Addiction is offensive to God?

[pogi]

In President Nelsons conference talk, he stated the following:

Quote

“Any addiction — be it gaming, gambling, debt, drugs, alcohol, anger, pornography, sex or even food — offends God. Why? Because your obsession becomes your god. You look to it, rather than to Him, for solace. If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need.”

He seems to frame addiction as a choice, or a "God" that we "look to", rather than a mental health illness/disorder that overtakes us.  According to the church's own 12 step program, it states: 

Quote

Key Principle: Admit that you, of yourself, are powerless to overcome your addictions and that your life has become unmanageable.

He does acknowledge in his talk that it robs us of freedom but seems to place blame/shame on the captive as if it is an offensive choice to look to it rather than God for solace.  

He calls it an "obsession" like a "God" to us.  Addiction and obsession are not the same.  People with addictions are often deeply ashamed of it, don't want it, hate it, and want nothing more than to be free from it.  It is not an obsession!  It is not a God to them, it is a curse!   

I have debated bringing this up, but I am troubled by the shame that this will heap on the heads of those suffering with this mental illness.  Shame only makes the cords of addiction stronger.   This is not helpful; it is hurtful language to those who suffer from this illness.   

I feel like I have been thrown back in time to the 80's style priesthood session porn-shame talks.  I thought we were past this kind of rhetoric in the church.  I thought that we were past the shame-based addiction talks?  I thought the leadership better understood addiction and addicts today.  How does leadership expect to address this problem if they don't understand it?  

Furthermore, why would a mental health disorder "offend God"?   Is he that fragile that he would take it personal?  Are there no actual victims of this mental health illness/disorder?  

Spiritual and professional help is needed.  On that we agree.  I just don't find the sentiment above spiritually healing or edifying.   You offend God you obsessive, false God worshipping, weakling!   

While no person or prophet is infallible, it seems that the upper leadership should be better educated on topics like addiction.  This kind of language can really mess up a kid who looks up to these men and takes their word as the voice of God to them.  I know, because I was that kid.  Healing only came when I was able to overcome and abandon such toxic/harmful notions. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

From the perspective that he framed it--because an addiction becomes our god--I can see where he is coming from.  Especially since many addictions begin with the unwise use of our agency and with us almost always being aware that addiction is a possible (sometimes likely) outcome from the choice we are making.  I read it more as a warning about why we need to get help for our addictions rather than a condemnation of those who are addicted.

But, I can see your point too.  Some are going to be hurt by his words.  If what he said needed to be said for some, but it might hurt others, what would have been a better way for him to have said it? (sincere question).

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In President Nelsons conference talk, he stated the following:

He seems to frame addiction as a choice, or a "God" that we "look to", rather than a mental health illness/disorder that overtakes us.  According to the church's own 12 step program, it states: 

He does acknowledge in his talk that it robs us of freedom but seems to place blame/shame on the captive as if it is an offensive choice to look to it rather than God for solace.  

He calls it an "obsession" like a "God" to us.  Addiction and obsession are not the same.  People with addictions are often deeply ashamed of it, don't want it, hate it, and want nothing more than to be free from it.  It is not an obsession!  It is not a God to them, it is a curse!   

I have debated bringing this up, but I am troubled by the shame that this will heap on the heads of those suffering with this mental illness.  Shame only makes the cords of addiction stronger.   This is not helpful; it is hurtful language to those who suffer from this illness.   

I feel like I have been thrown back in time to the 80's style priesthood session porn-shame talks.  I thought we were past this kind of rhetoric in the church.  I thought that we were past the shame-based addiction talks?  I thought the leadership better understood addiction and addicts today.  How does leadership expect to address this problem if they don't understand it?  

Furthermore, why would a mental health disorder "offend God"?   Is he that fragile that he would take it personal?  Are there no actual victims of this mental health illness/disorder?  

Spiritual and professional help is needed.  On that we agree.  I just don't find the sentiment above spiritually healing or edifying.   You offend God you obsessive, false God worshipping, weakling!   

