Nick Maybury opens up about Scott

[HipsLikeCinderella]

To say it's a disease is to victimize the user, and I will almost completely guarantee Scott had some knowledge that heroin was not in his best interest but did it anyways. Something has to be said for someone like Scott who stuck needles in his arms versus a person who goes for an MRI and finds out they have a brain tumor. They are not the same thing at all. How about people who once did drugs, but chose to stop doing them? These people's brains magically ignored the "genetic component" of addiction as well as the "biological, environmental, and psychological element" all of a sudden? I doubt it. They chose to wake up, and to stop hurting themselves and their families.

The same set of deliberate choices that Scott made, might lead to HIV, Liver Cirrhosis, Myocarditis, Endocarditis, and a host of other conditions. Do you also dispute that these are diseases?

What do you consider to be the difference between conditions arising from heart damage brought on by drug use, and conditions that arise from damaging your brain?

I'm afraid that the definition of a disease is not dependent on your personal view of drug addicts.

I'm not disputing that the conditions you mentioned are not diseases. They indeed are just that. But, in some cases they only exist after poor-decision making is made. You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point. If these were a set of poorly "deliberate choices" as you said, Scott made the wrong decision repeatably.

Do you think that drug addicts deserve to die from their addiction? That's kind of how it sounds, from everything you've said and your 'poor decision making' comment. What difference does it make exactly if a disease is a result of 'poor decision making'? In your mind, are people with diseases like those Pingfah listed less deserving of treatment? If not...then what exactly is your point?

[loungefly90]

What exactly was my point? I said it over and over again, but here it is once more. "You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point."

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

[HipsLikeCinderella]

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

So your point is you have no point. Cool, thanks for clarifying.

[loungefly90]

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

So your point is you have no point. Cool, thanks for clarifying.

What exactly was my point? I said it over and over again, but here it is once more. "You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point."

[HipsLikeCinderella]

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

So your point is you have no point. Cool, thanks for clarifying.

What exactly was my point? I said it over and over again, but here it is once more. "You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point."

Your whole point was that Scott Weiland made some poor choices? How informative, thank you for sharing.
By the way, your original point wasn't that at all, you were initially implying that addiction is a conscious decision. Hopefully, with some education, you can now accept that you were wrong about that.

[loungefly90]

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

So your point is you have no point. Cool, thanks for clarifying.

What exactly was my point? I said it over and over again, but here it is once more. "You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point."

Your whole point was that Scott Weiland made some poor choices? How informative, thank you for sharing.
By the way, your original point wasn't that at all, you were initially implying that addiction is a conscious decision. Hopefully, with some education, you can now accept that you were wrong about that.

I already told you I was willing to let it go, but you seem to want to persist. Sure, education. Right. I accept I was wrong. Sounds good.

[HipsLikeCinderella]

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

So your point is you have no point. Cool, thanks for clarifying.

What exactly was my point? I said it over and over again, but here it is once more. "You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point."

Your whole point was that Scott Weiland made some poor choices? How informative, thank you for sharing.
By the way, your original point wasn't that at all, you were initially implying that addiction is a conscious decision. Hopefully, with some education, you can now accept that you were wrong about that.

I already told you I was willing to let it go, but you seem to want to persist. Sure, education. Right. I accept I was wrong. Sounds good.

Feel free to finally acknowledge you were indeed wrong without the sarcasm, but at least you eventually admitted it.

[loungefly90]

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

So your point is you have no point. Cool, thanks for clarifying.

What exactly was my point? I said it over and over again, but here it is once more. "You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point."

Your whole point was that Scott Weiland made some poor choices? How informative, thank you for sharing.
By the way, your original point wasn't that at all, you were initially implying that addiction is a conscious decision. Hopefully, with some education, you can now accept that you were wrong about that.

I already told you I was willing to let it go, but you seem to want to persist. Sure, education. Right. I accept I was wrong. Sounds good.

Feel free to finally acknowledge you were indeed wrong without the sarcasm, but at least you eventually admitted it.

Sure. Whatever makes you feel better. You have won a debate with a stranger online, and I was wrong.

