Homeless Couple

little lady

About two and a half years ago a homeless couple kind of “moved in” across the road from my job. They were around so long that we nick-named them Romeo and Juliet. They seem fairly young, maybe late 20s early 30s he could be a bit older. They are also drug addicts and we would often see them injecting (not nice I know). They would disappear, for a few days\weeks but always come back. Then last year they went and never came back, until today!!!

It made me think, for the length of time that I have worked here and probably much longer, they have lived on the streets. I think I have problems but nothing compared to these people.

How hard it must be when your bed is a piece of cardboard and your life possessions are contained in a couple of bags.

Life sucks sometimes, but for others it sucks all the time.

SarahMs

While I agree that yes they do have a tough life and it is really sad that they are homeless..... the way I look at it is that they are homeless for a reason and if they are continuing to be homeless, they want to be.

There is shelters, hostles, food services, medical services, programmes that can register with that will help them etc if they really want to, its a case of deciding they are going to change their lives and going the right away about it. I know the issue is a lot more complicated, and I know they cannot just decide 'YES, i am going to get better get me to the shelter' but they need to decide to help them selfs first before anyone else can.



Offer to buy them a sambo.... bet they would rather the money instead.

Yes I am heartless.... but I don't agree the way about getting these people off the streets is by funding they drug and/or alcohol habits.

karen86

I used to see a homeless woman with a child on Nassau St. Such a sight causes a bit of a heartache.

Hannibal Smith

SarahMs wrote: »

While I agree that yes they do have a tough life and it is really sad that they are homeless..... the way I look at it is that they are homeless for a reason and if they are continuing to be homeless, they want to be.

There is shelters, hostles, food services, medical services, programmes that can register with that will help them etc if they really want to, its a case of deciding they are going to change their lives and going the right away about it. I know the issue is a lot more complicated, and I know they cannot just decide 'YES, i am going to get better get me to the shelter' but they need to decide to help them selfs first before anyone else can.



Offer to buy them a sambo.... bet they would rather the money instead.

Yes I am heartless.... but I don't agree the way about getting these people off the streets is by funding they drug and/or alcohol habits.

I think that's the fairy tale way of looking at it. Look at that 17 year old who was found dead in a drain last week. His family called on the HSE for help but no one stood up to the plate. He was beaten up whilst in hostels for adults. I think faced with the option of sleeping in a hostel or on the street, I'd take my chances with the street from some of the stories I've heard.

Like you say, it's not as easy as just waking up one morning and deciding you don't want to be homeless. But similarly if you want to change your life you need the proper support networks there to help you and they just don't seem to be working.

And addiction is a very powerful thing. I can't imagine what it's like to be so dependant on a drug. We all know the majority of those begging on the streets aren't looking for money for food, I don't see the point in making them feel worse about it. It could be anyone of us.

iguana

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

And addiction is a very powerful thing. I can't imagine what it's like to be so dependant on a drug. We all know the majority of those begging on the streets aren't looking for money for food, I don't see the point in making them feel worse about it. It could be anyone of us.

Because one of the number one ways an addict has any hope of recovery is when they are left to face the consequences of their addiction. For every addict living on the street there is very likely to be a partner, siblings and parents who had to go against every instinct they have to allow their loved one fall so hard and not step in to 'save' them from homelessness. Enabling their addiction, no matter how good your intentions, is the worst thing you can do for an addict.

Hannibal Smith

iguana wrote: »

Because one of the number one ways an addict has any hope of recovery is when they are left to face the consequences of their addiction. For every addict living on the street there is very likely to be a partner, siblings and parents who had to go against every instinct they have to allow their loved one fall so hard and not step in to 'save' them from homelessness. Enabling their addiction, no matter how good your intentions, is the worst thing you can do for an addict.

No matter what you do, you can't do right for doing wrong. There are so many different facets to it and even so many different types of homelessness, some are from good homes with loving families, others never had a hope in hell in the first place.

You give them a sandwich, you're freeing up the money they've already got, you give them money you're financing them directly. I just prefer to give them the money and not make an issue of it.

Dublin_Gunner

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

I think that's the fairy tale way of looking at it. Look at that 17 year old who was found dead in a drain last week. His family called on the HSE for help but no one stood up to the plate. He was beaten up whilst in hostels for adults. I think faced with the option of sleeping in a hostel or on the street, I'd take my chances with the street from some of the stories I've heard.

Yeah, his family were so fcuking concerned they let him stay there :rolleyes:

Some people have no options, I understand that.

