Amy Winehouse has died

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Addiction IS a complicated issue. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I have read some research on the subject that stated that some people are more prone to addiction then others, depending on a large number of factors (the article was not discussing mental illness issues and self-medicating, it was about 'recreational' drug use only). Some people can use drugs for decades and still remain somewhat in control of their usage (Keith Richards, anyone??), and some people, once they start, become full-blown addicts in no time. Same goes for alcoholics. But it is a known fact, that if someone starts using as a teen or a young adult, their chances of getting seriously hooked are way higher than they would be for someone who starts using at, say, 30.
PP, I am very sorry about your brother. And I am sorry about Amy Winehouse.

PP here who discussed being at the drug court conference. From my (very limited) understanding, this is exactly correct. There's a particular age range (don't remember what) where drug use is very insidious- something to do with the chemicals developing in the brain at that particular age of the body.

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP that likening addiction to most forms of cancer is unfair. Comparing a completely innocent person dying from a rapidly metastasizing illness beyond their control to a junkie stealing from their family to stick a needle in their arm is wrong. Sure, addiction is a disease. But you can choose to try to fight it. Cancer gives you no choice.

I'm sorry to all those who have lost people on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP that likening addiction to most forms of cancer is unfair. Comparing a completely innocent person dying from a rapidly metastasizing illness beyond their control to a junkie stealing from their family to stick a needle in their arm is wrong. Sure, addiction is a disease. But you can choose to try to fight it. Cancer gives you no choice.

I'm sorry to all those who have lost people on this thread.

You're just missing the boat entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad, but I'm not sure she was very talented. Her song "Rehab" was fun because it was ironic to see someone in a Beehive singing on a Phil Spector-like song singing about rehab. Unfortunately it appears that she was being literal. She was a druggie who refused to change, and somehow she got lucky enough to be put in a hairdo and on a record.


She sure squandered an opportunity in life, and I don't have much respect for that.

Addiction is a terrible disease, and it is really sad when it kills. Unfortunately, it kills lots of people - but we really get a look at it when someone famous dies. It is a mental issue though, and although we tend to feel like addicts should just kick the habit, it's really hard and requires a lifetime of work. Plus, it's really hard to convince an addict they need to change while in the midst of their habit. Overall I think blaming the addict is just as bad as blaming someone who is depressed for not "snapping out of it".

That's the best thing about people with zero empathy. Everything's a cut-and-dried moral issue...that is until their child ends up with an addiction problem. Then suddenly it's a personal tragedy that we all should care about.

It's also one of the reasons I find American strain of conservativism so revolting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no sympathy for anyone who CHOOSES to start taking heroin. Good riddance.

Also depressed people. And anorexics. And people with cancer for that matter. If they'd lived a clean life, God would never have corrupted their cells.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad, but I'm not sure she was very talented. Her song "Rehab" was fun because it was ironic to see someone in a Beehive singing on a Phil Spector-like song singing about rehab. Unfortunately it appears that she was being literal. She was a druggie who refused to change, and somehow she got lucky enough to be put in a hairdo and on a record.


She sure squandered an opportunity in life, and I don't have much respect for that.

Addiction is a terrible disease, and it is really sad when it kills. Unfortunately, it kills lots of people - but we really get a look at it when someone famous dies. It is a mental issue though, and although we tend to feel like addicts should just kick the habit, it's really hard and requires a lifetime of work. Plus, it's really hard to convince an addict they need to change while in the midst of their habit. Overall I think blaming the addict is just as bad as blaming someone who is depressed for not "snapping out of it".

That's the best thing about people with zero empathy. Everything's a cut-and-dried moral issue...that is until their child ends up with an addiction problem. Then suddenly it's a personal tragedy that we all should care about.

It's also one of the reasons I find American strain of conservativism so revolting.

Conservativism does not equal zero empathy. You have no idea of the political leanings of those who have posted.
Let's not make this political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am HORRIFIED at the likening of cancer to addiction. I have lost family members to both and the ones who died of cancer, my extremely health-conscious mother included, could have done NOTHING to prevent it. That is simply not true with addiction - you can't always beat it, but you can TRY.

I'm actually shaking with anger at this comparison.

You're entitled to your feelings, however, no one is personally attacking you or your poor mother. The world is not so black and white, good vs. bad. It's naive to believe that there is never a correlation between addiction (or even behavior) and cancer. It's a fact that addiction is strongly associated with many forms of cancer. Liver cancer is linked to alcoholism, as well as obesity and diabetes (potentially caused by food addiction). Smoking--including smoking drugs--has has been linked to cancer of the lung, breast, bladder, cervix and kidney. Chewing tobacco has been linked to cancer of the oral cavity and pancreas. Cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, colon and kidney can be linked to obesity. Sex, alcohol, and drug addictions lead to risky behavior and can increase the risk of HIV, HPV, Hep B & C, which in turn can lead to numerous forms of cancer, e.g., anus, cervix, lung, penis, throat, vulva, vagina, liver.

fine, but that's not relevant or particularly rational. my mother's cancer was not caused by addiction, nor is addiction always, or even usually, a precursor to cancer. cancer kills the innocent.

