Charles Kennedy: The Charles, Charles charm and humanity that created a political force | News | The National
If only he hadn't been an alcoholic. Must confess it;s one disease I have difficuty having any sympathy for as it seems a lifestyle choice rather than anything else.
Why is it political parties feel they have to move to the right to get votes when in reality when push comes ro shove most of the population are on the left. How many really want a privatised NHS yet that is whee we are going.
Nick Cleggs legacy will be as the man who led his party to destruction.
Charles Kennedy RIP
Charles Kennedy RIP
Makes me shudder when you think of world-leaders making big decisions behind cogent demeanours, when they may be secretly addicted to alcohol, or any other intoxicant! I remember President Yeltzin stuggling with alleged acoholism, and yet he carried his presidential "red button" briefcase with him just about everywhere. Whether it was a fake is open to speculation, but would anybody have really wanted to find out?...!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Charles Kennedy RIP
I thought Churchill won the war single handedly in a induced whisky haze.
I would take exception to your alcoholism being self inflicted gmc, any addiction is due to a predisposition in some people.I suspect many of his drinking partners are still quaffing away as and when they want to, while he would possibly drink less volume but with an urgency, at critical times.
I would take exception to your alcoholism being self inflicted gmc, any addiction is due to a predisposition in some people.I suspect many of his drinking partners are still quaffing away as and when they want to, while he would possibly drink less volume but with an urgency, at critical times.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Charles Kennedy RIP
Bruv;1480178 wrote: I thought Churchill won the war single handedly in a induced whisky haze.
I would take exception to your alcoholism being self inflicted gmc, any addiction is due to a predisposition in some people.I suspect many of his drinking partners are still quaffing away as and when they want to, while he would possibly drink less volume but with an urgency, at critical times.
He was also a manic depressive - called it the black dog. A drunk and a manic depressive wonder if there was a connection.
I live in a culture where getting drunk on a night out was the expected and accepted way of behaving in fact it;' the same one as Charles Kennedy I learned early on to say no and have no patience for drunkards. At work you get people turning up drunk from the night before and expecting others to cover for them as a manager I didn't tolerate it as a co-worker I have sod all empathy
I do appreciate alcoholism is an addiction beyond the occasional desire to drink oneself unconsciousor cultural norms and b,lieve me I can understand why in some circumstances you want to just get drunk. But it still seems to me if you know you can't just stop at one you can choose not to have that first drink whilke you are still sober and know whered iot leads. I realise it's not a sympathetic way of looking at things on the other hand I know people that will tolerate a drunk but have little time for anyone with mental health problems or dyslexia things like that.
I would take exception to your alcoholism being self inflicted gmc, any addiction is due to a predisposition in some people.I suspect many of his drinking partners are still quaffing away as and when they want to, while he would possibly drink less volume but with an urgency, at critical times.
He was also a manic depressive - called it the black dog. A drunk and a manic depressive wonder if there was a connection.
I live in a culture where getting drunk on a night out was the expected and accepted way of behaving in fact it;' the same one as Charles Kennedy I learned early on to say no and have no patience for drunkards. At work you get people turning up drunk from the night before and expecting others to cover for them as a manager I didn't tolerate it as a co-worker I have sod all empathy
I do appreciate alcoholism is an addiction beyond the occasional desire to drink oneself unconsciousor cultural norms and b,lieve me I can understand why in some circumstances you want to just get drunk. But it still seems to me if you know you can't just stop at one you can choose not to have that first drink whilke you are still sober and know whered iot leads. I realise it's not a sympathetic way of looking at things on the other hand I know people that will tolerate a drunk but have little time for anyone with mental health problems or dyslexia things like that.
Charles Kennedy RIP
2 things that really counted in his favour, in my opinion, is the way in which he stood by his principles, instead of going with the popular flow. Namely opposing the invasion of Iraq, and opposing the Coalition. It's also worthy of note, that while he was party leader they were at their peak of seats & members. Ever since then they've nose dived to their current all time low.
I may not have agreed with his politics - or at least, not all the time, but he was one of the few that spoke his mind, whether you liked what you heard or not, and that is one thing I respect.
I may not have agreed with his politics - or at least, not all the time, but he was one of the few that spoke his mind, whether you liked what you heard or not, and that is one thing I respect.
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480182 wrote: He was also a manic depressive - called it the black dog. A drunk and a manic depressive wonder if there was a connection.
I live in a culture where getting drunk on a night out was the expected and accepted way of behaving in fact it;' the same one as Charles Kennedy I learned early on to say no and have no patience for drunkards. At work you get people turning up drunk from the night before and expecting others to cover for them as a manager I didn't tolerate it as a co-worker I have sod all empathy
I do appreciate alcoholism is an addiction beyond the occasional desire to drink oneself unconsciousor cultural norms and b,lieve me I can understand why in some circumstances you want to just get drunk. But it still seems to me if you know you can't just stop at one you can choose not to have that first drink whilke you are still sober and know whered iot leads. I realise it's not a sympathetic way of looking at things on the other hand I know people that will tolerate a drunk but have little time for anyone with mental health problems or dyslexia things like that.
Many real alcoholics as I understand it can go undetected for years at their place of work, always on time and capable. Anybody turning up for work drunk has no sympathy from me either.
