Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
It sounds to me as though your father, while a drinker, was not an alcoholic. There is a difference between the two and not all drinkers are alcoholics. My father is an alcoholic and really could not quit until he lost everything. He filed for bankruptcy. He lost me because I refused to visit him any longer (I did give him the ultimatum, but he just laughed at me. Quite literally, actually). He lost his truck. He shattered his femur riding his bike and the doctor told him he had the bones of an 80 year old woman and that he must stop drinking. He didn't. It wasn't until he was so broke that he could no longer afford alcohol and started having withdrawal seizures (and laid face down in the snow for over an hour) that he finally admitted that he did have a problem.
I have seen where addiction can take people and I would never presume to know what it must be like. Between my father and those I have known with heroin addictions, I can honestly say that it makes people perform in ways that no normal person would. I don't think a non-addict can understand the mind of an addict.
Let's see...my father drank a QUART of whiskey at home each day, and then went out and did the rounds in the late afternoon/early evening. Stopped at Hop's Inn, Hughes Bar, the American Legion, and the Moose Club, and had 2-3 drinks at each place. So that's a quart of whiskey a day at home and 8-12 drinks of whiskey a day at bars. And 4 packs of cigarettes a day. A failed marriage due to alcohol. Lost his license twice due to DWI. Would sometimes fall in the snow walking home from the bars and just lay there for a while. Was diagnosed as an alcoholic by several doctors.
Yet you know he wasn't an alcoholic. Perhaps you just want everyone's experience to be like your experience. Alcoholism and cigarette addiction is a spectrum. Each person's experience is not a carbon copy of every other person's experience.
Forgive my ignorance but the inability to "control " substance abuse or being "powerless " against the objective of addiction is one thing. . .I sympathize, trully.
That doesn't make the problem a disease. What is the definition of disease? It did not always start as one.
I think substance abuse is a "symptom" of a much rooted problem...not a disease.
@vinlyn his father was an alcoholic, not a drinker.
Perhaps years ago, when he sought help, people had limited resources as we do now to quit. We don't know because we didn't live his life. We also don't now @zombiegirl and her life.
Imo, I see substance abuse as a symptom, or branch to something much, much, deeper. . . While we do have an abundancy of psychologists, self help books, internet forums,meds, and support groups...it was not always so. ...and you would think that with all the help for substance users, the "disease" would be cured...but it seems to me like they just want to "treat " it.
Addiction is rooted in attachment and strong attachment can overwhelm what little morale discipline we have, Attachment is a deluded mind that believes happiness comes from Samsaric phenomena and clings to it strongly, By developing strong mindfulness we can overcome attachment and develop a strong basis for keeping morale discipline. People need compassion and help in training the mind especially addicts, scorn does not help others.
I kinda inferred some moral superiority going on with people calling people who suffer with alcoholism and addiction problems as alcoholics and addicts (which is true; they are). But they are also human beings, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc.
But alcoholism is classified as an illness - a mental illness. It just kinda struck me that we don't call people suffering with terminal cancer as 'Oh, she's a cancerism'; we say she's suffering with cancer; even though that cancer could've been brought about by poor lifestyle choices.
I was tired and grumpy when I posted (apologies), but suffering with alcoholism is not a moral weakness, just like contracting cancer is not a moral weakness. I thought we left all that stigma behind in the 1950s.
Anyway, alcoholics do not choose to suffer with alcoholism, and neither can they all just choose to recover. Why some recover and some don't, I don't know. Alcoholism has killed most of my paternal side of my family; not always directly (cancer at a young age, or suicide).
In A.A.'s basic text, it says the people who don't recover are born that way; they are not at fault (paraphrased). I agree with this. Totally free will - inherently existent choices - do not exist because nothing exists in a vacuum, and all depends on a supremely complex web of causes and conditions.
I kinda inferred some moral superiority going on with people calling people who suffer with alcoholism and addiction problems as alcoholics and addicts (which is true; they are). But they are also human beings, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc.
But alcoholism is classified as an illness - a mental illness. It just kinda struck me that we don't call people suffering with terminal cancer as 'Oh, she's a cancerism'; we say she's suffering with cancer; even though that cancer could've been brought about by poor lifestyle choices.
I was tired and grumpy when I posted (apologies), but suffering with alcoholism is not a moral weakness, just like contracting cancer is not a moral weakness. I thought we left all that stigma behind in the 1950s.
Anyway, alcoholics do not choose to suffer with alcoholism, and neither can they all just choose to recover. Why some recover and some don't, I don't know. Alcoholism has killed most of my paternal side of my family; not always directly (cancer at a young age, or suicide).
