OT – Alcoholism and Addiction

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]Just going to stop a while to prove to wife I can.
[/quote]

Good test of will-power.

As I said before, my dad used to smoke opium when he was in Laos in his youth. He quit just fine and never looked back.

What about coffee addiction?

I find that those who can’t do without coffee are addicted to the stimulant.

In my opinion, any kind of addiction is bad. As a test of will-power, I’ve told some friends to do without coffee… but they can’t even do that.

It seems like human/animal nature is very prone to addiction.

[sdgrrl]

Saw this thread and some of the comments about eating disorders. From what I’ve read and definitely experienced eating disorders are not solely genetic, but often societal issues.

In countries and societies where rotundness is beautiful they’re no historical documented cases of these disorders, but now as countries like Fiji are getting more exposure to Western culture and Western standards they are seeing their first cases pop up in the last few years. You can Google it and see that the first year Fiji got satellite TV they documented their first cases of these disorders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/347637.stm

The Caribbean island of Curaçao is another country that appreciates curvy women and ten years ago they could only find 6 cases of anorexia.

Asian countries are also seeing in the last 10 years more cases of eating disorders as Western culture values have encroached where they had no documented cases previously.

Eating disorders also typically follow personality, job (ballet/gymnastics) and economic types- where alcoholism and drug addiction doesn’t. Maybe certain drugs stereotypically fall into different economic classes; crack/meth- lower class, cocaine- upper class; bulimia and anorexia have stayed on path with middle/ upper class high achievers seeking perceived perfection.

Also, the ratio of men to women who suffer from these disorders; who statistically feels more pressure to be more thin and model like.

Emotional/physical abuse by caregivers can definitely create a bulimic/anorexic.

The purging /starving process can be a drug in that it can be euphoric, but my whole point…I don’t think these disorders are solely genetic. Just my two cents 🙂

Sorry about your friend Brian- dealing with an alcoholic neighbor. At first it was funny, but after a couple of days I realized…there was nothing funny about it at all.

[sdgrrl]

Saw this thread and some of the comments about eating disorders. From what I’ve read and definitely experienced eating disorders are not solely genetic, but often societal issues.

In countries and societies where rotundness is beautiful they’re no historical documented cases of these disorders, but now as countries like Fiji are getting more exposure to Western culture and Western standards they are seeing their first cases pop up in the last few years. You can Google it and see that the first year Fiji got satellite TV they documented their first cases of these disorders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/347637.stm

The Caribbean island of Curaçao is another country that appreciates curvy women and ten years ago they could only find 6 cases of anorexia.

Asian countries are also seeing in the last 10 years more cases of eating disorders as Western culture values have encroached where they had no documented cases previously.

Eating disorders also typically follow personality, job (ballet/gymnastics) and economic types- where alcoholism and drug addiction doesn’t. Maybe certain drugs stereotypically fall into different economic classes; crack/meth- lower class, cocaine- upper class; bulimia and anorexia have stayed on path with middle/ upper class high achievers seeking perceived perfection.

Also, the ratio of men to women who suffer from these disorders; who statistically feels more pressure to be more thin and model like.

Emotional/physical abuse by caregivers can definitely create a bulimic/anorexic.

The purging /starving process can be a drug in that it can be euphoric, but my whole point…I don’t think these disorders are solely genetic. Just my two cents 🙂

Sorry about your friend Brian- dealing with an alcoholic neighbor. At first it was funny, but after a couple of days I realized…there was nothing funny about it at all.

[sdgrrl]

Saw this thread and some of the comments about eating disorders. From what I’ve read and definitely experienced eating disorders are not solely genetic, but often societal issues.

In countries and societies where rotundness is beautiful they’re no historical documented cases of these disorders, but now as countries like Fiji are getting more exposure to Western culture and Western standards they are seeing their first cases pop up in the last few years. You can Google it and see that the first year Fiji got satellite TV they documented their first cases of these disorders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/347637.stm

The Caribbean island of Curaçao is another country that appreciates curvy women and ten years ago they could only find 6 cases of anorexia.

Asian countries are also seeing in the last 10 years more cases of eating disorders as Western culture values have encroached where they had no documented cases previously.

Eating disorders also typically follow personality, job (ballet/gymnastics) and economic types- where alcoholism and drug addiction doesn’t. Maybe certain drugs stereotypically fall into different economic classes; crack/meth- lower class, cocaine- upper class; bulimia and anorexia have stayed on path with middle/ upper class high achievers seeking perceived perfection.

