PDA

View Full Version : Singer Amy Winehouse found dead in London home, Sky News reports



redsfandan
07-23-2011, 12:59 PM
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43866337

remdog
07-23-2011, 01:04 PM
Not exactly a shock.

Rem

757690
07-23-2011, 01:59 PM
She joins the 27 club.

Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison
Brian Jones
Janis Joplin
Kurt Cobain

All 27 when they died.

WMR
07-23-2011, 02:00 PM
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Jefferson24
07-23-2011, 02:01 PM
She joins the 27 club.

Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison
Brian Jones
Janis Joplin
Kurt Cobain

All 27 when they died.

interesting... glad I'm not a 27 year old famous musical artist.

1990REDS
07-23-2011, 02:08 PM
She joins the 27 club.

Jimi Hendrix
Jim Morrison
Brian Jones
Janis Joplin
Kurt Cobain

All 27 when they died.


Sad list. Did all these people have drug problems in common?

Joseph
07-23-2011, 03:24 PM
Assuming you are being serious, but if you are not I apologize in advance.

Yes, all these people had drugs in common.

tomred
07-23-2011, 04:26 PM
just reminds us what a dealer of death drugs are sad that so many other people die
from drugs and only the families notice

MWM
07-23-2011, 05:24 PM
Very sad, but totally not surprising! Very talented musician, which is a rarity in the world of music today.

reds1869
07-23-2011, 08:17 PM
I saw a video of a live Amy Winehouse show in London a few years ago. She was blitzed out of her mind and slurring her words all over the place; the audience looked stunned. She truly was talented and her death is a sad cautionary tale.

bigredmechanism
07-23-2011, 08:43 PM
Very sad.

I wasn't really a fan of her music, as Pop kinda stuff isn't for me, but I feel for her family.

LoganBuck
07-25-2011, 12:42 AM
Not a joke, but I thought she was already dead.

SunDeck
07-25-2011, 08:03 AM
Very sad.

I wasn't really a fan of her music, as Pop kinda stuff isn't for me, but I feel for her family.

At least Amy Winehouse wrote her own music, specifically because she didn't like the manufactured product that pop singers had to work with. I think she had a great sound, and I'd venture to say singers like Adele have her to thank at least in part for their success.

I feel for her family- to watch your daughter self destruct, despite all the money and resources available to get better must be agonizing.

Caveat Emperor
07-25-2011, 08:31 AM
She really could sing, but at the end of the day she was a one-hit wonder that was more famous for being a train-wreck personally than anything else that she did.

cinreds21
07-25-2011, 11:06 AM
Here is an extremely moving piece about Amy written by Russell Brand:


When you love someone who suffers from the disease of addiction you await the phone call. There will be a phone call. The sincere hope is that the call will be from the addict themselves, telling you they've had enough, that they're ready to stop, ready to try something new. Of course though, you fear the other call, the sad nocturnal chime from a friend or relative telling you it's too late, she's gone.

Frustratingly it's not a call you can ever make it must be received. It is impossible to intervene.

I've known Amy Winehouse for years. When I first met her around Camden she was just some twit in a pink satin jacket shuffling round bars with mutual friends, most of whom were in cool indie bands or peripheral Camden figures Withnail-ing their way through life on impotent charisma.

Carl Barāt told me that Winehouse (which I usually called her and got a kick out of cos it's kind of funny to call a girl by her surname) was a jazz singer, which struck me as a bizarrely anomalous in that crowd. To me with my limited musical knowledge this information placed Amy beyond an invisible boundary of relevance: "Jazz singer? She must be some kind of eccentric," I thought. I chatted to her anyway though, she was after all, a girl, and she was sweet and peculiar but most of all vulnerable.

I was myself at that time barely out of rehab and was thirstily seeking less complicated women so I barely reflected on the now glaringly obvious fact that Winehouse and I shared an affliction, the disease of addiction. All addicts, regardless of the substance or their social status share a consistent and obvious symptom; they're not quite present when you talk to them. They communicate to you through a barely discernible but unignorable veil. Whether a homeless smack head troubling you for 50p for a cup of tea or a coked-up, pinstriped exec foaming off about his speedboat, there is a toxic aura that prevents connection. They have about them the air of elsewhere, that they're looking through you to somewhere else they'd rather be. And of course they are. The priority of any addict is to anaesthetise the pain of living to ease the passage of the day with some purchased relief.

From time to time I'd bump into Amy she had good banter so we could chat a bit and have a laugh, she was a character but that world was riddled with half-cut, doped-up chancers, I was one of them, even in early recovery I was kept afloat only by clinging to the bodies of strangers so Winehouse, but for her gentle quirks didn't especially register.

Then she became massively famous and I was pleased to see her acknowledged but mostly baffled because I'd not experienced her work. This not being the 1950s, I wondered how a jazz singer had achieved such cultural prominence. I wasn't curious enough to do anything so extreme as listen to her music or go to one of her gigs, I was becoming famous myself at the time and that was an all consuming experience. It was only by chance that I attended a Paul Weller gig at the Roundhouse that I ever saw her live.

I arrived late and as I made my way to the audience through the plastic smiles and plastic cups I heard the rolling, wondrous resonance of a female vocal. Entering the space I saw Amy on stage with Weller and his band; and then the awe. The awe that envelops when witnessing a genius. From her oddly dainty presence that voice, a voice that seemed not to come from her but from somewhere beyond even Billie and Ella, from the font of all greatness. A voice that was filled with such power and pain that it was at once entirely human yet laced with the divine. My ears, my mouth, my heart and mind all instantly opened. Winehouse. Winehouse? Winehouse! That twerp, all eyeliner and lager dithering up Chalk Farm Road under a back-combed barnet, the lips that I'd only seen clenching a fishwife fag and dribbling curses now a portal for this holy sound.

So now I knew. She wasn't just some hapless wannabe, yet another pissed-up nit who was never gonna make it, nor was she even a ten-a-penny-chanteuse enjoying her fifteen minutes. She was a ****ing genius.

Shallow fool that I am, I now regarded her in a different light, the light that blazed down from heaven when she sang. That lit her up now and a new phase in our friendship began. She came on a few of my TV and radio shows, I still saw her about but now attended to her with a little more interest. Publicly though, Amy increasingly became defined by her addiction. Our media though is more interested in tragedy than talent, so the ink began to defect from praising her gift to chronicling her downfall. The destructive personal relationships, the blood-soaked ballet slippers, the aborted shows, that YouTube madness with the baby mice. In the public perception this ephemeral tittle-tattle replaced her timeless talent. This and her manner in our occasional meetings brought home to me the severity of her condition.

Addiction is a serious disease; it will end with jail, mental institutions or death. I was 27 years old when through the friendship and help of Chip Somers of the treatment centre Focus 12 I found recovery. Through Focus I was introduced to support fellowships for alcoholics and drug addicts that are very easy to find and open to anybody with a desire to stop drinking and without which I would not be alive.

Now Amy Winehouse is dead, like many others whose unnecessary deaths have been retrospectively romanticised, at 27 years old. Whether this tragedy was preventable or not is now irrelevant. It is not preventable today. We have lost a beautiful and talented woman to this disease. Not all addicts have Amy's incredible talent. Or Kurt's or Jimi's or Janis's. Some people just get the affliction. All we can do is adapt the way we view this condition, not as a crime or a romantic affectation but as a disease that will kill.

We need to review the way society treats addicts, not as criminals but as sick people in need of care. We need to look at the way our government funds rehabilitation. It is cheaper to rehabilitate an addict than to send them to prison, so criminalisation doesn't even make economic sense. Not all of us know someone with the incredible talent that Amy had but we all know drunks and junkies and they all need help and the help is out there. All they have to do is pick up the phone and make the call. Or not. Either way, there will be a phone call.

redsfandan
07-26-2011, 07:29 AM
Here is an extremely moving piece about Amy written by Russell Brand:

Thanks for posting that.

1990REDS
07-26-2011, 08:25 AM
Assuming you are being serious, but if you are not I apologize in advance.

Yes, all these people had drugs in common.

Ya I ment it sarcastically. I could probably have done a better job of conveying that now that I reread my post.

MWM
07-26-2011, 11:10 PM
I'm not sure I'd classify Amy Winehouse as a "pop singer."