But most do, and most have made choices that keeps them on the street, rather than sucking up to reality and attempting to change it.

This may seem harsh, but I have 0 sympathy for a homeless alcoholic or drug addict. They made their bed, they can bloody well sleep in it.

Why should the rest of society pay for people who offer nothing to society, and do absolutely NOTHING to help themselves.

There's a fcuker that's always hovering around the bus stops on Westmoreland Street, sort of old, I'd say 50's, always locked, speaks really bloody slowly, always asking around 'saaaaa-rry to bother ye buuud, ya wouldn't have a few coins for a cup o' tea?"

You're right 'buud', I wouldn't.

I have genuine sympathy for those who have to go through tough times due to circumstances beyond their control, but being an alcoholic or junkie, when there is help out there, doesnt sit well with me.

Times are tough as it is without having to shell out for idiots who have noone to blame but themselves.

I await flames.

PK2008

Beer everyday, no mortgage worries, no bills to pay, free to move on whenever you like, free handouts, no boss, no early mornings, no commuting, sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me actually.


Ever think they might like it?


(Theres a book called 'On the Road' by Jack Kerouac and a lot of the homeless people he meets love the drifter life

Lockstep

PK2008 wrote: »

Beer everyday

What?

PK2008 wrote: »

no mortgage worries

Ask yourself why people pay mortages; usually to have a safe, warm place of your own.
Especially in a place like IReland where it's always pissing down.

PK2008 wrote: »

no bills to pay

You're free to not pay any bills either, just don't expect to get any services.
This also applies to the homeless.

PK2008 wrote: »

free to move on whenever you like

Nothing stopping you from moving on whenever you life either.

PK2008 wrote: »

free handouts

Yeah, they must be rolling in it.

PK2008 wrote: »

no boss, no early mornings, no commuting

Mainly because they usually don't work. You can do all this on the dole without having any of the danger/poverty of sleeping on the streets.

PK2008 wrote: »

sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me actually.

Hah!

PK2008 wrote: »

Ever think they might like it?

I really, really doubt that there's that many who do.

PK2008 wrote: »

(Theres a book called 'On the Road' by Jack Kerouac and a lot of the homeless people he meets love the drifter life

A book from the 50s?

Hannibal Smith

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yeah, his family were so fcuking concerned they let him stay there :rolleyes:

Some people have no options, I understand that.

But most do, and most have made choices that keeps them on the street, rather than sucking up to reality and attempting to change it.

This may seem harsh, but I have 0 sympathy for a homeless alcoholic or drug addict. They made their bed, they can bloody well sleep in it.

Why should the rest of society pay for people who offer nothing to society, and do absolutely NOTHING to help themselves.

There's a fcuker that's always hovering around the bus stops on Westmoreland Street, sort of old, I'd say 50's, always locked, speaks really bloody slowly, always asking around 'saaaaa-rry to bother ye buuud, ya wouldn't have a few coins for a cup o' tea?"

You're right 'buud', I wouldn't.

I have genuine sympathy for those who have to go through tough times due to circumstances beyond their control, but being an alcoholic or junkie, when there is help out there, doesnt sit well with me.

Times are tough as it is without having to shell out for idiots who have noone to blame but themselves.

I await flames.

The family didn't 'let' him stay there, from what I've read in the papers anyhow. He was a kid who lost both his parents at a young age and went off the rails. Jees have we become such a 'me me' society that we can't look at the wider picture?

I'm not a bleeding heart help them kinda person, but at the same time I do think of the old saying 'there but for the grace of God'. A different upbringing, a different set of circumstances any one could be in the same situation. The moral high ground is a very shakey place.

Hannibal Smith

PK2008 wrote: »

Beer everyday, no mortgage worries, no bills to pay, free to move on whenever you like, free handouts, no boss, no early mornings, no commuting, sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me actually.


Ever think they might like it?


(Theres a book called 'On the Road' by Jack Kerouac and a lot of the homeless people he meets love the drifter life

if it sounds so sweet, why haven't you joined them?

Keyzer

Seen a homeless guy in LA turn down a huge platter of sandwiches because he didn't like the fillings...

The cheek...

little lady

I have heard of one man who is homeless, he stays in hostels and places for homeless men, he has been on the streets for years and likes it. He has a family, sons and daughters who all have homes and families of their own, he stays with them sometimes, not very often but when the weather is REALLY bad and he can’t find a bed, but he doesn’t want to stay with them permanently (I know his daughter).

