Can I please just get this out - drug addiction is NOT A DISEASE!

[Lillyvonolla]

Christ that drives me nuts! It's an insult to people with cancer or parkinsons disease! YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE DRUGS! YOU CHOOSE TO DRINK! You do NOT choose to have parkinsons disease or breast cancer or lupis!

Just watching Sober House now and it just drives me nearly insaine how sympathetic people are to ****ing drug addicts like 'oh, poor dears'. Jesus wept - I do cocaine - I'm not addicted - I CONTROL MY LIFE! You want to mess up your life and become a prick to everyone around you - cause greif to your parents and family and friends - **** you! You choose this life and how you live it - I'm sick of the sympathy to people that are hopeless addicts and destroy not only their life (who cares to be honest) but the people around them!

I had a friend die of heroin and her poor parents live with guilt every day thinking what they could have done. She had a great childhood with loving parents but hooked up with a bad guy and ended up overdosing. Sorry - I did not go to her funeral. I will not go to the funeral of people that SELF DESTROY. Life is too short to overdose! Harsh - but sorry, that's how I feel. I'm just sick of the the standing ovation these weak arse people get when they fess up - 'yes, I was an addict for 10 years and destroyed my family and children and home - but hey, I'm fine now'. No - you do not deserve a standing ovation - you deserve a boo! Boo you made your family and kids go through that through your self satisfying addiction. ********. On all levels. Grow up. We can have a good time without being addicts. Wake up - because man kind is not looking so good!:rolleyes:

[Yoda]

I don't know what made you think this belonged in General Movie Discussion, or why you decided to go on a rant about drugs out of nowhere (we have lots of threads on the topic), but I've moved it to the Television and Music forum, where it quite clearly belongs.

Either way, I'd be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you'd a) chill out a little and b) lighten up on the blasphemy and swearing in general.

[spudracer]

Either way, I'd be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you'd a) chill out a little and b) lighten up on the blasphemy and swearing in general.

Amen! :yup:

[Sir Toose]

A little on the random side but nice rant nonetheless.

I agree that people should own up to what they do.

[Outbreak]

I'll try to keep this short, because I can talk about this very topic for hours

Lillyvonolla, while I do agree with most of what you said, regarding drug addiction not being a disease, I strongly have to disagree with most of your last paragraph. First, people don't purposefully over-dose, it is true that it is their choice to do the drug in the first place, but some drugs are simply TOO addictive and some people have too weak a willpower to quit them.

Take it from experience, my mom was an alcoholic for all my childhood, and I've done my fair share of different drugs. It doesn't matter how long they were on drugs, or what they did on drugs, or anything like that. If they quit - they may not necessarily deserve a standing ovation- but the person who's quitting deserves some measure of respect, understanding, and most of all, support.

Quitting a drug is one of the hardest things someone can do, it will completely change their current lifestyle and if someone you know or care about is trying to quit, and all you say is "well you shouldn't have done it in the first place" or "it's your fault anyways, you're getting what you deserve" or whatever, you are making it exponentially harder for them to quit and they could end up relapsing/ overdosing or what ever. That is not to say it isn't their fault, but part of the steps at N.A. or A.A. or a detox center or any place where people can try to quit is the person must come to grips with what all they have done and understand it is ultimately their fault.

I hate to be this harsh, and I apologize profusely, but what if the reason your friend O.D. was because you said "I'm not going to be friends with her because she is simply a stupid druggie who's getting what is coming to her".

I want to keep going, because I have plenty more to say, but I'll end it there for the moment.

[Yoda]

I think that's well said.

Drugs are tricky; on one hand, clearly describing them as a "disease" is horrendously misleading and absolves the afflicted of significant responsibility. On the other hand, in some cases the only choices involved are the first few times. With more addictive drugs, the choice is starting; after that, the line between choice and addiction starts to blur. This is not to suggest that people should not be held responsible, but what makes drugs so dangerous to begin with is that they quickly distort your decisions.

[Brother Blue]

It's not as simple as you choose to drink or you choose to do drugs. I'm sure we've all tasted alcohol in our lives, some of us might have felt the effects of one of more drugs within our system. The difference with addicts is that their drug of choice changes the behaviour of their brain. This is not just something a person can give up on a whim. Once they are addicted and their drug have over hauled their brains way of functioning there is no turning back unless the person wants to go through a very painfull withdrawl stage where their body and brain have to get used to being without the narcotics that it is used to.

It's the physical addiction to these narcotics that make all the difference. It's not a disease in the way a disease like cancer is, but just like a disease it has detrimental effects on the persons body and well being. In this case addiction is a "brain disease" an effect on the brain by outside influence that is detrimental to a persons health.

Now you could say that these people are getting themselves into that position by taking these substances in the first place and yes that it true they are guilty and the individual does need to take responsibility, their actions were wrong and they should be made to understand that. But let's take alcoholism for a second, there is a growing idea floating around that alcoholism can be inherited from an alcoholic parent (link provided below [1] ), there is a growing number of studies being undertaken that whilst they do not systematically prove it is true, show quite a bit of evidence that there is a link between those who have been born of alcoholic parents and those that arent. If these studies are true then many alcoholics of alcoholics parent(s) really didnt stand much of a chance now did they.

People's backgrounds really need to be looked at when dealing with addicts. It's probably one of the major factors in a person's choice to take whatever substance it is and whilst background really shouldnt be an excuse who are we to judge people who are in an extremely different situation than us?

I really dont think you can tar all addicts with the same brush. Addiction is far more complicated area than you are making it out to be.

1. http://web4health.info/it/add-alcohol-inherited.htm

[Godoggo]

I really don't feel like getting entirely too personal here, but I have had some experience with addiction. And while I feel completely responsible for my actions, I am not going to go through the rest of my life feeling bad about my past behavior. I don't need anyone's applause for quitting and changing my life and if someone is going to judge me; so be it. What's done is done.

I really dont think you can tar all addicts with the same brush. Addiction is far more complicated area than you are making it out to be.

Exactly.

[Sir Toose]

I really don't feel like getting entirely too personal here, but I have had some experience with addiction.

Me too, actually. I had typed up a little of my story and then deleted it.

I don't want anyone to read my post above as judgemental... it's not. A reckoning was a necessary part of the process though... for me.

[Godoggo]

Me too, actually. I had typed up a little of my story and then deleted it.

I don't want anyone to read my post above as judgemental... it's not. A reckoning was a necessary part of the process though... for me.

It was for me too. :) And I didn't think your post was judgemental.

[tramp]

Well, Lillyvonolla, I'm not sure recovering addicts are asking for standing ovations. Would you rather it be that they don't get help? If your friend had gotten help before the overdose, she may still be alive. And you seemed to be more interested in being angry at her for dying than in grieving the loss. It's easy to be angry at those that self-destruct, but it seems to me that if someone beats their addiction and gets back from it and recovers, while it might not deserve a "standing ovation," it might deserve a smile.

I've lived with many alcoholics in my life, a few died because of it, and believe me, it's better to see them sober than not. It's hard to be trusting of addicts, though, they will betray their families a lot of the time. The whole thing isn't easy. I used to get angry about it, but most of the time I just find it incredibly sad.

[Slug]

Hello.
This is a good thread.
It's given me plenty to think about.
I have no problem with the initial post in this thread.
To me, it was sincere.
The way I feel about drugs and alcohol, and the people that use them, along with the effects of such use, is affected by the mood I'm in.

For me at my age, beer and wine is enough.
Should I judge others?
Why would someone want to stick a needle in their arm to get a buzz for example?
At the moment, I have no pity on them.
This can escalate quickly.

[jadelee]

I think everyone has head on his neck and should think about his health & future & future health himself. I am against taking any drugs but don't judge others as everyone does what he wants to do and bears responsibility for his actions.

[Yoda]

I think everyone has head on his neck and should think about his health & future & future health himself.
I love this sentence. I think I want to put it in my signature or something.

[Sedai]

I also - Still, I like the stance his whole comment portrays - It's refreshing.

[spudracer]

I love this sentence. I think I want to put it in my signature or something.

I had to scroll up right after reading this, just to see if you had already done this. :D

[CayceP]

"drug addiction is NOT A DISEASE!"

As a smarter person than me once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Your statement is incorrect.

[mark f]

One of the problems with drug addiction is that it has so much to do with your genes that it can really be difficult for someone to overcome one's genes, and by the time one realizes that there is a problem and has to try to overcome it, it may be too late.

[Tacitus]

One of the problems with drug addiction is that it has so much to do with your genes that it can really be difficult for someone to overcome one's genes, and by the time one realizes that there is a problem and has to try to overcome it, it may be too late.

I've said this to myself so many times that it sounded like a lame excuse so I could blame a lucky escape I had on my father. Looking at it again with a few years' safety, there's definitely a degree of truth in it. ;)

EDIT - I think that looking for someone to blame is a good thing initially because it lets one admit that one actually has a problem. Admitting the problem exists is a big step in itself but I still know a few people who aren't past the 'blame' stage.

[Slug]

...I think that looking for someone to blame is a good thing initially because it lets one admit that one actually has a problem. Admitting the problem exists is a big step in itself...

Hello Tacitus.
Very good point.
I believe it's true.
It is a step in the right direction.

[Powdered Water]

After I stopped drinking I also stopped pissing my pants after passing out at night.

I deserve an award.

It's too bad I missed this poster originally, the person seems like a hoot!

Anyway, as I've mentioned many times before I am an Alcoholic/druggie/whatever and I am so happy that I don't need to argue about this.

Everybody on the face of the Earth can be RIGHT and I can be HAPPY.

P.S. If anyone here ever needs to chat about this issue please feel free to PM me and I will be more than happy to listen to whatever you have going on. People who go on to truly recover from this affliction do not do it in public.

[John McClane]

I think that's well said.

Drugs are tricky; on one hand, clearly describing them as a "disease" is horrendously misleading and absolves the afflicted of significant responsibility. On the other hand, in some cases the only choices involved are the first few times. With more addictive drugs, the choice is starting; after that, the line between choice and addiction starts to blur. This is not to suggest that people should not be held responsible, but what makes drugs so dangerous to begin with is that they quickly distort your decisions.I honestly don't think anyone here is going to label drugs as a"disease." At least, no one with any sense. Now we are saying addiction is a disease and saying that does not absolve an afflicted person from responsibility. Instead, it makes them responsible for not touching the stuff, or getting help getting clean and then staying clean by, once again, not touching the stuff. Sadly, some people can't take that responsibility seriously.

[Powdered Water]

I honestly don't think anyone here is going to label drugs as a"disease." At least, no one with any sense.

Right, I think he may have just garbled up his thoughts there a bit.

Now we are saying addiction is a disease and saying that does not absolve an afflicted person from responsibility. Instead, it makes them responsible for not touching the stuff, or getting help getting clean and then staying clean by, once again, not touching the stuff. Sadly, some people can't take that responsibility seriously.Right again. It's my duty as an Alcoholic to post this info. This is what it means to be an Alcoholic or a Drug Addict. They're all the same affliction. It's a disease to me and to people like me. I don't need "regular" people to give me their blessing or believe I have it. It just is what it is.


The Phenomenon of Craving
By Barefoot Bill L. from Upper Darby, PA
The Big Book on page xxiv (The Doctor's Opinion) says that an alcoholic has an "allergy to alcohol". An allergy is an abnormal reaction to any food, liquid or substance. If nine out of ten people have one reaction and one out of ten people have a different reaction, then the reaction of the one out of ten is abnormal. It also says on page xxvi that "the action of alcohol on an alcoholic is a manifestation of an allergy; that the phenomenon of craving is LIMITED to this class and NEVER occurs in the average temperate drinker." (A phenomenon is something that you can see but can't explain). "These allergic types can NEVER safely use alcohol in ANY FORM AT ALL".

Then on page 22, "We know that while the alcoholic keeps away from drink, as he may do for months or years, he reacts much like other men. We are equally positive that once he takes ANY ALCOHOL WHATEVER into his system, something happens, both in the bodily and mental sense, which makes it virtually impossible for him to stop." This includes substances that contain alcohol like mouthwash, cold remedies, some chocolates, food prepared with alcohol, etc.). Your body doesn't know if you are having a drink or taking Nyquil for a cold, it only senses alcohol and begins to process it.

It also says on page xxviii that, "all the different classifications of alcoholics have ONE symptom in common: they CANNOT start drinking without developing the phenomenon of craving. This phenomenon may be the manifestation of an allergy which differentiates these people, and sets them apart as a distinct entity." Dr. William D. Silkworth, M.D. who at that time had nine years experience specializing in the treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts, wrote this in the late 1930's. He called it a "phenomenon of craving" because at that time there was no way to study metabolism. Since then, science has proven his theory as correct.