Sweetstop
07-27-2011, 08:49 AM
russell brand may be a bit superfluous in his description of her talent, but her voice certainly had, ala ella and billie, "a sit up and take notice, who the beep is that, i want to hear more" quality about it.

whole thing is sad, especially for her folks.

PedroBourbon
07-27-2011, 02:48 PM
Maybe she SHOULDA gone to rehab!

TRF
07-29-2011, 09:35 AM
I'm not an insensitive person. I've been through enough to not be an insensitive person. I DJ at an alternative rock station and when i read about this, my first thought was if the year was 1850, Amy Winehouse would have been eaten by bears.

Some people are simply not equipped to deal with life. And they do dumb, drastic things. I know this first hand. But when you are offered help, repeatedly, and refuse to accept it, then it should shock no one when they remove themselves from the gene pool.

I got requests for her music that night, didn't play a single one. The last thing i want to do is build her up to be more than she was: a drug addicted singer whose 15 minutes were coming to a close. I really don't mean to be insensitive, but Richie Valens dying in a plane crash is sad. An OD is more pathetic than sad.

cincinnati chili
07-30-2011, 12:52 AM
I respect that, TRF, but I still feel bad for her and her family. Not like I feel for the victims of the Norway shooting or those who starve to death in Africa or others who die without any choice at all. But it's still sad.

I consider myself blessed to not be an addict. Sure addicts have a choice, but it's not as easy as it seems to many.

TRF
07-30-2011, 01:31 AM
I have a perspective on throwing your life away. Without accepting the help offered to me, someone might have been writing a moving obituary about me.

As I said... Some people are offered help, and they refuse to accept it. It is sad for her family. But what is really sad is there is some kid that views her as a role model. And that kid might do something stupid because of her.

redsfandan
07-30-2011, 07:51 AM
I have a perspective on throwing your life away. Without accepting the help offered to me, someone might have been writing a moving obituary about me.

As I said... Some people are offered help, and they refuse to accept it. It is sad for her family. But what is really sad is there is some kid that views her as a role model. And that kid might do something stupid because of her.

I don't think a dead celebrity is a good advertisement for a kid to get involved with alcohol or drugs. If a kid does get involved in alcohol or drugs I think something else would be a MUCH bigger factor.

TRF
07-30-2011, 01:39 PM
No. I'm thinking. There is a kid or kids out there thinking their hero couldn't do it so how can I? My sister od'd after Randy Rhodes died.

Too many times the media builds up these broken people and every time we read moving testimonials of how talented they were.

Slyder
07-30-2011, 01:52 PM
I have a perspective on throwing your life away. Without accepting the help offered to me, someone might have been writing a moving obituary about me.

As I said... Some people are offered help, and they refuse to accept it. It is sad for her family. But what is really sad is there is some kid that views her as a role model. And that kid might do something stupid because of her.

I knew a couple people who thought about doing what Kurt Cobain did on an anniversary of of his death.

savafan
07-31-2011, 11:14 AM
I knew a couple people who thought about doing what Kurt Cobain did on an anniversary of of his death.

Tried to get Courtney Love to shoot them and make it look like a suicide?

redsfandan
07-31-2011, 11:31 AM
Apparently the family believes the cause of death was alcohol withdrawal. The idea being that she tried to give up alcohol completely, her body couldn't take the adjustment, then she had a seizure which killed her.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/07/28/amy-winehouse-cause-of-death-family-alcohol-withdrawal/

Toxicology results probably won't be for another month.

RFS62
07-31-2011, 01:41 PM
Incredible article by Russell Brand.

It's a disease. You don't get mad at someone who has a broken leg and can't run a hundred yard dash.

muddie
07-31-2011, 03:53 PM
Apparently the family believes the cause of death was alcohol withdrawal. The idea being that she tried to give up alcohol completely, her body couldn't take the adjustment, then she had a seizure which killed her.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2011/07/28/amy-winehouse-cause-of-death-family-alcohol-withdrawal/

Toxicology results probably won't be for another month.

Interesting. I had read that she had been on an alcohol consumption binge the two weeks prior to her death.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 03:39 PM
Incredible article by Russell Brand.

It's a disease. You don't get mad at someone who has a broken leg and can't run a hundred yard dash.

The difference is, it is only a disease if you ever start choosing to do it. A broken leg isn't anything like that. You don't choose to break your leg, it happens. You choose to start drinking alcohol. You choose to start doing drugs.

TRF
08-01-2011, 04:58 PM
I had my gall bladder removed. I didn't then have it put back inside so i could get it removed repeatedly.

Yes some people are predisposed to the effects of alcohol becoming habitual. still gotta actually drink it though.

Insensitivity aside, the gene pool is a little clearer. If anyone thinks that makes me a bad person, then understand this, I have experience with this first hand.

pedro
08-01-2011, 05:03 PM
The difference is, it is only a disease if you ever start choosing to do it. A broken leg isn't anything like that. You don't choose to break your leg, it happens. You choose to start drinking alcohol. You choose to start doing drugs.

Being self righteous is a choice too.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 05:12 PM
Being self righteous is a choice too.

I don't think that has anything to do with the discussion at all. Sure, I don't drink or do drugs and I never have. Not sure what that has to do with comparing being mad at a runner for breaking their leg and not running the 100 meters to someone choosing to start doing something of addiction (be it alcohol or drugs).

jredmo2
08-01-2011, 05:15 PM
I have a perspective on throwing your life away. Without accepting the help offered to me, someone might have been writing a moving obituary about me.

As I said... Some people are offered help, and they refuse to accept it. It is sad for her family. But what is really sad is there is some kid that views her as a role model. And that kid might do something stupid because of her.

Yeah, I don't know. It's hard to criticize the supposed "role model" for their own personal weakness without applying that same criticism to those that would emulate them. I guess my point is, if you blame Amy Winehouse for being a weak person and poor role model, if you apply the same standard to those "looking up" to her and emulating her, well don't they deserve all of the blame for their own weakness and poor decisions?

frenetic wave
08-01-2011, 05:34 PM
Everyone is dealt a different hand. There are moves you can make with yours that might not be possible for another player. As none of us knew her personally, other than as a celebrity or a concept, if anyone is angry or frustrated with Amy Winehouse they are most likely projecting their own personal feelings towards their own situation onto a safe, external situation. Instead of doing that, just focus on your own situation and making it better and more positive.

bigredmechanism
08-01-2011, 08:03 PM
The difference is, it is only a disease if you ever start choosing to do it. A broken leg isn't anything like that. You don't choose to break your leg, it happens. You choose to start drinking alcohol. You choose to start doing drugs.

Yes it is a choice originally. I have some close friends and family who are in the program, and their take on addiction is slightly different: Alcohol/drugs is more of a self-treatment for the underlying problems in the individual. Some feel they need it to escape stress or reality. I'm not saying this is 100% true, but it's definitely an interesting and different perspective.

You could just as easily state that a kid who falls from a tree and breaks his leg CHOSE to climb a tree, but it does little to solve anything.

Either way I feel terribly bad for this young woman and her family. Whether she was using or not, addiction is a scary and lonely place for anyone to be.

I only can hope it was quick.

dougdirt
08-01-2011, 09:05 PM
Yes it is a choice originally. I have some close friends and family who are in the program, and their take on addiction is slightly different: Alcohol/drugs is more of a self-treatment for the underlying problems in the individual. Some feel they need it to escape stress or reality. I'm not saying this is 100% true, but it's definitely an interesting and different perspective.

You could just as easily state that a kid who falls from a tree and breaks his leg CHOSE to climb a tree, but it does little to solve anything.

Either way I feel terribly bad for this young woman and her family. Whether she was using or not, addiction is a scary and lonely place for anyone to be.

I only can hope it was quick.

Except that the kid choosing to climb the tree hasn't been told since he was in kindergarten that he would break his leg if he climbed the tree. He has been told about the side effects to drugs and alcohol since then.

I feel bad for them too. I have lost an uncle to drugs. I have several others in my life who have been serious drug addicts. I know how it is. But to compare drug/alcohol abuse to a broken leg.... well I can't ever get behind that idea.

Sea Ray
08-01-2011, 09:06 PM
I don't think that has anything to do with the discussion at all. Sure, I don't drink or do drugs and I never have. Not sure what that has to do with comparing being mad at a runner for breaking their leg and not running the 100 meters to someone choosing to start doing something of addiction (be it alcohol or drugs).