In A.A.'s basic text, it says the people who don't recover are born that way; they are not at fault (paraphrased). I agree with this. Totally free will - inherently existent choices - do not exist because nothing exists in a vacuum, and all depends on a supremely complex web of causes and conditions.
Tosh, I think you sort of contradict yourself here, and in that contradiction is the basis of why some of us see alcoholism as something different than just a medical condition.
First, a couple of comments about me, that might clarify why I feel the way I do. There was a fair amount of alcoholism in my immediate family when I was growing up. My father, as already described. My aunt, who died of a heart attack at age 40, attributed by doctors to alcoholism. My grandfather, who I'll describe in a minute. And a few other members of the family who had an alcohol problem, but wouldn't be classed as alcoholics. In other words, too much drinking.
I don't drink...simply because I just don't care for alcohol. Did drink socially when in my late teens and twenties, but after that just dropped it.
Here's where I see the contradiction in what you say. You equate alcoholism and cancer as illnesses. Then, on the one hand you say, "alcoholics do not choose to suffer with alcoholism" and are "not at fault". But then you also say that, "just like contracting cancer is not a moral weakness" and "even though that cancer could've been brought about by poor lifestyle choices".
So, if you want to say cancer and alcoholism are both illnesses, then why are you differentiating that one (cancer) can be caused by "poor lifestyle choices", but the other can't be caused by "poor lifestyle choices"?
I think back to a time when my adopted son got into some serious legal problems, and I went into mild depression, and had to be treated by a light-moderate dosage of an anti-depressant. Could I just snap myself out of it? No. But could I moderate the extent of it on a day by day basis? Yes. On a morning when I would be feeling more depressed, there were times I could simply say to myself, "Okay, I'm feeling down, so I'm going to go out hiking today" (or some other enjoyable activity). And I would, indeed, feel much better. On other days I wouldn't take my own advice and would allow myself to wallow in depression.
I liken that to my grandfather. He was a foreman in a factory...a decent job. After work, he would stop downtown for a couple of drinks before coming home. On Saturdays he would stop at the bars for a couple of drinks in the afternoon. And, he would have a few beers at night when home. When he was in his late 50s, a new company took over and fired the "old timers" and brought in their own people. He then went to work on the Erie-Barge Canal, which went through our town, and continued his light drinking. Then, there were budget cuts and he lost that job. Then he made what you called a lifestyle choice -- he went to work as a bartender. He chose that job, even though he knew he had a bit of an alcohol problem. Down the spiral he went. Way too many drunken nights. Destroyed the fabric of the family. Yet, guess what. On certain days or short periods of time, he could pretty much control his drinking, as appropriate. Family birthday or Christmas or Thanksgiving or a doctor or unemployment insurance appointment day, or when he and my grandmother would go on a 2 week or month long vacation. He would make choices on those occasions, but on "normal days" couldn't seem to make the same choices.
The problem some of us have with seeing alcoholism as a disease, rather than a life choice, is that that view makes and encourages the alcoholic to see that he is powerless. It gives him the constant excuse. It's the "I can't not drink because it's the disease controlling me" viewpoint, rather than the "I can challenge this problem that I have" viewpoint. Your view takes away a person's personal power. My view gives the person his own personal power.
If you tell me that man does not have the power and ability to just control one behavior -- drinking alcohol, then I tell you that man does not have the power and ability to achieve something far more complex -- enlightenment.
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited February 2012
Let's see...my father drank a QUART of whiskey at home each day, and then went out and did the rounds in the late afternoon/early evening. Stopped at Hop's Inn, Hughes Bar, the American Legion, and the Moose Club, and had 2-3 drinks at each place. So that's a quart of whiskey a day at home and 8-12 drinks of whiskey a day at bars. And 4 packs of cigarettes a day. A failed marriage due to alcohol. Lost his license twice due to DWI. Would sometimes fall in the snow walking home from the bars and just lay there for a while. Was diagnosed as an alcoholic by several doctors.
Yet you know he wasn't an alcoholic. Perhaps you just want everyone's experience to be like your experience. Alcoholism and cigarette addiction is a spectrum. Each person's experience is not a carbon copy of every other person's experience.
