TeknoHog is right, dude. Buddhism is all about wisdom and direct knowledge of the physical universe. The idea is that we have conditioned our thought processes and built them over one another to chase after desires, and avoid dealing with our problems. Buddha taught that detaching from objects, people, and sensual pleasures, and maintaining bare attention and awareness, frees one from stress and suffering.
It is quite remarkable to behold. As you clear out your mind, things start to flow more easily. You become really aware of all your thoughts as they come up, you see arising impulses as merely a voice in your head that will pass and have no hold on you ('paper tigers' was a favorite description of mine). As you clear ill will and harmful and idle thoughts out, try to replace them with kind thoughts to other beings, and depression, sorrow, fear, begin to fade away, and your mind is truly open to wisdom.
Reason Magazine has some goodarticles about the Atkins' diet as well, including showing why the commonly cited study that the Atkins' diet is effective is scientifically unreliable.
Essentially, the Atkins' diet has not been scientifically shown to reduce weight more than any other diet of equivalent calorie intake has since its inception in the 1970s.
My wife is a Dietitian and she always tells me to eat in moderation. There are NO bad foods. Even chocolate, beer, etc... are fine, just use moderation.
I cannot agree with this. Many foods today, especially fried foods, chips, pizza, and other cooked, starchy foods, have high levels of a known carcinogen and neurotoxin. I know not the exact levels of these substances, but I've read it's about 400 times higher in certain commonly eaten foods than acceptable limits in the water supply. To me, that just seems like stuffing your face with a rat poison sandwich. I'd much prefer to eat foods that provides my body with the nutrients it needs to maintain itself.
Your digestive system and taste buds evolved to drive you to the foods with optimal proportions of nutrients for the body's proper functioning. Today, we have many thousands more foods with artificial flavoring and tastes, and are conditioned to seek such foods, that do not provide us with the ratio of nutrients we need. There is no doubt limiting calorie intake is of great significance regardless of what foods you eat, but it would be a stretch to say there are no bad foods.
The best way to lose weight and stay in shape is through proper diet and exercise. My favorite diet regimen is caloric restriction. You reduce your calorie intake at least 20%, up to 60%, and you get health benefits accordingly (including extended lifespan and prolonged youthful vigor). Weight loss is almost automatic.
When the crew of BioSphere II had found that they had less food than anticipated (1800 cal/day each), they lost 15% body weight over a period of six months, and their good to bad cholesterol ratio was up and blood pressure down.
Just be sure you still maintain adequate nutrients. Changing your diet to include less junk food (chips, fries, cookies, even some breads) is another plus. And do some research on healthful composition of diets, new evidence the last ten years is showing the United States Department of Agriculture's food pyramid is scientifically unsound and may even be contributing to the obesity problems.
That said, exercise is a definite plus to stay in shape and to lose weight. Your body was made for moving around. Walking even small distances is good, and running and sports are good as well, but you may have to ease into it. As another poster stated, any exercise over and above 20 minutes will result in calorie burn.
Personally, I maintain a regimen of calorie restriction, and walking anywhere from five to 40 miles a week, and I've lost a very nice 33 pounds since mid-April. But the best part is I feel a hell of a lot more healthy and alive.
Considering there are more users of illegal drugs in the United States than illegal p2p users, and we're nearing one million imprisoned for drug violations, you can probably expect them to give it their best.
Also, why does the entire U.S. have to be wired? For now just wire L.A., S.F, N.Y., D.C., Chicago and a few other metropolitian ares. It seems like those areas are concentrated enough that money can be made.
Very true. I've been with Optimum Online, which is available in the NY metro area for about five years now, and I get speeds of 4.5 mbps. I've had some service issues with them, as one time around 99 or 00 they were phasing out the old modems, but didn't inform us, and despite six visits from their tech staff, none were able to diagnose the problem, and so we were without service the majority of each days for a month, and forced to pay $150 to upgrade to their new modem, but since then, the service has been near flawlessly reliable. It started out at $29.99 a month for subscribers to their cable service ($10 higher for non-subscribers), but they are now raising it to $45. I do hear some people have their service capped lower than this, but it works quite well for me.
I used to stay home from high school weeks at a time while coding and doing webpages. When I returned to school and the teacher wrote "AIM:" on the board at the beginning of class session, I'd write "AIM://" on my paper out of habit from typing http:// so much. Of course, nowadays that is a recognized protocol.
Similarly, after some days of heavy tetrinet playing, I would see tetrinet 'long' blocks for a few moments when I looked up or something.
Nowadays, it's just aftereffects from LSD trips, for example, trails from some fast moving objects (say one's hand), and, yesterday the surface of a pond I came across while walking with a friend was covered in green algae, and it seemed to crawl slightly. Plus, stuff breaths and I get other neat and similar effects.
I had detailed, specific points you failed to address.
Off the top of my head, you stated either explicitly or behind insults at people (myself included) that AA is the only way to get sober. If you admit to having exercised poor judgement in using insults, that's one thing, but suddenly your viewpoint has changed? You DID state it was physically impossible to quit drugs and drug addiction of one's own volition (purely on "willpower" you said), that one probably needs AA, and at the LEAST one needs treatment. So you're completely misrepresenting your earlier statements and therefore changing the whole dynamic of the debate without even debating.
I'll continue to reply to this thread if you try to maintain some consistency, or at least explain inconsistencies, 'cause if you don't it makes it impossible for me to see what I'm trying to debate, and if you don't ignore 90% of my post, cuz that just makes this whole thread absurd and pointless.
I'm not good at picking up subtleties apparently.:P
Noted. I'd like to know if you still believe it's impossible to get sober without AA, or whether it's all delusion and the like. It seems you've come to see things from a more moderate vantage point.
As far as structure, which I did not address in my reply, I think it would be good for myself in my life as far as programming and study habits to go for improving my productivity and goals, but not as far as drugs, never mind any treatment that uses 'structure' to acheive its own self-imposed ends regardless of what the patient wants. IMO, I'm going to have to learn to provide the structure largely for myself, with external demands (school, time schedules) being a heavy influence.
OK, as per your previous post, here are the statements I take issue with (and called you a jack-ass for), in chronological order. I will be here probably another 10-14 hours, so take your time.
It takes more then desire, to shake the shakels of addiction.
Sorry, but I think you are either exagerating are are a liar.
You stopped short of outright calling me a liar because I have quit drugs entirely without the program you hold so dear. Well I did it, bub, read my accounts of the experience, and either call me a liar outright, or concede that you're wrong.