There you go. If you never "try it" then you never get the disease now do you? I'll never know if I'm a heroin or crack addict

guttle11
08-01-2011, 09:18 PM
There you go. If you never "try it" then you never get the disease now do you? I'll never know if I'm a heroin or crack addict

It's not a chicken/egg thing. Drug addiction, be it heroin, cocaine or even nicotine is caused by the chemicals replacing receptors in the brain, tricking your brain into thinking it needs those chemicals to survive. Addiction is not predetermined, it is a reaction to using. Everyone in the world would become addicted to heroin if they used it enough for the receptors to be changed.

Chemical dependency ultimately is caused by choice. Sure, there can be underlying mental issues that lead someone to make that choice, but the two are not even remotely the same thing.

Sea Ray
08-01-2011, 09:20 PM
It's not a chicken/egg thing. Drug addiction, be it heroin, cocaine or even nicotine is caused by the chemicals replacing receptors in the brain, tricking your brain into thinking it needs those chemicals to survive. Addiction is not predetermined, it is a reaction to using. Everyone in the world would become addicted to heroin if they used it enough for the receptors to be changed.

Chemical dependency ultimately is caused by choice.

Well put. Makes sense to me.

This stuff can be taken to ridiculous extremes. Does Pete Rose have a disease of gambling addiction?

bigredmechanism
08-01-2011, 09:51 PM
Except that the kid choosing to climb the tree hasn't been told since he was in kindergarten that he would break his leg if he climbed the tree. He has been told about the side effects to drugs and alcohol since then.

Maybe I had an overprotective mother, but I definitely was made aware at an early age that doing things like climbing a tree could get me hurt. I still climbed trees anyway, though.

Meanwhile I was not told anything about drugs or alcohol until much later after kindergarten. I did them too. Guess I've always been a rebel lol.

cincyinco
08-02-2011, 02:12 PM
I don't think addiction is as black and white as anyone in this thread is making it out to be. There have been countless studies done on the subject and there's evidence that supports a variety of beliefs and viewpoints on the subject of addiction. I don't believe there is one right answer. Everyone is different in regards to what their addiction is, the underlying choices and causes for said addiction, and the most effective way to treat it.

dougdirt
08-02-2011, 03:23 PM
I don't think addiction is as black and white as anyone in this thread is making it out to be. There have been countless studies done on the subject and there's evidence that supports a variety of beliefs and viewpoints on the subject of addiction. I don't believe there is one right answer. Everyone is different in regards to what their addiction is, the underlying choices and causes for said addiction, and the most effective way to treat it.

While this is all true, the point I made still remains.... if you never start drugs/alcohol, you will never become addicted to them. It is a choice that you make at some point in your life.

savafan
08-03-2011, 12:31 AM
While this is all true, the point I made still remains.... if you never start drugs/alcohol, you will never become addicted to them. It is a choice that you make at some point in your life.

Usually, but not always. For one year, I taught a 13 year old boy who was in foster care that was a heroin addict. His parents were heroin addicts, and when he was a baby, they would get high in their apartment. To keep him and his brother quiet, they would inject them with heroin so that they wouldn't cry. When the police found them, he was literally doped up on heroin in a shoebox under his parent's bed. That wasn't a choice that he ever made. I know that's the exception rather than the rule, but stories like his do exist. Perhaps even sadder, due to the drugs' effect on his brain, he was also a convicted sex offender at age 11.

bigredmechanism
08-03-2011, 02:34 AM
Usually, but not always. For one year, I taught a 13 year old boy who was in foster care that was a heroin addict. His parents were heroin addicts, and when he was a baby, they would get high in their apartment. To keep him and his brother quiet, they would inject them with heroin so that they wouldn't cry. When the police found them, he was literally doped up on heroin in a shoebox under his parent's bed. That wasn't a choice that he ever made. I know that's the exception rather than the rule, but stories like his do exist. Perhaps even sadder, due to the drugs' effect on his brain, he was also a convicted sex offender at age 11.

Jesus that is horrifying and depressing.

frenetic wave
08-04-2011, 07:57 PM
Yeah, not everyone who turns to drugs and alcohol is a well adjusted, fully responsible young person who just wants to get some kicks at the expense of their better judgment. There are terrible situations people are born into that can lead a young person to a crowd or environment where drugs and alcohol come included with family and belonging. Usually by the time you are old enough to know better, you're already addicted or it has already become a routine part of your family/social/personal life.

dougdirt
08-04-2011, 08:29 PM
Yeah, not everyone who turns to drugs and alcohol is a well adjusted, fully responsible young person who just wants to get some kicks at the expense of their better judgment. There are terrible situations people are born into that can lead a young person to a crowd or environment where drugs and alcohol come included with family and belonging. Usually by the time you are old enough to know better, you're already addicted or it has already become a routine part of your family/social/personal life.

I don't buy into this much, at least for 99% of addicts. With the way schools preach about drugs and alcohol by the time one is old enough to be in a situation to choose to drink or start doing a drug they know better.

dabvu2498
08-04-2011, 08:38 PM
I don't buy into this much, at least for 99% of addicts. With the way schools preach about drugs and alcohol by the time one is old enough to be in a situation to choose to drink or start doing a drug they know better.

By the time most kids are legal to drink, they still don't "know better."

dougdirt
08-04-2011, 08:47 PM
By the time most kids are legal to drink, they still don't "know better."

Oh they know better, they just don't care because it's what everyone does. Or they believe that can control it (and a lot of people can) to a point where they don't have a problem.

edabbs44
08-04-2011, 09:03 PM
Usually, but not always. For one year, I taught a 13 year old boy who was in foster care that was a heroin addict. His parents were heroin addicts, and when he was a baby, they would get high in their apartment. To keep him and his brother quiet, they would inject them with heroin so that they wouldn't cry. When the police found them, he was literally doped up on heroin in a shoebox under his parent's bed. That wasn't a choice that he ever made. I know that's the exception rather than the rule, but stories like his do exist. Perhaps even sadder, due to the drugs' effect on his brain, he was also a convicted sex offender at age 11.

I'm not sure if anyone could ever make up a story as awful as this one.

frenetic wave
08-04-2011, 09:42 PM
Oh they know better, they just don't care because it's what everyone does. Or they believe that can control it (and a lot of people can) to a point where they don't have a problem.

Your perspective works for you, and it has kept you (I'm assuming) from becoming addicted, so that is a great and valid perspective for you. But it's hard to project a personal perspective into a universal one. Some people's lives are just different and poor, stupid decision from your vantage point may be a lesser of several evils from another's. There are 17 year olds who can barely read, which seems impossible and ridiculous, so I can surely imagine that a 14 year old can get wrapped up in drugs/alcohol to escape their situation or to belong to a social family without fully understanding what the lifelong consequences are. It's pretty wild how some people live and I'm glad drinking and smoking and drugs has always been a very deliberate and clear choice for me and others here. It means we're lucky and privileged.

pedro
08-04-2011, 10:17 PM
Oh they know better, they just don't care because it's what everyone does. Or they believe that can control it (and a lot of people can) to a point where they don't have a problem.

Just because you think it doesn't make it true. The world is a lot more complicated and a lot less black and white than you seem to think. Opening up your mind to the possibility that alternate points of view might, in some cases, have some validity is a healthy thing. You really ought to try it.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 01:19 AM
Just because you think it doesn't make it true. The world is a lot more complicated and a lot less black and white than you seem to think. Opening up your mind to the possibility that alternate points of view might, in some cases, have some validity is a healthy thing. You really ought to try it.

You aren't going to convince me that by the time someone is old enough to legally drink that they don't know the issues that it could cause. That isn't some closed minded thought process, its faith that people aren't actually that uneducated about it. Whether they choose to ignore such knowledge for whatever reason, I will accept. But to suggest that someone 21 years old doesn't know what alcohol can do to them, I just won't accept that 99.9% of people in that age group haven't been told about the side effects of it by that point in their life, at least in first world countries.

bigredmechanism
08-05-2011, 01:30 AM
But to suggest that someone 21 years old doesn't know what alcohol can do to them, I just won't accept that 99.9% of people in that age group haven't been told about the side effects of it by that point in their life, at least in first world countries.

I completely disagree.

A 21 year old may have an idea of the physical effects of drinking, sure. But most people that age have absolutely no clue about alcoholism and addiction unless they have experienced it firsthand or through their family. School education about drugs and alcohol is an absolute joke. Being able to recite all the types of cancer that smoking cigarettes causes does not necessarily demonstrate an understanding of the subject, it just shows that they were taught certain aspects.