The following is an explanation of what happens when alcoholics put alcohol into their bodies, and how it is a completely different experience compared to non-alcoholics. No wonder why non-alcoholics can't relate, and make statements like, "Can't you just stop after one or two drinks?" It shows why alcoholics can use their willpower against everything EXCEPT alcohol.

Alcoholics make up about 12% of the population. The body of the alcoholic is physically different. The liver and pancreas of the alcoholic process alcohol at one-third to one-tenth the rate of a normal pancreas and liver. Now as alcohol enters the body, it breaks down into various components, one of which is acetate. We know now that acetate triggers a craving for more acetate. In a normal drinker, the acetate moves through the system quickly and exits. But that doesn't happen in an alcoholic. In alcoholics, the acetate of the first drink is barely processed out, so by staying in their body, it triggers a craving for more acetate. The alcoholic then has a second drink, now adding to most of the acetate of the first drink, and that makes them want a drink twice as much as the normal drinker. So they have another. Then, having almost three times the craving as a normal drinker, they have another.
You can see from that point how alcoholics have no control over how much they drink. The craving cycle has begun and they have no choice but to keep drinking. Once the acetate accumulates in their body, and that begins to happen with only ONE drink, they will crave another. And how many times does an alcoholic think it would be nice to have JUST ONE drink to relax, but has many more? Now you see why. AND THIS CAN NEVER CHANGE!

On top of THAT (like so far it's not bad enough), alcohol is a poison because it destroys human tissue. The two organs that alcohol damages the most are the liver and the pancreas. So the more the alcoholic drinks as time passes (or doesn't drink, because the liver and pancreas also deteriorate naturally as we age), the less their body is able to processes the acetate. THAT is why alcoholism is a progressive, fatal illness. Bill W. says on page 30, "We are convinced to a man that alcoholics of our type are in the grip of a progressive illness. Over any considerable period we get worse, never better." Pretty revealing, huh. It explains many things I never before understood.
But if you think about it, we never have to deal with ANY of this if we DON'T put alcohol into our bodies in the first place. So the MAIN problem of the alcoholic centers in their mind and in their spiritual condition. My mind tells me it's okay to TAKE the first drink and doesn't see that what I'm about to do is harmful (otherwise known as the obsession or powerlessness), and if I'm NOT spiritually fit I can't STAND being sober because it's too uncomfortable (otherwise known as unmanageability). Coincidentally, the Steps deal DIRECTLY and EFFECTIVELY with both.

So that's what it means to be an alcoholic - I can't handle drinking and I can't handle not drinking.

[r3port3r66]

It's too bad I'm an alcoholic, because I love to drink!

PW, I am also a friend of Bill...

[Powdered Water]

It's too bad I'm an alcoholic, because I love to drink!

:laugh: Most Alcoholics do.


PW, I am also a friend of Bill...

:up:

[Caitlyn]

I read an article the other day about cocaine addiction and thought some of you might find it interesting...

New Research Reveals Impact of Cocaine Addiction on the Brain

There are several popular misconceptions circulating in society today as to what exactly addiction is, and whether or not addiction should be treated as a disease by health professionals. To many scientists, addiction has long been associated as a by-product of altered mental states where the brain cannot distinguish between healthy and unhealthy behavior. For example, addictions manifested in the form of obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD) are thought to arise from abnormal neuron firing in the brain; in other words, the brain of an addict displays the same need for the desired object in the same way that one would crave basic necessities like food or water. However, scientists from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine have revealed surprising information on how an addiction can actually alter the activity of certain proteins and neurons in the brain. This new research can help scientists understand why addiction is so hard to overcome, and how to effectively prevent and treat addict relapses.

By administering injections of cocaine to a group of monkeys (who share many similar genes to that of humans) and comparing their brain functions to a control group of monkeys who did not receive drugs, scientists were able to see that several biochemical changes occurred in the monkeys who received the drugs. Simply put, the monkeys who received the cocaine injections soon developed a biological dependence on the drug, which has given scientists and doctors new information in the battle against addiction.

According to one scientist who participated in the study, the cocaine changed the structure of neurons and protein activity, which explains why many addicts find it so hard to continue in their quest to quit drugs after a relapse. It’s an important step in realizing the kind of obstacles addicts have to overcome in the fight against addiction, and why relapse is not only likely – it should be expected. Since the experiment has shown that the brain is essentially programmed and conditioned to need the cocaine after only a few injections, it should provide doctors, therapists and society in general with a better understanding of what an addict must go through in order to win the battle against addiction.

Additionally, as many medications are developed based on the understanding of how the human brain functions, this new information is vital for research scientists and pharmaceuticals looking to develop highly effective medication to treat addictive disorders. Since popular misconceptions about addiction have indicated that abnormal brain activity leads to addiction, it’s important to realize that, very often, it’s addiction that leads to abnormal brain functions – thus, addiction should be looked at in a very new light!

This study not only has an impact on developing medicine for addicts, but it will certainly help drug education to further deter individuals from even picking up the habit in the first place. Since abusing drugs has very real long-term consequences, it’s important for drug educators to stress that quitting cold turkey will be very nearly impossible, as addiction biologically programs the brain to crave the desired drug. Thus, an addict can never “stop” whenever he or she feels like, as research has shown that relapse is practically inevitable.

This kind of research also helps to promote the theory that addiction should be treated as a disease instead of just a psychological disorder. Since debate is still raging about whether or not addiction is a disease, this study provides further evidence that addiction is founded in abnormal biochemical compositions; thus, it should be treated by doctors and scientists as a highly debilitating disease.

Source: Elements Behavioral Health (http://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/addiction/cocaine-addiction-brain/)

[r3port3r66]

Back in my experimental days, I had no trouble casually doing some illicit substances then quitting them for good when I knew I had had my fun. But Alcohol on the other hand got out of control and I needed help.
Are there some substances that are more addictive than others. I always hear that pot is non-addictive...confuses me.
btw, I don't do anything anymore.

[Outbreak]

Are there some substances that are more addictive than others. I always hear that pot is non-addictive.


I wrote a fairly big explanation to you on pot being non-addictive yesterday to explain it, but my internet dropped and I lost it. :mad:
Now I'm just going to give you a brief explanation because I don;t want to write all that out again :p

Marijuana is non-addictive, but it is habit-forming. That is to say you cannot be physically addicted to weed, you won't get withdrawals, it's not like you actually needs the drug to keep your body working "properly" that is you don't need your 'fix'
You do develop the habit of smoking it and being 'high'. It is completely psychological (kind of like how quitting cigarettes are harder because smokers habitually hold something between their fingers or in their mouth).

[matt72582]

I don't see why it matters if it's a disease, a choice, a combination... It's just like sexuality.

Here's something I just read - http://www.heretical.com/freudian/coca1884.html


Sigmund Freud
From ‘Über Coca,’ Centralblatt für die ges. Therapie, 2, pp. 289–314, 1884

V. The Effect of Coca on the Healthy Human Body
I have carried out experiments and studied, in myself and others, the effect of coca on the healthy human body; my findings agree fundamentally with Mantegazza’s description of the effect of coca leaves.
The first time I took 0.05cg. of cocaïnum muriaticum in a 1% water solution was when I was feeling slightly out of sorts from fatigue. This solution is rather viscous, somewhat opalescent, and has a strange aromatic smell. At first it has a bitter taste, which yields afterwards to a series of very pleasant aromatic flavors. Dry cocaine salt has the same smell and taste, but to a more concentrated degree.
A few minutes after taking cocaine, one experiences a sudden exhilaration and feeling of lightness. One feels a certain furriness on the lips and palate, followed by a feeling of warmth in the same areas; if one now drinks cold water, it feels warm on the lips and cold in the throat. On other occasions the predominant feeling is a rather pleasant coolness in the mouth and throat.
During this first trial I experienced a short period of toxic effects, which did not recur in subsequent experiments. Breathing became slower and deeper and I felt tired and sleepy; I yawned frequently and felt somewhat dull. After a few minutes the actual cocaine euphoria began, introduced by repeated cooling eructation. Immediately after taking the cocaine I noticed a slight slackening of the pulse and later a moderate increase.
I have observed the same physical signs of the effect of cocaine in others, mostly people of my own age. The most constant symptom proved to be the repeated cooling eructation. This is often accompanied by a rumbling which must originate from high up in the intestine; two of the people I observed, who said they were able to recognize movements of their stomachs, declared emphatically that they had repeatedly detected such movements. Often, at the outset of the cocaine effect, the subjects alleged that they experienced an intense feeling of heat in the head. I noticed this in myself as well in the course of some later experiments, but on other occasions it was absent. In only two cases did coca give rise to dizziness. On the whole the toxic effects of coca are of short duration, and much less intense than those produced by effective doses of quinine or salicylate of soda; they seem to become even weaker after repeated use of cocaine.
...
There are said to be people who cannot tolerate coca at all; on the other hand, I have found not a few who remained unaffected by 5cg, which for me and others is an effective dose.
The psychic effect of cocaïnum muriaticum in doses of 0.05–0.10g consists of exhilaration and lasting euphoria, which does not differ in any way from the normal euphoria of a healthy person. The feeling of excitement which accompanies stimulus by alcohol is completely lacking; the characteristic urge for immediate activity which alcohol produces is also absent. One senses an increase of self-control and feels more vigorous and more capable of work; on the other hand, if one works, one misses that heightening of the mental powers which alcohol, tea, or coffee induce. One is simply normal, and soon finds it difficult to believe that one is under the influence of any drug at all.
...
I have tested this effect of coca, which wards off hunger, sleep, and fatigue and steels one to intellectual effort, some dozen times on myself; I had no opportunity to engage in physical work.
...
The effect of a moderate dose of coca fades away so gradually that, in normal circumstances, it is difficult to define its duration. If one works intensively while under the influence of coca, after from three to five hours there is a decline in the feeling of well-being, and a further dose of coca is necessary in order to ward off fatigue. The effect of coca seems to last longer if no heavy muscular work is undertaken. Opinion is unanimous that the euphoria induced by coca is not followed by any feeling of lassitude or other state of depression. I should be inclined to think that after moderate doses (0.05–0.10g) a part at least of the coca effect lasts for over twenty-four hours. In my own case, at any rate, I have noticed that even on the day after taking coca my condition compares favorably with the norm. I should be inclined to explain the possibility of a lasting gain in strength, such as has often been claimed for coca by the totality of such effects.
It seems probable, in the light of reports which I shall refer to later, that coca, if used protractedly but in moderation, is not detrimental to the body. Von Anrep treated animals for thirty days with moderate doses of cocaine and detected no detrimental effects on their bodily functions. It seems to me noteworthy – and I discovered this in myself and in other observers who were capable of judging such things – that a first dose or even repeated doses of coca produce no compulsive desire to use the stimulant further; on the contrary, one feels a certain unmotivated aversion to the substance.
...
Coca is a far more potent and far less harmful stimulant than alcohol, and its widespread utilization is hindered at present only by its high cost.
...
Like Mantegazza and Frankl, I have experienced personally how the painful symptoms attendant upon large meals – viz, a feeling of pressure and fullness in the stomach, discomfort and a disinclination to work – disappear with eructation following small doses of cocaine (0.025–0.05). Time and again I have brought such relief to my colleagues; and twice I observed how the nausea resulting from gastronomic excesses responded in a short time to the effects of cocaine, and gave way to a normal desire to eat and a feeling of bodily well-being. I have also learned to spare myself stomach troubles by adding a small amount of cocaine to salicylate of soda.
...
Accordingly, I should say that the use of coca is definitely indicated in cases of atomic digestive weakness and the so-called nervous stomach disorders; in such cases it is possible to achieve not merely a relief of the symptoms but a lasting improvement.
c) Coca in cachexia. Long-term use of coca is further strongly recommended and allegedly has been tried with success – in all diseases which involve degeneration of the tissues, such as severe anemia, phthisis, long-lasting febrile diseases, etc.; and also during recovery from such diseases.
...
I once had occasion to observe the case of a man who was subjected to the type of cure involving the sudden withdrawal of morphine, assisted by the use of coca; the same patient had suffered severe symptoms as a result of abstinence in the course of a previous cure. This time his condition was tolerable; in particular, there was no sign of depression or nausea as long as the effects of coca lasted; chills and diarrhea were now the only permanent symptoms of his abstinence. The patient was not bedridden, and could function normally. During the first days of the cure he consumed 3dg of cocaïnum muriaticum daily, and after ten days he was able to dispense with the coca treatment altogether.
The treatment of morphine addiction with coca does not, therefore, result merely in the exchange of one kind of addiction for another – it does not turn the morphine addict into a coquero; the use of coca is only temporary. Moreover, I do not think that it is the general toughening effect of coca which enables the system weakened by morphine to withstand, at the cost of only insignificant symptoms, the withdrawal of morphine. I am rather inclined to assume that coca has a directly antagonistic effect on morphine...
...
f) Coca as an aphrodisiac. The natives of South America, who represented their goddess of love with coca leaves in her hand, did not doubt the stimulative effect of coca on the genitalia. Mantegazza confirms that the coqueros sustain a high degree of potency right into old age; he even reports cases of the restoration of potency and the disappearance of functional weaknesses following the use of coca, although he does not believe that coca would produce such an effect in all individuals. Marvaud emphatically supports the view that coca has a stimulative effect; other writers strongly recommend coca as a remedy for occasional functional weaknesses and temporary exhaustion; and Bentley reports on a case of this type in which coca was responsible for the cure.
Among the persons to whom I have given coca, three reported violent sexual excitement which they unhesitatingly attributed to the coca. A young writer, who was enabled by treatment with coca to resume his work after a longish illness, gave up using the drug because of the undesirable secondary effects which it had on him.

