[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Phang

people who have never suffered any kind of dependency or mental illness always seem to assume that because some people can kick themselves out of it, everyone can.

No, I don't assume people can kick it out of themselves. There *most of the time* is a choice of how to deal with it, though; alcohol and other intoxicants are a way of handling your problems, and in my experience it's a bit of a choice which involves personal preferences.

Actually, this forum was a major help in that because even though my posting was pretty much of the standard you'd expect from a mentally ill 15-year-old, it gave me something constructive and safe to do.

(Generally, getting "on" to routines helps; striving to find a routine also points your preferences: some people prefer to try alcohol, party, and weed to improve their quality, others do sport, find a spiritual side, some might post on forums. (I find these forums often tad hostile to new people though, as a side remark).

You don't need chemicals to **** yourself up almost irretrievably. For the drunks in the bunks, their lives are being made better. They have shelter, food, and something to do other than drink. They aren't being pressured to stop drinking, bcause if they were they'd just leave and go back on the streets, although help is made available for those who are able to take it. Don't you dare judge these people for the position they're in - if they've failed rehab six times, can we perhaps, just perhaps, assume that control is out of their hands?

Yes, the drunks in the bunks is a good solution, on economical and welfare aspect of it. Yet it doesn't change the fact that the people who become alcoholics contribute their fair shares to the illness, and rehab is another point where you just need to find the strength to work on yourself (there are people who succeed at rehab, and those who fail; I think it would help the girl you mentioned if she found herself something constructive to do; now I am sorry if I come up offensive using you as a sample, but you made it out of it, she didn't - it's often a lot up to yourself realizing your problems and working to get yourself out of them, or succumbing deeper into self-pity and so on).


And yes, I do have personal experience of "problems", not alcoholism, though, as I didn't pick alcohol as the solution for my problems (which would have made alcoholism a "symptom" probably).

edit - forgot this:

Originally Posted by DanteHicks

They are two separate issues I think. We need to understand why someone committed a crime so (if nothing else) we can try to avoid similar things happening again. That's not always easy but clearly certain developments will reduce crime in the long term.

However, all of this "understanding" issue is completely separate from the idea whether someone should be held responsible for their crimes. If someone kills ten people, and we find out they had some sort of mental defect which contributed to their behaviour, it's not like we would set the person free, would we? That line of reasoning would mean the only people who were put in prison would be people who committed crimes for no reason.

We need to carefully assess the nature of the mental defect. What I am trying to say, is, that the debate in my homeland has been going to a direction where, whatever anyone does, people appear who explain the deesd through "excuses" or "reasoning", depending how you take it. An alcoholic has contributed to his own alcoholism by consuming alcohol; everyone who gets depressed doesn't end up alcoholic or junkie, and in my opinion it's wrong to say it's not his fault he is an alcoholic, it's his harsh childhood.

Which brings me to a famous (or notorious) Finnish band of three brothers that were in the media labeled as the Eura (a town) Daltons due to their excessive criminal record and repeative crimes. Later on (if I remember correct, during their trials), a movie was made of the "Dalton brothers", after which a horde of "professional understanders" appeared to show their support to the poor kids who had obviously been wronged badly because they had ended up mugging people, attempting to rob banks, and trying to pull out gas station automats with a car. Yeah, it's not their fault they're criminals, the society made them! (the same applies to some cases of alcoholics and drunks here; it's not the poor guy's fault he's addicted to drugs or booze, the society caused him to feel bad).

There was this person, Sanna Sillanpää, who opened fire at fellow hobbyists in a firing range, wounding and killing people. She was found to have had a troubled childhood and these mental defections. She spent a few months in locked up therapy, and was then released to "normal" life with therapy.