Re: sugar addiction, meds

[Guest guest]

12-step-free is beginning to look like a newly installed cold store to complement the 12-step oven.

Well, I can speak only for myself, but I agree with everything you posted, with the exception of the above line. I am friggin' delighted to have my meds, and wouldn't return to the hellish existence I have without them regardless of *anyone's views on the character-building qualities of suffering, or the immorality/inadvisability of medication.

(In my experience, people who extol the virtues of suffering have not suffered sufficiently themselves. One does not usually find Holocaust Survivors writing paeans to agony and loss. While much suffering in life can give us opportunities for growth and self-awareness, some is so intense and awful as to be all but intolerable. Indeed, some of it is intolerable. It is simply not true, as AA likes to spew, that "God never gives us more than we can handle.)

Anyway, I'm glad you will shortly seek an end to unnecessary suffering by getting the meds you need. Best of luck with that.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hello Rita, folks

somebody commented I mustnt be too depressed as I can make lively

posts to this list. well I dont feel able too any more, and the

diffference is for years Im not on a med, and I must get back on one

soon.

by " diabetes " most ppl mean diabetes mellitus. In the past it also

mostly meant Type I diabetes, where a person has a deficiency in

insulin production from birth. Type II late onset diabetes is what I

have and is the rapidly growing kind.

Since I am depressed and have other far more improtatn things I ought

to be doing, I will try to be as brief as possible:

By any sensible use of the word, Addiction = harmful use, NOT

withdrawal, which is associate with many harmless things. The

breathing joke illustrates this rather nicely. Hence meds that vastly

improve a person's life are not in the slightest bit addictive, even

if someone would gladly slaughter their mother to get some in

acute withdrawal , just like insulin to a diabetic is not an addiction

even thought they may die without it. If a condition is chronic why

the hell should you ever want to stop taking the med, and if you do

want/need to for any reason, you can taper off, as slowly as it takes.

Sugar could well be considered addictive, particularly if process

addictions like gambling are considered true addictions. Since the

rush of a massive does of refined sugar is quite unlike normal blood

sugar rises from natural foods, it can quite easily be addictive in

this form while in natural form it is not, just like crack cocaine is

addictive whereas coca tea, which has minute quantities, is not. Many

ppl abuse sugar (including me) despite adverse consequences, and hence

arguably it is addictive as much as anything else is.

Sugar addiction can cause Type II diabetes by at least two different

routes. One is through causing obesity and low fitness that makes the

outer parts of the body, such as hands and feet, less efficiently

delivered insulin. The second is that years of repeated insulin

surges in response to high blood sugar peaks can stimulate the body to

develop antibodies against insulin, rendering it ineffective.

Alcohol peaks without drinking alcohol could even be caused indirectly

by sugar addiction. Undigested sugars reachiung the bowel can

stimulate overgrowth of the candida yeast cells there, which can

process the sugars into alcohol that is absorbed into the bloodstream.

I read a few years ago of cases in Japan where ppl with candida

overgrowth were claiming that they had failed drink-driving blood

tests as a result of this and were innocent of drink driving!

On the topic of meds, I am the first to say expert opinion should be

sought, but going to an expert with a known extreme view rather

defeats the purpose of getting an expert consensus. My depression is

not assisted by seeing attitudes expressed that sound so similar to

those frequently heard in the " rewms " . Hostility to psychiatric

treatment, and a harsh authoritarian attitude to the vulnerabilites of

ppl prone to addiction (or other mental disorder) on the grounds that

addiction is *not* a disease instead of the usual one that it *is* one

requiring moral redemption - and all under the guise of compassionate

..

Ivan the Terrible used to alternately burn his victims and then throw

them into freezing rivers. The medieval vision of hell was not merely

eternal fire but also alternated with bitter cold, so that one never

got used to either agony.

12-step-free is beginning to look like a newly installed cold store to

complement the 12-step oven.

>

> > > Does anyone have any views on sugar (and carbohydrate)

addiction?

> >

> > Too bad my mom isn't on this list. In her book, any food with

even

> > the slightest bit of sugar in it is out, even fresh fruits. She

> > hasn't had a dessert for 15 years. She became convinced by a book

she

> > read (I can't remember which) and it has seemed to help her

health.

> > She is also wheat-free. Explaining to her that complex carbos

still

> > get broken down into glucose earns a blank stare. Still, they do

> > release the glucose more slowly and evenly so there aren't the

spikes

> > in blood sugar levels as there are with refined simple carbos.

> >

> > There was a report in my local paper about 6 months ago regarding

the

> > link between obesity and diabetes. The authors of the study were

> > questioning the generally held idea that obesity causes diabetes

and

> > put forth the theory that some obesity may be caused by the body's

> > inability to process sugars properly - that in effect the diabetes

was

> > causing the obesity.

> >

> > Moderate exercise will *cut* high blood sugar very quickly. If

you

> > get a finger-stick that is high and walk briskly for 15 minutes

and

> > stick your finger again you'll be right back within normal range.

> > Exercise is definitly part of the equasion somewhere.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > It seems that diabetes is the world's fastes growing disease,

that

> > one

> > > addional glass of sugared soft drink a day for children

increases

> > the risk

> > > of diabetes by 60 % and that mature onset diabetes has increased

by

> > 300%

> > > over the last twenty years. In the last fifteen years the

heavily

> > promoted

> > > low hat - high carb - high sugar diet has seen obesity going up

and

> > up.

> > > Diabetes, uncontrolled excess insulin and obesity are all very

> > dangerous

> > > risk factor for all sorts of things including both physical amd

> > > psychological problems. We are sowing seeds of great ill health,

> > unhappiness

> > > and financial burden.

> > > Have you noticed how few products - including so called lite

and

> > low fat

> > > products - don't have sugar in them.

> > > I am told the only thing that stops a Big Mac being labelled

> > confectionery

> > > is the dill pickle and that one can of Coke contains nine

spoonfuls

> > of

> > > sugar. If you don't think sugar is psychotropic go to a

Mc's

> > kids'

> > > party.

> > >

> > > One in four people have something wrong with their blood glucose

> > metabolism.

> > >

> > > Yet this highly addictive stuff is legal and actively promoted

> > without

> > > health warnings. The next generation of civil suits is surely

here.

> > >

> > > Lawyers prepare your cases.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hello Rita, folks

somebody commented I mustnt be too depressed as I can make lively

posts to this list. well I dont feel able too any more, and the

diffference is for years Im not on a med, and I must get back on one

soon.

by " diabetes " most ppl mean diabetes mellitus. In the past it also

mostly meant Type I diabetes, where a person has a deficiency in

insulin production from birth. Type II late onset diabetes is what I

have and is the rapidly growing kind.

