Reeeee-haaaaab!!!

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote:

Alcoholism is an addiction way more than it's a disease, as people conventionally understand it. I do think certain people can be more likely to become addicted to things than others genetically. Calling it a disease is a bit of a cop out, because it's a way to take responsibility off of the user. It does get used as an excuse. I feel sorry for alcoholics, but they shouldn't get any less of a prison sentence than the rest of us because some bloodsucking lawyer wants to argue it was all caused by a disease.

I'm sure that they were compelled to drink because they didn't have any help, but it shouldn't absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions. It's like that Andrea Yates who essentially get's absolved of her crimes, and doesn't have to do hard time because she's insane.

Give it time... I'm sure somewhere, sometime soon some brilliant lawyer will try to defend the drunk driving killer with the "alcoholism disease" defense. Hopefully the jury will be smart enough to see through it.

I don't really care whether you call it a disease or not. Its all just semantics. Lung cancer is a disease right, even if self-induced by smoking? Oh yeah, all those nice people who made millions in lawsuits against the tobacco companies. I wonder why some brainiac lawyer hasn't tried to sue Coors/Budweiser for some poor alcoholic's liver failure. :rolleyes:

The problem is, everyone wants the freedom to do whatever they want, then want someone else to take the blame when they f&*^ themselves up.

PolkThug

For those in the "its a disease" camp, is nicotine addiction a disease? If not, how do you differentiate?

Sincerely,
P-Thuggy

PhantomOG

PolkThug wrote:

For those in the "its a disease" camp, is nicotine addiction a disease? If not, how do you differentiate?

Sincerely,
P-Thuggy

or differentiate it from any addiction for that matter. Is "tracing" alcoholics through generations the only data signifying its a disease? Or has there been some genetic/DNA research? I sure you could find quite a few family trees that have addicted smokers running through them, but I'd blame the parenting (or lack of) more so than some genetic marker saying someone was going to be a smoker or not.

buttdad

PolkThug wrote:

For those in the "its a disease" camp, is nicotine addiction a disease? If not, how do you differentiate?QUOTE]

ADDICTION is the symtpom of a "diseased" brain. It is "DISEASED" after the
FIRST hit, that's when the choice occured. So yes a person can be addicted to nicotine. After that you deal with a "diseased" part of the body. I can't see where anyone who feels is it a disease is offering it as an excuse for anything, who the hell said anything about an excuse for anything. It's about how do you HELP someone like this.

Unless you rose on the third day you too have most likely have made some bad choices. Unfortunatley the bad choice to use drugs has much larger consequences. But are they weak for making a bad choice ? Again unless you rose on the third day you did too.

I acknowledge the power of drugs and alcohol and respect they can ruin my life if I abuse them. Sounds like alot of people understand that using drugs can ruin your life if you use them, however you don't seem to acknowledge that it is because the DRUGS are powerful, but becasue people who use them are weak. Furthermore saying things like "EVERY" hollywood type shows a closed mind. Believing because someone is in a particular industry they can be lumped with all the rest. Good thing no one with an equal lack of awareness thinks all Polksters think alike. Obviously you don't, and so goes it with all groups of people. So it stands to reason if you classify people and pre-judge them you also don't open your mind enough to understand it's the POWER of the drugs that wrecks peoples lives, not their weakness (bad choice) to take the first hit.

I spent 6 mos training at County USC medical center in Los Angeles.
Until you have seen a 3 day old baby screaming in constant pain and agony because it "NEEDS" cocaine in it's system to feel ok. Because mom smoked crack for her whole pregnancy. So what choice did that baby make ?
That is the effect of a "diseased" brain. Did mom have a disease ? yes after she made the bad choice to take that firsr hit, after that her brain is diseased, it is now virtualy impossible to make the right decision to quit.
Again an excuse NO, NO, NO. It is in the understanding of what is going on in an addicted mind that we can HELP and TEACH our own children to make good choices.

We seem to have a third camp now that states it's an addiction not a disease. "Addiction" is the symptom of the "disease".