Well, this post paints a very different picture than your first post. Your first post made it sound as though he drank, and yes, got drunk... but had no problem quitting. "Cold turkey. No help sessions. He just stopped." Now you say that his marriage failed because of it, he lost his license, and was diagnosed alcoholic. If you were to combine these two posts, it would create a much fuller picture. Your first post left me feeling that as soon as someone told him he needed to stop, then he did, no problem. This post has a much clearer picture that says that he did not give it up so easily. I actually expected your response to be something along these lines. I posted what I did because I took the point of your first post to be that some addicts can just quit easy-peasy, but it is now clear that this is not true of your father either. Although when he decided to quit, he just did it (Which, don't get me wrong, is still remarkable), but the fact is that if he had found quitting to be so easy and was not an addict, he probably would have quit earlier... say, before his marriage fell apart, after the first DWI, or maybe the first time he fell face down in the snow.
It has probably been 4-5 years since my father has had a drink. And indeed, he just quit. But I would never make his struggle sound like anything less than a struggle. I couldn't say that, "He just quit and never touched a drop since!" I feel like the struggles he had up until that point are an important part of the story because they show just how difficult it can be to quit. IMO, it's important to understand the milestones that he missed and how bad he had to get before he could make his decision to quit. Only that will illustrate that an addict typically has to go through much suffering (definitely more than a non-addict would deal with) before making such a decision. I didn't post his story just as a response to you, although it might have sounded that way. I also posted it for those on this board that seemed to apply a sober mind/idea to the way they would response in an addict's shoes, and this is something that I don't think you can do.
Well, this post paints a very different picture than your first post. Your first post made it sound as though he drank, and yes, got drunk... but had no problem quitting. "Cold turkey. No help sessions. He just stopped." Now you say that his marriage failed because of it, he lost his license, and was diagnosed alcoholic. If you were to combine these two posts, it would create a much fuller picture. Your first post leaves one feeling that as soon as someone told him he needed to stop, then he did, no problem. This post has a much clearer picture that says that he did not give it up so easily. I actually expected your response to be something along these lines. I posted what I did because I took the point of your first post to be that some addicts can just quit easy-peasy, but it is now clear that this is not true of your father either. Although when he decided to quit, he just did it (Which, don't get me wrong, is still remarkable), but the fact is that if he had found quitting to be so easy and was not an addict, he probably would have quit earlier... say, before his marriage fell apart, after the first DWI, or maybe the first time he fell face down in the snow.
But that's really my point...when he decided to quit, he just quit.
Up to that point, despite the problems it caused, he still wanted to drink.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Here's a question for the board... Do you feel that everyone has the potential for addiction?
With alcohol, I have always felt that people either are, or aren't alcoholics. Sure, if you make the choice to drink every day, you will probably end up there. But I've also met some young people that even newly 21, seem to be alcoholics to me just because of their frequency of drinking. Alcoholism can be quite apparent at even a young age, IMO.
With drugs such as heroin, I think anyone could become an addict. That's a door that I feel lucky to have never been stupid enough to open.
Here's a question for the board... Do you feel that everyone has the potential for addiction?
With alcohol, I have always felt that people either are, or aren't alcoholics. Sure, if you make the choice to drink every day, you will probably end up there. But I've also met some young people that even newly 21, seem to be alcoholics to me just because of their frequency of drinking. Alcoholism can be quite apparent at even a young age, IMO.
With drugs such as heroin, I think anyone could become an addict. That's a door that I feel lucky to have never been stupid enough to open.
I don't think so. I think for at least some it is situational.
For example, when I was in my mid-teens I was having a lot of stomach issues, and the doctor prescribed phenobarbital. At first I would only take a pheno when I was having a stomach problem. Then I progressed to taking one when situations would arise in which I was likely to have a problem. And then I was just taking them every day because...well, why wait and risk an attack.
Yet, when I got old enough to drink, I rarely did, and eventually stopped all together.
Here's a question for the board... Do you feel that everyone has the potential for addiction?
I don't think so. I think for at least some it is situational.
I agree. It's probably both; situational for some, addictive personality for others.
I was a flower-child of the 60's in college. Dabbled a little with marijuana, but nothing harder. After graduation ('68) I lost my student classification and my Uncle Sam sent me a personal invitation to join him in his wartime festivities. In Vietnam I was an Airmobile Medic - DUSTOFF helicopters transporting wounded out of the war zone. There was plenty of pain and suffering, and as I discovered, rivers of morphine. I was absolutely certain I knew the difference between drug use and drug abuse. I was terribly mistaken.
By the time I returned home I was hooked. I also discovered there was a world of difference between pharmaceutical grade morphine and the crap out on the streets. Took me almost three years to dig myself out of that hell hole. My NA sponsor was my best friend 'till his death two years ago.
