Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
Sure it can be cured. If you stay away from it and stop abusing it, then you've stopped becoming an addict. People do it all the time. No one says it's easy. Certainly the temptation may not go away. But doing it and being tempted to do it are very different. We are all constantly tempted by something in life. We're all addicts. Some of us control our vices, others don't. It's the resistance or lack thereof that separate the addicts from the abusers.
There is no such thing as an ex-addict. There is no one in the medical community nor any addicts that would ever agree with your stance. This isn't the same as wiping out smallpox. It's a disease and a condition. And your pov is misinformed.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
Sure it can be cured. If you stay away from it and stop abusing it, then you've stopped becoming an addict. People do it all the time. No one says it's easy. Certainly the temptation may not go away. But doing it and being tempted to do it are very different. We are all constantly tempted by something in life. We're all addicts. Some of us control our vices, others don't. It's the resistance or lack thereof that separate the addicts from the abusers.
By definition, chemical addictions cannot be cured, only managed.
A chemical addiction occurs when a certain chemical in one's brain is destroyed by the drug, and then replaced by the drug itself. Smokers have a certain, necessary drug missing from the brain, that was destroyed by smoking. The only way they can replace that chemical is by smoking (or a patch, etc). Same thing for alchohol, cocaine, heroin, and every chemical addiction.
Certain people can manage their addiction so it doesn't affect their lives in ways that it shows, but it always affects them. It is something that they have to fight every day for the rest of their lives. This is not psychology, it's chemistry.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
But you're cured when you stop giving in to temptation. The temptation may never be cured, but that's not what defines an addict. It's the follow-through.
That's a matter of curing the symptoms--not the disease.
I don't mean any disrespect to anyone in this thread, but can we get back to talking about baseball?
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TRF
There is no such thing as an ex-addict. There is no one in the medical community nor any addicts that would ever agree with your stance. This isn't the same as wiping out smallpox. It's a disease and a condition. And your pov is misinformed.
My POV be different than yours, but don't pretend you're the only one that's seen an addiction.
You become an ex-addict when you control your addiction. Period. If you control it, and do not allow yourself to be consumed by your addiction, you are not an addict. It's really not complicated.
The temptation isn't what defines an addict. As I said, it's the ability or inability to resist temptation. We're not considered an addict because we want to pick up a six-pack every night. We're considered an addict when we give in to the temptation to do it and wind up drinking 12 cans of beer.
The term "addict" is relative and based on one's actions. Everyone has an addiction. A vice. We've all given into our addictions at some point or another. Some of us have controlled them, others not. But by your standard, we're all addicts because we've all got addictive behavior and there are no such thing as ex-addicts.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNext44
By definition, chemical addictions cannot be cured, only managed.
A chemical addiction occurs when a certain chemical in one's brain is destroyed by the drug, and then replaced by the drug itself. Smokers have a certain, necessary drug missing from the brain, that was destroyed by smoking. The only way they can replace that chemical is by smoking (or a patch, etc). Same thing for alchohol, cocaine, heroin, and every chemical addiction.
Certain people can manage their addiction so it doesn't affect their lives in ways that it shows, but it always affects them. It is something that they have to fight every day for the rest of their lives. This is not psychology, it's chemistry.
That's not any different than overeating, watching too much television, etc. They're all dependencies. The only difference is that drug and alcohol addictions are more serious consequences for abuse.
Overeating is an addiction. Television is an addiction. You really think any of these things go away? They don't. People have to manage their addiction. Life is all about temptations. We all have them and it's up to us to control them.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
My POV be different than yours, but don't pretend you're the only one that's seen an addiction.
You become an ex-addict when you control your addiction. Period. If you control it, and do not allow yourself to be consumed by your addiction, you are not an addict. It's really not complicated.
The temptation isn't what defines an addict. As I said, it's the ability or inability to resist temptation. We're not considered an addict because we want to pick up a six-pack every night. We're considered an addict when we give in to the temptation to do it and wind up drinking 12 cans of beer.
The term "addict" is relative and based on one's actions. Everyone has an addiction. A vice. We've all given into our addictions at some point or another. Some of us have controlled them, others not. But by your standard, we're all addicts because we've all got addictive behavior and there are no such thing as ex-addicts.
If you never fell prey to the addictive behavior then you are not an addict, but once you do, then you always are, even if you learn to control it. It's fine if you don't agree, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the widely accepted POV within addiction treatment circles.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pedro
If you never fell prey to the addictive behavior then you are not an addict, but once you do, then you always are, even if you learn to control it. It's fine if you don't agree, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the widely accepted POV within addiction treatment circles.
POV i.e. opinion.