[Dani8]

Christ that drives me nuts! It's an insult to people with cancer or parkinsons disease! YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE DRUGS! YOU CHOOSE TO DRINK! You do NOT choose to have parkinsons disease or breast cancer or lupis!

I know this is an old thread and the OP probably isnt even here anymore but I feel the need to comment as someone who recently battled cancer - where is the insult! Disease comes in many forms. Addiction is a disease - dis-ease.

[Captain Steel]

I know this is an old thread and the OP probably isnt even here anymore but I feel the need to comment as someone who recently battled cancer - where is the insult! Disease comes in many forms. Addiction is a disease - dis-ease.

For arguing's sake, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there, Dani. "Disease" is a medical term. Addiction is another medical term - a state with varying levels dependent upon the individual and / or substances being taken where your body becomes so acclimated to a substance that your mental & physical biology reacts as if you require that substance (usually in increasing dosages as tolerance builds) to survive.

Addiction and disease (be it viral, bacterial, organ or brain function imbalance, or mutagenic) are two different things.

Beyond the obvious differences, addiction always begins with a chosen behavior usually involving the intake of addictive substances (while diseases like Diabetes, Muscular Dystrophy, Epilepsy, Parkinson's, Lymphomas, Cancers, etc. usually do not - except in cases where the disease causation overlaps with the chosen intake of a - usually addictive - toxin, such as Emphysema or COPD caused by cigarette smoking.)

[Dani8]

For arguing's sake, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there, Dani. "Disease" is a medical term. Addiction is another medical term - a state with varying levels dependent upon the individual and / or substances being taken where your body becomes so acclimated to a substance that your mental & physical biology reacts as if you require that substance (usually in increasing dosages as tolerance builds) to survive.

Addiction and disease (be it viral, bacterial, organ or brain function imbalance, or mutagenic) are two different things.

Beyond the obvious differences, addiction always begins with a chosen behavior usually involving the intake of addictive substances (while diseases like Diabetes, Muscular Dystrophy, Epilepsy, Parkinson's, Lymphomas, Cancers, etc. usually do not - except in cases where the disease causation overlaps with the chosen intake of a - usually addictive - toxin, such as Emphysema or COPD caused by cigarette smoking.)

Youre free to disagree Cap. My comment is from a cancer survivor's PoV. I am not the least bit insulted people with addiction are regarded as having a disease. That is the only point I was making and I would prefer people not speak on my behalf in this regard, not that the OP was doing that.

[Captain Steel]

Youre free to disagree Cap. My comment is from a cancer survivor's PoV. I am not the least bit insulted people with addiction are regarded as having a disease. That is the only point I was making and I would prefer people not speak on my behalf in this regard, not that the OP was doing that.

Well, you should be insulted! ;)

You didn't choose to do anything that caused you to have cancer. You weren't seeking some escape from your problems that caused you to have cancer! Your weakness of spirit, loss of will, lack of intelligence or desire to fit in with a certain crowd didn't cause you to have cancer.

We know there are some things that can trigger cancer (radiation, various toxins, etc.), but we cannot explain why those with no exposure also develop it or why some who've been exposed to cancer causing carcinogens never do.

On the flip side, there was no substance that you could choose to stop taking that would cause you to no longer have cancer.

Whereas with an addict, the only real "cure" or effective treatment is to stop ingesting the addictive substance. Sure, the mental dependency may linger forever without a lot of help, therapy or willpower, but the cure for addiction (to put an addict into what we term "recovery") is very simple - just remove the addictive substance. In very few actual "diseases" can such as simple remedy as "stop smoking / taking those pills / injecting those drugs / snorting that power / drinking the alcohol" be applied as a solution.

And as far as treatments - some diseases can be treated with medicines, vaccines, radiation, surgeries, etc. This doesn't apply to curing or setting addiction into remission. Sure, medication can be used to treat addicts - but only as a way to wean them off the addictive substances (once again, moving them toward the only "cure" - stop taking the addictive substance).

[Dani8]

Well, you should be insulted! ;)

Why? I;m not getting it. I cant feel insulted just because someone else thinks I should be, Cap.

Anyway, I gave my half a cent worth. I only saw the thread because it was bumped today, and only read Matt and the OP's posts before I commented. Nup, not even faux offended. Dis-ease is disease. That's my PoV.

[Listen Watch Go]

I'm not sure whether addiction falls under the definition of disease or not, but I would suggest that whether a person is in some way "responsible" for their affliction is irrelevant. If some has unprotected sex and catches something, if someone eats too much processed meat and gets bowl cancer, if someone goes to a malaria zone without tablets etc, they're still diseases, whether you think they are in some way responsible for them or not.

[Dani8]

I'm not sure whether addiction falls under the definition of disease or not, but I would suggest that whether a person is in some way "responsible" for their affliction is irrelevant. If some has unprotected sex and catches something, if someone eats too much processed meat and gets bowl cancer, if someone goes to a malaria zone without tablets etc, they're still diseases, whether you think they are in some way responsible for them or not.

That's my take on it as well.

[Captain Steel]

Why? I;m not getting it. I cant feel insulted just because someone else thinks I should be, Cap.

Anyway, I gave my half a cent worth. I only saw the thread because it was bumped today, and only read Matt and the OP's posts before I commented. Nup, not even faux offended. Dis-ease is disease. That's my PoV.

I just told you why. They're two different things. You're making a semantics argument - lots of things can dis your ease, but that doesn't mean you have a disease in a medical sense.

If I see a guy kick a dog, I am now in a state of dis-ease (it doesn't mean I've suddenly contracted tuberculosis or developed diabetes). And the guy kicking the dog is obviously in a state of dis-ease - that doesn't mean his behavior is caused by some cancer - he may just be a jerk who needs a good beat down! ;)

Almost all addiction is based in consciously chosen behavior that is willingly continued by the addict.

Almost no diseases are based in conscious chosen behavior (and for those that are - where say poor diet or lack of exercise contributed to or exacerbated a disease state) there's no way to just stop taking a particular addictive substance that will set the person into a state of recovery.

[Dani8]

I just told you why. .

OK give me a moment to see if I can get angst ridden that people calling addictions 'disease' is insulting me.

Nope. I really tried but I cant cry or get angry about it just because you think I should be insulted. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Captain Steel]

I'm not sure whether addiction falls under the definition of disease or not, but I would suggest that whether a person is in some way "responsible" for their affliction is irrelevant. If some has unprotected sex and catches something, if someone eats too much processed meat and gets bowl cancer, if someone goes to a malaria zone without tablets etc, they're still diseases, whether you think they are in some way responsible for them or not.

This philosophy is the beginning of downfall for treating addiction - and this is really the crux of the issue.

The entire issue of classifying addiction as synonymous with "disease" in about personal responsibility vs purely being a victim of fate.

I don't want to contest AA's methods (as, among step programs it has been highly effective) but the one aspect I disagree with is admitting an addict is powerless. I understand the psychology behind it and using that as a starting point to open the person up to getting help, but factually, it is false - in reality, they are the only person who can overcome their addiction (ask any addict who doesn't want to recover). In addiction, all the power lies solely within the hands of the addict - if they do not wish to be treated, then they can't be.

This admission of "powerlessness" is also used as an excuse for "falling off the wagon" (ask any 12-stepper who's turned back to drugs or alcohol).

Here's the problem with the bowel cancer example - yes, eating too much processed meat may make a person more statistically predisposed to bowel cancer. But cancer is weird because thousands of people who eat only the healthiest of diets also get bowel cancer, while thousands who eat nothing but processed meat do not.
That's why cancer is a disease - you can go to great lengths to prevent it, and you might be successful, or you might fall in that lower range that gets cancer despite all your good health practices (because maybe it's genetic for you, maybe you get it from something in the air, maybe you're just unlucky). You can try to up your odds, but you may still get it anyway - or you may be one of the lucky ones who, despite never taking care of yourself, you end up dying peacefully in your sleep of old age. Unlike addictions, you can neither choose disease or not choose them - there's only trying to increase your chances of avoiding them - but in the end, unlike addictions, it's almost like diseases choose you.

[Captain Steel]

OK give me a moment to see if I can get angst ridden that people calling addictions 'disease' is insulting me.

Nope. I really tried but I cant cry or get angry about it just because you think I should be insulted. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think you're conveying to me that you understand about choice (and that's the deciding factor here). ;)

You're choosing not to be insulted because you are able to choose - just like a person can either choose to take drugs or choose not to (of course, the choice becomes a lot more difficult once you're addicted and your body tells your brain that you need the drugs as much as you need air - yet, such a choice can still be made as demonstrated by millions of recovered addicts).

But, unlike a drug addict, you couldn't choose not to get cancer, could you? Nor could you simply choose for the cancer to be out of your body by discontinuing to take a drug.

So, I think you're telling me you know full well the difference between addiction and disease. ;)

[Dani8]

I dont know why you keep dragging me back in here to tell me I should feel insulted. I simply dont, and dont need you or any other stranger on the net being offended I am not offended. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OK Cap, I am now crying to make you happy but I must confess that the only way I could manage that was to stick a jalapeno in my eye.

[Captain Steel]

Here's another huge difference...

You can be walking down the street to your doctor's office, go inside, have them run a test and then be told, "Surprise! You've got cancer!" (or diabetes or any number of diseases) despite you having done nothing consciously to contract such disease.

But...

You can't walk down the street to your doctor's office, go inside, have them run a test and be told, "Surprise! You're a drug addict! (or alcoholic, etc.) despite you having done nothing consciously to develop such an addiction.

[Captain Steel]

I dont know why you keep dragging me back in here to tell me I should feel insulted. I simply dont, and dont need you or any other stranger on the net being offended I am not offended. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OK Cap, I am now crying to make you happy but I must confess that the only way I could manage that was to stick a jalapeno in my eye.

Your choice how you feel about it is fine. How you choose to feel is your prerogative. Just like your choice to keep coming back here (no one's dragging you). I'm not offended at your choice, just saying that I agree with the OP (even though I didn't read much beyond the topic title... until the more recent posts).

Your message is clear and you've helped make my point - the reason addiction is not a "disease" is all about choice! ;)

[Captain Steel]

Now I have to take a break from this engaging conversation to go pop a percocet and feed my addiction.
I think about not doing it, but then remind myself that I am completely "powerless" to choose not to because I have a terrible "disease" that I somehow contracted as some unlucky victim of biological fate.

[Dani8]

(no one's dragging you).

Stop tagging me. TIA. If I want to be told that I should feel insulted by the theme in this thread I'll go and ask my oncologist to hit me up in my veins with a jolly good dose of faux offence. I take medical advice from my medical team, not a stranger on a movie forum. Sorry, not happening.

[Captain Steel]

Stop tagging me. TIA. If I want to be told that I should feel insulted by the theme in this thread I'll go and ask my oncologist to hit me up in my veins with a jolly good dose of faux offence. I take medical advice from my medical team, not a stranger on a movie forum. Sorry, not happening.

NO! You WILL listen to ME! You have no choice! You are powerless to resist my advice - you have contracted a disease (called MoFo Internet addiction) that makes you unable not to respond! :D

[Stirchley]

NO! You WILL listen to ME! You have no choice! You are powerless to resist my advice - you have contracted a disease (called MoFo Internet addiction) that makes you unable not to respond! :D

Please doctor, is there any cure?

[Listen Watch Go]

OK give me a moment to see if I can get angst ridden that people calling addictions 'disease' is insulting me.

Nope. I really tried but I cant cry or get angry about it just because you think I should be insulted. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think you're conveying to me that you understand about choice (and that's the deciding factor here). ;)

You're choosing not to be insulted because you are able to choose - just like a person can either choose to take drugs or choose not to (of course, the choice becomes a lot more difficult once you're addicted and your body tells your brain that you need the drugs as much as you need air - yet, such a choice can still be made as demonstrated by millions of recovered addicts).

But, unlike a drug addict, you couldn't choose not to get cancer, could you? Nor could you simply choose for the cancer to be out of your body by discontinuing to take a drug.

