Re: Not something I agree with: addiction « Reply #3 on: March 13, 2016, 01:46:35 am »
It is quite simple, really. Dependency describes a physical state. Addition describes a set of behaviours. Both those ‘addicted to’ and ‘dependent upon’ benzodiazepines are welcome at BenzoBuddies. It just so happens that those who are ‘dependent’ after taking benzodiazepines prescribed by – and as directed by – their doctor far outweigh the number of members who might be more accurately described as ‘addicts’. The reality is that BB (and support groups like us) were formed by those who experienced very problematic ‘dependency’ to benzodiazepines. I, personally, do not like the word ‘dependency’ (I don’t feel I was ever ‘dependent’ upon it for anything), but this is small semantic quibble, and is just opinion. Though, certainly, I would never choose to use the word ‘addict’ for what I went through, nor for the majority of our members. So, the majority of our members might prefer the term ‘dependent’, simply because that is a better (generally accepted) description of their situation. But, language being what it is, some who might be (objectively) described as being ‘dependent’ instead choose to describe themselves as being ‘addicted’. And, vise versa. Although I can understand why some people are exercised by the (mis)use of these terms, and I think the words do have (pretty objectively) different meanings, we should not get bent out of shape by the term being used interchangeably. In the main, it is just people with different interpretations of the terms, and how it applies to them. I think both sides might make their points, but then just accept the (sincerely held) differing views of others on this matter.
However, what I really do not like, is when people try to tell others ‘how it really is’, without any regard to inherent inaccuracies of language, and that people will have different opinions about ‘addiction’ and ‘dependency’ (and most other matters too). To put that blog entry and blogger into perspective, we had a lot of problems with Gianna when she was a member of this community. She had what I can only describe as a ‘hissy fit’ when we rejected her calls (demands, actually) for us to have a ‘bipolar’ support board at this forum. She then habitually linked to her blog in most of her posts here (even adding a link in her signature line) after she was told by one of the BB Admins that she could not do this because she was soliciting donations at her website. She eventually stopped frequenting our forum. She did return, maybe a year or more later,; we eventually banned her account (for similar abuses of our linking policy).
After the ban, Gianna went on to misinform the readers of her blog of why she was banned from BB. I’ve long been aware of her blog entry about her ban from this site, but have not been previously motivated enough to address it (at least so fully).
I was finally banned from Benzo Buddies which is rather amusing because I asked that I be removed from membership over a year ago since they would not let me freely share my experience of having been multi-drugged. They refused to remove me. Since that time I’ve not visited as a member.
Actually, ‘no’, that is not what occurred. The blogger, Gianna, asked a third-party to intervene and request that I delete her account (this was after she left of her own accord the first time around). As a policy matter, we do not delete accounts unless requested to do so, directly, by the member concerned. At least twice I relayed back through to Gianna via the third-party that she would have to login and make the request herself. Instead, perhaps a year or more later, Gianna returned to BB, but never made a request for her account to be deleted. Instead, she continued from where she had left off, making lots of posts, usually with links back to her blog (with its requests for donations). This is why we banned her account! The original blog entry about her ban from BB is older than the updated one she has there now. The opening, updated information in the blog entry now reads:
Update: politics among us — I continue to be banned from benzo buddies and they continue to break the links their members post to my work (their members often post my work as they find it helpful) — the administrators of the site break the links to my site so they cannot be followed and misinform their readers that my blog is a commercial enterprise. I find this very sad. Very sad indeed. It’s also unethical and nasty to make out my site is commercial. I still link to them as being a reliable source of information to free oneself from benzos…there isn’t too much out there at the moment….and I care more about people’s ability to free themselves from drugs than politics. Still there are larger implications to this position they’ve taken with me that effect all their visitors. Essentially they deny the potential grave dangerousness of other psych drugs besides benzos. That is the bottom line.
This is the same kind of tone she used when she practically demanded that BB have a bipolar support board. We have a policy of not allowing ‘active’ (clickable) links to commercial websites (this includes sites requesting donations). And, actually, the links are not ‘broken’ at all – they were just made non-clickable. And Gianna’s BB signature line link persists to this day (albeit, deactivated too). But, if we had decided to remove the links entirely, and/or any mention of Gianna and her blog from BB, that would be our decision, not hers. Gianna seems to have a problem understanding the limits of her domain; she demands that we change our policy as it is somehow unfair to her. What is “unethical” is to register with a group, agree to abide by their rules, to knowingly and continuously break those rules when pointed out to her, and then lie about the reasons for her ban. It is also generally considered very bad form to enter someone else’s ‘house’ and demand that they make changes to accommodate your particular interests.
So, anyway, that blog entry fits with what I already know about Gianna. I thought, given enough time, she would have thought better of it and remove the blog entry about her ban from BB. Gianna was wrong to demand that BB be structured to her own preferences; she is wrong to label all those going through benzodiazepines withdrawal as ‘addicts’.*
I’d prefer to not write anything about Gianna. In reality, I am not particularly bothered about her (false) accusations regarding the circumstances of her ban from this forum. But, I see the same general (poor) attitude on display in the blog entry linked in the opening post here, so I felt I would comment more generally (probably more than I needed to).
* I mean no disrespect to those who might be more properly described as addicts (or choose to term their situation as ‘addiction’). But, given the general stigma associated with the use of the term (and its generally accepted associated behaviours), it should come as little surprise that people who have problems with benzodiazepines, when taken as prescribed by their doctor, might prefer a different (and more descriptive) term.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 01:54:17 am by Colin »