I posted a definiton of disease from the dictionary. If you feel someone is taking liberties (watering down) with the definition, re-post it say why. Lets discuss a consistent "theory" or "idea" i.e. the actual definition, or a medical proposal that addiction is a disease, or cite a study that says it's not.
Getting emotional about an emotional subject is easy. Getting off point and adding crazy ideas like: because someone believes it is a disease people should be excused from criminal or negligent acts doesn't get closer to understanding other ideas or theories.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

Give it time... I'm sure somewhere, sometime soon some brilliant lawyer will try to defend the drunk driving killer with the "alcoholism disease" defense. Hopefully the jury will be smart enough to see through it.

I don't really care whether you call it a disease or not. Its all just semantics. Lung cancer is a disease right, even if self-induced by smoking? Oh yeah, all those nice people who made millions in lawsuits against the tobacco companies. I wonder why some brainiac lawyer hasn't tried to sue Coors/Budweiser for some poor alcoholic's liver failure. :rolleyes:

The problem is, everyone wants the freedom to do whatever they want, then want someone else to take the blame when they f&*^ themselves up.

I agree that it will happen if it hasn't happened somewhere already. Generally speaking it's a prerequisite to be a moron to serve on a jury in most large cases in this country.

In any event, I don't think alcoholism is a disease in and of itself. You can't be drawn to drink if you've never tasted it (Alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. while pregnant is a different story). I do think that there is more than likely a genetic or mental issue with people that have a propensity for addiction, a predisposition if you will.

I think the people with this predisposition that are the least understood, and have some of the roughest goes of it are the overweight. You don't need to drink booze to live, snort cocaine to live, smoke to live, have sex to live, but you do need food to live.

It's like giving a heroin addict a little taste of heroin, and then expecting them to stop overindulging.

In the end they DO need to take complete blame for the wrongs the do to others and themselves, and on that I agree 100%. I do think these people would do good from help, however, and I do feel bad for them .

buttdad

Main Entry: dis·ease
Pronunciation: di-'zEz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English disese, from Anglo-French desease, desaise, from des- dis- + eise ease
1 obsolete : TROUBLE
2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms

buttdad

Demiurge wrote:

. You don't need to drink booze to live, snort cocaine to live, smoke to live, have sex to live, but you do need food to live.

Maybe not but I'd rather be dead. :eek:

Demiurge

buttdad wrote:

We seem to have a third camp now that states it's an addiction not a disease. "Addiction" is the symptom of the "disease".

I posted a definiton of disease from the dictionary. If you feel someone is taking liberties (watering down) with the definition, re-post it say why. Lets discuss a consistent "theory" or "idea" i.e. the actual definition, or a medical proposal that addiction is a disease, or cite a study that says it's not.
Getting emotional about an emotional subject is easy. Getting off point and adding crazy ideas like: because someone believes it is a disease people should be excused from criminal or negligent acts doesn't get closer to understanding other ideas or theories.

That was me.

Nobody, other than someone who was literally born from a mother who was abusing a particular substance, is genetically predisposed to any given substance. Those who were are a special case, and since my mother worked in neonatal care in an inner city hospital her whole life I can tell you I know all about the woes of a premature crack baby. It's sickening, and it's a reality.

Other than that the only thing I know to be true is that you can be born with a predisposition to be addicted. You can get addicted to anything, but most seem to find one thing, others have multiple addictions.

You can be addicted to smoking, eating, sex, illicit drugs, alcohol, gambling, spending money, and a whole litany of other things if you're predisposed to addiction. If you're one of those people I don't think you have any right to be able to rely on calling it a disease as compared to the now adult who was born by a mother who was under the influence of a dangerous substance.

They made choices, and at some point you need to make the choice to ask for help. How can my Uncle, sober for 25 years, live with a woman who sneaks drinks in the house not suck down a bottle of Beam if he's diseased? I think it's safe to say he made a rational choice not to drink. He'll always be an alcoholic, but he can control it if he wants to, and he does.

People don't want to call it a disease because a disease is seen as something that's no fault of the afflicted. I don't think alcoholism, in and of itself, is a disease. I don't know how I feel about addiction, but I do know that it's definitely something genetic, or something you're born with. Whether or not I would call that a disease....I don't know.