Just want to point out that your anger is purely a function of your ignorance about addiction. It's a disease. No different than clinical depression, or anorexia/bulemia, or cancer. You can get as angry as you like that folks who know more than you won't let you turn it into a battle of good versus evil, but that's your problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sad, but I'm not sure she was very talented. Her song "Rehab" was fun because it was ironic to see someone in a Beehive singing on a Phil Spector-like song singing about rehab. Unfortunately it appears that she was being literal. She was a druggie who refused to change, and somehow she got lucky enough to be put in a hairdo and on a record.


She sure squandered an opportunity in life, and I don't have much respect for that.

Addiction is a terrible disease, and it is really sad when it kills. Unfortunately, it kills lots of people - but we really get a look at it when someone famous dies. It is a mental issue though, and although we tend to feel like addicts should just kick the habit, it's really hard and requires a lifetime of work. Plus, it's really hard to convince an addict they need to change while in the midst of their habit. Overall I think blaming the addict is just as bad as blaming someone who is depressed for not "snapping out of it".

That's the best thing about people with zero empathy. Everything's a cut-and-dried moral issue...that is until their child ends up with an addiction problem. Then suddenly it's a personal tragedy that we all should care about.

It's also one of the reasons I find American strain of conservativism so revolting.

Conservativism does not equal zero empathy. You have no idea of the political leanings of those who have posted.
Let's not make this political.

Bullshit. Cultural conservativism in America is a symptom of an immaturely developed sense of empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read any responses so sorry if this has been covered already, but does anyone find it interesting or weird that so many "greats" died at age 27? Jimmy Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janice Joplin, Curt Cobain, and now Amy Winehouse? It gives me the chills.

Does anyone really find these people to be "great" artists or are they great because they died so young and therefore are known as legends? I really find most of their work "meh". I did go back and listen to more Amy Winehouse stuff and she isn't any different than Adele or a dozen other jazzy alternative artists out there. Amy just hit the big time and had more media coverage for what she did. I'm not saying the other artists weren't talented but they were not crazy talented like people make them out to be.

One a side note Keith Ledger was 28 when he died.

Chris Farley & Johm Bolushi were both 33. It is weird.


Has Amy's death been ruled a definite OD and not a suicide at this point? Apparently she was distraught over a break up. Perhaps she took her life as it's apparent she had other mental issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am HORRIFIED at the likening of cancer to addiction. I have lost family members to both and the ones who died of cancer, my extremely health-conscious mother included, could have done NOTHING to prevent it. That is simply not true with addiction - you can't always beat it, but you can TRY.

I'm actually shaking with anger at this comparison.

You're entitled to your feelings, however, no one is personally attacking you or your poor mother. The world is not so black and white, good vs. bad. It's naive to believe that there is never a correlation between addiction (or even behavior) and cancer. It's a fact that addiction is strongly associated with many forms of cancer. Liver cancer is linked to alcoholism, as well as obesity and diabetes (potentially caused by food addiction). Smoking--including smoking drugs--has has been linked to cancer of the lung, breast, bladder, cervix and kidney. Chewing tobacco has been linked to cancer of the oral cavity and pancreas. Cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, colon and kidney can be linked to obesity. Sex, alcohol, and drug addictions lead to risky behavior and can increase the risk of HIV, HPV, Hep B & C, which in turn can lead to numerous forms of cancer, e.g., anus, cervix, lung, penis, throat, vulva, vagina, liver.

fine, but that's not relevant or particularly rational. my mother's cancer was not caused by addiction, nor is addiction always, or even usually, a precursor to cancer. cancer kills the innocent.

Just want to point out that your anger is purely a function of your ignorance about addiction. It's a disease. No different than clinical depression, or anorexia/bulemia, or cancer. You can get as angry as you like that folks who know more than you won't let you turn it into a battle of good versus evil, but that's your problem.

I'm the one who posted about my mother's cancer, and others have agreed with me. Clearly - obvious by the tone, spacing etc - there's one person here likening addiction to cancer. They're both diseases, but they're not the same kind of disease, at all. I don't even know what your last sentence means, and I never said addicts were evil, but I don't have time for this. If you've struggled with addiction, I'm genuinely sorry. We all have our demons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no sympathy for anyone who CHOOSES to start taking heroin. Good riddance.

Also depressed people. And anorexics. And people with cancer for that matter. If they'd lived a clean life, God would never have corrupted their cells.

huh?