Since I am depressed and have other far more improtatn things I ought

to be doing, I will try to be as brief as possible:

By any sensible use of the word, Addiction = harmful use, NOT

withdrawal, which is associate with many harmless things. The

breathing joke illustrates this rather nicely. Hence meds that vastly

improve a person's life are not in the slightest bit addictive, even

if someone would gladly slaughter their mother to get some in

acute withdrawal , just like insulin to a diabetic is not an addiction

even thought they may die without it. If a condition is chronic why

the hell should you ever want to stop taking the med, and if you do

want/need to for any reason, you can taper off, as slowly as it takes.

Sugar could well be considered addictive, particularly if process

addictions like gambling are considered true addictions. Since the

rush of a massive does of refined sugar is quite unlike normal blood

sugar rises from natural foods, it can quite easily be addictive in

this form while in natural form it is not, just like crack cocaine is

addictive whereas coca tea, which has minute quantities, is not. Many

ppl abuse sugar (including me) despite adverse consequences, and hence

arguably it is addictive as much as anything else is.

Sugar addiction can cause Type II diabetes by at least two different

routes. One is through causing obesity and low fitness that makes the

outer parts of the body, such as hands and feet, less efficiently

delivered insulin. The second is that years of repeated insulin

surges in response to high blood sugar peaks can stimulate the body to

develop antibodies against insulin, rendering it ineffective.

Alcohol peaks without drinking alcohol could even be caused indirectly

by sugar addiction. Undigested sugars reachiung the bowel can

stimulate overgrowth of the candida yeast cells there, which can

process the sugars into alcohol that is absorbed into the bloodstream.

I read a few years ago of cases in Japan where ppl with candida

overgrowth were claiming that they had failed drink-driving blood

tests as a result of this and were innocent of drink driving!

On the topic of meds, I am the first to say expert opinion should be

sought, but going to an expert with a known extreme view rather

defeats the purpose of getting an expert consensus. My depression is

not assisted by seeing attitudes expressed that sound so similar to

those frequently heard in the " rewms " . Hostility to psychiatric

treatment, and a harsh authoritarian attitude to the vulnerabilites of

ppl prone to addiction (or other mental disorder) on the grounds that

addiction is *not* a disease instead of the usual one that it *is* one

requiring moral redemption - and all under the guise of compassionate

..

Ivan the Terrible used to alternately burn his victims and then throw

them into freezing rivers. The medieval vision of hell was not merely

eternal fire but also alternated with bitter cold, so that one never

got used to either agony.

12-step-free is beginning to look like a newly installed cold store to

complement the 12-step oven.

>

> > > Does anyone have any views on sugar (and carbohydrate)

addiction?

> >

> > Too bad my mom isn't on this list. In her book, any food with

even

> > the slightest bit of sugar in it is out, even fresh fruits. She

> > hasn't had a dessert for 15 years. She became convinced by a book

she

> > read (I can't remember which) and it has seemed to help her

health.

> > She is also wheat-free. Explaining to her that complex carbos

still

> > get broken down into glucose earns a blank stare. Still, they do

> > release the glucose more slowly and evenly so there aren't the

spikes

> > in blood sugar levels as there are with refined simple carbos.

> >

> > There was a report in my local paper about 6 months ago regarding

the

> > link between obesity and diabetes. The authors of the study were

> > questioning the generally held idea that obesity causes diabetes

and

> > put forth the theory that some obesity may be caused by the body's

> > inability to process sugars properly - that in effect the diabetes

was

> > causing the obesity.

> >

> > Moderate exercise will *cut* high blood sugar very quickly. If

you

> > get a finger-stick that is high and walk briskly for 15 minutes

and

> > stick your finger again you'll be right back within normal range.

> > Exercise is definitly part of the equasion somewhere.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > It seems that diabetes is the world's fastes growing disease,

that

> > one

> > > addional glass of sugared soft drink a day for children

increases

> > the risk

> > > of diabetes by 60 % and that mature onset diabetes has increased

by

> > 300%

> > > over the last twenty years. In the last fifteen years the

heavily

> > promoted

> > > low hat - high carb - high sugar diet has seen obesity going up

and

> > up.

> > > Diabetes, uncontrolled excess insulin and obesity are all very

> > dangerous

> > > risk factor for all sorts of things including both physical amd

> > > psychological problems. We are sowing seeds of great ill health,

> > unhappiness

> > > and financial burden.

> > > Have you noticed how few products - including so called lite

and

> > low fat

> > > products - don't have sugar in them.

> > > I am told the only thing that stops a Big Mac being labelled

> > confectionery

> > > is the dill pickle and that one can of Coke contains nine

spoonfuls

> > of

> > > sugar. If you don't think sugar is psychotropic go to a

Mc's

> > kids'

> > > party.

> > >

> > > One in four people have something wrong with their blood glucose

> > metabolism.

> > >

> > > Yet this highly addictive stuff is legal and actively promoted

> > without

> > > health warnings. The next generation of civil suits is surely

here.

> > >

> > > Lawyers prepare your cases.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hello Rita, folks

somebody commented I mustnt be too depressed as I can make lively

posts to this list. well I dont feel able too any more, and the

diffference is for years Im not on a med, and I must get back on one

soon.

by " diabetes " most ppl mean diabetes mellitus. In the past it also

mostly meant Type I diabetes, where a person has a deficiency in

insulin production from birth. Type II late onset diabetes is what I

have and is the rapidly growing kind.

Since I am depressed and have other far more improtatn things I ought

to be doing, I will try to be as brief as possible:

By any sensible use of the word, Addiction = harmful use, NOT

withdrawal, which is associate with many harmless things. The

breathing joke illustrates this rather nicely. Hence meds that vastly

improve a person's life are not in the slightest bit addictive, even

if someone would gladly slaughter their mother to get some in

acute withdrawal , just like insulin to a diabetic is not an addiction

even thought they may die without it. If a condition is chronic why

the hell should you ever want to stop taking the med, and if you do

want/need to for any reason, you can taper off, as slowly as it takes.

Sugar could well be considered addictive, particularly if process

addictions like gambling are considered true addictions. Since the

rush of a massive does of refined sugar is quite unlike normal blood

sugar rises from natural foods, it can quite easily be addictive in

this form while in natural form it is not, just like crack cocaine is

addictive whereas coca tea, which has minute quantities, is not. Many

ppl abuse sugar (including me) despite adverse consequences, and hence

arguably it is addictive as much as anything else is.

Sugar addiction can cause Type II diabetes by at least two different

routes. One is through causing obesity and low fitness that makes the

outer parts of the body, such as hands and feet, less efficiently

delivered insulin. The second is that years of repeated insulin

surges in response to high blood sugar peaks can stimulate the body to

develop antibodies against insulin, rendering it ineffective.