[HipsLikeCinderella]

I can tell we're getting to the "I'm offended" point of the conversation, which is where it's about to get personal as I can see that since I don't agree, people are now getting upset. If you feel better about things, just consider yourself right, and feel free to consider me wrong as you have all the experience and I don't. Does that work? Even if we truly convinced one another of our points and changed each other's mind completely, it really doesn't make a difference.

So your point is you have no point. Cool, thanks for clarifying.

What exactly was my point? I said it over and over again, but here it is once more. "You agreed that his choices were deliberate, which was my original point."

Your whole point was that Scott Weiland made some poor choices? How informative, thank you for sharing.
By the way, your original point wasn't that at all, you were initially implying that addiction is a conscious decision. Hopefully, with some education, you can now accept that you were wrong about that.

I already told you I was willing to let it go, but you seem to want to persist. Sure, education. Right. I accept I was wrong. Sounds good.

Feel free to finally acknowledge you were indeed wrong without the sarcasm, but at least you eventually admitted it.

Sure. Whatever makes you feel better. You have won a debate with a stranger online, and I was wrong.

I don't see it as winning a debate, I see it as providing someone who was ill-informed about a very serious public health issue, with some information. But if you want to feel angry about that, for whatever reason, go right ahead.

[loungefly90]

i'm not angry at all. I feel pretty good about the knowledge I gained from you and our conversation. Thanks for the information and enjoy your weekend.

[HipsLikeCinderella]

i'm not angry at all. I feel pretty good about the knowledge I gained from you and our conversation. Thanks for the information and enjoy your weekend.

Thanks, you too.

[nat]

I know you guys were done with this already, but I wanted to add here.

Scott didn't "catch the addiction disease" from making poor choices and trying drugs. The disease of addiction is something that is with people their entire lives whether they are actively using or not.

Scott was afflicted by the disease of addiction before he ever picked up his first needle. It's in his genetics. He may not have known it though until it was too late, and that right there is the tragedy of the disease of addiction.

People who have the disease of addiction deal with it for their entire lives and often have alternating periods/cycles of using and being clean.

The individual asking why some people can just choose to stop using, and assuming those that can't (like Scott) are just making chronically worse choices than the first group is very short sighted and uninformed. As one of the other posters mentioned, outside influence and an addict's environment has a lot to do with their success in staying clean. Some addicts are able to "maintenance" their disease better than others by distancing themselves from people and situations where they might be tempted to use again. Unfortunately for Scott, his lifestyle and environment in which he made his living was not conducive to clean living.


The bottom line is that someone who has the disease of addiction, always has it. There is no cure. The way that, say, heroin use affects an un-afflicted person's body and mind is very different than the effect heroin use has on the body, mind and routine of someone who has the disease.


Hopefully this clarifies things a little for anyone else who might be confused about the status of addiction as a disease.

[Westenn]

I'm not defending Scott on his behavior, but this community keeps forgetting that the fact He was delusional due to the fact he was mentally ill.  He was a full blown addict due to DNA & the fact that Medication for the mentally ill are the most addictive substances on this Planet.  He was at a loss no matter what.  I don't know if any of you have ever dealt with true mentally ill people, they are all delusional in some form.  Him being Bi-Polar was a step down from Schizophrenia.  The death of Jeremy could have been the "trigger" that put him in this form of psychosis.  He was the way he was because he was mentally ill and once you accept that, it will help you understand him as a person.  Those who were in his group is partly to blame for not taking care of a human being; therefore, they have to live with that guilt the rest of their lives & also live with the fact that people look at that group as enablers & evil people who didn't care about a human being.  Why do you think Tommy & his Wife is getting the bad wrap?  As far as Nick, I feel sorry for the guy to get stuck in all of this cuz He is a good guy who fell in the mud.  I wish Him luck & I don't look at him or the drummer (sorry I forget his name) but I do look at Tommy & Jamie w/ disappointment & the very ones who are to blame for not doing the right thing.  You call that love, no way.  I call that selfish & greedy people who didn't care about a human being.  If you don't believe me, read the articles again.  I loved Scott very much & if we were in the same room, I would have died to try to save his life.     