So, I think you're telling me you know full well the difference between addiction and disease. ;)

If you choose to inject yourself with HIV, it's still a disease. It's nothing to do with choice and its nothing to do with how you got it and whether you're responsible.

[Captain Steel]

Please doctor, is there any cure?

Yes, my son, there is hope - you must join the MoFo Support Group, attend all meetings, turn yourself over to a "higher power" (whom we call Yoda) and get yourself a sponsor (I'd recommend cricket or mark f).

And don't forget Step 9 - apologize to George Constanza for not lending him your good sweater because you didn't want his melon-like head stretching out the neck hole!

[Stirchley]

Please doctor, I'm a woman. Can I still join? I promise not to cry.

[Captain Steel]

Please doctor, I'm a woman. Can I still join? I promise not to cry.

Yes, my... um... child... the MoFo Support Group is open to all.

(But you may not join the MoFo He-Man Woman Hater's Club! You and Darla must keep out!)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r8vzWl16PMg/maxresdefault.jpg

[Stirchley]

(But you may not join the MoFo He-Man Woman Hater's Club! You and Darla must keep out!)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r8vzWl16PMg/maxresdefault.jpg

Trust me, I will. Illiterate guys are a turn off.

[ynwtf]

lol this high anxiety thread just became fun!

As to semantics, I think the point is that the argument that individuals have no choice for disease and are (as a defining point of separation) somehow different in that specific respect as compared to substance addicts is off. I believe lung cancer, colon cancer, and type 2 diabetes all might have something to say about that.

I don't care really about the topic *waves Dani8 lol*. I'm just arguing for the sake of argument to show that THAT argument only stands in one direction.

Addiction isn't a disease because the individual chose to abuse an addictive substance.

Diabetes is not a disease because an individual chose to abuse a sugary yummy substance.

...I mean, if that's the argument.
>=P~

Then there's that whole genetic predisposition thing. Or crack babies. Can't forget crack babies.

Hrm.
Feels like...
"feels like, what?" Yoda inquired.
It feels like... there should be a Wilford Brimley reference in here somewhere.

Ok. I think I've crossed a line or three. I'll take my leave now. Carry on!!

[Dani8]

Ok. I think I've crossed a line or three. I'll take my leave now. Carry on!!

I'm insulted :bawling:

No not really. Your posts are hilarious fun.

[Captain Steel]

lol this high anxiety thread just became fun!

As to semantics, I think the point is that the argument that individuals have no choice for disease and are (as a defining point of separation) somehow different in that specific respect as compared to substance addicts is off. I believe lung cancer, colon cancer, and type 2 diabetes all might have something to say about that.

I don't care really about the topic *waves Dani8 lol*. I'm just arguing for the sake of argument to show that THAT argument only stands in one direction.

Addiction isn't a disease because the individual chose to abuse an addictive substance.

Diabetes is not a disease because an individual chose to abuse a sugary yummy substance.

...I mean, if that's the argument.
>=P~

Then there's that whole genetic predisposition thing. Or crack babies. Can't forget crack babies.

Hrm.
Feels like...
"feels like, what?" Yoda inquired.
It feels like... there should be a Wilford Brimley reference in here somewhere.

Ok. I think I've crossed a line or three. I'll take my leave now. Carry on!!

I was with you up until diabetes. It's a physiological imbalance, it's an organ malfunction. A person who's never had processed sugar can have diabetes - it is not just a result of poor diet. We all need foods to survive that are, at least in some part, broken down by the body into sugars. Diet can certainly help or exacerbate diabetes, but diet alone does not always cause diabetes. Diabetes is a disease, the most health & nutrition conscious people in the world can get it, and they do.

[Listen Watch Go]

You seem to be missing the point.

Take these two scenarios.

One person drinks alcohol regularly. One person has unprotected sex regularly.
The person drinking alcohol risks addiction to alcohol. The person having unprotected sex risks contracting an STD.
Both of these things happen. Neither of them wanted it.
Many drink without being addicted. Many have unprotected sex without contracting a disease.
I assume that you would say that HIV is a disease. But why would you say it a disease if it was completely avoidable? The person CHOSE to have unprotected sex, just as the person chose to drink alcohol.

My point is that the choices that someone makes is irrelevant as to whether what they have is a disease or not. It's preventability is irrelevant and the any fault or blame is irrelevant .

[Blix the Goblin]

It feels like... there should be a Wilford Brimley reference in here somewhere.http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/midvalley9/Bitches_89cbac_634713.jpg

[Captain Steel]

You seem to be missing the point.

Take these two scenarios.

One person drinks alcohol regularly. One person has unprotected sex regularly.
The person drinking alcohol risks addiction to alcohol. The person having unprotected sex risks contracting an STD.
Both of these things happen. Neither of them wanted it.
Many drink without being addicted. Many have unprotected sex without contracting a disease.
I assume that you would say that HIV is a disease. But why would you say it a disease if it was completely avoidable? The person CHOSE to have unprotected sex, just as the person chose to drink alcohol.

My point is that the choices that someone makes is irrelevant as to whether what they have is a disease or not. It's preventability is irrelevant and the any fault or blame is irrelevant .

It's just a whole different process. Some diseases are contagious and some are not.

Contagions are diseases and, if we know exactly how they are transmitted, are avoidable with specific precautions. The fact that they are avoidable doesn't make them less of a disease.

For HIV we're talking about a virus - it tangibly exists. Addiction isn't a harmful life form or parasitic organism that exists outside of a person - it's a state that is only brought on by the ingestion of an addictive substance, nor is it a condition you can just wake up with one day through no action of your own as you can with many non-contagious diseases.

Crack-babies aside, choice is everything when it comes to addiction. Chose to rely on addictive drugs to get high, escape reality or ease your pain on a continual basis, and odds are good you'll become an addict, choose not to take them, and there's no way you can become one. The same simple choices cannot be applied to diseases.

Let me ask you this - if you drank bleach and it destroyed your esophagus, would that condition be a "disease"? It would certainly be a destructive outcome - it might even resemble the ultimate results of say an aggressive cancer. So is the effect of drinking bleach (not whatever mental derangement that would drive a person to do such a thing, but the result) a disease? If not, why not?

[Stirchley]

choice is everything when it comes to addiction. Chose to rely on addictive drugs to get high, escape reality or ease your pain on a continual basis, and odds are good you'll become an addict, choose not to take them, and there's no way you can become one. The same simple choices cannot be applied to diseases.

What about patients who unknowingly become addicted to painkillers through no fault of their own? Tramadol, for example, is a sub-opiate that even in a small dose once a day can cause dependence, as the doctors euphemistically call it. Are these people addicts too?

[Captain Steel]

What about patients who unknowingly become addicted to painkillers through no fault of their own? Tramadol, for example, is a sub-opiate that even in a small dose once a day can cause dependence, as the doctors euphemistically call it. Are these people addicts too?

Absolutely. As pointed out, not every case involves choice - as with fetuses who are addicted in utero due to the taking of drugs by their mothers. You could addict a child to alcohol or drugs by simply feeding it to them without them having the cognitive awareness that they were becoming addicts. And, in the case you describe of opioid use starting out as pain treatment that turns into addiction.

These are all still cases of addiction and are not a "disease."

There's controversy with dependence vs addiction (specifically with marijuana which is classified as not being physically addictive, but users can develop a psychological "dependency" upon it). With true addiction the brain's neurotransmitters lock onto the substance and the feeling becomes one where the body feels like it needs the substance to function, to feel "normal" or to even survive. The feeling is erroneous, but no less real.

A lot of this argument is tied to semantics. We can call a lot of things "addictions" (such as behaviors that do not involve consuming drugs), but these are actually habits, obsessions or compulsions (getting us into the whole realm of psychology).

There is a thin line, however - if we look at things like Internet or social media addiction (which we're engaging in right now) - studies show that for some people the behavior triggers releases of dopamine in the brain - the same substance that is produced in the brain by many addictive drugs. So the ultimate effect becomes the same - the Internet addict gets their fix, begins to feel the high of dopamine (or what to them has become a feeling of okayness or normalcy) and after a while comes to rely on continuing this feeling.

So, is Internet addiction an addiction or a disease?

[Stirchley]

There's controversy with dependence vs addiction (specifically with marijuana which is classified as not being physically addictive, but users can develop a psychological "dependency" upon it). With true addiction the brain's neurotransmitters lock onto the substance and the feeling becomes one where the body feels like it needs the substance to function, to feel "normal" or to even survive.

I would posit that the above applies to dependence also. If I take Vicodin 3 x a day I know I will become addicted over time. Nobody tells you that sub-opiates such as Tramadol are addictive too because the warning is only that over time one can become dependent. Dependency on a drug produces the same symptoms as you describe above. Maybe withdrawal would not be as hard, but withdrawal from a drug on which one depends is not pretty.

I caught a headline today - but not sure where - that over 2,000,000 Americans are addicted to painkillers.

[Captain Steel]

I would posit that the above applies to dependence also. If I take Vicodin 3 x a day I know I will become addicted over time. Nobody tells you that sub-opiates such as Tramadol are addictive too because the warning is only that over time one can become dependent. Dependency on a drug produces the same symptoms as you describe above. Maybe withdrawal would not be as hard, but withdrawal from a drug on which one depends is not pretty.

No argument there. I don't know the entire physiology of dependency vs. addiction (and since it crosses so many grey areas, I think that's why it's controversial in both the medical & psychological communities). My only guess is that dependency has a much more psychological basis than a physical one - the neurotransmitters have not physically locked onto the substances, but the belief system makes it feel similar because the person is expecting a similar high from both addictive and dependent drugs, and when they don't get it, they start to suffer from not being able to escape reality or to ease their emotional pain.

[Slappydavis]

Individuals with addictions feel negative symptoms when they don't engage in the addictive behavior. This is the compulsive aspect, and it is the aspect that makes it a disease (and disorder).

At no point do choices determine a disease. If I give myself tetanus because I choose to poke myself with rusty nails, I still have the disease even though contracting it was contingent on my choices. I may not deserve much pity, but it doesn't mean I have the disease any less.

Likewise, someone that feels withdrawal symptoms when they don't smoke a cigarette is experiencing the effects of their addiction.

It also goes the other way too, if someone were strapped to a table and given regular doses of nicotine against their will until they were addicted, they would also have the disease.

The act of engaging in the compulsive behavior is not the disease, it's the stimuli that compel it.

It can be resisted in many cases, but there is still discomfort.

[Equilibrium]

Original post goes off the wall but I generally agree. Especially having taken care of so many drug addicts I can tell you they use up so many resources that could've gone to people who "deserve" it. Call me barbarian but we have to let a little bit Darwinism play out to keep the gene pool from stagnating.

[Dani8]

Call me barbarian but we have to let a little bit Darwinism play out to keep the gene pool from stagnating.


Woah. I had a silly woman say that to me about cancer sufferers. What happened to the hippocratic oath.


I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

My eldest brother is a world renowned Doctor who saves very ill children. I'm pretty sure that when faced with a heroin addicted baby he doesnt play god and say Beep it. Darwinism. Save the gene pool.

Far out. Memo to self to ask him...

[Blix the Goblin]

Original post goes off the wall but I generally agree. Especially having taken care of so many drug addicts I can tell you they use up so many resources that could've gone to people who "deserve" it. Call me barbarian but we have to let a little bit Darwinism play out to keep the gene pool from stagnating.But if you're going the Darwinism route, you can't ignore the link between drug addiction and higher intelligence. Yes, the smarter you are the more likely you are to do drugs.

Therefore, we should let those who aren't addicted to drugs die, and save the addicts. *tips fedora*

[Equilibrium]

Yea, Hippocratic oath..And I've been loyal to it. Doesn't mean I don't wonder if I'm doing the right thing though.

And c'mon, a heroin addicted baby is not part of this conversation as it was clearly not it's fault.

[Dani8]

Yea, Hippocratic oath..And I've been loyal to it. Doesn't mean I don't wonder if I'm doing the right thing though.

And c'mon, a heroin addicted baby is not part of this conversation as it was clearly not it's fault.



Above all, I must not play at God.

Hippocratic oath. Johns Hopkins.

[Blix the Goblin]

Above all, I must not play at God.

Hippocratic oath. Johns Hopkins.We need a new oath. We'll call it the Charles Darwin Oath

Above all, I must let nature take its course. If someone is overdosing, I will shrug my shoulders and take a smoke break.

[Equilibrium]

Above all, I must not play at God.

Hippocratic oath. Johns Hopkins.We need a new oath. We'll call it the Charles Darwin Oath

Above all, I must let nature take its course. If someone is overdosing, I will shrug my shoulders and take a smoke break.

Haha

[ash_is_the_gal]

gross ass people. it's one thing to feel strongly against it because you've seen the horrors of addiction, it's another to laugh/find joy in imagining someone just letting someone who is OD'ing die. it's not just about the people addicted to drugs, it's also about the sober people in their lives who love them. so why not try to have this conversation minus the cruelty? cause, you know, that's actually possible.

a-holes.

