandatory attendance at church (90 meetings in 90 days at the start of membership, to properly indoctrinate the person), use of the Lord's Prayer, etc.

. Personally I have no particular spiritual beliefs of my own and do not believe in any 'higher power' or god so to speak. So a 12 step program would be useless to someone such as myself.

I wouldn't say that. I've seen 12 Step help to get die-hard agnostics off drugs. There are other positive aspects - shared experience, group counseling and so on, that form part of the treatment.

 

[YouVantOption]

Which religion? From my understanding it is spiritually based not religiously. There is a difference. Religiously based implies a religious dogma where spiritually does not.

Implies? No. 12 Step 'recovery' is without a doubt religiously based (that is a historical and factual truth), at the very least monotheistic, if not plain old Protestantism.

We should also not fail to mention that the success rate in these programs is around 10%

Penn & Teller did a terrific overview of 12 Step recovery programs about a year ago. I'd suggest you watch it Ronnie.

Bottom line for me:

12 Step is great. I've seen it work. Sometimes. It doesn't work for everybody.

12 Step is religiously based. So what? Even religion is better than lying in a pool of your own vomit for warmth, or stealing your kid's lunch money for a rock of crack.

12 Step is free and readily available. Alternatives are rare, and mostly cost money.

If you are addicted to something, despite the shortcomings, I'd suggest getting yourself to a 12 Step meeting rather than continuing with the addiction, any day. It helps stop addiction, but ultimately, the cure is within. If the addict wants to stop, they stop.

Which, by the way, doesn't work when you have a disease. ;-)

 

[Dee]

Also regarding it being a copout and a way for those who are addicted to absolve themselves of responsibility; those steps included something about making amends to those you have harmed. This seems like the opposite of what you are talking about to me. Making amends, to me means saying you are sorry, paying back debt, and making righting your wrongs in general (at least that is what my mom taught me.)

Bingo Miss Ronnie!

Real life experience from 2 months ago... I was contacted by someone .... long story short... a fellow I've met who is now in a 12 step program just confessed to those harmed (over a decade ago!) to a most serious act ... arguably criminal....the confession could see him paying for the rest of his life and might see him prosecuted. Hardly a cop out!