bad news for jimmy/Jim Irsay arrested (((merge)))

[John Dee]

I'm with YOU...   folks that have been there have a "perspective" ..        those that have not...  simply want to burn a man at the stake.

 

Don't judge me until you have walked a mile in my shoes....        Someone... 

 

Get it together JIM

Reading these posts in response to a story about a man with an addiction tells me most of you Colts fans were born with a brain more suited for an athletic supporter. Apparently few of you even bothered to read about his life before you posted smart aleck wise cracks. Addiction kills. We witness it every day in this drug saturated society. This man needs help and good people give help while punks ridicule. Mr. Irsay, if you are reading these please accept this apology on behalf of the people and Colts fans that give a damn about you and all others that are victims of addictions. Perfection has never been a part of the human make up so we struggle throughout life at different stages and to different degrees. We are pulling hard for you in every way. Get well and we will hold up that trophy together.

[sweetsurrender]

Please explain why you believe it's a complete and utter joke. To me it seems you're acting on emotion and are attacking my arguments defiantly through an act of sophistry.

I do not claim in any way to know exactly why people do what they do. I do however recognize the possibility, that at some point in the future, it's possible that someone will be able to do so.

Religion is not allowed on these boards so I can't type a response. Feel free to PM me and I will explain why the belief in God most adequately explains why we exist (purpose), why we do what we do (nature), especially the bad things, and how there is a solution to it all.

[amfootball]

Wow. Things have gotten deep over here. Might a suggest a visit to the General section and the Mark Sanchez thread. I promise it will make you laugh.

[matt986]

Haven't been able to read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been posted:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2014/03/17/jim-irsay-arrest-drug-addiction-fighting-for-life/6528017/

 

Kravitz confirms what many of us have suspected for a while now.

 

Hope Jim gets the help that he needs to turn things around.

[John Dee]

sighh

[NFLfan]

It's simple ... addicts are a slave.

What do you mean?

[Susie Q]

If I was the cop and he was that close to home, driving 10 mph I would have just let him call someone to come and pick him up.  I have seen many people given a break in similar circumstances. 

Maybe it's a blessing that they didn't do as you suggested because now maybe he will get the help that he really needs to control this addiction.   All things happen for a reason.

[JLeòdhas]

Jim needs some major help, hope and pray that he gets it.

[csmopar]

Well keep in mind, while he is addicted to these pills, he's still a smart man. My guess is he temporarily turns daily operations over to his daughter and Grigs while retaining ownership and then checks himself into a rehab center, before a court date. Doing this, will give him great leverage in court. Also, assuming this is the first felony offense, his wealth being able to buy the best lawyers possible, I see a plea down to a misdemeanor charge(s), a giant fine, probably a ton of community service and probably loss of his driver's license for a year or two as well as a rehab condition. I just don't see him spending time behind bars for a first time possession charge.

[IndyD4U]

Religion is not allowed on these boards so I can't type a response. Feel free to PM me and I will explain why the belief in God most adequately explains why we exist (purpose), why we do what we do (nature), especially the bad things, and how there is a solution to it all.

We're all star stuff and genetic susceptibility. Both scientific facts.

[IndyD4U]

Reading these posts in response to a story about a man with an addiction tells me most of you Colts fans were born with a brain more suited for an athletic supporter. Apparently few of you even bothered to read about his life before you posted smart aleck wise cracks. Addiction kills. We witness it every day in this drug saturated society. This man needs help and good people give help while punks ridicule. Mr. Irsay, if you are reading these please accept this apology on behalf of the people and Colts fans that give a damn about you and all others that are victims of addictions. Perfection has never been a part of the human make up so we struggle throughout life at different stages and to different degrees. We are pulling hard for you in every way. Get well and we will hold up that trophy together.

Everyone should have to read this post before visiting this thread.

[sweetsurrender]

We're all star stuff and genetic susceptibility. Both scientific facts.

What is star stuff?

[matt986]

Reading these posts in response to a story about a man with an addiction tells me most of you Colts fans were born with a brain more suited for an athletic supporter. Apparently few of you even bothered to read about his life before you posted smart aleck wise cracks. Addiction kills. We witness it every day in this drug saturated society. This man needs help and good people give help while punks ridicule. Mr. Irsay, if you are reading these please accept this apology on behalf of the people and Colts fans that give a damn about you and all others that are victims of addictions. Perfection has never been a part of the human make up so we struggle throughout life at different stages and to different degrees. We are pulling hard for you in every way. Get well and we will hold up that trophy together.

