Peaches Geldof

I didn't suggest you were endorsing eugenics thatbags. For 'unless you intend to use some kind of genetic engineering' please read 'unless one intends to use some kind of genetic engineering' I was implying that such research doesn't take us very far unless that is how it is to be used.

Elegran I wasn't referring to the article in the link, in fact I hadn't even read it at that point. I was replying to jingl's post that said she thought all my previous examples were examples of addictive personality and saying that I believe we all have that potential, or so many as to make it a meaningless concept. I think posts are crossing too quickly at the moment and causing some confusion.

"I think some kinds of genetic engineering is very much in the minds of the scientists. And why not if it helps eliminate diseases."

Exactly, jingle. That's what I've been trying to say. WHY NOT IF IT HELPS ELIMINATE DISEASES?

Who wants smallpox back?

I definitely believe the addiction gene is stronger in some families than in others.

That was to nightowl.

nightowl The article did not say that it is in all white women. It said that "The women with this gene were almost twice as likely as white men, black women or black men to have two or more of the addictions. "

On page medicine.yale.edu/whr/research/cores/addictive.aspx#page2 of Yale University's website, it says they have also found (I think it is a separate study) that "Women and girls exposed to addictive behaviors, as compared to men and boys, develop addiction-related problems more rapidly"

And it says that "success in smoking 'quit attempts' ......is affected......by the phase of the menstrual cycle"

I could not find any more detailed reports of the studies, to see how they were conducted. Perhaps someone else has time to search)

I don't know how it is determined whether someone has an addictive personality or just an addiction. I haven't claimed to know. I think you are on a completely different thought track from mine.

I tried so hard not to eat DH' s Easter egg while he was out last night. I am addicted to chocolate.

I think some kinds of genetic engineering is very much in the minds of the scientists. And why not if it helps eliminate diseases.

Where have I endorsed eugenics, nightowl?

But I don't think the wine or the chocolate biscuit addictions necessarily matter. Addictions only matter if they cause further problems, and they especially matter if other people suffer as a result of behaviour caused by my addictions.

Smoking obviously matters because it causes lung cancer and other problems. I wouldn't ban it though.

There is something to be said for the argument that it would be better if recreational drugs were not illegal, since the "war on drugs" doesn't seem to be working but just encouraging the black market.

So how do you determine who has an addictive personality and who just has an addiction? And ultimately, what difference does it make? Unless you intend to use some kind of genetic engineering.

"everyone who thinks 'I must have that glass of wine to unwind after a hard day? Or everyone who can't eat one chocolate biscuit without finishing the packet, despite the fact that they are bordering on type 2 diabetes"

Whether those scenarios are a sign of addiction is easily tested. In fact I did test the first one myself on myself. The result was that I am not addicted to drinking wine. I haven't drunk any for a while and don't miss it.

Similarly, if I couldn't eat just one or two chocolate biscuits even though I knew I was bordering on Type 2 diabetes, I would think I had a problem and would either try to overcome the problem by being strong-willed or I would seek help.

Anyone who smokes and can't give up smoking (I do not mean those who simply don't want to stop) is, I believe, addicted to nicotine. This may not mean they have an addictive personality, but it would mean they have an addiction.

Why have they bothered mapping the human genome if no benefit can come from it? Is n't it a fact that we all inherit different genes. Or at least that some are stronger in some individuals than others?

X post

Looking back at what I said I'm not sure either!
Perhaps both these:
:
Who decides what is acceptable to perpetuate the human race, who should be genetically modified? What would be the guidelines?

And who should wind up the discussion, the person who started the discussion or can it continue after they have retired from the fray? (You said you wanted to wind the discussion up.)

I agree jingl. Which is why I think the idea is meaningless. I'm sure it's in all of us.

look at this

"It would all end with a race of Stepford people."

Another ridiculous comment. It almost looks like a deliberate misconstruction of what I have said.

To the question about whether it is known for certain if addiction is inherited: I believe the answer is no, it is not known. I believe the idea is being investigated.

I would think those examples could be indicative of an addictive personality nightowl. And possibly genetic.

Well done bags you certainly wound me up wound up the discussion. Mission accomplished.

It would all end with a race of Stepford people.

roseq, who decides what?

That research into human genetics should continue?

That there may be a link between drug addiction and genes? – it'll be science that decides shows whether that is the case and whether anything can be done about it.
It will be people who decide whether anything should be done about it should that scientific scenario ever arise just as it was people who decided it was a good idea to try and eradicate polio when people doing science had worked out a way to do it, just as it is people who are deciding whether IVF is a good idea and whether treatment for infertility should be available on the NHS.

And so on.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Was it who decides whether a discussion is allowed to be wound up on gransnet?

I think that there's something in the concept of a substance [food or drug or even gambling] being bad for you that makes it addictive. Maybe the human race only evolved because, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom we actually want to do things that we know are dangerous/bad for us. Other animals just concentrate of eating/breeding/staying alive [which is far more sensible and, perhaps the world would be a better place if we were like that also].

I think there is a lot of nonsense talked about 'addictive personality'. Scientific research is a very long way off identifying the role of genetics in personality, and even if such a thing exists, I would assume there are so many if us affected that it becomes a meaningless concept. Are we to believe that every smoker is afflicted with defective genes that cause their addiction? Similarly everyone who thinks 'I must have that glass of wine to unwind after a hard day? Or everyone who can't eat one chocolate biscuit without finishing the packet, despite the fact that they are bordering on type 2 diabetes? Or is it only applicable when illegal substances are involved? Rather am arbitrary distinction IMO. Where do we draw the line?

The reports I read only said that the husband 'may be' questioned by the police about the matter. We'll have to wait and see the outcome of the investigation.

Grannyknot I read several online papers and saw that the husband was being questioned about supplying her with heroin, along with questions about all evidence of heroin use being removed from the house before police arrived.