Peaches Geldof

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.)

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?

"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.

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.

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.

Where have I endorsed eugenics, nightowl?

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.

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.

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)

That was to nightowl.

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

"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 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 agree that the addiction gene seems to be stronger in some families than others. It doesn't mean it is a gene though. It could just as easily be learnt behaviour. Nature/ nurture again.

Totally understand what thatbags is saying, and agree.

So difficult still to know whether addictive behaviour is genetic or cultural/parental- that old chestnut 'nurture versus nature' is still so relevant today. But I agree research is a good thing to try and elucidate this and take possible action.

Children of alcoholics often become alcoholics themselves- or on the contrary, very careful with alcohol or teatotal. Same for gambling, or even smoking.

It seems we are agreed then, nightowl.

Going back to something pogs said, I gather that the reason for supplying some addicts with methadone is that they are less likely to get involved in criminal activities to satisfy their addiction if they are helped in this way.

I don't know who I could have learnt it from. They couldn't afford chocolate when I was little.

And they get clean needles.

That's the theory about methadone thatbags but unfortunately it is also sold on the black market by registered addicts. It's incredibly dangerous.

Methadone is a dangerous and lethal drug. But it does help many people who never "use on top". It continues to be a controversial way of dealing with a massively complex subject, but it helps to prevent the spread of HIV and Hep B&C amongst people who use drugs. It is also the WHO recommended "gold standard" treatment for heroin addiction. The big roll-out of the methadone programme in this country was I believe largely responsible for halting the HIV epidemic in the 1980s when heroin flooded in to this country and users of the drug in the UK went from about 20,000 to 200,000.

The Home Office register for addicts no longer exists, they stopped using it about 10 years ago I think. There is now the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System, which is anonymised.

Am I the only one who finds the sight of a pregnant woman or women pushing babies in pushchairs to get their dose of Methadone a very sad and ugly sight?

Nobody has commented on the point I raised re the liberal thinking that allows an unborn child to have less 'rights' than it's mother, that surprises me.

I think there is a case for thatbags view but there is also the case not all drug addicts are taking drugs because of their gene pool. There is more to the overall question than genes, surely, albeit a factor to some cases possibly.

What makes us collectively allow this to happen? It is one of those things where our apathy and liberal thinking of human rights blows smoke up backsides.

I am not attacking Peaches and saying she was a bad mum, I am sure that was not the case. I am gneralising as to what society now considers appropriate behaviour. I watched a programme on children in the slums of Brazil and the poor little kids were mostly hooked on 'crack cocaine', like their mothers, it is beyond sadness to me.

I really don't know the answer, I just know it is not the way we should behave in a society that is supposed to value our children and their welfare. There are probably good and bad mum's but I don't think it should be left to chance once a child is born to find out. Sorry if I offend anybody but I really do get upset at the whole notion of this.

PS

I am not feeling very happy with myself that I am tagging my comments onto a thread about a poor girl who it would appear had demons throughout her life. sad]

I don't know about an ugly sight - certainly pathetic. I think you have to look beyond the image, though, and see the person, what she is doing about her drug habit and what priority her child is to her. I'd rather see a young woman putting her child in the pushchair to go and get her supervised methadone dose each morning, than losing control and using street methadone or heroin to try to cope. Supervised methadone tells me she is engaged with local drugs services and subject to some degree of oversight from her GP and drugs counsellor.

Strange that it is a problem that affects [mainly] those highest and lowest on the social scale. As if it's a problem of losing one's role in life [which, in a lot of case it is, given the problems they have, for example, in old mining communities etc].

Perhaps it is having what appears to be a purposeless life. At the wealthy end of the scale there maybe no 'daily routine' of going to work etc so you have to fill your time and at the other end of the wealth scale are the workless who have little to do to structure their lives and that is why it appears drug abuse is seen at each end of this continuum. I think it would be foolish to think drugs were not also an issue in the working community though.