helena handbasket

No I was pointing out that heroin is the most addictive substance tested on rats. Which is why I also pointed out that most (all?) heroin addicts were addicted to something else first. And not all addicts will make the leap to heroin, so there are actually less heroin addicts than other kinds. I don't see a debate in it's addictive qualities, why bother? And if you look at the psychopathology of addiction, it can be as simple as a glass of wine with dinner, depending on why you have it. It's about WHY, not about HOW, they administer. Most or many addicts I think use it as some version of self-medication. They're sometimes the people at Sainsbury's adding that extra bottle of wine to the cart.

Congratulations Ruth, that's wonderful news!

Have a look in his mouth. If it's H,F & M there will be red sores in his mouth.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that there are also functional heroin addicts and > recreational users that are perfectly capable of > keeping it under control. > > Yes they exist but most users of heroin are > completely messed up by it. I'd even argue that > most of the people I have known that regularly use > any kinds of drugs recreationally are messed up > too. Now it might be that heroin is an 'addicts' > choice of drug...i.e. that most people just > looking for a buzz would choose something else > before heroin but I think to try and water down > the impact and nature of heroin as something that > can be kept under control is not a view that most > doctors and drugs workers would take (not that I > am saying that you are watering down it's impact). > > > Heroine, on the other hand, is the only drug that > mice in labs will work for and choose over food. > > I think that demonstrates perfectly the addictive > nature of the drug. It has the power to make > addicts of people rather than being used by those > who are addictive. Heroin causes physiological > addiction. Some will be strong enough to resist > that, but most users aren't. A few pints of beer > will never turn you into an alcoholic in > themselves. > > My father was an alcoholic and I thnk most people > have experience of that more than they might know > someone afflicted by heroin. But the fact still > remains that the vast majority of people who drink > alcohol do so sensibly. Okay then let me put it differently. Most heroine users are probably addicts. But there are for more alcohol users (as you point out), so statistically it is not a stretch to suggest that there are probably more alcoholics that heroin addicts (I won't state that as fact because it can't be measured!). I don't actually know any heroin users (that I'm aware of) but I know plenty of alcohol addicts or at least alcohol abusers. Fine line. And it's not generally acceptable to go for lunch with your boss and shoot up, but feeding your booze addiction is fine, so how do we know frequency of dosing? Honestly it feels stupid to get into a pissing match over which addiction is worse. Amy Winehouse was just as addicted to one substance as the next because she was an addict. Sadly her rock bottom was death.

That's not the definition of alcoholism. So spare the "of course" please.

Is that an actual fact?

All true. But if there wasn't a legal argument........? I do know alcohol and heroin are not the same. But an addict is an addict, same principles apply regardless of what your choice of poison is. Why is there a hierarchy of addictions? Right, because one is acceptable.

Is it silly to suggest though? When I first moved to ED, I took my son swimming at Peckham Pulse and finished around eleven in the morning. As we were walking out, a very drunk old man stumbled out of the pub that is in front of the library and fell over, then threw up. Somebody served that man and there could not have been any ambiguity about his condition. How is that different from a drug dealer?

Blaming society is pointless though. An addict who won't accept treatment does so because they don't think they are as bad as the "real" addicts. I lost count of how many rehabs/treatment centres/ AA courses etc etc we arranged for my friend but he quit every time because he did not see himself as at all comparable to "those losers". Addicts don't want support, they want enablers. So they surround themselves with parasites and other addicts.

Really the only thing they have in common is that they are both addictive and both ruin lives. I think the reason you don't see recreational heroine users is because it's not meant to be a recreational drug. It's what you go to when your addicted brain needs more than it can get from the other stuff. I don't think many people go straight to heroine; they are usually already addicts who need something to take it up a notch.