While no person or prophet is infallible, it seems that the upper leadership should be better educated on topics like addiction.  This kind of language can really mess up a kid who looks up to these men and takes their word as the voice of God to them.  I know, because I was that kid.  Healing only came when I was able to overcome and abandon such toxic/harmful notions. 

 

 

 

 

Spot on.  And yes the top leadership ought to know better.  There is nothing right and everything wrong with President Nelson's comments.  My word, the Church uses a modification of AA's 12 step.  Bill Wilson's approach to alcoholism, preferably now termed Alcohol Use Disorder, has been adapted by many groups seeking to treat the root causes of addiction.  Addiction is a disease, as much a cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.  Does he also shame the type 2 diabetic who perhaps just had a poor diet.  Or those with heart disease who perhaps ate to much fatty food and did not exercise?  He was a heart surgeon after all. 

Sadly his words will harm thousands of his adherents who need love and support and encouragement.  Rather they will hide their addiction out of shame and fear which will make their addiction all the worse.  I don't give him a pass at all in this and this is why I say the LDS leaders have not better insight on any issue then you or I do.  And in some cases, like this, less apparently.

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

In President Nelsons conference talk, he stated the following:

He seems to frame addiction as a choice, or a "God" that we "look to", rather than a mental health illness/disorder that overtakes us.  According to the church's own 12 step program, it states: 

He calls it an "obsession" like a "God" to us.  Addiction and obsession are not the same.  People with addictions are often deeply ashamed of it, don't want it, hate it, and want nothing more than to be free from it.  It is not an obsession!  It is not a God to them, it is a curse!   

I have debated bringing this up, but I am troubled by the shame that this will heap on the heads of those suffering with this mental illness.  Shame only makes the cords of addiction stronger.   This is not helpful; it is hurtful language to those who suffer from this illness.   

I feel like I have been thrown back in time to the 80's style priesthood session porn-shame talks.  I thought we were past this kind of rhetoric in the church.  I thought that we were past the shame-based addiction talks?  I thought the leadership better understood addiction and addicts today.  How does leadership expect to address this problem if they don't understand it?  

Furthermore, why would a mental health disorder "offend God"?   Is he that fragile that he would take it personal?  Are there no actual victims of this mental health illness/disorder?  

Spiritual and professional help is needed.  On that we agree.  I just don't find the sentiment above spiritually healing or edifying.   You offend God you obsessive, false God worshipping, weakling!   

While no person or prophet is infallible, it seems that the upper leadership should be better educated on topics like addiction.  This kind of language can really mess up a kid who looks up to these men and takes their word as the voice of God to them.  I know, because I was that kid.  Healing only came when I was able to overcome and abandon such toxic/harmful notions. 

 

 

 

 

I initially cringed when I heard this. However, on reflection I could see that there was some wisdom in it.  While I don't want to minimize or deny your experience, I am assuming that by posting here you are open to discussion.

In revisiting that paragraph of the talk, I don't see the same shaming you do.  In fact, I think it greatly reduces the stigma of pornography addiction. I mean, he puts it in the same moral standing as anger, food, and gaming (I admit there are other more serious issues in there, but I think it equally reduces the stigma of those addictions). He multiple times describes addictions as interfering with agency, which strongly suggests he is withholding blame. 

President Nelson does appear to use the addiction and obsession interchangeably.  If he was speaking in a clinical context, I would be much more critical. In a lay sense, obsession seems somewhat accurate in communicating the intense preoccupation associated with these behaviors. 

Truthfully, I think the term obsession is closer to best-practices than addiction when discussing any of these behavioral issues other than drugs and alcohol. While there is reasonable disagreement about differing perspectives, I have a strong preference for a compulsive behavior model of behavior over an addiction model. 

Regarding God being offended, I don't live that phrasing, but it's not like it's unscriptural. It seems like it means something other than when we are encouraged to choose not to be offended. 

Maybe the most profound insight he shared was why these behaviors are problematic in a spiritual sense. By acknowledging the role of seeking solace in these behaviors, he also points to a meaningful strategy for overcoming them. 