The only difference is that people are dying right now believing they can get sober on will power.
This thinking KILLS people. It is a serious matter. In fact Julian Morrison is practising quakery. If someone convinced some people that their mirical wonder drug cured cancer, and those people died because they did not seak real treatment, that person would be in jail. Julian Morrisons bullshit is the SAME thing.
You replied and said more or less that one poster is misleading people, is responsible for their deaths, and deserves to be imprisoned because he dares speak out against your treatment program that shows very tenuous success rates.
These, my friend, and some of your other remarks are the claims of a jack ass. You will not be called otherwise for these borderline slanderous attacks on the person of those engaging in legitimate discussion, and you certainly gain no credibility from them.
Well, I showed you the goods. Not only do people get sober without AA or today's shoddily put together and unfounded 'treatment plans,' but they sometimes do so in higher numbers than those who seek others to help them. In this respect, your prior claims, and the common AA mantra that leaving the program is signing your death warrant, sound more than the self-help people, to use your words, like a "sunday televagelist", (I'll tell you what to do with your life, trust me; Jesus & Holy Spirit remarks), "mirical wonder drug cured cancer" (Just ask God), "Crystal Power, magnetic braclets" (Some guy in the sky will cure all your ills), whereas we advocate stopping use of a drug to quit it. Hardly anything magical about that. So you'd be wise to leave these terms out of the discussion and keep it to fact.
The only difference is that people are dying right now believing they can get sober on will power.
I've already demonstrated that people can break addictions of their own volition, on their own time. I've done it myself. Your claim that this is impossible is wholly unsubstantiated and contrary to evidence, and your claim that trying to do so kills people is grossly out of whack -- if the data hold true, by your logic, AA and treatment centers are to be held resposible for deaths.
Later on, you state:
Can sobriety be achieved without NA/AA? Yes
I will assume if you are being consistent with your previous claims, you see treatment as the only alternative, not willpower and discipline. This is just as false, as the data and experience prove.
If sobriaty was just a matter of will power then a lot more people would be getting sober. What you are saying is that ships should not carry life boats, because people can just swim to shore. Then using the example of a ship goining down where one man does actualy swim to shore, without mention the several hunder who drowned because they were not trained open ocean swimmers.
Again, you say it is impossible to break addiction of one's own volition, when I'm sitting here and telling you I've done it. Many others have as well. That's the reality, AA isn't necessary for all but a few.
I have provided a detailed account of how I got sober, comp
A note befor I begin: My harsh tone in earlier posts was motivated by the seriousness with which I approch the subject of chemical addiction. My addiction almost cost me my life. Failure to succesfully recover from addiction has cost some of my friends lives. And worst of all, drug addiction affects the lives of otherswho never did drugs. My foster son is the product of an Alcoholic mom and a drug addicted dad. I started taking care of him when he was 10 because his father was incapable of it... major tweeker. My son has fetal alcohol syndrom. He will never be completely normal. He has major difficulties which he has managed to over come. He is on his way to having a happy life. He will be 21 soon. Well enough of this.
I am sorry for your misfortune. I understand that this is a heated topics.
[Re: Addiction] I take minor issue with your statement that addiction happens after a few uses.
I take major issue with your assertion that the idea that the alteration of any biochemical processes by a drug either constitutions some 'addiction' that one cannot beat out without without professional or divine help, as well as the idea of an once an addict, always an addict ("addicts were never 'normal'").
Dr. Stanton Pelle points out on his website that different societies have different rates of addiction to the same drug. He also reports that "Genetically related groups in different societies vary in their addiction rates, and the susceptibility of the same individual changes over time."
J.E. Helzer, and G.J. Canino, in
Alcoholism in North America, Europe, and Asia report astounding differences in alcoholism rates between two Asian cultures with similar biology -- "The highest lifetime prevalence rates were found in U.S. native Mexican Americans at 23 percent and in the Korean survey, where the total sample rate was about 22 percent. There is about a fiftyfold difference in lifetime prevalence between these two samples and Shanghai, where the lowest lifetime prevalence of 0.45 percent was found."
Stanton Peele of the Lindesmith center in a study titled "Utilizing Culture and Behaviour in Epidemiological Models of Alcohol Consumption and Consequences for Western Nations" points out that while the country of Portugal consumes 2 1/2 times the amount of alcohol per capita they do in Iceland, the former has 800 AA groups per million, while the latter has 0.6 per million, drawing from data published by AA World Headquarters in 1991.
This suggests and extremely strong cultural component to addictive behavior in addiction to any biological tendency present.
Some societies that have used alcohol ceremonially have avoided abuse -- for example
Glassner and Berg reported in
How Jews Avoid Alcohol Problems in 1980 that out of 88 upstate New York Jewish respondants, including both Orthodox and nonobservers, there was no existence of alcoholism. They estimate alcohol abuse to be present in between 0.1% and 1% of the American Jewish population of the time.
Steele cites evidence that shows how the rates of addiction and discontinuation of heroin fluctuate with pressures at varying stages in a person's life:
Charles Winick, a psychologist dealing with public-health problems, established the phenomenon of "maturing out" in the early 1960s when he examined the rolls of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Winick found that one quarter of the heroin addicts on the rolls ceased to be active by the age of 26, and three quarters by the time they reached 36. A later study by J. C. Ball in a different culture (Puerto Rican), which was based on direct follow-through with addicts, found that one third of the addicts matured out. Winick's explanation is that the peak period for addiction--late adol
Congratulations on asking me to post stats, then misrepresenting my words and arguments, and not posting valid, backed up arguments for yourself.
If you want to address any of my points, do so. I could just as easily have posted you a link to http://www.peele.net and told you to look through it, but that's not terribly great debate or discussion.
The poster claimed that it is impossible to break free from drug addiction without relying upon God and Alcoholics Anonymous. One counterexample shows this can be done. The studies being "out of date," unless you're doubting their accuracy or methodology, just makes the case more. Cultural trends affect addiction, abuse, and subsequent discontinuation rates.
[how is] "I can quit so you're a pathetic loser if you can't," productive for anyone?
Look - you told me to cut the anecdotal stuff, and I did, so don't come back to that, or don't complain in the first place. Bottom line is, you can say "wah wah addiction is hard to beat it's all genetic really we need treatment" just as the growing obese segment of the population is complaining that they don't need to, or are unable to take personal responsibility enough to change their situation -- the point is, it's up to the user to change their life and behaviors. You are skirting the facts to say treatment is necessary, plain and simple. No one can lose you weight but you. No one can quit drugs for you. That's it. That's as productive as it gets, because it's the truth. Treatment and AA got me nowhere but 14 mostly wasted months of my life -- hundreds of hours spent in sessions, discussions, walks, phone calls, planning out actions, with not a stitch of sobriety to show for it. You call that productive? Guess what's productive to quit drgs. Stopping drugs. Tough concept, no?