It's now creeping on up to my 40 years clean token. Because of the hell my family and friends were put through because of me, I have never even considered any drug use. I sure hope I never need surgery, 'cause I'm pretty sure I'll refuse anything that even resembles morphine.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@ittybittybat To the OP. I thought about it some today and I feel that its totally legitimate to mourn for the loss of a celebrity that had an impact on your life. Music has a big impact on our emotional lives and certainly Whitney Houston. To say that her death shouldn't be a big deal when there are millions of people suffering and dying in much worse situations, I don't feel is fair. Its almost like saying we shouldn't feel more sorrow for our freinds and family who pass away that those we don't know. They have a big impact on our lives and singers do to in a different way.
The Buddhist ideal is to have equanimity and feel compassion for all and certainly that is a laudible goal. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't grieve for those close to us, it means we should learn to extend that feeling to all beings.
On top of all that though there is the media circus and those who want to grandstand and profit off of her death. That situation is sad.
I didn't know her personally, some of you may have. And I surely am not as up on the tabloids as others on this thread. But until the family overcomes their grief and makes a statement regarding her passing, maybe we could just give it a rest.
Namaste
Bodha8, it's a legitimate thread, and I doubt her family is going to be reading this forum.
Sorry Vinlyn, I guess "Enquiring minds want to know"
I didn't know her personally, some of you may have. And I surely am not as up on the tabloids as others on this thread. But until the family overcomes their grief and makes a statement regarding her passing, maybe we could just give it a rest.
Namaste
Bodha8, it's a legitimate thread, and I doubt her family is going to be reading this forum.
Sorry Vinlyn, I guess "Enquiring minds want to know"
Nothing to be sorry.
With "Hollywood types", whenever I start to feel sorry them in regard to publicity, I always try to remember that they pay big bucks for pop media...but eventually it usually goes against them. Dem dat lives by da pop media, dies by da pop media.
Forgive my ignorance but the inability to "control " substance abuse or being "powerless " against the objective of addiction is one thing. . .I sympathize, trully.
That doesn't make the problem a disease. What is the definition of disease? It did not always start as one.
I think substance abuse is a "symptom" of a much rooted problem...not a disease.
Any definition of disease would contain words such as abnormal condition, a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, or system of the body, illness, sickness, ailment etc.
Here's a question for the board... Do you feel that everyone has the potential for addiction?
I think there's a genetic factor; in fact I'm pretty sure it's been proven scientifically. From an experiential point of view alcoholism is my family illness. It's killed most of the paternal members of my family:
My father (died of cancer in his early 50s - but it was his alcoholism) My paternal Grandfather - cirrhosis of the liver. My father's brother - choked on his own vomit My cousin (the daughter of my father's brother) - alcoholic/addict; committed suicide. My niece (the daughter of my half-sister from my father's first marriage) - not sure how she died, but it was through her alcoholism. My half-sister - the mother of my niece who died - is still an active alcoholic.
I'm the lucky one who found A.A.
I also remember seeing a TV documentary about the effects of alcohol on a certain genetic type; they injected alcohol into people while they were being brain scanned. Alcohol definitely affects some people in greater ways than it does others.
And that's also been my experience; my partner rarely drinks; she says it doesn't do a lot for her. For me, it once was the elixir of life!
@ittybittybat To the OP. I thought about it some today and I feel that its totally legitimate to mourn for the loss of a celebrity that had an impact on your life. Music has a big impact on our emotional lives and certainly Whitney Houston. To say that her death shouldn't be a big deal when there are millions of people suffering and dying in much worse situations, I don't feel is fair. Its almost like saying we shouldn't feel more sorrow for our freinds and family who pass away that those we don't know. They have a big impact on our lives and singers do to in a different way.
The Buddhist ideal is to have equanimity and feel compassion for all and certainly that is a laudible goal. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't grieve for those close to us, it means we should learn to extend that feeling to all beings.
On top of all that though there is the media circus and those who want to grandstand and profit off of her death. That situation is sad.
Thank you. That's the point I was getting at. Honestly, the only people I see making a big deal out of her death are those who were HUGE fans and looked to her for inspiration (like my mother, and as a result, I felt some sort of a connection to her since I was pretty much raised on her music). Plus, in the african-american community, she looked up to by many, because she was one of the few black singers back in the 80's that was popular with non-black people as well.
Everyone else, though, (especially around my age--teenagers and young adults) doesn't really care. And of course the entertainment media (cable media has, for the most part, stopped talking about it as much) will talk about it constantly because she was an entertainer.
