Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Substance Abuse
Trading addictions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SuZir" data-source="post: 552603" data-attributes="member: 14557"><p>I think that depends a lot about substances. I'm very pragmatic with this (that may be one big philosophical difference why I'm not fan of twelve steps.) For me it is about functioning. I don't see addictions as a moral dilemma but like other health conditions. If heroin addict takes their maintenance drugs (that are physically addictive) and are functioning members of society, not high, not causing troubles, I simply don't see it any worse problem than a friend of mine with fibromyalgia taking Lyrica (and being physically addicted to that) or people using some other physically addictive medication for some health issue. I simply don't see how not using medications would be some kind of moral victory and better way, when medications can make someone's quality of life better without too bad side effects. In fact I at times think it is almost morally wrong to not use medications you need and be non-functioning because of that. I think it is very frustrating when for example people with schizophrenia or bipolar are not taking their medications (some physically addictive) and are not well functioning because of that. To me there is no moral victory on being medication-free bipolar or addict. Of course it is nice if person doesn't need them, because medications often have also their cons, but not to take medications just because some moral stance and being non-functioning because of that is maddening. </p><p></p><p>But yes, it is well known fact, that people tend to trade addictions. And if you get lucky, the traded one can be less harmful. Trading drugs to religion (or I should probably say that trading them to certain type of religious behaviour that is very close to addiction), alcohol to compulsive exercising or work addiction can certainly make quality of life better. Then again trading drugs to alcohol not so much.</p><p></p><p>problem of course is, that there are lots of things that can turn to addiction and you can not abstinent of all of them. It is easy to say to drug addict that they should not drink. But they do have to eat, work etc. and if their impulse control issues, issues addict uses addiction to handle and other problems with addictive behaviour are not treated, it is likely addictive behaviour just changes it's focus. And of course hopefully to the less harmful addiction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SuZir, post: 552603, member: 14557"] I think that depends a lot about substances. I'm very pragmatic with this (that may be one big philosophical difference why I'm not fan of twelve steps.) For me it is about functioning. I don't see addictions as a moral dilemma but like other health conditions. If heroin addict takes their maintenance drugs (that are physically addictive) and are functioning members of society, not high, not causing troubles, I simply don't see it any worse problem than a friend of mine with fibromyalgia taking Lyrica (and being physically addicted to that) or people using some other physically addictive medication for some health issue. I simply don't see how not using medications would be some kind of moral victory and better way, when medications can make someone's quality of life better without too bad side effects. In fact I at times think it is almost morally wrong to not use medications you need and be non-functioning because of that. I think it is very frustrating when for example people with schizophrenia or bipolar are not taking their medications (some physically addictive) and are not well functioning because of that. To me there is no moral victory on being medication-free bipolar or addict. Of course it is nice if person doesn't need them, because medications often have also their cons, but not to take medications just because some moral stance and being non-functioning because of that is maddening. But yes, it is well known fact, that people tend to trade addictions. And if you get lucky, the traded one can be less harmful. Trading drugs to religion (or I should probably say that trading them to certain type of religious behaviour that is very close to addiction), alcohol to compulsive exercising or work addiction can certainly make quality of life better. Then again trading drugs to alcohol not so much. problem of course is, that there are lots of things that can turn to addiction and you can not abstinent of all of them. It is easy to say to drug addict that they should not drink. But they do have to eat, work etc. and if their impulse control issues, issues addict uses addiction to handle and other problems with addictive behaviour are not treated, it is likely addictive behaviour just changes it's focus. And of course hopefully to the less harmful addiction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Substance Abuse
Trading addictions
Top