ND13

Some of us here have first hand experience with alcoholism and/or drug addiction. I wouldn't consider me or any of them weak, at least the ones that are clean or seeking help at this time. I, personally, am an opiate addict that has been clean for 11+ years. There's a family history, on my mother's side, of opiate addiction that I didn't learn about til it was too late. I had injured my neck in 1994 and was put on pain killers by my orthopedic doctor. Now add in the fact that I suffer from migraines and alot of old sports injuries(3 sporter) it was just a matter of time before I was physically addicted to opiates. It's not like I was at a party and I made the choice to shoot up some heroin or oxycontin. I was genetically predisposed to opiate dependence and all it took was a couple of weeks of strong opiate-based painkillers to become hooked. I know that I can't take, even a Vicodin, without the great chance of relapse, so I don't even take one of those after having oral surgery or the like.

But after 12 years of heavy drinking, I was able to stop drinking cold-turkey and after 24 years of smoking, I was able to quit cold-turkey. I will, on a very rare occasion, have a mixed drink, but haven't had but one in the last year. Haven't smoked in over two years.

Skynut

Good for you ND13 and keep it up.

I have had friends who were addicted to anything that made reality go away.
They never made it very far in life before jail or death.

Addiction sucks.

aaharvel

buttdad wrote:

ADDICTION is the symtpom of a "diseased" brain. It is "DISEASED" after the
FIRST hit, that's when the choice occured. So yes a person can be addicted to nicotine. After that you deal with a "diseased" part of the body. I can't see where anyone who feels is it a disease is offering it as an excuse for anything, who the hell said anything about an excuse for anything. It's about how do you HELP someone like this.

Unless you rose on the third day you too have most likely have made some bad choices. Unfortunatley the bad choice to use drugs has much larger consequences. But are they weak for making a bad choice ? Again unless you rose on the third day you did too.

I acknowledge the power of drugs and alcohol and respect they can ruin my life if I abuse them. Sounds like alot of people understand that using drugs can ruin your life if you use them, however you don't seem to acknowledge that it is because the DRUGS are powerful, but becasue people who use them are weak. Furthermore saying things like "EVERY" hollywood type shows a closed mind. Believing because someone is in a particular industry they can be lumped with all the rest. Good thing no one with an equal lack of awareness thinks all Polksters think alike. Obviously you don't, and so goes it with all groups of people. So it stands to reason if you classify people and pre-judge them you also don't open your mind enough to understand it's the POWER of the drugs that wrecks peoples lives, not their weakness (bad choice) to take the first hit.

I spent 6 mos training at County USC medical center in Los Angeles.
Until you have seen a 3 day old baby screaming in constant pain and agony because it "NEEDS" cocaine in it's system to feel ok. Because mom smoked crack for her whole pregnancy. So what choice did that baby make ?
That is the effect of a "diseased" brain. Did mom have a disease ? yes after she made the bad choice to take that firsr hit, after that her brain is diseased, it is now virtualy impossible to make the right decision to quit.
Again an excuse NO, NO, NO. It is in the understanding of what is going on in an addicted mind that we can HELP and TEACH our own children to make good choices.

We seem to have a third camp now that states it's an addiction not a disease. "Addiction" is the symptom of the "disease".

I posted a definiton of disease from the dictionary. If you feel someone is taking liberties (watering down) with the definition, re-post it say why. Lets discuss a consistent "theory" or "idea" i.e. the actual definition, or a medical proposal that addiction is a disease, or cite a study that says it's not.
Getting emotional about an emotional subject is easy. Getting off point and adding crazy ideas like: because someone believes it is a disease people should be excused from criminal or negligent acts doesn't get closer to understanding other ideas or theories.

We have a winner.

FREEEEE-DOOOOOOOOMM!

PhantomOG

buttdad wrote:

Sounds like alot of people understand that using drugs can ruin your life if you use them, however you don't seem to acknowledge that it is because the DRUGS are powerful, but becasue people who use them are weak.

buttdad wrote:

it's the POWER of the drugs that wrecks peoples lives, not their weakness (bad choice) to take the first hit.

sure sounds like excuses to me... (I'm assuming the the "but" is supposed to be a "not"?)

Drugs are only as powerful as you make them. Drug babies/unknown opiates from prescription meds aside, I don't think there is a valid excuse that absolves someone from the poor decision making on the road to becoming an alcoholic. Does someone who's prone to alcoholism turn into an alcoholic after one drink? How about two? No? Then when? Let's see, is it easier to quit drinking after one year of hard drinking, or ten? Becoming an alcoholic is not an overnight process, it takes a series of many, many bad choices. Sure, I've made bad choices. Have I made the same bad choice over and over again? Not to the same level as becoming an alcoholic.