 

 

Great post.

 

If anyone has a few minutes to spare, this is well worth watching:

 

[TMPHBITEU]

Hence why i keep mentioning IF, and only if he is convicted or found guilty. 

Punished accordingly for Irsay would be whatever the judge deems necessary.  I respect that this judge is competent enough to give out a fair punishment If Irsay is even in the wrong. I trust our legal system ...for now

I'm not a lawyer in the US, but I've studied US law in context of my danish law degree.

I could probably write hundreds of pages why the legal system I'm eductated to understand is a bunch of semantics designed to manipulate and distort the truth to make it fit individual goals. If that is true in Denmark (whose legal system and democratic process is often heralded among international scholars as an ideal), I think it's fair to assume it probably would be true in the US as well. Don't ever trust a lawyer and the legal system he manipulates for the greed of his own or that of his clients. The legal system isn't designed to create justice. It's designed to create the illusion of justice by forcing sophistry down the throats of naive, good-willed people.

At least, that's my conclusion based on my years of training to become a viscious vulture by optaining a masters degree in law. (Which is equivalent to the US "juris doctor").

[John Dee]

Like I said...   if YOU have NEVER experienced what someone like Jim does...   You will never know.

 

Drug addiction is really hard.     REALLY HARD.

What do you mean?

[Jaric]

What is star stuff?

The stuff that stars are made out of.

[NewEra]

It's pretty easy to get hooked on pain killers when you are indeed in physical pain. Doesn't make him a person or bad man. We don't know what's going on in his life or world so step off your high horses and don't claim to.

[SteelCityColt]

Religion is not allowed on these boards so I can't type a response. Feel free to PM me and I will explain why the belief in God most adequately explains why we exist (purpose), why we do what we do (nature), especially the bad things, and how there is a solution to it all.

 

With the greatest respect that's your viewpoint and if that's what you feel adequately explains thing than good for you. However please don't apply it across the whole and dismiss a differing point of view out of hand as "drivel", different people believe in different things. 

[Gramz]

With the greatest respect that's your viewpoint and if that's what you feel adequately explains thing than good for you. However please don't apply it across the whole and dismiss a differing point of view out of hand as "drivel", different people believe in different things. 

So true.   And  in this particular situation, it doesn't really matter what any of us think, believe, or speak out loud.

 

Wishful thinking on my part, but I wish all the conversation would just "halt".  On a personal level ~  What's important is that Jim gets the help, guidance, support and encourgement he needs at this time to get his life back on track.

 

On a Legal level ~ the Powers that Be will take care of doing what is right,  whatever that may be.

[SteelCityColt]

So true.   And  in this particular situation, it doesn't really matter what any of us think, believe, or speak out loud.

 

Wishful thinking on my part, but I wish all the conversation would just "halt".  On a personal level ~  What's important is that Jim gets the help, guidance, support and encourgement he needs at this time to get his life back on track.

 

On a Legal level ~ the Powers that Be will take care of doing what is right,  whatever that may be.

 

My apologies for taking the topic off on various tangents throughout, unfortunately incidents like this tend to spark wider debates.

 

I agree completely that the important thing here is the man gets help. 

[sweetsurrender]

With the greatest respect that's your viewpoint and if that's what you feel adequately explains thing than good for you. However please don't apply it across the whole and dismiss a differing point of view out of hand as "drivel", different people believe in different things. 

Yeah, I get that which is why I told TMPHBITEU to PM me. I did not write the longest post thus far on this thread spewing my ethical or religious beliefs which I know would offend others no matter how delicately or articulately I tried to communicate them. Calling his post drivel was wrong but honestly this whole thing with Irsay has everyone on edge and speaking out of character I think. A shame really as the off-season was going well IMO.

[OffensivelyPC]

Like I said...   if YOU have NEVER experienced what someone like Jim does...   You will never know.

 

Drug addiction is really hard.     REALLY HARD.