[Equilibrium]

gross ass people. it's one thing to feel strongly against it because you've seen the horrors of addiction, it's another to laugh/find joy in imagining someone just letting someone who is OD'ing die. it's not just about the people addicted to drugs, it's also about the sober people in their lives who love them. so why not try to have this conversation minus the cruelty? cause, you know, that's actually possible.

a-holes.

No one said let them die....please don't have a holier than thou attitude. Believe me when I say I've reversed death in countless people who have overdosed on drugs.

[Dani8]

No one said let them die....please don't have a holier than thou attitude. Believe me when I say I've reversed death in countless people who have overdosed on drugs.

So out of curiosity, how do you make the choice? Someone addicted to booze or painkillers stumbles across the road and gets hit by a bus, ends up with half his leg ripped off and is exsanguinating. You make the decision someone else is more deserving of treatment because they're not an addict?
This is a genuine question. People on or reading here might be addicted to something. How do you think they might feel with some of the comments addicts dont deserve treatment in this thread.

[Stirchley]

So out of curiosity, how do you make the choice? Someone addicted to booze or painkillers stumbles across the road and gets hit by a bus, ends up with half his leg ripped off and is exsanguinating. You make the decision someone else is more deserving of treatment because they're not an addict?
This is a genuine question. People on or reading here might be addicted to something. How do you think they might feel with some of the comments addicts dont deserve treatment in this thread.

Mercifully, paramedics don't make decisions like that.

[Slappydavis]

And c'mon, a heroin addicted baby is not part of this conversation as it was clearly not it's fault.
You said darwinism, that's how darwinism works.

[Yoda]

No one said let them die
Blix did, and you responded with "Haha." Which is exactly what ash described:

"...it's another to laugh/find joy in imagining someone just letting someone who is OD'ing die."

I assume none of this was serious, but then, she didn't accuse anyone of being serious. She said it was gross to laugh at even imagining it, which is certainly what happened. You can agree or not, but she hasn't exaggerated or misrepresented anything.

[Yoda]

Back to the discussion, and a sorta response to what Slappy said earlier: I think most of the people who object to the term "disease" aren't objecting to the literal definition or disputing the science of addiction. They're probably just disputing the implication (real or perceived) that addiction being a disease absolves the addict of responsibility for it, since in most cases getting sick is a thing that just happens to you; we don't normally place blame on people for getting sick, unless their sickness is the result of overt recklessness.

I think addiction is a fine word by itself, since it establishes that their behavior is now biological/compulsive, but doesn't group it alongside afflictions that people have far less control over. Disease, even if technically accurate, carries a lot of connotations with it.

[ash_is_the_gal]

Back to the discussion, and a sorta response to what Slappy said earlier: I think most of the people who object to the term "disease" aren't objecting to the literal definition or disputing the science of addiction. They're probably just disputing the implication (real or perceived) that addiction being a disease absolves the addict of responsibility for it, since in most cases getting sick is a thing that just happens to you; we don't normally place blame on people for getting sick, unless their sickness is the result of overt recklessness.

right, but we kinda do. like, let's say someone got lung cancer and went into remission; if they were a smoker, even after they went into remission, i think most people would find that as irresponsible as an alcoholic sippin a martini

[Dani8]

My PoV was in relation to the comments cancer and other patients should feel insulted and that people with 'real' illnesses are more deserving and might miss out on treatment because of an addict. I'm not the least bit insulted, I certainly never felt at any stage my cancer was more deserving of medical treatment than anyone else who was unwell, and at no stage of my treatment did I miss out on an appointment schedule for someone needing other treatment. This idea that someone is more deserving of medical attention depending on their illness is what I found irritating. It's not a competition.

[I_Wear_Pants]

It starts out as "harmless" fun, but, when it turns into an addiction, it's something you can't control. Addiction affects the mind into "needing" the drug, and it makes your time all-consumed with getting it.

So, I'd say it's a sign of a broken mind, but I don't really want to say if it's a "disease" or not.

[Dani8]

It starts out as "harmless" fun, but, when it turns into an addiction, it's something you can't control. Addiction affects the mind into "needing" the drug, and it makes your time all-consumed with getting it.

So, I'd say it's a sign of a broken mind, but I don't really want to say if it's a "disease" or not.

Yeh I'm pretty sure someone doesnt wake up one day and say Right. Today I think I'll become an addict.

[I_Wear_Pants]

Yeh I'm pretty sure someone doesnt wake up one day and say Right. Today I think I'll become an addict.

I suppose it could happen, but I'm with you - it probably doesn't.

[Dani8]

I suppose it could happen, but I'm with you - it probably doesn't.

I have a friend who was a heroin addict. Pretty sure she thought it would be a once off. Didnt like the first time so tried again. Before she knew it the 'ritual' had a hold of her.

Interestingly enough when she decided enough was enough because she was pregnant her rehab counsellor told her that most of his clients were c section babies, which she was. That's not to scare anyone who might have or might need to experience c section. He said the babies first experience is with a very powerful drug. Not all babies born by c section will end up addicts, ofcourse, but I found this interesting. So who is to say who chooses to be an addict or not.

[Captain Steel]

right, but we kinda do. like, let's say someone got lung cancer and went into remission; if they were a smoker, even after they went into remission, i think most people would find that as irresponsible as an alcoholic sippin a martini

Right, but that is kind of an isolated incident where a disease can be directly linked to a behavior - it's almost a situation where a "disease" is the result of an addiction.

But I've pointed out many times that in millions of cases, disease cannot be linked to any specific behavior - lots of people get lung cancer who've never touched a cigarette (and there are that segment of chronic smokers who beat the odds and never get lung cancer.)

Just because drug addictions may ultimately lead to disease symptoms (due to unnatural toxins and stresses on organs) does not mean that an addiction is the same as one day waking up to discover you have Muscular Dystrophy (or any other actual disease.)

An addiction is a mental & physical state that begins as a behavior - and can only begin with the ingestion of an addictive substance, but disease may find any victim with or without any behaviors or substances.

[Captain Steel]

Yeh I'm pretty sure someone doesnt wake up one day and say Right. Today I think I'll become an addict.

At the same time, no one just wakes up an addict - they have to take something and become addicted to it first (again, "Crack-baby" or kidnapping someone, strapping them to a table and injecting them with heroin for 3 weeks like some mad scientist scenarios aside). ;)

Conversely, people do (and you have) just woken up to discover they have a disease through no choice, action, taking of a substance, imbibing liquor to drown their sorrows, experimenting with chemicals to join a crowd, inhaling nicotine to calm their nerves, drinking 8 cups of coffee to wake up, escaping from reality by taking an opioid or any other behavior.

Addiction is a state of mental & physical dependency on a chemical - it is not a "disease" and fits none of the medical definitions for disease.

[Dani8]

Conversely, people do (and you have) just woken up to discover they have a disease through no choice, action, taking of a substance, imbibing liquor to drown their sorrows, experimenting with chemicals to join a crowd, inhaling nicotine to calm their nerves, drinking 8 cups of coffee to wake up, escaping from reality by taking an opioid or any other behavior.

Addiction is a state of mental & physical dependency on a chemical - it is not a "disease" and fits none of the medical definitions for disease.

How do you know I just woke up to it? I might have walked straight into it by choice. Please stop making assumptions on my behalf, Cap.
My mother died of melanoma. She chose to fry herself for a tan. Was she less deserving of treatment because it was her choice?
A friend of mine was a competitive body builder and chose to take roids. Almost lost his leg from a staf infection. Should he have just been left in the corner because he chose to take drugs?

That's how this opinion people who choose something dont deserve treatment comes across. You choose to go and stir up a bee hive not realising you have an allergy and you almost die from anaphylactic shock. Your choice so you know, is it ok to shove you to the bottom of the queue?

[Stirchley]

Yeh I'm pretty sure someone doesnt wake up one day and say Right. Today I think I'll become an addict.

Here in America, not so sure about that.

[Slappydavis]

I think addiction is a fine word by itself, since it establishes that their behavior is now biological/compulsive, but doesn't group it alongside afflictions that people have far less control over. Disease, even if technically accurate, carries a lot of connotations with it.

If I understand the gist of what you mean, I think disease is still a preferable way of framing the issue.

Two levels of calling addiction a disease come to mind. The first is a technical level, where I essentially defer to my understanding the general medical consensus (though by no means universal). I do believe there are more people that would disagree on this level than you think, but it sounds like we basically agree here. The second is on which is a more effective semantic weapon, which one actually frames the issue better for treatment.

I think, generally, the basic disagreements are going to be over two sets of qualities: size of two pools of people and how far along a spectrum of understanding addiction as a "disease" society [generally] is.

The two pools (very broadly defined):

A) Those that would benefit from a tougher stand against their addiction, other's sympathy might actually enable their habits. This group may benefit from an understanding of addiction as a matter of primarily personal willpower. Such as understanding it less as a "medical" problem (which can feel like it's distant and skewed toward expertise) and finding that they have all the tools they need to control the addiction themselves. Those that find that the better, longer term solution is from an individual place.

B) Those that would benefit from from a more empathetic approach, a more rehabilitative approach perhaps. This group may benefit from an understanding addiction as a "medical" issue as this approach gives more incentive to seeking out advice and expertise. Those that find the better, longer term solution is from a social place.

I'm sure you can guess that I think B is less served than A.

First, I believe neither A or B contain an insubstantial number of people. So I also believe that both approaches have their place contextually.

I think the A is the natural position for most people. I mean, I even often attempt to tough out the non-controversially medical issues more than I should. But it seems to me people are often a tiny bit embarrassed to seek out help when they could use it. And more than a tiny bit when there's an understanding of an issue where it's a personal failing rather than a medical one.

Understanding it less as a personal failing also serves as a preventative measure, in my opinion. Personally, I'd be more likely to heed the effects of addiction if it was considered a physical failing rather than if it was considered a mental failing. I (wrongly) think that I am impervious to tests of will.

Basically, I think addicts are more encouraged to seek assistance if they understand addiction as a disease, and I think more people would benefit from seeking that assistance than not.

To be totally honest, my interest in this area is less about this area and more about the somewhat morally adjacent area of how to treat prisoners.

[Equilibrium]

And c'mon, a heroin addicted baby is not part of this conversation as it was clearly not it's fault.
You said darwinism, that's how darwinism works.


No. The baby did not make the choice to become addicted. Therefore it is free from the "darwin reaper".

also, I said a "little darwinism"

[Equilibrium]

No one said let them die....please don't have a holier than thou attitude. Believe me when I say I've reversed death in countless people who have overdosed on drugs.

So out of curiosity, how do you make the choice? Someone addicted to booze or painkillers stumbles across the road and gets hit by a bus, ends up with half his leg ripped off and is exsanguinating. You make the decision someone else is more deserving of treatment because they're not an addict?
This is a genuine question. People on or reading here might be addicted to something. How do you think they might feel with some of the comments addicts dont deserve treatment in this thread.

Who said i make a choice? We save them all.

[Dani8]

You said you have to let Darwinism play out. That indicates you do decide who deserves treatment and who doesn't.

[Equilibrium]

No one said let them die
Blix did, and you responded with "Haha." Which is exactly what ash described:

"...it's another to laugh/find joy in imagining someone just letting someone who is OD'ing die."

I assume none of this was serious, but then, she didn't accuse anyone of being serious. She said it was gross to laugh at even imagining it, which is certainly what happened. You can agree or not, but she hasn't exaggerated or misrepresented anything.


Some of it is serious. I'm serious when I say that we save everyone in the united states. i'm also serious when I say of all the diseases out there, drug addiction is one that I would be the LEAST concerned about. I don't really get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people who don't understand how the system works talk about being ethical and what not. The reality is that these scumbags who overdose are usually repeat offenders and they cost the system so much money that could have gone to more deserving folks. Case in point: I spent over 560,000$ in treatments and tests on an IV heroin abuser who was coming back for the 4th time with infective endocarditis (heart infection). He also has had 2 liver transplants from repeat alcohol use. This guy has cost the healthcare system 1.5 million dollars alone.

Also the same day, a young girl born with leukemia dies because her parents could not afford stem cell transplanation....Now...we can all wish to live in a universe where we can save everyone but if i had to choose between the drug addict and this young girl I know what I would have liked to do.

So yeah, drug addiction is no laughing matter but quite frankly they do it to themselves and I have no sympathy.

[Equilibrium]

You said you have to let Darwinism play out. That indicates you do decide who deserves treatment and who doesn't.

That is not what I said. Go re-read. What I believe and what we actually do in real life are different things.

[Dani8]

You said you have to let Darwinism play out. That indicates you do decide who deserves treatment and who doesn't.

That is not what I said. Go re-read. What I believe and what we actually do in real life are different things.
You do. You decide in your own mind who is more deserving of treatment and you keep confirming it. That's playing God.