All we (people in general) can do now is move on and hope that her teenage daughter is okay. I can't imagine how hard it must be to loose a parent at such a young age. I'm eighteen and I don't know what I would do if I lost either of my parents right now.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
My favorite Whitney moment was about 15 years ago. My grandma was over and we were all watching the grammies. My grandma was a bit of a closet racist. A gospel singer came on and grandma criticized her saying something like "You call that singing?". I imagine in her mind she wasn't being racist only offering an honest opinion. Everyone just kind of ignored her as being her usual judgmental, opinionated self and moved on. The next performer was Whitney. She sang in her usual beautiful way and I made the offhand remark to my grandma "You mean you like singers more like that"? Grandma had nothing to say for once.
Whitney Houston, like everyone else has the rest of eternity to sort through her problems, so, I guess the life she just left was one tiny tiny part of it all, like all of our own lives on this forum.. she's only dead from the life and body she recently departed, as we all will be one day too. Let's wish her a re birth that will be less traumatic and more conducive to creating happiness for herself, and others; less pain, less suffering.
Imagine you had been given a singing voice to rival any yet heard . Imagine you were set apart at six years old and told that you were a star. Imagine all of these predictions came true and you had wealth and fame beyond reason. How would you rationalize such success? Did you"deserve" it? Your voice is a fluke, an accident. You know it is . Tell me again how great I am, how wonderful, how talented, how special...I don't believe you.
Imagine you had been given a singing voice to rival any yet heard . Imagine you were set apart at six years old and told that you were a star. Imagine all of these predictions came true and you had wealth and fame beyond reason. How would you rationalize such success? Did you"deserve" it? Your voice is a fluke, an accident. You know it is . Tell me again how great I am, how wonderful, how talented, how special...I don't believe you.
I'm not sure having any kind of talent is a fluke. Maybe it's Karma? Not necessarily (all) good Karma.. ? ? ?
Imagine you were brought up on a terrible housing estate surrounding by drugs, guns, crime. How would you rationalise such a situation? Did you "deserve it"? The life you find yourself in is an accident. You know it is. Tell me how bad I am, how disgusting, how worthless... I don't believe you.
she died of causes related to drug addiction. your Jehovahlike fantasies about how she should have behaved according to your expectations will not change the reality of how she lived & died
I'm not sure having any kind of talent is a fluke. Maybe it's Karma? Not necessarily (all) good Karma.. ? ? ?
Imagine you were brought up on a terrible housing estate surrounding by drugs, guns, crime. How would you rationalise such a situation? Did you "deserve it"? The life you find yourself in is an accident. You know it is. Tell me how bad I am, how disgusting, how worthless... I don't believe you.
Exactly. Both good and bad "luck" are "Two imposters" said Kipling, both to be disregarded as we mature. Positing Karma as reason is futile. Not something to point to, especially now, but Whitney was not the brightest bulb....
I'm not sure having any kind of talent is a fluke. Maybe it's Karma? Not necessarily (all) good Karma.. ? ? ?
Imagine you were brought up on a terrible housing estate surrounding by drugs, guns, crime. How would you rationalise such a situation? Did you "deserve it"? The life you find yourself in is an accident. You know it is. Tell me how bad I am, how disgusting, how worthless... I don't believe you.
And that is a question about the concept of karma.
she died of causes related to drug addiction. your Jehovahlike fantasies about how she should have behaved according to your expectations will not change the reality of how she lived & died
I believe in many things, including the choice to take drugs, people have free will.
I'm not talking about whether it's easy to kick or hard to kick. Non one ever said free will made something easy.
I'm not sure having any kind of talent is a fluke. Maybe it's Karma? Not necessarily (all) good Karma.. ? ? ?
Imagine you were brought up on a terrible housing estate surrounding by drugs, guns, crime. How would you rationalise such a situation? Did you "deserve it"? The life you find yourself in is an accident. You know it is. Tell me how bad I am, how disgusting, how worthless... I don't believe you.
Exactly. Both good and bad "luck" are "Two imposters" said Kipling, both to be disregarded as we mature. Positing Karma as reason is futile. Not something to point to, especially now, but Whitney was not the brightest bulb....
You're attempting to quote from Kipling's poem "if", which doesn't talk about good and bad luck as being imposters.
You're attempting to quote from Kipling's poem "if", which doesn't talk about good and bad luck as being imposters.