The big difference between them is that it's harder to spot the alcoholic than a heroine addict. Alcoholics take longer to notice. They don't have to hide their dosing because they can do it next to you at the pub, while you're having the same thing. They don't have to steal to get it because accessibility makes it cheap; cheaper than milk if you're not fussy. And in the UK it's on every single corner, so you can pick up your "hit" while you get bread and eggs. You don't think there are as many severe alcoholics because you can't see them. They blend in. And often you don't even know it with the person you live with until it's become critical. In my twenties I had a six year relationship with a lovely man who turned out to be a raging alcoholic. He died at 27 when his organs shut down, one by one, from the damage he'd done to his body. The last two years were no different than AW's, they were just private. Very few people even knew it was going on. Alcoholics don't usually die of overdose. They die in accidents. Or of suicides. Or of organ failure. That is why you can't compare numbers easily. Heroine, on the other hand, is the only drug that mice in labs will work for and choose over food.

"Laughing" is exactly the right word here KK. From what I can tell, a robot answered a post, but then someone responded to the robot, and then someone else responded to that. Then 2nd robot quoted robot one, following comment post and the post commenting on that post. You got trapped somewhere in the middle. It's total genius. The Forum is on fire tonight, I haven't stopped laughing.

I think I paid about ?50, plus another ?40 or so for the duvet and pillow. None of it worked on the new bed three months later so that ?90 felt like a lot. If you can get it for ?30 I would. The sheet and pillow case are one piece, with snaps for the duvet cover. I remember it being annoying that you couldn't buy extra sheets at the time but maybe you can now. I had to wash, dry and put back on the bed in the same day which is fine but it kind of sucks.

We did, but I made the mistake of buying the cot bed size instead of the single bed size. He only used it for two or three months as he had to be moved to a bed after a few head smashing escapes from the cot. It was actually quite good I thought and if it wasn't so pricey would have bought the next size up as well. Really wished I'd bought the bigger one. It doesn't actually come with the the pillow or duvet so it adds up quickly, but with two children it's a better buy. Aside from the cost I thought it was great. One thing to keep in mind though is if you want more than one sheet you have to buy the whole set as I don't think they sell the sheets separate from the duvet cover. If they do that's great. It doesn't replace the grobag for escaping though I'm afraid.

Bawdy- nan this is more along the lines of what I was talking about. The Almighty parts aren't for me but I don't think they change the idea. HOME FAMILY MOM WITH A VIEW The Good Enough Parent Stop trying to be the perfect parent. by Emuna Braverman Being a parent is a source of tremendous joy -- and tremendous stress. There are so many potential causes for this angst (just thinking about them makes me feel tense) that it would be impossible to list them all. Some of them (most of them) are completely outside our control (now why doesn't that eliminate the stress like it's supposed to?). There is one, however, that we could do something about. It's the pressure we put on ourselves to be perfect parents. It's an impossible ideal and the pressure can (literally) kill us. While pushing ourselves to grow, we need to simultaneously give ourselves love and acceptance. No one is perfect. I always take comfort in the phrase coined by British psychiatrist Donald Winnicott, the "good enough parent." That's what I think we can be -- and we can rely on our kids and the Almighty to do the rest. The irony is that as we strive so hard to mirror perfection, our growing children are learning to see all our flaws. While our actions and personalities remain unchanged, our children move from an idealized view of us to an extremely critical one where nothing we do is right! And finally (if you can hold on long enough) to a more nuanced view. I actually think it's helpful to our children if we are honest about our imperfections -- within reason. They are probably struggling with their own. They need role models who are not angels (that should come as a relief) but flesh and blood human beings who make mistakes. And acknowledge them. If only perfection will suffice, our children will be tormented by feelings of guilt and shame and lack of self-worth (No matter how many school programs there are that tell them they're special!). They just need to be good enough also. A happy parent is more important than a perfect parent, and more attainable. It's always a wonder for new parents to discover that children are not as fragile physically as they initially seem. They're not as fragile emotionally either. I'm certainly not advocating we take advantage of that fact, but one (or two or even three) isolated incidents of loss of temper will not create lifelong trauma. Sometimes more growth (on both sides) actually occurs after a particularly unpleasant outburst and confrontation and some important issues are resolved. (Not that I'm advocating this as a parenting technique!) A happy parent is more important than a perfect parent, and more attainable. A loving parent certainly is. As is a sensitive parent, a parent who listens, a parent who is empathic, and a parent who knows how to have fun with their children. We certainly can't eliminate all the stress from parenting. But if we try our best, then, with the Almighty's help, I think we will be good enough. Submit Comment Published: Saturday, October 6, 2007

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I starting to think the OP is a wind up. Not a > funny one admittedly. Alan I've been thinking that too. Not enough info from the OP considering the urgency. And then nothing.......