However I would say this is definitely an exception to the rule. I can’t imagine most homeless wanting to live on the streets, not knowing where they are going to sleep at night and who they might meet, if they will be safe?

The life can seem ideal (I use that very lightly) sitting at my desk on a nice sunny day and they are sitting across the road, having a few beers and a laugh with their friends, who wouldn’t want that. Then you see them, locked or passed out on drugs, filthy dirty, relieving themselves where they sleep, being moved on by the gardai, sitting in corners trying to stay out of the wind and wet and you realise why you wouldn’t want to be them.

I don’t think people choose to be homeless, it just happens through bad and unlucky circumstances and most get into a vicious circle that they can’t get out of.

the_syco

SarahMs wrote: »

I know the issue is a lot more complicated, and I know they cannot just decide 'YES, i am going to get better get me to the shelter' but they need to decide to help them selfs first before anyone else can.

Maybe not, but if they get into a hostel, they do so of their own choice, they can then be put into some sort of medium term accom, and go from there. Pumping themselves full of drugs won't help them.

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

ILook at that 17 year old who was found dead in a drain last week. His family called on the HSE for help but no one stood up to the plate. He was beaten up whilst in hostels for adults.

Why was he not in his family home? Or is it a case that the "blame someone else" society that we live in expect "someone else" to look after him?

=-=

Getting people off the streets during the summer is not easy, as they're not allowed to drink in the hostels (bar 2, and they are VERY hard to get into). During the winter, not so hard, but they (DCC or tSC or the other one which I forget the name of) can't always get everyone a bed.

=-=

Some people enjoy it, as they have friends on the streets, or can't get a job due to having left school at an early age. Some have trouble with authority, and some have their personal deamons.

Lockstep

Yeah, I've known the odd hobo and your analysis seems fairly spot on.

THere would be the odd few who like the life but it's extremely unlikely to be the rule.

krudler

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yeah, his family were so fcuking concerned they let him stay there :rolleyes:

Some people have no options, I understand that.

But most do, and most have made choices that keeps them on the street, rather than sucking up to reality and attempting to change it.

This may seem harsh, but I have 0 sympathy for a homeless alcoholic or drug addict. They made their bed, they can bloody well sleep in it.

Why should the rest of society pay for people who offer nothing to society, and do absolutely NOTHING to help themselves.

There's a fcuker that's always hovering around the bus stops on Westmoreland Street, sort of old, I'd say 50's, always locked, speaks really bloody slowly, always asking around 'saaaaa-rry to bother ye buuud, ya wouldn't have a few coins for a cup o' tea?"

You're right 'buud', I wouldn't.

I have genuine sympathy for those who have to go through tough times due to circumstances beyond their control, but being an alcoholic or junkie, when there is help out there, doesnt sit well with me.

Times are tough as it is without having to shell out for idiots who have noone to blame but themselves.

I await flames.

I completely agree with this, there are thousands of people out there with marriage, health, money, whatever problems, and we're all not turning to booze and drugs to make it go away.
It really riles me up when people blame everything else for their own lot in life, started drinking and became an alcholic? your own fault. started doing drugs as a teenage and moved onto harder stuff and are now a junkie? own fault.
Its easier to lose yourself in drugs and booze than it is to deal with lifes problems head on, I lived in a city centre apartment up until recently and had to basically step over junkies on the way home every other day, then there are the ones who get ratty with you when you either ignore them or tell them you have no money, they can fcuk right off.

Lockstep

krudler wrote: »

I completely agree with this, there are thousands of people out there with marriage, health, money, whatever problems, and we're all not turning to booze and drugs to make it go away.
It really riles me up when people blame everything else for their own lot in life, started drinking and became an alcholic? your own fault. started doing drugs as a teenage and moved onto harder stuff and are now a junkie? own fault.
Its easier to lose yourself in drugs and booze than it is to deal with lifes problems head on, I lived in a city centre apartment up until recently and had to basically step over junkies on the way home every other day, then there are the ones who get ratty with you when you either ignore them or tell them you have no money, they can fcuk right off.

You don't "choose" to be an alcoholic. Can't comment on drug addiction but alcoholism is a disease. Treatable too.

krudler

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You don't "choose" to be an alcoholic. Can't comment on drug addiction but alcoholism is a disease. Treatable too.

you can choose to not drink, same way as you can choose to not smoke, take drugs or anything else that requires you to voluntarily take something. You dont suddenly catch an affliction that makes you want to get drunk all the time, its not the flu. an addiction yes, but its something that builds over time.