But how can you actually teach someone addiction?

Granted, they know the word and understand it's definition, but in reality most people have little clue of the consequences of it, and most people will never really know the struggles unless they have the genetic misfortune for addiction propensity.

redsfandan
08-05-2011, 06:39 AM
I completely disagree.

A 21 year old may have an idea of the physical effects of drinking, sure. But most people that age have absolutely no clue about alcoholism and addiction unless they have experienced it firsthand or through their family. School education about drugs and alcohol is an absolute joke. Being able to recite all the types of cancer that smoking cigarettes causes does not necessarily demonstrate an understanding of the subject, it just shows that they were taught certain aspects.

But how can you actually teach someone addiction?

Granted, they know the word and understand it's definition, but in reality most people have little clue of the consequences of it, and most people will never really know the struggles unless they have the genetic misfortune for addiction propensity.

Good post.

Some people are just less likely to take things seriously. And, imo, unless someone has some kind of personal experience with addiction they're more likely to act like it's something they shouldn't worry about. Besides, alot of people think things won't happen to them when there's no reason to think that. (The 'that only happens to other people' mentality) That young people tend to feel invincible doesn't help either. Young people are just more likely to engage in risky behavior because they're less likely to take the consequences seriously.

I remember when I was in high school and we had to take a survey about different things we had done (like alcohol, specific drugs, casual sex, etc). And I remember some of my classmates took it as a joke.

"Yes I have done that."
"Oh Yeah I do that all the time."
"I haven't done that but I think I'd like to. I mean, hey, that sounds like fun!"
"No, I haven't done that but I've answered 'yes' to everything else so why not."

etc etc etc

Then again, I also remember one guy that told me that he just made a Christmas tree when he took his SAT's. :doh:

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 09:46 AM
But how can you actually teach someone addiction?

Granted, they know the word and understand it's definition, but in reality most people have little clue of the consequences of it, and most people will never really know the struggles unless they have the genetic misfortune for addiction propensity.

If you understand the definition, then you know enough to understand that there could be consequences for starting. Choosing to ignore it because "it won't happen to me" doesn't change that you understand it.

MWM
08-05-2011, 09:58 AM
If you understand the definition, then you know enough to understand that there could be consequences for starting. Choosing to ignore it because "it won't happen to me" doesn't change that you understand it.

So you're saying you've NEVER partaken of any substance considered addictive? Tobacco, alcohol, coffee, caffeine, etc....

pedro
08-05-2011, 10:10 AM
You aren't going to convince me that by the time someone is old enough to legally drink that they don't know the issues that it could cause. That isn't some closed minded thought process, its faith that people aren't actually that uneducated about it. Whether they choose to ignore such knowledge for whatever reason, I will accept. But to suggest that someone 21 years old doesn't know what alcohol can do to them, I just won't accept that 99.9% of people in that age group haven't been told about the side effects of it by that point in their life, at least in first world countries.

You're right. I'm not going to convince you of anything. You already know it all.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 10:19 AM
So you're saying you've NEVER partaken of any substance considered addictive? Tobacco, alcohol, coffee, caffeine, etc....

Caffeine, yes. I drink cola's. Never had tobacco, alcohol or coffee. Not that I am opposed to coffee, I just think it smells terrible so the idea of drinking it seems like a poor one for me.

And yes, I have a slight addiction to caffeine. Certainly get headaches if I haven't had some after about 8 hours of being awake.

MWM
08-05-2011, 07:37 PM
Ah, so you do have an addiction.

dougdirt
08-05-2011, 10:02 PM
Ah, so you do have an addiction.

I do indeed. But are we actually trying to compare caffeine to alcohol or illegal drugs? Any 5 year old can go to a store and buy a can of Coca Cola and get caffeine in it, legally.

bigredmechanism
08-07-2011, 10:42 AM
I do indeed. But are we actually trying to compare caffeine to alcohol or illegal drugs? Any 5 year old can go to a store and buy a can of Coca Cola and get caffeine in it, legally.

And at one point, any 5 yr old could buy Coca Cola that had cocaine derivatives in it.

dougdirt
08-07-2011, 01:31 PM
And at one point, any 5 yr old could buy Coca Cola that had cocaine derivatives in it.

At one time we thought the world was flat, it was ok to own slaves and believed there were witches with magical powers. What does it have to do with the conversation?

Redsfaithful
08-07-2011, 01:37 PM
The vast majority of 21 year olds don't know anything, let alone that their life could be catastrophically altered in any way.

All I know at 30 is that I don't know enough to judge others for decisions they make that harm themselves. Everyone has a drastically different life and life experience. None of us know that if put into someone else's shoes we'd be able to do anything differently. How anyone can judge someone like Winehouse instead of pitying her is beyond me. Maybe because we think in this country money and fame should be able to conquer any personal problem, which is a perverse thought and probably completely backward from reality. Money and fame exacerbate already existing issues.

Life is hard for most people. We are pretty clearly hard wired to seek out conscious altering experiences if you look through history at human behavior. Combine the two things and you'll sometimes have tragedy, and it's sad.

Redsfaithful
08-07-2011, 01:38 PM
At one time we thought the world was flat, it was ok to own slaves and believed there were witches with magical powers. What does it have to do with the conversation?

The point is drug laws are pretty arbitrary. Caffeine could easily be illegal, and if it were I'm sure you'd be on this board preaching about how anyone could choose not to drink coffee.

redsfandan
08-07-2011, 01:41 PM
The vast majority of 21 year olds don't know anything, let alone that their life could be catastrophically altered in any way.

All I know at 30 is that I don't know enough to judge others for decisions they make that harm themselves. Everyone has a drastically different life and life experience. None of us know that if put into someone else's shoes we'd be able to do anything differently. How anyone can judge someone like Winehouse instead of pitying her is beyond me. Maybe because we think in this country money and fame should be able to conquer any personal problem, which is a perverse thought and probably completely backward from reality. Money and fame exacerbate already existing issues.

Life is hard for most people. We are pretty clearly hard wired to seek out conscious altering experiences if you look through history at human behavior. Combine the two things and you'll sometimes have tragedy, and it's sad.

Good post.

dougdirt
08-07-2011, 02:35 PM
The point is drug laws are pretty arbitrary. Caffeine could easily be illegal, and if it were I'm sure you'd be on this board preaching about how anyone could choose not to drink coffee.

Had they never started drinking coffee, I am confident that they could choose not to start. Lets not pretend that in 99.9% of cases that people are forced to start doing drugs/drinking alcohol. They aren't. It is a decision that they make to start doing.

Redsfaithful
08-07-2011, 02:55 PM
It is a decision that they make to start doing.

I don't see the point.

dougdirt
08-07-2011, 02:57 PM
I don't see the point.

You said that I would be saying people could choose to not drink coffee. I took that to imply that you believe the decision to not drink coffee wasn't an option.

Redsfaithful
08-07-2011, 03:06 PM
I took that to imply that you believe the decision to not drink coffee wasn't an option.

No. People can choose not to do all sorts of things that are harmful to themselves, but sometimes they don't, because they are human.

dougdirt
08-07-2011, 03:13 PM
No. People can choose not to do all sorts of things that are harmful to themselves, but sometimes they don't, because they are human.

Sure. They are humans. Humans make poor decisions all the time. We all have done things we shouldn't have. But they are still choices we make and that has been my point all along. Drugs addicts are drug addicts because they made the choice to start using. Not for any other reason (in 99.9% of the cases that is). It is that persons own fault. They made the choice.

It is a sad situation. I have dealt with many addicted people in my life. I have seen what they can do to people and families. I have lost an uncle to a drug overdose. My best friends sister is a serious crack addict. It has ripped his family apart. I have multiple extended family members who are either coke addicts or big time pillheads. But at the end of the day, those people all have no one to blame but themselves.

frenetic wave
08-07-2011, 06:24 PM
It is a sad situation. I have dealt with many addicted people in my life. I have seen what they can do to people and families. I have lost an uncle to a drug overdose. My best friends sister is a serious crack addict. It has ripped his family apart. I have multiple extended family members who are either coke addicts or big time pillheads. But at the end of the day, those people all have no one to blame but themselves.

Similar to how you refuse to let several other posters frame yours with theirs, you can not frame someone else's experience with your own.

