Odell Thurman and Torrie Cox sue NFL (1 Viewer)

[trader jake]

From PFT:

THURMAN, COX PURSUE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Suspended Bengals linebacker Odell Thurman and suspended Buccaneers cornerback Torrie Cox have filed discrimination claims with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Geoff Hobson of Bengals.com first reported this development as to Thurman.)

The claim arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The argument is that the Bengals and the Buccaneers, at the direction of the NFL, took adverse action against Thurman and Cox, respectively, based on alcoholism, either actual or perceived.

The ADA protects employees who are disabled. Alcoholism is a disability, regardless of whether an employee is actually an alcoholic or whether the employer perceives him to be one. Though an actual or perceived alcoholic can be disciplined for, for example, showing up to work while intoxicated, the argument as to Thurman and Cox is that their suspensions are based on no at-work manifestation of alcoholism.

As to Thurman, it's our understanding that the NFL refused to reinstate him after a one-year suspension because he failed to attend a couple of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. As to Cox, he tested positive for alcohol after drinking champagne at his wedding.

The focal point of the attack is the placement of certain restrictions on players in the substance-abuse program. If a player is an actual or perceived alcoholic and if the league prohibits him from drinking alcohol at any time and if the employee tests positive for drinking alcohol on his own time, he is arguably the victim of discrimination because of his actual or perceived disability.

Thurman and Cox elected to proceed in this regard based on a recent ruling by the EEOC in a claim filed by former NBA player Roy Tarpley. We're in the process of getting our mitts on the Tarpley decision so that we can better explain the specifics on this one.

And this could get interesting, given that the EEOC can choose to convert the claim into a broader attack against the NFL's practices in this regard, eventually asserting claims on behalf of any player who recently was suspended under similar circumstances.

Hopefully Odell and Cox lose this case. Most love what Goodell and the league are doing to crack down on players who continuously get into trouble and I'd hate to see that ability get weakened by this nonsense.

 

[BLOX]

I wouldn't go to AA meeting either if I was wrongly classified. However, I'd likely do whatever the hell anyone told me to do to make sure I got my multi-million dollar career back so I don't know.

This seems like it may be more of a test of wills between two yound men who feel they were wrongly classified by the NFL and the NFL front office.

Should be interesting.

 

[Borat]

This seems like it may be more of a test of wills between two yound men who feel they were wrongly classified by the NFL and the NFL front office.

It sounds to me like it's more a case of two young men who don't want to be held responsible for their own foolishness.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

 

[BigRed]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

Have you lost your mind? What century are you in? It's a "disease"......better yet, a disability! Yes, that's it, a disability - they didn't have a choice! Those bottles forced themselves up to their poor oppressed mouths!lol - this is all so screwy it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they won, since pro sports are so screwy anyway.And somewhere some poor guy should be counting on $63 billion from Vick, while we're at it.

 

[trader jake]

This seems like it may be more of a test of wills between two yound men who feel they were wrongly classified by the NFL and the NFL front office.

It sounds to me like it's more a case of two young men who don't want to be held responsible for their own foolishness.

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

When Roy Tarpley is the lead to follow you are already in trouble.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

Have you lost your mind? What century are you in? It's a "disease"......better yet, a disability! Yes, that's it, a disability - they didn't have a choice! Those bottles forced themselves up to their poor oppressed mouths!lol - this is all so screwy it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they won, since pro sports are so screwy anyway.And somewhere some poor guy should be counting on $63 billion from Vick, while we're at it.

Bastich! thought you were being serious at first.

 

[BigRed]

lol

The really sad part is that they are serious - and that anyone will take them seriously.

 

[Bri]

The problem was driving intoxicated wasn't it?

 

[Dexter Manley]

If this is really true, that Thurman got suspended the whole year only because he missed a couple of AA meetings, it's completely outrageous. A 4 game suspension seems pretty reasonable to me. You might even be able to talk me into 1/2 the season. But the whole season? Give me a break.