I live in a culture where getting drunk on a night out was the expected and accepted way of behaving in fact it;' the same one as Charles Kennedy I learned early on to say no and have no patience for drunkards. At work you get people turning up drunk from the night before and expecting others to cover for them as a manager I didn't tolerate it as a co-worker I have sod all empathy
I do appreciate alcoholism is an addiction beyond the occasional desire to drink oneself unconsciousor cultural norms and b,lieve me I can understand why in some circumstances you want to just get drunk. But it still seems to me if you know you can't just stop at one you can choose not to have that first drink whilke you are still sober and know whered iot leads. I realise it's not a sympathetic way of looking at things on the other hand I know people that will tolerate a drunk but have little time for anyone with mental health problems or dyslexia things like that.
Many real alcoholics as I understand it can go undetected for years at their place of work, always on time and capable. Anybody turning up for work drunk has no sympathy from me either.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Charles Kennedy RIP
Alcoholism is a disease. Once an alcoholic starts drinking they can't stop any more than a crack addict or heroin addict. I feel as sympathetic for them as I do for cancer victims or diabetics. It's like saying the Alzheimer's is a "lifestyle choice." Saying you don't understand the condition is exactly correct. No more than you understand having cancer unless you've had it.
Just thank your lucky stars that you are not alcoholic and live and let live. Don't be judgmental.
Just thank your lucky stars that you are not alcoholic and live and let live. Don't be judgmental.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Charles Kennedy RIP
I'm with Saint_.
Charles Kennedy RIP
Saint_;1480203 wrote: Alcoholism is a disease. Once an alcoholic starts drinking they can't stop any more than a crack addict or heroin addict. I feel as sympathetic for them as I do for cancer victims or diabetics. It's like saying the Alzheimer's is a "lifestyle choice." Saying you don't understand the condition is exactly correct. No more than you understand having cancer unless you've had it.
Just thank your lucky stars that you are not alcoholic and live and let live. Don't be judgmental.
They can choose not to have that first drink just as a heroin or crack addict can choose not to take that first injection.
Cancer, diabetes or alzheimers is not something you choose to take or get there is nothing you can do about it. I'm sorry I just do not think you can compare alcoholicism with cancer or alzheimers. A cancer sufferer I can sympathise with an alcoholic get a grip and stop doing it to yourself same with a drug addict it may become an addiction but for most it started out as a lifestyle choice. You can choose not to take drugs you can choose not to drink they can take steps to wean themselves off the addiction - cancer there is no choice at all.
Yes I can feel sympathy for them but don't try and put it on a par with cancer I just cannot agree with you on that one. Cancer you're going to die and it's not your choice alcoholic you're doing it to yourself.
Just thank your lucky stars that you are not alcoholic and live and let live. Don't be judgmental.
They can choose not to have that first drink just as a heroin or crack addict can choose not to take that first injection.
Cancer, diabetes or alzheimers is not something you choose to take or get there is nothing you can do about it. I'm sorry I just do not think you can compare alcoholicism with cancer or alzheimers. A cancer sufferer I can sympathise with an alcoholic get a grip and stop doing it to yourself same with a drug addict it may become an addiction but for most it started out as a lifestyle choice. You can choose not to take drugs you can choose not to drink they can take steps to wean themselves off the addiction - cancer there is no choice at all.
Yes I can feel sympathy for them but don't try and put it on a par with cancer I just cannot agree with you on that one. Cancer you're going to die and it's not your choice alcoholic you're doing it to yourself.
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480214 wrote: They can choose not to have that first drink just as a heroin or crack addict can choose not to take that first injection.
You assume an alcoholic knows they are one before becoming one. That's not how addiction works. Unlike heroine or other drugs, alcohol is not only socially acceptable, it is integrated into society. Most alcoholics don't realize they have the disease until too late. Many never realize it at all.
with an alcoholic get a grip and stop doing it to yourself ... there is no choice at all.
Getting the disease, any disease, is not a choice. Once you realize you are sick, getting treatment is a choice. You obviously either have no personal experience with alcoholism, or no gained knowledge.
I urge you to research this, especially the recent neurological and biological studies, before continuing outdated and damaging views.
I work with alcoholics of all kinds: young, old, parent, you name it. Native Americans, in which I am an expert, are especially susceptible genetically, having developed for millennia without alcohol until the last two centuries.
Disease is especially never a "lifestyle choice."
You assume an alcoholic knows they are one before becoming one. That's not how addiction works. Unlike heroine or other drugs, alcohol is not only socially acceptable, it is integrated into society. Most alcoholics don't realize they have the disease until too late. Many never realize it at all.
with an alcoholic get a grip and stop doing it to yourself ... there is no choice at all.
Getting the disease, any disease, is not a choice. Once you realize you are sick, getting treatment is a choice. You obviously either have no personal experience with alcoholism, or no gained knowledge.
I urge you to research this, especially the recent neurological and biological studies, before continuing outdated and damaging views.
I work with alcoholics of all kinds: young, old, parent, you name it. Native Americans, in which I am an expert, are especially susceptible genetically, having developed for millennia without alcohol until the last two centuries.
Disease is especially never a "lifestyle choice."
