The end of Brangelina? - Page 3

Habits are hard to break. Ever try to quit biting your nails? It's nearly impossible for some. Would you call them nail addicts?

We are a result of nature versus nurture. If everything in our socialization experiences were held constant, people would react differently to the same scenario because of their idiosyncrasies. This is true of "addicts". They all don't react the same way. Everyone has personal triggers that set them off. And how we respond to those triggers depend on what type of person we are. Some people lash outward, some people turn inward, others try and numb the pain through various means.

And I'd be curious to know if those people who have "good friends and family" perceive it the same way. People often turn to drugs and alcohol to fill an emptiness inside. I could see a scenario where people engage in those activities recreationally and then need more and more to reach the same highs, which in turn lead to a physical dependency. But very rarely do people engage in these types of activities at a dangerous level if they are happy people. 99% of the time there's an underlying issue.

I always wonder if that's more a result from being exposed to that stuff early in your life rather than a "gene". You see your Dad deal with shit by drinking? Maybe then you figure that's how people deal with shit. More of a learned behavior than DNA. Besides, don't we all have an alcoholic uncle?

I had a dangerous combination of curiosity and abandonment issues, so there is some validity there.

I learned it from watching you, dad!

Me too, though my curiosity didn't start til I was out of college. My friends drank and did drugs around me all the time. I had no need to try them. It wasn't until some major family drama went down toward my last few years of college that I tried various things and did them somewhat regularly. But, in my case, I was always able to stop cold turkey. Never felt the NEED to do anything. There are certain situations where I'll have a craving now and then, but you either remove yourself from the scenario or work through it until the craving passes. But even when I was partying, I never sought out various substances. It was pretty much out of sight, out of mind. If I didn't have access to drugs, I didn't do them.

The fucking mustache on that guy. My goodness. How he could have ever gotten close enough to a nostril is a mystery to this day.

I held out until midway though 8th grade, but I've always been a quick learner.

I thought there was some basis in fact to "you're prone to alcoholism if one of your parents was an alcoholic" in a nature (in addition to nurture) way, no?

EDIT:
http://www.healthwellnessdigest.com/...to-alcoholism/

"Genetics: If you have a history of alcoholism in your family, you are more vulnerable to alcohol addiction."

http://www.gannett.com/go/difference...2/secrets.html

"Although no specific gene has been identified as being responsible, researchers have found differences in the levels of a couple of key chemicals in the brain."

I've never seen one photo of Angelina where she didn't look like she was high as hell.

Well im also talking about the way they react to the drug. I have done Vicoden before and I thought it was alright. I was with a a guy when he did it for the first time and he fucking LOVED it. A couple years later I find out he is hooked on it and he is doing like 100 pills a day. If you buy into the idea of a predisposition then addicts get way more out of it.

I agree that emotional problems have a ton to do with it. Drew always said 90something percent of the people he treats have emotional issues. He also says that percent is 99 percent for opium addicts. But many people have many emitional issues but not all of them become drug addicts. I have been thorugh some very rough shit and didn't always have a loving support group to get me through it. However at no time did I get hooked on anything. Now I would like to believe that makes me touched by god or super strong willed but I doubt it, it's likely genetic.

Also im talking about something different then physical dependancy. Anyone can be physically dependent. But one the shit is out of your system some poipel crave it and others don't. Obviously it is possible to go through a bad time in your life and drown yourself in booze or whatever. However if you are able to pull yourself out and never want the drug again it could be argued that you were just going thorugh a bad time and were neverly truly an addict.

I don't understand this logic.

There were a million different causes of alcoholism listed in those links. And at the bottom of the latter one, it said:

If it were truly only a matter of low dopamine or seratonin, there are drugs that can be prescribed to level them out. Also, the studies are being conducted on people seeking help for alcoholism. I'd like to see the data on people who aren't alcoholics to see if there are people with low levels of chemicals in the brain but who aren't alcoholics. If there aren't any, there's your cause. But I doubt that's the case.

Yeah your right I should elaborate. Im talking about Diva's post about her tough time in college. Not if say your drinking so much you lose everything. You will hear people talking about their tough year where they drank alot or whatever but then they stopped and never went back. To me those might not be real addicts because they had the ability to stop even though it was tough. Other addicts can't stop no matter how hard their will is and they need a program.