Joey Porter, for example, didn't even get one game for assaulting someone at a club. I loved what Goodell set out to do with regards to cleaning up the league, but he is starting to lose credibility with uneven punishments, and differential treatment of players.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If this is really true, that Thurman got suspended the whole year only because he missed a couple of AA meetings, it's completely outrageous. A 4 game suspension seems pretty reasonable to me. You might even be able to talk me into 1/2 the season. But the whole season? Give me a break.Joey Porter, for example, didn't even get one game for assaulting someone at a club. I loved what Goodell set out to do with regards to cleaning up the league, but he is starting to lose credibility with uneven punishments, and differential treatment of players.

Dexter Manley!Odell skipped his meeting with his parole officer. While being on probation and under reinstatement review with the NFL. Thus he was denied and will miss a year. Porter got in a fight with no priors.

 

[Dexter Manley]

If this is really true, that Thurman got suspended the whole year only because he missed a couple of AA meetings, it's completely outrageous. A 4 game suspension seems pretty reasonable to me. You might even be able to talk me into 1/2 the season. But the whole season? Give me a break.Joey Porter, for example, didn't even get one game for assaulting someone at a club. I loved what Goodell set out to do with regards to cleaning up the league, but he is starting to lose credibility with uneven punishments, and differential treatment of players.

Dexter Manley!Odell skipped his meeting with his parole officer. While being on probation and under reinstatement review with the NFL. Thus he was denied and will miss a year. Porter got in a fight with no priors.

Ok, I'm fine with that then. In the OP it sounded like he only missed a couple AA meetings that the NFL, not the justice system, stipulated he attend.

 

[pgreenfan]

If you don't believe alcoholism is a disease I have three simple words for you.

You are wrong.

 

[Bri]

If you don't believe alcoholism is a disease I have three simple words for you. You are wrong.

Opinions aren't right or wrong, they're just different.I don't believe alcoholism is a disease. I believe it is an addiction mischaracterized as a disease. I don't believe it's easy to quit or an easy addiction to live with. I do not care or mind if someone wants to call it a disease, addiction, or even a spell from a witch if it helps them quit. Whatever works for them is fine by me and I understand that they are in that "whatever works" mindset at that time.If alcoholism (or his drive to feed his addiction)was the cause then he wouldn't have driven but instead taken a limo home so he could get at the mini bar. Driving drunk was the problem.

 

[cj*]

The Journal of the American Medical Association defines alcoholism as "a primary, chronic disease characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking." [1]

The DSM-IV (the standard for diagnosis in psychiatry and psychology) defines alcohol abuse as repeated use despite recurrent adverse consequences.[2] ; further defining alcohol dependence as alcohol abuse combined with tolerance, withdrawal, and an uncontrollable drive to drink.[2] (See DSM diagnosis below.)

According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, alcoholism is the popular term for alcohol dependence.[2] Note that there is debate whether dependence in this use is physical (characterised by withdrawal), psychological (based on reinforcement), or both.

 

[Chaos Commish]

If you don't believe alcoholism is a disease I have three simple words for you.

You are wrong.

Opinions aren't right or wrong, they're just different.I don't believe alcoholism is a disease. I believe it is an addiction mischaracterized as a disease. I don't believe it's easy to quit or an easy addiction to live with.

I do not care or mind if someone wants to call it a disease, addiction, or even a spell from a witch if it helps them quit. Whatever works for them is fine by me and I understand that they are in that "whatever works" mindset at that time.

If alcoholism (or his drive to feed his addiction)was the cause then he wouldn't have driven but instead taken a limo home so he could get at the mini bar. Driving drunk was the problem.

Good answer. I don't care how they label the condition. Personally, I think we do a disservice to addicts when we tell them they have a disease, but I could be wrong. It seems like a rationalization they love to drop on all the people in step 9 as some sort of justification for what they did, and I swear it's a guilt trip tool in the plea for forgiveness. "I have a disease. Forgive me." Eesh, they have an addiction and need to treat it accordingly. This lawsuit should be good for some unintentional hilarity though.

 

[cj*]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

I really hope that you never have to live and deal with a family member that is an alcoholic.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

I really hope that you never have to live and deal with a family member that is an alcoholic.