Charles Kennedy RIP
Unlike other drugs, alcohol is not seen as an imminent outcome of starting. When you start to take such Class A Drugs, such as Cocaine or Heroin, the ensuing risk of addiction is known. However, this is not the case of alcohol. It can creep up on you. Furthermore, alcoholism is not only brought about by a state of mind, but it is also to do with how the body itsef forms a dependancy on it. One person will easily become physically hooked, while another might not.
There was a time when I had slipped into the alcohol dependancy net, but I was fortunate enough to recognise the fact & was able to cut down so that I hardly ever drink at all any more - at least, not to excess (except if I hit a a downer, when I become suicidal & it becomes more a concious effort either to knock myself out from the world, with the potential added bonus of not having to wake up to it again). I was alcohol dependant, but not alcoholic, as they are not quite the same thing.
Each year I get myself a crate of various Traditional English Country Wines (most of this / last Christmas' order I still have in its box), and I keep a variety of bottles of Pear Cider blends in the cupboard (as well as a couple in the fridge) so I can just have one once in a while. My former self would not have been able to maintain such a stock. It would have been gone overnight. However, when someone is subject to true alcoholism, even if they have a single drink, that can take them immediately back over that precipice of alcohol dependancy just as if they had never stopped. There is no such thing as a former alcoholic. Once you're an alcoholic you're an alcoholic for life, even if you go on the wagon. That is not a state of mind.
Furthermore, just as with any form of addiction, you cannot force an alcoholic to dry out. It has to be of their own choice. They have to recognise that they are alcoholic & need to do something about it for themselves. That is the hardest thing of all. Like a smoker - "Just one more won't hurt, then I'll quit...". There's always that "Just one more".
There was a time when I had slipped into the alcohol dependancy net, but I was fortunate enough to recognise the fact & was able to cut down so that I hardly ever drink at all any more - at least, not to excess (except if I hit a a downer, when I become suicidal & it becomes more a concious effort either to knock myself out from the world, with the potential added bonus of not having to wake up to it again). I was alcohol dependant, but not alcoholic, as they are not quite the same thing.
Each year I get myself a crate of various Traditional English Country Wines (most of this / last Christmas' order I still have in its box), and I keep a variety of bottles of Pear Cider blends in the cupboard (as well as a couple in the fridge) so I can just have one once in a while. My former self would not have been able to maintain such a stock. It would have been gone overnight. However, when someone is subject to true alcoholism, even if they have a single drink, that can take them immediately back over that precipice of alcohol dependancy just as if they had never stopped. There is no such thing as a former alcoholic. Once you're an alcoholic you're an alcoholic for life, even if you go on the wagon. That is not a state of mind.
Furthermore, just as with any form of addiction, you cannot force an alcoholic to dry out. It has to be of their own choice. They have to recognise that they are alcoholic & need to do something about it for themselves. That is the hardest thing of all. Like a smoker - "Just one more won't hurt, then I'll quit...". There's always that "Just one more".
Charles Kennedy RIP
Saint_;1480217 wrote: You assume an alcoholic knows they are one before becoming one. That's not how addiction works. Unlike heroine or other drugs, alcohol is not only socially acceptable, it is integrated into society. Most alcoholics don't realize they have the disease until too late. Many never realize it at all.
Getting the disease, any disease, is not a choice. Once you realize you are sick, getting treatment is a choice. You obviously either have no personal experience with alcoholism, or no gained knowledge.
I urge you to research this, especially the recent neurological and biological studies, before continuing outdated and damaging views.
I work with alcoholics of all kinds: young, old, parent, you name it. Native Americans, in which I am an expert, are especially susceptible genetically, having developed for millennia without alcohol until the last two centuries.
Disease is especially never a "lifestyle choice."
Actually I'm perfectly aware of all that but unlike cancer or alzheimers you can actually do something about it. Yes you don't know you an alcoholic before you become one but once you know you can take steps to get off it. I do actually have personal experience of alcoholics both functional and non functional and more than a few that I suppose you might class as alcohol dependent or drunkards to use the more perjorative term. The reasons for starting on the road to drug and alcohol abuse are complex and some people are more likely to become that way for biological reasons - like with the american indians - but there are also societal factors at play as there is with drug culture but you have a choice whether you continue down that route although I will concede you might need help to change, sometimes you need help to help yourself. But for every alcoholic or drug addict there are far more who realise where things could lead and make a lifestyle choice to not go there. I know diabetics that still drink bottles of coke do I sympathise yes, do I think they are idiots for not taking the hint yes I do. Some diseases really are a result of lifestyle choice. Like charles Kennedy I come from the land of the half pint and the wee nippy sweetie pressure to drink and to drink to get drunk for a good night out is staggering but grown ups learn not to do it.
Getting the disease, any disease, is not a choice. Once you realize you are sick, getting treatment is a choice.
Try that line of reasoning with someone who has terminal cancer - there is no treatment you are going to die and there is nothing you can do about it and nothing you did caused it to equate cancer with alcoholism is nonsensical imo. One there is no choice an you can't do anything about the other is self inflicted and you can alobeit you might need help to deal with it
Getting the disease, any disease, is not a choice. Once you realize you are sick, getting treatment is a choice. You obviously either have no personal experience with alcoholism, or no gained knowledge.
I urge you to research this, especially the recent neurological and biological studies, before continuing outdated and damaging views.
I work with alcoholics of all kinds: young, old, parent, you name it. Native Americans, in which I am an expert, are especially susceptible genetically, having developed for millennia without alcohol until the last two centuries.
Disease is especially never a "lifestyle choice."
Actually I'm perfectly aware of all that but unlike cancer or alzheimers you can actually do something about it. Yes you don't know you an alcoholic before you become one but once you know you can take steps to get off it. I do actually have personal experience of alcoholics both functional and non functional and more than a few that I suppose you might class as alcohol dependent or drunkards to use the more perjorative term. The reasons for starting on the road to drug and alcohol abuse are complex and some people are more likely to become that way for biological reasons - like with the american indians - but there are also societal factors at play as there is with drug culture but you have a choice whether you continue down that route although I will concede you might need help to change, sometimes you need help to help yourself. But for every alcoholic or drug addict there are far more who realise where things could lead and make a lifestyle choice to not go there. I know diabetics that still drink bottles of coke do I sympathise yes, do I think they are idiots for not taking the hint yes I do. Some diseases really are a result of lifestyle choice. Like charles Kennedy I come from the land of the half pint and the wee nippy sweetie pressure to drink and to drink to get drunk for a good night out is staggering but grown ups learn not to do it.
Getting the disease, any disease, is not a choice. Once you realize you are sick, getting treatment is a choice.
Try that line of reasoning with someone who has terminal cancer - there is no treatment you are going to die and there is nothing you can do about it and nothing you did caused it to equate cancer with alcoholism is nonsensical imo. One there is no choice an you can't do anything about the other is self inflicted and you can alobeit you might need help to deal with it
Charles Kennedy RIP
When one gets cancer it may kill them (it isn't always terminal).
When one becomes alcoholic it may kill them.
When one has cancer if they get treatment there is a possibility (and an ever increasing possibility at that) that it can be cured altogether, or go into remission.
When someone goes for treatment from alocholism they can never be cured - it only goes into remission. Furthermore, the saving of life is not even a certainty, as the damage may already have been irreversibly done (such as with liver damage, for instance).
If a person who has cancer refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
If a person who is alcoholic refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
There are all sorts of paralells between alcoholism & cancer (and any other terminal disease, for that matter). To write that off as being 'nonsensical' is, in itself, 'nonsensical'.
When one becomes alcoholic it may kill them.
When one has cancer if they get treatment there is a possibility (and an ever increasing possibility at that) that it can be cured altogether, or go into remission.
When someone goes for treatment from alocholism they can never be cured - it only goes into remission. Furthermore, the saving of life is not even a certainty, as the damage may already have been irreversibly done (such as with liver damage, for instance).
If a person who has cancer refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
If a person who is alcoholic refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
There are all sorts of paralells between alcoholism & cancer (and any other terminal disease, for that matter). To write that off as being 'nonsensical' is, in itself, 'nonsensical'.
Charles Kennedy RIP
FourPart;1480293 wrote: When one gets cancer it may kill them (it isn't always terminal).
When one becomes alcoholic it may kill them.
When one has cancer if they get treatment there is a possibility (and an ever increasing possibility at that) that it can be cured altogether, or go into remission.
When someone goes for treatment from alocholism they can never be cured - it only goes into remission. Furthermore, the saving of life is not even a certainty, as the damage may already have been irreversibly done (such as with liver damage, for instance).
If a person who has cancer refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
If a person who is alcoholic refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
There are all sorts of paralells between alcoholism & cancer (and any other terminal disease, for that matter). To write that off as being 'nonsensical' is, in itself, 'nonsensical'.
Clearly we are not going to agree. Cancer causes one in four of all deaths in the UK.
n the UK there were around 162,000 deaths from cancer in 2012, that's more than 440 people every day.
More than one person dies from cancer every four minutes in the UK.
Cancer causes more than one in four of all deaths in the UK.
Cancer death rates in the UK have fallen by around a fifth over the last forty years and by 10% over the last decade.
Cancer survival statistics | Cancer Research UK
Half of people diagnosed with cancer now survive their disease for at least ten years.
46% of men and 54% of women cancer patients diagnosed in 2010-2011 in England and Wales are predicted to survive 10 or more years.
Cancer survival in the UK have doubled in the last 40 years.
Unlike being an alcoholic you don't get any choice in the matter. Alcoholics had and have a choice cancer sufferers do not. Don't try and tell me that is on a par with an alcoholic.
Imagine the scene in the doctors surgery
Cancer sufferer "there's nothing we can do you have only a few months left at most" We donl;t really know what caused it but it seems to be nothing bto do with lifestyley or genetcs
Alcoholic: "The damage is such you may only have a few months to live" But you did it to yourself.
Just by sheer chance this is in todays daily mail not a paper i would buy but occasionally read online.
I pity Charles Kennedy but being alcoholic is NOT a disease by DR MAX PEMBERTON | Daily Mail Online
What’s interesting is that although there is a vocal group of people pushing for alcohol addiction to be called a disease, we rarely hear the same about drug abuse. No one talks about ‘this cruel disease of heroin addiction’.
Why not? The disease model communicates sympathy and understanding — qualities we’re quicker to offer middle-class drinkers than working-class kids with needles in their arms. It says to people: don’t worry, we’re not judging you, we know how hard this is for you.
