"How to help a friend..."
Forum Leader
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,944
"How to help a friend..."
I have mixed thoughts about this advice article from the Today Show webpage. I am curious about what you all think.
https://www.today.com/health/how-hel...iction-t116851
https://www.today.com/health/how-hel...iction-t116851
Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midwest
Posts: 11,481
I have mixed feelings also, Seren, likely in similar places to yours...
I think the writer of the article has their heart in the right place. So do all of us here who deal w/alcoholics/addicts. However, we have learned that that's not nearly enough, and I don't think the writer of the article DOES know that.
To me, much of it is written as if the alcoholic/addict can be reasoned out of his/her addiction, and we KNOW that isn't the case! While "explaining to the addict/A how it makes me feel" is a great idea in theory, this article doesn't take the next step and tell me what to do when the addicted person either attacks or throws the blame back on me, which, again, most of us here have learned is the most likely outcome of taking that action...
"Help her manage her withdrawal"? SERIOUSLY?
Also have to take exception to the part about how it's overwhelming and difficult to decide how to seek help. In this day and age, the internet can tell us virtually ANYTHING we need to find out in a few minutes at most. I know how little effort it took me to find SR and Alanon. I can't believe it's that much more difficult for the A to find help...I don't think the reason they aren't in recovery is b/c they don't have any idea where to look for help!
"Don't invite the friend to activities that will involve drinking"? Seriously? I see that stirring up a WHOLE lot more trouble than it prevents...
This is the "lite" version of dealing w/an addict/A in your life, I think. Can't imagine anyone who's had experience with full-on alcoholism would say things like this.
I think the writer of the article has their heart in the right place. So do all of us here who deal w/alcoholics/addicts. However, we have learned that that's not nearly enough, and I don't think the writer of the article DOES know that.
To me, much of it is written as if the alcoholic/addict can be reasoned out of his/her addiction, and we KNOW that isn't the case! While "explaining to the addict/A how it makes me feel" is a great idea in theory, this article doesn't take the next step and tell me what to do when the addicted person either attacks or throws the blame back on me, which, again, most of us here have learned is the most likely outcome of taking that action...
"Help her manage her withdrawal"? SERIOUSLY?
Also have to take exception to the part about how it's overwhelming and difficult to decide how to seek help. In this day and age, the internet can tell us virtually ANYTHING we need to find out in a few minutes at most. I know how little effort it took me to find SR and Alanon. I can't believe it's that much more difficult for the A to find help...I don't think the reason they aren't in recovery is b/c they don't have any idea where to look for help!
"Don't invite the friend to activities that will involve drinking"? Seriously? I see that stirring up a WHOLE lot more trouble than it prevents...
This is the "lite" version of dealing w/an addict/A in your life, I think. Can't imagine anyone who's had experience with full-on alcoholism would say things like this.
"O you must wear your rue with difference".
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,146
In my relationship with my (ex)AH, I had read a lot of articles like this, because I suspected he was an addict, even though he denied it. I looked up articles and resources for him. I even looked up a way to get alternative (not as dangerous) gateway medicines, I called around to doctors... etc. Did he care? No. Did he even participate in his recovery? No. Did he instead want to carry on as if nothing were wrong? Yes. He got to the stage where there were so many lies too. So for me, personally, this article is not useful.
I have read something about an experiment using rats: there are two groups of rats in a laboratory. One group was in rat hell -- there was nothing in their habitat except for water laced with cocaine and normal rat food. The other group was in rat heaven -- the habitat had fun rat-stuff like wheels, doodads for them to play with, the best distractions and stimulating rat education materials... and also cocaine laced water and normal rat food. It turned out that the rats in the rat hell habitat became addicts, and the rats in the rat heaven habitat had no interest in the cocaine water. When the scientists took the addicted rats and put them into rat heaven, the addicted rats gradually stopped drinking the cocaine altogether. So the idea is that if you take a human being and surround them in awesomeness, they can fix their addiction. Now this theory is problematic because 1) human beings have brains more complex than that of rats, and we often carry our damage with us far into our lives even if we're surrounded by squishy puppies, a sexy caring spouse, obedient children, and enough money to keep us happy (but not so much it makes us unhappy). 2) It makes the addict, and the people closest to the addict think that if they can manipulate the addict's environment, the addict can be cured. Both of these ideas are untrue.
