No you don't seem to recognize that even crossing a busy street when the don't walk symbol is up doesn't equate to willfully taking your own life unless you run into traffic with the expressed objective of getting hit and killed.
If your objective is to get to the other side of the street and you get hit it's still an accident despite the level of risk.
Now if you can show me that Haim took drugs over many years with the expressed objective of killing himself i'll happily accept your verdict of suicide which is what willfully taking your own life is.
Seems like a slow, expensive and inefficient way to commit suicide though.
So, it's all based on intent? I put the gun in my mouth, pulled the trigger, but had no intent of killing myself. I just wanted to know what it felt like to have a bullet pass through my brain. Therefore, I didn't willfully take my life. Does anyone actually buy that BS? I see the "don't walk" sign. I see the on-coming traffic. I still decide to walk across the street. I get slammed by the number 7 bus. I didn't intend to die, so I didn't willfully take my life. I know that if I negligently take drugs (illegal or otherwise), I dramatically increase my chances of something bad happening. Even still, I take the drugs - for 20 years. I have no intent of killing myself (even though I know I'm at a great risk), but I OD and end up dead. But since it wasn't my intent, it therefore can't be suicide.
Where is the personal responsibility? At what point do you own up to the fact that your course of action, led to your demise? And isn't killing yourself, regardless of how slow and painful it is, still suicide? What if you kidnap someone, beat them and starve them over the course of a year. And eventually they die from trauma and mal-nutrition. Is that not still murder? There must be faster and more efficient ways of killing someone. But if your intent was only torture, the court can't get you for murder - can they? Not by your definition. Your definition is all intent and effeciency based.
glad you were able to kick your addictions :thumbsup but I don't buy it being a disease. I think it's used as an excuse.
A disease is something you get, by no fault of your own.
An addiction is something you do to yourself. You have to make a concerted effort to put that substance into your body. That is not a disease, it's a lifestyle choice after making a bad decision. Addictions are 100% preventable.
Most people have an addictive personality, by nature. The only difference is how they fill the void. Some people have caffeine addictions, others have nicotine. Some people gamble, some people shop. Some people over eat, some are addicted to sex, while others turn to alcohol or illegal drugs. When you fill that void, your body releases endorphins as a reward, AKA, the high. At the most basest level, the heroin addict isn't any different than the guy who has to have every single Star Wars action figure. Both get a high from fulfilling their need.
If you're one of those people that don't "need" that cup of coffee in the morning, or that cigarette break during the day, or that last piece of cake, or has to buy that lotto ticket, the new action figure to finish off wave 17 of collection 6, or have sex with the next warm thing that has a pulse, or that next fix of heroin - then good for you. But you're a minority.
-Fred