Alcohol peaks without drinking alcohol could even be caused indirectly

by sugar addiction. Undigested sugars reachiung the bowel can

stimulate overgrowth of the candida yeast cells there, which can

process the sugars into alcohol that is absorbed into the bloodstream.

I read a few years ago of cases in Japan where ppl with candida

overgrowth were claiming that they had failed drink-driving blood

tests as a result of this and were innocent of drink driving!

On the topic of meds, I am the first to say expert opinion should be

sought, but going to an expert with a known extreme view rather

defeats the purpose of getting an expert consensus. My depression is

not assisted by seeing attitudes expressed that sound so similar to

those frequently heard in the " rewms " . Hostility to psychiatric

treatment, and a harsh authoritarian attitude to the vulnerabilites of

ppl prone to addiction (or other mental disorder) on the grounds that

addiction is *not* a disease instead of the usual one that it *is* one

requiring moral redemption - and all under the guise of compassionate

..

Ivan the Terrible used to alternately burn his victims and then throw

them into freezing rivers. The medieval vision of hell was not merely

eternal fire but also alternated with bitter cold, so that one never

got used to either agony.

12-step-free is beginning to look like a newly installed cold store to

complement the 12-step oven.

>

> > > Does anyone have any views on sugar (and carbohydrate)

addiction?

> >

> > Too bad my mom isn't on this list. In her book, any food with

even

> > the slightest bit of sugar in it is out, even fresh fruits. She

> > hasn't had a dessert for 15 years. She became convinced by a book

she

> > read (I can't remember which) and it has seemed to help her

health.

> > She is also wheat-free. Explaining to her that complex carbos

still

> > get broken down into glucose earns a blank stare. Still, they do

> > release the glucose more slowly and evenly so there aren't the

spikes

> > in blood sugar levels as there are with refined simple carbos.

> >

> > There was a report in my local paper about 6 months ago regarding

the

> > link between obesity and diabetes. The authors of the study were

> > questioning the generally held idea that obesity causes diabetes

and

> > put forth the theory that some obesity may be caused by the body's

> > inability to process sugars properly - that in effect the diabetes

was

> > causing the obesity.

> >

> > Moderate exercise will *cut* high blood sugar very quickly. If

you

> > get a finger-stick that is high and walk briskly for 15 minutes

and

> > stick your finger again you'll be right back within normal range.

> > Exercise is definitly part of the equasion somewhere.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > It seems that diabetes is the world's fastes growing disease,

that

> > one

> > > addional glass of sugared soft drink a day for children

increases

> > the risk

> > > of diabetes by 60 % and that mature onset diabetes has increased

by

> > 300%

> > > over the last twenty years. In the last fifteen years the

heavily

> > promoted

> > > low hat - high carb - high sugar diet has seen obesity going up

and

> > up.

> > > Diabetes, uncontrolled excess insulin and obesity are all very

> > dangerous

> > > risk factor for all sorts of things including both physical amd

> > > psychological problems. We are sowing seeds of great ill health,

> > unhappiness

> > > and financial burden.

> > > Have you noticed how few products - including so called lite

and

> > low fat

> > > products - don't have sugar in them.

> > > I am told the only thing that stops a Big Mac being labelled

> > confectionery

> > > is the dill pickle and that one can of Coke contains nine

spoonfuls

> > of

> > > sugar. If you don't think sugar is psychotropic go to a

Mc's

> > kids'

> > > party.

> > >

> > > One in four people have something wrong with their blood glucose

> > metabolism.

> > >

> > > Yet this highly addictive stuff is legal and actively promoted

> > without

> > > health warnings. The next generation of civil suits is surely

here.

> > >

> > > Lawyers prepare your cases.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

>

> Anyway, I'm glad you will shortly seek an end to unnecessary

suffering by

> getting the meds you need. Best of luck with that.

HI Mona

Tx for your support. I just hope I find something that works as well

for me as yours do for you. Now folks, I'm going to say something nice

abt the US here - docs in the US seem to have much better knowledge

abt antideps than docs over here. Mine doesnt have a clue.

I'm just not well enough to say too much more, but seeing the endless

scare stories abt meds I find so depressing. Some meds have abuse

*potential* yes, but nevertheless are often useful, such as

benzos. I did a search on the entire psychological literature

from abt 1960 to the present day on antideps and addiction -

pretty well all I came up with was research showing how helpful

they can be in the treatment of addiction. Concern over

meaningless notions of " addiction " probably plays a part in why

my doc pretends that a whole class on antideps, the MAOIs, that are

most likely to help someone like me with atypical depression,

do not exist. Doctors report on adverse reactions and long term

outcomes of meds are stdied all the time - they are not just

prescribed and forgotten about. Meds are not exclusive of therapy -

there is no damn reason on earth why one cant do both and a good

reason why one should - much research shows better outcomes for

depression with both than either alone. Responsible docs will suggest

therapy as well as meds, and I've never heard anyone attack a

therapist for not suggesting that a person get a medical opinion as to

whether they should try meds as well. I've had kind, well meaning

therps and docs advise against antideps - they were mistaken.

I am going to have to beg my doc for one last chance to see a shrink

that can help me. Keep your fingers crossed for me, huh?

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> Anyway, I'm glad you will shortly seek an end to unnecessary

suffering by

> getting the meds you need. Best of luck with that.

HI Mona

Tx for your support. I just hope I find something that works as well

for me as yours do for you. Now folks, I'm going to say something nice

abt the US here - docs in the US seem to have much better knowledge

abt antideps than docs over here. Mine doesnt have a clue.

I'm just not well enough to say too much more, but seeing the endless

scare stories abt meds I find so depressing. Some meds have abuse

*potential* yes, but nevertheless are often useful, such as

benzos. I did a search on the entire psychological literature

from abt 1960 to the present day on antideps and addiction -

pretty well all I came up with was research showing how helpful

they can be in the treatment of addiction. Concern over

meaningless notions of " addiction " probably plays a part in why

my doc pretends that a whole class on antideps, the MAOIs, that are

most likely to help someone like me with atypical depression,

do not exist. Doctors report on adverse reactions and long term

outcomes of meds are stdied all the time - they are not just

prescribed and forgotten about. Meds are not exclusive of therapy -

there is no damn reason on earth why one cant do both and a good

reason why one should - much research shows better outcomes for

depression with both than either alone. Responsible docs will suggest

therapy as well as meds, and I've never heard anyone attack a

therapist for not suggesting that a person get a medical opinion as to

whether they should try meds as well. I've had kind, well meaning

therps and docs advise against antideps - they were mistaken.