In all, as a mental health professional specializing in addictions and compulsive behaviors, I didn't have a problem with it. 

 

 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Especially since many addictions begin with the unwise use of our agency and with us almost always being aware that addiction is a possible (sometimes likely) outcome from the choice we are making.  I read it more as a warning about why we need to get help for our addictions rather than a condemnation of those who are addicted.

This is a point I was going to make as well. Good catch!

[blackstrap]

Does the addictive nature of the substance have anything to do with the addiction thereof , or is it always about a mental defect ? 

[carbon dioxide]

Any addiction is a problem.  If one is addicted to reading the scriptures would also be a problem as one just can't read the scriptures and neglect other important things in life.   Life is about balance and if one thing takes too much dominance it causes other things to suffer.  There is no reason for shame as we all have our addictions to one degree or another to something.  The worst thing one can do is ignore the subject as people will just continue on with their addictions year after year.  

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My word, the Church uses a modification of AA's 12 step.  Bill Wilson's approach to alcoholism, preferably now termed Alcohol Use Disorder, has been adapted by many groups seeking to treat the root causes of addiction.  Addiction is a disease, as much a cancer, heart disease, diabetes, et

In reality, the 12 step approach is terribly out of favor in addiction treatment. It simply is not supported by outcomes research.

There is some utility to a 12 step group as an add-on support in the relapse prevention stage of treatment. But even then, research suggests the social element of meetings may be the effective variable rather than the specific methodology of the 12 steps. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by kllindley

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From the perspective that he framed it--because an addiction becomes our god--I can see where he is coming from.

No the addiction does not become the addicts god.  Might be their best earthly friend but they no more worship the whatever they are addicted to than the cancer patients worships their cancer. Such people may be deeply religious and worship a theistic type of God.  But they have not received the treatment, therapy and coping skills they need to overcome their DISEASE.  Based on your logic a diabetic's god may be the food they eat.

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Especially since many addictions begin with the unwise use of our agency and with us almost always being aware that addiction is a possible (sometimes likely) outcome from the choice we are making.  I read it more as a warning about why we need to get help for our addictions rather than a condemnation of those who are addicted.

Let's keep in mind that many addicts don't have the same restrictions imposed on them that the Church imposes.  But sure, someone with alcohol or some other addiction may not have their addiction if they never drank.  And maybe the diabetic would not have had diabetes if they never ate some of the things they ate.  Does the Church shame them?  Or someone with an eating disorder?  Is it their fault that they ended up eating to much or to little?

Addictions are complex mental health disorder and most addicts if not all have deep seated emotional problems that they have not learned to resolve in healthy ways.  And almost universally they are the result of childhood trauma.  In many case they may not be aware of the what the trauma was.

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But, I can see your point too.  Some  are going to be hurt by his words.  If what he said needed to be said for some, but it might hurt others, what would have been a better way for him to have said it? (sincere question).

No it did not need to be said. There was nothing good about it. If he needed to say something it might have along the lines of "Beware of substances that can harm your body and for many may lead to addictive behavior or substance abuse disorder.  This is a disease that many can fall into unsuspectingly.  You may be unaware that you may have unresolved emotional challenges that can lead to addictive behavior.  Avoiding addictive substances or other excessive compulsive behavior is a disease.  If you have such a disease in your life seek professional help and spiritual guidance.  Be assured your Heavenly Father loves you.  We love you." Then refer the to church's 12 step program.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In President Nelsons conference talk, he stated the following:

He seems to frame addiction as a choice, or a "God" that we "look to", rather than a mental health illness/disorder that overtakes us.  According to the church's own 12 step program, it states: 

He does acknowledge in his talk that it robs us of freedom but seems to place blame/shame on the captive as if it is an offensive choice to look to it rather than God for solace.  

He calls it an "obsession" like a "God" to us.  Addiction and obsession are not the same.  People with addictions are often deeply ashamed of it, don't want it, hate it, and want nothing more than to be free from it.  It is not an obsession!  It is not a God to them, it is a curse!   

