Taking mock compassion too far.

[poddster]

Ok we have had the "Poor Illegal Refugee" the "Poor Dole Bludger" the "Poor whatever" thread so now what about the "Poor Self Inflicted Addict" thread.

We may as well add them to the taxpayers  burden as well. We can cater for their "special needs" out of the bottomless pit of our national debt.

[poddster]

Thereby hangs the problem Pepe.

The grey areas, all 50 shades of them are so wide that people can't tell difference between the black and the white.

And of course all manner of people will latch on to those doubtful wide grey areas and play them for all they are worth.

If there was a more defined debarkation line between what is acceptable and what is not and the law being actually enforced in reality and not just lip service society would be much better off.

Unfortunately the great unwashed are so easily led and conned into believing that the grey areas have to be fully explored and debated to such an extent that they can not distinguish between black or white

[***super_nova***]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

---

They have to be willing to attend/participate in "programs". They can't be forced once they're over the age of 21.

What makes you think we haven't tried?

Organisations like Headspace, Boystown, Salvation Army, can only do so much.

For many, the oblivion of drugs is easier than the pain of rehabilitation.

---

I did not say that you did not try.  I asked if you tried Naltrexone.  The reason I asked was because I do not know if it is available wherever you are.  Few years back a friend was trying to get their son off heroin, and they had to go over to WA, because Naltrexone was not available here in Melbourne.  But it was well worth the trip as it worked.  Soon after place opened in Melbourne using Naltrexone.  But of-course, the addict has to want treatment.  Hope your grandson will get to that stage soon, and will allow you to help him.

What I find so sad is that general public think that addicts are the scam of the earth, in fact all the addicts I personally know/knew were/are privileged kids of well to do parents, educated in private schools.  It would be interesting to get some data on how many addicts are the product of welfare dependant families and how many come from "good" homes.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

straight from the "horses" mouth recovering Meth addict **bleep** PHD graduate

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/jaffe-addiction-myths/

Myth No. 1: There is an addiction gene

There is no single gene, or set of genes, that determines whether or not a person will become an addict. And even if a person's parents are addicts, it doesn't mean they will be too.

Current addiction research shows that roughly 50% of addiction tendencies are attributable to genes.

That's a high percentage, but it still leaves half of the equation up to the environment and personal experiences.

The addiction gene myth lulls many people into a false sense of confidence about their own drug use while paradoxically also discouraging many addicts from seeking treatment.

Myth No. 2: Marijuana is a 'gateway drug'

The addiction rate for marijuana is lower than that of alcohol, and there is little scientific evidence that it acts as a trigger for harder drugs.

While teen marijuana use is not to be encouraged, the real "gateway drug" risk might be from abusing prescription opioids and stimulants, like OxyContin, Vicodin and Adderall, or with inhalant drug use.

These have strong addictive properties and more accessible to teens.

A 2010 study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that among 12th graders, 8% abused Vicodin and 5.1% abused OxyContin.

Inhalant use peaks in the 8th grade at around 17%, far earlier than all other drugs.

Myth No. 3: Addiction is for life

This simply isn't true, and it places a huge emotional and psychological burden on recovered addicts. Addiction is a spectrum disorder, like depression, and every person is different.

While there are plenty of cases where addicts struggle for years to overcome a drug addiction, many more cases reveal the opposite -- short-term users who manage to put the past behind them and lead normal and productive lives.

According to the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, 75% of alcoholics recover without treatment.

Myth No. 4: Drugs 'fry' your brain

Remember the 1987 anti-drug commercial that used a frying egg to show "your brain on drugs?"

While drug abuse can be bad for the brain, it is a gross oversimplification to say that drug use generally causes permanent and severe brain damage.

This myth gives the impression that recovered addicts are "damaged goods" and sets the stage for discrimination by employers, health care providers and the legal system.

That said, certain drugs are neurotoxic: methamphetamine, MDMA, cocaine and inhalants are a few examples.