Yes true, but as Bettelheim has been dead for 30 or 40 years I think (?), it's a case of taking a closer look at the core of his theories and seeing how they could be interpreted for today. And some (not all) of it works today. Piaget has been dead for ages yet I still see his ideas are alive and well in modern pre-schools and teacher training. In fact most modern theory is standing on the shoulders of some very odd ideas from the early days. I don't actually think they knew about autism yet in Bettelheim's time though. In the 40's and 50's they would have had much less PC terms for children with autistic behaviors. bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > helena handbasket Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Totally true cuppa tea. > > > > Personally I'm a big fan of the "good enough > > parenting" school of thought. It just makes > > sense and moves away from the guilt inducing > > extreme theorizing I read so much of. If you > > google it there's lots of refreshing, > reasonable > > advice. > > > isn't the "good enough" theory that of Bruno > Bettelheim who also suggested that mothers > "create" autistic children through insufficient > love? Funny how it's always all about the mothers. > Disproven now, of course, but I mention because > the tide of "thought" on child psychology shifts > seismically over time. Now, don't get me started > on Bowlby ... > > > > I especially like the mother "as a model of a > > good, imperfect person".

I honestly don't think there's any way of knowing. Or being ready.:))

Agreed.

Totally true cuppa tea. Personally I'm a big fan of the "good enough parenting" school of thought. It just makes sense and moves away from the guilt inducing extreme theorizing I read so much of. If you google it there's lots of refreshing, reasonable advice. I especially like the mother "as a model of a good, imperfect person".

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rats are always interesting Net, I am left > wondering if the 'Blue Recycling Bin Stolen' > thread will prove more interesting than 'Untaxed > Clamped Car' thread. > > *Waits for Brendan to finish with the fork* The OP for "Blue Recycling Bin Stolen" has had an edit, which I find intriguing. What did it used to say?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst in the park with my daughter the other day, > my wife called me. Whilst getting my phone out of > my picket, I lost sight of her. I soon found her, > but the absolute dread that hits you is > incredible! And you never forget that feeling.

Yeah I know. It's crazy hard. But you have to remember that a theory is just that....... a theory. Until it gets proven as fact. Which in child development is rare.

Wow. So how does one judge a person's emotional capacity to have children? And who are the righteous people amongst us who decide that? edited for god awful writing while multitasking zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh god yes I know. I'm sure there are so many > things you say you wouldn't do when you have a > baby and then it isn't so clear when you have > them. > > But I still feel on this particular issue it > doesn't sit well with me, along with the OP and > some other forumites who do have children. And no > some people don't have the emotional capacity to > bring up children- they're usually the people that > haven't thought it through much or use having > children as some kind of trophy but actually > resent that their life has to change so much and > that's it's not all about them.

Cuppa tea sometimes I honestly think maybe ignorance is bliss. There are days when I have a thousand development theories playing out in my head and it just becomes noise. The only trick I've learned is this: look at extreme parenting philosophies from either side, and the rational approach will lie somewhere in the middle. Like life. There have been very few "absolutes" in developmental theory because it's really difficult to control for variables in each family (and things like personality and temperament). Plus some of the most famous theorists have had crazy small sampling sizes. That's just bad science. Most of what we know is based on educated guesses and small trials. It's hard to find huge groups of parents willing to sign their children over for research, even though there is a "Patient's Bill of Rights" I understand why people aren't lining up to do it. I think that's why so many parenting books are written by nannies and not psychologists. I actually think that makes more sense to tell you the truth. In my experience theory does not go easily into practice. I once had a professor who told us that if we believe any psychological theory as absolute than we should re-think our ability to objectively assess.