Lockstep

krudler wrote: »

you can choose to not drink, same way as you can choose to not smoke, take drugs or anything else that requires you to voluntarily take something. You dont suddenly catch an affliction that makes you want to get drunk all the time, its not the flu. an addiction yes, but its something that builds over time.

AA would disagree with you; the first step of the 12 Step program is the following;
"We admitted we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had become unmanageable."


Likewise, the American Medical Association categorises it as a disease.

iguana

kickoutthejams wrote: »

AA would disagree with you; the first step of the 12 Step program is the following;

The AA aren't scientists or doctors, they are a support group with a less than 5% success rate. The current position taken by most medical professionals in this part of the world is that alcoholics and other addicts are self medicating due to other mental health issues. Some addicts have mental illnesses like depression or schizophrenia and others have PTSD or other deep issues due to abuse and lack of developed coping skills.

But no matter what treatment the addict is given, whether they attend AA, HSE addiction units, other counselling alternatives or just do it themselves, it all boils down to choice. While nobody ever consciously decides to be an addict they do have to decide to recover if the want to recover. Some will find it much harder than others, some will never get better but ultimately it all boils down to choice.

Lockstep

The whole point of alcoholism is that you lose control of your drinking. This is what differentiates it from alcohol abuse.
Also, one of the founders of AA was a doctor.

Do you have any evidence that is a choice in itself, or that the majority of medical professionals view it as self medication?

Nevyn

There is a book which I think everyone should read, it's called "Wasted" by Mark Johnson.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wasted-Mark-Johnson/dp/184744024X

Mark Johnson's father had 'LOVE' tattooed across his left hand, but that didn't stop the beatings. The Johnson children would turn up to school with broken fingers and chipped teeth, but no one ever thought of investigating their home life. Mark just slipped through the cracks, and kept on falling. For years. Constantly in trouble at school, Mark began stealing at the age of seven, was drinking by the age of eight, and took his first hit of heroin aged eleven. A sensitive, intelligent boy, he could never stay on the right path, and though Art College beckoned, he ended up in Portland prison instead. With searing honesty, WASTED documents Mark's descent into the depths of addiction and criminality. Homeless, hooked on heroin and crack, no one - least of all Mark - believed he would survive. And yet - astonishingly - he somehow pulled himself through, and now runs his own thriving tree surgery business, employing and helping other recovering addicts. His story is at once shocking and inspiring - a compelling account of one man's struggle to save himself, and help save others in the process.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-458512/Out-woods-trees.html

He eventually turn his life around and has his own business but the same any addict they have to want to, they have to want to face the void in side themselves and the pain and the pain they have caused others and learn how to cope and manage it instead of seeking oblivion in substances. Until the want to do that is greater then the want to get oblivious there is nothing you can do to help an addict other then enable them. Where there is a co dependent relationship between two addicts they make their life for each other normal and it's exponentially harder for them to be in the same place at the same time to be able to turn their life around as one will always drag the other down.

As for the whole 5% stat on the AA, far as I know thats people who are 'cured' and don't need to go to meetings any more, where are yes there are people who use AA to help them manage and keep going to meetings and there for aren't 'cured'.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You don't "choose" to be an alcoholic. Can't comment on drug addiction but alcoholism is a disease. Treatable too.

I can't agree with that at all. People CHOOSE to drink. If it gets out of hand it's because they let it get out of hand. I totally appreciate that some people are in awful circumstances and don't have much else in life, but it's still a choice. My granddad died very young due to alcoholism and he was the first to admit it was his own doing. It's not at all comparable to getting a disease out of sheer bad luck, and despite doing everything to prevent it.

Lockstep

[quote=[Deleted User];65992447]I can't agree with that at all. People CHOOSE to drink. If it gets out of hand it's because they let it get out of hand. I totally appreciate that some people are in awful circumstances and don't have much else in life, but it's still a choice. My granddad died very young due to alcoholism and he was the first to admit it was his own doing. It's not at all comparable to getting a disease out of sheer bad luck, and despite doing everything to prevent it.[/QUOTE]

You don't seem to understand that alcoholism isn't a case of choosing to drink; it's a case of dependance on alcohol.

Drinking alcohol to excess/alcohol abuse is one thing, alcoholism is another. That's why it's classified as a disease.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that alcoholism isn't a case of choosing to drink; it's a case of dependance on alcohol.

