Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alanrs who wrote (252425)	5/31/2008 2:25:57 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

One of the many problems with a discussion of addiction is that it is typically a symptom, not the actual problem. While it's true that the addiction must go away before the underlying problem can be resolved, people who have never been through it, or people who are just beginning to deal with it, think that if only the substance went away everything would be fine. I think of that kind of statement as the "Psychology 101" approach, alan. The excuse for putting an addict though four to six very expensive weeks in a hospital environment in order to "cure" him. That kind of approach was thinkable before we recognized just how genetic most addiction is. I used a "Pavlov" approach for both booze and cigarettes. It worked, with no discernable side effects. My whole life changed for the better the day I walked out of Shick Shadel. My wife could not believe I had quit, and constantly checked to see how I was "sneaking" booze. The Medical Profession has won the treatment war with your kind of approach. They have just about put the Shick Hospitals out of business. The only one left now is in Seattle. How did they do it? Scare tactics about the treatment. Encouragement of lawsuits against them. Convincing the Insurance companies not to pay for it. Why did they do it? They make a lot of money off the "Psychology 101" approach.