I worked with a drug rehab program as an intern in college.  They called it "Drug Treatment Court," and it was designed to be a more intensive 2 year (give or take) probation program in which you essentially earned your way out of the program, and it was typically for those who have had a history of drug/alcohol related offenses and this was the last line of defense before serious jailtime for these offenders.  Knowing the consequences, many of these folks would get caught redhanded trying to cheat the system.  Even when they relapsed a few times, they would straighten up for a bit and then revert back to the drugs.  It was really depressing to see.  But the probation officer I worked with said it best when he said something to the effect that, to the drug addict, there's things that make sense to him that no non-drug addict could ever understand.  For those on the outside looking in, what's logical to us isn't logical to the addict because when you're on drugs, a completely new set of rules need to be applied - right or wrong - because for these people, only the drugs matter.  Then when you start to understand that drugs have taken the place of friends, family, sex, pleasure, etc., you'll start to understand why they fight so hard to keep the drugs but pass the drug treatment program.  For the people who succeeded at it, there was a little bit of that desire for the family, friends, intimacy, and whatnot that was still there and the program, if they fought hard enough for it, would help take drugs out of the equation.

[sweetsurrender]

I worked with a drug rehab program as an intern in college.  They called it "Drug Treatment Court," and it was designed to be a more intensive 2 year (give or take) probation program in which you essentially earned your way out of the program, and it was typically for those who have had a history of drug/alcohol related offenses and this was the last line of defense before serious jailtime for these offenders.  Knowing the consequences, many of these folks would get caught redhanded trying to cheat the system.  Even when they relapsed a few times, they would straighten up for a bit and then revert back to the drugs.  It was really depressing to see.  But the probation officer I worked with said it best when he said something to the effect that, to the drug addict, there's things that make sense to him that no non-drug addict could ever understand.  For those on the outside looking in, what's logical to us isn't logical to the addict because when you're on drugs, a completely new set of rules need to be applied - right or wrong - because for these people, only the drugs matter.  Then when you start to understand that drugs have taken the place of friends, family, sex, etc., you'll start to understand why they fight so hard to keep the drugs but pass the drug treatment program.  For the people who succeeded at it, there was a little bit of that desire for the family, friends, intimacy, and whatnot that was still there and the program, if they fought hard enough for it, would help take drugs out of the equation.

There was a very good movie called "28 Days" that starred Sandra Bullock as an alcoholic in a treatment center. Your post reminded me of it as it dealt with the ugly side of addiction recovery. A good movie to watch on this subject.

[Tark The Shark]

I sincerely hope the best for Jim.

 

I have never walked in the guys shoes, and I don't know what he does on a daily basis, but he seems like the consummate professional, when he needs to be, and a party animal after hours.

 

I can understand people bashing him and his choices, but he is a human after all. Nobody is perfect and we all make mistakes. He just turns out to be a multi-millionaire and a NFL owner of one of the most successful franchises of the new millennium.

[TMPHBITEU]

I worked with a drug rehab program as an intern in college.  They called it "Drug Treatment Court," and it was designed to be a more intensive 2 year (give or take) probation program in which you essentially earned your way out of the program, and it was typically for those who have had a history of drug/alcohol related offenses and this was the last line of defense before serious jailtime for these offenders.  Knowing the consequences, many of these folks would get caught redhanded trying to cheat the system.  Even when they relapsed a few times, they would straighten up for a bit and then revert back to the drugs.  It was really depressing to see.  But the probation officer I worked with said it best when he said something to the effect that, to the drug addict, there's things that make sense to him that no non-drug addict could ever understand.  For those on the outside looking in, what's logical to us isn't logical to the addict because when you're on drugs, a completely new set of rules need to be applied - right or wrong - because for these people, only the drugs matter.  Then when you start to understand that drugs have taken the place of friends, family, sex, etc., you'll start to understand why they fight so hard to keep the drugs but pass the drug treatment program.

Perhaps you're right. However: Aren't we all drug addicts in the sense that dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, oxytocin and so on make us crave for certain stimuli?

If you look at it this way, the behavior of an addict is basically the same thing as doing the things you do, based on how the things you do make you feel. To me, there's no real difference, except for the choice of stimuli.

Personally, I think the mantra "it takes one to know one" is foolish in a lot of ways. Say you want to know what it's like to live in France. You then ask your friend - who has lived there for 20 years, but currently resides in the US: "What is it like to live in France?". If the mantra is correct: He wouldn't know, as he lives in the US. Of course, the counter-argument would be: Well, he used to live in France, so that is the foundation of his knowledge. But let's imagine your friend used to live on the very border of France - never having entered. Never having lived there. But from his door, he can easily inspect the lives of those in France. What's the real difference?