If treatment helps your particular case, then you've found a method that works -- but by no stretch is is necessary for all or the only or most effective way. Shifting responsblity from the user to the medical community or 12-step groups may have a certain laziness/victim appeal, but that hardly makes it right, much less 'productive'.
Additionally, the poster claimed that people suggesting people steer clear of AA may or may not be partially responsible for their deaths, as God and the 12 steps is the only way to escape addiction. That's completely absurd. I've done it and so have millions of others. There is evidence that AA is ineffective treatment or even detrimental, so the poster would be wise to back up his claims or retract them.
Ever notice how AA terms those who get sober without the program 'dry drunks'? Or says in no uncertain terms -- "you can go out there -- there's jails, institutions, and death waiting for you." Or demands unconditional surrender to the group's programs and principles, and acceptance of the notion that you are powerless to change your situation? That seems dangerous to me. Addicts should know that their situation is very much under their control -- cultural trends can be bucked if the user wants to do what it takes. The stats I gave you show that contrary to AA's claim, those who AA would say are alcoholic can control their drinking, stop abuse, and drink in moderation after a period of abuse.
I'll ask you again to explain how certain cultures throughout have used alcohol in moderation, and have next to no incidence of abuse until the last 50 years. This goes strongly against AA's notion that one is a genetic alcoholic who can't resist the first drank and can't control it after that -- and needs AA to save him from this life and death matter.
You called me on the data, well I'm calling you out to stop misrepresenting my position and ignoring my points.
Bummer. I made sure to save my replies with a 'cat' command.
You should try Pheonix, it's pretty lean (ala galeon), sweet (GUI & extensions), and standards-compliant (being derived from Moz, of course). GTK-2 also is also nice but I'm not a GNOME user so I couldn't tell you so much about that.
Anyhow, I look forward to your reply. There's a good chance I'll be afk for few hours doing some meditation, as I've been at the computer around 12 hours now, but I'll get to your reply.
Prescriptions won't do jack if your depression isn't because of a physical glitch (chemical imbalance, etc.). My depression was more like "cabin fever". Nothing would touch it but $$$ (my SSI checks which have been coming in since April).
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Basically, the SSRIs do raise seratonin levels, and this can result in improved mood, but this in no way implies that an unnatural imbalance was to blame for the depression in the first place. In some respects, this approach can be harmful in that deep, underlying, even traumatic issues causing the depression can go unaddressed and repressed while a chemical agent instead artificially raises the mood of the sufferer.
Sorry man, but in the business, this is what is known as anecdotal evidence. I think you know what that is good for.
A study in the 1991 New England Journal of Medicine reported that groups of employees instructed to attend a program in a private hospital had a 36 percent sobriety rate through two years, while a group instructed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous had a 16 percent success rate through the same space.
A study by the same journal in 1985 reported that of patients in treated in a public inner-city alcoholism ward, seven percent were sober or had their alcoholism in remission upon followup some years later.
Vaillant, in The Natural History of Alcoholism found that the majority of those who had a history of alcohol abuse in his sample were in remission, with the remission of very few being due to treatment. He found that the state of the sampled hospital patients' alcohol abuse problem was no better than at any point in their history.
On 17,500 arrests recorded for Cantonese residents of New York City in 1933-1949, not one listed public drunkenness, according to M.L. Barnett's "Alcoholism in the Cantonese of New York City: An anthropological study". Jews have historically ritually used moderate amounts of alcohol in ceremonies, but abuse has been exceedingly rare. Vaillant, in Adaptation to Life, 1977, took samples of inner city residents of Irish and Mediterranean descent; the Irish had rates of alcoholism seven times as high as the Mediterranean (which included Greeks and Jews). Glassner and Berg reported in How Jews Avoid Alcohol Problems in 1980 that out of 88 upstate New York Jewish respondants, including both Orthodox and nonobservers, there was no existence of alcoholism. They estimate alcohol abuse to be present in between 0.1% and 1% of the American Jewish population of the time. This strongly suggests a large cultural component to alcohol abuse and by extension drug abuse and tendency to control and moderate usage of substances.
J.E. Helzer, and G.J. Canino, in Alcoholism in North America, Europe, and Asia report astounding differences in alcoholism rates between two Asian cultures with similar biology -- "The highest lifetime prevalence rates were found in U.S. native Mexican Americans at 23 percent and in the Korean survey, where the total sample rate was about 22 percent. There is about a fiftyfold difference in lifetime prevalence between these two samples and Shanghai, where the lowest lifetime prevalence of 0.45 percent was found."
Stanton Peele of the Lindesmith center in a study titled "Utilizing Culture and Behaviour in Epidemiological Models of Alcohol Consumption and Consequences for Western Nations" points out that while the country of Portugal consumes 2 1/2 times the amount of alcohol per capita they do in Iceland, the former has 800 AA groups per million, while the latter has 0.6 per million, drawing from data published by AA World Headquarters in 1991.
W.J. Rorabaugh, in The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition demonstrates that alcohol usage trends has fluctuated to and from abuse throughout American history with culture -- In the late seventeenth century the Rev. Increase Mather had taught that drink was `a good creature of God' and that a man should partake of God's gift without wasting or abusing it. His only admonition was that a man must not `drink a Cup of Wine more than is good for him'.... At that time inebriation was not associated with violence or crime; only rowdy, belligerent inebriation in public places was frowned upon.... Control was also exercised through informal channels. One Massachusetts minister insisted that a public house be located next to his own dwelling so he could monitor tavern traffic through his study window. If he observed a man frequenting the place too often, the clergyman could go next door and escort the drinker home."
Levine, in "The Good Creature of God and the Demon
Your contention that addicts rarely beat out their addiction is not true. 30% of those who have been smokers today do not smoke. The majority of American men who have abused alcohol no longer do.
I would agree wholeheartedly that the factors you cite are important in determining the strength and duration of an addiction, but you neglect to consider social and environmental factors, upbringing, and perhaps even more importantly personal values and experience. Lastly, regardless of all the factors you cite, enough pain, and enough cumulative damage can without a motherfucking doubt cause a person to say "enough is enough" and quit their drug of choice. I offer myself as an example. Nearly all or all the risk factors you cited have been attributed to me by so-called treatment professionals, but in my history with treatment, nothing worked. I finally cut the crap and realized treatment and intermittent usage was not what I wanted for myself, and no one would quit drugs but me. So I ditched the treatment and the drugs, voila.