The "cure" (or management of the addiction) has to come from an intrinsic change in relationship values -- both the addict's relationship to themselves and their relationship to others. It can not be an extrinsic change, because that is just cosmetic. The problem with this article, although well-intended, is that it is suggesting things that are entirely cosmetic. In reality, no amount of patting someone on the back or giving them hyperlinks or buying them blankets from Target is going to pull them out of that dark place they have started to sink into (if they have already started to sink). I think the article is well-intentioned, but it makes the mistake of making people think they might be able to have power over another person's choices (or lack of ability to make them).
However, I think it's good that the media is starting to talk about addiction more. It used to be that addicts were shunned. I don't think that is the right approach; but I also think that treating addiction like diabetes, which is not a mental illness, and where there is little to no collateral damage to friends and family is also incorrect. I think addiction is it's own separate pathology. I would also like to see more articles about what happens to the friends and families of addicts, because we are suffering in silence. Articles like this give people the idea that if we leave our addicts, we are just being unsupportive. I think that's very damaging, actually. I am not saying that we should not care about the addict, but sometimes you have to leave for your health or safety or whatever -- or leave for their health or safety. There are going to be people out there who read one or two articles that discuss addiction very superficially, and then they meet people whose kids are on the street on meth, and they say to those people, "how could you do that to your son, why don't you take him to rehab?" It's unfair.
I also hear people say, it's cruel to let an addict hit rock bottom. What if they die? What if they kill someone? Well, what are WE supposed to do? We aren't the ones taking the drugs. Someone's rock bottom could be when they accidentally fall down the stairs after drinking too much. Then they say, right this is crazy, I need to stop and go to AA cause my arm hurts but I really want a drink, like, NOW. Another person's rock bottom could be when they've become homeless. The only person who has control over that is the addict.
Apologies for the length of my posts. I've been thinking too much lately. Thinking, crying, thinking. Yup.
I have read something about an experiment using rats: there are two groups of rats in a laboratory. One group was in rat hell -- there was nothing in their habitat except for water laced with cocaine and normal rat food. The other group was in rat heaven -- the habitat had fun rat-stuff like wheels, doodads for them to play with, the best distractions and stimulating rat education materials... and also cocaine laced water and normal rat food. It turned out that the rats in the rat hell habitat became addicts, and the rats in the rat heaven habitat had no interest in the cocaine water. When the scientists took the addicted rats and put them into rat heaven, the addicted rats gradually stopped drinking the cocaine altogether. So the idea is that if you take a human being and surround them in awesomeness, they can fix their addiction. Now this theory is problematic because 1) human beings have brains more complex than that of rats, and we often carry our damage with us far into our lives even if we're surrounded by squishy puppies, a sexy caring spouse, obedient children, and enough money to keep us happy (but not so much it makes us unhappy). 2) It makes the addict, and the people closest to the addict think that if they can manipulate the addict's environment, the addict can be cured. Both of these ideas are untrue.
The "cure" (or management of the addiction) has to come from an intrinsic change in relationship values -- both the addict's relationship to themselves and their relationship to others. It can not be an extrinsic change, because that is just cosmetic. The problem with this article, although well-intended, is that it is suggesting things that are entirely cosmetic. In reality, no amount of patting someone on the back or giving them hyperlinks or buying them blankets from Target is going to pull them out of that dark place they have started to sink into (if they have already started to sink). I think the article is well-intentioned, but it makes the mistake of making people think they might be able to have power over another person's choices (or lack of ability to make them).