I have. And it was horrific. They got addicted. They made the original choice to try it. That doesnt just stop at alchohol either. I've been "hooked" before - I was a moron for being weak. Each and every single time I made the conscious decision/choice to do it once again.

 

[Bri]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

I really hope that you never have to live and deal with a family member that is an alcoholic.

I have. And it was horrific. They got addicted. They made the original choice to try it. That doesnt just stop at alchohol either. I've been "hooked" before - I was a moron for being weak. Each and every single time I made the conscious decision/choice to do it once again.

ahh so you're the ex-drinker giving wisdom to drunks ehI've got alot of ex-smoker friends you'd fit right in with

 

[cj*]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

I really hope that you never have to live and deal with a family member that is an alcoholic.

I have. And it was horrific. They got addicted. They made the original choice to try it. That doesnt just stop at alchohol either. I've been "hooked" before - I was a moron for being weak. Each and every single time I made the conscious decision/choice to do it once again.

I am truly sorry for that but minimizing the disease state doesn't help anyone. There are many factors to consider when dealing with alcoholism. The one that is really scary is that with some people it only takes one drink to become an alcoholic. There is a reason that the AMA classifies it as a disease.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

I really hope that you never have to live and deal with a family member that is an alcoholic.

I have. And it was horrific. They got addicted. They made the original choice to try it. That doesnt just stop at alchohol either. I've been "hooked" before - I was a moron for being weak. Each and every single time I made the conscious decision/choice to do it once again.

ahh so you're the ex-drinker giving wisdom to drunks ehI've got alot of ex-smoker friends you'd fit right in with

Not sure I gave any advice. I said that we are morons who are weak willed and make poor choices, despite knowing better every step of the way.As opposed to someone with lukeiemia or alzheimers or cancer that doesnt have a choice with those "diseases".

 

[Chaos Commish]

There is a reason that the AMA classifies it as a disease.

Insurance.

 

[Bri]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

I really hope that you never have to live and deal with a family member that is an alcoholic.

I have. And it was horrific. They got addicted. They made the original choice to try it. That doesnt just stop at alchohol either. I've been "hooked" before - I was a moron for being weak. Each and every single time I made the conscious decision/choice to do it once again.

ahh so you're the ex-drinker giving wisdom to drunks ehI've got alot of ex-smoker friends you'd fit right in with

Not sure I gave any advice. I said that we are morons who are weak willed and make poor choices, despite knowing better every step of the way.As opposed to someone with lukeiemia or alzheimers or cancer that doesnt have a choice with those "diseases".

guess you're right

 

[StuntRock]

Before anyone starts getting personal over this whole "is alcoholism a disease or is it not" crap, lets remember something:

Saying alcoholism isn't a "disease" in the same sense as say "cancer" isn't the same thing as saying alcoholism isn't a serious problem. It's a tricky area, and there are people who actually study this area for a living who have disagreements about how to classify alcoholism. Choosing one over the other doesn't make anyone an evil, insensitive jerk.

As for the alcoholism is a "disability" thing, well, I don't see anyone arguing that Thurman's got a leg to stand on. Even if he is "disabled" by alcoholism, my understanding is that he's being suspended for not attending AA. So they're not suspending him because he's "disabled", but because he refuses to treat his alleged disability. As a sidenote, I'm pretty sure we actually have some SCOTUS precedent on the status of alcoholism as a "disability"... and if I remember right the holding was that it was NOT a disability.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Alchoholism is horrendous and a problem. I dont doubt it for a minute.

I also agree with the disabling aspect of it. Its ruinous. A ruinous choice.

 

[Honus]

/dennismiller/

Alcoholism is a disease...but it's a great f'ing disease.

"Hey everybody! I got my disease again! Wohoo!!!"

/dennismiller/

 

[switz]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

Actualy, alcoholism is a mental illness. It's not as easy as waking up one day and saying "I don't want to drink anymore." Most alcoholics do that every day.However, just as with most mental illnesses, it is treatable.

 

[JohnnyU]

Damn morons. Its a choice. The disability is their lack of will power. If it wasnt lady alchohol, it could just as easily be something else.