I am going to have to beg my doc for one last chance to see a shrink

that can help me. Keep your fingers crossed for me, huh?

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> Anyway, I'm glad you will shortly seek an end to unnecessary

suffering by

> getting the meds you need. Best of luck with that.

HI Mona

Tx for your support. I just hope I find something that works as well

for me as yours do for you. Now folks, I'm going to say something nice

abt the US here - docs in the US seem to have much better knowledge

abt antideps than docs over here. Mine doesnt have a clue.

I'm just not well enough to say too much more, but seeing the endless

scare stories abt meds I find so depressing. Some meds have abuse

*potential* yes, but nevertheless are often useful, such as

benzos. I did a search on the entire psychological literature

from abt 1960 to the present day on antideps and addiction -

pretty well all I came up with was research showing how helpful

they can be in the treatment of addiction. Concern over

meaningless notions of " addiction " probably plays a part in why

my doc pretends that a whole class on antideps, the MAOIs, that are

most likely to help someone like me with atypical depression,

do not exist. Doctors report on adverse reactions and long term

outcomes of meds are stdied all the time - they are not just

prescribed and forgotten about. Meds are not exclusive of therapy -

there is no damn reason on earth why one cant do both and a good

reason why one should - much research shows better outcomes for

depression with both than either alone. Responsible docs will suggest

therapy as well as meds, and I've never heard anyone attack a

therapist for not suggesting that a person get a medical opinion as to

whether they should try meds as well. I've had kind, well meaning

therps and docs advise against antideps - they were mistaken.

I am going to have to beg my doc for one last chance to see a shrink

that can help me. Keep your fingers crossed for me, huh?

P.

[Guest guest]

,

> By any sensible use of the word, Addiction = harmful use, NOT

> withdrawal, which is associate with many harmless things. The

> breathing joke illustrates this rather nicely. Hence meds that

vastly

> improve a person's life are not in the slightest bit addictive,

even

> if someone would gladly slaughter their mother to get some in

> acute withdrawal , just like insulin to a diabetic is not an

addiction

> even thought they may die without it. If a condition is chronic

why

> the hell should you ever want to stop taking the med, and if you do

> want/need to for any reason, you can taper off, as slowly as it

takes.

In response to this excert from your post, as well as several others

that have attempted to disassociate the effects of certain

psychiatric medications from " addiction " , I have a few comments.

First, I want to be clear that I am not against people taking

whatever medications, legal or otherwise, that they feel like putting

in their bodies. I have seen people close to me benefit greatly from

drugs like Paxil and Prozac.

What I have a problem with is the constant attempt to put these drugs

in some special category that seperates them from " naughty " drugs

like cocaine or alcohol. Its the distinction between the " possibly

habit forming but in a good way " and the " evil and addictive " that

bothers me. For one thing, I don't agree with the definition

that " addiction " only refers to harmful use. People, for instance,

often smoke cigarettes for years before suffering any harmful

consequenses. Does that mean that they are not addicted? Some on this

post would say yes, but I disagree. I was most certainly addicted to

cigarettes within a month and a half from when I started to smoke at

18. There are also a lot of people, perhaps using the concept of harm

reduction to the benefit or protection of their addictive behavior,

who set up their lives in a way that they can use their drug of

choice without causing excessive harm to themselves. If someone who

uses heroin every day, can't or doesn't want to do without it, always

uses a clean needle, gets the drug from a consistently reputable

source, remembers to eat, doesn't hang around with dangerous people,

and doesn't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, is it

appropriate to say that the individual is not addicted? I know of

several people who do this with alcohol. They are perhaps too young

to suffer the physical consequences of long term alcohol use. Does

this mean they are not addicted, just because their habitual use does

not have a negative impact on them?

All this effort to classify psychiatric drugs so differently from so

called addictive substances just becomes an issue of semantics after

a while. On another post, someone was attempting to say that because

pain medications were beneficial to a dying cancer patient, that

meant that they were not addictive to that person. This person seemed

to have the need to call it something else, because the drug seemed

necessary to relieve suffering, because the drug was " good " rather

than " naughty " . My question is, what is the problem with calling it

addictive, even if it is helpful? If I were lying in a hospital bed

suffering agonizing pain, you better believe I'd want anything

available to me that could relieve my suffering. And I wouldn't give

a damn if it were addictive or not. I just don't think it is

necessary to create an entirely seperate category for certain drugs

just because their habitual use is veiwed as a good thing. If the

drug helps, who cares if it is " addictive " ?

Joan

> >

> > > > Does anyone have any views on sugar (and carbohydrate)

> addiction?

> > >

> > > Too bad my mom isn't on this list. In her book, any food with

> even

> > > the slightest bit of sugar in it is out, even fresh fruits.

She

> > > hasn't had a dessert for 15 years. She became convinced by a

book

> she

> > > read (I can't remember which) and it has seemed to help her

> health.

> > > She is also wheat-free. Explaining to her that complex carbos

> still

> > > get broken down into glucose earns a blank stare. Still, they

do

> > > release the glucose more slowly and evenly so there aren't the

> spikes

> > > in blood sugar levels as there are with refined simple carbos.

> > >

> > > There was a report in my local paper about 6 months ago

regarding

> the

> > > link between obesity and diabetes. The authors of the study

were

> > > questioning the generally held idea that obesity causes

diabetes

> and

> > > put forth the theory that some obesity may be caused by the

body's

> > > inability to process sugars properly - that in effect the

diabetes

> was

> > > causing the obesity.

> > >

> > > Moderate exercise will *cut* high blood sugar very quickly. If

> you

> > > get a finger-stick that is high and walk briskly for 15 minutes

> and

> > > stick your finger again you'll be right back within normal

range.

> > > Exercise is definitly part of the equasion somewhere.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > It seems that diabetes is the world's fastes growing disease,

> that

> > > one

> > > > addional glass of sugared soft drink a day for children

> increases

> > > the risk

> > > > of diabetes by 60 % and that mature onset diabetes has

increased

> by

> > > 300%

> > > > over the last twenty years. In the last fifteen years the

> heavily

> > > promoted

> > > > low hat - high carb - high sugar diet has seen obesity going

up

> and

> > > up.

> > > > Diabetes, uncontrolled excess insulin and obesity are all

very

> > > dangerous

> > > > risk factor for all sorts of things including both physical

amd

> > > > psychological problems. We are sowing seeds of great ill

health,

> > > unhappiness

> > > > and financial burden.

> > > > Have you noticed how few products - including so called lite

> and

> > > low fat

> > > > products - don't have sugar in them.

> > > > I am told the only thing that stops a Big Mac being labelled

> > > confectionery

> > > > is the dill pickle and that one can of Coke contains nine

> spoonfuls

> > > of

> > > > sugar. If you don't think sugar is psychotropic go to a

> Mc's

> > > kids'

> > > > party.