To be addicted is to give yourself to something compulsively or obsessively. To be dependent on it.
If you break yourself from the dependency and stop allowing yourself to give in to a temptation, you, by very nature, are not addicted because you are resisting it. When you have sustained this behavior for a period of time, you are no longer an addict.
That's not to say temptation goes away. Certainly in the case of chemical dependency, the urge may not go away. But again, the action is what separates us from the temptation. People can relapse. I'm not saying we will never again be tempted.
But again, an addict is based on actions, not desires. If you stop giving in to your addiction, then IMHO you are not an addict.
Part of the POV of treatment circles is held to apply strict psychological monitoring and control on substance abusers. Telling them they're an addict is a more strict reminder to avoid temptation than telling them they're not. It's as much a treatment ploy as it is a point of view. And make no mistake, I understand and agree with the rationale, but it doesn't make the POV right or wrong.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
That's not any different than overeating, watching too much television, etc. They're all dependencies. The only difference is that drug and alcohol addictions are more serious consequences for abuse.
Overeating is an addiction. Television is an addiction. You really think any of these things go away? They don't. People have to manage their addiction. Life is all about temptations. We all have them and it's up to us to control them.
They are completely different for the reason I stated. When you watch TV, it does not destroy a necessary chemical in brain that can only be replaced by watching TV.
Like I said, chemical addictions are physical, based on chemistry, not psychology. Being an addict is like being paralyzed. It's a physical condition that can be dealt with but not cured.
First thing you are taught in rehap is that you will be an addict until the day you die.
By the way, that is why people really aren't addicted to eating, watching TV, video games, sex... those addiction don't really exist. They are just a result of not enough will power. Still a real problem, but not an true addiction.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
I see no need to over-intellectualize this. Practically speaking, the underlying brain chemistry isn't terribly relevant. If you must take actions to avoid situations and circumstances which have a significant chance of leading you to engage in abuse, it's an issue.
Most people don't have to avoid any and all alcohol in order to avoid abusing it. Hamilton does. Call it whatever you want, but it's something to consider.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNext44
They are completely different for the reason I stated. When you watch TV, it does not destroy a necessary chemical in brain that can only be replaced by watching TV.
Like I said, chemical addictions are physical, based on chemistry, not psychology. Being an addict is like being paralyzed. It's a physical condition that can be dealt with but not cured.
First thing you are taught in rehap is that you will be an addict until the day you die.
By the way, that is why people really aren't addicted to eating, watching TV, video games, sex... those addiction don't really exist. They are just a result of not enough will power. Still a real problem, but not an true addiction.
Why isn't it a true addiction? An addiction is an obsession or compulsion that consumes our behavior. It doesn't matter what kind of addiction is... if it's something we let consume us, it's an addiction.
And actually studies have shown that in fact many addictions (including television) alter brain patterns and dependencies. Chemicals of the brain are in fact altered by patterned behavior. So the reality is every addiction is something that affects our psyche.
So actually, no, overeaters, television watchers, (fill in the addiction here) are just as much 'addicts' as anyone else. But like every other addict, they are capable of overcoming their addiction if they apply themselves.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
Why isn't it a true addiction? An addiction is an obsession or compulsion that consumes our behavior. It doesn't matter what kind of addiction is... if it's something we let consume us, it's an addiction.
And actually studies have shown that in fact many addictions (including television) alter brain patterns and dependencies. Chemicals of the brain are in fact altered by patterned behavior. So the reality is every addiction is something that affects our psyche.
So actually, no, overeaters, television watchers, (fill in the addiction here) are just as much 'addicts' as anyone else. But like every other addict, they are capable of overcoming their addiction if they apply themselves.
Altering chemicals in your brain, which as you said, is done every day by everyone, is completely different from having a necessary chemical in your brain destroyed, with no ability to create it anymore.
This is why one can be cured and the other not.
BTW, impressive debating skills here. This is a tough view to defend, and you're doing a bang up job. Still wrong, but impressive nonetheless ;)
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNext44
Altering chemicals in your brain, which as you said, is done every day by everyone, is completely different from having a necessary chemical in your brain destroyed, with no ability to create it anymore.
This is why one can be cured and the other not.
BTW, impressive debating skills here. This is a tough view to defend, and you're doing a bang up job. Still wrong, but impressive nonetheless ;)
Thanks. To you as well. But I do still vehemently stand by my point :)
http://www.brainy-child.com/article/tvonbrain.shtml
Quote:
Too much television — particularly at ages critical for language development and manipulative play — can impinge negatively on young minds in several different ways including the following:
Here is a better article comparing substance addiction and eating disorders.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MindMoodNe...ory?id=9699738
Quote:
Advances in neuroimaging have enabled researchers to peer inside the brains of addicts and patients with addictive behaviors. They can see, in real-time, what gets patients hooked: how the brain's reward system -- based largely on the neurotransmitter dopamine -- thirsts for more, while inhibitory control centers experience a system failure.