Redsfaithful
08-07-2011, 06:39 PM
But at the end of the day, those people all have no one to blame but themselves.

I still don't see your point.

dougdirt
08-07-2011, 06:48 PM
Similar to how you refuse to let several other posters frame yours with theirs, you can not frame someone else's experience with your own.

So these people didn't make the choice to start using? Is that what you are saying?

dougdirt
08-07-2011, 06:52 PM
I still don't see your point.

You don't get that no one but themselves led to them making the choice to start using?

Redsfaithful
08-07-2011, 06:57 PM
You don't get that no one but themselves led to them making the choice to start using?

I don't get why it matters when it comes to people's reaction to their tragedy. It doesn't reduce my empathy, and I don't understand why it sounds like it reduces yours.

frenetic wave
08-08-2011, 01:43 AM
So these people didn't make the choice to start using? Is that what you are saying?

If I am saying anything remotely related to the question you just posed, it is that your universal, non-biased, scientific default stance is actually incredibly loaded with your own personal bias.

Everything that ever happens can be traced to a choice and every choice consists of several factors, including the person's temperament, their emotional state, where they are in their development, what environment they are in, what mental state they are in, what influences are around them, etc etc.

You are filling in all those blanks yourself, and with ridiculous confidence, and I think that is why everyone is chirping in responding to you. They aren't responding to negate the idea that a choice is involved, they are responding to negate the idea that you know why and how people make choices.

dougdirt
08-08-2011, 02:37 AM
If I am saying anything remotely related to the question you just posed, it is that your universal, non-biased, scientific default stance is actually incredibly loaded with your own personal bias.

Everything that ever happens can be traced to a choice and every choice consists of several factors, including the person's temperament, their emotional state, where they are in their development, what environment they are in, what mental state they are in, what influences are around them, etc etc.

You are filling in all those blanks yourself, and with ridiculous confidence, and I think that is why everyone is chirping in responding to you. They aren't responding to negate the idea that a choice is involved, they are responding to negate the idea that you know why and how people make choices.

I don't know how or why they make their choices. I am simply saying and have been for this whole thread saying that they did make a choice.

TRF
08-08-2011, 04:29 PM
doug, no offense, but your view is kinda narrow minded. Kids that do not have the maturity to understand their choices, and get hooked on drugs are not really forced, but at the same time, they kind of are. walk around Lower Price hill, you will see what I mean.

But my point is we as a society build up talented, and even quasi talented people like Amy Winehouse. We make them into legends and wax poetic about how they were taken too soon. then some kid thinks "My God, if Amy couldn't deal, how can I..."

And that makes me want to wretch.

dougdirt
08-08-2011, 09:26 PM
doug, no offense, but your view is kinda narrow minded. Kids that do not have the maturity to understand their choices, and get hooked on drugs are not really forced, but at the same time, they kind of are. walk around Lower Price hill, you will see what I mean.


No, they kind of aren't. Idea's like that is what enables people. Don't make excuses for people making bad decisions.

*BaseClogger*
08-08-2011, 09:38 PM
No, they kind of aren't. Idea's like that is what enables people. Don't make excuses for people making bad decisions.

Are you really that naive? (I'm a white kid from the suburbs too)

Redsfaithful
08-09-2011, 12:44 AM
No, they kind of aren't. Idea's like that is what enables people. Don't make excuses for people making bad decisions.

You don't even have the slightest inkling that you might have a narrow view of something, do you?

If I have multiple people telling me I'm being naive I'd at least stop and consider what I'm saying a little.

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 01:50 AM
Are you really that naive? (I'm a white kid from the suburbs too)

You know where I grew up and what kind of situation I lived in?

frenetic wave
08-09-2011, 01:50 AM
It sounds like some folks need to erase all the unknown variables and they need to believe that "bad things" can be clearly traced back to a clear bad decision for their own peace of mind and to protect themselves from that "threat". There also might be the feeling that if you "cut them a break" and empathize that they will take advantage of your empathy and hurt you. I don't really see what other reasons there would be to have such a narrow, simplified take on things.

Kids don't start drugs because they received too much empathy or compassion in their lives, so I don't know how taking those away helps the situation.

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 01:52 AM
You don't even have the slightest inkling that you might have a narrow view of something, do you?

If I have multiple people telling me I'm being naive I'd at least stop and consider what I'm saying a little.

Nope, I don't. People decide to start drugs or drinking. They aren't forced to. Sorry, but that isn't a narrow view. Its a fact in 99.9% of the cases. I don't need to stop and consider what I am saying a little bit.

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 01:58 AM
It sounds like some folks need to erase all the unknown variables and they need to believe that "bad things" can be clearly traced back to a clear bad decision for their own peace of mind and to protect themselves from that "threat". There also might be the feeling that if you "cut them a break" and empathize that they will take advantage of your empathy and hurt you. I don't really see what other reasons there would be to have such a narrow, simplified take on things.

Kids don't start drugs because they received too much empathy or compassion in their lives, so I don't know how taking those away helps the situation.

It isn't about empathy or compassion. My simple take is that people make the decision to start something. Nothing more. Nothing less. People from all backgrounds are caught up in drug and alcohol addiction. Rich. Poor. Abused. Privileged. White. Black. Latino. Asian. Everything else. They aren't all being forced into these decisions because of what life threw them. They are choosing to make these decisions. What led them to make that decision is completely irrelevant short of someone holding a gun to their head or in the scenario provided earlier where parents forced it upon younger children. My point has been for the last 5 pages or so is that there was a decision made by the person to begin. That is all. Not that they don't deserve help. Not that they don't deserve empathy. None of that.

redsfandan
08-09-2011, 07:35 AM
Nope, I don't. People decide to start drugs or drinking. They aren't forced to. Sorry, but that isn't a narrow view. Its a fact in 99.9% of the cases. I don't need to stop and consider what I am saying a little bit.

I'm curious, so they are forced to use drugs or alcohol in 0.1% of the cases? Seriously, what situations make up that 0.1% in your view?

Just want to make sure I understand what you meant.

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 10:01 AM
I'm curious, so they are forced to use drugs or alcohol in 0.1% of the cases? Seriously, what situations make up that 0.1% in your view?

Just want to make sure I understand what you meant.

This was posted a few pages ago.


Usually, but not always. For one year, I taught a 13 year old boy who was in foster care that was a heroin addict. His parents were heroin addicts, and when he was a baby, they would get high in their apartment. To keep him and his brother quiet, they would inject them with heroin so that they wouldn't cry. When the police found them, he was literally doped up on heroin in a shoebox under his parent's bed. That wasn't a choice that he ever made. I know that's the exception rather than the rule, but stories like his do exist. Perhaps even sadder, due to the drugs' effect on his brain, he was also a convicted sex offender at age 11.

redsfandan
08-09-2011, 10:05 AM
This was posted a few pages ago.

Yeah Doug, I read that before. But, are you saying that unless something like THAT happens that anyone that becomes an addict has chosen that path?

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 10:14 AM
Yeah Doug, I read that before. But, are you saying that unless something like THAT happens that anyone that becomes an addict has chosen that path?

Not exactly. I am not saying they chose that path, especially with something like alcohol compared to crack, where the addiction isn't there for everyone. But that it all began with a decision to start doing something they either knew was wrong (drinking underage - you know its wrong even if you don't grasp the entire spectrum, you know you aren't supposed to be doing it) or by the time you are 21 and legally allowed to drink you know that there are alcoholics out there and that could happen to you. With drugs, its even worse as they tend to be even more addictive but people don't get into them at the same age as they do alcohol. They don't choose to become an addict, but they choose to begin doing something that they know is either wrong for them to do (illegal) or that they know has a chance of leading to a serious addiction problem.

MWM
08-09-2011, 10:22 AM
Doug, the problem is that you're completely ignoring the voluminous scientific work that's been done over hundreds of years in understanding human behavior. You've completely dismissed all of it as you seem to have the answers and have no need for science. There's an entire body of work on evolutionary psychology that's just beginning to scratch the surface on the human psyche. It's fascinating. You should give it look.