> > > >

> > > > One in four people have something wrong with their blood

glucose

> > > metabolism.

> > > >

> > > > Yet this highly addictive stuff is legal and actively

promoted

> > > without

> > > > health warnings. The next generation of civil suits is surely

> here.

> > > >

> > > > Lawyers prepare your cases.

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

,

> By any sensible use of the word, Addiction = harmful use, NOT

> withdrawal, which is associate with many harmless things. The

> breathing joke illustrates this rather nicely. Hence meds that

vastly

> improve a person's life are not in the slightest bit addictive,

even

> if someone would gladly slaughter their mother to get some in

> acute withdrawal , just like insulin to a diabetic is not an

addiction

> even thought they may die without it. If a condition is chronic

why

> the hell should you ever want to stop taking the med, and if you do

> want/need to for any reason, you can taper off, as slowly as it

takes.

In response to this excert from your post, as well as several others

that have attempted to disassociate the effects of certain

psychiatric medications from " addiction " , I have a few comments.

First, I want to be clear that I am not against people taking

whatever medications, legal or otherwise, that they feel like putting

in their bodies. I have seen people close to me benefit greatly from

drugs like Paxil and Prozac.

What I have a problem with is the constant attempt to put these drugs

in some special category that seperates them from " naughty " drugs

like cocaine or alcohol. Its the distinction between the " possibly

habit forming but in a good way " and the " evil and addictive " that

bothers me. For one thing, I don't agree with the definition

that " addiction " only refers to harmful use. People, for instance,

often smoke cigarettes for years before suffering any harmful

consequenses. Does that mean that they are not addicted? Some on this

post would say yes, but I disagree. I was most certainly addicted to

cigarettes within a month and a half from when I started to smoke at

18. There are also a lot of people, perhaps using the concept of harm

reduction to the benefit or protection of their addictive behavior,

who set up their lives in a way that they can use their drug of

choice without causing excessive harm to themselves. If someone who

uses heroin every day, can't or doesn't want to do without it, always

uses a clean needle, gets the drug from a consistently reputable

source, remembers to eat, doesn't hang around with dangerous people,

and doesn't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, is it

appropriate to say that the individual is not addicted? I know of

several people who do this with alcohol. They are perhaps too young

to suffer the physical consequences of long term alcohol use. Does

this mean they are not addicted, just because their habitual use does

not have a negative impact on them?

All this effort to classify psychiatric drugs so differently from so

called addictive substances just becomes an issue of semantics after

a while. On another post, someone was attempting to say that because

pain medications were beneficial to a dying cancer patient, that

meant that they were not addictive to that person. This person seemed

to have the need to call it something else, because the drug seemed

necessary to relieve suffering, because the drug was " good " rather

than " naughty " . My question is, what is the problem with calling it

addictive, even if it is helpful? If I were lying in a hospital bed

suffering agonizing pain, you better believe I'd want anything

available to me that could relieve my suffering. And I wouldn't give

a damn if it were addictive or not. I just don't think it is

necessary to create an entirely seperate category for certain drugs

just because their habitual use is veiwed as a good thing. If the

drug helps, who cares if it is " addictive " ?

Joan

> >

> > > > Does anyone have any views on sugar (and carbohydrate)

> addiction?

> > >

> > > Too bad my mom isn't on this list. In her book, any food with

> even

> > > the slightest bit of sugar in it is out, even fresh fruits.

She

> > > hasn't had a dessert for 15 years. She became convinced by a

book

> she

> > > read (I can't remember which) and it has seemed to help her

> health.

> > > She is also wheat-free. Explaining to her that complex carbos

> still

> > > get broken down into glucose earns a blank stare. Still, they

do

> > > release the glucose more slowly and evenly so there aren't the

> spikes

> > > in blood sugar levels as there are with refined simple carbos.

> > >

> > > There was a report in my local paper about 6 months ago

regarding

> the

> > > link between obesity and diabetes. The authors of the study

were

> > > questioning the generally held idea that obesity causes

diabetes

> and

> > > put forth the theory that some obesity may be caused by the

body's

> > > inability to process sugars properly - that in effect the

diabetes

> was

> > > causing the obesity.

> > >

> > > Moderate exercise will *cut* high blood sugar very quickly. If

> you

> > > get a finger-stick that is high and walk briskly for 15 minutes

> and

> > > stick your finger again you'll be right back within normal

range.

> > > Exercise is definitly part of the equasion somewhere.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > It seems that diabetes is the world's fastes growing disease,

> that

> > > one

> > > > addional glass of sugared soft drink a day for children

> increases

> > > the risk

> > > > of diabetes by 60 % and that mature onset diabetes has

increased

> by

> > > 300%

> > > > over the last twenty years. In the last fifteen years the

> heavily

> > > promoted

> > > > low hat - high carb - high sugar diet has seen obesity going

up

> and

> > > up.

> > > > Diabetes, uncontrolled excess insulin and obesity are all

very

> > > dangerous

> > > > risk factor for all sorts of things including both physical

amd

> > > > psychological problems. We are sowing seeds of great ill

health,

> > > unhappiness

> > > > and financial burden.

> > > > Have you noticed how few products - including so called lite

> and

> > > low fat

> > > > products - don't have sugar in them.

> > > > I am told the only thing that stops a Big Mac being labelled

> > > confectionery

> > > > is the dill pickle and that one can of Coke contains nine

> spoonfuls

> > > of

> > > > sugar. If you don't think sugar is psychotropic go to a

> Mc's

> > > kids'

> > > > party.

> > > >

> > > > One in four people have something wrong with their blood

glucose

> > > metabolism.

> > > >

> > > > Yet this highly addictive stuff is legal and actively

promoted

> > > without

> > > > health warnings. The next generation of civil suits is surely

> here.

> > > >

> > > > Lawyers prepare your cases.

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

,

> By any sensible use of the word, Addiction = harmful use, NOT

> withdrawal, which is associate with many harmless things. The

> breathing joke illustrates this rather nicely. Hence meds that

vastly

> improve a person's life are not in the slightest bit addictive,

even

> if someone would gladly slaughter their mother to get some in

> acute withdrawal , just like insulin to a diabetic is not an

addiction

> even thought they may die without it. If a condition is chronic

why

> the hell should you ever want to stop taking the med, and if you do

> want/need to for any reason, you can taper off, as slowly as it

takes.

In response to this excert from your post, as well as several others

that have attempted to disassociate the effects of certain

psychiatric medications from " addiction " , I have a few comments.

First, I want to be clear that I am not against people taking

whatever medications, legal or otherwise, that they feel like putting

in their bodies. I have seen people close to me benefit greatly from

drugs like Paxil and Prozac.