 

There was a very good movie called "28 Days" that starred Sandra Bullock as an alcoholic in a treatment center. Your post reminded me of it as it dealt with the ugly side of addiction recovery. A good movie to watch on this subject.

I read the title as "28 Days Later", and read the remaining words within that context. Needless to say, I didn't catch your point fully on my initial glance

[sweetsurrender]

Perhaps you're right. However: Aren't we all drug addicts in the sense that dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, oxytocin and so on make us crave for certain stimuli?

If you look at it this way, the behavior of an addict is basically the same thing as doing the things you do, based on how the things you do make you feel. To me, there's no real difference, except for the choice of stimuli.

Personally, I think the mantra "it takes one to know one" is foolish in a lot of ways. Say you want to know what it's like to live in France. You then ask your friend - who has lived there for 20 years, but currently resides in the US: "What is it like to live in France?". If the mantra is correct: He wouldn't know, as he lives in the US. Of course, the counter-argument would be: Well, he used to live in France, so that is the foundation of his knowledge. But let's imagine your friend used to live on the very border of France - never having entered. Never having lived there. But from his door, he can easily inspect the lives of those in France. What's the real difference?

 

I read the title as "28 Days Later", and read the remaining words within that context. Needless to say, I didn't catch your point fully on my initial glance

Ha. 28 Days Later is the zombie movie, right? That one was pretty good too but slightly off-topic. Ha,ha. I did love how the zombies moved in that move though. So fast and agile for being dead.

 

28 Days is with Sandra Bullock. Came out in 2000 I think so it is an oldie.

[COLT in J-ville]

It seems my lack of communicative skills clouded my intent

Allow me to start with a small thought experiment (credit to neuroscientist Sam Harris): Think of a movie. You're free to choose.

1. I'm assuming you're a regular person who doesn't know the title of every movie ever created. Already here, you're limited in your ability to choose freely.

2. Before you're able to actively pick a movie that you have stored in memory, thoughts appear. In this case, let's pretend the choices your subconscious creates are "Avatar", "Lawrence of Arabia" and "A Beautiful Mind".

In all honesty: Did you control which thoughts entered your cognitive state?

3. You now have the choice between these three movies. You pick Avatar: Why?

Well, you just watched "Finding Nemo" yesterday. Finding Nemo is an animated movie and you liked it. This led you to pick Avatar. But the same argument - despite your liking of "Finding Nemo" may as well have led you to pick "A Beautiful Mind" - you're feeling adventerous and want to try a new experience. And you've already just watched an animated movie yesterday.

My point is: All these thoughts you have, are not really yours. They're active ingredients of what appear in your subconscious. You may think you're making the decision based on "free will": But how could you?

Onto what you wrote, and the implications of "my" philosophy:

When I'm saying it has "nothing" to do with Jim Irsay, I simply mean that Jim Irsay is the sum of genetics + environmental factors that led us up to this very point. All those factors, actions and functions make up Jim Irsay, so it'd be foolish on my behalf to claim it having nothing to do with Jim Irsay, when in truth, it has everything to do with Jim Irsay.

What I tried to relay in my post was the following:

As I said, the action should be condemned. And even though Jim Irsay was as little to blame for everything that happened up until this very moment in time, which is true whether your name is Osama or Obama (yup, I just said that, and I'll defend those views avidly), it's irrational to 'judge' the person. Say you were born to be Osama: Basically you're following your natural impulses, regardless of how wrong they may be based on the standards of society. What I mean to say is: Don't throw bad feelings toward Jim Irsay, Osama or anyone else for that matter, as that - to me - is completely irrational and shows to some degree, ignorance.

Let me ask you this: If someone close to you were attacked and killed by a lion, would it be rational to judge the lion with the feeling of hate? Isn't the lion just following its natural impulses? You might want to lock the lion up, or remove yourself from the threat of being attacked: But would you deem it rational to kill it as vengeance? To me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe the word "justice" should exist - rather I think the word "symmetry" or "balance" should replace it.