Do I feel bad for them? Sure. Do I think they are deserving of help? Sure. But to say that everyone makes bad decisions on the same level as someone who becomes an alcoholic just doesn't hold water in my book.

buttdad

PhantomOG wrote:

sure sounds like excuses to me... (I'm assuming the the "but" is supposed to be a "not"?)



No I meant but, as in "you are not acknowledgeing the power of drugs, BUT you are acknowledgeing peoples weakness as the problem."

I am still confused about what I am excusing or making excuses for, No one lost their job after the "POOR CHOICE" to take drugs for the first time, they lost it when they COULDN'T stop, why didn't they stop because their mind was so polluted with the drugs they couldn't make the right decicion
(again a part of a living animal that is in a condition it can't function properly).

Drugs are only as powerful as you make them. Drug babies/unknown opiates from prescription meds aside, I don't think there is a valid excuse that absolves someone from the poor decision making on the road to becoming an alcoholic. .

First off I don't make drugs - I would be awfully rich if I did. I would take this backyard weed I can afford and turn it into some gooey green stuff from humboldt.

Second - PLEASE can you show me where I ever asked for anyone to be absolved of that initial lack of judgement / lack of moral compass / lack of instruction from parents and/or PEER pressure. Listen NO GOD DAMN EXCUSE..........get past it over it and move to where the discussion is ..................WHAT DO WE DO NOW

Forgive and say oohhh pooor baby look what happned to you .. NO nor do you say "you weak fu*k" get your **** together"

I am saying this.... "from a treatment standpoint it is a disease"

I asking for the last time where in the definition of disease does this not fit ?
The brain after starting drugs is now diseased (can't function right ) after a short de-tox now you explain to an unpolluted non-diseased mind you have to make the CHOICE and decision that you want to quit
You think I am saying it is a disease that caused someone to take the first dose WRONG... when someone can't stop and wants to, did you hear that WANTS TO, that is what I am talking about.

If you want equate a heavy person who can't resist an extra piece of cake at the buffet to someone who is de-toxing from 8 years of heroin use and is PYSICALlY SICK from de-tox then perhaps this is futile, meanwhile I will lobby for those who made a bad choice to start but with all the courage and stregnth they can muster are looking inside at themselves to determine what they are running from that they started.

ENTER ALL THE ITS JUST A WEAKNESS people here is your chance

at this time a person can lose their resolve to stay clean and choose to use again, once again bad choice, yes their fault but when they try again to get clean do you condemn them for being weak, or support them for their trying again? THAT IS THE MESSAGE

Unless you have been under the inluence of an opiate/cocaine you can't imagine the POWER OF DRUGS and to say that drugs are only as powerful as you make them is complete crap and confirms a real lack of knowledge and respect for what drugs can do and perhaps the whole theory it is just a weakness. No individual has the power to lessen the strength of the drugs they only have the power to believe they can stop. Like the guy who stops drinking for 25 years, he acknowledges he has a disease and stops AWESOME. Because the next guy relapses 3-4 times before he is sober for a period of time, is that person weak NO, he just needed an extra couple trys.

Because Brett Favre can do what he does with the Packers and I can't am I weak ?? no (played 2 yr college ball) Favre is an acceptional athlete and the guy who stops cold turkey is just like that, an acceptional individual, a little better at what they're doing than the other person.

There are plenty of people who use this as an excuse, no one should that. No one should offer it as an excuse for being weak in character, making poor decisions. If they do they are lying to all including themselves. Something happend along the way that led them to make bad decision......was it a
disease...? NO NO NO NO NO it's when they make a decision CHOICE (yes choice) to quit that we should extend a hand and have a heart of compassion that they face a battle that many loose, but the ones that fight on and persevere fight a battle of unbelievable difficulty only very few can understand. I just happen to be one that can understand.