What I have a problem with is the constant attempt to put these drugs

in some special category that seperates them from " naughty " drugs

like cocaine or alcohol. Its the distinction between the " possibly

habit forming but in a good way " and the " evil and addictive " that

bothers me. For one thing, I don't agree with the definition

that " addiction " only refers to harmful use. People, for instance,

often smoke cigarettes for years before suffering any harmful

consequenses. Does that mean that they are not addicted? Some on this

post would say yes, but I disagree. I was most certainly addicted to

cigarettes within a month and a half from when I started to smoke at

18. There are also a lot of people, perhaps using the concept of harm

reduction to the benefit or protection of their addictive behavior,

who set up their lives in a way that they can use their drug of

choice without causing excessive harm to themselves. If someone who

uses heroin every day, can't or doesn't want to do without it, always

uses a clean needle, gets the drug from a consistently reputable

source, remembers to eat, doesn't hang around with dangerous people,

and doesn't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, is it

appropriate to say that the individual is not addicted? I know of

several people who do this with alcohol. They are perhaps too young

to suffer the physical consequences of long term alcohol use. Does

this mean they are not addicted, just because their habitual use does

not have a negative impact on them?

All this effort to classify psychiatric drugs so differently from so

called addictive substances just becomes an issue of semantics after

a while. On another post, someone was attempting to say that because

pain medications were beneficial to a dying cancer patient, that

meant that they were not addictive to that person. This person seemed

to have the need to call it something else, because the drug seemed

necessary to relieve suffering, because the drug was " good " rather

than " naughty " . My question is, what is the problem with calling it

addictive, even if it is helpful? If I were lying in a hospital bed

suffering agonizing pain, you better believe I'd want anything

available to me that could relieve my suffering. And I wouldn't give

a damn if it were addictive or not. I just don't think it is

necessary to create an entirely seperate category for certain drugs

just because their habitual use is veiwed as a good thing. If the

drug helps, who cares if it is " addictive " ?

Joan

> >

> > > > Does anyone have any views on sugar (and carbohydrate)

> addiction?

> > >

> > > Too bad my mom isn't on this list. In her book, any food with

> even

> > > the slightest bit of sugar in it is out, even fresh fruits.

She

> > > hasn't had a dessert for 15 years. She became convinced by a

book

> she

> > > read (I can't remember which) and it has seemed to help her

> health.

> > > She is also wheat-free. Explaining to her that complex carbos

> still

> > > get broken down into glucose earns a blank stare. Still, they

do

> > > release the glucose more slowly and evenly so there aren't the

> spikes

> > > in blood sugar levels as there are with refined simple carbos.

> > >

> > > There was a report in my local paper about 6 months ago

regarding

> the

> > > link between obesity and diabetes. The authors of the study

were

> > > questioning the generally held idea that obesity causes

diabetes

> and

> > > put forth the theory that some obesity may be caused by the

body's

> > > inability to process sugars properly - that in effect the

diabetes

> was

> > > causing the obesity.

> > >

> > > Moderate exercise will *cut* high blood sugar very quickly. If

> you

> > > get a finger-stick that is high and walk briskly for 15 minutes

> and

> > > stick your finger again you'll be right back within normal

range.

> > > Exercise is definitly part of the equasion somewhere.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > It seems that diabetes is the world's fastes growing disease,

> that

> > > one

> > > > addional glass of sugared soft drink a day for children

> increases

> > > the risk

> > > > of diabetes by 60 % and that mature onset diabetes has

increased

> by

> > > 300%

> > > > over the last twenty years. In the last fifteen years the

> heavily

> > > promoted

> > > > low hat - high carb - high sugar diet has seen obesity going

up

> and

> > > up.

> > > > Diabetes, uncontrolled excess insulin and obesity are all

very

> > > dangerous

> > > > risk factor for all sorts of things including both physical

amd

> > > > psychological problems. We are sowing seeds of great ill

health,

> > > unhappiness

> > > > and financial burden.

> > > > Have you noticed how few products - including so called lite

> and

> > > low fat

> > > > products - don't have sugar in them.

> > > > I am told the only thing that stops a Big Mac being labelled

> > > confectionery

> > > > is the dill pickle and that one can of Coke contains nine

> spoonfuls

> > > of

> > > > sugar. If you don't think sugar is psychotropic go to a

> Mc's

> > > kids'

> > > > party.

> > > >

> > > > One in four people have something wrong with their blood

glucose

> > > metabolism.

> > > >

> > > > Yet this highly addictive stuff is legal and actively

promoted

> > > without

> > > > health warnings. The next generation of civil suits is surely

> here.

> > > >

> > > > Lawyers prepare your cases.

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

I think you should avoid the "we". I make my own mind up about things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a difference

Well, I thought it made a difference to you because you repeatedly referenced "street drugs," whose defining characteristic is that they are illegal. And if they were legal, we (as in people in general, as the French use the word "on," or one) wouldn't think so poorly of them. Alcoholics are not looked upon as badly as are heroin addicts, who are despised, at least here in the states. The dehumanizing attitudes and language language of the War on (people who use) Drugs has a lot to do with this.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I think you should avoid the "we". I make my own mind up about things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a difference

Well, I thought it made a difference to you because you repeatedly referenced "street drugs," whose defining characteristic is that they are illegal. And if they were legal, we (as in people in general, as the French use the word "on," or one) wouldn't think so poorly of them. Alcoholics are not looked upon as badly as are heroin addicts, who are despised, at least here in the states. The dehumanizing attitudes and language language of the War on (people who use) Drugs has a lot to do with this.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I think you should avoid the "we". I make my own mind up about things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a difference

Well, I thought it made a difference to you because you repeatedly referenced "street drugs," whose defining characteristic is that they are illegal. And if they were legal, we (as in people in general, as the French use the word "on," or one) wouldn't think so poorly of them. Alcoholics are not looked upon as badly as are heroin addicts, who are despised, at least here in the states. The dehumanizing attitudes and language language of the War on (people who use) Drugs has a lot to do with this.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Joan,

I dont give a rat's ass what drugs ppl choose to do either. However,

I do insist on making a very big distinction between heavily

researched, heavily quality controlled and monitored meds that are

shown to do something specific with a certain side effect profile and

as prescribed and ppl scoring some shit on a street corner that might

be anything. There IS a f***ing big difference. I dont write off any

drug as being " naughty " or consider others as intrinsically " good " . I

wish I could try methadone for my depression without having to become

a heroin addict first. If I thought a med was harming me I'd throw it

straight down the pan. I do however, make distinctions between drugs

that are carefully researched, monitored for a problem and quality

controlled and ones that arent. Imo, the inability to see that meds

*might* be drugs of abuse or have -ve effects is a fraction of the

problem of the immense prejudice against meds as supposedly " just like

scoring junk " . Maybe some street drugs might be useful as psych meds

- well if they are, lets find out and *use* them the same way meds are

used.

