Any other addiction

[Oak Tree 15]

In the parent thread, DanKroh wrote "I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction)."

 

Now, I think that most of us would agree that a Scoutmaster who is addicted to alcohol, gambling, illegal drugs, or sex would not be a very good role model. But there's another thread going on about coffee ("extremely controversial discussion"). It seems to me that many people have a serious caffeine addiction. By all measures, caffeine is a truly addicting substance. People build up a tolerance to it, and they can experience some pretty strong withdrawal symptoms. People will go to pretty involved measures to make sure that they have their caffeine supply with them wherever they go.

 

So what do you think? Is it ok for a drug to have that kind of power over you? Is a caffeine addiction something you'd try to steer your kids away from? Or is it really no big deal? After all, you don't see many marriages breaking up because of the husband's constant need for a coffee fix.

 

Oak Tree

[epalmer84 10]

Hi, my name is Ed and I'm a Scouter.

[DanKroh 11]

"So what do you think? Is it ok for a drug to have that kind of power over you? Is a caffeine addiction something you'd try to steer your kids away from? Or is it really no big deal? After all, you don't see many marriages breaking up because of the husband's constant need for a coffee fix."

 

I think one of the guiding principles in defining an "addiction" is that the substance itself has to be harmful (drugs, smoking, etc), or the behaviors displayed in satisfying the addiction interfere with normal life (gambling, sex, etc).

 

In the case of caffeine, while it is certainly a substance that the body can become physically dependent on, for most people, I don't think it fits the above guideline for an "addiction". Unless someone has a heart or kidney condition, caffeine is usually not harmful (assuming amounts are not excessive, like mainlining NoDoz). Most people don't engage in behaviors like stealing or spending the rent money to get their next fix (although at Starbuck's prices...). I suppose there are people out there who misspend their money on caffeine sources when they could really spend it other more necessary things, but does that make it an addiction?

 

I don't think physical dependency itself is enough to qualify something as an addiction. After all, we are physically dependent on a lot of things, but few people would label most of them as addictions.

[Beavah 205]

Hi Ed!

 

Yah, in addition to the Scoutin' addiction, there's the Internet Forums addiction...

 

And da patch trading addiction....

 

Da s'mores and campfire smoke addiction...

 

 

[BrotherhoodWWW 10]

I may be wrong but it has been my experience that out in the real world the Unit chooses its leaders and the CO signs off on their choice. I also assume that most units are just like the ones that I have been associated with over the span of many years in many different places that there is seldom a surpluss of parents willing to make a committment to serve the unit in any leadership role. If the BSA starts being anal about who is allowed to be leaders membership will drop so low as to make the "movement" not move.

 

Things that should not even be considered IMHO when choosing leaders of any position no matter who does the choosing would be the use of coffee, tobacco, or even adult beverages. I will admit that LDS Charted units might not agree with this and if those restrictions work for them so be it, but for the rest of the units these restrictions would exclude far too many prospects. Nothing that I have ever read in Scouting requires leaders to be Saints. Ones choice of using legal substances should not exclude them from service.

 

In most of my years around Scouting there have been adult leaders who used tobacco, and yet tobacco use by their youth has never been allowed. I would bet that if there were to be any studies done that scouts of tobacco using leaders were not any more likely to use the substance later when they became adults. Coffee on the other hand would perhaps show a difference. Caffeine as a substance is also in soda that youth drink too much of.

[Gunny2862 11]

Hi my name is Joe...

I used to have a running addiction, no literally, my wife would make me go run when I got home if my normal exercise window closed so that I wouldn't be grumpy around the house all evening.

 

At camp this last week, I wouldn't have made coffee if we hadn't had an extra parent or two staying in camp overnight every night - fortunately we did. I freely admit to (formerly) being so addicted that in the past I would dip coffee grounds if I couldn't brew up a cup.

 

I do think that the word addiction is being properly used in medical/psychological context but I don't see wanting/ needing caffeine as being in the same class as even tobacco or progressing to other substances.

 

That said, I throw the ball back to Dan and ask if there is an underlying principle to his statement,"I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction)." as quoted by Oak Tree. And if so, what is the underlying principle?

[scoutldr 732]

I would venture to say that most kids are already addicted to caffeine...through sodas. Agree with what Dan said. I am addicted to caffeine...if I don't get my morning dose, I get a crushing headache. But everything I've read says that caffeine may even be mildly beneficial, and as far as I know, my addiction will not harm or annoy others.

 

On the other hand, I am living first hand, the effects of tobacco addiction. I have never smoked, however I lost my Dad to lung cancer in 1995 after a year of pain and suffering, and my MIL is now living with us due to COPD and chronic bronchitis and pneumonia. She can't go anywhere without her wheelchair, oxygen apparatus and 3-4 spare tanks. My wife has used up all her leave taking her to Dr appointments every week, and building a HC accessible room with bath has cost me over 80 grand. But it's "her life and she had a right to smoke" (according to her). Smoking is the most selfish, dirty habit I can think of, with a LOT of "collateral damage".

 

It's not friendly, courteous, kind, thrifty, clean, physically strong, or morally straight, IMHO.

[Gunny2862 11]

Scoutldr, well said.

[Lisabob 13]

Hi there Oak Tree, what'sa matter, is the forum a little too tame for you these days? (Just joking)

 

Count me as one who wants her coffee, strong and hot, and that's all there is to it. I routinely credit coffee with helping me make it through all those statistics courses in grad school. I joke about it with my students now, when they're looking a little droopy. When I met my husband (he wandered up to snow country by way of south Florida) I was also introduced to the joy of Cuban coffee. Now there's something that will knock your socks off.