No problem, I should be here till at least dawn, which is another 4-5 hours here, and maybe longer. Sorry to hear he or her is in trouble with the law.
I call bullshit on this one. Sorry, but I think you are either exagerating are are a liar. I don't know were you got you're so called stats from but they are all wrong. If you were truely an Addict, which I doubt, then you are very lucky indead, to acheive sobriaty without support.
Can't fathom that someone is able to do something for themselves, eh? I got news for ya, pal - I'm dead serious. I ain't exaggerating, nor am I lying. And don't claim to be 'sorry' while insulting my person in the same sentence. As you said, drug usage can be a life and death matter -- in my case, it was that at worst, and at best contrast between darkness and pain, and a shot at a healthy contented existence at the other. So you can see the stakes were high enough for me to act. And luck had shit to do with it. I chose to act to better my lot, OK? I had all the so called 'support' in the world, it meant nothing. What am I supposed to do, call up my highly-uncredentialed counselor or AA kid sponsor when I get a "craving" and "talk it out"? I want to drive this point home. No one else quits for you. You can BS all day long to your 'support group' and sponsor, and family, and program, and group, and talk the ins and outs of successful sobriety and techniques -- but at the end of the day, when you come home from that BS, if you really want a toke or a drink, you are either going to do give in, or you have decided yourself and have the strength to resist for yourself. As for your definition of addict, whatever. I'd qualify any definition I could possibly think of -- daily use, drug abuse, rehabs, ODs, institutionalizations, you get the picture. On top of that, I had recovery zealots like yourself tell me OVER and OVER I'm an addict. I did everything short of shooting up H or snorting coke, which is pretty much just an image and not as terrible as certain groups would have you believe. Yeah, so if you're ready, take a look at my recent post on this matter on kuro5hin.org. If you'd like additional details, I'd be happy to oblige.
It's quite telling how militant you are about this that you're resorting to personal insults. Well, I may not be any Darryl Strawberry, but I've been around the block. And I'm not going to discount AA's benefits because although I know the program is difficult, you can reap benefits. I've done it. But don't buy into the idea that it's necessary and the only way. It sure as hell ain't. And AAers aren't the voice of God. And some people don't believe in God, or want to change his life and remove all their 'character flaws,' which are poorly defined, or replace their ideas to those of the group. (And I have had some odd experiences and advice from AA but that's another post). Hell, some might even be willing to for temporary or permanent relief from their drug abuse ("we decided we wanted what AA has and were willing to go to any lengths to get it"), but they should NOT be led to believe it is the only choice, as AA says it is if you are a "true" alcoholic or addict.
As for the stats -- what can I say, it's reality. If you can't accept that your treatment model isn't the most effective method out there, that's one thing, but don't go telling others that they may or may not be responsible for people's deaths when their ideas have been shown to be more effective. Now, back to those stats. The one I gave you is true. My rehab told us it has a 3.5% success rate. People are more likely to quit drugs successfully without treatment that has its basis in dubious scientific theories. My experience backs this up (add a notch to the stats). IMO, probably because it's a personal, life choice that they're capable of making on their own. In addition, 30% of people who have smoked in the United States have quit, 95% did it by themselves. AA has a 5% success rate for those who pass through its doors. At my meetings I saw maybe three or four faces out of a room of 20-4
This guy is competely wrong on all counts. He is so clueless that I cant beleve he got modded to a five again. He has absolutly know understanding of what he is talking about. He sounds worse the a sunday televagelist
I'll say it one more time:
ADDICTION IS NOT A HABIT!
Say it as many times as you like, that doesn't change squat. It would be good to settle on one definition of addiction here. If you are referring to physical addiction, then you may have something, although one could still argue that it's merely a habit with varying consequences to discontinue. However, in light of the story, we're talking about the terms 'addiction' and 'disorder' being applied to an extremely wide range of human behavior, so he has a point. It is well within our power to change and eliminate behaviors and institute new ones.
Personally, I agree with him largely, but not wholly on the first four points. People do a behavior 'cause it's easier or more rewarding, even though they know they shouldn't, maybe because it'll be looked down upon by others. Easy to call drug usage addiction, and it changes the traditional views of it 180 from an immoral destructive vice to a medical issue needing to be addressed with treatment.
His next point is more tentative, but holds some water. Consider AA's common maxim: "You only have to do one thing: change everything." Well, yeah, solemn belief in God, new lifestyle, phase out all old 'bad influence' friends in favor of new friends ("you'll meet great new friends in the program"), giving yourself no credit other than as being a creation of God -- it may work sometimes, but my guess is most people want to deal with a drug problem, not a my-life-and-self-suck-so-bad-i-need-to-turn-it-all -upside-down-to-fit-the-whims-of-a-group-of-strang ers problem.
Also consider those with drinking or drug problems who don't attend AA or other extensive treatment typically get sober in higher rates than those who do -- so if you're going to claim life and death, offer some evidence you're not on the death side.
Yeah? Then explain all the people who've gone through treatment including AA, which told them like you do that their will was incapable of defeating addiction, that it had to be done by God/higher power, for whom these treatments didn't work, who then proceeded to avoid this treatment and quit drugs entirely of their own volition.
Drug Addiction is quit another matter. The inability to break free of addiction does not indicate a lack of will to do so.
It does. Not a lack of desire to quit drugs, mind you, but lack of discipline and presence of mind to quit drugs considering both the negative consequences use has wrought, and the immediate difficulties of ceasing use. You can't say "I want to quit, I know it hurts me in X way, but it does YZ for me and withdrawal is too harsh" or anything of the sort. No one said it is easy, but it can most certainly be done considering everything.
The whole purpose of the AA or NA 12 steps is to formalize a process to help a person free themself.
That's fine, many people have tried this route. But it has not been shown to be very effective at all -- estimates are as low as 5% of those who try the program get sober through it. To those who succeed, more power to them. But stats show people are more likely to succeed on their own, contrary to the AA dogma of leaving the program for "jails, institutions, and death," and the phenomenon of the dry drunk (drduck?) who reject the program's central tenets of reduction of self-ability and believe in God.
I have friends that were able to stop using some drugs (not all) just by saying no. I envy them.
You've now met someone who has quit all drugs entirely of his own volition. Not a phone call for help, not an intervention, not a word from friends or family, not an appoinment at an outpatient rehab, not an AA meeting, not a prayer to God got it done. My own very human self did.
