Official 2011-2012 Texas Rangers' Offseason Thread - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Dirkadirkastan · 02-04-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

Alcoholism is a disease - you can't always just kick it cold turkey and never have a setback.

No, it isn't. I know people with real diseases; don't lump lack of self control in the same category.

jthig32 · 02-04-2012, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

No, it isn't. I know people with real diseases; don't lump lack of self control in the same category.

I don't know that I'd lump it in with true "diseases", but chemical addiction is not even close to simply "lack of self control". That's stupid.

Murphy3 · 02-05-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't know that I'd lump it in with true "diseases", but chemical addiction is not even close to simply "lack of self control". That's stupid.

Then call it an addiction. I'd say that I'm pretty hooked on caffeine at the moment. I wouldn't begin to call it a disease. Calling it a disease is just giving yourself an excuse.

jthig32 · 02-05-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Then call it an addiction. I'd say that I'm pretty hooked on caffeine at the moment. I wouldn't begin to call it a disease. Calling it a disease is just giving yourself an excuse.

If you'll notice in my post, I said I wasn't real comfortable with calling it a disease. But comparing it to "lack of self control" is idiotic.

chumdawg · 02-05-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

If you'll notice in my post, I said I wasn't real comfortable with calling it a disease. But comparing it to "lack of self control" is idiotic.

Do you mean to say that the ability to willing stay sober is sometimes outside a person's control?

jthig32 · 02-05-2012, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Do you mean to say that the ability to willing stay sober is sometimes outside a person's control?

Well let's define what we're talking about, first. People that abuse drugs and/or alcohol, become chemically dependent on them. They have very real and very difficult physical and emotional issues when they try to stop their habit. Some things are powerful enough that it doesn't even take abuse to create a dependency. I've walked alongside someone who had to wean off of a year of Oxicodone use (not abuse, used as prescribed) and it was horrific.

So telling someone that is chemically dependent to use their self control is of course possible, but it's somewhat akin to telling someone that is clinically depressed to "just be happy".

As for someone that has broken the dependency and is in recovery, it is certainly within their control, but let's not be like Murph and act like it's akin not having your morning coffee. If you want to get technical (which is what you want to do, being the board contrarian), then you are correct. But there was a context surrounding that term that was too dismissive, imo.

chumdawg · 02-05-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

If you want to get technical (which is what you want to do, being the board contrarian), then you are correct. But there was a context surrounding that term that was too dismissive, imo.

Then why didn't you say that the first time, before throwing around words like "idiotic?" You should be more careful, before you dismiss sentiments in such a heated fashion.

My apologies, if you perceive diplomacy as "technical" or "contrary."

nashtymavsfan13 · 02-06-2012, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well let's define what we're talking about, first. People that abuse drugs and/or alcohol, become chemically dependent on them. They have very real and very difficult physical and emotional issues when they try to stop their habit. Some things are powerful enough that it doesn't even take abuse to create a dependency. I've walked alongside someone who had to wean off of a year of Oxicodone use (not abuse, used as prescribed) and it was horrific.

So telling someone that is chemically dependent to use their self control is of course possible, but it's somewhat akin to telling someone that is clinically depressed to "just be happy".

As for someone that has broken the dependency and is in recovery, it is certainly within their control, but let's not be like Murph and act like it's akin not having your morning coffee. If you want to get technical (which is what you want to do, being the board contrarian), then you are correct. But there was a context surrounding that term that was too dismissive, imo.

I completely agree, in my mind Thig is right on about this topic. I think many people severely underestimate the power of addiction and some don't realize how bad it was for Josh. Lives are ruined by it constantly. Many people fail over and over again to beat it, and a large portion of them just give up. At his worst he had lost 40 pounds, blown all of his money, and took lethal doses (for nearly anyone else) of cocaine multiple times. He made a choice to put himself in the position he did (being at dinner alone, choosing to have the first drink) but after that I feel like it quickly becomes out of the recovering addict's control. He has said that him and alcohol "don't mix," meaning one drink is enough to get him to fall, as was the case here. Addiction is extremely power, and it will be a struggle for the rest of Josh's life. We all have our struggles and shortcomings, and this is his biggest one.

Overall, I don't think this relapse will have any huge consequences long term, as I still feel he is strongly committed to staying sober and it's a one time thing (he hasn't had any sort of relapse for 3 years, which is pretty impressive for a recovering addict of his extent.) He'll pick himself up with his faith in God and get back on the right track. It doesn't negate how incredible his turnaround has been, and it's not the end of the world. The biggest consequence is the he cost himself a lot of $$$, and he'll need to work to re-establish trust with the Rangers organization. Right now he needs prayers, love, and support, not public backlash.

Murphy3 · 02-05-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

If you'll notice in my post, I said I wasn't real comfortable with calling it a disease. But comparing it to "lack of self control" is idiotic.

Why is it idiotic? You make a choice.. do it or don't. Of course it's lack of self control. Your sentiments are f'ing idiotic. I'm curious as to what that makes you...

jthig32 · 02-05-2012, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Why is it idiotic? You make a choice.. do it or don't. Of course it's lack of self control. Your sentiments are f'ing idiotic. I'm curious as to what that makes you...

It is a choice, but there's a lot of evidence that many are genetically handicapped against making the correct choice. And getting clean after becoming chemically dependent is way, way, WAY beyond just "do it or don't".