Both Whitney's "triumph(fame) and disaster(drug addiction)" were , in my opinion matters of bad "luck,"when combined with her lack of intelligence. That she could not recognize them as such was her failing. She had no tools for the life she came upon and so was overwhelmed by it. Disaster , by the way, literally means " against the stars," (unlucky). Her "triumph " was little more than genes and good connections in the music business.(lucky)
So you agree, there is no such thing as 'free will'? For 'free will' to be inherently existent, it must stand alone and not rely on causes and conditions. But even in courts of law, it is recognised that 'free will' is not inherently existent. Have a google for the Warrior Gene; in the USA a murderer had his death penalty commuted to life, after it was proved that his genetic make-up meant he had less control over himself than other people.
The doctrine of Dependant Arising also agrees. All phenomena (and free will will be classed as such) will depend on causes and conditions; that's what Buddhism teaches.
Tosh, there are many things where there is not free will. There is not free will related to if you have pancreatic cancer. There is not free will related to if you have a heart attack.
There is free will in terms of choosing to use drugs and alcohol.
I am not saying, however, that free will to start or stop using drugs or alcohol is easy. For each individual we can see that free will in any particular aspect of life can be easy, or difficult, or somewhere in the middle. It's a progressive type of thing.
I have never been good at choosing my diet. A year ago it looked as if I had a serious heart condition. Suddenly I was quite able to choose my diet very well. A final test before a scheduled angioplasty showed I actually did not have the heart condition. Now, although I am doing much better at controlling my diet than originally, in some other ways I have fallen back into some bad (well, not quite so bad) habits. All 3 phases were my choices of what to eat or not eat or eat in moderation.
To say drinking and drugs is not at all related to free will is not logical to me, because I have personally known peoplewho choose to start taking drugs and alcohol, and I have personally known people who have chosen to stop taking drugs and alcohol. And beyond those people who I have known personally in those situations, I also have known of many other people who have chosen to start or stop.
I'm not saying it's easy. I am saying there are many people who have succeeded. Hence, free will is a key factor.
Comments
Let's see...my father drank a QUART of whiskey at home each day, and then went out and did the rounds in the late afternoon/early evening. Stopped at Hop's Inn, Hughes Bar, the American Legion, and the Moose Club, and had 2-3 drinks at each place. So that's a quart of whiskey a day at home and 8-12 drinks of whiskey a day at bars. And 4 packs of cigarettes a day. A failed marriage due to alcohol. Lost his license twice due to DWI. Would sometimes fall in the snow walking home from the bars and just lay there for a while. Was diagnosed as an alcoholic by several doctors.
Yet you know he wasn't an alcoholic. Perhaps you just want everyone's experience to be like your experience. Alcoholism and cigarette addiction is a spectrum. Each person's experience is not a carbon copy of every other person's experience.
But alcoholism is classified as an illness - a mental illness. It just kinda struck me that we don't call people suffering with terminal cancer as 'Oh, she's a cancerism'; we say she's suffering with cancer; even though that cancer could've been brought about by poor lifestyle choices.
I was tired and grumpy when I posted (apologies), but suffering with alcoholism is not a moral weakness, just like contracting cancer is not a moral weakness. I thought we left all that stigma behind in the 1950s.
Anyway, alcoholics do not choose to suffer with alcoholism, and neither can they all just choose to recover. Why some recover and some don't, I don't know. Alcoholism has killed most of my paternal side of my family; not always directly (cancer at a young age, or suicide).
In A.A.'s basic text, it says the people who don't recover are born that way; they are not at fault (paraphrased). I agree with this. Totally free will - inherently existent choices - do not exist because nothing exists in a vacuum, and all depends on a supremely complex web of causes and conditions.
First, a couple of comments about me, that might clarify why I feel the way I do. There was a fair amount of alcoholism in my immediate family when I was growing up. My father, as already described. My aunt, who died of a heart attack at age 40, attributed by doctors to alcoholism. My grandfather, who I'll describe in a minute. And a few other members of the family who had an alcohol problem, but wouldn't be classed as alcoholics. In other words, too much drinking.
I don't drink...simply because I just don't care for alcohol. Did drink socially when in my late teens and twenties, but after that just dropped it.
Here's where I see the contradiction in what you say. You equate alcoholism and cancer as illnesses. Then, on the one hand you say, "alcoholics do not choose to suffer with alcoholism" and are "not at fault". But then you also say that, "just like contracting cancer is not a moral weakness" and "even though that cancer could've been brought about by poor lifestyle choices".
So, if you want to say cancer and alcoholism are both illnesses, then why are you differentiating that one (cancer) can be caused by "poor lifestyle choices", but the other can't be caused by "poor lifestyle choices"?