It's not like this is all just opinion. There is real science that completely contradicts what you're saying. You realize you're saying you know better than the best scientific minds in the world, right?

redsfandan
08-09-2011, 10:32 AM
Not exactly. I am not saying they chose that path, especially with something like alcohol compared to crack, where the addiction isn't there for everyone. But that it all began with a decision to start doing something they either knew was wrong (drinking underage - you know its wrong even if you don't grasp the entire spectrum, you know you aren't supposed to be doing it) or by the time you are 21 and legally allowed to drink you know that there are alcoholics out there and that could happen to you. With drugs, its even worse as they tend to be even more addictive but people don't get into them at the same age as they do alcohol. They don't choose to become an addict, but they choose to begin doing something that they know is either wrong for them to do (illegal) or that they know has a chance of leading to a serious addiction problem.

By getting in my car today I'm risking getting into an accident. By crossing the street I'm risking getting run over. By eating anything I'm risking getting food poisoning, salmonella, etc. ... Maybe I should just live in a bubble. But, then if my body isn't exposed to anything at all the one time it is could result in trouble. Wow, I don't know what to do now. :confused:

Risky behavior is drinking when you're way too young, depressed, have a family history of addiction, etc. If a 21 year old that doesn't have any factors that indicate that they're a high risk for a drinking problem goes into a bar and has a beer I wouldn't say that they're being reckless.

The fact is everyone is vulnerable to peer pressure and social pressures. EVERYONE. Whether you chose to believe it or not that is a fact. It's part of what makes us human. We're not robots. And some are more vulnerable. To imply that all teens think about all that stuff and really understand the risks when they're at a party and someone is telling them to try something is something I just don't buy.

TRF
08-09-2011, 02:40 PM
No, they kind of aren't. Idea's like that is what enables people. Don't make excuses for people making bad decisions.

11 year olds aren't people, they are 11 year olds. You have no kids, therefore no frame of reference. In this case it is better to defer to those that do.

TRF
08-09-2011, 02:50 PM
At 10, 11, 12 years of age, most people that eventually drink, smoke or do drugs have been exposed to these things. peer pressure on a 10 year old can be overwhelming. And it isn't like Nancy Reagan is here to tell us to just say no anymore. Not that that ever worked. My entire family has been ravaged by drugs and alcohol. Sister is an addict, 2 brothers are alcoholics. Mother sold pot to my friends when i was 11. 2 uncles committed suicide... and on and on. I've never tried a drug, but in that environment i'm certainly the exception.

And thank god for that.

Pre teen you do NOT have the life experience to know what drugs will do to you. And when drug free america PSA's came on tv, my kids usually went to the bathroom.

When it comes to those seductive substances peer pressure wins out a lot. And some people are genetically predisposed towards addiction. Who knows why.

your 99.9% figure is ridiculous. It also detracts from my point that the media paints these addicted "talents" as tragic figures. splashing their faces on tv with dramatic music like we lost someone special. We didn't. Her parents lost a daughter, but they lost her a long time ago.

westofyou
08-09-2011, 02:55 PM
Empathy takes time, and efficiency is for things, not people

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 03:03 PM
Doug, the problem is that you're completely ignoring the voluminous scientific work that's been done over hundreds of years in understanding human behavior. You've completely dismissed all of it as you seem to have the answers and have no need for science. There's an entire body of work on evolutionary psychology that's just beginning to scratch the surface on the human psyche. It's fascinating. You should give it look.

It's not like this is all just opinion. There is real science that completely contradicts what you're saying. You realize you're saying you know better than the best scientific minds in the world, right?

So science says that we don't make decisions, but that everything is predetermined? Because all that I am saying is that at some point, we all either make the decision to begin drinking/doing drugs and in 99.9% of the cases, we know we shouldn't even if we don't fully understand why we shouldn't. That is what I am saying.

pedro
08-09-2011, 03:25 PM
Dear lord you have to be the most obstinate human on the planet.

..

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 03:45 PM
Dear lord you have to be the most obstinate human on the planet.

..

Probably true. I am very set in my beliefs and ways.

pedro
08-09-2011, 03:53 PM
Probably true. I am very set in my beliefs and ways.

The ability to consider alternate points of view is a healthy thing Doug. It really is. I know that it doesn't seem like it to you now but being so dogmatic about your beliefs isn't going to serve you well in life. And believe me when I say that EVERYONE finds out they were wrong about something, often very big things, in life. Typically very often. It's just par for the course.

dougdirt
08-09-2011, 04:03 PM
The ability to consider alternate points of view is a healthy thing Doug. It really is. I know that it doesn't seem like it to you now but being so dogmatic about your beliefs isn't going to serve you well in life. And believe me when I say that EVERYONE finds out they were wrong about something, often very big things, in life. Typically very often. It's just par for the course.

I don't dismiss alternate points, I just tend to need to see plenty of evidence that contradicts what I already have seen that has given me the opinion that I have. It isn't as if I just decide "well, I am right". There are reasons that one gets to that point, and for me, its because I have seen evidence in some shape that says "well yeah, that makes perfect sense".

pedro
08-09-2011, 04:11 PM
I don't dismiss alternate points, I just tend to need to see plenty of evidence that contradicts what I already have seen that has given me the opinion that I have. It isn't as if I just decide "well, I am right". There are reasons that one gets to that point, and for me, its because I have seen evidence in some shape that says "well yeah, that makes perfect sense".

I might suggest then that you may want to consider reframing the way that you posit your arguments as I don't think I am alone in feeling that you don't give the impression that you are anything but dismissive of alternate viewpoints.

pedro
08-09-2011, 04:14 PM
.

Roy Tucker
08-09-2011, 04:27 PM
And believe me when I say that EVERYONE finds out they were wrong about something, often very big things, in life.

Obviously, you've never met my wife. Never been wrong about anything and never will be. According to her.

;)

MWM
08-09-2011, 09:21 PM
well Doug, if "evidence" is what you're really after in forming your opinions, there's plenty of it out there from sources who have seen a heck of a lot more than you or I have. Basing opinions on evidence is a good thing, you just need to understand the difference between reliable evidence and subjective opinion (that's not really evidence).

dabvu2498
08-09-2011, 10:53 PM
Obviously, you've never met my wife. Never been wrong about anything and never will be. According to her.

;)

I always knew I felt some sort of kinship with you. But it wasn't til now that I realized we're married to the same woman.

Redsfaithful
08-10-2011, 12:47 AM
I don't dismiss alternate points, I just tend to need to see plenty of evidence that contradicts what I already have seen that has given me the opinion that I have. It isn't as if I just decide "well, I am right". There are reasons that one gets to that point, and for me, its because I have seen evidence in some shape that says "well yeah, that makes perfect sense".

Do you have Asperger's? Serious question.

dougdirt
08-10-2011, 01:59 AM
Do you have Asperger's? Serious question.

Nope.

MWM
08-10-2011, 09:33 AM
doug, if all you saw were 30 at-bats for a baseball player over the course of a season, I hardly think you'd be drawing conculsions as to the skill level of that player. You have to understand that the approach you laid out above as to how you come to your conclusions is basically that. Unless you work in a field that looks deeply into the issues you're opining on, your sample is very arbitrary and extremely limited and miniscule.

You say you need to see a lot of evidence to contradict your opinion. Well, if that same ballplayer had thousands of at-bats worth of data compared to your 30 random at-bats, I'd say you'd probably go with the data. The very things around addiction and human behavior we're discussing in the this thread has the equivalent of thousands of at-bats worth of research and data. And it ALL contradicts your POV based on your subjective experience. So the idea that you just need a lot of evidence is either completely false and just a excuse to never have to change an opinion; or, you don't really understand what kind of evidence matters.

Here's the kicker, once upon a time I was similar in my approach to things. Opening your mind to learning and discovery is a wonderful thing and can be exhilarating. I've heard it referred to as intellectual emancipation. You'd love it, I promise!

dougdirt
08-10-2011, 07:41 PM
doug, if all you saw were 30 at-bats for a baseball player over the course of a season, I hardly think you'd be drawing conculsions as to the skill level of that player. You have to understand that the approach you laid out above as to how you come to your conclusions is basically that. Unless you work in a field that looks deeply into the issues you're opining on, your sample is very arbitrary and extremely limited and miniscule.

You say you need to see a lot of evidence to contradict your opinion. Well, if that same ballplayer had thousands of at-bats worth of data compared to your 30 random at-bats, I'd say you'd probably go with the data. The very things around addiction and human behavior we're discussing in the this thread has the equivalent of thousands of at-bats worth of research and data. And it ALL contradicts your POV based on your subjective experience. So the idea that you just need a lot of evidence is either completely false and just a excuse to never have to change an opinion; or, you don't really understand what kind of evidence matters.