Drinking alcohol to excess/alcohol abuse is one thing, alcoholism is another. That's why it's classified as a disease.

So the alcohol just gets absorbed into their bodies from the air they breathe? If you're not drinking, your body stops getting damaged. I'm not sure how you can think there's no choice involved. Of course there is. It might be tremendously difficult but there is a choice.

Lockstep

[quote=[Deleted User];65993351]So the alcohol just gets absorbed into their bodies from the air they breathe? If you're not drinking, your body stops getting damaged. I'm not sure how you can think there's no choice involved. Of course there is. It might be tremendously difficult but there is a choice.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how you can talk about there being a choice. Alcoholism isn't a case of "I'm gonna drink." It's a case of physical dependence upon alcohol; from the NIAAA website;

NIAAA wrote:

. Is alcoholism a disease?

Yes, alcoholism is a disease. The craving that an alcoholic feels for alcohol can be as strong as the need for food or water. An alcoholic will continue to drink despite serious family, health, or legal problems.

Like many other diseases, alcoholism is chronic, meaning that it lasts a person's lifetime; it usually follows a predictable course; and it has symptoms. The risk for developing alcoholism is influenced both by a person's genes and by his or her lifestyle. (See also "Publications," Alcohol Alert No. 30: Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence.)

You may not agree that it is a disease, but this is far from the case. In fact, there is even an US national institute created to deal with the problem (the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism)

There is also a genetic component to it

Nevyn

Yes there can be a chemical phyical dependance, yes that can be predisposed due to family and genetics but that still isn't an excuse, yes it makes it harder but it's till possible to have alcholism the disease and live a sober life.

I come from a long line of alcholics on both side of my family, I am well aware of the wonderful and wounderous effect it can have on my body and the physical craving to have those chemical reactions take place and live my life with a drink or two or more every evening. But I choose having control over me and my life.

Lockstep

Oh I completely agree that it isn't an excuse, I come from a family of alcoholics as well.
It is the dependance that is the problem. It's not a case of " one or two drinks in evening". That's not alcoholism at all. If you're an alcoholic, you don't want one or two. You want a lot more than that.

While it is indeed possible to have alcoholism and lead a sober life, it's a hard slog and there isn't much choice in the matter. The problem is though is that you are never cured. You can spend years without drinking but will still be an alcoholic and all that it takes is one relapse to kick start the cycle again.

Nevyn

Ah but the lie is that you'll only have one or two....

Lockstep

Yeah there's the problem and the lack of control. The assumption is that it's one or two but it's never that at all.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can talk about there being a choice. Alcoholism isn't a case of "I'm gonna drink." It's a case of physical dependence upon alcohol; from the NIAAA website;

I'm not sure how you can say there isn't a choice. How, then, do you think loads of people manage to stop drinking? I do believe some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, the same way that some people are genetically predisposed to cancer or diabetes. That doesn't mean they don't have a choice. My dad is teetotal and always has been. He CHOOSES not to drink from fear that he'll go the same way his dad did.

It's not that I think it's 'just that easy' to give up drink. I know it isn't and I know many people never manage to. But to say there isn't a choice is just inaccurate. If we're being picky about semantics, then yes, maybe there isn't a choice about whether or not to BE an alcoholic, but there most definitely is a choice about whether or not to drink. There is a huge amount of personal responsibility in there.

Lockstep

[quote=[Deleted User];65994474]I'm not sure how you can say there isn't a choice. How, then, do you think loads of people manage to stop drinking?

I do believe some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, the same way that some people are genetically predisposed to cancer or diabetes. That doesn't mean they don't have a choice. My dad is teetotal and always has been. He CHOOSES not to drink from fear that he'll go the same way his dad did.

It's not that I think it's 'just that easy' to give up drink. I know it isn't and I know many people never manage to. But to say there isn't a choice is just inaccurate. If we're being picky about semantics, then yes, maybe there isn't a choice about whether or not to BE an alcoholic, but there most definitely is a choice about whether or not to drink. There is a huge amount of personal responsibility in there.[/QUOTE]
Oh right, I thought you were saying there is choice in being an alcoholic or not.
You responded to

View Post
You don't "choose" to be an alcoholic. Can't comment on drug addiction but alcoholism is a disease. Treatable too.

with

I can't agree with that at all. People CHOOSE to drink. If it gets out of hand it's because they let it get out of hand. I totally appreciate that some people are in awful circumstances and don't have much else in life, but it's still a choice. My granddad died very young due to alcoholism and he was the first to admit it was his own doing. It's not at all comparable to getting a disease out of sheer bad luck, and despite doing everything to prevent it.