Also, the ratio of men to women who suffer from these disorders; who statistically feels more pressure to be more thin and model like.

Emotional/physical abuse by caregivers can definitely create a bulimic/anorexic.

The purging /starving process can be a drug in that it can be euphoric, but my whole point…I don’t think these disorders are solely genetic. Just my two cents 🙂

Sorry about your friend Brian- dealing with an alcoholic neighbor. At first it was funny, but after a couple of days I realized…there was nothing funny about it at all.

[sdgrrl]

Saw this thread and some of the comments about eating disorders. From what I’ve read and definitely experienced eating disorders are not solely genetic, but often societal issues.

In countries and societies where rotundness is beautiful they’re no historical documented cases of these disorders, but now as countries like Fiji are getting more exposure to Western culture and Western standards they are seeing their first cases pop up in the last few years. You can Google it and see that the first year Fiji got satellite TV they documented their first cases of these disorders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/347637.stm

The Caribbean island of Curaçao is another country that appreciates curvy women and ten years ago they could only find 6 cases of anorexia.

Asian countries are also seeing in the last 10 years more cases of eating disorders as Western culture values have encroached where they had no documented cases previously.

Eating disorders also typically follow personality, job (ballet/gymnastics) and economic types- where alcoholism and drug addiction doesn’t. Maybe certain drugs stereotypically fall into different economic classes; crack/meth- lower class, cocaine- upper class; bulimia and anorexia have stayed on path with middle/ upper class high achievers seeking perceived perfection.

Also, the ratio of men to women who suffer from these disorders; who statistically feels more pressure to be more thin and model like.

Emotional/physical abuse by caregivers can definitely create a bulimic/anorexic.

The purging /starving process can be a drug in that it can be euphoric, but my whole point…I don’t think these disorders are solely genetic. Just my two cents 🙂

Sorry about your friend Brian- dealing with an alcoholic neighbor. At first it was funny, but after a couple of days I realized…there was nothing funny about it at all.

[sdgrrl]

Saw this thread and some of the comments about eating disorders. From what I’ve read and definitely experienced eating disorders are not solely genetic, but often societal issues.

In countries and societies where rotundness is beautiful they’re no historical documented cases of these disorders, but now as countries like Fiji are getting more exposure to Western culture and Western standards they are seeing their first cases pop up in the last few years. You can Google it and see that the first year Fiji got satellite TV they documented their first cases of these disorders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/347637.stm

The Caribbean island of Curaçao is another country that appreciates curvy women and ten years ago they could only find 6 cases of anorexia.

Asian countries are also seeing in the last 10 years more cases of eating disorders as Western culture values have encroached where they had no documented cases previously.

Eating disorders also typically follow personality, job (ballet/gymnastics) and economic types- where alcoholism and drug addiction doesn’t. Maybe certain drugs stereotypically fall into different economic classes; crack/meth- lower class, cocaine- upper class; bulimia and anorexia have stayed on path with middle/ upper class high achievers seeking perceived perfection.

Also, the ratio of men to women who suffer from these disorders; who statistically feels more pressure to be more thin and model like.

Emotional/physical abuse by caregivers can definitely create a bulimic/anorexic.

The purging /starving process can be a drug in that it can be euphoric, but my whole point…I don’t think these disorders are solely genetic. Just my two cents 🙂

Sorry about your friend Brian- dealing with an alcoholic neighbor. At first it was funny, but after a couple of days I realized…there was nothing funny about it at all.

[scaredyclassic]

I had a very bad day.

I want a drink.

[scaredyclassic]

I had a very bad day.

I want a drink.

[scaredyclassic]

I had a very bad day.

I want a drink.

[scaredyclassic]

I had a very bad day.

I want a drink.

[scaredyclassic]

I had a very bad day.

I want a drink.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte] I suspect the public at large thinks lung cancer is often caused by actions of the person, but the public doesn’t think the same thing about breast cancer.

I say this because lung cancer is actually more common than breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets all the attention via walkathons, pink ribbons, etc.

My wife worries much more about breast cancer than lung cancer, but I attribute that to her being a 38DD.[/quote]

Very astute observation, svelte. Thanks largely to highly successful public service advertising, lung cancer has become synonymous with smoking. Not only are the commercials omnipresent, but the content of many have had a shock effect on viewers. And the fact is that the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming in the indictment of smoking as a causal agent in most lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for people to have less sympathy for those who they believe to be culpable in causing their own illnesses.