[Equilibrium]

Back to the discussion, and a sorta response to what Slappy said earlier: I think most of the people who object to the term "disease" aren't objecting to the literal definition or disputing the science of addiction. They're probably just disputing the implication (real or perceived) that addiction being a disease absolves the addict of responsibility for it, since in most cases getting sick is a thing that just happens to you; we don't normally place blame on people for getting sick, unless their sickness is the result of overt recklessness.

right, but we kinda do. like, let's say someone got lung cancer and went into remission; if they were a smoker, even after they went into remission, i think most people would find that as irresponsible as an alcoholic sippin a martini



you don't know the half of it. Working in a hospital gives you a different perspective. If you're a smoker and you're trying to cut down but you sneak in a cigarette or two...honestly I don't care. When I say drug addicts I really mean those individuals who I see REGULARLY in the hopsitals for drug/addiction related diseases. People with severe COPD on oxygen at home with all kinds of meds who come to the hospital with opneumonia and I go to see them and I can't find them..."Hey nurse, where is Mr. X?" Nurse: "He went to go smoke" And i kid you not these people drag their IV lines and oxygen tanks with them outside while they smoke. Addiction is real harmful but all of those who jumped on me earlier in the thread missed my point....I was postulating theoretically what would happen if we stopped saving those who are prone to self-harm. would we stop producing generations who have addiction structured neuropathways?

Theoretically speaking...yes.

[Equilibrium]

You said you have to let Darwinism play out. That indicates you do decide who deserves treatment and who doesn't.

That is not what I said. Go re-read. What I believe and what we actually do in real life are different things.
You do. You decide in your own mind who is more deserving of treatment and you keep confirming it. That's playing God.

I'm insulted at what you're insinuating. Everyone one of my patients whether the king or the homeless have gotten the same care from me. Shame on you.

I might add...>90% of my patients do not reimburse me, so please do not make any suppositions on me. You do not know me.

[Stirchley]

you don't know the half of it. Working in a hospital gives you a different perspective. If you're a smoker and you're trying to cut down but you sneak in a cigarette or two...honestly I don't care. When I say drug addicts I really mean those individuals who I see REGULARLY in the hopsitals for drug/addiction related diseases. People with severe COPD on oxygen at home with all kinds of meds who come to the hospital with opneumonia and I go to see them and I can't find them..."Hey nurse, where is Mr. X?" Nurse: "He went to go smoke" And i kid you not these people drag their IV lines and oxygen tanks with them outside while they smoke. Addiction is real harmful but all of those who jumped on me earlier in the thread missed my point....I was postulating theoretically what would happen if we stopped saving those who are prone to self-harm. would we stop producing generations who have addiction structured neuropathways?

Theoretically speaking...yes.

A woman I know was kvetching about her building management. She said they do not keep the hallways free of dust as they have been ordered to do because she has severe asthma. This is a woman whom I see almost daily in my neighborhood smoking cigarettes.

[Equilibrium]

you don't know the half of it. Working in a hospital gives you a different perspective. If you're a smoker and you're trying to cut down but you sneak in a cigarette or two...honestly I don't care. When I say drug addicts I really mean those individuals who I see REGULARLY in the hopsitals for drug/addiction related diseases. People with severe COPD on oxygen at home with all kinds of meds who come to the hospital with opneumonia and I go to see them and I can't find them..."Hey nurse, where is Mr. X?" Nurse: "He went to go smoke" And i kid you not these people drag their IV lines and oxygen tanks with them outside while they smoke. Addiction is real harmful but all of those who jumped on me earlier in the thread missed my point....I was postulating theoretically what would happen if we stopped saving those who are prone to self-harm. would we stop producing generations who have addiction structured neuropathways?

Theoretically speaking...yes.

A woman I know was kvetching about her building management. She said they do not keep the hallways free of dust as they have been ordered to do because she has severe asthma. This is a woman whom I see almost daily in my neighborhood smoking cigarettes.

That is so sad. We have made it ok to be entitled but not ok to tell someone that they need to help themselves.

[Dani8]

I'm insulted at what you're insinuating. Everyone one of my patients whether the king or the homeless have gotten the same care from me. Shame on you.

I might add...>90% of my patients do not reimburse me, so please do not make any suppositions on me. You do not know me.


Shame on me? Because I think everyone ill deserves not to be judged and called a scumbag by a 'doctor' who thinks they get to judge sick person? How does that work? I must have hit nerve.

[Equilibrium]

I'm insulted at what you're insinuating. Everyone one of my patients whether the king or the homeless have gotten the same care from me. Shame on you.

I might add...>90% of my patients do not reimburse me, so please do not make any suppositions on me. You do not know me.


Shame on me? Because I think everyone ill deserves not to be judged and called a scumbag by a 'doctor' who thinks they get to judge sick person? How does that work? I must have hit nerve.


When you do heroin and you come in for ur 4th time and eat up all the hospitals money that could have gone to a life saving heart transpplant to a kid with cyanotic heart disease...yeah i judge you and you are a scumbag to me.

That does not mean I don't save you, spend all that money on you, provide you with counseling, spend an hour on the phone with a rehab facility to let you in for free, discharge you with free medications and still see you back in the hospital the next month. Thank you for putting doctor in quotes. 14 years of schooling earned me that i suppose.

[Equilibrium]

By the way, that same scumbag heroin addict I just told you about...she got mad at me that I wouldn't give her narcotics and you know what she did? She stabbed me with a needle one morning. I had to take post-exposure HIV medications for 3 months which made me nausated and sick all the time while I wondered if I would seroconvert to HIV positive. Yeah, SCUMBAG.

[Dani8]

When you do heroin and you come in for ur 4th time and eat up all the hospitals money that could have gone to a life saving heart transpplant to a kid with cyanotic heart disease...yeah i judge you and you are a scumbag to me.

I have never done heroin. I'm a needle phobe so that's pretty hilarious.Who are you to decide a junkie was not a junkie from in utero when they turn up needing a leg amputation or anything else because of an accident. You called all addicts scumbags, so that shows you DO judge. That's not your job any more than a lawyer deciding his client is guilty before a trial. You're not judge jury and executioner. You're a panel beater that is there to fix someone. And before you flip out, that's the words of my oncologist, bless him.

[Equilibrium]

When you do heroin and you come in for ur 4th time and eat up all the hospitals money that could have gone to a life saving heart transpplant to a kid with cyanotic heart disease...yeah i judge you and you are a scumbag to me.

I have never done heroin. I'm a needle phobe so that's pretty hilarious.Who are you to decide a junkie was not a junkie from in utero when they turn up needing a leg amputation or anything else because of an accident. You called all addicts scumbags, so that shows you DO judge. That's not your job any more than a lawyer deciding his client is guilty before a trial. You're not judge jury and executioner. You're a panel beater that is there to fix someone. And before you flip out, that's the words of my oncologist, bless him.

Please look at examples I'm citing. I'm talking about repeat offenders. And despite all that, I still bend over backwards.

[Dani8]

This is what you said in your first post I saw. You told people to call you a barbarian so why so upset you get called on it?


Equilibrium Equilibrium's Avatar
Is There a Balance?
20 Hours Ago
Original post goes off the wall but I generally agree. Especially having taken care of so many drug addicts I can tell you they use up so many resources that could've gone to people who "deserve" it. Call me barbarian but we have to let a little bit Darwinism play out to keep the gene pool from stagnating.


No point back pedalling.

[Equilibrium]

This is what you said in your first post I saw. You told people to call you a barbarian so why so upset you get called on it?


Equilibrium Equilibrium's Avatar
Is There a Balance?
20 Hours Ago
Original post goes off the wall but I generally agree. Especially having taken care of so many drug addicts I can tell you they use up so many resources that could've gone to people who "deserve" it. Call me barbarian but we have to let a little bit Darwinism play out to keep the gene pool from stagnating.


No point back pedalling.

Yup. Still believe what I wrote in that post. Not my problem you're not keeping up with the conversation when I elaborated.

Anyways it's ok you seem to be alright with all the innocents that die as a result of the money diverted to these scumbags.

Here's a little secret. My opinion is the majority opinion among physicians in the states and there have already been major legislative advances by the American college of physicians, American medical association, and american college of surgeons to limit the number of free passes we give to these repeat offenders. A "little Darwinism"....

[Dani8]

Anyways it's ok you seem to be alright with all the innocents that die as a result of the money diverted to these scumbags..

WUT?

Dear sweet jesus christi. Playing god again or are you a wizard with a crystal ball? So glad I'm not in an american hospital if your judgmental attitude is so rife.

[Equilibrium]

Anyways it's ok you seem to be alright with all the innocents that die as a result of the money diverted to these scumbags..

WUT?

Dear sweet jesus christi. Playing god again or are you a wizard with a crystal ball? So glad I'm not in an american hospital if your judgmental attitude is so rife.

I'm just making an assumption based on the fact that I've tried multiple times to show you how our system neglects those who truly need our help and you continue to insult me by saying I must not be a good doctor because I judge people.

You are not allowed to be self righteous.

Let's hope you don't have to be in any hospital.

[Dani8]

I'm just making an assumption based on the fact that I've tried multiple times to show you how our system neglects those who truly need our help and you continue to insult me by saying I must not be a good doctor because I judge people.

You are not allowed to be self righteous.

Let's hope you don't have to be in any hospital.


That's exactly right.

You love throwing the self righteous card out there. You're the one who judges addicts on how deserving they are of treatment.

And I never said 'you are not a good doctor'. I have no idea who you are. You might be Hannibal Lecter for all I know.

I go to my hospital on a frequent basis. Have done so since 2015. I've never had a problem with my medical team ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm there next week, infact, and I'm pretty sure I wont lose my appointment because some 'scumbag' needs it more than I do.

[Equilibrium]

I'm just making an assumption based on the fact that I've tried multiple times to show you how our system neglects those who truly need our help and you continue to insult me by saying I must not be a good doctor because I judge people.

You are not allowed to be self righteous.

Let's hope you don't have to be in any hospital.


That's exactly right.

You love throwing the self righteous card out there. You're the one who judges addicts on how deserving they are of treatment.

And I never said 'you are not a good doctor'. I have no idea who you are. You might be Hannibal Lecter for all I know.

I go to my hospital on a frequent basis. Have done so since 2015. I've never had a problem with my medical team ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm there next week, infact, and I'm pretty sure I wont lose my appointment because some 'scumbag' needs it more than I do.

There ARE scumbags out there. Stay innocent, we need that in society.

I'll just say thank you to the heavens you're not in charge of healthcare. "Free cocaine for all but if you need chemo for your cancer we're broke!"

[Dani8]

I'll just say thank you to the heavens you're not in charge of healthcare. "Free cocaine for all but if you need chemo for your cancer we're broke!"


I call for Darwinism. If you're doctor speaking to me like that, I'm the queen of England. You're a troll. I agree with the other guy who called you that. You backed yourself right into a corner.

[Equilibrium]

I'll just say thank you to the heavens you're not in charge of healthcare. "Free cocaine for all but if you need chemo for your cancer we're broke!"


I call for Darwinism. If you're doctor speaking to me like that, I'm the queen of England. You're a troll. I agree with the other guy who called you that. You backed yourself right into a corner.

Yea that made no sense. Whatever you say ;) your majesty.

[cat_sidhe]

Please doctor, is there any cure?

Yes, my son, there is hope - you must join the MoFo Support Group, attend all meetings, turn yourself over to a "higher power" (whom we call Yoda) and get yourself a sponsor (I'd recommend cricket or mark f).

And don't forget Step 9 - apologize to George Constanza for not lending him your good sweater because you didn't want his melon-like head stretching out the neck hole!

No, YOU apologize, Sir. Costanza

[Yoda]

Getting this thread back on track...

Two levels of calling addiction a disease come to mind. The first is a technical level, where I essentially defer to my understanding the general medical consensus (though by no means universal). I do believe there are more people that would disagree on this level than you think, but it sounds like we basically agree here. The second is on which is a more effective semantic weapon, which one actually frames the issue better for treatment.
We probably do mostly agree on the policy side, but it's the mere act of picking terms as "semantic weapon[s]" that I'm skeptical of. Obviously, doing that is why people object to the word "disease" even if it's technically applicable: because they understand that it's often not just a neutral description, but part of an argument about the role rehabilitation should play. I think someone can object to this kind of thing even if they find the goal worthwhile.

Mainly, though, my aim is just to make it clear that I don't think people who object to the use of "disease" are usually being simplistic. To the contrary, I think they're being very perceptive about the implications of the word, and are responding directly to those implications, rather than their literal meaning. And I don't think they're generally heartless, either, because while I'm pretty confident that rehabilitation produces better outcomes than punishment for people who are already addicted, I'm a little less sure of whether or not rehabilitation is a better (or more feasible) long-term goal than simple prevention.