Everyone can stop; they just don't know how. Yes, some people are compelled more than others. But if they can stop via treatment, then you can't say "they can't stop no matter what."

Right Diva but one is putting your life on hold and entering a program and the other is "well that sucked im not doing that anymore. Most of the people that just suddenly stop are stopped by the realization that shit isn't going well and they should probably lay off. Addics know she is bad, see the consequences and use anyway. To me a true addict isn't "substances are hurting my life and getting a bit out of control" it's substances are hurting my life and I just can't stop". Thats putting the drug over everything you love which takes on a powerful addiction. Again most people go thorugh bad shit but not all of them take drugs to deal. And even the ones who do usually stop at some point. An addict can't stop without some severe intervention and even then they have to really want it. Thats why I never buy into court ordered rehab.

I've known hardcore addicts that have gone to rehab, followed by therapy, and it has worked. I've known people that it didn't work for. I've known stone cold junkies that have kicked sans rehab successfully and stayed clean the rest of their ultimately productive lives. Transversely, I've known people who have had drug problems, quit cold turkey, and years later fell back down. Regardless of how long they stayed clean for and how they were able to do it, they were all addicted to drugs. Some just a few years, some their whole life.

Keep in mind, an overwhelming majority of the people I am talking about, especially the ones who had success righting the ship, experienced their struggles early in life. Perhaps that taints my judgment.

Again, if "addicts" can stop with rehab that means they do not have an incurable disease. If you read up on what occurs in rehab, they deal with the withdrawl symptoms first, but the majority of "treatment" is process group sessions and one-on-one therapy where people learn about their "triggers" and how to overcome them without the use of substances. It's not a medical intervention, which would be the case if substance abuse was the result of some chemical or genetic cause. And being able to overcome triggers is a lifelong thing. many will always have the urge to use because that's what their body was conditioned to do.

I'm starting to think we are coming at this from three completely different perspectives.

You think? :P I will concede that using drugs and alcohol changes the way your brain is wired. As such, people can become "addicts" in the sense that they can't rewire their neurological circuits to how they were pre-substance abuse, and thus, may spend a lifetime trying to circumvent their faulty wiring. That said, its not clear that people who are "addicts" had faulty wiring to begin with. I'm not sold on the predisposition thing yet. But I am sold in the fact that if people want and accept help, they can overcome pretty much any addiction. No one is doomed to fail because they have the innate inability to overcome substance abuse.

Ultimately what is so wonky about the way we view addicts is we view their problems cut off from their context. Addiction correlates with a number of factors. Unemployment. Lack of social and economic opportunities. Unhappiness. Abuse. Etc, etc. The way a person acts around intoxicants is primarily driven by how they're affected by the social net around them. Even the way people react when they drink varies depending on the country they reside in, and there's evidence showing the self-destructive actions we normally associate with addiction being less of an inherent trait and more determined by social circumstances.

And that's not even talking about how a person recovering from destructive addiction depends on the social plane they might reside in. People tend to recover from reliance on harder drugs if they have an economic (a job they can rely on which won't fire them at the smallest infraction), social (their friends and family willing to help them), and inward (optimism about their future, etc) capital. The stuff about genetics and brain chemistry is nebulous right now, and probably largely negligible for those interested in grabbling with these issues.

Of course. "Pre-disposition" doesn't discount the possibility of any of those other possible causes contributing or those others being the main cause. But it is food for thought and worthy of research. Just as some people's metabolism (as well as other physical and mental ailments) can be linked to genetics. "Is there a history of THIS in your family?" How your body (and brain) reacts to what it takes in has a great deal to do with how we are physically made up.

I'm not saying it can't be battled or avoided or that it should be used as an easy scapegoat. Just that it shouldn't be ignored.

I can see a few places here where there seems to be disagreement but I think it's partially perspectives and definitions differing.

Just because someone "kicked it on their own" doesn't mean they were not addicted (nor that they necessarily were addicted either). That's a little like saying "I had bronchitis and my doctor prescribed antibiotics. I didn't take them and I still got better. I must not have had an infection, and those antibiotics are never necessary for infections." Therapy is necessary for some people, not for others.