I have debated bringing this up, but I am troubled by the shame that this will heap on the heads of those suffering with this mental illness.  Shame only makes the cords of addiction stronger.   This is not helpful; it is hurtful language to those who suffer from this illness.   

I feel like I have been thrown back in time to the 80's style priesthood session porn-shame talks.  I thought we were past this kind of rhetoric in the church.  I thought that we were past the shame-based addiction talks?  I thought the leadership better understood addiction and addicts today.  How does leadership expect to address this problem if they don't understand it?  

Furthermore, why would a mental health disorder "offend God"?   Is he that fragile that he would take it personal?  Are there no actual victims of this mental health illness/disorder?  

Spiritual and professional help is needed.  On that we agree.  I just don't find the sentiment above spiritually healing or edifying.   You offend God you obsessive, false God worshipping, weakling!   

While no person or prophet is infallible, it seems that the upper leadership should be better educated on topics like addiction.  This kind of language can really mess up a kid who looks up to these men and takes their word as the voice of God to them.  I know, because I was that kid.  Healing only came when I was able to overcome and abandon such toxic/harmful notions. 

 

 

 

 

Addiction and obsession are not the same, but obsessive and compulsive behavior are a couple of many traits of an addictive personality. Addictive personality traits - Mayo Clinic Health System In the sense of avoiding anything that robs us of our agency, addiction would be offensive, whether imposed upon us by outside factors or whether resulting from poor choices made in ignorance or willful disobedience. Spiritual guidance and professional treatment help keep shame in check.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Avoiding addictive substances or other excessive compulsive behavior is a disease.

Finally someone is willing to admit I am healthy.

And yes, I know it was just a typo. 😉

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From the perspective that he framed it--because an addiction becomes our god--I can see where he is coming from.  Especially since many addictions begin with the unwise use of our agency and with us almost always being aware that addiction is a possible (sometimes likely) outcome from the choice we are making.  I read it more as a warning about why we need to get help for our addictions rather than a condemnation of those who are addicted.

But, I can see your point too.  Some are going to be hurt by his words.  If what he said needed to be said for some, but it might hurt others, what would have been a better way for him to have said it? (sincere question).

Even addictions that arise from imposed factors beyond anyone's control (including a pre-existing obsessive trait) can result in agency-robbing obsession, which for reasons explained is offensive to us and to God and so by common sense should be avoided.

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Spot on.  And yes the top leadership ought to know better.  There is nothing right and everything wrong with President Nelson's comments.  My word, the Church uses a modification of AA's 12 step.  Bill Wilson's approach to alcoholism, preferably now termed Alcohol Use Disorder, has been adapted by many groups seeking to treat the root causes of addiction.  Addiction is a disease, as much a cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.  Does he also shame the type 2 diabetic who perhaps just had a poor diet.  Or those with heart disease who perhaps ate to much fatty food and did not exercise?  He was a heart surgeon after all. 

Sadly his words will harm thousands of his adherents who need love and support and encouragement.  Rather they will hide their addiction out of shame and fear which will make their addiction all the worse.  I don't give him a pass at all in this and this is why I say the LDS leaders have not better insight on any issue then you or I do.  And in some cases, like this, less apparently.

The valuable insight is in the context of the talk: "If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need. Please do not let an obsession rob you of your freedom to follow God’s fabulous plan."

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Even addictions that arise from imposed factors beyond anyone's control (including a pre-existing obsessive trait) can result in agency-robbing obsession, which for reasons explained is offensive to us and to God and so by common sense should be avoided.

But here are you saying the offense isn’t on the addicted and instead on whoever imposed the addiction on us?  Perhaps parents who were occupied with their own addictions giving games to a kid to keep them occupied, which then became a comforting mechanism?

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No the addiction does not become the addicts god.  Might be their best earthly friend but they no more worship the whatever they are addicted to than the cancer patients worships their cancer. Such people may be deeply religious and worship a theistic type of God.  But they have not received the treatment, therapy and coping skills they need to overcome their DISEASE.  Based on your logic a diabetic's god may be the food they eat.