There is some choice involved in whether to drink or not, but it's nigh on impossible to just tell an alcoholic "Just say no" or whatever. Certainly not something I would continuously hold against someone who is a genuine alcoholic.

Nevyn

The thing is, it is a case of just saying no, unfortuntaly getting to a place where your are strong enough to be able to do that and to know your deamons, is a very hard process.

Lockstep

It is, but in cases it's like telling someone to stop eating or drinking. You can tell them as much as you want but until they've sorted themselves out, you're not going to be doing much.

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

It is, but in cases it's like telling someone to stop eating or drinking. You can tell them as much as you want but until they've sorted themselves out, you're not going to be doing much.

Except you die when you don't eat or drink. Your body actually DOES literally depend on those things, unlike alcohol. There isn't 'some' choice involved in whether or not to drink alcohol. There's all the choice in the world. Whether or not individuals are able to resist it is another matter, but there absolutely is choice. Same with drug addiction, food addiction and every other kind of addiction. You might be predisposed to them, but you have a choice about how to deal with him. What choice do people with lupus or MS have?

Nevyn

Which is the same with those who abuse alcohol to not deal with other issues or those who abuse drugs to not deal with issues.

Lockstep

[quote=[Deleted User];65994979]Except you die when you don't eat or drink. Your body actually DOES literally depend on those things, unlike alcohol.[/quote]
Once again, I'm not sure you understand how dependant you can get on alcohol.
From the NIAAA website;
Yes, alcoholism is a disease. The craving that an alcoholic feels for alcohol can be as strong as the need for food or water. An alcoholic will continue to drink despite serious family, health, or legal problems. Like many other diseases, alcoholism is chronic, meaning that it lasts a person's lifetime; it usually follows a predictable course; and it has symptoms. The risk for developing alcoholism is influenced both by a person's genes and by his or her lifestyle. (See also "Publications," Alcohol Alert No. 30: Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence.)

[quote=[Deleted User];65994979]E
There isn't 'some' choice involved in whether or not to drink alcohol. There's all the choice in the world. [/quote]
There isn't "all the choice in the world". This is an addiction we are talking about here. Unless you are including them telling themselves that they will give it up, without actually doing so.

[quote=[Deleted User];65994979]
Whether or not individuals are able to resist it is another matter, but there absolutely is choice. Same with drug addiction, food addiction and every other kind of addiction.
You might be predisposed to them, but you have a choice about how to deal with him. [/quote]
If you wish to simplify things to having a choice/not having a choice then yes, you are right. However, you seem to be acting like it's a black and white choice.

You might have the choice as to whether to drink or not, but good luck to you trying to do it alone/without help or treatment. That's why it's an addiction and a disease.

[quote=[Deleted User];65994979]
What choice do people with lupus or MS have?[/QUOTE]
What is your point here? You don't think alcoholism is a disease?

Lockstep

Thaedydal wrote: »

Which is the same with those who abuse alcohol to not deal with other issues or those who abuse drugs to not deal with issues.

Oh they can deal with alright. But acting like it's an easy choice is another thing.

Nevyn

Facing the root issues of alcohol or drug abuse is never easy be it alcoholism or other factors.

php-fox

My two cents. I was in Scotland for 3 days a few weeks back. Right outside of my hotel, there was this homeless guy sitting there 24/7. The street is very lively, it's the centre of Edinburgh, so you can't get much sleep at night because there are lots of drunk people screaming and shouting. So, he would just sit there and stare at people having fun with eyes full of pity and regret.
On my last night there, after a few drinks, I decided to come over and have a chat. He asked me for a cigarette, lit up, inhaled and coughed for about 2 minutes. I then asked for his story. The man is in his early 30s. He had job, a house, but got sick. He rolled up his jeans on his right leg and pointed at a big hole in his leg unwrapping the bandage. He said, he can't stand for too long and it hurts to even walk. He can't get a job because he's basically disabled. And he wants to go back to his mother's house but too ashamed to show what has become of him.

So it can happen to everyone, no matter how smart or successful you are. A simple accident or a health issue can easily land you on a street.

It was really sad to witness this whole thing. I really wished I could help, but we live in capitalist world, don't we?

Cavehill Red

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

I think that's the fairy tale way of looking at it. Look at that 17 year old who was found dead in a drain last week. His family called on the HSE for help but no one stood up to the plate.