[Captain Steel]

How do you know I just woke up to it? I might have walked straight into it by choice. Please stop making assumptions on my behalf, Cap.
My mother died of melanoma. She chose to fry herself for a tan. Was she less deserving of treatment because it was her choice?
A friend of mine was a competitive body builder and chose to take roids. Almost lost his leg from a staf infection. Should he have just been left in the corner because he chose to take drugs?

That's how this opinion people who choose something dont deserve treatment comes across. You choose to go and stir up a bee hive not realising you have an allergy and you almost die from anaphylactic shock. Your choice so you know, is it ok to shove you to the bottom of the queue?

You're right, Dani, I don't know your situation. My point was that no one just wakes up to find they have the disease of "addiction" one day (without having engaged in the behaviors that bring it on), while people certainly do wake up to be diagnosed with cancer or any number of other diseases without having engaged in any behavior or taking any substance to cause it.

I have no argument regarding treatment, I'm simply arguing the classifications of the conditions.

P.S. I am one of those people who can die from a bee sting (for me it's honey bees - wasps are painful but they won't kill me) - which is why I've never gone barefoot in the grass since I was little. This is off-topic, but now I'm sad that the honey bees are going extinct - I can't say I've seen one in the summer in a long time.

[Slappydavis]

We probably do mostly agree on the policy side, but it's the mere act of picking terms as "semantic weapon[s]" that I'm skeptical of. Obviously, doing that is why people object to the word "disease" even if it's technically applicable: because they understand that it's often not just a neutral description, but part of an argument about the role rehabilitation should play. I think someone can object to this kind of thing even if they find the goal worthwhile.

That's my problem though, it's classified as a disease by every medical association that I could find (though obviously not exhaustive). Disease is the technical term.

I can understand if people are conflating the technical term and its everyday use, that's worth having a discussion about because even if medicine calls it something the semantics carry weight. But I've seen a lot of people saying that the medical definition excludes it, which seems to be demonstrably untrue?

I think part of the problem is that the technical definition of disease is waaay more broad than people seem to think.

I offered up the semantic second level as a way to allow those that really don't want to call it a disease to offer up a normative argument for why we shouldn't be calling it a disease.

While I'm interested in both levels, I'd like to really get the first level out of the way. I looked for a definition in this thread but I really couldn't find one, so here I'll ask this in general:

Can anyone provide me with a medical definition of disease that excludes addiction or substance dependence?

(sorry to make it large, but I'm betting a lot of people will skim this because I always talk too long)

The best (or at least most interesting to me) example would be a medical society (of any sort) that both has a definition and they additionally exclude addiction as a disease. Not that I don't love you fine people, but their definition would probably have a lot of history behind it that I could dive into to understand their reasoning. But I'd even be interested in a definition of disease that you make up on the fly that excludes addiction if you can't find one.

Here's some examples of what I mean:

Definition of addiction used by American Medical Association and American Society of Addiction Medicine (https://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction)

Definition of dependence syndrome used by World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/)

I don't want to tell people that they should just accept the medical definition. I can certainly understand if you think that this is overreaching on their part, or if it's another mistake on their part (they've certainly made plenty in the past), but it seems like that argument would have to take the form that the medical definition is wrong for X, Y, Z reasons.

Here's another link (https://www.centeronaddiction.org/what-addiction/addiction-disease), less technical but it basically makes my earlier points, but probably makes them a lot better. Including:

WHY SOME PEOPLE SAY ADDICTION IS NOT A DISEASE

Some people think addiction cannot be a disease because it is caused by the individual’s choice to use drugs or alcohol. While the first use (or early stage use) may be by choice, once the brain has been changed by addiction, most experts believe that the person loses control of their behavior.

Choice does not determine whether something is a disease. Heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer involve personal choices like diet, exercise, sun exposure, etc. A disease is what happens in the body as a result of those choices.


To tackle this discussion in a different way, I wonder if anyone would take issue with this definition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disease):

A condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms.

(I tried to be impartial by selecting the first non-wikipedia link that comes up when googling disease. The wikipedia definition seems fine too, but it's often controversial to cite wikipedia. But again, if you find another definition that excludes addiction, I'd like to see it).

[Captain Steel]

The idea of losing control is a tough one. Certainly true to a certain extent, but not entirely. If that was an absolute, universal, physical truth then AA and 12 step programs could never work because the only way to break addiction and / or stay in recovery is by ultimately making choices and exercising self control.

This is why I have trouble with the admitting you are "powerless" step. As I said before, I understand its use as a way of making the addict open to the possibility of recovery and submit to the idea of a higher power taking control when they are feeling powerless, but ultimately it is completely untrue as regaining personal power over addiction (personal choice and control) is the end goal that we call recovered.

[Slappydavis]

This is why I have trouble with the admitting you are "powerless" step. As I said before, I understand its use as a way of making the addict open to the possibility of recovery and submit to the idea of a higher power taking control when they are feeling powerless, but ultimately it is completely untrue as regaining personal power over addiction (personal choice and control) is the end goal that we call recovered.

I actually agree with this btw. I don't actually agree with the methods of AA, even though we agree on it being a disease. I think, ultimately, a lot of people need help to get to that point. Like leaning on a crutch until you are well enough to walk on your own, the goal is to do it yourself in the end.

I suppose I'm trying to destigmatize the crutch.

[Yoda]

I don't think that's what the "powerless" step actually means, if only because it's such an obvious contradiction with the idea of recovery (as you pointed out) as to be an incredible oversight, if taken that way. I think it's more about the necessity of a support system, IE: powerless to stop on our own, through sheer force of willpower, without changing the kinds of things that led to it in the first place, for example.

[Slappydavis]

I don't think that's what the "powerless" step actually means, if only because it's such an obvious contradiction with the idea of recovery (as you pointed out) as to be an incredible oversight, if taken that way. I think it's more about the necessity of a support system, IE: powerless to stop on our own, through sheer force of willpower, without changing the kinds of things that led to it in the first place, for example.
That makes more sense now. I guess necessity of support system is less catchy.

[Captain Steel]

I actually agree with this btw. I don't actually agree with the methods of AA, even though we agree on it being a disease. I think, ultimately, a lot of people need help to get to that point. Like leaning on a crutch until you are well enough to walk on your own, the goal is to do it yourself in the end.

I suppose I'm trying to destigmatize the crutch.

This is part of why I don't classify addiction as a "disease." Addiction can be overcome mentally & emotionally (usually with group or professional help) - in fact, that's the only way it can be overcome (as drug treatments for addiction are another crutch used only to wean an addict off their preferred drug).

The same can't be said for cancer or other diseases - you can't just make the choice to stop taking whatever is causing the disease and choose to not take the substance one day at a time to begin recovery.

Addiction has the aspect of choice in both starting and ending. Diseases do not. No one can choose disease - they may engage in things that increase their odds of obtaining one, but they really can't choose one as some people fail to manifest disease even when exposed to the most virulent or extreme catalysts. And the sad aspect of disease is no one (outside of cases we classify as miracles) can just choose, mentally & emotionally, to end one.

[Captain Steel]

I don't think that's what the "powerless" step actually means, if only because it's such an obvious contradiction with the idea of recovery (as you pointed out) as to be an incredible oversight, if taken that way. I think it's more about the necessity of a support system, IE: powerless to stop on our own, through sheer force of willpower, without changing the kinds of things that led to it in the first place, for example.

Good point. It is probably meant to mean powerless in this moment while I am in the grip of the height of my addiction because I haven't really begun to get long-term, effective help (but not forever).

[Slappydavis]

Addiction has the aspect of choice in both starting and ending. Diseases do not. No one can choose disease - they may engage in things that increase their odds of obtaining one, but they really can't choose one as some people fail to manifest disease even when exposed to the most virulent or extreme catalysts. And the sad aspect of disease is no one (outside of cases we classify as miracles) can just choose, mentally & emotionally, to end one.
I don't believe I've ever seen a definition of disease that necessitates it being permanent. Do you not consider having the flu to be a disease?

[Captain Steel]

I don't believe I've ever seen a definition of disease that necessitates it being permanent. Do you not consider the flu to be a disease?

Permanence isn't a factor in either classification. Lots of diseases go into remission on their own or with treatment (or in the case of communicable ones, viruses & bacterias are overcome by the body's immune system - the body wins the battle).

I remember my mom's cancer doctor saying that 90% of the population has some type of cancer at one time or another and we're never even aware of it (unless tested at that time) because much of the time it comes and goes without metastasizing, and no one knows exactly how or why.

[Captain Steel]

P.S. Personally, I believe people can affect the progress of disease, mentally and emotionally (depending on how they have their thoughts and emotions conditioned, disciplined and directed), but that falls into the realm of metaphysics right now, as opposed to empirical medical science. :)

[Equilibrium]

I actually agree with this btw. I don't actually agree with the methods of AA, even though we agree on it being a disease. I think, ultimately, a lot of people need help to get to that point. Like leaning on a crutch until you are well enough to walk on your own, the goal is to do it yourself in the end.

I suppose I'm trying to destigmatize the crutch.

This is part of why I don't classify addiction as a "disease." Addiction can be overcome mentally & emotionally (usually with group or professional help) - in fact, that's the only way it can be overcome (as drug treatments for addiction are another crutch used only to wean an addict off their preferred drug).

The same can't be said for cancer or other diseases - you can't just make the choice to stop taking whatever is causing the disease and choose to not take the substance one day at a time to begin recovery.

Addiction has the aspect of choice in both starting and ending. Diseases do not. No one can choose disease - they may engage in things that increase their odds of obtaining one, but they really can't choose one as some people fail to manifest disease even when exposed to the most virulent or extreme catalysts. And the sad aspect of disease is no one (outside of cases we classify as miracles) can just choose, mentally & emotionally, to end one.
Agree except for one point. Smoking addiction is one of the few addictions that actually benefits from combined behavioral therapy and pharmaceutical treatment (specifically varencicline and to a slightly lesser extent buproprion). Plenty of randomized clinical trials have shown this to be true.

Etoh, heroin, cocaine and the rest are pretty much behavioral.

[Dannii]

Totally agree, drugs are taken by choice. People who have diseases have no choice.

[John McClane]

I'm addicted to addiction but addiction isn't addicted to me, so does that mean I'm not addicted?

[d_chatterley]

Hmmmm....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

[ynwtf]

Human rat park.
<3333

[violet1]

What's the point of this thread? It's easy to be hard on people who are already on their low-point in life. Nobody who is addicted is it because it's 'all fun and games'. The problem is that some people are mentally-hardwired to be prone to addiction (which includes many artists). Those and many people with 'aquired' mental illnesses like PTSD (for example rape victims and veterans) take drugs to self-medicate (often because society doesn't care about them) and end up heavily addicted. Instead of pointing at people for being 'weak', society should offer therapy and rehabilitation.

[Dannii]

What's the point of this thread? It's easy to be hard on people who are already on their low-point in life. Nobody who is addicted is it because it's 'all fun and games'. The problem is that some people are mentally-hardwired to be prone to addiction (which includes many artists). Those and many people with 'aquired' mental illnesses like PTSD (for example rape victims and veterans) take drugs to self-medicate (often because society doesn't care about them) and end up heavily addicted. Instead of pointing at people for being 'weak', society should offer therapy and rehabilitation.
It's still their choice to take drugs, just like i choose NOT to take drugs. My friend has mental health issues and she hasn't turned to drugs.

[ash_is_the_gal]

It's still their choice to take drugs, just like i choose NOT to take drugs. My friend has mental health issues and she hasn't turned to drugs.this doesn't prove anything, except that your friend doesn't have substance abuse problems. it doesn't explain why others in similar situations do.

[ash_is_the_gal]

everyone needs to watch that video d_chatterley posted. it's really informative and good.

[Dannii]

It's still their choice to take drugs, just like i choose NOT to take drugs. My friend has mental health issues and she hasn't turned to drugs.this doesn't prove anything, except that your friend doesn't have substance abuse problems. it doesn't explain why others in similar situations do.
It's still their own choice to take drugs, we could all turn to drugs when times are hard, but i don't.

[ash_is_the_gal]

do you really think it's as simple as all that, though?

[Dannii]

do you really think it's as simple as all that, though?
Yes i do. I've been through more than most at my age. Not once did i think of doing drugs.

[Sedai]

What's the point of this thread? It's easy to be hard on people who are already on their low-point in life. Nobody who is addicted is it because it's 'all fun and games'. The problem is that some people are mentally-hardwired to be prone to addiction (which includes many artists). Those and many people with 'aquired' mental illnesses like PTSD (for example rape victims and veterans) take drugs to self-medicate (often because society doesn't care about them) and end up heavily addicted. Instead of pointing at people for being 'weak', society should offer therapy and rehabilitation.

So, people that make healthy and correct choices in their lives should shoulder the burdens of people who make poor choices?