 

But an addiction? Nah, not like that other stuff we tend to use the word for. And if we're going to get on the caffeine-as-addiction wagon, I think we'd do well to examine our diets and priorities because really, I think SUGAR is the bigger problem, at least for the kids. I've seen kids who are on the down side of the sugar coaster act out in some pretty horrible ways, not to mention the hyperactivity you get when they're pumped full of the stuff. In fact my son's patrol decided to "ban" a drink they call a "loopy" which (as far as I could tell) entailed mixing very large quantities of kool aid powder and sugar into milk or water or soda (ick!), after one of their patrol mates got a little too wild on the sugar rush for even their youthful standards.

 

And yes it is entirely possible to raise kids who aren't addicted to either sugar or caffeine/soda these days. Ah, err, it starts with what's in the fridge at home.

[SR540Beaver 116]

The next thing you know and we'll be wanting to ban overweight scouters!!! I guess I could use the time with another worthwhile pursuit of some sort.

 

I understand many people's adverse response to tobacco. I don't use, but I've known many fine people who have and I grew up around it. It matters not to me if someone chooses to use tobacco. Some of the best role models I had growing up did so with a cigarette in their hand.

[ogghall 10]

I guess who is going to be the judge of addiction. Someone who is against all smoking would say someone smoking a couple of day may be an addict. In the past 2 packs a day was just alot. While I don't smoke as far as I know cigarettes are legal. If your troop wants to prohibit it from campouts then go ahead. The council camps have done that. Same thing as alcohol. Just make the rules and live by them.

[GernBlansten 10]

"So as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take our java away, I want to say those words again for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Oak Tree."

Hoisting the Coffee Press over my head,

"From my cold, dead hands!"

 

 

[DanKroh 11]

Gunny asks: "That said, I throw the ball back to Dan and ask if there is an underlying principle to his statement,"I would disqualify an SM for having a smoking addiction (or any other addiction)." as quoted by Oak Tree. And if so, what is the underlying principle?"

 

To understand how the statemetn was intended, you have to look at it in the context of the original thread, which was about "firing" a Scoutmaster for a behavior that was considered a poor role model for the youth in the troop. (Out of wedlock childbearing, in the original thread in question). My point was that smoking is hardly what I could call a "positive behavior", yet is something that a lot of scouters engage in, and even though they may not do it in view of the youth, the youth know they are doing it. It isn't exactly going to discourage the youth from trying tobacco when they know that Mr. Scoutmaster does it, so it must be ok, right? And any Scoutmaster who gives a lecture to a youth about not smoking, while sneaking off at camp for a butt, is a complete hypocrite, another negative behavior to model, IMO. And yes, smoking is an addiction for the vast majority of people engage in it, and addictive behavior is also not something that should be modelled to youth.

 

If you want to see the actual context, I would recommend reading the original thread. Like many things, my original statement makes a lot more sense when taken in its original context.

[DanKroh 11]

Beaver predicts (tongue in cheek): "The next thing you know and we'll be wanting to ban overweight scouters!!!"

 

Just to play devil's advocate here a minute, Beaver, but if we are going to disallow homosexuals from being scouters because they aren't "morally straight", why shouldn't we disallow overweight scouters because they aren't "physically fit"? Aren't they both part of the scout oath?

 

Not that I'm trying to get this thread moved to Issues & Politics, but the question does beg to be asked.

[Oak Tree 15]

Lisa, yes, that's right, I'm just here to stir up trouble. :-)

 

I tried to ask the question in a neutral way so as to elicit opinions on all sides. But here's what I think. Caffeine clearly creates a physical dependence in a way that s'mores, for example, do not. But just this fact, by itself, does not make it a very severe addiction. There is a *lot* of literature on addictions, and on the addiction severity scale, caffeine generally comes out pretty low, because it does not generally interfere with other aspects of your life.

 

I would not disqualify a Scoutmaster for smoking. In my troop, I think it's unlikely that a smoker would be actively considered, because none of the parents smoke (that I know of), and a smoker would just seem out of place. But at district/council events, I see troops where many of the leaders smoke, and I wouldn't want to suggest that they'd need to step down.

 

I would certainly not disqualify caffeine drinkers. I myself am addicted to it. I don't really like that fact, but the negative effects aren't quite enough to spur me to quit. The negative effects being things like the money spent on it, the effort to ensure an available supply, and the headaches that come if I miss a dose. Maybe if it were easy to go cold-turkey, I'd do it, but I tried that, and I swear my head was going to implode.

 

I'd disagree that it's hypocritical for a smoker to give anti-smoking lectures. In fact, I think it can be more powerful. I'm imagining comments like this: "I started when I was a teen-ager, and I really regret it now. It's really hard to quit. I've tried several times. I'm more likely to get cancer, emphysema, and a whole host of other physical problems. I go outside and stand in the rain at work because I need my next cigarette. If I had saved all the money that I've spent on tobacco, I could own a new Mercedes."

 

But just to wrap up on the caffeine point - I was not seriously suggesting that we do anything about it. It's part of our environment, many adults need it, and it's not really a big deal when compared with most of the other issues we deal with. You can rest easy, Gern, I won't be trying to pry anything out of your hands, dead or alive. Still, I won't encourage my kids to drink it. We don't keep soda in the fridge, and all-in-all, I think they're better off without it or any caffeinated drink.

 

Oak Tree