Chris Christie with wise words on addiction

[RidonKs]

https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostPol...3519228277911/

tl;dw

- chris christie's mom smoked
- chris christie's mom knew she would get cancer
- she got cancer
- nobody blamed her and said she got what she deserved so why treat her disease
- so why do we say that about addicts who aren't just untreated but CRIMINALIZED for their own crises?
- we need to stop jailing people and start treating them



there but for the grace of god go i

[Dresta]

If 'addiction' is a quantifiable 'disease' then so is indolence a disease, so is obesity, so is almost every single thing done to excess. Dependence is really a far better descriptive term for what addiction actually is - far more accurate, and also more helpful.

Externalising the problem as a 'disease' does little to rectify the problem - it is an internal rather than an external problem, and can only really be 'cured' by the deliberation, will and restraint of the patient - very unlike the things we usually call diseases.

Dependency and sensual indulgence are destructive to the human mind and spirit, and there's really not much more to say - i only wish we didn't encourage such behaviour in its multifarious forms.

[RidonKs]

i said cancer was a disease

addiction is a disorder




it DOES help to externalize it

because by externalizing it

we can treat it

like.... rehabilitation clinics do successfully and frequently all over the world

the fairy tail is your belief people should just roll up their sleeves or pull up their bootstraps or pick up their dead lives and move on

real helpful

[Draz]

What she died of lung cancer from smoking ciggs?

[The Valley]

Yet that fat piece of shit wants to make Cannabis, a natural medicinal plant, completely illegal.

Oh wait, he was the Governor of the state with the most large pharmaceutical companies? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.

I have zero condolence for fat people when they get cardiovascular disease. None. Christie can afford health care if he needs it but the rest of America shouldn't have to pay high insurance prices just so fat pieces of dog shit can be treated for a heart attack that they caused all by themselves.

[UK2K]

i said cancer was a disease

addiction is a disorder




it DOES help to externalize it

because by externalizing it

we can treat it

like.... rehabilitation clinics do successfully and frequently all over the world

the fairy tail is your belief people should just roll up their sleeves or pull up their bootstraps or pick up their dead lives and move on

real helpful

False.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080602660.html

In a 2005 article in the journal Addiction, Deborah A. Dawson and her colleagues calculated a natural recovery rate for alcoholism of 24.4 percent -- that is, over the course of a year, 24.4 percent of the alcoholics studied simply wised up, got sick and tired of being sick and tired, and quit. Without treatment and without meetings.

A quarter of people simply stop doing it. So... you can pick yourself up by your bootstraps and move on... if you are willing and want to. If you want to be an addict, there's nothing anyone can do for you.

Hold on, I've got more:

[QUOTE]For example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that about 40 to 60 percent of people with addiction slide back into drug use after rehab. This is similar to relapse rates seen in other people who have chronic conditions that require daily care, but it

[UK2K]

Yet that fat piece of shit wants to make Cannabis, a natural medicinal plant, completely illegal.

Oh wait, he was the Governor of the state with the most large pharmaceutical companies? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.

I have zero condolence for fat people when they get cardiovascular disease. None. Christie can afford health care if he needs it but the rest of America shouldn't have to pay high insurance prices just so fat pieces of dog shit can be treated for a heart attack that they caused all by themselves.

And I shouldn't have to pay high insurance prices because alcoholics want to destroy their liver either.

Unfortunately now that Obama has his pen and phone, we all suffer for everyone else's **** ups, so you may as well get your money out of it.

[Dresta]

i said cancer was a disease

addiction is a disorder




it DOES help to externalize it

because by externalizing it

we can treat it

like.... rehabilitation clinics do successfully and frequently all over the world

the fairy tail is your belief people should just roll up their sleeves or pull up their bootstraps or pick up their dead lives and move on

real helpful

Rehab clinics are not helpful - perhaps the incredibly expensive ones the rich can afford to holiday in are (though i doubt it) - but in-patient mental-health treatments are awful, disturbing, and not at all helpful for most (could probs give some people 'PTSD'). And no, externalising the problem has never been shown to help - studies of Vietnam 'PTSD' sufferers showed that those who were labelled with PTSD (another vague and unquantifiable illness whose incidence has quintupled in just over a decade) recovered less effectively from their trauma than those who weren't. Not to mention that this has been the methodology of the APA for years and years and that the DSM method of diagnosis (which i've said on here to be an arbitrary and inaccurate representation of reality several times), has now been repudiated by the NIMH. So if these methods have been so great, it begs the question: why do they fail so frequently, and why are they now being openly repudiated by an institute that has poured forth a lot of money into such methods of practice? Why do we have a mental health crisis after more than half-a-century of implementing the wants and wishes of psychiatrists, their associations, and pharmaceutical lobbies? They have been doing what you're lauding for decades and decades, with no marked effect or real improvement - just more patients - i wonder if this is a coincidence? hmmm....