Which brings me to the implications of my views: Does this mean that punishment, corrections etc. would be wrong, considering the person didn't really have a choice or not in the first place?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Let me make this abundantly clear: As a society, we both can, will, should and have to correct behavior detrimental to our ability to evolve (which seems to be the purpose of our existance). As such, we shouldn't allow killers or drunk drivers for that matter to roam freely. But what I'm advocating is: Don't hate what you don't understand. Dislike the behavior, because it's detrimental, but remember: In the end we're all reactions based on functions that came after the event we know as "The Big Bang". To me, we're nothing but extremely beautiful and extremely complicated physical processes. As such, I find hate to always be irrational, and the result of ignorance. Punishment should ONLY be used when it has a purpose in terms of correcting a problem detrimental to life being able to evolve (correcting and understanding the behavior of addicts, so they don't end up drunk driving etc.), but I do not believe that punishment, just for the sense of punishing someone to make yourself feel better can ever be rational. To me, that has severely limited - if any - foundation in logic.

First of all, at number 3 I chose Lawrence of Arabia.. Yes I know it was just an example of a reason why SOMEONE would pick Avatar.. I just wanted to show that I do have some taste in movies ;)

 

You have cleared up your initial statement as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for pointing out the disconnect between that statement and how I viewed it. I just didn't want others to view it that way if it was not what you intended.

 

As far as the lion example- I think it would be completely rational to hate anything that kills a loved one, be it a lion, or cancer, or a mass-murderer. You can understand and accept that the lion was just acting upon its instincts, which allows for some kind of closure at least, but that doesn't mean your thoughts wouldn't naturally lean toward hating the lion. Did I just give you an argument for your supposed lack of free will by using the phrasing "naturally lean toward?" I'm not sure.. But if I did, it wouldn't necessarily follow in accordance with your argument, seeing that I was using that statement to show why I could rationally hate the lion. But that is a debate that I suppose could be eternally argued from both sides.

 

Let me ask you this: What if that lion actually killed a hyena that was about to kill your loved one? Would it be irrational to love that lion? I don't think it would be. You would understand that it was acting on instinct to kill and eat some prey, and not that it was trying to exhibit altruism for humans.. But you could still love him for it, could you not? I mean, he did just save your daughter's life.

 

You make some good points. I'm glad you didn't respond to me in a personally nasty or defensive manner. Most people on a message board would. I respect you for that.

 

Oh I do feel I should point out again that I am not judging Jim Irsay, nor do I hate him for his addiction. It's not my position to judge. If I could invoke a Bible verse (don't worry people, I'm not making a religious argument here or anything like that.. so don't launch this in that direction please..I just feel the verse does have context here), "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[sweetsurrender]

First of all, at number 3 I chose Lawrence of Arabia.. Yes I know it was just an example of a reason why SOMEONE would pick Avatar.. I just wanted to show that I do have some taste in movies ;)

 

You have cleared up your initial statement as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for pointing out the disconnect between that statement and how I viewed it. I just didn't want others to view it that way if it was not what you intended.

 

As far as the lion example- I think it would be completely rational to hate anything that kills a loved one, be it a lion, or cancer, or a mass-murderer. You can understand and accept that the lion was just acting upon its instincts, which allows for some kind of closure at least, but that doesn't mean your thoughts wouldn't naturally lean toward hating the lion. Did I just give you an argument for your supposed lack of free will by using the phrasing "naturally lean toward?" I'm not sure.. But if I did, it wouldn't necessarily follow in accordance with your argument, seeing that I was using that statement to show why I could rationally hate the lion. But that is a debate that I suppose could be eternally argued from both sides.

 

Let me ask you this: What if that lion actually killed a hyena that was about to kill your loved one? Would it be irrational to love that lion? I don't think it would be. You would understand that it was acting on instinct to kill and eat some prey, and not that it was trying to exhibit altruism for humans.. But you could still love him for it, could you not? I mean, he did just save your daughter's life.

 

You make some good points. I'm glad you didn't respond to me in a personally nasty or defensive manner. Most people on a message board would. I respect you for that.

 

Oh I do feel I should point out again that I am not judging Jim Irsay, nor do I hate him for his addiction. It's not my position to judge. If I could invoke a Bible verse (don't worry people, I'm not making a religious argument here or anything like that.. so don't launch this in that direction please..I just feel the verse does have context here), "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Now your lion analogy was not drivel.  ;)

[TMPHBITEU]

First of all, at number 3 I chose Lawrence of Arabia.. Yes I know it was just an example of a reason why SOMEONE would pick Avatar.. I just wanted to show that I do have some taste in movies ;)

 

You have cleared up your initial statement as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for pointing out the disconnect between that statement and how I viewed it. I just didn't want others to view it that way if it was not what you intended.