Including his family, it seems.
Homelessness is tragic, as is drug addiction.
But surely the irony of this lad's family screaming for the state to provide his care rather than 'stepping up the plate' themselves is not lost on you?

kickoutthejams

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Once again, I'm not sure you understand how dependant you can get on alcohol.

I do. Did you miss the part where both genes and lifestyle are thought to be factors?

There isn't "all the choice in the world". This is an addiction we are talking about here. Unless you are including them telling themselves that they will give it up, without actually doing so.


If you wish to simplify things to having a choice/not having a choice then yes, you are right. However, you seem to be acting like it's a black and white choice.

No, I'm not. I know it's not black and white. But there is a choice, that's the point I'm making. Unlike with other diseases. At the end of the day, an individual can have the willpower to overcome an addiction. All the willpower in the world won't cure a terminal disease. So no, I don't see alcohol as being in the same category as things like MS and lupus. I'm not sure why you're acting like personal responsibility doesn't come into it at all. Alcoholism runs in my family as well. I have several relatives who ended up dying of it and many others who managed to get out of it.

Walls

krudler wrote: »

you can choose to not drink, same way as you can choose to not smoke, take drugs or anything else that requires you to voluntarily take something. You dont suddenly catch an affliction that makes you want to get drunk all the time, its not the flu. an addiction yes, but its something that builds over time.

I'm sure you have some basis for this belief, but right now I'm going to disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. It is possible to suddenly want to drink all the time and it is possible for it to be beyond a person's control. I'm not sure why you are insisting that alcoholics merely need self will to cop themselves on, but that is bloody well not the case. People can and have drunk themselves to death rather than quit drinking. They have let their children die and lived lives of the most horrible reality and not only been been unable to stop, but been unable to see what was going on or how to stop it. It is not a matter of being lazy, or of poor character, or of just not drinking. It is a physical and chemical addiction that creates a mental obsession. The cause and origin can differ from addict to addict, but to say that they cause it themselves, that they choose this, is absolutely not the case.

Cavehill Red

Walls wrote: »

but to say that they cause it themselves, that they choose this, is absolutely not the case.

They may not choose it but they definitely cause it.
Unless someone is force-feeding them gargle, of course.

Lockstep

[quote=[Deleted User];65995394]I do. Did you miss the part where both genes and lifestyle are thought to be factors?[/quote]
Then I'm baffled as how to you can claim that the dependance feelings are not the same as with food and water.


[quote=[Deleted User];65995394]
No, I'm not. I know it's not black and white. But there is a choice, that's the point I'm making. Unlike with other diseases. At the end of the day, an individual can have the willpower to overcome an addiction. All the willpower in the world won't cure a terminal disease. So no, I don't see alcohol as being in the same category as things like MS and lupus.[/quote]

Yup, they can indeed. However, given the mental resolve needed, I wouldn't use "It's a choice" against someone who has it and claim that it's some sort of lesser disease.

Shame that you don't see it in the same category. It's medically classified as a disease so there's not much I can do to convince you here.


[quote=[Deleted User];65995394]
I'm not sure why you're acting like personal responsibility doesn't come into it at all
Alcoholism runs in my family as well. I have several relatives who ended up dying of it and many others who managed to get out of it.[/QUOTE]
Mainly because the sheer strength of will and personal responsability needed is not common at all and takes a tremendous amount of work and effort. Given how harsh it is, I agree that it is a matter of personal responsability (in black and white terms) but not something I'd ever wave in someone's face and say "Man, grow a pair and take control".

Sparks

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They may not choose it but they definitely cause it.

No, they don't, and saying they do as authoritatively as you just did is saying you know more than the entire AMA.

Which, to be honest, is highly unlikely.

Cavehill Red

Sparks wrote: »

No, they don't, and saying they do as authoritatively as you just did is saying you know more than the entire AMA.

Which, to be honest, is highly unlikely.

Who puts the glass to their lips, if not themselves?
In what way is that not caused by their own behaviour?
Addiction is compulsive behaviour. It's clearly not an illness in the way that gangrene or cancer is.
Citing the AMA is sloppy. They medicalise everything and anything at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. I suggest you google 'female sexual dysfunction' for a classic example thereof.
Physiological addiction and psychological addiction are also two separate things (as dysfunctional cannabis users have revealed).
I see little purpose holding a debate on the nature of addiction here. The fact is that it's a highly complex area, influenced by genetics, nurture, upbringing, social circumstances and environment.
Personally I wouldn't medicalise it. I think it's revealing that most alcohol addiction treatment is provided by peer support and non-medical counsellors.
I was merely pointing out to you that the fact that some (admittedly a small number) of addicts of ANY substance (and addictive non-substances such as gambling) quit cold turkey is proof that there is some choice involved.
And it's self-evident that their condition is self-caused.