Here's the kicker, once upon a time I was similar in my approach to things. Opening your mind to learning and discovery is a wonderful thing and can be exhilarating. I've heard it referred to as intellectual emancipation. You'd love it, I promise!

I don't see the comparison of 30 at bats compared to 1000 at bats as the same as making a choice to use alcohol/drugs or it not being a choice.

Jr's Boy
08-10-2011, 08:42 PM
She was my favorite singer,a throwback to the great girl singers of old.She was a jazz singer.No pop princess by any means.I knew this day would come,but I didnt believe so soon.She struggled with Anorexia,as well as addiction.I'm still in shock she's gone,and saddened I never got to see her live.The media is so cruel,they praise you when your coming up,but once you hit the top,they do everything they can to chastice you and knock you down.
RIP Amy,Adele is carrying the torch now.

MWM
08-10-2011, 10:00 PM
I don't see the comparison of 30 at bats compared to 1000 at bats as the same as making a choice to use alcohol/drugs or it not being a choice.

Me either. But I also don't see where I made that comparison.

dougdirt
08-10-2011, 11:05 PM
Me either. But I also don't see where I made that comparison.

Well the only point I have been trying to make in this entire thread is that she chose to start using drugs or that people choose to start using drugs. So I took your response to suggest that somehow that was an incorrect stance.

RFS62
08-11-2011, 08:38 AM
Well the only point I have been trying to make in this entire thread is that she chose to start using drugs or that people choose to start using drugs. So I took your response to suggest that somehow that was an incorrect stance.



I imagine that nobody who ever "chose" to start doing drugs thought in their wildest dreams that they would end up like she did.

The whole point about people being different, some more prone to addiction than others, seems to be what you're ignoring. Those on this thread who have been around the block a few times have seen all kinds of people from all walks of life end up on the wrong end of that equation.

What makes perfect sense to you may be totally irrelevent to another. People are different. Some strong, some weak, some chemical imbalances which add to the mix.

RANDY IN INDY
08-11-2011, 10:51 AM
I tend to be a little obstinate in my thinking, maybe not as obstinate as Doug, but sometimes pretty obstinate. My wife got totally upset and irritated with me once and in anger said this, "You have no problem accepting that people are born with some physical handicap, or people that are obviously mentally ill, but you really have a problem accepting that something might not be quite right with the internal makeup of an individual, and the tendencies that they might suffer because of it." It hit me like a ton of bricks and I have been different in my thinking ever since then. I am still obstinate about some things but I have came a long way.

Roy Tucker
08-11-2011, 04:17 PM
I guess the analogy I think of is the person with the peanut allergy.

The first time they go to eat a peanut, they think "hey, looks good, should be no problem, I'll try one, a peanut seems pretty harmless". Little do they know that after the first nut, their body goes into anaphylactic shock and they'll die within minutes. They had no idea what the cost was going to be when they ate that peanut.

Sure, they had a choice of eating it and yeah, maybe comparing a peanut to a beer or a joint is a little bit of a stretch, but I think this is roughly in the same magnitude.

dougdirt
08-12-2011, 12:58 PM
I guess the analogy I think of is the person with the peanut allergy.

The first time they go to eat a peanut, they think "hey, looks good, should be no problem, I'll try one, a peanut seems pretty harmless". Little do they know that after the first nut, their body goes into anaphylactic shock and they'll die within minutes. They had no idea what the cost was going to be when they ate that peanut.

Sure, they had a choice of eating it and yeah, maybe comparing a peanut to a beer or a joint is a little bit of a stretch, but I think this is roughly in the same magnitude.

I don't really think its the same though. There aren't commercials on tv telling everyone under the age of 21 to not eat peanuts. We don't see people on the streets who are homeless because they have a peanut problem. There aren't DARE programs at every elementary school cautioning us of staying away from peanuts.

Do people underestimate the effect of their decision to drink that first beer or take that first drug? Yeah, they probably do. But they also go into it knowing that they shouldn't be doing it. People with a peanut allergy who don't know they have it don't go into eating a peanut with the same ideas.

*BaseClogger*
08-12-2011, 01:40 PM
I'm addicted to beer and weed!

MWM
08-12-2011, 04:47 PM
Do people underestimate the effect of their decision to drink that first beer or take that first drug? Yeah, they probably do. But they also go into it knowing that they shouldn't be doing it. People with a peanut allergy who don't know they have it don't go into eating a peanut with the same ideas.

Doug, there are literally thousands of things you can do that *could* lead to harmful things happening. Do you really live your life never doing anything that has any possibility of leading to harm? You said yourself you're addicted to caffeine! It might not have the destructive effect of illegal drugs, but it can have a real impact on the quality of life one can have. And it's doing harm to your body. Yet you chose to do it that first time knowing what it could lead to and the harm it can do to your body. Sugar can be incredibly harmful, but I highly doubt you just avoid it altogether because it could lead to addiction, serious obesity, and even death.

You're making an argument on principle, which means that the magnititude of circumstances isn't relevant. In other words, you're judging an individual for making that first choice to do something that could be harmful under certain circumstances. That's the principle you're standing behind. You said yourself that you've done the same thing. If it's OK that you did it for caffeine because it's not as harmful as alcohol, then your argument falls entirely apart. If it's OK for some harmful things but not for others, then your argument has no merit and is nothing more than your own subjective interpretation of what's bad enough to never choose to start and what's still OK because it's not that bad.

Choosing to never partake of anything in life that has even a small chance of leading to something harmful is no way to live. I seriously doubt you live this way, but like many people you seem to find problems with the ones you don't do but seem to be OK with the ones you do.

dougdirt
08-12-2011, 05:02 PM
Doug, there are literally thousands of things you can do that *could* lead to harmful things happening. Do you really live your life never doing anything that has any possibility of leading to harm? You said yourself you're addicted to caffeine! It might not have the destructive effect of illegal drugs, but it can have a real impact on the quality of life one can have. And it's doing harm to your body. Yet you chose to do it that first time knowing what it could lead to and the harm it can do to your body. Sugar can be incredibly harmful, but I highly doubt you just avoid it altogether because it could lead to addiction, serious obesity, and even death.
I didn't know the effects of caffeine at the age of 4 or 5 when I had my first soda.



You're making an argument on principle, which means that the magnititude of circumstances isn't relevant. In other words, you're judging an individual for making that first choice to do something that could be harmful under certain circumstances. That's the principle you're standing behind. You said yourself that you've done the same thing. If it's OK that you did it for caffeine because it's not as harmful as alcohol, then your argument falls entirely apart. If it's OK for some harmful things but not for others, then your argument has no merit and is nothing more than your own subjective interpretation of what's bad enough to never choose to start and what's still OK because it's not that bad.
First off, I never said I have done the same thing. Though I have since I have taken prescription drugs after surgeries and such that have a chance of addiction. So now I have said it. And it isn't so much MY interpretation as it is the laws. A 5 year old can't go to the store and walk out with a beer. He can go to the store and walk out with a Coke.

bigredmechanism
08-12-2011, 09:46 PM
I don't really think its the same though. There aren't commercials on tv telling everyone under the age of 21 to not eat peanuts. We don't see people on the streets who are homeless because they have a peanut problem. There aren't DARE programs at every elementary school cautioning us of staying away from peanuts.

Do people underestimate the effect of their decision to drink that first beer or take that first drug? Yeah, they probably do. But they also go into it knowing that they shouldn't be doing it. People with a peanut allergy who don't know they have it don't go into eating a peanut with the same ideas.

But why should they not be drinking beer?

It's legal.

redsfandan
08-12-2011, 11:11 PM
I don't really think its the same though. There aren't commercials on tv telling everyone under the age of 21 to not eat peanuts. We don't see people on the streets who are homeless because they have a peanut problem. There aren't DARE programs at every elementary school cautioning us of staying away from peanuts.

Do people underestimate the effect of their decision to drink that first beer or take that first drug? Yeah, they probably do. But they also go into it knowing that they shouldn't be doing it. People with a peanut allergy who don't know they have it don't go into eating a peanut with the same ideas.

I was raised Irish Catholic (My sister got into geneology a few years ago and told me that we may have more German in us but that it was hard to tell). Anyway, family get togethers always involved adults (and some clever older teens) enjoying a drink or two ... or sometimes 'more'. A drink or two by the pool would turn into a drink with dinner and then the fun really started.