It took realizing that what I want for myself is a healthy life consisting of the things important to me uninhibited by drugs -- neither AA nor any of numerous treatment programs were providing either of those criterion, never mind both. And AFAIC, the matter is simple: to quit drugs, stop using. No other way is gonna get it done. If you really lack the discipline and will to do it, having firmly and truly decided that's what you want for yourself -- then I see nothing wrong with using it to arrive at that end, but for many, perhaps even most people, it's unnecessary and a hindrance to be encumbered by these groups that often try to strip you of your identity and convictions.
Re:Interesting, but some methodological holes
on
Addicted to Information?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Who said anything about disease?
To the psychiatric establishment, disorders of the brain are synonymous with mental illness. Note the 'illness' part of that term.
The article talks about disorders. No one is saying that this means it can be 'caught', or that there is necessarily a physical abnormality in the body. Of course, as the parent article says, some people may be able to cope with this without it being a problem - but then they shouldn't be labelled with having the disorder.
I believe the poster is referring to the trend of the psychiatric establishment to classify all mental disorders as both illnesses and abnormalities. Hence the use of biochemical-altering substances. The psychiatric establishment also does try to 'catch' illnesses early -- there are different stages of progression, onset, and the acute stage, and others I'm not currently aware of. They will speak of how early into the progression the 'disease' was diagnosed and the patient began treatment -- especially in Schizophrenia.
The purpose of giving names to disorders, as I understand it, is to classify behaviours and perhaps help to identify treatment (for those people that can't cope with it, and for those that it is a problem).
If you accept the premise that these disorders are biological phenomenon, the severity of the symptoms or ability to cope or endure pain should not be considered in diagnosis. If you get bitten by a mosquito with West Nile, but only get flu-like symptoms that don't necessitate a hospital trip, you still have West Nile, don't you?
Arguing whether these disorders really "exist", or arguing what is and isn't normal seems to be beside the point.
To the contrary -- when families are torn apart, people are forced to take harmful and brain-altering drugs that may cause irreparable harm, and deprived of life and liberty without due process, all in the name of treating a disease that has no solid evidence of even existing as such -- it should be a very central point.
Slashdot Mirror
you outdid me.
next year we're ON.
DAVOE WON'ts 2 b ur freidn.
shouts to spree & wade
DAVEO agrease with you"re poost!! :)
It is quite remarkable to behold. As you clear out your mind, things start to flow more easily. You become really aware of all your thoughts as they come up, you see arising impulses as merely a voice in your head that will pass and have no hold on you ('paper tigers' was a favorite description of mine). As you clear ill will and harmful and idle thoughts out, try to replace them with kind thoughts to other beings, and depression, sorrow, fear, begin to fade away, and your mind is truly open to wisdom.
Essentially, the Atkins' diet has not been scientifically shown to reduce weight more than any other diet of equivalent calorie intake has since its inception in the 1970s.
I cannot agree with this. Many foods today, especially fried foods, chips, pizza, and other cooked, starchy foods, have high levels of a known carcinogen and neurotoxin. I know not the exact levels of these substances, but I've read it's about 400 times higher in certain commonly eaten foods than acceptable limits in the water supply. To me, that just seems like stuffing your face with a rat poison sandwich. I'd much prefer to eat foods that provides my body with the nutrients it needs to maintain itself.
Your digestive system and taste buds evolved to drive you to the foods with optimal proportions of nutrients for the body's proper functioning. Today, we have many thousands more foods with artificial flavoring and tastes, and are conditioned to seek such foods, that do not provide us with the ratio of nutrients we need. There is no doubt limiting calorie intake is of great significance regardless of what foods you eat, but it would be a stretch to say there are no bad foods.
When the crew of BioSphere II had found that they had less food than anticipated (1800 cal/day each), they lost 15% body weight over a period of six months, and their good to bad cholesterol ratio was up and blood pressure down.
Just be sure you still maintain adequate nutrients. Changing your diet to include less junk food (chips, fries, cookies, even some breads) is another plus. And do some research on healthful composition of diets, new evidence the last ten years is showing the United States Department of Agriculture's food pyramid is scientifically unsound and may even be contributing to the obesity problems.
That said, exercise is a definite plus to stay in shape and to lose weight. Your body was made for moving around. Walking even small distances is good, and running and sports are good as well, but you may have to ease into it. As another poster stated, any exercise over and above 20 minutes will result in calorie burn.
Personally, I maintain a regimen of calorie restriction, and walking anywhere from five to 40 miles a week, and I've lost a very nice 33 pounds since mid-April. But the best part is I feel a hell of a lot more healthy and alive.
Cheers.
Considering there are more users of illegal drugs in the United States than illegal p2p users, and we're nearing one million imprisoned for drug violations, you can probably expect them to give it their best.
Very true. I've been with Optimum Online, which is available in the NY metro area for about five years now, and I get speeds of 4.5 mbps. I've had some service issues with them, as one time around 99 or 00 they were phasing out the old modems, but didn't inform us, and despite six visits from their tech staff, none were able to diagnose the problem, and so we were without service the majority of each days for a month, and forced to pay $150 to upgrade to their new modem, but since then, the service has been near flawlessly reliable. It started out at $29.99 a month for subscribers to their cable service ($10 higher for non-subscribers), but they are now raising it to $45. I do hear some people have their service capped lower than this, but it works quite well for me.
Similarly, after some days of heavy tetrinet playing, I would see tetrinet 'long' blocks for a few moments when I looked up or something.
Nowadays, it's just aftereffects from LSD trips, for example, trails from some fast moving objects (say one's hand), and, yesterday the surface of a pond I came across while walking with a friend was covered in green algae, and it seemed to crawl slightly. Plus, stuff breaths and I get other neat and similar effects.
Take as long as you need.
Off the top of my head, you stated either explicitly or behind insults at people (myself included) that AA is the only way to get sober. If you admit to having exercised poor judgement in using insults, that's one thing, but suddenly your viewpoint has changed? You DID state it was physically impossible to quit drugs and drug addiction of one's own volition (purely on "willpower" you said), that one probably needs AA, and at the LEAST one needs treatment. So you're completely misrepresenting your earlier statements and therefore changing the whole dynamic of the debate without even debating.
I'll continue to reply to this thread if you try to maintain some consistency, or at least explain inconsistencies, 'cause if you don't it makes it impossible for me to see what I'm trying to debate, and if you don't ignore 90% of my post, cuz that just makes this whole thread absurd and pointless.