As Rita cleverly illustrated, the word " addicted " means pretty well

anything/nothing the way it gets used today. Hence if the word has

any usefulness, then some kind of use despite adverse consequences has

to be included. Smokers may get a sudden dx of cancer, but they

certainly shouldnt be surprised. Cancer is just a visible upward step

in the level of damage done by smoking; it degrades continually and

progressively all the time someone smokes, like water dripping on a

stone. Probably most ppl are clearly worse off for smoking well

before they hear the very bad news. Even early on, ppl *KNOW* the

risks they are taking, and hence are continuing to use despite knowing

that they may well be harmed. This introduces the second principle

of addiction, the inability to stop depite wishing to. The only way

that you can definitely *tell* that someone is addicted is if they

wish to try to stop or cut down and fail - otherwise they could be

just choosing to harm themsleves.

I met two women the other day, one I suspect was an Al-Anon and the

other was a remorseful smoker. The former had a PhD in Sociology and

weathering her response to my views on AA and alcoholism was quite

something. The latter didnt describe herself as having a disease of

addiction - she just said she was stupid. I suggested that she didnt

think of herself as diseased, or stupid, or bad, or anything, just a

person who had acquired a bad habit that she was finding hard to

break, something that pretty well most folks have of one kind or

another - she's just human!

apart form wanting to keep the word " addiction " as one having some

meaning, it matterws a great deal whether meds are viewed as

addictive, since this will create completely unnecessary fear and

shame in ppl who may have all kinds of fears and shame around their

problems and meds anyway. Am I different from a street junkie?

DAMN RIGHT I AM!

P.

>

> In response to this excert from your post, as well as several others

> that have attempted to disassociate the effects of certain

> psychiatric medications from " addiction " , I have a few comments.

>

> First, I want to be clear that I am not against people taking

> whatever medications, legal or otherwise, that they feel like

putting

> in their bodies. I have seen people close to me benefit greatly from

> drugs like Paxil and Prozac.

>

> What I have a problem with is the constant attempt to put these

drugs

> in some special category that seperates them from " naughty " drugs

> like cocaine or alcohol. Its the distinction between the " possibly

> habit forming but in a good way " and the " evil and addictive " that

> bothers me. For one thing, I don't agree with the definition

> that " addiction " only refers to harmful use. People, for instance,

> often smoke cigarettes for years before suffering any harmful

> consequenses. Does that mean that they are not addicted? Some on

this

> post would say yes, but I disagree. I was most certainly addicted to

> cigarettes within a month and a half from when I started to smoke at

> 18. There are also a lot of people, perhaps using the concept of

harm

> reduction to the benefit or protection of their addictive behavior,

> who set up their lives in a way that they can use their drug of

> choice without causing excessive harm to themselves. If someone who

> uses heroin every day, can't or doesn't want to do without it,

always

> uses a clean needle, gets the drug from a consistently reputable

> source, remembers to eat, doesn't hang around with dangerous people,

> and doesn't operate heavy machinery while under the influence, is it

> appropriate to say that the individual is not addicted? I know of

> several people who do this with alcohol. They are perhaps too young

> to suffer the physical consequences of long term alcohol use. Does

> this mean they are not addicted, just because their habitual use

does

> not have a negative impact on them?

>

> All this effort to classify psychiatric drugs so differently from so

> called addictive substances just becomes an issue of semantics after

> a while. On another post, someone was attempting to say that because

> pain medications were beneficial to a dying cancer patient, that

> meant that they were not addictive to that person. This person

seemed

> to have the need to call it something else, because the drug seemed

> necessary to relieve suffering, because the drug was " good " rather

> than " naughty " . My question is, what is the problem with calling it

> addictive, even if it is helpful? If I were lying in a hospital bed

> suffering agonizing pain, you better believe I'd want anything

> available to me that could relieve my suffering. And I wouldn't give

> a damn if it were addictive or not. I just don't think it is

> necessary to create an entirely seperate category for certain drugs

> just because their habitual use is veiwed as a good thing. If the

> drug helps, who cares if it is " addictive " ?

>

> Joan

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 4/23/01 3:30:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

> > Am I different from a street junkie?

> > DAMN RIGHT I AM!

> Well, yes, and so am I. But to a great extent that is the

>by-product of the

> illicit status of the street drugs. If people could purchase

>cocaine as

> easily as alcohol, we wouldn't think so negatively about those who

>use coke,

> or are addicted to it.

I think you should avoid the " we " . I make my own mind up about

things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a

drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a

difference. Even if legal however, ppl would still condemn folks who

got loaded all the time, especially if they drove or did other

dangerous things, just like they do ppl who drink too much.

I'm not just different from a junkie I'm different from an alcoholic

too. Any irresponsibility I've shown with my meds is to not ensure

that I have had the right one all the time. It's not even primarily

to me an issue of legality, that altering legality would change; it's

about how a drug is used and what it effect it has on you. If I could

get methadone I would use it responsibly, not in the irresponsible

ways that *some* methadone patients sadly do.

P.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 4/23/01 3:30:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

> > Am I different from a street junkie?

> > DAMN RIGHT I AM!

> Well, yes, and so am I. But to a great extent that is the

>by-product of the

> illicit status of the street drugs. If people could purchase

>cocaine as

> easily as alcohol, we wouldn't think so negatively about those who

>use coke,

> or are addicted to it.

I think you should avoid the " we " . I make my own mind up about

things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a

drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a

difference. Even if legal however, ppl would still condemn folks who

got loaded all the time, especially if they drove or did other

dangerous things, just like they do ppl who drink too much.

I'm not just different from a junkie I'm different from an alcoholic

too. Any irresponsibility I've shown with my meds is to not ensure

that I have had the right one all the time. It's not even primarily

to me an issue of legality, that altering legality would change; it's

about how a drug is used and what it effect it has on you. If I could

get methadone I would use it responsibly, not in the irresponsible

ways that *some* methadone patients sadly do.

P.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 4/23/01 3:30:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

> > Am I different from a street junkie?

> > DAMN RIGHT I AM!

> Well, yes, and so am I. But to a great extent that is the

>by-product of the

> illicit status of the street drugs. If people could purchase

>cocaine as

> easily as alcohol, we wouldn't think so negatively about those who

>use coke,

> or are addicted to it.

I think you should avoid the " we " . I make my own mind up about

things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a

drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a

difference. Even if legal however, ppl would still condemn folks who

got loaded all the time, especially if they drove or did other

dangerous things, just like they do ppl who drink too much.