I never saw the stuff that you did Doug. I got lucky that way. Real lucky. But, I also never got the feeling that drinking alcohol was something that people shouldn't do. The only thought I had when I was little was that alcohol was for adults and older teens. And also that beer was 'yucky'. A few years later and I was like 'whoa, this isn't what I expected'. But, that's it. When someone like a teacher warns kids about things like alcohol or drugs the kid isn't going to listen that intently. They'll listen to their friends more than anything. And if drinking is a normal thing in a family setting for non-little kids how is one of those little kids supposed to know that they shouldn't drink alcohol when they're older. When you were in school and were warned about alcohol and drugs what did you do. Did you think of people you knew that had been affected by addiction. When another kid doesn't have that kind of personal connection to addiction what are they supposed to think of?

One other thing, I understand that you're pretty set in your beliefs. What you believe is up to you. It's not up to us to convince you of a different view. If we can great. But, shouldn't you be open to the possibility that what you think isn't 100% correct. Maybe it's just 50% correct. It's not a bad thing to be open to different views.

dougdirt
08-13-2011, 12:18 AM
I was raised Irish Catholic (My sister got into geneology a few years ago and told me that we may have more German in us but that it was hard to tell). Anyway, family get togethers always involved adults (and some clever older teens) enjoying a drink or two ... or sometimes 'more'. A drink or two by the pool would turn into a drink with dinner and then the fun really started.

I never saw the stuff that you did Doug. I got lucky that way. Real lucky. But, I also never got the feeling that drinking alcohol was something that people shouldn't do. The only thought I had when I was little was that alcohol was for adults and older teens. And also that beer was 'yucky'. A few years later and I was like 'whoa, this isn't what I expected'. But, that's it. When someone like a teacher warns kids about things like alcohol or drugs the kid isn't going to listen that intently. They'll listen to their friends more than anything. And if drinking is a normal thing in a family setting for non-little kids how is one of those little kids supposed to know that they shouldn't drink alcohol when they're older. When you were in school and were warned about alcohol and drugs what did you do. Did you think of people you knew that had been affected by addiction. When another kid doesn't have that kind of personal connection to addiction what are they supposed to think of?

One other thing, I understand that you're pretty set in your beliefs. What you believe is up to you. It's not up to us to convince you of a different view. If we can great. But, shouldn't you be open to the possibility that what you think isn't 100% correct. Maybe it's just 50% correct. It's not a bad thing to be open to different views.

Until I was an adult I didn't know about any of my family members issues with drugs. My best friends sister hadn't gone wild yet.

As far as drinking goes.... all it took for me was seeing an adult just making an absolute fool of themselves for me to decide I never wanted to be "that guy" and I never have thought about drinking from that day. Not that I thought about it before then, because I was fairly young.

But to your point about kids listening to their friends rather than say, teachers/parents.... You are right. Most do. I didn't. Even back then, I always was right and couldn't be talked into something I didn't want/believe in. But still, even in the situation you provided, you knew that drinking was for older people that weren't you. You may not have understood why exactly, but you knew that you weren't supposed to be doing it yet. That is all I am saying.

dougdirt
08-13-2011, 12:21 AM
But why should they not be drinking beer?

It's legal.

It's legal for those 21 or older.

TRF
08-15-2011, 12:54 PM
I'll state this again, as it seems to be getting lost. Kids through age 14 do not have the life experience to understand the ramifications of drug use. They simply as a whole do not know what will happen, even if they can see it happening to others in their family or peer groups. Kids are stupid like that. My daughter (step daughter) had an uncle that died of cancer. The cancer was brought about by smoking. Now my daughter isn't stupid, She was in SADD, was a decent student, attended college and now smokes a pack a day. Started at 16 we think, but possibly sooner.

What makes it worse is that despite all these programs (and a lot of them are cut due to a lack of funding) the MEDIA will then tell these same kids about how tragic Amy Winehouse's death was, that we lost her too soon. That HER death was a tragedy.

meh.

What's truly tragic is that anyone wasted time on Amy Winehouse's obituary. She set her destiny in motion long ago, but the media needs to sensationalize it, like every other star drug/alcohol related death. And it seems some unnamed kid somewhere will do something stupid because of this, but we'll never hear about it, because THAT death or injury or attempt just isn't tragic enough.

RedFanAlways1966
08-16-2011, 07:37 AM
What makes it worse is that despite all these programs (and a lot of them are cut due to a lack of funding) the MEDIA will then tell these same kids about how tragic Amy Winehouse's death was, that we lost her too soon. That HER death was a tragedy.

meh.

A true tragedy is the 47-yr-old man (father of 2) who died in accident at one of my comapny's manufacturing facilities last week. Not Amy Winehouse. I feel bad for the people who liked her music and I feel awful for her family/friends. But sometimes people make their own bed. Unlike a hard working person who is killed while earning a living.

RFS62
08-16-2011, 08:14 AM
I didn't know we had to rank the level of tragedy before we get to feel a sense of loss here.

Whatever made her weak, I don't know. It's a very sad thing to see someone with such potential at such a young age who seemingly has it all, fame, talent, money, the world at her fingertips, and she drives off a cliff.

redsfandan
08-16-2011, 10:03 AM
I didn't know we had to rank the level of tragedy before we get to feel a sense of loss here.

Whatever made her weak, I don't know. It's a very sad thing to see someone with such potential at such a young age who seemingly has it all, fame, talent, money, the world at her fingertips, and she drives off a cliff.

Thank you.

It doesn't matter to me if it's a talented 20 something that od's, a father that dies while on the job, or a teen that should 'know better' and starts smoking anyway. They're all sad situations to me.

RedFanAlways1966
08-16-2011, 02:02 PM
I prefer to say a different level of sadness. Not at all one in the same. We are all God's creatures (if you believe) and premature death is never good. But the level of sadness for me when thinking of a hard working man killed on the job site vs. an entertainer that seemed to ignore many chances to keep her alive is on different ends of the sadness spectrum.

bigredmechanism
08-16-2011, 10:51 PM
I prefer to say a different level of sadness. Not at all one in the same. We are all God's creatures (if you believe) and premature death is never good. But the level of sadness for me when thinking of a hard working man killed on the job site vs. an entertainer that seemed to ignore many chances to keep her alive is on different ends of the sadness spectrum.

I definitely agree to an extent, but at the same time I feel bad anytime someone passes on. Maybe not personally, but there is always family and friends of the person who I feel for.

I really don't know how else I could explain it: it's a tough road for someone.

KoryMac5
08-23-2011, 04:19 PM
Toxicology reports are back in today and Amy Winehouse was clean when she died. So as of right now her death remains a mystery.

paintmered
08-24-2011, 07:48 AM
Toxicology reports are back in today and Amy Winehouse was clean when she died. So as of right now her death remains a mystery.

Woah. Didn't expect that. :eek:

Slyder
08-24-2011, 11:24 AM
Toxicology reports are back in today and Amy Winehouse was clean when she died. So as of right now her death remains a mystery.

Beat up her body to the point that it just quit?

Chip R
08-24-2011, 11:53 AM
Beat up her body to the point that it just quit?

Either that or her system was so used to drugs it couldn't handle a clean system. ;)

dougdirt
08-24-2011, 06:56 PM
Toxicology reports are back in today and Amy Winehouse was clean when she died. So as of right now her death remains a mystery.

I was listening to Q102 this morning on my way home and the host was talking about this. He made the point that, while there were no illegal drugs in her system according to the family release, there was no mention of whether or not there were "legal" prescription drugs. Of course, he was just thinking out loud, but he mentioned that it seems more and more people are falling victim to death via those things these days. Just food for thought.

texasdave
10-26-2011, 11:12 AM
Death by misadventure.


Amy Winehouse died as the unintended consequence of drinking too much alcohol, a British coroner ruled Wednesday.
Coroner Suzanne Greenaway gave a verdict of "death by misadventure," saying the singer died of accidental alcohol poisoning. "The unintended consequence of such potentially fatal levels [of alcohol] was her sudden and unexpected death," Greenaway said.

PedroBourbon
10-26-2011, 12:09 PM
Should've gone to rehab

Chip R
10-26-2011, 03:48 PM
Should've gone to rehab

But she said, "No, no, no."

SunDeck
10-26-2011, 04:12 PM
Didn't her dad say she hadn't been drinking? If so, that must be an awful thing for a parent to go through, hoping it wasn't the thing it was most likely to be.