Later.
Noted. I'd like to know if you still believe it's impossible to get sober without AA, or whether it's all delusion and the like. It seems you've come to see things from a more moderate vantage point.
As far as structure, which I did not address in my reply, I think it would be good for myself in my life as far as programming and study habits to go for improving my productivity and goals, but not as far as drugs, never mind any treatment that uses 'structure' to acheive its own self-imposed ends regardless of what the patient wants. IMO, I'm going to have to learn to provide the structure largely for myself, with external demands (school, time schedules) being a heavy influence.
It takes more then desire, to shake the shakels of addiction.
Sorry, but I think you are either exagerating are are a liar.
You stopped short of outright calling me a liar because I have quit drugs entirely without the program you hold so dear. Well I did it, bub, read my accounts of the experience, and either call me a liar outright, or concede that you're wrong.
The only difference is that people are dying right now believing they can get sober on will power.
This thinking KILLS people. It is a serious matter. In fact Julian Morrison is practising quakery. If someone convinced some people that their mirical wonder drug cured cancer, and those people died because they did not seak real treatment, that person would be in jail. Julian Morrisons bullshit is the SAME thing.
You replied and said more or less that one poster is misleading people, is responsible for their deaths, and deserves to be imprisoned because he dares speak out against your treatment program that shows very tenuous success rates.
These, my friend, and some of your other remarks are the claims of a jack ass. You will not be called otherwise for these borderline slanderous attacks on the person of those engaging in legitimate discussion, and you certainly gain no credibility from them.
Well, I showed you the goods. Not only do people get sober without AA or today's shoddily put together and unfounded 'treatment plans,' but they sometimes do so in higher numbers than those who seek others to help them. In this respect, your prior claims, and the common AA mantra that leaving the program is signing your death warrant, sound more than the self-help people, to use your words, like a "sunday televagelist", (I'll tell you what to do with your life, trust me; Jesus & Holy Spirit remarks), "mirical wonder drug cured cancer" (Just ask God), "Crystal Power, magnetic braclets" (Some guy in the sky will cure all your ills), whereas we advocate stopping use of a drug to quit it. Hardly anything magical about that. So you'd be wise to leave these terms out of the discussion and keep it to fact.
The only difference is that people are dying right now believing they can get sober on will power.
I've already demonstrated that people can break addictions of their own volition, on their own time. I've done it myself. Your claim that this is impossible is wholly unsubstantiated and contrary to evidence, and your claim that trying to do so kills people is grossly out of whack -- if the data hold true, by your logic, AA and treatment centers are to be held resposible for deaths.
Later on, you state:
Can sobriety be achieved without NA/AA? Yes
I will assume if you are being consistent with your previous claims, you see treatment as the only alternative, not willpower and discipline. This is just as false, as the data and experience prove.
If sobriaty was just a matter of will power then a lot more people would be getting sober. What you are saying is that ships should not carry life boats, because people can just swim to shore. Then using the example of a ship goining down where one man does actualy swim to shore, without mention the several hunder who drowned because they were not trained open ocean swimmers.
Again, you say it is impossible to break addiction of one's own volition, when I'm sitting here and telling you I've done it. Many others have as well. That's the reality, AA isn't necessary for all but a few.
I have provided a detailed account of how I got sober, comp
I am sorry for your misfortune. I understand that this is a heated topics.
[Re: Addiction] I take minor issue with your statement that addiction happens after a few uses.
I take major issue with your assertion that the idea that the alteration of any biochemical processes by a drug either constitutions some 'addiction' that one cannot beat out without without professional or divine help, as well as the idea of an once an addict, always an addict ("addicts were never 'normal'").
Dr. Stanton Pelle points out on his website that different societies have different rates of addiction to the same drug. He also reports that "Genetically related groups in different societies vary in their addiction rates, and the susceptibility of the same individual changes over time."
This suggests and extremely strong cultural component to addictive behavior in addiction to any biological tendency present.
Some societies that have used alcohol ceremonially have avoided abuse -- for example
Steele cites evidence that shows how the rates of addiction and discontinuation of heroin fluctuate with pressures at varying stages in a person's life:
If you want to address any of my points, do so. I could just as easily have posted you a link to http://www.peele.net and told you to look through it, but that's not terribly great debate or discussion.
The poster claimed that it is impossible to break free from drug addiction without relying upon God and Alcoholics Anonymous. One counterexample shows this can be done. The studies being "out of date," unless you're doubting their accuracy or methodology, just makes the case more. Cultural trends affect addiction, abuse, and subsequent discontinuation rates.
[how is] "I can quit so you're a pathetic loser if you can't," productive for anyone?
Look - you told me to cut the anecdotal stuff, and I did, so don't come back to that, or don't complain in the first place. Bottom line is, you can say "wah wah addiction is hard to beat it's all genetic really we need treatment" just as the growing obese segment of the population is complaining that they don't need to, or are unable to take personal responsibility enough to change their situation -- the point is, it's up to the user to change their life and behaviors. You are skirting the facts to say treatment is necessary, plain and simple. No one can lose you weight but you. No one can quit drugs for you. That's it. That's as productive as it gets, because it's the truth. Treatment and AA got me nowhere but 14 mostly wasted months of my life -- hundreds of hours spent in sessions, discussions, walks, phone calls, planning out actions, with not a stitch of sobriety to show for it. You call that productive? Guess what's productive to quit drgs. Stopping drugs. Tough concept, no?
If treatment helps your particular case, then you've found a method that works -- but by no stretch is is necessary for all or the only or most effective way. Shifting responsblity from the user to the medical community or 12-step groups may have a certain laziness/victim appeal, but that hardly makes it right, much less 'productive'.
Additionally, the poster claimed that people suggesting people steer clear of AA may or may not be partially responsible for their deaths, as God and the 12 steps is the only way to escape addiction. That's completely absurd. I've done it and so have millions of others. There is evidence that AA is ineffective treatment or even detrimental, so the poster would be wise to back up his claims or retract them.
Ever notice how AA terms those who get sober without the program 'dry drunks'? Or says in no uncertain terms -- "you can go out there -- there's jails, institutions, and death waiting for you." Or demands unconditional surrender to the group's programs and principles, and acceptance of the notion that you are powerless to change your situation? That seems dangerous to me. Addicts should know that their situation is very much under their control -- cultural trends can be bucked if the user wants to do what it takes. The stats I gave you show that contrary to AA's claim, those who AA would say are alcoholic can control their drinking, stop abuse, and drink in moderation after a period of abuse.
I'll ask you again to explain how certain cultures throughout have used alcohol in moderation, and have next to no incidence of abuse until the last 50 years. This goes strongly against AA's notion that one is a genetic alcoholic who can't resist the first drank and can't control it after that -- and needs AA to save him from this life and death matter.
You called me on the data, well I'm calling you out to stop misrepresenting my position and ignoring my points.
You should try Pheonix, it's pretty lean (ala galeon), sweet (GUI & extensions), and standards-compliant (being derived from Moz, of course). GTK-2 also is also nice but I'm not a GNOME user so I couldn't tell you so much about that.
Anyhow, I look forward to your reply. There's a good chance I'll be afk for few hours doing some meditation, as I've been at the computer around 12 hours now, but I'll get to your reply.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Basically, the SSRIs do raise seratonin levels, and this can result in improved mood, but this in no way implies that an unnatural imbalance was to blame for the depression in the first place. In some respects, this approach can be harmful in that deep, underlying, even traumatic issues causing the depression can go unaddressed and repressed while a chemical agent instead artificially raises the mood of the sufferer.
A study in the 1991 New England Journal of Medicine reported that groups of employees instructed to attend a program in a private hospital had a 36 percent sobriety rate through two years, while a group instructed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous had a 16 percent success rate through the same space.
A study by the same journal in 1985 reported that of patients in treated in a public inner-city alcoholism ward, seven percent were sober or had their alcoholism in remission upon followup some years later.
Vaillant, in The Natural History of Alcoholism found that the majority of those who had a history of alcohol abuse in his sample were in remission, with the remission of very few being due to treatment. He found that the state of the sampled hospital patients' alcohol abuse problem was no better than at any point in their history.
On 17,500 arrests recorded for Cantonese residents of New York City in 1933-1949, not one listed public drunkenness, according to M.L. Barnett's "Alcoholism in the Cantonese of New York City: An anthropological study". Jews have historically ritually used moderate amounts of alcohol in ceremonies, but abuse has been exceedingly rare. Vaillant, in Adaptation to Life, 1977, took samples of inner city residents of Irish and Mediterranean descent; the Irish had rates of alcoholism seven times as high as the Mediterranean (which included Greeks and Jews). Glassner and Berg reported in How Jews Avoid Alcohol Problems in 1980 that out of 88 upstate New York Jewish respondants, including both Orthodox and nonobservers, there was no existence of alcoholism. They estimate alcohol abuse to be present in between 0.1% and 1% of the American Jewish population of the time. This strongly suggests a large cultural component to alcohol abuse and by extension drug abuse and tendency to control and moderate usage of substances.
J.E. Helzer, and G.J. Canino, in Alcoholism in North America, Europe, and Asia report astounding differences in alcoholism rates between two Asian cultures with similar biology -- "The highest lifetime prevalence rates were found in U.S. native Mexican Americans at 23 percent and in the Korean survey, where the total sample rate was about 22 percent. There is about a fiftyfold difference in lifetime prevalence between these two samples and Shanghai, where the lowest lifetime prevalence of 0.45 percent was found."
Stanton Peele of the Lindesmith center in a study titled "Utilizing Culture and Behaviour in Epidemiological Models of Alcohol Consumption and Consequences for Western Nations" points out that while the country of Portugal consumes 2 1/2 times the amount of alcohol per capita they do in Iceland, the former has 800 AA groups per million, while the latter has 0.6 per million, drawing from data published by AA World Headquarters in 1991.
W.J. Rorabaugh, in The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition demonstrates that alcohol usage trends has fluctuated to and from abuse throughout American history with culture -- In the late seventeenth century the Rev. Increase Mather had taught that drink was `a good creature of God' and that a man should partake of God's gift without wasting or abusing it. His only admonition was that a man must not `drink a Cup of Wine more than is good for him'.... At that time inebriation was not associated with violence or crime; only rowdy, belligerent inebriation in public places was frowned upon.... Control was also exercised through informal channels. One Massachusetts minister insisted that a public house be located next to his own dwelling so he could monitor tavern traffic through his study window. If he observed a man frequenting the place too often, the clergyman could go next door and escort the drinker home."
Levine, in "The Good Creature of God and the Demon
I would agree wholeheartedly that the factors you cite are important in determining the strength and duration of an addiction, but you neglect to consider social and environmental factors, upbringing, and perhaps even more importantly personal values and experience. Lastly, regardless of all the factors you cite, enough pain, and enough cumulative damage can without a motherfucking doubt cause a person to say "enough is enough" and quit their drug of choice. I offer myself as an example. Nearly all or all the risk factors you cited have been attributed to me by so-called treatment professionals, but in my history with treatment, nothing worked. I finally cut the crap and realized treatment and intermittent usage was not what I wanted for myself, and no one would quit drugs but me. So I ditched the treatment and the drugs, voila.
No problem, I should be here till at least dawn, which is another 4-5 hours here, and maybe longer. Sorry to hear he or her is in trouble with the law.
I call bullshit on this one. Sorry, but I think you are either exagerating are are a liar. I don't know were you got you're so called stats from but they are all wrong. If you were truely an Addict, which I doubt, then you are very lucky indead, to acheive sobriaty without support.
Can't fathom that someone is able to do something for themselves, eh? I got news for ya, pal - I'm dead serious. I ain't exaggerating, nor am I lying. And don't claim to be 'sorry' while insulting my person in the same sentence. As you said, drug usage can be a life and death matter -- in my case, it was that at worst, and at best contrast between darkness and pain, and a shot at a healthy contented existence at the other. So you can see the stakes were high enough for me to act. And luck had shit to do with it. I chose to act to better my lot, OK? I had all the so called 'support' in the world, it meant nothing. What am I supposed to do, call up my highly-uncredentialed counselor or AA kid sponsor when I get a "craving" and "talk it out"? I want to drive this point home. No one else quits for you. You can BS all day long to your 'support group' and sponsor, and family, and program, and group, and talk the ins and outs of successful sobriety and techniques -- but at the end of the day, when you come home from that BS, if you really want a toke or a drink, you are either going to do give in, or you have decided yourself and have the strength to resist for yourself. As for your definition of addict, whatever. I'd qualify any definition I could possibly think of -- daily use, drug abuse, rehabs, ODs, institutionalizations, you get the picture. On top of that, I had recovery zealots like yourself tell me OVER and OVER I'm an addict. I did everything short of shooting up H or snorting coke, which is pretty much just an image and not as terrible as certain groups would have you believe. Yeah, so if you're ready, take a look at my recent post on this matter on kuro5hin.org. If you'd like additional details, I'd be happy to oblige.
It's quite telling how militant you are about this that you're resorting to personal insults. Well, I may not be any Darryl Strawberry, but I've been around the block. And I'm not going to discount AA's benefits because although I know the program is difficult, you can reap benefits. I've done it. But don't buy into the idea that it's necessary and the only way. It sure as hell ain't. And AAers aren't the voice of God. And some people don't believe in God, or want to change his life and remove all their 'character flaws,' which are poorly defined, or replace their ideas to those of the group. (And I have had some odd experiences and advice from AA but that's another post). Hell, some might even be willing to for temporary or permanent relief from their drug abuse ("we decided we wanted what AA has and were willing to go to any lengths to get it"), but they should NOT be led to believe it is the only choice, as AA says it is if you are a "true" alcoholic or addict.
As for the stats -- what can I say, it's reality. If you can't accept that your treatment model isn't the most effective method out there, that's one thing, but don't go telling others that they may or may not be responsible for people's deaths when their ideas have been shown to be more effective. Now, back to those stats. The one I gave you is true. My rehab told us it has a 3.5% success rate. People are more likely to quit drugs successfully without treatment that has its basis in dubious scientific theories. My experience backs this up (add a notch to the stats). IMO, probably because it's a personal, life choice that they're capable of making on their own. In addition, 30% of people who have smoked in the United States have quit, 95% did it by themselves. AA has a 5% success rate for those who pass through its doors. At my meetings I saw maybe three or four faces out of a room of 20-4
I'll say it one more time:
ADDICTION IS NOT A HABIT!
Say it as many times as you like, that doesn't change squat. It would be good to settle on one definition of addiction here. If you are referring to physical addiction, then you may have something, although one could still argue that it's merely a habit with varying consequences to discontinue. However, in light of the story, we're talking about the terms 'addiction' and 'disorder' being applied to an extremely wide range of human behavior, so he has a point. It is well within our power to change and eliminate behaviors and institute new ones.
Personally, I agree with him largely, but not wholly on the first four points. People do a behavior 'cause it's easier or more rewarding, even though they know they shouldn't, maybe because it'll be looked down upon by others. Easy to call drug usage addiction, and it changes the traditional views of it 180 from an immoral destructive vice to a medical issue needing to be addressed with treatment.
His next point is more tentative, but holds some water. Consider AA's common maxim: "You only have to do one thing: change everything." Well, yeah, solemn belief in God, new lifestyle, phase out all old 'bad influence' friends in favor of new friends ("you'll meet great new friends in the program"), giving yourself no credit other than as being a creation of God -- it may work sometimes, but my guess is most people want to deal with a drug problem, not a my-life-and-self-suck-so-bad-i-need-to-turn-it-all -upside-down-to-fit-the-whims-of-a-group-of-strang ers problem.
Also consider those with drinking or drug problems who don't attend AA or other extensive treatment typically get sober in higher rates than those who do -- so if you're going to claim life and death, offer some evidence you're not on the death side.
Yeah? Then explain all the people who've gone through treatment including AA, which told them like you do that their will was incapable of defeating addiction, that it had to be done by God/higher power, for whom these treatments didn't work, who then proceeded to avoid this treatment and quit drugs entirely of their own volition.
Drug Addiction is quit another matter. The inability to break free of addiction does not indicate a lack of will to do so.
It does. Not a lack of desire to quit drugs, mind you, but lack of discipline and presence of mind to quit drugs considering both the negative consequences use has wrought, and the immediate difficulties of ceasing use. You can't say "I want to quit, I know it hurts me in X way, but it does YZ for me and withdrawal is too harsh" or anything of the sort. No one said it is easy, but it can most certainly be done considering everything.
The whole purpose of the AA or NA 12 steps is to formalize a process to help a person free themself.
That's fine, many people have tried this route. But it has not been shown to be very effective at all -- estimates are as low as 5% of those who try the program get sober through it. To those who succeed, more power to them. But stats show people are more likely to succeed on their own, contrary to the AA dogma of leaving the program for "jails, institutions, and death," and the phenomenon of the dry drunk (drduck?) who reject the program's central tenets of reduction of self-ability and believe in God.
I have friends that were able to stop using some drugs (not all) just by saying no. I envy them.
You've now met someone who has quit all drugs entirely of his own volition. Not a phone call for help, not an intervention, not a word from friends or family, not an appoinment at an outpatient rehab, not an AA meeting, not a prayer to God got it done. My own very human self did.
It took realizing that what I want for myself is a healthy life consisting of the things important to me uninhibited by drugs -- neither AA nor any of numerous treatment programs were providing either of those criterion, never mind both. And AFAIC, the matter is simple: to quit drugs, stop using. No other way is gonna get it done. If you really lack the discipline and will to do it, having firmly and truly decided that's what you want for yourself -- then I see nothing wrong with using it to arrive at that end, but for many, perhaps even most people, it's unnecessary and a hindrance to be encumbered by these groups that often try to strip you of your identity and convictions.
To the psychiatric establishment, disorders of the brain are synonymous with mental illness. Note the 'illness' part of that term.
The article talks about disorders. No one is saying that this means it can be 'caught', or that there is necessarily a physical abnormality in the body. Of course, as the parent article says, some people may be able to cope with this without it being a problem - but then they shouldn't be labelled with having the disorder.
I believe the poster is referring to the trend of the psychiatric establishment to classify all mental disorders as both illnesses and abnormalities. Hence the use of biochemical-altering substances. The psychiatric establishment also does try to 'catch' illnesses early -- there are different stages of progression, onset, and the acute stage, and others I'm not currently aware of. They will speak of how early into the progression the 'disease' was diagnosed and the patient began treatment -- especially in Schizophrenia.
The purpose of giving names to disorders, as I understand it, is to classify behaviours and perhaps help to identify treatment (for those people that can't cope with it, and for those that it is a problem).
If you accept the premise that these disorders are biological phenomenon, the severity of the symptoms or ability to cope or endure pain should not be considered in diagnosis. If you get bitten by a mosquito with West Nile, but only get flu-like symptoms that don't necessitate a hospital trip, you still have West Nile, don't you?
Arguing whether these disorders really "exist", or arguing what is and isn't normal seems to be beside the point.
To the contrary -- when families are torn apart, people are forced to take harmful and brain-altering drugs that may cause irreparable harm, and deprived of life and liberty without due process, all in the name of treating a disease that has no solid evidence of even existing as such -- it should be a very central point.