However, even with these types of drugs, the side effects, while undesirable, by no means produce a "damaged" person.

Myth No. 5: You have to hit 'rock bottom'

Here's why this is dangerous: If we wait until a person "bottoms out," it could be too late to help them.

Every person has a different "bottom."

For some, it could be getting arrested or becoming homeless. For many, it's much less dramatic -- losing an important personal relationship, being confronted by family or doing poorly at work or school.

There is little evidence that the level of consequences a person accumulates before seeking help is related to their chances of succeeding in recovery.

It's better to get help early than to hold out for the perfect desperate moment.

What other myths do you think exist about drug addiction? Leave your answer in the comments section below.

[donnashuggy]

I think one of the most common myths would be "once a junkie always a junkie"

[polksaladallie]

My belief is that the use and overuse of some drugs causes a disruption in the wiring of the brain if used before the brain finishes growing, at about 25.  And sometimes that damage is permanent. 

?? Colic?

[lionrose.7]

Poddy said

Unfortunately the great unwashed are so easily led and conned into believing that the grey areas have to be fully explored and debated to such an extent that they can not distinguish between black or white.

Sorry dont know who you mean by the great unwashed, do some people not have a shower or is it just a put down term.

[*pepe]

---

@poddster wrote:

Thereby hangs the problem Pepe.

The grey areas, all 50 shades of them are so wide that people can't tell difference between the black and the white.

And of course all manner of people will latch on to those doubtful wide grey areas and play them for all they are worth.

If there was a more defined debarkation line between what is acceptable and what is not and the law being actually enforced in reality and not just lip service society would be much better off.

Unfortunately the great unwashed are so easily led and conned into believing that the grey areas have to be fully explored and debated to such an extent that they can not distinguish between black or white

---

you seem to think that you are superior in intellect and standing in this world to the 'great unwashed' - you would not use such derogatory terms otherwise.

This world is just not black and white, no matter how much you think it should be.

those who turn to drugs do so for varying reasons, yes ultimately they have made the choices that led them to where they are, but that does not make them unworthy of compassion or assistance.

to help an addict it needs to be understood why they took the path they did, what will motivate them to choose a better way of living.
investigating the grey areas is a necessity.

no matter how much help they are given some will never succeed, but they all deserve a chance.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@lionrose.7 wrote:

Poddy said

Unfortunately the great unwashed are so easily led and conned into believing that the grey areas have to be fully explored and debated to such an extent that they can not distinguish between black or white.

Sorry dont know who you mean by the great unwashed, do some people not have a shower or is it just a put down term.

---

I think he means all those people who don't vote LNP or susbscrbe to his own personal opinions on social problems

[***super_nova***]

Our brains have the ability to re-wire themselves.  People who suffer stroke or significant head injury and lose memory or ability to talk, start using other parts of brain or some neurons reconnect.  I knew woman who had a severe brain damage after car crash; it took 2 years for her to learn to talk an walk and be able to work, although she was not able to go back being a doctor, so she had to retrain as a teacher.   However, I think the brain damage in drug addicts comes mainly from sniffing glue, paint and petrol, and that might be not localised.  I imagine if the whole brain is compromised, then it may not be matter of just few new connections.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

My belief is that the use and overuse of some drugs causes a disruption in the wiring of the brain if used before the brain finishes growing, at about 25.  And sometimes that damage is permanent. 

?? Colic?

---

---

---

---

I also believe that when certain introduced drugs rewire or short circuit the reward system especially at a young age then that is a great part of the chronic addiction recipe.

.

There is really not enough research to prove or disprove the permanency of the damage.

However it has been proven that when naturally occurring Dopamine production is surmounted in the reward system through drug abuse then often the brain becomes really 'lazy" and much prefers the easiest route ie. an artificial blast

rather than going back to pleasuring itself through the endocannabinoid system.

However if our brains were not wired like that then  we would have evolved at a much, much slower rate..