The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Romancing opiates’ - the nature of addiction > Comments

‘Romancing opiates’ - the nature of addiction : Comments

By Ben-Peter Terpstra, published 9/12/2008

To use heroin is to invite many negative health consequences - but is treating opiate addiction as a disease helpful?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The real issue here is why does Online Opinion publish such drivel. Both the content and the writing are like graffiti, though this is unfair to the graffiti that makes some useful social observations and/or has some artistic merit.

Dear OO Editors, is it the silly season of Xmas that makes you scrape the bottom of the barrel for pieces like this? Much more of this and and I'll be cancelling my subscription.
Posted by Webbo, Tuesday, 9 December 2008 7:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever we call the habitual use of heroin or any other “substance”, pretending it is a “disease” is the usual cop out advocated by those who think that people are not responsible for the consequences of their actions.

I do not believe being addicted to anything is a disease.

Being addicted is an extension of someone making a conscious decision and then denying they have a problem.

The choice is with the addict to fix their addiction.

There is also a choice with those, if any, who are in the addicts traditional “support network”, to exercise the “tough love” needed to stand back and watch someone hit bottom.

You do not fix addiction by pretending it is a disease.

You fix addiction by deciding to deny its hold on your body and by deciding not to enable someone in their addiction.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 10:37:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
col tough love means letting others suffer

[aint that a sign of enlightend times]where can a mindset like that end[take aids you [not you col] a metophoricle 'you''junkie' or you 'homo' caused your own sickness so TOUGH LOVE.

or your worry has caused your own head ache[so tough love]
or you did sport [you risked injury[so tough love] you caused it YOU got it[tough love[why we dont do tough love on these bankers scaming us for bailouts]

hey you non swimmer [you didnt learn to swim[so tough love]

you should be able to see this 'tough on druggies' is only deneying helping them
[please note smokers/drinkers get their fix of nicoteen caffeene[no worries]i get my FIX no worries[you get your one glass of wine fixation[no worries]

why should drug users get tough love?
what has my need for drugs to do with you?

what next i cant eat transfats[ok you faties TOUGH LOVE]

same with you heart attack armchair sporting types tough love

[AND YOU IGNORANTS WHO DONT KNOW LAW [TOUGH LOVE]

WHERE DOES THIS TOUGH LOVE END?

i been ridiculed for my whole adult life because my drug is able to be grown for free[yet must only be bought from the local approved drug supplier at over the price of gold[who gets it straight from the feds[fbi shipped world wide by rendition filghts,straight from the war zone]

who are you to restrict supply so my 'drug'is worth more than gold [while 'yours'can be advertised on tv]or subsidiesed by govt, because a docter had compassion

yet mine gives me jail and 'tough love'
[read war on drug [non approved] drugusers BY THEIR OWN GOVT]
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 11:59:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Uog “col tough love means letting others suffer”

I know what “tough love” is.

And it is the case that to do otherwise is to enable, facilitate and prolong the suffering of the addict from their product of dependency.

I talk about it almost every day with someone close to me who is dealing with an addict. An addict who is following in his long departed father’s footsteps.

If you have any doubt and want to challenge what I have said, I suggest you first talk to someone who is a member of Al-Anon, the organization for the family members of alcoholics (there is an alternative organization for the families of narcotic specific addicts but they do the same thing and beat the same drum).

For families of addicts, ”dealing with addiction” demands they decide what of the addicts activities are acceptable and what are not.

An addict stealing from his family is clearly, engaging in an activity which is beyond that which is acceptable.

An addict abusing a family member, either physically or emotionally, is not behaving in an acceptable manner.

An addict destroying someone else’s property or threatening their safety is not behaving in an acceptable manner.

An addict remains responsible for their abusive behavior, irrespective of their addiction.

and the family / network member is responsible for deciding where to draw the line beyond which the addict will not be permitted to go before the “tough love” option is adopted.

We all have rights and that includes the right to disengage from those who are self-destructive or are dangerous to be around.

so "tough love means letting others suffer"

failure to adopt the principles of "tough love" can mean that innocent, otherwise unaddicted parties are the ones who suffer.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 12:43:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right with you Col. Tough love All the Way.

It's the addicts loved one that has to suffer. My nextdoor neighbour is a victem of an addict. Her mother. They can never get ahead because they she steals their rent money, steals the TV, camera, lawnmower to cater for her addiction. When she's down she comes around & screams at them, smashes windows etc. The neighbourhood has helped them by mowing their lawn & replacing the windows etc, so we are suffering too. That's just one addict, who claims that her right to get a fix when she wants it. Addicts are selfish people who only think of themselves. You are right Col it's not the addict who is the victem it's the people around them. This poor little girl comes over just to cry & cry sometimes. It's so sad. Her husband is waiting on a back operation & is bed ridden so he's no help. He's under the public system so God only knows when his Op will be. The money that goes to look after addicts could have been used for his operation.

So stuff 'em. Tough love... way to go & damm all addicts to Hell. Read the first post. That's the only way to handle these %^#@*&.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 3:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article begins with an overwrought analogy (Holocaust) and ends without suggesting any course of action, apart from spurning addicts and the horse they rode in on.

I can't tell also what the author is prescribing as an alternative to the safe injecting rooms. Before these the addicts simply overdosed. "Let them" seems to be the answer.

Thanks to Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family (write us an article sometime) for pointing out the origins of this site http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

Most articles there are written for the reading level of a 12-year old. The section on healthcare suggests America is better off maintaining its focus on war instead of healthcare reform because, get this "What right to we have to pile these massive burdens on our children and grandchildren?" Better to spend it on a voluntary war presumably.

The article doesn't include any facts or figures to support the argument it makes. "Darlymple stands against legalisation. He stands for reason." Because he says he does.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 3:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy