🇳🇱
We have this tendency to not see mental health as a disease. so for most of us we never realize these sorts of connections. But it is vital we change how we look at these things for everyone's sake.
@Surasanji Yea, and i think its important we consider it a disease if its genetic or not too. Sadly people tend to give a little more consideration of genetic mental disorders than acquired ones.
@freemo I am very frank and open about my disease. I could have been born with MS, or another physical disorder just as crippling. The same genetic soup all screwed up in a wholly different way.
Luckily, I've moved to a country where I don't need to pay anything for my health care- including mental health.
@Surasanji No such thing as free healthcare. The only difference is if your forced to pay for it or if its your choice, as well as how much freedom you have in what you buy.
@freemo Allow me to restate. I have healthcare that won't be denied to me if I'm out of a job, or unable to work and it'll be at the same level as almost anyone else.
@Surasanji Yea we had that in america before even obamacare. Though it wasnt the "same level" as everyone else it was actually really good quality in that regard.
@ayy Not sure off hand, but id imagine far less than 2/3rds of the general population are abused.
@freemo Is there a source to the meme? I mean, it makes sense, and I like the sentiment, but I want to make sure it's true.
@djsumdog There was I'm sure. I tend to research memes before i post it. but I saw this one as an old post I made 4 years ago so i shared it here with faith that 4 years ago i fact checked it. Though sadly I no longer have the source.
@freemo You have to be careful with these correlation, because there are studies correlating child abuse with homosexuality. I knew fundie Christians who'd use this to be anti-homosexual. I had gay friends who told me they though this was true (one told me he and his gay cousin had both been abused) O_o
I don't think he was right though, but we don't know, because these are "Dark Numbers." You can't ethically do a lot of these studies, because the surveys essentially ask people to report crime.
@freemo Megan M did an editorial about dark statistics a few years back: http://archive.is/K9MFy#selection-3051.0-3051.13
@djsumdog I am a professional statistician, so I recognize those concerns. the issue isnt so much with the statistics being dangerous but how we use it.
I suspect it is very true that people who are abused at a young age are more likely to be gay. That doesnt mean abuse causes you to be gay or that everyone who is gay is so because of abuse. It could be that gay people are just a greater target for abuse, even by parents. To me this seems like the greater explanation, they see theri male child being "feminine" so they beat them a little harder to toughen them up or some nonsense.
It could also be that some people (though i suspect this would be a small minority) might respond to abuse by picking a type of sexuality that tends to be abused.. Gay people are abused in society and if a child was abused they may have some sort of a messed up psychology where they pick a sexual life style contrary to their natural disposition as a sort of self-abuse. Though if this is a factor at all we would just as easily see the reverse in society if being gay was the norm.
Regardless we should always be critical of our interpretations and entertain critical thinking about it and our conclusions. With that said it seems like a pretty safe bet that the correlation between abuse and mental disorder is causative, at least to some extent. It makes sense intuitively.
@freemo Have you read or heard of the book The Body Keeps the Score? Great book about the effects of trauma in both adults in and kids - people know PTSD is a thing for those in the military, but don't appreciate that childhood trauma (which could be as... innocent as an early medical hospitalization) is more complex, because it's happening during key brain development.
This is close to home for us as adoptive parents with an ever increasing understanding of early childhood trauma, and trauma in general.
Anyway, his concern (if I recall correctly) with seeing a mental issue as a "disease" is that it can put a lot of people into a place of feeling like there's no point in trying non medication treatment because diseases just happen and are up to the prescribing physicians to medicate, whereas he's seen a lot of progress with non medical approaches as well that get ignored by most of the mental health community today who often see us as nothing more than chemistry sets that need to be balanced out. He's not anti-medicine, he still prescribes, but focuses first on other treatments I wasn't familiar with before reading his work.
I appreciated his perspective as someone who has been in the field for so long, and the balance there. You're not a terrible person for medication, you're not a terrible person for seeking out alternative things that may be even more beneficial in resolving root causes rather than masking or compensating for symptoms.
@nerthos Sure we could. We could also put people witht he flu in prison then while they are there force them to take the treatment we want.
The notion that they "wont do it on their own" is nonsense though. Like with any disease some people get better after many attempts of treatment, some never do. Most drug addicts I know have been voluntarily in and out of rehab more times than I can count, they very clearly do treat it on their own, those treatments just also tend to fail. It doesnt help that treatment is often tens of thousands of dollars they dont have and health insurance is unlike to cure.
Here is an idea, instead of wasting an insane amount of money on sticking them in prison with worse results, why not just actually provide for them good affordable rehab on their own.
The war on drugs is an ineffective, massive waste of money because the guns are aimed at the links of the chain that can protect themselves. If you try to go for a druglord without cutting off its source of money the druglord will just throw some money at a judge or friend in the police and get out free. Addicts don't have such resources, and without addicts to buy, druglords don't have the money to escape prosecution either.