I really hope that you never have to live and deal with a family member that is an alcoholic.

I have. And it was horrific. They got addicted. They made the original choice to try it. That doesnt just stop at alchohol either. I've been "hooked" before - I was a moron for being weak. Each and every single time I made the conscious decision/choice to do it once again.

ahh so you're the ex-drinker giving wisdom to drunks ehI've got alot of ex-smoker friends you'd fit right in with

I don't think Thurman should be punished for opting out of his AA meeting in favor of his DAMM meeting (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).

 

[timoleander]

There is a reason that the AMA classifies it as a disease.

Insurance.

 

[Rhino802]

I agree that alcoholism is a disease and disabling.

However, to the best of my knowledge, neither player has shown any on-field or practice related problems as a result of their "disease," which one would expect from an alcoholic.

Thus I have to conclude that they are making excuses and failing to shoulder blame for poor decisions - and are NOT alcoholics!

 

[Dexter Manley]

Actually the diseases of drug addiction and cancer have alot in common. Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions. And both are incurable.

Once you develop alcoholism, for example, there's no turning back -- you'll be an alcoholic for life. When an alcoholic stops drinking, he isn't cured -- he still has the disease of alcoholism. That's why alcoholics have to take it one day at a time -- the urge to drink is always going to be there on some level. Drug addiciton is quite an insidious disease.

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

People afflicted with the disease of drug addiciton are generally held in disdain by the majority of society. Compare this to heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the U.S. Most people in our society sympathize with victims of heart disease. It's uncommon to here people castigate heart disease victims, despite the fact the disease is usually the result of horrendous eating habits and little to no exercise. There's no more common sense required to live a lifestyle that gives you the greatest chance to avoid heart disease, than there is to avoid drug addiction.

Alot of people claim drug addicts are idiots and most look down on them. But how are heart disease victims any less idiotic? They're not. More people, however, can relate to those with heart disease, because they make the same poor life decisions nearly every day of their lives!

 

[cj*]

Actually the diseases of drug addiction and cancer have alot in common. Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions. And both are incurable. Once you develop alcoholism, for example, there's no turning back -- you'll be an alcoholic for life. When an alcoholic stops drinking, he isn't cured -- he still has the disease of alcoholism. That's why alcoholics have to take it one day at a time -- the urge to drink is always going to be there on some level. Drug addiciton is quite an insidious disease.Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem. People afflicted with the disease of drug addiciton are generally held in disdain by the majority of society. Compare this to heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the U.S. Most people in our society sympathize with victims of heart disease. It's uncommon to here people castigate heart disease victims, despite the fact the disease is usually the result of horrendous eating habits and little to no exercise. There's no more common sense required to live a lifestyle that gives you the greatest chance to avoid heart disease, than there is to avoid drug addiction. Alot of people claim drug addicts are idiots and most look down on them. But how are heart disease victims any less idiotic? They're not. More people, however, can relate to those with heart disease, because they make the same poor life decisions nearly every day of their lives!

 

[redman]

It doesn't matter. They signed a contract that's subject to a collective bargaining agreement that agreed to these terms and conditions. This isn't an ordinary job.

 

[nxmehta]

Actually the diseases of drug addiction and cancer have alot in common. Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions. And both are incurable. Once you develop alcoholism, for example, there's no turning back -- you'll be an alcoholic for life. When an alcoholic stops drinking, he isn't cured -- he still has the disease of alcoholism. That's why alcoholics have to take it one day at a time -- the urge to drink is always going to be there on some level. Drug addiciton is quite an insidious disease.Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem. People afflicted with the disease of drug addiciton are generally held in disdain by the majority of society. Compare this to heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the U.S. Most people in our society sympathize with victims of heart disease. It's uncommon to here people castigate heart disease victims, despite the fact the disease is usually the result of horrendous eating habits and little to no exercise. There's no more common sense required to live a lifestyle that gives you the greatest chance to avoid heart disease, than there is to avoid drug addiction. Alot of people claim drug addicts are idiots and most look down on them. But how are heart disease victims any less idiotic? They're not. More people, however, can relate to those with heart disease, because they make the same poor life decisions nearly every day of their lives!