(  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis  )

 

I'd like to hear you expand on Scott's DNA please. It seems like you think addiction is something you inherit rather than it being a conscience decision?

Also, as people who paid for albums, concerts, and memorabilia, I believe we have earned the right to discuss his downward spiral and behavior over the years.

I took courses in drug addiction & DNA is a core part of it.  His decision to do drugs is his choice.  What happens to those who inherit the trait of addiction becomes 'addicted' cause of the fact that the chemicals 'fulfill' the void of what your body lacks.  You then become chemically dependent.  The fact that he happened to be mentally ill made his addiction worse due to the fact, again I will say, is the drugs that they use on mentally ill patients are highly addictive substances.  Those drugs are designed to work with the chemicals your body produces or lacks in production.  We are made to process chemicals that we eat and drink to function and live.  He may not have been aware that He would become highly addictive to drugs & he most likely thought he could control it.  That's why when you go to the Doctor he will discuss family health history like, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's  because those are DNA carried from generation to generation.  It's the luck of the draw whether you will inherit those genes but the risk is higher if it is in your family history.  Addiction is an inherited trait.  Alcoholism is inherited trait.  Those who are addicted to sugar runs a high risk of being addicted to cocaine since the breakdown of both sugar & cocaine end in the same chemical breakdown as an example.  We are made to breakdown chemicals and what we lack, medication balances.

& I'm not saying you can't discuss his downward spiral, talk away but you have to include the fact that he was mentally ill in the factor of his behavior becoming more erratic towards the end, possibly because of the changes in his bi-polar meds.  I have worked with drug addicts, I have gone to the NA/AA meetings, I have studied drug addiction, I have friends & family I have lost to drug addiction.  Is it a conscious decision, yes, in part but when it really boils down to it, those who can not stop is the result of their DNA.  Those who can stop are those lucky enough not to carry the gene.  There have been studies by the way should you want to read further into it.

So, for example, you want to play your electric guitar but you have the plug but no outlet, so you call the electrician to put in an outlet so you can play.  Your brain/body has 'plugs' & 'outlets' so if you have the 'plug' but no 'outlet' the doctor will give you medication to make 'outlets' is the easiest way to explain. 

[Westenn]

 Here is an example of chemical dependency/cravings:
Your body lacks salt to perform nervous system tasks.  Your Brain will send the signal to find salt.  You then crave a Big Mac, French fries, potato chips whatever your Brain remembers that satisfies the lack of salt.  You eat the Big Mac & you’re satisfied & you feel great.


In the case of Scott, His mental illness is affecting his Brain functions, obviously is due to lack of DNA material to make what is necessary to make and/or breakdown chemicals.  So in a way, his Brain has difficulty determining what the body has or is in lack of whatever chemicals are needed to function.  That’s why he has his ups & downs & is in constant craving mode.  DNA is the original file.  The Brain sends the signal to DNA to make copies so you can function daily & live.  In Scott’s body, the original file is bad so his body will make bad copies & his body is trying to make copies w/out toner.  So the Brain will send a signal to get toner.  He then craves whatever is needed to put toner in his system so his body can make copies.  Because his original file is bad & he lacks the ability to make his own toner, his Brain will constantly resend signal to make copies & he will always have the cravings to get toner.  That’s why it was difficult for Scott to quit drugs because he was truly chemical dependent.
 
The other side is I used to be a smoker.  I started smoking cigarettes when I was 16.  I was able to quit in my 30’s and have not smoked another cigarette nor do I have cravings for it.  Even when I was smoking it was like half a pack a day & I would smoke half and put it out.  I was not a true addict to cigarettes like some people and they ask me how I was able to quit.  It’s because I was not truly chemical dependent on it.  Same way with drugs and alcohol.  I did it in my youth but I don’t do any now.  I will ‘smoke’ once in a while but that’s cuz I live in Cali but I don’t need it.  So for me, it truly is a choice cuz I can do it or not do it and it doesn’t affect me at all.