Let's keep in mind that many addicts don't have the same restrictions imposed on them that the Church imposes.  But sure, someone with alcohol or some other addiction may not have their addiction if they never drank.  And maybe the diabetic would not have had diabetes if they never ate some of the things they ate.  Does the Church shame them?  Or someone with an eating disorder?  Is it their fault that they ended up eating to much or to little?

Addictions are complex mental health disorder and most addicts if not all have deep seated emotional problems that they have not learned to resolve in healthy ways.  And almost universally they are the result of childhood trauma.  In many case they may not be aware of the what the trauma was.

No it did not need to be said. There was nothing good about it. If he needed to say something it might have along the lines of "Beware of substances that can harm your body and for many may lead to addictive behavior or substance abuse disorder.  This is a disease that many can fall into unsuspectingly.  You may be unaware that you may have unresolved emotional challenges that can lead to addictive behavior.  Avoiding addictive substances or other excessive compulsive behavior is a disease.  If you have such a disease in your life seek professional help and spiritual guidance.  Be assured your Heavenly Father loves you.  We love you." Then refer the to church's 12 step program.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond since we obviously don't see eye to eye on this (as is almost always the case where the church is concerned), I don't want to argue about it since it serves no purpose, and I want to acknowledge your reply to me as I appreciate you taking the time to say it.  

Saying "thanks for your thoughts on it" seemed dismissive but I'm not sure what to say instead.  I do appreciate your perspective, but I don't know that you can judge what the prophet should be saying seeing as how you don't believe in prophets (or God?  I don't remember if you are a theist or not, sorry).  

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Even addictions that arise from imposed factors beyond anyone's control (including a pre-existing obsessive trait) can result in agency-robbing obsession, which for reasons explained is offensive to us and to God and so by common sense should be avoided.

My husband's father was addicted to drugs and alcohol and eventually died of liver failure when he was 48, after causing a lot of trauma to his children along the way.  He began self medicating because he was bipolar (possibly schizophrenia) and didn't want to take prescription meds for it. 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

But here are you saying the offense isn’t on the addicted and instead on whoever imposed the addiction on us?  Perhaps parents who were occupied with their own addictions giving games to a kid to keep them occupied, which then became a comforting mechanism?

Good point: parents do lots of things that offend children and God by doing things that directly or indirectly rob their children of their agency. Once they understand what they did, they will only find relief in God's grace. God reaches out to the children, as with all of us, so they can overcome these impositions upon their agency.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My husband's father was addicted to drugs and alcohol and eventually died of liver failure when he was 48, after causing a lot of trauma to his children along the way.  He began self medicating because he was bipolar (possibly schizophrenia) and didn't want to take prescription meds for it. 

Yes, very sad and thankfully it is never too late in the Lord's plan for him or the children to have the opportunity to recover.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My husband's father was addicted to drugs and alcohol and eventually died of liver failure when he was 48, after causing a lot of trauma to his children along the way.  He began self medicating because he was bipolar (possibly schizophrenia) and didn't want to take prescription meds for it. 

I didn’t want to take addictive medication for ADHD until I was shown that I was more likely to end up addicted to something due to not taking it.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, kllindley said:

In reality, the 12 step approach is terribly out of favor in addiction treatment. It simply is not supported by outcomes research.

There is some utility to a 12 step group as an add-on support in the relapse prevention stage of treatment. But even then, research suggests the social element of meetings may be the effective variable rather than the specific methodology of the 12 steps. 

  The problem with researching the whether 12 step programs are successful is the anonymity aspect. For example AA does not report nor track success or failure.  But I do agree that for most with serious substance abuse disorders treatment above and beyond a 12 step program is needed it is one tool in relapse prevention.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Teancum

[Pyreaux]

Addiction is a shameful choice when you start it.  Though involuntary afterwards.

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The valuable insight is in the context of the talk: "If you struggle with an addiction, seek the spiritual and professional help you need. Please do not let an obsession rob you of your freedom to follow God’s fabulous plan."