However, I think it's good that the media is starting to talk about addiction more. It used to be that addicts were shunned. I don't think that is the right approach; but I also think that treating addiction like diabetes, which is not a mental illness, and where there is little to no collateral damage to friends and family is also incorrect. I think addiction is it's own separate pathology. I would also like to see more articles about what happens to the friends and families of addicts, because we are suffering in silence. Articles like this give people the idea that if we leave our addicts, we are just being unsupportive. I think that's very damaging, actually. I am not saying that we should not care about the addict, but sometimes you have to leave for your health or safety or whatever -- or leave for their health or safety. There are going to be people out there who read one or two articles that discuss addiction very superficially, and then they meet people whose kids are on the street on meth, and they say to those people, "how could you do that to your son, why don't you take him to rehab?" It's unfair.
I also hear people say, it's cruel to let an addict hit rock bottom. What if they die? What if they kill someone? Well, what are WE supposed to do? We aren't the ones taking the drugs. Someone's rock bottom could be when they accidentally fall down the stairs after drinking too much. Then they say, right this is crazy, I need to stop and go to AA cause my arm hurts but I really want a drink, like, NOW. Another person's rock bottom could be when they've become homeless. The only person who has control over that is the addict.
Apologies for the length of my posts. I've been thinking too much lately. Thinking, crying, thinking. Yup.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,647
Originally Posted by OpheliaKatz 
The "cure" (or management of the addiction) has to come from an intrinsic change in relationship values -- both the addict's relationship to themselves and their relationship to others.
I watched the Ted Talks video about this same experiment and I think that actual gist of it is not that if you have a comfy sofa and big house all will be well, the point of the experiment is if you are "ok", in a nutshell, mentally (probably spiritually for many) then those drugs are not so attractive. A quote from the Ted Talk:
"Looking at this, there was another professor called Peter Cohen in the Netherlands who said, maybe we shouldn't even call it addiction. Maybe we should call it bonding. Human beings have a natural and innate need to bond, and when we're happy and healthy, we'll bond and connect with each other, but if you can't do that, because you're traumatized or isolated or beaten down by life, you will bond with something that will give you some sense of relief".
The rat(s) that became addicted were isolated. When viewed that way, it kind of makes sense, to me anyway.
I can't post links but if anyone is interested you can google: Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong | Johann Hari
Community Greeter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16,246
trailmix....I think that Johann Hari brings up many thought provoking assertions....
I think they are worth exploring for those who have an interest.....
To me, it seems like a lot of it is old wine in new bottles....but, I think the wine is just as good, no matter what kind of bottle in which it is served...
I think they are worth exploring for those who have an interest.....
To me, it seems like a lot of it is old wine in new bottles....but, I think the wine is just as good, no matter what kind of bottle in which it is served...
Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,618
Originally Posted by Seren
Yes, I found it a rather simplistic article. And I must admit that I am about as qualified to help someone else manage their withdrawals as I would be helping someone perform surgery!
" If a friend asks you for pills, don't give them to her".
Do people actually need to be told that?
Community Greeter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16,246
Sasha...lol....yes, they do need to be told....
That is one way that people get extra pills for their habit....
I know that might be very "duh" to people in the recovery circles...but, not to the general public....
Most of what the general public "knows" about addiction is just urban legend or old wive's tales, passed down from generation to generation.....
That is one way that people get extra pills for their habit....
I know that might be very "duh" to people in the recovery circles...but, not to the general public....
Most of what the general public "knows" about addiction is just urban legend or old wive's tales, passed down from generation to generation.....
"O you must wear your rue with difference".
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,146
However from a codie point of view this was actually useless to me. It just meant that I had another way to focus on the addict because it got me thinking about why he was using in order to justify the behavior. My AH used to say that I wasn't doing my best to bond to him, so he had to keep using. He either misinterpreted the research or was just using it as an excuse. He did his absolute best to make me responsible for his behavior. I never said that the emotional health of a person depended on material things. I understood the research and I don't think it was particularly ground-breaking to be honest.
Originally Posted by trailmix
Hi Ophelia,
"Looking at this, there was another professor called Peter Cohen in the Netherlands who said, maybe we shouldn't even call it addiction. Maybe we should call it bonding. Human beings have a natural and innate need to bond, and when we're happy and healthy, we'll bond and connect with each other, but if you can't do that, because you're traumatized or isolated or beaten down by life, you will bond with something that will give you some sense of relief".