Very

 

[IM666]

I will keep my remarks very short. This is an issue that I have been very vocal about in my life; the utter stupidity of alcoholics being covered in the ADA in mind-blowing.

I would really like to have either of these gentlemen to explain to me face to face why their inability to stop drinking Cristal is equivalent to wheelchair bound people like me.

It should be noted that the ADA states that disorders that are correctable through medication are not covered.

How can Joe Bipolar who missed his meds because he can't afford them not be covered, while someone with the money and time can go out and binge drink and call themselves disabled?

I myself am a heavy drinker (by all definitions I am an alcoholic). I would never hide behind the bottle as an excuse for any of my problems.

I apologize if I have offended anyone, it’s just how I feel.

 

[Stunt Rock]

Actually the diseases of drug addiction and cancer have alot in common. Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions. And both are incurable. Once you develop alcoholism, for example, there's no turning back -- you'll be an alcoholic for life. When an alcoholic stops drinking, he isn't cured -- he still has the disease of alcoholism. That's why alcoholics have to take it one day at a time -- the urge to drink is always going to be there on some level. Drug addiciton is quite an insidious disease.Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem. People afflicted with the disease of drug addiciton are generally held in disdain by the majority of society. Compare this to heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the U.S. Most people in our society sympathize with victims of heart disease. It's uncommon to here people castigate heart disease victims, despite the fact the disease is usually the result of horrendous eating habits and little to no exercise. There's no more common sense required to live a lifestyle that gives you the greatest chance to avoid heart disease, than there is to avoid drug addiction. Alot of people claim drug addicts are idiots and most look down on them. But how are heart disease victims any less idiotic? They're not. More people, however, can relate to those with heart disease, because they make the same poor life decisions nearly every day of their lives!

My mother didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't do drugs. She ate healthy. She excercised. She still developed cancer. While I disagree with your argument that alcoholism is a disease, I don't consider you an idiot just because you believe that. Howeever, I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who disagrees with the decision is "ignorant". And I fail to see any evidence or argument that people with cancer have brought it upon themselves. Your argument about heart disease is overbroad and lacks sufficient evidence as well. When I was young, I developed a heart condition. It wasn't a result of poor eating or little to no excercise. I developed it as a result of rapid growth. So that argument rings hollow. A closer analogy would be obesity, where people genetically are going to be pre-disposed to eat more and weigh more. Despite their genetic pre-disposition, they can still fight genetics by eating right and excercising.As I said, believing one side or another doesn't make anyone a bad person or dumb. But acting as if it's an argument that's so obvious that you'd have to be a moron not to realize it is not very excellent, and makes for the very worst kind of argument.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Actually the diseases of drug addiction and cancer have alot in common. Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions. And both are incurable. Once you develop alcoholism, for example, there's no turning back -- you'll be an alcoholic for life. When an alcoholic stops drinking, he isn't cured -- he still has the disease of alcoholism. That's why alcoholics have to take it one day at a time -- the urge to drink is always going to be there on some level. Drug addiciton is quite an insidious disease.Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem. People afflicted with the disease of drug addiciton are generally held in disdain by the majority of society. Compare this to heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the U.S. Most people in our society sympathize with victims of heart disease. It's uncommon to here people castigate heart disease victims, despite the fact the disease is usually the result of horrendous eating habits and little to no exercise. There's no more common sense required to live a lifestyle that gives you the greatest chance to avoid heart disease, than there is to avoid drug addiction. Alot of people claim drug addicts are idiots and most look down on them. But how are heart disease victims any less idiotic? They're not. More people, however, can relate to those with heart disease, because they make the same poor life decisions nearly every day of their lives!