I don't find that very helpful for the addict at all. If substance abuse disorder is a disease then that disease, whether one afflicted is able to recover, or not, should not keep one out of God's presence.  No more than heart disease or another illness would.  You simply see this through the lens of sin. It not sin. It is a disease.  But the first sentence is good advice.

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure exactly how to respond since we obviously don't see eye to eye on this (as is almost always the case where the church is concerned), I don't want to argue about it since it serves no purpose, and I want to acknowledge your reply to me as I appreciate you taking the time to say it.  

Saying "thanks for your thoughts on it" seemed dismissive but I'm not sure what to say instead.  I do appreciate your perspective, but I don't know that you can judge what the prophet should be saying seeing as how you don't believe in prophets (or God?  I don't remember if you are a theist or not, sorry).  

I can certainly judge whether or not his words are helpful or useful and clearly they are not. And I would guess ( though I may be wrong) that you have little experience or knowledge in dealing with people that have substance abuse disorders.  If you are interested I recommend you start with the Book In the Realm of the Hungry Ghosts:

Quote

 

A world-renowned trauma expert combines real-life stories with cutting-edge research to offer a holistic approach to understanding addiction—its origins, its place in society, and the importance of self-compassion in recovery.

Based on Gabor Maté’s two decades of experience as a medical doctor and his groundbreaking work with people with addiction on Vancouver’s skid row, this #1 international bestseller radically re-envisions a much misunderstood condition by taking a compassionate approach to substance abuse and addiction recovery.
 
In the same vein as Bessel van der Kolk’s The Body Keeps the Score, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts traces the root causes of addiction to childhood trauma and examines the pervasiveness of addiction in society. Dr. Maté presents addiction not as a discrete phenomenon confined to an unfortunate or weak-willed few, but as a continuum that runs throughout—and perhaps underpins—our society. It is not a medical “condition” distinct from the lives it affects but rather the result of a complex interplay among personal history, emotional and neurological development, brain chemistry, and the drugs and behaviors of addiction.

Simplifying a wide array of brain and addiction research findings from around the globe, the book avoids glib self-help remedies, instead promoting a thorough and compassionate self-understanding as the first key to healing and wellness.

Dr. Maté argues persuasively against contemporary health, social, and criminal justice policies toward addiction and how they perpetuate the War on Drugs. The mix of personal stories—including the author’s candid discussion of his own “high-status” addictive tendencies—and science with positive solutions makes the book equally useful for lay readers and professionals.

https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Hungry-Ghosts-Encounters-Addiction/dp/155643880X/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598726214837&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9003467&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=7776803691184946948&hvtargid=kwd-18070303157&hydadcr=15553_13558561&keywords=in+the+realm+of+the+hungry+ghost&qid=1696641094&sr=8-1

 

It certainly changed my opinion on addiction and the nature of addiction as well as how poorly we treat those with addictions.  President Nelson's comment incorporate one of most worst approaches. As for a prophet, no I don't believe he or anyone is a prophet.  For someone who believes he is you should expect better. Try to take your "use of certain substances is a sin" glasses off for a bit on this one.

As for being a theist, I don't know.  But I am fairly certain that if there is such a being and that being was able to create the universe we dwell in that that being is not concerned much about what we eat and drink and certainly does not support the nonsense President Nelson stated. And keep in mind there are other things a member of the church can do that is not considered a "sin" that can lead to addictive behavior that is detrimental.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Any addiction is a problem.  If one is addicted to reading the scriptures would also be a problem as one just can't read the scriptures and neglect other important things in life.   Life is about balance and if one thing takes too much dominance it causes other things to suffer.  There is no reason for shame as we all have our addictions to one degree or another to something.  The worst thing one can do is ignore the subject as people will just continue on with their addictions year after year.  

And addiction to the church is pretty problematic as well IMO.  Yes there is no need for shame.  But the man you believe is a prophet just used shaming exponentially.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Addiction is a shameful choice when you start it.  Though involuntary afterwards.

Nobody chooses to be an addict.  Maybe you meant the choice to initially use certain substances is shameful (it is not).