The rat(s) that became addicted were isolated. When viewed that way, it kind of makes sense, to me anyway.
I can't post links but if anyone is interested you can google: Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong | Johann Hari
"Looking at this, there was another professor called Peter Cohen in the Netherlands who said, maybe we shouldn't even call it addiction. Maybe we should call it bonding. Human beings have a natural and innate need to bond, and when we're happy and healthy, we'll bond and connect with each other, but if you can't do that, because you're traumatized or isolated or beaten down by life, you will bond with something that will give you some sense of relief".
The rat(s) that became addicted were isolated. When viewed that way, it kind of makes sense, to me anyway.
I can't post links but if anyone is interested you can google: Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong | Johann Hari
"O you must wear your rue with difference".
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,146
I agree with this (below), what Sylvie said, 100%. I think early childhood trauma explains so, so much.
Originally Posted by sylvie83
I think the experiment is interesting but is interpreted wrong. I think the stimulation and bonding needs to happen in childhood/early life in a human. Suddenly providing it in adulthood if it was missing earlier is firstly not going to change much and is secondly going to feel odd and probably annoying to the adult
There's plenty of research on attachment, early childhood "trauma" (which includes troubled attachment) and addiction.
Gabor Mate has LOADS of accessible evidence and wisdom on the topic.
There's plenty of research on attachment, early childhood "trauma" (which includes troubled attachment) and addiction.
Gabor Mate has LOADS of accessible evidence and wisdom on the topic.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,647
Originally Posted by OpheliaKatz
My AH used to say that I wasn't doing my best to bond to him, so he had to keep using. He either misinterpreted the research or was just using it as an excuse. He did his absolute best to make me responsible for his behavior. I never said that the emotional health of a person depended on material things. I understood the research and I don't think it was particularly ground-breaking to be honest.
Is it helpful? I think perhaps maybe in terms of compassion toward those with addictions, maybe. Sometimes when we have some knowledge on a subject (and I think most here have at least some knowledge of addiction - now) we forget that many don't and that particular talk, I think, is helpful in understanding. But, like any subject, it's just an overview and more research is needed to understand it more fully. Possible that many may go no further than one TedTalk.
I see now what you were trying to get across that it is a bit over-simplified and the wrong conclusions can be taken. Although, as you said, it's good that it's at least being talked about.
I agree with Sylvie that it's not something you can just band-aid for people as adults. It's like saying you could quit if you could play the banjo then someone gifting you a banjo. Unless you know how to use it, it's just a - conversation piece.
Forum Leader
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,944
This is Johann Hari lifted from the The Guardian. There is more here:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ok-independent
I don't trust anything he says, any of his sources. I would only trust his personal experience if he cared to share. Even then, I would take it with a grain of salt.
I am not a psychiatrist, counselor, or social worker. So I know nothing about childhood bonding. My sister and I are not particularly "bonded" with our parents--she is a recovering/ed addict, I never had a problem with addiction. Who knows, and hard science on behavior is difficult at best (I am a scientist).
The rat experiment has crept into modern counseling. I saw a member here post that her husband was told he just needed hobbies and more ways to relax and he would be OK. I was told by a female member of my extended family that her husband was told something very similar when he went to counseling because he was exposing himself to women (not children, thankfully!).
So, this rat experiment seems to have the counseling world telling people that if they can just keep themselves amused, then all the bad behaviors will go away?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ok-independent
The author used to be the Independent’s star columnist, a prolific polemicist and darling of the left, until his career imploded in disgrace when it emerged in 2011 that many of his articles contained quotes apparently said to him but in fact lifted from his interviewees’ books, or from previous interviews by other journalists. Worse, he was exposed as a “sockpuppet”, or someone who anonymously furthers his own interests online. Using a false identity, Hari had maliciously amended the Wikipedia pages of journalists he disliked – among them the Telegraph columnist Cristina Odone and the Observer’s Nick Cohen – accusing them of antisemitism, homophobia and other toxic falsehoods. Under the same pseudonym, he had also edited his own Wikipedia page, lavishly flattering his profile to, as he puts it, “big myself up”.
