to think that addictions should not neccessarily be inherant in our DNA, and so we do not *have* to develop them......

[psychomum5]

something in a book I read recently.

addictions are inherent (sp...sorry) in our DNA, so therefore we are not at fault for developing them, and cannot fight them.

I come from two parents that were drug/alcohol addicts. It ruined both lives, altho not sure how badly it has ruined my fathers as I no longer have contact, but it has ruined my mothers and she is mentally ill, and has been all my life, and will live out her live in care.

anyway

the way this comment read was that going on my parents, I have no choice but to also develop addictions, namely to the ones my parents chose....

how is this reasoning valid?? yes, DNA predisposes you to blue eyes, red hair, freckles for instance, but not addictions......they come partly from learnt behaviour surely??? or just simple fucking bad luck!

I do not have addictions to alcohol, nror to drugs....nor to anything else IMVHO.

well, maybe mumsnet

so, am being unreasonable to think that it is not DNA, it is our choices, or am I just looking at life too simply??

Well, it couldn't have happened if you never drank alcohol. for religious reasons, for example. Or like my brother, who is teetotal and has never touched a drop in his life (he would be a good candidate too, what with an alcoholic father, uncle and sister).

Whereas type 1 diabetes is going to happen whatever, IYSWIM.

Just being pedantic really! I think we are basically agreeing with each other.

never meant to start an arguement, even if it IS one where you are both kind of agreeing with each other....

I don't think anyone's having an argument are they?

V civilised thread in fact psycho

Well, no, of course you are right - butin our society, one would need a very good reason to consider being teetotal unless one knew one was going to have problems with drink, which I didn't and couldn't - which is what I meant about it being a moot point.

I think that's an oversimplification, Pixie - I think that the main point the OP is making is that you weren't born with them. I agree that choice is a very misleading and unhelpful concept to bring into this sort of debate, though - a lot of us cannot possibly foresee the consequences of our actions when we make them, so it's a bit harsh to blame us for them in retrospect.

I have always understood that the difference between OCD type addiction/compulsions and non-OCD type ones is that the OCD ones don't give any inherent pleasure - more a case of staving off a spike of anxiety.

In answer to psycho's question - I'm in the bit of both camp. I think some people are predisposed such that they would need very little negative life circumstances and/or exposure to a substance to end up with an addiction.

MIFLAW, I do see the comparison you are making and I largely agree with you, but in that case this statement is misleading: ?You can't always avoid getting it, you can't necessarily get rid of it once you've got it, but, by becoming aware, taking it seriously and managing your behaviour and lifestyle accordingly, you can often still have a relatively noraml life.?

This is applicable only to Type II diabetes as there is nothing you can do to prevent yourself getting Type I and you can never get rid of it once you have got it. Yes, you can still have a relatively normal life, but only by doing around 6 blood tests a day and sticking needles in yourself 4 times a day ? that goes a little beyond managing your behaviour and lifestyle, IMHO.

Still not offended by the way just trying to clarify a little. Apologies to all for the digression from OP.

"as there is nothing you can do to prevent yourself getting Type I and you can never get rid of it once you have got it." Well, TBH, this is my experience of alcoholism too but, as I don't know for a fact if that is the same for everyone, I thought I would keep it open. However, I honestly don't feel I could have prevented it, nor can I get rid of it.

"Yes, you can still have a relatively normal life, but only by doing around 6 blood tests a day and sticking needles in yourself 4 times a day ? that goes a little beyond managing your behaviour and lifestyle, IMHO." Again, I would contest that taking the centre of your entire existence and totally abstaining from it, plus the lifelong programme of rigorous self-examination and action that many of us find necessary in order to do so, is no quick fix either - I certainly didn't say to myself, I think I'll pack up drinking, and that was it.

Again, I was being conciliatory and I think it has backfired somewhat.

It's just a model anyway - for every similarity with diabetes, I'm certain there's a difference.

My mother was a drug user and a drinker,my father was as was my stepfather ...my eldest half brother is a junkie and my younger half sister has similar habits - I however dont despite my dh enjoying a drink and living in a environment where alcohol is the norm ... I rarely drink have never smoked nicotine let alone anything worse ....not bcos I wouldnt want to but purely because in my mind I wonder if ill know when to stop, I have other obsessions and a laundry hang up ,I am positively AFRAID of becoming dependant.

What I wonder is perhaps the crux of this nature nurture debate is that in my family good/bad or indifferent news was marked with a drink a drink to celebrate a drink to commiserate a drink to mourn a drink cos its monday a drink cos the washers broke etc etc -whereas in my friend Joannes house bad news was dealt with by discussion good news with hugs and a family celebration.

nickchick, your last paragraph describes what my ex's family is like. Anything and everything was a "reason" to have a drink. Three out of the four children from that family - my ex included - have drink problems and the fourth is in a long-term relationship with someone who's got drink problems.

I think you can give your own experiences more credit than those written by someone, who it sounds like, doesn't fully understand genetics (who does? - I'm a geneticist and it is very much the more you know the more questions raised). Although, sometimes the way genetics is described can be confusing. I have often seen people cite ?a significant effect? as if it naturally means large, whereas geneticists use it purely as a statistical term and get really quite excited about tiny increases in risk that are statistically significant. People also take a very black/white view that it is either genetics or their fault but you are no more at fault for your upbringing, womb environment, even peer group than you are your genes, and attributing risk to these things doesn?t have to be confused with blame.

I therefore think that if the book said: ?addictions are inherent in our DNA,? it was wrong. If however it said there was an increase in risk, I think absolving all fault and not being able to fight is too strong a response and not entirely logical. However, the way that info goes from science to media to public is often presented this way.

Regarding the addictions, nothing I have ever seen suggests that any personality trait is dominant or any gene can be sufficient cause for a personality trait. Increases in risk are just that and never the whole picture (unless the behaviour is a symptom of a larger, rare genetic disorder).

Also, people react differently to being told it is in their genes, some give up and resign themselves to it and some see it as a reason to be extra careful (I guess I'm taking about being overweight here, as is only research I know in this area, but probably applies). Therefore for some people, thinking it is genetic may be a comfort and for others a curse - if it was a self help book then the author probably falls into the first camp and had good intentions. You are obviously doing fine and shouldn't worry about it. Sorry for mini lecture as well!