 

As far as the lion example- I think it would be completely rational to hate anything that kills a loved one, be it a lion, or cancer, or a mass-murderer. You can understand and accept that the lion was just acting upon its instincts, which allows for some kind of closure at least, but that doesn't mean your thoughts wouldn't naturally lean toward hating the lion. Did I just give you an argument for your supposed lack of free will by using the phrasing "naturally lean toward?" I'm not sure.. But if I did, it wouldn't necessarily follow in accordance with your argument, seeing that I was using that statement to show why I could rationally hate the lion. But that is a debate that I suppose could be eternally argued from both sides.

 

Let me ask you this: What if that lion actually killed a hyena that was about to kill your loved one? Would it be irrational to love that lion? I don't think it would be. You would understand that it was acting on instinct to kill and eat some prey, and not that it was trying to exhibit altruism for humans.. But you could still love him for it, could you not? I mean, he did just save your daughter's life.

 

You make some good points. I'm glad you didn't respond to me in a personally nasty or defensive manner. Most people on a message board would. I respect you for that.

 

Oh I do feel I should point out again that I am not judging Jim Irsay, nor do I hate him for his addiction. It's not my position to judge. If I could invoke a Bible verse (don't worry people, I'm not making a religious argument here or anything like that.. so don't launch this in that direction please..I just feel the verse does have context here), "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Emotions are quite hard to decipher, especially for me. Being emotionally handicapped (a degree of autism) makes me think about the world in ways that differ from what most people do, especially with regards to emotion.

When I think about emotions, and the use thereof, I think about the absence of logic. I think of a chemically induced force that makes you act in a certain manner, based on drugs in your system. Basically "love" to me is a matter of chemicals (especially oxytocin). I think in some way rationality or rational behavior can be looked upon as the composition of emotions relative to logical reasoning. While it's emotionally logical to appreciate the lion for saving your daughter, it's not really logical to appreciate it in the sense of a mutual connection in terms of the word "love". Mutual empathy doesn't exist, as the lion, given the chance might eat you. So while you can appreciate the emotion as the drug it is, giving you a sense of happiness, can you truly appreciate the lion for the act when not looking at the intent? The word "love" to me implies mutual empathy. To be fair, this is based on my understanding and definition of the word "love", which might differ from the average romantic notion of what 'normal' people believe it means.

[OffensivelyPC]

Perhaps you're right. However: Aren't we all drug addicts in the sense that dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, oxytocin and so on make us crave for certain stimuli?

If you look at it this way, the behavior of an addict is basically the same thing as doing the things you do, based on how the things you do make you feel. To me, there's no real difference, except for the choice of stimuli.

Personally, I think the mantra "it takes one to know one" is foolish in a lot of ways. Say you want to know what it's like to live in France. You then ask your friend - who has lived there for 20 years, but currently resides in the US: "What is it like to live in France?". If the mantra is correct: He wouldn't know, as he lives in the US. Of course, the counter-argument would be: Well, he used to live in France, so that is the foundation of his knowledge. But let's imagine your friend used to live on the very border of France - never having entered. Never having lived there. But from his door, he can easily inspect the lives of those in France. What's the real difference?

 

I read the title as "28 Days Later", and read the remaining words within that context. Needless to say, I didn't catch your point fully on my initial glance

I can't say for sure because I don't know what drug addiction is like.  Maybe in some sense we are addicts, but I think it's difficult to classify everyone as an addict in some fashion or another without somehow distinguishing the extent and severity of that addiction.  I think what you are saying is better described as a predisposition to drug (or any other type of) addiction with the actual onset of addiction being different for everyone, in both type and degree.

 

As far as your France analogy, it has its merits, but I still think there's something to be said for the difference between observation and experience, the difference being, experience is often given more weight than simply observing.  There's no way to really quantify it, but oftentimes experience speaks louder than observation.  That's exactly why AA is so effective.  It's run by people who have all endured addiction and band together to fight against their addiction every day. 