As for breast cancer, if there was as strong a link for some causal agent with breast ca as there is for smoking and lung cancer, you’d better believe it’d be all over the media. But the fact is there is none. Certain things have shown up in epi studies, but not in the right numbers to implicate them. Because there isn’t anything to “blame”, breast cancer advertising takes a different tack and goes for the sympathy vote. It gets people to bug their friends and mothers and sisters to get mammograms, and it also gets them to contribute.

In reality, the numbers of breast cancer cases is virtually equal to those of lung cancer (about 200K per year). However, the lung ca mortality rate is much higher. The reasons for this are complex; lung cancer is an entirely different disease on a molecular level from cancer of the breast. But would it improve if there were tons of walkathons, colored ribbons, etc.? Who knows? But there’s no question that many of the funds being raised for breast cancer are diverted to lobbying efforts, and far more taxpayer money is being spent on breast ca research than on other cancers and public health risks.

A lot of the “pinkwash” started with the Komen Foundation. At the time of it’s inception, there was almost no publicity about the disease, and relatively few research dollars were dedicated to it. Komen changed all that, and demonstrated real brilliance in their early marketing. The timing was also right, as the women of baby boomer generation were reaching an age when breast cancer was a concern, first for their mothers and later for themselves. Several copycat groups sprang up: some were wonderful, others not so much. Recently, Komen has been criticized on their use of funds and also on their seemingly indiscriminate agreements with marketing partners.

Unfortunately, other cancers and diseases, for whatever reason, didn’t get the message, and sat by idly while Komen achieved unparalleled success in fundraising. Some of them have picked up on it in the past 5 or 6 years, but I think that the public may have reached the point where they have “ribbon fatigue”.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte] I suspect the public at large thinks lung cancer is often caused by actions of the person, but the public doesn’t think the same thing about breast cancer.

I say this because lung cancer is actually more common than breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets all the attention via walkathons, pink ribbons, etc.

My wife worries much more about breast cancer than lung cancer, but I attribute that to her being a 38DD.[/quote]

Very astute observation, svelte. Thanks largely to highly successful public service advertising, lung cancer has become synonymous with smoking. Not only are the commercials omnipresent, but the content of many have had a shock effect on viewers. And the fact is that the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming in the indictment of smoking as a causal agent in most lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for people to have less sympathy for those who they believe to be culpable in causing their own illnesses.

As for breast cancer, if there was as strong a link for some causal agent with breast ca as there is for smoking and lung cancer, you’d better believe it’d be all over the media. But the fact is there is none. Certain things have shown up in epi studies, but not in the right numbers to implicate them. Because there isn’t anything to “blame”, breast cancer advertising takes a different tack and goes for the sympathy vote. It gets people to bug their friends and mothers and sisters to get mammograms, and it also gets them to contribute.

In reality, the numbers of breast cancer cases is virtually equal to those of lung cancer (about 200K per year). However, the lung ca mortality rate is much higher. The reasons for this are complex; lung cancer is an entirely different disease on a molecular level from cancer of the breast. But would it improve if there were tons of walkathons, colored ribbons, etc.? Who knows? But there’s no question that many of the funds being raised for breast cancer are diverted to lobbying efforts, and far more taxpayer money is being spent on breast ca research than on other cancers and public health risks.

A lot of the “pinkwash” started with the Komen Foundation. At the time of it’s inception, there was almost no publicity about the disease, and relatively few research dollars were dedicated to it. Komen changed all that, and demonstrated real brilliance in their early marketing. The timing was also right, as the women of baby boomer generation were reaching an age when breast cancer was a concern, first for their mothers and later for themselves. Several copycat groups sprang up: some were wonderful, others not so much. Recently, Komen has been criticized on their use of funds and also on their seemingly indiscriminate agreements with marketing partners.

Unfortunately, other cancers and diseases, for whatever reason, didn’t get the message, and sat by idly while Komen achieved unparalleled success in fundraising. Some of them have picked up on it in the past 5 or 6 years, but I think that the public may have reached the point where they have “ribbon fatigue”.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte] I suspect the public at large thinks lung cancer is often caused by actions of the person, but the public doesn’t think the same thing about breast cancer.

I say this because lung cancer is actually more common than breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets all the attention via walkathons, pink ribbons, etc.