In any siege the goal is to weaken the defender through denial of basic resources.
@nerthos the idea that someone needs punishment simply because something is illegal is absurdity at its finest. If you want to make the argument that someone should be put in jail for something arguing ont he basis of legality is a circular argument. You have to show that it is justified for the act to be illegal in the first place.
Simply put, as far as im concerned the idea of outlawing a persons right to decide what can or can not go into their own body is the epitome of bad law, unjust law, in every regard.
I've seen both sorts of systems at play. I've seen shitholes like america where they outlaw drugs and everyone suffers for it. I've seen other countries like the netherlands where despite what the technical law may be no one is ever arrested for it, and that waste of money is directed towards excellent affordable drug rehab programs.
Guess what, I have yet to meet a single person in the netherlands with a heroin addiction and I can think of more people than i could count on both hands who have it in america.
Funny how that works, one actually solves a problem, the other wastes money and doesnt. But yea lets hold onto the idea of sticking to failed policy just because it was already illegal. Thats like saying we have to stick to failed policy because failed policy already exists and they knew it.
@ayy if you want to make that argument you'd have to show the cost, and the percentage of addiction before and after spending, and then compare it to a similar country using other techniques.
Morover youd have to evaluate how many lives were destroyed in one compared to the otehr.
For example in america even if you wind up in prison and get clean somehow more than likely your life has been destroyed by this (good lyuck getting a job as an exfelon). So even if it eliminated the drug abuse it would still be a failure since it just traded one problem for another.
@ayy Again, at what cost... There are lots of ways to get drug use to 0. I could also nuke a country and get drug use to 0. But the measure of success has to measure over all harm, financial and otherwise.
@nerthos
that makes no sense. If its legal they can keep their business in any sense. They would be beholden to actual good business practices. Meaning they can't sell on a street, cant import the drugs, cant make it out a bath tub. You have taxes, regulations, age limits, and limits on who how and why you can sell.
They would have to go out of business in their current form and be replaced with clean legal alternatives with whatever regulatory warnings or procedures you want.
In an ideal world I'd say all drugs should be legal and provided via regulated production from stores. However the stipulation is if you go in and buy it you must first have a free session with a medical professional who would provide you warnings, advice on how to be safe, and strongly encourage you to seek free rehab.
since the vast majority of addicts who cant keep their life in order actively seek out help and rehab its reasonable to think this would have a huge impact. In fact when we look at other countries that take the rehabilitation approach the results have been amazing.
If they're illegal and unsafe, at least you can actively fight them. Attack producers, dealers and users, confiscate their belongings, use that money to rehabilitate captured users. That way you have both effective rehabilitation and eventually no drug market at all.
@nerthos
Except that isnt how it works. It only works that way if you pretend in your head thats how reality works. Most people who know anyone with a legitimate drug problem (cant function in society due to their drugs) know the vast majority are NOT trying to cure themselves because of fear of prison. Most want help because they suffer and dont want to suffer.
Its like suggesting people witht he flu would never never get better unless we make the flu illegal cause everyone would just be comfortable having it.
@nerthos
People who shoot up heroin dont willingly do it either. Usually the people who do are either 1) already severely mentally ill and suffering from other issues they are trying to self medicate or 2)got to where they were medicating physical illness like pain medication or anxiety, usually starting from legally prescribed drugs.
Very few people just wake up one day with a great life and little issue and just go "ya know what, today i think ill try some heroin"
In the USA the war on drugs doesn't go well because govermnent agencies are tied to the drug trade, it's common knowledge the boom on cocaine and crack was a move by the CIA to get untraceable money for their operations.
I would be in favour of letting everyone do whatever they wanted with their own bodies if people in general took full responsibility for their actions, but people in general don't do that, and society has to carry the burden of individuals with bodies and minds ruined by addiction once that happens, they won't magically stop demanding assistance because the damage was caused by themselves.
If people signed a legally binding document resigning any rights to assistance or complaint, and allowing police or civilians to shoot them if they tried to steal to buy more drugs when they first acquired drugs? sure, I'd be fine with letting them take as many drugs as they wanted.
To me, priority should always be put on protecting innocents over anything else.
@nerthos
While i do disagree with your ideas and find them "idiotic" as far as ideas go. I would not apply that to you as a person. I think its fine to insult an idea but not a person. So while i may understand why he feels that way about you given the absurdity of your views I do not approve of him attacking you personally. For whatever that is worth.
That doesn't apply to him though.
@nerthos
I mostly agree. But I should point out my top concern is not the well being of people with addiction. It is the well being of the whole of society. Whatever can reduce the greatest amount of suffering amongst all. I would even say i prioritize sober people over those addicted in my intentions (even if you may not agree my policies would have that effect).
@freemo Yes. Bipolar type 2 here, although more likely due to genetics than abuse/neglect.
There is a huge stigma in talking about mental health issues and it's a problem. People need to recognize mental health diseases as exactly that- diseases.