![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhALKDT-NCur6tUVGX8Q_Z_k-i0A19f7pnbdZSuCuhEdR2JhevnKynsDoNF5roNYAinHmBw5k5_n57Uzv2ZvbO6bi50YW9sjjzu7qOaL-zLNV4iZIG6L9BzLwqPmZmLCGMZOyUnD6wndc0/s400/orange-BillW-B.jpg)
A human being cannot be an 'addict'.
I feel term 'addict' is derogatory the and misleading. This nomenclature has been largely sustained by groups such as N.A. and all it's stepsisters (unfortunately these groups are the catch-all for people with these types of problems, often medically referred, and they have a very limited success, which they are happy to admit). But I digress, the point I am making is this, if 'addiction' is an 'illness' which N.A. are keen to point out, then why would you term someone as addict? If someone has cancer do we call them cancerers, or people with heart conditions heartics or heartitatics?
Perhaps the term 'substance abuse disorder' or 'addictive personality' but let us please separate the being from the issue. A human being cannot be an 'addict'.
Sincerely,
Suhknivas
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a0.html#ca_guru_right
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a1.html#
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a2.html
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a3.html#
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a4.html#
No comments:
Post a Comment