I'm not just different from a junkie I'm different from an alcoholic

too. Any irresponsibility I've shown with my meds is to not ensure

that I have had the right one all the time. It's not even primarily

to me an issue of legality, that altering legality would change; it's

about how a drug is used and what it effect it has on you. If I could

get methadone I would use it responsibly, not in the irresponsible

ways that *some* methadone patients sadly do.

P.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 4/23/01 6:13:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

>

> > I think you should avoid the " we " . I make my own mind up about

> > things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a

> > drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a

> >

>

> Well, I thought it made a difference to you because you repeatedly

>referenced

> " street drugs, " whose defining characteristic is that they are

>illegal.

True, but it is not their illegality that is the reason that I draw a

distinction. It is true that some of the -ve consequences of illegal

drugs are brought about my illegality, but *some* illegal drugs would

be dangerous in any case. As for the French " we " I still dont think

it's a good idea to use it. " People " is better. While not suggesting

this of you, I often think that ppl use " we " when they actually mean

other ppl but are afraid to actually make a direct accusation and

hence sort of include themselves too. This particualrly applies to

the person that the statement is addressed. Since it has a superficial

humility, it makes it hard for the other person to distance themselves

from the idea. Since there is not in fact uniformity of opinion on

anything, or often even a majority, I think " we " is definitely to be

avoided - especially when iundicating a view rthat the speaker does

not themselves share.

P.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 4/23/01 6:13:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... writes:

>

>

> > I think you should avoid the " we " . I make my own mind up about

> > things, and illegality *per se* doesnt affect my perceptions of a

> > drug. Sure there are lots of ppl out there to whom it does make a

> >

>

> Well, I thought it made a difference to you because you repeatedly

>referenced

> " street drugs, " whose defining characteristic is that they are

>illegal.

True, but it is not their illegality that is the reason that I draw a

distinction. It is true that some of the -ve consequences of illegal

drugs are brought about my illegality, but *some* illegal drugs would

be dangerous in any case. As for the French " we " I still dont think

it's a good idea to use it. " People " is better. While not suggesting

this of you, I often think that ppl use " we " when they actually mean

other ppl but are afraid to actually make a direct accusation and

hence sort of include themselves too. This particualrly applies to

the person that the statement is addressed. Since it has a superficial

humility, it makes it hard for the other person to distance themselves

from the idea. Since there is not in fact uniformity of opinion on

anything, or often even a majority, I think " we " is definitely to be

avoided - especially when iundicating a view rthat the speaker does

not themselves share.

P.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> So, two people have blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. One

enjoys drinking occasionally but has never experienced any problems in life

or health from doing so. The other overdrinks persistently despite severe

adverse consequences. Do you claim they are both " alcoholics " ? Well, if

both are arrested for DUI, they may very well both be forced to attend AA

where they are expected to identify as " alcoholic. " But a true professional

would be able to do a differential diagnosis to account for person A's

having a high blood alcohol but not being " addicted. "

It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be

sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I

wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience:

If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up

like these people!

Bob

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> So, two people have blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. One

enjoys drinking occasionally but has never experienced any problems in life

or health from doing so. The other overdrinks persistently despite severe

adverse consequences. Do you claim they are both " alcoholics " ? Well, if

both are arrested for DUI, they may very well both be forced to attend AA

where they are expected to identify as " alcoholic. " But a true professional

would be able to do a differential diagnosis to account for person A's

having a high blood alcohol but not being " addicted. "

It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be

sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I

wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience:

If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up

like these people!

Bob

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> So, two people have blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. One

enjoys drinking occasionally but has never experienced any problems in life

or health from doing so. The other overdrinks persistently despite severe

adverse consequences. Do you claim they are both " alcoholics " ? Well, if

both are arrested for DUI, they may very well both be forced to attend AA

where they are expected to identify as " alcoholic. " But a true professional

would be able to do a differential diagnosis to account for person A's

having a high blood alcohol but not being " addicted. "

It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be

sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I

wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience:

If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up

like these people!

Bob

[Guest guest]

At 11:52 AM 4/24/01 -0700, you wrote:

> It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be

>sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I

>wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience:

>

> If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up

>like these people!

You know, that might even actually work if people just attended these

things as observers. " If you drink and drive, you'll have to do a lot

more of *this* dreary crap! "

A first offense around here only requires two bona fide AA meetings.

The so-called class that you take, though, is heavily AA-focused.

The point of it is to identify the " alcoholics " in the group. How well

this works depends *a* *lot* on the individual instructor. I knew

one who was quite open-minded, fully aware that many people there

were not addicted and that a few had even been wrongly arrested.

However, there are plenty of others who assume everyone there is

a habitual drunk in denial. " This was just the first time you got caught. "

And of course the only cure is converting to AA, so the state-supported

classes turn out to be AA indoctrination.

[Guest guest]

At 11:52 AM 4/24/01 -0700, you wrote:

> It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be

>sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I

>wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience:

>

> If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up

>like these people!

You know, that might even actually work if people just attended these

things as observers. " If you drink and drive, you'll have to do a lot

more of *this* dreary crap! "

A first offense around here only requires two bona fide AA meetings.

The so-called class that you take, though, is heavily AA-focused.

The point of it is to identify the " alcoholics " in the group. How well

this works depends *a* *lot* on the individual instructor. I knew

one who was quite open-minded, fully aware that many people there

were not addicted and that a few had even been wrongly arrested.

However, there are plenty of others who assume everyone there is

a habitual drunk in denial. " This was just the first time you got caught. "

And of course the only cure is converting to AA, so the state-supported

classes turn out to be AA indoctrination.

[Guest guest]

At 11:52 AM 4/24/01 -0700, you wrote:

> It's very rare in my area for a first time DUI offender to be

>sentenced to AA meetings. In those jurisdictions where it does happen, I

>wonder if it's viewed as an opportunity for a " scared straight " experience:

>

> If you continue to drink and break the law, you're gonna wind up

>like these people!

You know, that might even actually work if people just attended these

things as observers. " If you drink and drive, you'll have to do a lot

more of *this* dreary crap! "

A first offense around here only requires two bona fide AA meetings.

The so-called class that you take, though, is heavily AA-focused.

The point of it is to identify the " alcoholics " in the group. How well

this works depends *a* *lot* on the individual instructor. I knew

one who was quite open-minded, fully aware that many people there

were not addicted and that a few had even been wrongly arrested.

However, there are plenty of others who assume everyone there is

a habitual drunk in denial. " This was just the first time you got caught. "

And of course the only cure is converting to AA, so the state-supported

classes turn out to be AA indoctrination.