This is why the disease model is championed by so many of the liberal elite — it’s a way they can show each other how caring and sympathetic they are. It makes them feel better about themselves
Read more: I pity Charles Kennedy but being alcoholic is NOT a disease by DR MAX PEMBERTON | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
If you are rich and/or middle calss or a hollywood starlet you are an alsoholic if youb arec poor and get your fix knocking back buckfast you are a drunkard.
You know yourself they cannot be seen on a par
When one gets cancer it may kill them (it isn't always terminal).
When one becomes alcoholic it may kill them.
One becomes an alcoholic rather suggests yopu do think there is choice in the matter. :sneaky:
When one becomes alcoholic it may kill them.
When one has cancer if they get treatment there is a possibility (and an ever increasing possibility at that) that it can be cured altogether, or go into remission.
When someone goes for treatment from alocholism they can never be cured - it only goes into remission. Furthermore, the saving of life is not even a certainty, as the damage may already have been irreversibly done (such as with liver damage, for instance).
If a person who has cancer refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
If a person who is alcoholic refuses treatment there is a much higher chance it will kill them.
There are all sorts of paralells between alcoholism & cancer (and any other terminal disease, for that matter). To write that off as being 'nonsensical' is, in itself, 'nonsensical'.
Clearly we are not going to agree. Cancer causes one in four of all deaths in the UK.
n the UK there were around 162,000 deaths from cancer in 2012, that's more than 440 people every day.
More than one person dies from cancer every four minutes in the UK.
Cancer causes more than one in four of all deaths in the UK.
Cancer death rates in the UK have fallen by around a fifth over the last forty years and by 10% over the last decade.
Cancer survival statistics | Cancer Research UK
Half of people diagnosed with cancer now survive their disease for at least ten years.
46% of men and 54% of women cancer patients diagnosed in 2010-2011 in England and Wales are predicted to survive 10 or more years.
Cancer survival in the UK have doubled in the last 40 years.
Unlike being an alcoholic you don't get any choice in the matter. Alcoholics had and have a choice cancer sufferers do not. Don't try and tell me that is on a par with an alcoholic.
Imagine the scene in the doctors surgery
Cancer sufferer "there's nothing we can do you have only a few months left at most" We donl;t really know what caused it but it seems to be nothing bto do with lifestyley or genetcs
Alcoholic: "The damage is such you may only have a few months to live" But you did it to yourself.
Just by sheer chance this is in todays daily mail not a paper i would buy but occasionally read online.
I pity Charles Kennedy but being alcoholic is NOT a disease by DR MAX PEMBERTON | Daily Mail Online
What’s interesting is that although there is a vocal group of people pushing for alcohol addiction to be called a disease, we rarely hear the same about drug abuse. No one talks about ‘this cruel disease of heroin addiction’.
Why not? The disease model communicates sympathy and understanding — qualities we’re quicker to offer middle-class drinkers than working-class kids with needles in their arms. It says to people: don’t worry, we’re not judging you, we know how hard this is for you.
This is why the disease model is championed by so many of the liberal elite — it’s a way they can show each other how caring and sympathetic they are. It makes them feel better about themselves
Read more: I pity Charles Kennedy but being alcoholic is NOT a disease by DR MAX PEMBERTON | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
If you are rich and/or middle calss or a hollywood starlet you are an alsoholic if youb arec poor and get your fix knocking back buckfast you are a drunkard.
You know yourself they cannot be seen on a par
When one gets cancer it may kill them (it isn't always terminal).
When one becomes alcoholic it may kill them.
One becomes an alcoholic rather suggests yopu do think there is choice in the matter. :sneaky:
Charles Kennedy RIP
It is the same people that are prone to drug addiction as to alcohol addiction, many function on a daily basis for years and years.
I think I know where you are coming from gmc, but would you ask someone with any other mental condition to 'pull them selves together', or that they could change if they wanted to?
Because that is what constitutes both types of, addiction on top of the chemical dependency.
I think I know where you are coming from gmc, but would you ask someone with any other mental condition to 'pull them selves together', or that they could change if they wanted to?
Because that is what constitutes both types of, addiction on top of the chemical dependency.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Charles Kennedy RIP
Bruv;1480303 wrote: It is the same people that are prone to drug addiction as to alcohol addiction, many function on a daily basis for years and years.
I think I know where you are coming from gmc, but would you ask someone with any other mental condition to 'pull them selves together', or that they could change if they wanted to?
Because that is what constitutes both types of, addiction on top of the chemical dependency.
I would not put alcoholism on a par with manic depression or schizophrenia either. I have a relative whose manic you can see the switch going in his brain and a new person emerges (actually a dangerous one normally one of the nicest people you could wish to meet ). An alcoholic can choose not to take that first drink when they are sober and in full possession of their faculties. In alcohol addiction there is an element of choice and things you can do yourself to get off it with cancer and alzheimers there is not. Come to that there is no choice in dyslexia or asbergers yet some elements of society heap approbium on sufferes while sympathising with the alcoholic.
Addiction is a condition that people need help with but to put it on a par with cancer and the like I find offensive comment It's just not the same. and not all cancers are terminal ( someone said it earlier) is the kind of inane platitude that makes me want to punch someone. If you are in remission you're waitig for the hammer to drop, I know two people in that remission phase marking time till they die and knowing it's going to be sooner rather than later. You have only a few years left might be ten probably less what would you do.