PhantomOG

buttdad wrote:

Second - PLEASE can you show me where I ever asked for anyone to be absolved of that initial lack of judgement / lack of moral compass / lack of instruction from parents and/or PEER pressure.

in my previous response I quoted you twice where your comments can be construed as blaming the drug/alcohol and not the person for their plight in life. Calm down dude... I don't really think our views are really that different.

buttdad wrote:

Unless you have been under the inluence of an opiate/cocaine you can't imagine the POWER OF DRUGS and to say that drugs are only as powerful as you make them is complete crap and confirms a real lack of knowledge and respect for what drugs can do and perhaps the whole theory it is just a weakness.

Well, speaking from the alcohol standpoint, I'd bet MOST people have tried alcohol at some point in their life. I got $h!tf@ced more times than I can count in college. I don't need to go try concaine to know that its a stupid thing to do. And you're saying I have a lack of knowledge? I can tell you right now I have more "knowledge" and "respect" for it than any dumbass who does try it the first time. People who are willing to try it the first time are the ones who don't have a real "knowledge" and "respect" for it.

Demiurge

Last edited by buttdad : Today at 03:30 PM. Reason: grammer & spelling

hehehe,

buttdad

Believe me I am calm but I want to share my ideas.

I missed where you quoted me, now I realize that saying "the power of drugs ruins peoples lives" I meant no-one got fired or lost their job after the "first time they did drugs and that's my point, the first time was the time they had a choice. Yes they made a bad choice but again who hasn't made a bad choice. It's when they don't stop they get fired and life goes to hell that's what I meant Never offered as an excuse.

You didn't try drugs because you wren't a dumb ****. OK how did you not end up a dumb ****, someone taught you drugs are bad and guided you to the dangers. Fortunate for you and a lot of us.

A kid who is raised by parents who do drugs, has no influence in their lives to guide them away from drugs so they start using the age of 12 (you want to call this unfortunate kid a dumb **** ??) by the time they are 18 they are addicts and their brain is diseased.
No not all kids in this situation end up on drugs, but the ones that do how can you condemn them. Here enters the pre-disposition to addiction facet.
Still it is not the disease that made them take the first hit and there is no EXCUSE only reasons. But after 8-10 years of drug use they are addicted and need to be treated for the didease of addiction.

buttdad

Actually if there is no such thing as addiction, why is it stupid to try cocaine ?

Shizelbs

buttdad wrote:

Actually if there is no such thing as addiction, why is it stupid to try cocaine ?

I love you buttdad.

Demiurge

I don't think anyone said there is no such thing as addiction. People are questioning whether or not alcoholism is a disease.

PhantomOG

no one said there is no such thing as addiction.

Its all just a silly argument of semantics. You think alcoholism fits the definition of "disease" while in no part relieving the person from responsibility of said disease. Beyond your control is what other people define the word "disease" as, and see it as cheapening of the suffering of others with diseases totally beyond their control. Both sides can have a passionate stance based on their personal experiences.

buttdad

Demiurge wrote:

I don't think anyone said there is no such thing as addiction. People are questioning whether or not alcoholism is a disease.

Could we say that alcoholism is the "addiction" to alcohol ?

This is meant with all due respect for the future of the discussion
and then if so it would move into whether or not
addiction is a disease, and we wouln't have a two seperate theories to debate.

buttdad

PhantomOG wrote:

no one said there is no such thing as addiction.

This started back here Quoted by RonP

"I just love how Mel said in an article in the local paper that he's battled the disease of alcoholism all his life. Alcoholism is not a disease, I wish people would stop using that as an excuse for their weakness. You are 100% in control if you take that drink or not, period. It's a choice not a disease."

Some of us do not distinguish between alcoholism and addiction, they are the same.

So again alcoholism is the "addiction" to alcohol.

So if one is to say alcoholism is not a disease, we hear "addiction is not a disease"

buttdad

PhantomOG wrote:

. Both sides can have a passionate stance based on their personal experiences.

We do and I am thankful to live in a country where we can share our thoughts and ideas and agree to disagree in a cool forum like this.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope I gave some food for thought with my .02, no one is right or wrong everybody has just what you say, their experiences to share.

Peace

We'v got a HazMat response and I get to take our mobile command post out.

C'ya

mrbigbluelight

PolkThug wrote:

For those in the "its a disease" camp, is nicotine addiction a disease? If not, how do you differentiate?

Sincerely,
P-Thuggy

Nicotine, like alcohol, is an addictive substance, I'd think we'd all agree.