My wife worries much more about breast cancer than lung cancer, but I attribute that to her being a 38DD.[/quote]

Very astute observation, svelte. Thanks largely to highly successful public service advertising, lung cancer has become synonymous with smoking. Not only are the commercials omnipresent, but the content of many have had a shock effect on viewers. And the fact is that the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming in the indictment of smoking as a causal agent in most lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for people to have less sympathy for those who they believe to be culpable in causing their own illnesses.

As for breast cancer, if there was as strong a link for some causal agent with breast ca as there is for smoking and lung cancer, you’d better believe it’d be all over the media. But the fact is there is none. Certain things have shown up in epi studies, but not in the right numbers to implicate them. Because there isn’t anything to “blame”, breast cancer advertising takes a different tack and goes for the sympathy vote. It gets people to bug their friends and mothers and sisters to get mammograms, and it also gets them to contribute.

In reality, the numbers of breast cancer cases is virtually equal to those of lung cancer (about 200K per year). However, the lung ca mortality rate is much higher. The reasons for this are complex; lung cancer is an entirely different disease on a molecular level from cancer of the breast. But would it improve if there were tons of walkathons, colored ribbons, etc.? Who knows? But there’s no question that many of the funds being raised for breast cancer are diverted to lobbying efforts, and far more taxpayer money is being spent on breast ca research than on other cancers and public health risks.

A lot of the “pinkwash” started with the Komen Foundation. At the time of it’s inception, there was almost no publicity about the disease, and relatively few research dollars were dedicated to it. Komen changed all that, and demonstrated real brilliance in their early marketing. The timing was also right, as the women of baby boomer generation were reaching an age when breast cancer was a concern, first for their mothers and later for themselves. Several copycat groups sprang up: some were wonderful, others not so much. Recently, Komen has been criticized on their use of funds and also on their seemingly indiscriminate agreements with marketing partners.

Unfortunately, other cancers and diseases, for whatever reason, didn’t get the message, and sat by idly while Komen achieved unparalleled success in fundraising. Some of them have picked up on it in the past 5 or 6 years, but I think that the public may have reached the point where they have “ribbon fatigue”.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte] I suspect the public at large thinks lung cancer is often caused by actions of the person, but the public doesn’t think the same thing about breast cancer.

I say this because lung cancer is actually more common than breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets all the attention via walkathons, pink ribbons, etc.

My wife worries much more about breast cancer than lung cancer, but I attribute that to her being a 38DD.[/quote]

Very astute observation, svelte. Thanks largely to highly successful public service advertising, lung cancer has become synonymous with smoking. Not only are the commercials omnipresent, but the content of many have had a shock effect on viewers. And the fact is that the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming in the indictment of smoking as a causal agent in most lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for people to have less sympathy for those who they believe to be culpable in causing their own illnesses.

As for breast cancer, if there was as strong a link for some causal agent with breast ca as there is for smoking and lung cancer, you’d better believe it’d be all over the media. But the fact is there is none. Certain things have shown up in epi studies, but not in the right numbers to implicate them. Because there isn’t anything to “blame”, breast cancer advertising takes a different tack and goes for the sympathy vote. It gets people to bug their friends and mothers and sisters to get mammograms, and it also gets them to contribute.

In reality, the numbers of breast cancer cases is virtually equal to those of lung cancer (about 200K per year). However, the lung ca mortality rate is much higher. The reasons for this are complex; lung cancer is an entirely different disease on a molecular level from cancer of the breast. But would it improve if there were tons of walkathons, colored ribbons, etc.? Who knows? But there’s no question that many of the funds being raised for breast cancer are diverted to lobbying efforts, and far more taxpayer money is being spent on breast ca research than on other cancers and public health risks.

A lot of the “pinkwash” started with the Komen Foundation. At the time of it’s inception, there was almost no publicity about the disease, and relatively few research dollars were dedicated to it. Komen changed all that, and demonstrated real brilliance in their early marketing. The timing was also right, as the women of baby boomer generation were reaching an age when breast cancer was a concern, first for their mothers and later for themselves. Several copycat groups sprang up: some were wonderful, others not so much. Recently, Komen has been criticized on their use of funds and also on their seemingly indiscriminate agreements with marketing partners.

Unfortunately, other cancers and diseases, for whatever reason, didn’t get the message, and sat by idly while Komen achieved unparalleled success in fundraising. Some of them have picked up on it in the past 5 or 6 years, but I think that the public may have reached the point where they have “ribbon fatigue”.

[Author]

Posts