My mother didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't do drugs. She ate healthy. She excercised. She still developed cancer. While I disagree with your argument that alcoholism is a disease, I don't consider you an idiot just because you believe that. Howeever, I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who disagrees with the decision is "ignorant". And I fail to see any evidence or argument that people with cancer have brought it upon themselves. Your argument about heart disease is overbroad and lacks sufficient evidence as well. When I was young, I developed a heart condition. It wasn't a result of poor eating or little to no excercise. I developed it as a result of rapid growth. So that argument rings hollow. A closer analogy would be obesity, where people genetically are going to be pre-disposed to eat more and weigh more. Despite their genetic pre-disposition, they can still fight genetics by eating right and excercising.As I said, believing one side or another doesn't make anyone a bad person or dumb. But acting as if it's an argument that's so obvious that you'd have to be a moron not to realize it is not very excellent, and makes for the very worst kind of argument.

First, you have my sympathies for your mother, and I wish you the best in the future with your heart condition. For the record, I've lost relatives to cancer, and have family members who have been afflicted with the diseases of drug addiction and heart disease as well, so I have firsthand experience dealing with victims of all three.Second, I think you passed over this part of my remarks:"Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions."Don't underestimate the role genetics play in one's vulnerability to these diseases. You seem to have firsthand experience with this. You can seemingly do everything in your power to live a healthy life and still end up with one of these diseases. Life isn't fair. Finally, I stand by ignorance comment. Drug addiction is an incurable disease. That's a FACT. The majority of our society is poorly educated on the matter, to say the least. I also believe that the ignorant people who refuse to believe drug addiction is a serious disease are doing a monstrous disservice to our children and youth. Just the other day a study was released which showed an alarming rise in drug use among teens. I am a firm believer that if the majority of society was properly educated on the disease of drug addiction, particularly parents, there would be a dramatic decrease in drug use by our youth. But this ridiculous notion that drug addiction is not a disease, simply a choice, will only insure that our children will be more likely to use drugs and most addicts won't get the treatment they need.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

First, you have my sympathies for your mother, and I wish you the best in the future with your heart condition. For the record, I've lost relatives to cancer, and have family members who have been afflicted with the diseases of drug addiction and heart disease as well, so I have firsthand experience dealing with victims of all three.

Second, I think you passed over this part of my remarks:

"Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions."

Don't underestimate the role genetics play in one's vulnerability to these diseases. You seem to have firsthand experience with this. You can seemingly do everything in your power to live a healthy life and still end up with one of these diseases. Life isn't fair.

Finally, I stand by ignorance comment. Drug addiction is an incurable disease. That's a FACT. The majority of our society is poorly educated on the matter, to say the least.

I also believe that the ignorant people who refuse to believe drug addiction is a serious disease are doing a monstrous disservice to our children and youth. Just the other day a study was released which showed an alarming rise in drug use among teens. I am a firm believer that if the majority of society was properly educated on the disease of drug addiction, particularly parents, there would be a dramatic decrease in drug use by our youth. But this ridiculous notion that drug addiction is not a disease, simply a choice, will only insure that our children will be more likely to use drugs and most addicts won't get the treatment they need.

Not true. Your addiction to drugs can be cured, at the very least, by your own will power, intelligence and reasoning. And for the record, its not a disease its an addiction of choice.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

 

[switz]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

Alcoholism gene + no alcohol = no alcoholismDiseases, especially those that are genetic in origin, do not seem to need outside stimuli (such as alcohol) to occur. Thus, alcoholism isn't a disease. It can be figuratively considered a social disease, but is not a medical one.

Back to the football related issue - this won't go very far. NFL can cite case law to support their position here.

 

[Stunt Rock]

Actually the diseases of drug addiction and cancer have alot in common. Your likelihood of developing either disease is the result of the combinations of genetics and poor life decisions. And both are incurable. Once you develop alcoholism, for example, there's no turning back -- you'll be an alcoholic for life. When an alcoholic stops drinking, he isn't cured -- he still has the disease of alcoholism. That's why alcoholics have to take it one day at a time -- the urge to drink is always going to be there on some level. Drug addiciton is quite an insidious disease.Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem. People afflicted with the disease of drug addiciton are generally held in disdain by the majority of society. Compare this to heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the U.S. Most people in our society sympathize with victims of heart disease. It's uncommon to here people castigate heart disease victims, despite the fact the disease is usually the result of horrendous eating habits and little to no exercise. There's no more common sense required to live a lifestyle that gives you the greatest chance to avoid heart disease, than there is to avoid drug addiction. Alot of people claim drug addicts are idiots and most look down on them. But how are heart disease victims any less idiotic? They're not. More people, however, can relate to those with heart disease, because they make the same poor life decisions nearly every day of their lives!