It is only once one has grown to hate oneself that one can hope for the requisite fortitude to change oneself. At some point in their lives every dissolute person must make the decision themselves: change or perish. Habit truly is man's second nature, and it is only through a forced and deliberate (and painful) changing of habits, mental and physical, that an individual can throw off the yoke of dependency and dissipation. Externalising the problem is foolish because the issue isn't external: the person himself is the problem; his disorder is inseparable from his habits and constitution; it is what he has allowed himself to become.

[Styles p]

**** chris christie fat turd. i live in nj everyone hates that mfer

[DukeDelonte13]

Rehab clinics are not helpful - perhaps the incredibly expensive ones the rich can afford to holiday in are (though i doubt it) - but in-patient mental-health treatments are awful, disturbing, and not at all helpful for most (could probs give some people 'PTSD'). And no, externalising the problem has never been shown to help - studies of Vietnam 'PTSD' sufferers showed that those who were labelled with PTSD (another vague and unquantifiable illness whose incidence has quintupled in just over a decade) recovered less effectively from their trauma than those who weren't. Not to mention that this has been the methodology of the APA for years and years and that the DSM method of diagnosis (which i've said on here to be an arbitrary and inaccurate representation of reality several times), has now been repudiated by the NIMH. So if these methods have been so great, it begs the question: why do they fail so frequently, and why are they now being openly repudiated by an institute that has poured forth a lot of money into such methods of practice? Why do we have a mental health crisis after more than half-a-century of implementing the wants and wishes of psychiatrists, their associations, and pharmaceutical lobbies? They have been doing what you're lauding for decades and decades, with no marked effect or real improvement - just more patients - i wonder if this is a coincidence? hmmm....

It is only once one has grown to hate oneself that one can hope for the requisite fortitude to change oneself. At some point in their lives every dissolute person must make the decision themselves: change or perish. Habit truly is man's second nature, and it is only through a forced and deliberate (and painful) changing of habits, mental and physical, that an individual can throw off the yoke of dependency and dissipation. Externalising the problem is foolish because the issue isn't external: the person himself is the problem; his disorder is inseparable from his habits and constitution; it is what he has allowed himself to become.

this is probably a top 3 all time dumbest thing you have ever said, and that's saying quite a bit. Your gimmick is hands down one of the most embarrassing things i've seen on ISH.

[NumberSix]

i said cancer was a disease

addiction is a disorder




it DOES help to externalize it

because by externalizing it

we can treat it

like.... rehabilitation clinics do successfully and frequently all over the world

the fairy tail is your belief people should just roll up their sleeves or pull up their bootstraps or pick up their dead lives and move on

real helpful

How the hell do "we" treat drug addiction? Drug addiction only has 1 solution. The person choosing not to do drugs. It's not a matter of disease. It's a matter of choice.

[Dresta]

this is probably a top 3 all time dumbest thing you have ever said, and that's saying quite a bit. Your gimmick is hands down one of the most embarrassing things i've seen on ISH.

Gimmick? Nice response dumbass. What is gimmicky about laying out the bare-faced realities of drug dependency and the gross incompetency of psychiatric practices (those who carried out lobotomies not too long ago, and even today load young children with mind-altering drugs with disastrous long-term effects). Try refuting what i have said or keep your idiotic opinions to yourself. I have a lot of experience with drug problems, from close friends to family members and even myself, so i wouldn't even hesitate to claim far more knowledge of the matter than you have yourself.

Let me guess: you spent a bit of time studying psychology from a textbook and now think you're the bees knees on the matter; well, let me assure you, with something like this (as with all things), actual first-hand experience trumps all the book-learning in the world (though i have little doubt i have more of this than you do also).

I would even go so far as to say that a psychiatrist who has never suffered from drug dependency themselves isn't properly qualified to advise and prescribe remedies to anyone that does. It is something you have to directly experience yourself to properly understand and sympathise with it.

The basic fact of the matter is the problem is and can only be an internal one; until you hate what your dependency has made of you, there is no hope of relinquishing it. Externalising the problem is to ignore its very nature, while also providing excuses, which is the worst of things to give to an addict (as they help to justify his behaviour, to enable him) This is really the most basic of logic - but i guess it is somewhat illogical of me to expect logic from the cretins that inhabit this website.

edit: the idea of change only coming from within is an ancient one, central to the Buddhist doctrine, and promulgated by authorities such as the Dalai Lama - so i guess in your saying this is one of the 'top 3 dumbest things' i have said, you are bestowing great favour on everything else i've ever said on here (excepting the other two things of course) - though i'm guessing that wasn't the intention of your oh-so-bitter condemnation?