As for what addiction is... Well, the broad definition is anything that you continue to do despite escalating negative consequences. This is how you include shopping, love/sex, etc as addictions, and it would then encompass many obsessive-ish behaviors. More narrowly, it is usually intended to include things psychologically and/or physically addictive which alters dopamine reactivity in the brain, causes negative consequences in the user's life, and most "addicts" have more than one addiction or express the same tendencies in multiple areas. As in, one might be a primary pot addict but if it's not available, alcohol or xanax would be the second choice, etc.

I'm not an apologist for Dr. D. Drew Pinsky, but he is an MD with an active license and no citations in the state of CA, along with a perfectly decent resume. I'm sure that like many professionals there are supporters and "haters" of him, both amongst laypersons and other professionals. I don't know enough about the treatment of addiction to comment. However, I'd think (hope) if he was such a "quack" there would be more outcry against him amongst his peers.

In terms of genetic predisposition -- this is very hard to separate from environment, since many addicts are raised by their parents so they have an environmental influence.

As with ANY genetic predisposition, it is just that, a predisposition. Many traits are things we can predict a tendency for -- riskiness, some forms of aggression, etc -- but that is just a tendency and does not control the person.

As with any environmental predisposition, the same rules apply. Some people have a hellish youth and come through it sober. Others turn to substance use.

I will say that people who have been addicts and think they are "clean" but they are "ok to drink" or "ok to take vicodin" or whatever are, to me, probably fooling themselves. I obviously don't know everyone, and given the number of people currently living in the world, even one in a billion means there are 6 people like that aorund, so this is clearly a generality. With that caveat...
I have never known an addict who could use another substance without some degree of relapse. They might catch themselves before an all-out spiral, but the former [whatever] addict who tries to do a little pot or drink a few beers inevitable does some really stupid crap that comes back to have negative consequences and the person has to go full-on sober again or face the consequences.

This is why it is important for people to have others support them in their sobriety. Friends who are fine with no alcohol, etc.... Doctors who are fine with doing their best to avoid narcotic or addictive medications (mostly for pain or anxiety but there are a plethora), etc.

It would be nice if, instead of bickering over the details, we could support one another's sober choices.

I dunno. I guess I'm an anomaly. Or I was never addicted, which makes the detoxing I endured a few times seem strangely out of place and the two stints in rehab and the aggressive out patient therapy I went through seem oddly silly.

I was fucked up almost always (not hyperbole) between the ages of 14-20 on coke and heroin and hallucinogens and any pill within reach and whatever else I could ingest.

I have no qualms saying, and this may seem foolish, that I will never, ever touch anything harder than the very, very, very occasional joint. I drink socially.

It's just...people change. It sounds shockingly simple, and that attitude may not work for everybody (or, hell, anybody) else, but I'm not, at 36, the chemically dependent (mentally and physically) 16 or 19 year old I was.

Ali and Bele are smart people. Thanks for your input.

Bele, I don't think we were squabbling over details as working out our own personal philosophies. And Dr. Drew is not a quack, but it is a conflict of interest to have him comment on celebrity lives when he makes a living off of celebrities.

Raspberry, I have friends like that too. They did all sorts of drugs during their adolescence and early adulthood and then just stopped. They just "grew out of it". I think as Bele mentioned, substance abuse becomes a problem when it interferes negatively with your life. It seems in your (and my) case, it didn't so much.

Right which means to me you aren't an addict. Drew has always categorized addicts as continual use of the drug despite negative consequences. Using drugs once in a while isn't a problem, nor is some abuse, getting hooked and ruining your life is. Alot of doctors are even for legalization of marijuana, including Drew.

EDIT:Wow didn't read the thread clearly. Looks like that whole using while having neg consequences thing has been said a few times oops.

I agree with you except for the idea that people who were addicts not being able to drink again. I think that's something that is way too general about something that is pretty darn complicated. Some people work well with the AA model, others use other recovery schemes or none at all, some people never can touch a drink without relapsing (and its best we specify about what drug we're talking about), others manage to be able to have a few on occasion. I think the key here is not to use one size fits all mentality about this kind of thing.

So . . . Are Brad and Angie gonna make it or what . . . ?