I am not a psychiatrist, counselor, or social worker. So I know nothing about childhood bonding. My sister and I are not particularly "bonded" with our parents--she is a recovering/ed addict, I never had a problem with addiction. Who knows, and hard science on behavior is difficult at best (I am a scientist).
The rat experiment has crept into modern counseling. I saw a member here post that her husband was told he just needed hobbies and more ways to relax and he would be OK. I was told by a female member of my extended family that her husband was told something very similar when he went to counseling because he was exposing himself to women (not children, thankfully!).
So, this rat experiment seems to have the counseling world telling people that if they can just keep themselves amused, then all the bad behaviors will go away?
Community Greeter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16,246
Seren....I had, previously, read this about him. And, I don't take the rat experiment that seriously...lol...
I listened to the content of what he was trying to say...then read more about it, elsewhere..
Like I said...I think it was mostly old wine poured into new bottles...many of the concepts...
If a theory has any validity...as, on the road to becoming a scientific law....it is a valid thing, regardless of who speaks it...to my way of thinking....
If a bank robber and cheater puts forth the Law of Gravity....it is valid, even if it comes from a flawed vehicle.....
He really didn't say anything that I haven't heard somewhere else, before....
LOl...I am really not much of a guru follower...no matter how compelling they are....
I do think that people, hearing this stuff for the first time, may well, fall into the trap of over interpreting it.
Over the course of my life...I have observed the need for human connections and spiritual meaning as a vital thing....
And...I do think that we should be willing to examine our methods, as a culture, as to how we treat our addicted, and mentally ill, with an open mind....as we are still in our infancy in how we deal with these members of our society....
I don't take this, at all, as that we should go running to enable them....
Anyway, in science...one experiment, alone, doesn't hold a lot of water...one monkey don't make no show...
A theory needs to be given the rigor of many, many experiments to either prove or discount the validity...over time..
Many "interesting" experiments do catch the imagination and get more press time than others...and, there are lots of theories that have captured the imagination of the public and the scientific community...but, ultimately, have landed on the psychology (or otherwise) trash heap....
I am not presenting an argument for anything...lol...
I am just offering some of my thoughts on the subject at hand....
I listened to the content of what he was trying to say...then read more about it, elsewhere..
Like I said...I think it was mostly old wine poured into new bottles...many of the concepts...
If a theory has any validity...as, on the road to becoming a scientific law....it is a valid thing, regardless of who speaks it...to my way of thinking....
If a bank robber and cheater puts forth the Law of Gravity....it is valid, even if it comes from a flawed vehicle.....
He really didn't say anything that I haven't heard somewhere else, before....
LOl...I am really not much of a guru follower...no matter how compelling they are....
I do think that people, hearing this stuff for the first time, may well, fall into the trap of over interpreting it.
Over the course of my life...I have observed the need for human connections and spiritual meaning as a vital thing....
And...I do think that we should be willing to examine our methods, as a culture, as to how we treat our addicted, and mentally ill, with an open mind....as we are still in our infancy in how we deal with these members of our society....
I don't take this, at all, as that we should go running to enable them....
Anyway, in science...one experiment, alone, doesn't hold a lot of water...one monkey don't make no show...
A theory needs to be given the rigor of many, many experiments to either prove or discount the validity...over time..
Many "interesting" experiments do catch the imagination and get more press time than others...and, there are lots of theories that have captured the imagination of the public and the scientific community...but, ultimately, have landed on the psychology (or otherwise) trash heap....
I am not presenting an argument for anything...lol...
I am just offering some of my thoughts on the subject at hand....
Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: northern michigan. not the U.P.
