TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
Jason Wilde posted a good article about Lyerla yesterday with what I hope to be an appropriate title, Days of Atonement: http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=14231&is_corp=1
- - - - -
The question of nature (genetics) vs. nurture (environment and in this case, behavior) is at the center of more than a few discussions and IMO it applies to addiction as well. From anecdotal evidence from my life I do think genetics plays a part in addiction. Two of my closest friends have been in AA and sober for many decades and each has extensive family histories of addiction. We went to college together and I was behaving the same way they were at college – got drunk far too often, smoked pot, and tried cocaine (no, we didn’t ‘experiment’ with it – we didn’t wear lab coats and collect data – we just tried it). Anyway, I am lucky enough not to have any family history of addiction – at least back to both sets of grandparents – and I’ve never had a problem with addiction. I have run across similar examples in my life, in fact more than a few of my friends have had problems with addiction, and in each case at least one parent shared those problems. But anecdotal evidence is just that.
Here’s just one site that came up after a basic search. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/is-addiction-a-disease.htm The author may be overstating the percentage of those addicted due to genetic factors but if the studies on twins are well done, that provides some evidence to back the claim of some having a genetic predisposition to addiction. The author also says repeatedly abusing drugs or alcohol permanently rewires the brain and I have read of those studies as well. And of course he says poor coping skills also lead to addiction – I don’t think there’s any disagreement about that.
Even if someone is predisposed to having problems with addiction, if they never try the addictive substance they’ll obviously have no problem with it. This is relevant to the discussion above because to the extent addiction is a genetic predisposition it can be more easily thought of as a disease. However much like type 2 diabetes which of course is a “disease”, it is brought on by behavior (as Jordyruns mentioned). As I said, I gave myself a chance to be addicted to alcohol and illegal substances so far-be-it for me to judge others who did the same and became addicted. I certainly am in no way morally superior to my two friends mentioned above. And those who become addicted, no matter the cause, can certainly overcome it by changing their behavior. While I agree calling addiction a disease does not help those addicted overcome it, neither does ignoring behavior and personal responsibility help those suffering from type 2 diabetes, or the person with heart disease who won’t watch what he eats or exercise. IOW if you blame addiction completely on the addicted you have to do the same with some of those who suffer from agreed-upon diseases. Unless you are coming at this discussion from the perspective of a perfect person, I’m not sure how much the cause of addiction matters (except to be particularly vigilant if there’s a family history of it).
With regard to Colt Lyerla after reading about his childhood it’s easy for me to see how his inability to cope with his environment led to a lot of his problems, whether he is predisposed to addiction or not (in fact whether he is even addicted, or not). And in any event I agree with those who say this is a very low - to no - risk signing for the Packers. They are giving him a chance to overcome his problems and straighten out his life. If he fails, I don’t see how his failure reflects poorly on the Packers. If he succeeds, of course the Packers will benefit by having added one of the best TE prospects from this draft. So IMO it's a low risk, and potentially high reward proposition. And even beyond giving another human being a second chance, I give kudos to Thompson for doing it.
- - - - -
The question of nature (genetics) vs. nurture (environment and in this case, behavior) is at the center of more than a few discussions and IMO it applies to addiction as well. From anecdotal evidence from my life I do think genetics plays a part in addiction. Two of my closest friends have been in AA and sober for many decades and each has extensive family histories of addiction. We went to college together and I was behaving the same way they were at college – got drunk far too often, smoked pot, and tried cocaine (no, we didn’t ‘experiment’ with it – we didn’t wear lab coats and collect data – we just tried it). Anyway, I am lucky enough not to have any family history of addiction – at least back to both sets of grandparents – and I’ve never had a problem with addiction. I have run across similar examples in my life, in fact more than a few of my friends have had problems with addiction, and in each case at least one parent shared those problems. But anecdotal evidence is just that.
Here’s just one site that came up after a basic search. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/is-addiction-a-disease.htm The author may be overstating the percentage of those addicted due to genetic factors but if the studies on twins are well done, that provides some evidence to back the claim of some having a genetic predisposition to addiction. The author also says repeatedly abusing drugs or alcohol permanently rewires the brain and I have read of those studies as well. And of course he says poor coping skills also lead to addiction – I don’t think there’s any disagreement about that.
Even if someone is predisposed to having problems with addiction, if they never try the addictive substance they’ll obviously have no problem with it. This is relevant to the discussion above because to the extent addiction is a genetic predisposition it can be more easily thought of as a disease. However much like type 2 diabetes which of course is a “disease”, it is brought on by behavior (as Jordyruns mentioned). As I said, I gave myself a chance to be addicted to alcohol and illegal substances so far-be-it for me to judge others who did the same and became addicted. I certainly am in no way morally superior to my two friends mentioned above. And those who become addicted, no matter the cause, can certainly overcome it by changing their behavior. While I agree calling addiction a disease does not help those addicted overcome it, neither does ignoring behavior and personal responsibility help those suffering from type 2 diabetes, or the person with heart disease who won’t watch what he eats or exercise. IOW if you blame addiction completely on the addicted you have to do the same with some of those who suffer from agreed-upon diseases. Unless you are coming at this discussion from the perspective of a perfect person, I’m not sure how much the cause of addiction matters (except to be particularly vigilant if there’s a family history of it).
With regard to Colt Lyerla after reading about his childhood it’s easy for me to see how his inability to cope with his environment led to a lot of his problems, whether he is predisposed to addiction or not (in fact whether he is even addicted, or not). And in any event I agree with those who say this is a very low - to no - risk signing for the Packers. They are giving him a chance to overcome his problems and straighten out his life. If he fails, I don’t see how his failure reflects poorly on the Packers. If he succeeds, of course the Packers will benefit by having added one of the best TE prospects from this draft. So IMO it's a low risk, and potentially high reward proposition. And even beyond giving another human being a second chance, I give kudos to Thompson for doing it.
