I guess I just think calling it a "disease" is a cop out for the addict and exonerates them of responsibility when if they really wanted to they could so something about it
I am grateful to Beth for her contribution, but I find myself struggling with medical science when scientists or doctors themselves seem to disagree so often. How frequently do we hear one statement from a scientist followed swiftly by an opposite perspective from another? As an ignorant layman - there, I said it! - I find it difficult to accept that so much can be explained by scientific analysis alone. Addiction is so complex a subject that I'm sure it cannot be explained solely by dopamine levels in one's brain. I would be interested to understand what percentage of the human brain is now mapped and fully understood and it would not surprise me to learn that this figure is less than 50%. Perhaps Beth has a figure? To explain away addiction as being something the subject (in this case Gazza) was the innocent victim of, powerless to resist doesn't sit comfortably with me. It isn't enough, I'm afraid. How is it that some people can kick addictive habits when others can't, or that some people can kick one addictive habit but not another? How is it that becoming addicted requires effort, i.e. a prolonged, excessive abuse of a substance, to the extent that it might be argued that the subject willingly becomes addicted? Why is it that despite the widely known dangers of substance abuse, be it alcohol, nicotine or some other narcotic, some people are prepared to choose these pastimes over something else? In Gascoigne's case he might have substituted his playing career with coaching or media work - in fact, there were failed efforts to pursue both. I dare say that as a celebrity idolised by many he could have taught youngsters, done charitable work, or thrown himself into some other venture. Again, all these opportunities were open to him in a way no ordinary person could possibly imagine. Can it really be true that his sorry decline, physically and mentally ravaged by demon drink, can be wholly blamed on chemical levels in his brain? In my ignorance - and I do mean ignorance compared to the likes of Beth - I just don't buy it. I accept that he is now in a position where he cannot help himself, but how long has he been in that position. There have been umpteen false dawns for the poor man. Can it be true that he's never been in a position to help himself? --- Another thing that I find so interesting about addiction is this: Why is it that on the one hand we are being compelled to believe that addiction exists in a form that the robs individuals of their own free will, thus rendering them powerless to resist (certainly without expensive help), yet on the other hand there is a growing lobby to legalise cannabis (and no doubt other narcotics)? If society truly believes addiction is that powerful, then why is the clamour for legalised weed growing? You'd have thought there would be a clamour to tighten and better enforce the drug laws. And also, whilst many treatments involve the use of other drugs and medicines, as I understand it to 'beat' most addictions requires a degree of willpower from the patient himself/herself. In other words, addiction cannot be 'beaten' without the patient intervening with his/her own free will, i.e. choosing to cease abusing the particular substance. Doesn't that tell you something? --- I have no desire to upset anybody when it comes to this subject. I have no doubt that many contributors on this board have some first or second-hand experience of addiction and the pain it can cause. But I sincerely doubt that it can be fully explained by science alone, certainly not by only what science has learned so far. If all behaviours can be ultimately explained by chemical engineering then all responsibility can ultimately be absolved. I look forward to being better educated on the subject.
Your last paragraph takes this into an entirely different place mate. I don't think I have the energy to go there at he moment, but may return....
He's probably had many more chances than the average pro to clean up his act. Just like bestie who carried on boozing after his transplant, some people just can't help themselves. It's getting to the stage when people (in general) are starting to think let's concentrate our efforts on those who can be helped. But I think because of who he was, people will always try and help him.
George Best, football genius, **** human being. Jumped the queue to get his transplant because of who he was then pissed it up the wall! Shouldn't speak ill of the dead but what an arsehole!
I don't mean to take this elsewhere and, if I'm reading you correctly, have no desire to open painful wounds for others; that's entirely their business. The point was merely to say that I hope my comments above do not upset anybody who has any close experience of the subject, not to invite anyone to share these experiences. A failure of articulation on my part, I'm afraid.
No, I didn't mean it in a negative sense at all, more (and sorry for the ponciness) of a philosophical one, about the boundaries of science, knowledge and freewill......not the time or place, and I doubt I have the tools to do it justice, and there are no definitive answers anyway (yet). Plus its nearly time for MOTD.