You don't have to agree with me I am merely expressing an opinion I'll admit I have very little sympathy for alcoholics people know what they are getting in to when they start drinking. Drug addicts I sympathise with more because they can get involved without realising it is happening - there are people who think it amusing to spike people's drink and food at parties. On the other hand they can get off them.
What do you think about that other popular addiction smoking? Being an alcoholic is perhaps more like being a smoker than a cancer sufferer. Both the drugs involved are addictive and some people are more likely to become addicted than other. If Charles Kennedy had died of a smoking related disease there woiuld have been very little sympathy. Sad but it was self inflicted would be the reaction.
I think I know where you are coming from gmc, but would you ask someone with any other mental condition to 'pull them selves together', or that they could change if they wanted to?
Because that is what constitutes both types of, addiction on top of the chemical dependency.
I would not put alcoholism on a par with manic depression or schizophrenia either. I have a relative whose manic you can see the switch going in his brain and a new person emerges (actually a dangerous one normally one of the nicest people you could wish to meet ). An alcoholic can choose not to take that first drink when they are sober and in full possession of their faculties. In alcohol addiction there is an element of choice and things you can do yourself to get off it with cancer and alzheimers there is not. Come to that there is no choice in dyslexia or asbergers yet some elements of society heap approbium on sufferes while sympathising with the alcoholic.
Addiction is a condition that people need help with but to put it on a par with cancer and the like I find offensive comment It's just not the same. and not all cancers are terminal ( someone said it earlier) is the kind of inane platitude that makes me want to punch someone. If you are in remission you're waitig for the hammer to drop, I know two people in that remission phase marking time till they die and knowing it's going to be sooner rather than later. You have only a few years left might be ten probably less what would you do.
You don't have to agree with me I am merely expressing an opinion I'll admit I have very little sympathy for alcoholics people know what they are getting in to when they start drinking. Drug addicts I sympathise with more because they can get involved without realising it is happening - there are people who think it amusing to spike people's drink and food at parties. On the other hand they can get off them.
What do you think about that other popular addiction smoking? Being an alcoholic is perhaps more like being a smoker than a cancer sufferer. Both the drugs involved are addictive and some people are more likely to become addicted than other. If Charles Kennedy had died of a smoking related disease there woiuld have been very little sympathy. Sad but it was self inflicted would be the reaction.
Charles Kennedy RIP
You sympathise with drug addicts but not alcoholism? Now that's a contradiction if ever I heard one. Alcohol IS a drug. You say that drug addicts don't have a choice, as they're not aware of getting involved? What utter nonsense. Any addiction takes effect over a long period. It isn't a case of one fix & you're hooked. No more is it the case with alcoholism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of course, if you don't have that first drink you will never become alcoholic. The same goes for a drug addict. The difference is that not only is alcohol socially acceptable, it is encouraged & even expected. The difference is that one person will become reliant on it, while the other will not.
I would also question the validity of the claim that Cancer is the cause of 1 in 4 of all deaths. Premature deaths, yes, but not all deaths. Out of all the people I have known who have died, only about 3 have had cancer and only 2 of them died as a direct cause of it. The others were of things like heart disease, old age, accidents, etc.
When I refered to not all cancers being terminal, I admit I was being slightly inaccurate with my terminology. I was referring to Benign Tumours, and the like, which although are referred to generically as cancers, by their absolute definition they are not.
My own Brother was invalided from the Army with Gulf War Syndrome (although officially that doesn't exist), which is a form of Cancer. As a result he had to have everything from his stomach down removed & fitted with a colostomy. Personally I would be very bitter about what his own people had done to him. He, on the other hand, takes the Glass Half Full approach inasmuch as he doesn't have Cancer any more, so you see, it is curable / non-terminal in that sense.
I would also question the validity of the claim that Cancer is the cause of 1 in 4 of all deaths. Premature deaths, yes, but not all deaths. Out of all the people I have known who have died, only about 3 have had cancer and only 2 of them died as a direct cause of it. The others were of things like heart disease, old age, accidents, etc.
When I refered to not all cancers being terminal, I admit I was being slightly inaccurate with my terminology. I was referring to Benign Tumours, and the like, which although are referred to generically as cancers, by their absolute definition they are not.
My own Brother was invalided from the Army with Gulf War Syndrome (although officially that doesn't exist), which is a form of Cancer. As a result he had to have everything from his stomach down removed & fitted with a colostomy. Personally I would be very bitter about what his own people had done to him. He, on the other hand, takes the Glass Half Full approach inasmuch as he doesn't have Cancer any more, so you see, it is curable / non-terminal in that sense.
Charles Kennedy RIP
Back on topic:
I was surprised to learn what an incredible influence Mr. Kennedy was on Great Britain. Time magazine had a very nice eulogy for him in their latest issue. Apparently his principled stand against the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, which has proven correct, allowed the Liberal Democrat party to enter the mainstream. I'm not sure what Liberal Democrat means in Great Britain as opposed to the U.S., though.
I was surprised to learn what an incredible influence Mr. Kennedy was on Great Britain. Time magazine had a very nice eulogy for him in their latest issue. Apparently his principled stand against the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, which has proven correct, allowed the Liberal Democrat party to enter the mainstream. I'm not sure what Liberal Democrat means in Great Britain as opposed to the U.S., though.
Charles Kennedy RIP
Saint_;1480343 wrote: I'm not sure what Liberal Democrat means in Great Britain as opposed to the U.S., though.