The pattern is similar across all kinds of behaviors -- from cocaine and tobacco addiction to overeating. That's why changing your mind may be the first step toward breaking a habit, but altering the brain's neural machinery is the real challenge.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
Altering the brain isn't the same as destroying a chemical and the ability to produce that chemical.
Managing a chemical addiction is not the same as curing a psychological addiction. And while you have made some salient points in your stance, you have not addressed this. Probably because you can't.
Addiction has destroyed my family. Absolutely destroyed it. To the point that I haven't spoken to my sister in 13 years, my brother in 4 years. I want no part of them around my kids.
Your pov, your opinion is there is such a thing as an ex addict. That isn't Hamilton's opinion, any addict's opinion or the opinion of the medical community at large. Based on that, you are wrong, period.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TRF
Altering the brain isn't the same as destroying a chemical and the ability to produce that chemical.
Managing a chemical addiction is not the same as curing a psychological addiction. And while you have made some salient points in your stance, you have not addressed this. Probably because you can't.
Addiction has destroyed my family. Absolutely destroyed it. To the point that I haven't spoken to my sister in 13 years, my brother in 4 years. I want no part of them around my kids.
Your pov, your opinion is there is such a thing as an ex addict. That isn't Hamilton's opinion, any addict's opinion or the opinion of the medical community at large. Based on that, you are wrong, period.
My cousin went through something you describe 15 years ago. Lost his wife, house, job, etc. He was a fall-down drunk.
I'm happy to say 15 years later, he has a wonderful home, a great relationship with his recently graduated son, he's second in command at a very large police precinct and has been sober for well over 10 years. My own brother was basically becoming a drug addict himself a few years ago. He's still a work in progress but has been clean for 2 years and is starting to get his own life back together.
I'm very sorry for what your family has gone through. But people can change. People can get their lives together and take over their addictions. It can and does happen everyday. To me, people confuse 'hard' with 'can't.' Substance abuse does not damage the brain beyond repair. It affects the producing of chemicals, but unless we're talking about a serious case where someone has overdosed on several occasions or gone into a drug-induced coma, they are not affected to the point where they can't still control themselves and get back on the right path.
Drug abuse can destroy certain chemicals in the brain. But it doesn't always and we're talking about more extreme cases when it does. But these studies show that drugs, overeating and television all have similar effects on the brain. The reason these drugs are addictive are because of dopamine levels. As I said, I don't deny there can be other side affects with the substance abuse, but that's not often the case.
Re: Hamilton for Volquez - then & now
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus the Pimp
My cousin went through something you describe 15 years ago. Lost his wife, house, job, etc. He was a fall-down drunk.
I'm happy to say 15 years later, he has a wonderful home, a great relationship with his recently graduated son, he's second in command at a very large police precinct and has been sober for well over 10 years. My own brother was basically becoming a drug addict himself a few years ago. He's still a work in progress but has been clean for 2 years and is starting to get his own life back together.
I'm very sorry for what your family has gone through. But people can change. People can get their lives together and take over their addictions. It can and does happen everyday. To me, people confuse 'hard' with 'can't.' Substance abuse does not damage the brain beyond repair. It affects the producing of chemicals, but unless we're talking about a serious case where someone has overdosed on several occasions or gone into a drug-induced coma, they are not affected to the point where they can't still control themselves and get back on the right path.
Drug abuse can destroy certain chemicals in the brain. But it doesn't always and we're talking about more extreme cases when it does. But these studies show that drugs, overeating and television all have similar effects on the brain. The reason these drugs are addictive are because of dopamine levels. As I said, I don't deny there can be other side affects with the substance abuse, but that's not often the case.
I'm happy for your cousin. I'm thrilled he's managed his addiction. I bet he'd tell you that managing his addiction isn't the same as curing it. He's not cured, and he never will be. He knows this, and you should too.
The likelihood of a relapse for Hamilton was great following that breakout season with the Reds. His drug history, and the unknown damage it has done to his body were probably the driving factors for trading him. Didn't hurt that the Rangers needed some offense at the time. It was risk-risk for both teams, and considering the fact that EV had TJ surgery and Hamilton is coming off a poor injury riddled 2009, I'd say the risk was equally shared. Going forward, the only real risk to EV's career is the normal risk for pitchers: throwing the ball. Hamilton has to deal with a body that may be prone to breaking down from the drug abuse AND the car accident and the possibility of a relapse. Advantage Reds.