Posts: 15,281
Originally Posted by Seren
I have mixed thoughts about this advice article from the Today Show webpage. I am curious about what you all think.
what she does say is:
"I know how my friends could have helped me."
then real shortly after:
" No one knew about my addiction."
how can i help what i dont know?
imo, this might help for an addict that isnt in the throes of denial.
or for an addict that wants to get clean.
i know one fact for this alkie/addict:
i wasnt getting help until i wanted it.
AND was willing to do the work myself
i think a few of us have dealt with the manipulation of an addict/alcoholic that wasnt really interested in recovery and just talked the talk-knew the right things to say and when.
Forum Leader
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,944
Originally Posted by OpheliaKatz
I have read something about an experiment using rats: there are two groups of rats in a laboratory. One group was in rat hell -- there was nothing in their habitat except for water laced with cocaine and normal rat food. The other group was in rat heaven -- the habitat had fun rat-stuff like wheels, doodads for them to play with, the best distractions and stimulating rat education materials... and also cocaine laced water and normal rat food. It turned out that the rats in the rat hell habitat became addicts, and the rats in the rat heaven habitat had no interest in the cocaine water. When the scientists took the addicted rats and put them into rat heaven, the addicted rats gradually stopped drinking the cocaine altogether. So the idea is that if you take a human being and surround them in awesomeness, they can fix their addiction. Now this theory is problematic because 1) human beings have brains more complex than that of rats, and we often carry our damage with us far into our lives even if we're surrounded by squishy puppies, a sexy caring spouse, obedient children, and enough money to keep us happy (but not so much it makes us unhappy). 2) It makes the addict, and the people closest to the addict think that if they can manipulate the addict's environment, the addict can be cured. Both of these ideas are untrue.
https://www.soberrecovery.com/forums...-thinking.html (A good article on Alcoholic Thinking)
Dandy, I hope you may have more insight into the current professional thinking on this....but are we to spend our lives providing constant entertainment to those who may become or are addicted in order to keep them from actively using drugs and alcohol?
The advice given to my family member's husband by his counselor (based I believe on the rat study) means that her husband does whatever he wants. He does not help with the household chores and the children, spends more money than he should/than the family has buying himself toys so that he will be amused and "relaxed" and won't expose himself to women any more.
Community Greeter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 16,246
Seren....LOL....of course not!
I think that the advice that you are talking about is a gross misinterpretation..or a misapplication of that rat study....and, even if the advice wasn't based on that, it is still ill advice, in my opinion....
It is true that people do have free will...and, they will end up, ultimately, doing what they really want/choose to do....But, I don't think that means than anyone else is obligated to hang around and enable them to be irresponsible, selfish or immature....
That is how I look at it....
Also, if a person is not in the room when a counselor is giving advice...one must keep in m ind that it may get distorted in the retelling....distorted in the context and full message....
I think that the advice that you are talking about is a gross misinterpretation..or a misapplication of that rat study....and, even if the advice wasn't based on that, it is still ill advice, in my opinion....
It is true that people do have free will...and, they will end up, ultimately, doing what they really want/choose to do....But, I don't think that means than anyone else is obligated to hang around and enable them to be irresponsible, selfish or immature....
That is how I look at it....
Also, if a person is not in the room when a counselor is giving advice...one must keep in m ind that it may get distorted in the retelling....distorted in the context and full message....
Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 37
The article on Today bothers me quite a bit. I think it is great that addiction is being talked about on a platform such as Today, but the advice given makes it seem so simple. It doesn't give an adequate view of what addiction really is like for those in it and those living with it.
I mean #2 was don't support the addiction and covered don't give them pills and don't invite to happy hour. That is pretty easy to do right, no problem. What about all the other enabling ways we find ourselves doing that you don't even realize are enabling the addiction. It is such a far reaching and complicated disease I think this almost is a disservice to understanding that. People not going through it will never fully understand it, but this makes it seem like the answers are easy.