[Anonymous]

R.I.P Amy

Sympathies to friends and family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am HORRIFIED at the likening of cancer to addiction. I have lost family members to both and the ones who died of cancer, my extremely health-conscious mother included, could have done NOTHING to prevent it. That is simply not true with addiction - you can't always beat it, but you can TRY.

I'm actually shaking with anger at this comparison.

You're entitled to your feelings, however, no one is personally attacking you or your poor mother. The world is not so black and white, good vs. bad. It's naive to believe that there is never a correlation between addiction (or even behavior) and cancer. It's a fact that addiction is strongly associated with many forms of cancer. Liver cancer is linked to alcoholism, as well as obesity and diabetes (potentially caused by food addiction). Smoking--including smoking drugs--has has been linked to cancer of the lung, breast, bladder, cervix and kidney. Chewing tobacco has been linked to cancer of the oral cavity and pancreas. Cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, colon and kidney can be linked to obesity. Sex, alcohol, and drug addictions lead to risky behavior and can increase the risk of HIV, HPV, Hep B & C, which in turn can lead to numerous forms of cancer, e.g., anus, cervix, lung, penis, throat, vulva, vagina, liver.

fine, but that's not relevant or particularly rational. my mother's cancer was not caused by addiction, nor is addiction always, or even usually, a precursor to cancer. cancer kills the innocent.

Just want to point out that your anger is purely a function of your ignorance about addiction. It's a disease. No different than clinical depression, or anorexia/bulemia, or cancer. You can get as angry as you like that folks who know more than you won't let you turn it into a battle of good versus evil, but that's your problem.

I'm the one who posted about my mother's cancer, and others have agreed with me. Clearly - obvious by the tone, spacing etc - there's one person here likening addiction to cancer. They're both diseases, but they're not the same kind of disease, at all. I don't even know what your last sentence means, and I never said addicts were evil, but I don't have time for this. If you've struggled with addiction, I'm genuinely sorry. We all have our demons.

I don't care if others have agreed with you. There are dumb people. Look around. You're irrationally upset because you think the disease of cancer should be provided some sort of rarified moral space that anorexia and depression (and addiction) should not be. That's wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am HORRIFIED at the likening of cancer to addiction. I have lost family members to both and the ones who died of cancer, my extremely health-conscious mother included, could have done NOTHING to prevent it. That is simply not true with addiction - you can't always beat it, but you can TRY.

I'm actually shaking with anger at this comparison.

You're entitled to your feelings, however, no one is personally attacking you or your poor mother. The world is not so black and white, good vs. bad. It's naive to believe that there is never a correlation between addiction (or even behavior) and cancer. It's a fact that addiction is strongly associated with many forms of cancer. Liver cancer is linked to alcoholism, as well as obesity and diabetes (potentially caused by food addiction). Smoking--including smoking drugs--has has been linked to cancer of the lung, breast, bladder, cervix and kidney. Chewing tobacco has been linked to cancer of the oral cavity and pancreas. Cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, colon and kidney can be linked to obesity. Sex, alcohol, and drug addictions lead to risky behavior and can increase the risk of HIV, HPV, Hep B & C, which in turn can lead to numerous forms of cancer, e.g., anus, cervix, lung, penis, throat, vulva, vagina, liver.

fine, but that's not relevant or particularly rational. my mother's cancer was not caused by addiction, nor is addiction always, or even usually, a precursor to cancer. cancer kills the innocent.

Just want to point out that your anger is purely a function of your ignorance about addiction. It's a disease. No different than clinical depression, or anorexia/bulemia, or cancer. You can get as angry as you like that folks who know more than you won't let you turn it into a battle of good versus evil, but that's your problem.

I'm the one who posted about my mother's cancer, and others have agreed with me. Clearly - obvious by the tone, spacing etc - there's one person here likening addiction to cancer. They're both diseases, but they're not the same kind of disease, at all. I don't even know what your last sentence means, and I never said addicts were evil, but I don't have time for this. If you've struggled with addiction, I'm genuinely sorry. We all have our demons.

I don't care if others have agreed with you. There are dumb people. Look around. You're irrationally upset because you think the disease of cancer should be provided some sort of rarified moral space that anorexia and depression (and addiction) should not be. That's wrong.

I actually don't think that, at all. I think eating disorders, depression, and addiction are all very real diseases. But, thanks for telling me what I believe! Calm down.

[Anonymous]

At first I was 30% sad that Amy Winehouse had died and 60% sad about what happened in Norway. After reflecting on the fact that AW was a drug addict and chose to shoot drugs, I subtracted 5% of my sadness, leaving me with Amy at 25% and Norway still at 60% since they were innocent and the numbers where larger. That left me with an overbudget of 15% of my sadness allotment. I chose to place 5% with breast cancer survivors, 5% to people with lung cancer that never smoked and 5% to the discontinuation of Trader Joe's Vegetable Stock. I hope that these figures add up correctly not only mathematically but ethically as well.