And I think the "ability to grow out of it" is partially (not entirely) because of genetic predisposition. That is, people who are less (for all reasons) tending toward addiction are more able to experiment and quit. People who have all the genetics, environment, etc are less able to experiment and quit on their own. Not that the tendency controls the outcome, but again, we are talking generalities. Also age of onset matters. People who abuse (not experiment) at the age of 9, 12, 15 seem to have a harder time quitting than those who start at 19. Also, while I don't expect anyone to share their childhood trauma here, the worst addicts I have known (not many, granted!) have been not only emotionally abused but also seriously sexually abused, etc. so I don't know if that kind of deep, chronic trauma makes a difference compared to more "ordinary" trauma (not to negate anyone's trauma, obviously).

I agree that Dr. Drew makes a living off celebrities and is a quasi-celebrity, but that doesn't make it a conflict of interest to talk about them any more than a fishmonger is conflicted to talk about fish. I do think that he needs to tread carefully about maintaining the confidentiality of his patients and not "diagnosing without an exam." While normal people can opine and use hyperbole in conversation, you'd think someone who has made a career of extemporaneous public speaking would be better at not putting his foot in his mouth (e.g. the Lohan comment). I think the idea of paying people to be in rehab is interesting -- it is hard to get people to start, much less finish, a course as an inpatient and I do think for SOME people getting them sober and into a treatment plan for a while can really make a big difference in their life. I'm not sure money is the best motivator, but compared to waiting until it's court ordered or their life on the line, it may be the lesser of the evils,

Haven't you been reading. Dr. Drew is going to drown the couple in vats of beer until their cerebellums become raging alcoholics, smash out of the their respective brain pans and smash up the place. With Lindsey Lohan.

Well of course not but if it's due to drugs or not is apparently Dr. Drew's guess.

That's pretty interesting. A lot of the people I know who kicked the habits a lot easier were still in their youth (Most under the age of 21). It's when they get past that that it becomes harder for them (And is more than likely because they have a serious addiction problem).

I've known people like yourself who went through the same thing just to act out, or because they simply wanted to try those things and were able to kick it all quite easily. Since then they've made great strides and seem well adjusted - so for some it's clearly just a phase they need to go through.

You're completely right in saying that people change, and sometimes that's enough, but it's always better to look at the cause of the drug taking etc to get a better idea of where someone is at mentally and why they've started using. Like yourself (And probably a lot of people here) I've taken a lot of drugs recreationally but I know they weren't really something I wanted to pursue (Aside from the occasional joint after a particulary stressful week).

It's no good bringing up the 'addiction gene' theory again, but working with people who are addicts there's a definite family history of addiction there in the majority of cases (Again I do concede this is purely anecdotal evidence), even if they don't actually realise it at the time. That isn't to say that because your mother was an alcoholic that you will be too. Indeed it can have quite the opposite effect, more than likely because you've seen your mother or father at their worst and have no desire to replicate it. The problem is that for everything 'for' there's an 'against', so trying to determine just what causes addiction is a troublesome thing.

[QUOTE=James;3102341]It's no good bringing up the 'addiction gene' theory again, but working with people who are addicts there's a definite family history of addiction there in the majority of cases (Again I do concede this is purely anecdotal evidence), even if they don't actually realise it at the time. That isn't to say that because your mother was an alcoholic that you will be too. Indeed it can have quite the opposite effect, more than likely because you've seen your mother or father at their worst and have no desire to replicate it.[QUOTE]
Actually human beings tend to work the opposite way. When you grow up with something you often times will end up replicating it even even you had no intention of doing so. Chris Brown watches his step dad beat the fuck out of his mom crying wishing he could kill him and yet in a moment of rage beats the shit out of Rihanna. Women with abusive or even alcohlic fathers will often end up with with those types of men, often times wanting to fix them.(Funny side not, if those men do get fixed the woman often loses interest. Apparently there has been alot of girlfriends who stick by their guy all through rehab only to break up with them whe they are better which then casues them to relapse of course but again all subconsience). These things are how these horrible cycles of having too many children and fucking the wrong people and basically ruining your life happen.

Don't get me wrong I was one of those kids that swore I would never be like my parents and I pulled it off so yeah it is possible but many don't. As a matter of fact so many do it without even noticing it. One day they wake up in their 40s and realize that they have 3 kids by 3 different men just like mom. Or are very violent like dad.

But in a way it makes sense. If somewhere in out brain we are trained to replicate what we experience in childhood that also means we are replicating good loving families as well.