I think back to a time when my adopted son got into some serious legal problems, and I went into mild depression, and had to be treated by a light-moderate dosage of an anti-depressant. Could I just snap myself out of it? No. But could I moderate the extent of it on a day by day basis? Yes. On a morning when I would be feeling more depressed, there were times I could simply say to myself, "Okay, I'm feeling down, so I'm going to go out hiking today" (or some other enjoyable activity). And I would, indeed, feel much better. On other days I wouldn't take my own advice and would allow myself to wallow in depression.
I liken that to my grandfather. He was a foreman in a factory...a decent job. After work, he would stop downtown for a couple of drinks before coming home. On Saturdays he would stop at the bars for a couple of drinks in the afternoon. And, he would have a few beers at night when home. When he was in his late 50s, a new company took over and fired the "old timers" and brought in their own people. He then went to work on the Erie-Barge Canal, which went through our town, and continued his light drinking. Then, there were budget cuts and he lost that job. Then he made what you called a lifestyle choice -- he went to work as a bartender. He chose that job, even though he knew he had a bit of an alcohol problem. Down the spiral he went. Way too many drunken nights. Destroyed the fabric of the family. Yet, guess what. On certain days or short periods of time, he could pretty much control his drinking, as appropriate. Family birthday or Christmas or Thanksgiving or a doctor or unemployment insurance appointment day, or when he and my grandmother would go on a 2 week or month long vacation. He would make choices on those occasions, but on "normal days" couldn't seem to make the same choices.
The problem some of us have with seeing alcoholism as a disease, rather than a life choice, is that that view makes and encourages the alcoholic to see that he is powerless. It gives him the constant excuse. It's the "I can't not drink because it's the disease controlling me" viewpoint, rather than the "I can challenge this problem that I have" viewpoint. Your view takes away a person's personal power. My view gives the person his own personal power.
If you tell me that man does not have the power and ability to just control one behavior -- drinking alcohol, then I tell you that man does not have the power and ability to achieve something far more complex -- enlightenment.
It has probably been 4-5 years since my father has had a drink. And indeed, he just quit. But I would never make his struggle sound like anything less than a struggle. I couldn't say that, "He just quit and never touched a drop since!" I feel like the struggles he had up until that point are an important part of the story because they show just how difficult it can be to quit. IMO, it's important to understand the milestones that he missed and how bad he had to get before he could make his decision to quit. Only that will illustrate that an addict typically has to go through much suffering (definitely more than a non-addict would deal with) before making such a decision. I didn't post his story just as a response to you, although it might have sounded that way. I also posted it for those on this board that seemed to apply a sober mind/idea to the way they would response in an addict's shoes, and this is something that I don't think you can do.
Up to that point, despite the problems it caused, he still wanted to drink.
With alcohol, I have always felt that people either are, or aren't alcoholics. Sure, if you make the choice to drink every day, you will probably end up there. But I've also met some young people that even newly 21, seem to be alcoholics to me just because of their frequency of drinking. Alcoholism can be quite apparent at even a young age, IMO.
With drugs such as heroin, I think anyone could become an addict. That's a door that I feel lucky to have never been stupid enough to open.
For example, when I was in my mid-teens I was having a lot of stomach issues, and the doctor prescribed phenobarbital. At first I would only take a pheno when I was having a stomach problem. Then I progressed to taking one when situations would arise in which I was likely to have a problem. And then I was just taking them every day because...well, why wait and risk an attack.
Yet, when I got old enough to drink, I rarely did, and eventually stopped all together.
I was a flower-child of the 60's in college. Dabbled a little with marijuana, but nothing harder. After graduation ('68) I lost my student classification and my Uncle Sam sent me a personal invitation to join him in his wartime festivities. In Vietnam I was an Airmobile Medic - DUSTOFF helicopters transporting wounded out of the war zone. There was plenty of pain and suffering, and as I discovered, rivers of morphine. I was absolutely certain I knew the difference between drug use and drug abuse. I was terribly mistaken.
By the time I returned home I was hooked. I also discovered there was a world of difference between pharmaceutical grade morphine and the crap out on the streets. Took me almost three years to dig myself out of that hell hole. My NA sponsor was my best friend 'till his death two years ago.
It's now creeping on up to my 40 years clean token. Because of the hell my family and friends were put through because of me, I have never even considered any drug use. I sure hope I never need surgery, 'cause I'm pretty sure I'll refuse anything that even resembles morphine.