My mother didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't do drugs. She ate healthy. She excercised. She still developed cancer. While I disagree with your argument that alcoholism is a disease, I don't consider you an idiot just because you believe that. Howeever, I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who disagrees with the decision is "ignorant". And I fail to see any evidence or argument that people with cancer have brought it upon themselves. Your argument about heart disease is overbroad and lacks sufficient evidence as well. When I was young, I developed a heart condition. It wasn't a result of poor eating or little to no excercise. I developed it as a result of rapid growth. So that argument rings hollow. A closer analogy would be obesity, where people genetically are going to be pre-disposed to eat more and weigh more. Despite their genetic pre-disposition, they can still fight genetics by eating right and excercising.As I said, believing one side or another doesn't make anyone a bad person or dumb. But acting as if it's an argument that's so obvious that you'd have to be a moron not to realize it is not very excellent, and makes for the very worst kind of argument.

Finally, I stand by ignorance comment. Drug addiction is an incurable disease. That's a FACT. The majority of our society is poorly educated on the matter, to say the least.

If this is true, then why is there serious debate in the medical community about this same issue?Additionally, why do you believe that not telling teenagers that addiction is a "disease" will exacerbate the problem? I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that people who suffer from drug or alcohol addiction doesn't deserve help and treatment. All the treatment in the world won't help someone who doesn't WANT to quit or who lacks the willpower to quit, but drug addicts and alcoholics still deserve help and support. Furthermore, I don't see why a person's viewpoint on the disease theory has any discernible practical effect on prevention techniques. If you believe alcoholism is a disease, then you can avoid getting "sick" by choosing not to drink. If you believe alcoholism is not a choice, but a serious behavioral problem, then you can still avoid it by choosing not to drink. The same holds true for drugs.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Once you develop alcoholism, for example, there's no turning back -- you'll be an alcoholic for life. When an alcoholic stops drinking, he isn't cured -- he still has the disease of alcoholism.

This mentality only exists in the US. European countries treat alcohol abuse entirely differently. The fact that there is such disagreement on a global scale indicates that no one really knows for sure.Just an example:In the US we tell alcohol abusers that they need to go cold turkey. That they are addicts for life and they must never touch another drop.In the UK they tell abusers that they need to moderate their drinking. A common system is to allow so many drinks per week (I think I remember reading 7, but this could vary). They could have one a day, or all 7 on Friday night, but so long as they only consume 7 that week they are considered to be doing well.Your post is filled with opinions. There are other opinions to consider as well.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

Last I heard some scientists think there might be a gene that may make you more likely to become an alcoholic.If you have a link that shows conclusive proof of this I would be glad to see it.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

The Blum-Noble study isolated a gene associated with 70% of hard core alcoholics in a sample of 35 cadavers. 30% of the acoholics studied managed to come down with the addiction/disease without the gene. Likewise the gene was found in 20% of the control group of non-alcoholic cadavers. So having the gene doesn't mean you have the addiction/disease. Nor would I label all "genetic conditions" diseases, let alone the existence of a gene without the associated condition. We can agree to define disease differently. Like I said in my first post, I don't care if you call it a disease. Whatever helps the addicts is fine by me. But, I've seen enough to believe there's a lot of politics involved with this label and very little science. Balanced essay on the discovery...

... with a very tough conclusion.

Addictive drinking is one of a range of dependencies that people may acquire in attempting artificially to regulate their sense of themselves and their world. Some people become compulsively enmeshed in destructive drinking as they pursue sensations that they are progressively less able to attain through any other means. And yet we cannot take the power and the seeming inevitability of this self-destructiveness for proof that it is written in the genes.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

Alcoholism gene + no alcohol = no alcoholismDiseases, especially those that are genetic in origin, do not seem to need outside stimuli (such as alcohol) to occur. Thus, alcoholism isn't a disease. It can be figuratively considered a social disease, but is not a medical one.