[UK2K]

Gimmick? Nice response dumbass. What is gimmicky about laying out the bare-faced realities of drug dependency and the gross incompetency of psychiatric practices (those who carried out lobotomies not too long ago, and even today load young children with mind-altering drugs with disastrous long-term effects). Try refuting what i have said or keep your idiotic opinions to yourself. I have a lot of experience with drug problems, from close friends to family members and even myself, so i wouldn't even hesitate to claim far more knowledge of the matter than you have yourself.

Let me guess: you spent a bit of time studying psychology from a textbook and now think you're the bees knees on the matter; well, let me assure you, with something like this (as with all things), actual first-hand experience trumps all the book-learning in the world (though i have little doubt i have more of this than you do also).

I would even go so far as to say that a psychiatrist who has never suffered from drug dependency themselves isn't properly qualified to advise and prescribe remedies to anyone that does. It is something you have to directly experience yourself to properly understand and sympathise with it.

The basic fact of the matter is the problem is and can only be an internal one; until you hate what your dependency has made of you, there is no hope of relinquishing it. Externalising the problem is to ignore its very nature, while also providing excuses, which is the worst of things to give to an addict (as they help to justify his behaviour, to enable him) This is really the most basic of logic - but i guess it is somewhat illogical of me to expect logic from the cretins that inhabit this website.

Been there before, and what you say is true.

Only way I was able to quit was to move cities.

[The Valley]

Chris Christie is corrupt

[Dresta]

Been there before, and what you say is true.

Only way I was able to quit was to move cities.

I honestly don't know why it was necessary to move beyond the concept of vice, which was a more accurate representation of what these things are (over-indulgence in sensual pleasures). Vice destroys the body and mind - it changes you, and leads full circle from pleasure back to pain - these are long-known and accepted truths, ignored of-course in this modern era of excuse making (the most pointless thing considering every single person is not to blame for who or what they are; this mentality can only lead to an infinite number of excuses, and thus never produces any change for the better; it may be true, but it is completely impractical, and solves no problems - in fact, it completely undermines the basis of human life as we know it). But the fundamental concept of vice seems far more accurate to me than calling everything that a human being can do to himself an addiction or disease or disorder. Has extreme indolence been medically classified yet (ignoring ambiguities like CFS)? Quite often the consequences of indolence (depression, lethargy, demotivation, anxiety) are simply labelled as "depression" and treated with medication - the whole thing is quite mad, quite mad indeed.

I still think my father can't get over his childhood, nor stop hating his mother (grew up in Soviet-controlled Warsaw), and all this blaming, all this excusing, has not helped him a single whit - just more self-pity, and thus less resolve to excise the true problem. He saw a psychiatrist for decades, which seemed, more than anything else, to feed his neuroses, and to enable (excuse) his vices. It's well known that dwelling on past traumas only goes to reenforce the neural connections that bring them to mind - thus the first principle of psychiatry (talking over your problems and past), tends to increase the prominence and importance of painful thoughts and memories. But you are right: moving makes a huge difference in making other changes easier. A person looking to escape an addiction should look to overhaul his habits in almost every respect. Good and healthy habits can be developed with not much more difficulty than it takes to fall into bad and destructive ones. It is only once they have developed and become one's 'second nature' that they become increasingly difficult to break - which is why also, each moment of delay and prevarication, makes the change that much harder.

So says the accumulated wisdom of the species - these things have been known and understood since the days of Epicurus and before, and yet i get ridiculed for simply questioning the veracity of modern classifications. Something like the following seems like a bit of good plain wisdom to me, but i think that sort of thing has gone out of fashion because of scientific absolutism of the age ('everything can be separated, organised and categorised with the utmost accuracy - praise be to science!'):

"The knowledge of sin is the beginning of salvation." This saying of Epicurus seems to me to be a noble one. For he who does not know that he has sinned does not desire correction; you must discover yourself in the wrong before you can reform yourself. Some boast of their faults. Do you think that the man has any thought of mending his ways who counts over his vices as if they were virtues? Therefore, as far as possible, prove yourself guilty, hunt up charges against yourself; play the part, first of accuser, then of judge, last of intercessor. At times be harsh with yourself.

- From Seneca's Epistles.

One of the stoopidest things evar sed on ISHs right thurr ^^^. It also shows that the concept of sin is an ancient one, and not simply based in Christian dogma, but in the recognition of the species that certain things are destructive, both to the person doing them, and to the people around them.

I'd be interested to hear primetime's views on the matter, considering he seemed to have had a pretty serious problem, and has gotten past it - where are you primetime?