The Buddhist ideal is to have equanimity and feel compassion for all and certainly that is a laudible goal. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't grieve for those close to us, it means we should learn to extend that feeling to all beings.
On top of all that though there is the media circus and those who want to grandstand and profit off of her death. That situation is sad.
With "Hollywood types", whenever I start to feel sorry them in regard to publicity, I always try to remember that they pay big bucks for pop media...but eventually it usually goes against them. Dem dat lives by da pop media, dies by da pop media.
My father (died of cancer in his early 50s - but it was his alcoholism)
My paternal Grandfather - cirrhosis of the liver.
My father's brother - choked on his own vomit
My cousin (the daughter of my father's brother) - alcoholic/addict; committed suicide.
My niece (the daughter of my half-sister from my father's first marriage) - not sure how she died, but it was through her alcoholism.
My half-sister - the mother of my niece who died - is still an active alcoholic.
I'm the lucky one who found A.A.
I also remember seeing a TV documentary about the effects of alcohol on a certain genetic type; they injected alcohol into people while they were being brain scanned. Alcohol definitely affects some people in greater ways than it does others.
And that's also been my experience; my partner rarely drinks; she says it doesn't do a lot for her. For me, it once was the elixir of life!
Everyone else, though, (especially around my age--teenagers and young adults) doesn't really care. And of course the entertainment media (cable media has, for the most part, stopped talking about it as much) will talk about it constantly because she was an entertainer.
All we (people in general) can do now is move on and hope that her teenage daughter is okay. I can't imagine how hard it must be to loose a parent at such a young age. I'm eighteen and I don't know what I would do if I lost either of my parents right now.
How would you rationalize such success? Did you"deserve" it? Your voice is a fluke, an accident. You know it is .
Tell me again how great I am, how wonderful, how talented, how special...I don't believe you.
Imagine you were brought up on a terrible housing estate surrounding by drugs, guns, crime. How would you rationalise such a situation? Did you "deserve it"? The life you find yourself in is an accident. You know it is.
Tell me how bad I am, how disgusting, how worthless... I don't believe you.
from birth, each human being is addicted to escaping pain & finding happiness
but some, due to ignorance (which we all share), embark on the wrong (dangerous) means
Not something to point to, especially now, but Whitney was not the brightest bulb....
I guess it is futile. Does that make it incorrect though? I suppose that depends upon your (by 'your' I mean anyone reading this) beliefs.
I'm not talking about whether it's easy to kick or hard to kick. Non one ever said free will made something easy.
You're attempting to quote from Kipling's poem "if", which doesn't talk about good and bad luck as being imposters.
Both Whitney's "triumph(fame) and disaster(drug addiction)" were , in my opinion matters of bad "luck,"when combined with her lack of intelligence.
That she could not recognize them as such was her failing.
She had no tools for the life she came upon and so was overwhelmed by it.
Disaster , by the way, literally means " against the stars," (unlucky).
Her "triumph " was little more than genes and good connections in the music business.(lucky)
So you agree, there is no such thing as 'free will'? For 'free will' to be inherently existent, it must stand alone and not rely on causes and conditions. But even in courts of law, it is recognised that 'free will' is not inherently existent. Have a google for the Warrior Gene; in the USA a murderer had his death penalty commuted to life, after it was proved that his genetic make-up meant he had less control over himself than other people.
The doctrine of Dependant Arising also agrees. All phenomena (and free will will be classed as such) will depend on causes and conditions; that's what Buddhism teaches.
There is free will in terms of choosing to use drugs and alcohol.
I am not saying, however, that free will to start or stop using drugs or alcohol is easy. For each individual we can see that free will in any particular aspect of life can be easy, or difficult, or somewhere in the middle. It's a progressive type of thing.
I have never been good at choosing my diet. A year ago it looked as if I had a serious heart condition. Suddenly I was quite able to choose my diet very well. A final test before a scheduled angioplasty showed I actually did not have the heart condition. Now, although I am doing much better at controlling my diet than originally, in some other ways I have fallen back into some bad (well, not quite so bad) habits. All 3 phases were my choices of what to eat or not eat or eat in moderation.
To say drinking and drugs is not at all related to free will is not logical to me, because I have personally known peoplewho choose to start taking drugs and alcohol, and I have personally known people who have chosen to stop taking drugs and alcohol. And beyond those people who I have known personally in those situations, I also have known of many other people who have chosen to start or stop.
I'm not saying it's easy. I am saying there are many people who have succeeded. Hence, free will is a key factor.