Lockstep

It's not just the AMA that medicalises it;

http://www.ncadd.org/facts/defalc.html

Sparks

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Who puts the glass to their lips, if not themselves?
In what way is that not caused by their own behaviour?
Addiction is compulsive behaviour. It's clearly not an illness in the way that gangrene or cancer is.
Citing the AMA is sloppy. They medicalise everything and anything at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. I suggest you google 'female sexual dysfunction' for a classic example thereof.

1) You are not a superior source of medical information than the AMA;
2) The CDC concur with the AMA:

Center for Disease Control wrote:

Alcoholism or alcohol dependence is a diagnosable disease characterized by several factors, including a strong craving for alcohol, continued use despite harm or personal injury, the inability to limit drinking, physical illness when drinking stops, and the need to increase the amount drunk to feel the effects.

If you wish to state something those professional groups have asserted is incorrect, you will need to prove your statement through actual evidence-based research and publications in peer-reviewed journals, as they have.

Otherwise, you could simply take any random statements as being as worthy as that of the most eminent experts in whatever field those statements are made in and basing policy decisions on that approach.

I was merely pointing out to you that the fact that some (admittedly a small number) of addicts of ANY substance (and addictive non-substances such as gambling) quit cold turkey is proof that there is some choice involved.
And it's self-evident that their condition is self-caused.

The two statements are unrelated logically; and the second one is simply not a fact.

Nor, for that matter, does your statement in any way positively benefit mankind. AA have achieved far more positive results than any other programme to date; arguing with that success rate is a curious use of time. What end goal have you in mind for this argument?

Cavehill Red

Sparks wrote: »

1) You are not a superior source of medical information than the AMA;

My argument is that the AMA have conducted a 'landgrab' in order to medicalise conditions, such as sadness, including ones that don't even exist, such as 'female sexual dysfunction', in order to expand their remit.

Sparks wrote: »

2) The CDC concur with the AMA

They're the same people. What a surprise.

Sparks wrote: »

If you wish to state something those professional groups have asserted is incorrect, you will need to prove your statement through actual evidence-based research and publications in peer-reviewed journals, as they have.

I refer you once again to female sexual dysfunction. Entirely peer-reviewed in the journals. Yet it was utter horse manure, and proven to be so by brave journalists who obtained transcripts of big pharma's involvement.
These are the same bodies who previously considered homosexuality to be a mental illness. They can be wrong, you know. Doctors aren't God.

Sparks wrote: »

Otherwise, you could simply take any random statements as being as worthy as that of the most eminent experts in whatever field those statements are made in and basing policy decisions on that approach.

That's predicated on the assumption that medics are the policy experts in the area of addiction. However they aren't, since the bulk of treatment for addiction comes by way of peer support and non-medical counselling.

Sparks wrote: »

The two statements are unrelated logically; and the second one is simply not a fact.

I wasn't relating them logically. Yet they both happen to be true. You still haven't told me who lifts the glass to an alcoholic's lips if not themselves. And if it is themselves, that is de facto causative.

Sparks wrote: »

Nor, for that matter, does your statement in any way positively benefit mankind.

I didn't realise we were on that mission in this thread. It looked to me like a load of people blathering about addiction on the interwebs. My mistake.

Sparks wrote: »

AA have achieved far more positive results than any other programme to date; arguing with that success rate is a curious use of time. What end goal have you in mind for this argument?

Well, actually there are other programmes with better results than AA, of course. But I wasn't criticising them. If you read what I wrote, you'll see I've repeatedly pointed out that their peer support approach is one of the mainstays of alcohol addiction treatment.
My end goal is to return the discussion to factuality. Addiction is a condition of compulsive behaviour. Many medics reject its medicalisation. I would concur with them. Others accept it as a medical condition.
In short, addiction is as I said a highly complex area that is probably not conducive to late-night internet debate among amateurs with half-knowledge, notions or knee-jerk reactions.

Lockstep

Off to bed now but just one clarification;
AMA and CDC are two completely different bodies;
AMA are the association of medical practitioners.

CDC is a federal agency.