[TMPHBITEU]

I can't say for sure because I don't know what drug addiction is like.  Maybe in some sense we are addicts, but I think it's difficult to classify everyone as an addict in some fashion or another without somehow distinguishing the extent and severity of that addiction.  I think what you are saying is better described as a predisposition to drug (or any other type of) addiction with the actual onset of addiction being different for everyone, in both type and degree.

 

As far as your France analogy, it has its merits, but I still think there's something to be said for the difference between observation and experience, the difference being, experience is often given more weight than simply observing.  There's no way to really quantify it, but oftentimes experience speaks louder than observation.  That's exactly why AA is so effective.  It's run by people who have all endured addiction and band together to fight against their addiction every day. 

Let's take nicotine as an example, as it's one of the most potent and used drugs there are:

By absorbing nicotine you create a release of dopamine. This triggers a sense of happiness in the brain. Basically, everytime you smoke, you induce happiness. This is the same feeling as one would have (or so I imagine) when watching their kid ride the bike for the first time. Or hearing their kid say their first word. Of course, it's to a varying degree, and different drugs gives you different reactions.

But largely, I think addiction can be summed up in this regard. The same way you let your hunt for neurotoxins in your endeavour into the world rule what you do, so does the drug addict. Different methods, same pattern. Of course, yours wouldn't be so onesided, as you wouldn't just crave the stimulus prevalence of a single neurotoxin. The point still stands, and it should at least give you a feel of what it's like.

[OffensivelyPC]

Let's take nicotine as an example, as it's one of the most potent and used drugs there are:

By absorbing nicotine you create a release of dopamine. This triggers a sense of happiness in the brain. Basically, everytime you smoke, you induce happiness. This is the same feeling as one would have (or so I imagine) when watching their kid ride the bike for the first time. Or hearing their kid say their first word. Of course, it's to a varying degree, and different drugs gives you different reactions.

But largely, I think addiction can be summed up in this regard. The same way you let your hunt for neurotoxins in your endeavour into the world rule what you do, so does the drug addict. Different methods, same pattern. Of course, yours wouldn't be so onesided, as you wouldn't just crave the stimulus prevalence of a single neurotoxin. The point still stands, and it should at least give you a feel of what it's like.

I can agree with that to the extent that addictions all typically go down a very similar track, so in that sense, we do have insight.  But that insight is limited.  For 2 cocaine addicts who have been using, one for 5 years, and one for 10 years, the one using for 5 years might say to the others that he lost parental rights to his kid because he would buy cocaine for himself instead of food for his child.  The 10 year addict might completely know what that experience is like, or at least understands why the 5 year user would have made that decision.  Now tell the same story to a 20 year smoker, and the smoker might think the 5 year user is out of his mind and couldn't understand why anyone would make that choice, even if he might understand how the use of a concaine later became an addiction since he has smoked for 20 years.  The flipside to that is, the cocaine user might have never smoked because cancer runs in his family and he made the conscious decision to avoid smoking so he doesn't contract lung cancer.

 

I guess the bottom line is (and I think we agree), we all have our different experiences.  We can empathize with others due to our own experiences, however they may relate, even if we don't fully understand what their situation is like since we haven't gone thorugh the same set of circumstances the other has.

[JoKeR]

The "lol" was at your post not at Jim.

 

How can it not? He is the owner? Or do you think that he is just a figure head that is not involved at all with the day to day operations of the team especially right now in the off-season when the team is building for the 2014 season?

Day to day operations yes he's involved but he doesn't affect the Colts in any competitive way.

I don't think he has anything to do with signing talent except the decision to move on from Manning and replacing Polian with Grigs. Sure he's in the room on draft day but I think he leaves it to the experts, same with FA.

[Corndog]

Just so you can laugh your heartiest at a man who could have killed multiple people with this action, I can assure you that there was no sarcasm in my comments. I am tired of this Bozo and I want new ownership for the Colts NOW!!

Yeah let's get rid of one of the better owners in the NFL because he has personal problems.  I am sure there are a lot of owners who do much worse things behind closed doors or the cops cover for them.   All I think can be expected is he needs to get help and work on this problem.  

[JoKeR]

What is star stuff?

Everything that's matter is star dust.

[Superman]

So, this has gotten off topic, and is too many pages for anyone to really have a handle on. There's some updated information in another thread, so I'm linking to it below and closing this one. 

 

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/27517-irsay-checks-himself-into-highly-regarded-health-care-facility/