Back to the football related issue - this won't go very far. NFL can cite case law to support their position here.

This will be my last post on this topic, as this is a football forum. (Ftr, I don't think either of these guys has a case, but who knows with our wacky courts.)I just wanted to point out that your logic is flawed. For example, if one were to follow your logic, then they wouldn't consider asthma a disease.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

Alcoholism gene + no alcohol = no alcoholismDiseases, especially those that are genetic in origin, do not seem to need outside stimuli (such as alcohol) to occur. Thus, alcoholism isn't a disease. It can be figuratively considered a social disease, but is not a medical one.

Back to the football related issue - this won't go very far. NFL can cite case law to support their position here.

This will be my last post on this topic, as this is a football forum. (Ftr, I don't think either of these guys has a case, but who knows with our wacky courts.)I just wanted to point out that your logic is flawed. For example, if one were to follow your logic, then they wouldn't consider asthma a disease.

Because a person could choose not to breathe?

 

[j3r3m3y]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

Alcoholism gene + no alcohol = no alcoholismDiseases, especially those that are genetic in origin, do not seem to need outside stimuli (such as alcohol) to occur. Thus, alcoholism isn't a disease. It can be figuratively considered a social disease, but is not a medical one.

Back to the football related issue - this won't go very far. NFL can cite case law to support their position here.

This will be my last post on this topic, as this is a football forum. (Ftr, I don't think either of these guys has a case, but who knows with our wacky courts.)I just wanted to point out that your logic is flawed. For example, if one were to follow your logic, then they wouldn't consider asthma a disease.

Because a person could choose not to breathe?

My son's asthma is only an issue when air quality around Denver is bad. Other than that he has no issues. He was showing that a disease can be triggered by outside stimuli, this invalidating the previous posters logic.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Those people who claim drug addiction isn't a disease are just as ignorant as people who claim water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. IMO, this is mainly due to lack of proper education on the matter, and self-esteem.

Show me the alcoholism tumor, the alcoholism-ous cells, or let me listen to the alcholism murmer, or see the irregular alcoholism beat. There's nothing ignorant in seeing addiction different from disease. Especially when you start comparing it to physical disease. You'd be better of calling it a mental illness with a physical addiction. What's ignorant, imo, is being so sure you're right about something this gray and calling those who don't see your shade of it ignorant.

Actually there IS an alcoholism gene.

Alcoholism gene + no alcohol = no alcoholismDiseases, especially those that are genetic in origin, do not seem to need outside stimuli (such as alcohol) to occur. Thus, alcoholism isn't a disease. It can be figuratively considered a social disease, but is not a medical one.

Back to the football related issue - this won't go very far. NFL can cite case law to support their position here.

This will be my last post on this topic, as this is a football forum. (Ftr, I don't think either of these guys has a case, but who knows with our wacky courts.)I just wanted to point out that your logic is flawed. For example, if one were to follow your logic, then they wouldn't consider asthma a disease.

Because a person could choose not to breathe?

My son's asthma is only an issue when air quality around Denver is bad. Other than that he has no issues. He was showing that a disease can be triggered by outside stimuli, this invalidating the previous posters logic.

No, he always has that disease. Certain symptoms are caused by outside stimuli.If that stimuli is around... your son has no choice.

Not the same with addictions. They still have a choice every single time.

Your son is not addicted to breathing. (funny as that may sound)

 

[j3r3m3y]

No, he always has that disease. Certain symptoms are caused by outside stimuli.If that stimuli is around... your son has no choice.Not the same with addictions. They still have a choice every single time.Your son is not addicted to breathing. (funny as that may sound)

The underlying assumption to an addiction is that there is no choice involved. Technically they have a choice but due to the circumstances they are not in a position to exercise free will.If a man holds a gun to your head and gives you the "choice" between giving him your wallet and dying, you technically have a choice but do you really?