Also in regards to the Ted talk about the rat experiment, that one always bothered me as well. It was being shared over and over on FB as I was dealing with the worst of my ex's addiction. I didn't go back and watch it, but I believe (and I could be wrong) but when he was talking about the rats that were in isolation and drinking the cocaine water (or whatever it was) then being given the chance to go to the nice area, he said MOST of the rats chose to go to nice area and stopped drinking the cocaine water. MOST people can drink or use drugs casually and make the decision that they no longer want to and stop without much problem. The addict which is a smaller percentage of the population cannot stop even when they have a beautiful life to live right in front of them. They will continue to use until that life is gone and maybe even until death. Just like a few of those rats.
Last thing he was also talking about how when you break your hip and are given high dosages of painkillers for a long time you don't become addicted. My mother went through throat cancer and she was on very strong pain medicine - fentanyl patches for most of a year. She did not become a heroine addict - that is true, but her body was most definitely addicted to the opioids. She had to be weaned off the dosage and she experienced typical withdrawal symptoms as she came off of it completely. Just because you don't keep using doesn't mean you weren't addicted it just means you aren't an addict. My 2 cents on all of that.
I mean #2 was don't support the addiction and covered don't give them pills and don't invite to happy hour. That is pretty easy to do right, no problem. What about all the other enabling ways we find ourselves doing that you don't even realize are enabling the addiction. It is such a far reaching and complicated disease I think this almost is a disservice to understanding that. People not going through it will never fully understand it, but this makes it seem like the answers are easy.
Also in regards to the Ted talk about the rat experiment, that one always bothered me as well. It was being shared over and over on FB as I was dealing with the worst of my ex's addiction. I didn't go back and watch it, but I believe (and I could be wrong) but when he was talking about the rats that were in isolation and drinking the cocaine water (or whatever it was) then being given the chance to go to the nice area, he said MOST of the rats chose to go to nice area and stopped drinking the cocaine water. MOST people can drink or use drugs casually and make the decision that they no longer want to and stop without much problem. The addict which is a smaller percentage of the population cannot stop even when they have a beautiful life to live right in front of them. They will continue to use until that life is gone and maybe even until death. Just like a few of those rats.
Last thing he was also talking about how when you break your hip and are given high dosages of painkillers for a long time you don't become addicted. My mother went through throat cancer and she was on very strong pain medicine - fentanyl patches for most of a year. She did not become a heroine addict - that is true, but her body was most definitely addicted to the opioids. She had to be weaned off the dosage and she experienced typical withdrawal symptoms as she came off of it completely. Just because you don't keep using doesn't mean you weren't addicted it just means you aren't an addict. My 2 cents on all of that.
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 13,560
I felt the article to be appropriate for someone very new into recovery who is not your immediate qualifier. In other words, a friend. For someone who lives with or is married to the qualifier, or has children with the qualifier, I feel it is an entirely different set of advise.
Encouragement is definitely always more productive than being negative. I have a friend who I believe will die due to addiction. I encourage her when I see her and offer to listen to her. However, her family has completely different actions to protect themselves which is appropriate. They are way past encouragement and listening.
Encouragement is definitely always more productive than being negative. I have a friend who I believe will die due to addiction. I encourage her when I see her and offer to listen to her. However, her family has completely different actions to protect themselves which is appropriate. They are way past encouragement and listening.
"O you must wear your rue with difference".
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 1,146
It was not easy to read the article because my biggest fear is that my STBAXH will die. It is likely that he will. However, the steps I have had to take to protect myself from him mean that I have to grieve him now, while he still lives.
Originally Posted by hopeful4
I felt the article to be appropriate for someone very new into recovery who is not your immediate qualifier. In other words, a friend. For someone who lives with or is married to the qualifier, or has children with the qualifier, I feel it is an entirely different set of advise.
Encouragement is definitely always more productive than being negative. I have a friend who I believe will die due to addiction. I encourage her when I see her and offer to listen to her. However, her family has completely different actions to protect themselves which is appropriate. They are way past encouragement and listening.
Encouragement is definitely always more productive than being negative. I have a friend who I believe will die due to addiction. I encourage her when I see her and offer to listen to her. However, her family has completely different actions to protect themselves which is appropriate. They are way past encouragement and listening.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
