mackem in milan
Winger
I looked it up, but the version you posted was pretty much the same - apply the question I asked: Do you believe Jack Burnham can be described like that? I don't think he can. Again, I reckon he likes a line or a joint now and again, I don't think he's an addict. He's probably f***ing stupid for thinking he could get away with it, but that doesn't mean he's an addict.
All of that bollocks and you accuse ME of 'waffle'.
I've had a fair amount of education on drug use and abuse with my job - I also get regularly drug tested, so I do know quite a bit about it. Believe what you want, I'm not telling you what I do, nor am I telling you my sort code and account number.
Your definition has the cessation causing severe trauma, and the NHS definition has the lack of control i.e. continuing use causing harm. It might seem pedantic but I think that's where our different views of addiction are coming from and in my experience drugs and alcohol workers use definitions similar to the NHS one. I don't know enough about the lad or his circumstances to say if he is an addict but I don't think it's ridiculous to say it's a possibility. Context is important here because a lot of people will take cocaine in the same way as Burnham and not be tested, not have it effect their career, and not have it cause them harm unless their use increases or persists over the longer term but Burnham was unable to stop and it harmed his career. I do find it difficult that he wouldn't have the intelligence to work out that might he might be caught out for something which he had been caught out for twice before, maybe he thought he had a cunning a plan to avoid detection. I don't know if he fully meets the criteria for addiction, and if he does then his addiction is probably not as severe as many others so I think he has a good chance to sort himself out. Would you say he had a cocaine problem, or lifestyle problem rather than an addiction?