I'm not sure anyone really knows.
Once upon a time there were only 2 parties. Conservative & Liberal. Then came Labour - the Working Man's Party, funded (as it still is) mainly by Trade Union Subscriptions. This made the Government a 3 way system, but ever since Churchill, the Liberals have steadily been going downhill. Then, in the 80s came the breakaway group from the Liberals aiming to be more towards the Labour Party, calling themselves the Social Democrat Party. Nothing really came of them either. Then they decided to try & re-unite into the new Social Democratic Liberal Party, and eventually reformed to the Liberal Democrats. Technically the Liberals are still a separate party to the Liberal Democrats, but they're even more of nobodies than the Liberal Democrats are now.
Charles Kennedy was vehemently opposed to the Tory / Lib Dem coalition, and was, once again, proved right, as it resulted in all but totally destroying an already weak party as it demonstrated their willingness to totally renege on all their promises by jumping into bed with whoever happened to have power at the time.
I'm not sure anyone really knows.
Once upon a time there were only 2 parties. Conservative & Liberal. Then came Labour - the Working Man's Party, funded (as it still is) mainly by Trade Union Subscriptions. This made the Government a 3 way system, but ever since Churchill, the Liberals have steadily been going downhill. Then, in the 80s came the breakaway group from the Liberals aiming to be more towards the Labour Party, calling themselves the Social Democrat Party. Nothing really came of them either. Then they decided to try & re-unite into the new Social Democratic Liberal Party, and eventually reformed to the Liberal Democrats. Technically the Liberals are still a separate party to the Liberal Democrats, but they're even more of nobodies than the Liberal Democrats are now.
Charles Kennedy was vehemently opposed to the Tory / Lib Dem coalition, and was, once again, proved right, as it resulted in all but totally destroying an already weak party as it demonstrated their willingness to totally renege on all their promises by jumping into bed with whoever happened to have power at the time.
Charles Kennedy RIP
posted by four part
You sympathise with drug addicts but not alcoholism? Now that's a contradiction if ever I heard one. Alcohol IS a drug. You say that drug addicts don't have a choice, as they're not aware of getting involved? What utter nonsense. Any addiction takes effect over a long period. It isn't a case of one fix & you're hooked. No more is it the case with alcoholism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of course, if you don't have that first drink you will never become alcoholic. The same goes for a drug addict. The difference is that not only is alcohol socially acceptable, it is encouraged & even expected. The difference is that one person will become reliant on it, while the other will not.
I said I sympathise more but I didn't mean by a great amount. I did not say that drug addicts don't have a choice but there is also tremendous social pressure to take drugs with some like cannibis being almost cool as well as the "legal highs" that are supposedly safe so some may be tempted to try it believing that to be the case I would sympathise with anyone that gets fooled in to trying them. Nicotine is a drug as well and also kills I have zero sympathy for a smoker whose habit kills them.
posted by four part
I would also question the validity of the claim that Cancer is the cause of 1 in 4 of all deaths. Premature deaths, yes, but not all deaths. Out of all the people I have known who have died, only about 3 have had cancer and only 2 of them died as a direct cause of it. The others were of things like heart disease, old age, accidents, etc.
The figures are from cancer research it's up to you if you want to dispute them but a sample consissting of your acquantances sinl;t really a good counter. I find a staggering number of my acquantances have been touched by cancer either through friends or close relatives having it. Offhand I know two who are in remission and living life to the full because they know they don't have very long of it comes back and one who has been told they have a few months. of the people you know had cancer two thirds of them died, in comparison the odds of surving a heart attack are pretty good.
The effects of cancer on those who get it and those around them are devastating the same is also true of an alcoholic the difference is the alcoholic has a choice in the matter to put it on a par with diseases like cancer and alzheimers I find an almost unbelieveable point of view. The tragedy of charles Kennedy is he did it to himself.
posted by saint
I was surprised to learn what an incredible influence Mr. Kennedy was on Great Britain. Time magazine had a very nice eulogy for him in their latest issue. Apparently his principled stand against the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, which has proven correct, allowed the Liberal Democrat party to enter the mainstream. I'm not sure what Liberal Democrat means in Great Britain as opposed to the U.S., though.
He was forced to resign because his alcoholism was becomiong more apparent and affecting his ability to perform as leader those who took his place were unprincipled pygmies in comparison.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... death.html
Only Nick Clegg - and others - can explain what truly possessed them to dismiss Kennedy in the fateful winter of 2006. But we can all see the result. I have no doubt the Liberal Democrats would have done better with Kennedy, even given his alcohol issues, than it did with Clegg. Now the party lies in ruins, while mourning the passing of a man who died of a broken political heart.
Can't understand why liberal has become such a pejirative term in the states. Why would anyone object to liberal principles like individual liberty, free speech, feedom of religion, equality before the law et etc.
You sympathise with drug addicts but not alcoholism? Now that's a contradiction if ever I heard one. Alcohol IS a drug. You say that drug addicts don't have a choice, as they're not aware of getting involved? What utter nonsense. Any addiction takes effect over a long period. It isn't a case of one fix & you're hooked. No more is it the case with alcoholism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of course, if you don't have that first drink you will never become alcoholic. The same goes for a drug addict. The difference is that not only is alcohol socially acceptable, it is encouraged & even expected. The difference is that one person will become reliant on it, while the other will not.
