Ok I posted this in another thread but I think it might desserve a thread of it's own. Some cliffs: - The opposite of addiction is not sobriety, the opposite of addiction is connection. - The Vietnam war did not flood the US with addicts. Neither does hospitals produce addicts. - "Tough loving" an addict, helps to fuel his addiction.
Fat acceptance and now addict acceptance? You and you alone determines what substance you consume/use, nobody else.
I'll watch the video later when I got a minute to get this idea in the proper context, but if it means what I think it does, I definitely agree, from a personal experience.
We have no addictions or mental issues, everything is beautiful, now get back to browsing the net my friends - life is grand.
I thought that was a pretty good talk. There is no doubt that the approach the US, and most of the world, has taken for the last 100 years or so has been terrible. It didn't work with alcohol, it hasn't worked with drugs, it wouldn't work with tobacco. It is time for a major change.
Knew I'd seen this guy before. He has interesting sort of debate with another scholar of the "drug war" here: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/34538 I think he comes off more journalistic in that link (in a bad way), but it did make me want to read more about the topic.
There has to be some kind of connection between the war in Afghanistan and the recent rise in heroin use.
Addicts tend to use drugs when they don't have a lot of personal connections, and don't have a lot of positive outlets in their lives. Rather than labeling addicts bad people, and giving them prison/jail sentences, you give them rehab and help them reintegrate into society. He said that in Portugal they took the money that they used to spend enforcing drug laws and incarcerating people, and now they use it to help subsidize earnings for recovering addicts. Once they have a job, personal connections, and a positive outlook, they are less likely to use.
So you are commenting on a video you didn't take the time to watch, and are supporting a comment that another guy who didn't watch, or at least comprehend, posted? Nice.
It's more about how the rest of us are treating addicts, and how that affects them. He states - Shun an addict for drug abuse in hopes that he will mend his way, will result in him feeling more isolated and depressed, thus fueling his addiction. I have personal experience. I have shunned and been shunned. I never managed to shame or distance myself to someone so that they actually stoped being an addict. I can not say surely if I made it worse but I can say I didn't make it better, so I suspect I made it worse. I've also been shunned and isolated. Which lead to me being more unhappy and then isolating myself more because I felt people didn't want to be around me. Then I needed more drugs to combat my lonely existance. Not saying I was in the right to do either #1 or #2 above. Just saying what it lead too.
The intention was not to put the blame on someone else. Rather increasing isolation --> more unhappiness --> more drugs. That's not about right or wrong it's more about cause, effect and human emotions. I'm willing to wager, if people didn't give a shit about you, and shunned you. You'd be more likely to shoot heroin.
He did essentially the same presentation on Democracynow back in Feb. There's a transcript in this link for anyone who can't watch a video: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/4/johann_hari_everything_we_know_about I like the assertion that providing a better 'cage'/social environment decreases the likelihood that an organism will indulge to harmful degrees. Seems logical. Upgrade their surroundings, give them a sense of purpose, and they're likely to upgrade themselves in accordance.
Well, I would call this bullshit. I have known many people with a lot of friends and a SO that were drug addicts.