How some people's bodies/minds respond to the drug (if I may call it that) and how their bodies/minds respond to the REMOVAL of that drug differs.

Some folks can smoke, limit themselves to 1/2 a pack a day for numerous years, decide "Habit's too expensive", and quit after a few tries.
Other folks who start smoking don't have such a mild encounter. The nicotine drug, for them, drills to the core of the brain, sets up camp, and refuses to leave.
Both groups decidedly have to use will power to quit smoking to be sure.

The difference between the groups is, in my opinion, biological.

The last group has to use a level of will power that few people possess.
Their biological makeup is setup such that the nicotine drug finds it much easier to attach to receptors in the brain (I'm not sure of the actual physical mechanism ).
For THEM, nicotine is as addictive as heroin would be to the first group.

Could/should nicotine addiction then be thought of as a "disease" ?
In the sense that their cranial makeup is such that they are more likely to develop an addiction faster and deeper than another group to the same substance, ie, pure biology, I'd say, "Yes".

BUT by saying it is a "disease" doesn't give a green light to giving in to the "disease", ie, "I have a disease, I don't have to quit smoking".
No, it merely means that the person, after acknowledging the disease, becomes more aware of the difficulty in getting rid of the disease.

While in the Navy, we had a CWO named Sampson (real name). One of the subjects we got on one day was smoking; 4 of us in the control room smoked, he didn't. He hated cigarettes, but didn't make a fuss about us smoking. We wondered about that and he told us about his sister. As he said, she smoked and also was a heroin addict. After a few tries, she had eventually kicked the horse habit, but could not kick the nicotine habit.
For her, it could be said that her mental makeup was such that she had an addtictive personality, and that her weakness was nicotine.

BUT if thought as a disease, it means you can't think of it as an "excuse". It, in my opinion, means that you are narrowing down and identifying the source of the problem so that you can eliminate that problem.

aaharvel

Polk Master, good work Dave.

mrbigbluelight

Regarding obesity being a disease:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/07/28/fat.virus.ap/index.html



Ulcers used to be thought of as a "weak stomach" or *fill in the blank*.
Don't have a linked source, but ulcers have been shown to be caused by a virus (or is it bacteria ?).
Used to be thought that they were caused by "worrying too much", etc.
That was the thought for a long time until science/knowledge proved different.

Shizelbs

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Regarding obesity being a disease:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/07/28/fat.virus.ap/index.html



Ulcers used to be thought of as a "weak stomach" or *fill in the blank*.
Don't have a linked source, but ulcers have been shown to be caused by a virus (or is it bacteria ?).
Used to be thought that they were caused by "worrying too much", etc.
That was the thought for a long time until science/knowledge proved different.

Helicobacter Pylori, a bacteria.

Demiurge

buttdad wrote:

Could we say that alcoholism is the "addiction" to alcohol ?

This is meant with all due respect for the future of the discussion
and then if so it would move into whether or not
addiction is a disease, and we wouln't have a two seperate theories to debate.

Sure.

I don't think addiction is a disease. It seems like the wrong word for it. I know what the definition is, but you'd have to get society to understand the definition as it's written in a dictionary. That's just never going to happen.

I've listed a number of reasons why people don't want to call addiction diseases, and the biggie is that diseases are seen as things completely beyond someones control.

I think we all pretty much agree in this thread. Nobody is saying that because you have a disease you have no responsibility for your actions, but if you keep calling it a disease at some point it's going to be used as society defines the term disease, whic is basically to absolve a person of their negative actions because it's not their fault they have the disease. Following?

It effin' sucks to have an addiction to anything. Like I mentioned I got 2 in my family alone who are recovering alcoholics, and the guy works for me. I feel really bad for people with addiction problems, especially the ones I have a personal connection to. For the others, how far are you going to go?

At some point you have to want to get help, and be serious about it. Might you slip up? Yeah, and you'll need lots of help. I do believe that calling it a disease makes it seem like it's not their fault in any capacity. I'm not saying you guys are the other side of the argument think that's right, but it definitely is the reality.

Demiurge

aaharvel wrote:

Polk Master, good work Dave.

Thanks.

F1nut

For those who would like more info on the disease of addiction, this does a pretty good job of explaining it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Note: The medical community recognizes addiction as a disease.