I said I sympathise more but I didn't mean by a great amount. I did not say that drug addicts don't have a choice but there is also tremendous social pressure to take drugs with some like cannibis being almost cool as well as the "legal highs" that are supposedly safe so some may be tempted to try it believing that to be the case I would sympathise with anyone that gets fooled in to trying them. Nicotine is a drug as well and also kills I have zero sympathy for a smoker whose habit kills them.
posted by four part
I would also question the validity of the claim that Cancer is the cause of 1 in 4 of all deaths. Premature deaths, yes, but not all deaths. Out of all the people I have known who have died, only about 3 have had cancer and only 2 of them died as a direct cause of it. The others were of things like heart disease, old age, accidents, etc.
The figures are from cancer research it's up to you if you want to dispute them but a sample consissting of your acquantances sinl;t really a good counter. I find a staggering number of my acquantances have been touched by cancer either through friends or close relatives having it. Offhand I know two who are in remission and living life to the full because they know they don't have very long of it comes back and one who has been told they have a few months. of the people you know had cancer two thirds of them died, in comparison the odds of surving a heart attack are pretty good.
The effects of cancer on those who get it and those around them are devastating the same is also true of an alcoholic the difference is the alcoholic has a choice in the matter to put it on a par with diseases like cancer and alzheimers I find an almost unbelieveable point of view. The tragedy of charles Kennedy is he did it to himself.
posted by saint
I was surprised to learn what an incredible influence Mr. Kennedy was on Great Britain. Time magazine had a very nice eulogy for him in their latest issue. Apparently his principled stand against the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, which has proven correct, allowed the Liberal Democrat party to enter the mainstream. I'm not sure what Liberal Democrat means in Great Britain as opposed to the U.S., though.
He was forced to resign because his alcoholism was becomiong more apparent and affecting his ability to perform as leader those who took his place were unprincipled pygmies in comparison.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... death.html
Only Nick Clegg - and others - can explain what truly possessed them to dismiss Kennedy in the fateful winter of 2006. But we can all see the result. I have no doubt the Liberal Democrats would have done better with Kennedy, even given his alcohol issues, than it did with Clegg. Now the party lies in ruins, while mourning the passing of a man who died of a broken political heart.
Can't understand why liberal has become such a pejirative term in the states. Why would anyone object to liberal principles like individual liberty, free speech, feedom of religion, equality before the law et etc.
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480347 wrote: Can't understand why liberal has become such a pejirative term in the states. Why would anyone object to liberal principles like individual liberty, free speech, feedom of religion, equality before the law et etc.
Because, as with all sorts of words in the English Language, misuse gradually changes their meaning, usually in a derogatory way.
Because, as with all sorts of words in the English Language, misuse gradually changes their meaning, usually in a derogatory way.
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480347 wrote:
Can't understand why liberal has become such a pejirative term in the states. Why would anyone object to liberal principles like individual liberty, free speech, feedom of religion, equality before the law et etc.
I agree. When people ask me if I'm a liberal now, I tell them, "Oh goodness no, I'm a Progressive!"
Can't understand why liberal has become such a pejirative term in the states. Why would anyone object to liberal principles like individual liberty, free speech, feedom of religion, equality before the law et etc.
I agree. When people ask me if I'm a liberal now, I tell them, "Oh goodness no, I'm a Progressive!"
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Charles Kennedy RIP
Saint_;1480414 wrote: I agree. When people ask me if I'm a liberal now, I tell them, "Oh goodness no, I'm a Progressive!"
Me, too!
Me, too!
Charles Kennedy RIP
Why not try - you ask that as if it's something to be ashamed of.
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480461 wrote: Why not try - you ask that as if it's something to be ashamed of.
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
No.
No.
and, No.
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
No.
No.
and, No.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480461 wrote: Why not try - you ask that as if it's something to be ashamed of.
I never accepted the description liberal for myself. I'm way too radical. Both the dems & repubs ARE something to be ashamed of; they are a disgrace. Panderers.
I never accepted the description liberal for myself. I'm way too radical. Both the dems & repubs ARE something to be ashamed of; they are a disgrace. Panderers.
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480461 wrote:
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
Actually, where I'm from...yes, yes, and also yes.
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
Actually, where I'm from...yes, yes, and also yes.
Charles Kennedy RIP
One of life's mysteries, in a modern country like the UK or US how do misogynists manage to find women willing to procreate with them?
Charles Kennedy RIP
gmc;1480461 wrote: Why not try - you ask that as if it's something to be ashamed of.
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
Conservative = To Conserve = To keep things as they are / were. To maintain the Status Quo.
If the Conservatives had their way we probably would still have slavery. After all, that's what they're pushing for right now. Less pay for more work. The menials do the graft. The Lord of the Manor reaps the rewards. Conservative is right. Nothing changes under them.
Does that mean that all non progressives are reactionaries in america? Good ole boys that think slavery should never have been abolished or women allowed to vote? is good ole boys the correct term?
Conservative = To Conserve = To keep things as they are / were. To maintain the Status Quo.
If the Conservatives had their way we probably would still have slavery. After all, that's what they're pushing for right now. Less pay for more work. The menials do the graft. The Lord of the Manor reaps the rewards. Conservative is right. Nothing changes under them.