No thanks. I would rather contribute to educating them to make better choices. :)

[ash_is_the_gal]

Yes i do. I've been through more than most at my age. Not once did i think of doing drugs.

you keep talking about yourself when you talk about drug addiction but this isn't about you. you obviously aren't a drug addict, you can't relate to how it is for them, because believe it or not, not everyone is the same. the fact that you think it's as simple as 'just don't do drugs' proves that

[Dannii]

Yes i do. I've been through more than most at my age. Not once did i think of doing drugs.

you keep talking about yourself when you talk about drug addiction but this isn't about you. you obviously aren't a drug addict, you can't relate to how it is for them, because believe it or not, not everyone is the same. the fact that you think it's as simple as 'just don't do drugs' proves that
You're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine.

[ash_is_the_gal]

You're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine.

that should go without saying

[Dannii]

You're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine.

that should go without saying
Are you a drug user?

[Yoda]

you keep talking about yourself when you talk about drug addiction but this isn't about you. you obviously aren't a drug addict, you can't relate to how it is for them, because believe it or not, not everyone is the same. the fact that you think it's as simple as 'just don't do drugs' proves that
Are you guys talking about the same thing? It sounds like you're talking about drug addicts, and she's talking about the initial decisions to take drugs that lead to addiction.

[Dannii]

You're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine.

that should go without saying
Are you a drug user?
If you're not a drug user then it's not about you either. It's all about lifestyle choices, i choose a hard working lifestyle,with no drugs or alcohol.

[violet1]

So, people that make healthy and correct choices in their lives should shoulder the burdens of people who make poor choices?

No thanks. I would rather contribute to educating them to make better choices. :)

Purely from the cost-side, the prison system and the direct and indirect costs of crime are much higher than any treatment program.

[ash_is_the_gal]

If you're not a drug user then it's not about you either. It's all about lifestyle choices, i choose a hard working lifestyle,with no drugs or alcohol.

no, i'm not, but i'm not the one saying 'these people need to be more like me.'

[ash_is_the_gal]

Are you guys talking about the same thing? It sounds like you're talking about drug addicts, and she's talking about the initial decisions to take drugs that lead to addiction.

i assumed she was talking about that, and people who 'fall off the wagon' or whatevs

[ash_is_the_gal]

Are you a drug user?

i smoke weed, if that counts

[Dannii]

If you're not a drug user then it's not about you either. It's all about lifestyle choices, i choose a hard working lifestyle,with no drugs or alcohol.

no, i'm not, but i'm not the one saying 'these people need to be more like me.'
I didn't say that! Are you qualified to assess the state of a drug users mind? I'm not, and i should imagine you're not either, but i'm more likely to deal with druggys on a professional basis so i'm not debating this anymore.

[ash_is_the_gal]

lol, alrighty then.

#WeCantAllBeMinnieMouse

[Dannii]

you keep talking about yourself when you talk about drug addiction but this isn't about you. you obviously aren't a drug addict, you can't relate to how it is for them, because believe it or not, not everyone is the same. the fact that you think it's as simple as 'just don't do drugs' proves that
Are you guys talking about the same thing? It sounds like you're talking about drug addicts, and she's talking about the initial decisions to take drugs that lead to addiction.
I think our wires got crossed somewhere, but i won't debate with anyone who misquotes me.

[jal90]

If you're not a drug user then it's not about you either. It's all about lifestyle choices, i choose a hard working lifestyle,with no drugs or alcohol.
I don't know what kind of implications do you intend to express with this but it didn't sound right at all. If only drug addiction could be solved or avoided with hard work.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I think our wires got crossed somewhere, but i won't debate with anyone who misquotes me.

well, i wasn't literally saying you said the part i put in quotes, i was saying you said that, like, indirectly. i put it in quotes, and i realize that was kinda confusing. sorry about that.

[False Writer]

Even though I might make people mad by saying this, I completely agree with the OP.

Unless someone forced you to put the needle in your arm, you became an addict of your own free will. It wasn't a disease you caught, it was a choice you made.

Yeah yeah the whole "people are at their lowest when they do it" may be true on some accounts, but I've personally seen people become addicts just because of peer-pressure and fitting in. They just wanted to look "cool" in front of strangers for one night and they along with their families pay for that decision for years afterwards.

I sure as hell have had many low points in my life but I never turned to hard drugs, sure I tried weed just like everyone else but even I quickly turned away from that. I barely even drink alcohol, I have a beer or wine once every few months on special occasions.

I don't view drug addicts as "victims" I feel that the real victims are the people that are robbed and even killed by junkies in the streets looking for money for their next fix. Drug addicts hurt themselves but they hurt others and their families even more.

That being said though, I do believe every addict deserves help if they seek it, everyone deserves a second chance. I won't however give them a pity party and say "Oh you poor thing" when it was really their fault they were even in that position.

[Slappydavis]

Since this is popping up again, I still haven't been taken up on my question in my earlier post (I edited the area around it a bit for length, so if something seems weird you can check the context in the linked post):


Can anyone provide me with a medical definition of disease that excludes addiction or substance dependence?

The best (or at least most interesting to me) example would be a medical society (of any sort) that both has a definition and they additionally exclude addiction as a disease. Not that I don't love you fine people, but their definition would probably have a lot of history behind it that I could dive into to understand their reasoning. But I'd even be interested in a definition of disease that you make up on the fly that excludes addiction if you can't find one.

Here's some examples of what I mean:

Definition of addiction used by American Medical Association and American Society of Addiction Medicine (https://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction)

Definition of dependence syndrome used by World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/)


I see a few people linking choice to disease again, and I think that's a dangerous line of thinking.

You can argue that people with diseases don't automatically deserve sympathy. Being a victim isn't part of these definitions of disease. I'm curious what an alternative would look like, truly. I'm interested in what a definition of disease that has that sort of choice-contingency would even look like.

If you think that you are using "disease" in a more casual way, then what is the casual definition?

I won't even demand you defend it. I might ask you questions and you're free to respond or not respond. I really want to know though.

[Captain Steel]

Since this is popping up again, I still haven't been taken up on my question in my earlier post (I edited the area around it a bit for length, so if something seems weird you can check the context in the linked post):



I see a few people linking choice to disease again, and I think that's a dangerous line of thinking.

You can argue that people with diseases don't automatically deserve sympathy. Being a victim isn't part of these definitions of disease. I'm curious what an alternative would look like, truly. I'm interested in what a definition of disease that has that sort of choice-contingency would even look like.

If you think that you are using "disease" in a more casual way, then what is the casual definition?

I won't even demand you defend it. I might ask you questions and you're free to respond or not respond. I really want to know though.

In the most general sense disease can be any dis-ease.

We don't need a medical definition that excludes addiction & substance abuse because substance abuse is its own category and is self explanatory. It's not an infection, a virus, an invasion by a bacteria, communicable biologic transference, randomly occurring biological degradation, organ malfunction or mutagenic cell dysfunction.

There are certainly links between the two - substance addictions can lead to disease symptoms and major diseases such as cirrhosis in alcoholics or emphysema in smokers. The thing is you can develop these diseases without ever taking the drugs (that's why they are diseases) but you can't "develop" alcoholism or drug addiction without ever taking the drugs.

[seanc]

Heart disease can be brought on by bad eating habits. Diabetes the same. Lung cancer is most common in smokers. Do you guys consider these diseases since they began with a choice?

[MovieMeditation]

Can I please just get this out - drug addiction is NOT A DISEASE!
No, it's an addiction... I mean, like your own thread title states...

There. Lock thread.

[Captain Steel]

Heart disease can be brought on by bad eating habits. Diabetes the same. Lung cancer is most common in smokers. Do you guys consider these diseases since they began with a choice?

Yes, they are diseases. We know of certain foods, toxins and behaviors that increase the odds of bringing these diseases on and vice versa - ways of best trying to prevent them.

BUT you can still get any of these diseases ANYWAY, and in those cases the cause is unknown (it could be genetic, something you or your ancestors were inadvertently exposed to, pollution, GMO's, a specific body allergy, blood oxidization from a lifetime of exercise, bad karma, an act of God, or just random chance). Conversely, there are those few who defy the odds - who engage in a lifetime of poor health choices and die of old age.

The key is you can't just develop a substance abuse addiction without first abusing the substance (unless you were made addicted in utero or someone forced drugs into your system).

[Slappydavis]

Heart disease can be brought on by bad eating habits. Diabetes the same. Lung cancer is most common in smokers. Do you guys consider these diseases since they began with a choice?

Agreed, and not only that, but this actually goes into a larger point too; something that has choice contingencies and is being framed as a disease can still be used as a deterrent.

For example:

"You shouldn't smoke, you are risking Lung Cancer"

"You shouldn't take heroin, you are risking Addiction"

We don't have to approve of addiction just because it's a disease.

[Captain Steel]

No one who's never had alcohol ever leaves a doctor's office having been told, "I'm sorry, but it seems you've got alcoholism."

Yet many people with perfectly healthy diets have been told "I'm sorry, but it seems you've got diabetes." Many people who've never smoked are told, "I'm sorry, but you have lung cancer."

"Needing" nicotine is an addiction. Developing lung cancer is a disease (smoking ups the odds considerably, but anyone can get it).
No one who's never smoked feels they "need" nicotine - it is an addiction. Lung cancer is one disease that may derive directly from an addiction, but may develop regardless.

[Slappydavis]

No one who's never had alcohol ever leaves a doctor's office having been told, "I'm sorry, but it seems you've got alcoholism."
Yet many people with perfectly healthy diets have been told "I'm sorry, but it seems you've got diabetes." Many people who've never smoked are told, "I'm sorry, but you have lung cancer."

"Needing" nicotine is an addiction. Developing lung cancer is a disease (smoking ups the odds considerably, but anyone can get it).
No one who's never smoked feels they "need" nicotine - it is an addiction. Lung cancer is one disease that may derive directly from an addiction, but may develop regardless.
Define. Disease.

Give me ANY definition you like, but just define it.

I'm fine with the Merriam-Webster one I offered up before:

A condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms.

I'm also fine with the one on Wikipedia:

A disease is a particular abnormal condition, a disorder of a structure or function, that affects part or all of an organism.

Debate whichever one you want, I'll back up either one.

What is your definition?

The reason I'm pressing here is that your definition seems to continually shift.

Again, I'm fine if it's a personal definition that you prefer to the others mentioned, but it feels like punching fog until there's actually some sort of structure.

[seanc]

Captain Steel I often agree with the overall sentiment of your arguments. However you get hung up on the, what are to me, insignificant details that I think end up narrowing your view point. Both with the terrorism debate and here it feels like you are saying if we simply define these things in the way you suggest that these problems would go away. Maybe I am totally off base saying that but, at least on Mofo, your hang up about proper wording causes you not to have any meaningful debate. There has been no talk on the last few pages about how to solve our drug addiction problem. Just chatter on how to define it.

[Citizen Rules]

.. There has been no talk on the last few pages about how to solve our drug addiction problem. Just chatter on how to define it. Is this a solution, or a wrong step?
Seattle to let heroin addicts shoot up in first-ever government ‘supervised injection facility’

News Story Link (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/26/seattle-to-let-heroin-addicts-shoot-up-in-first-ever-government-supervised-injection-facility/)
(http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/26/seattle-to-let-heroin-addicts-shoot-up-in-first-ever-government-supervised-injection-facility/)

[seanc]

Is this a solution, or a wrong step?
Seattle to let heroin addicts shoot up in first-ever government ‘supervised injection facility’

News Story Link (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/26/seattle-to-let-heroin-addicts-shoot-up-in-first-ever-government-supervised-injection-facility/)
(http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/26/seattle-to-let-heroin-addicts-shoot-up-in-first-ever-government-supervised-injection-facility/)

Wrong step but probably still more productive then telling people, "you're not sick, you're just an a$$hole".

[Captain Steel]

Captain Steel I often agree with the overall sentiment of your arguments. However you get hung up on the, what are to me, insignificant details that I think end up narrowing your view point. Both with the terrorism debate and here it feels like you are saying if we simply define these things in the way you suggest that these problems would go away. Maybe I am totally off base saying that but, at least on Mofo, your hang up about proper wording causes you not to have any meaningful debate. There has been no talk on the last few pages about how to solve our drug addiction problem. Just chatter on how to define it.

I never said nor suggested the problems will go away.

I'm addressing the topic, (I didn't see where this thread was about how to deal with drug addiction) and the debate is whether drug addiction is a "disease," meaning it is classified as a biologic disease disorder and can be approached with medicine, diet, boosting the immune system, altering the chemical makeup of the blood or operation of the organs, surgery, or with radical approaches that target the source of disease for destruction.

I am a drug addict - it is an addiction, it is not a disease.

The problem (for those who haven't seen that specific episode of South Park) ;) ... is that by defining addiction as a disease, society and the medical community assign an inaccurate "out" or approach for addicts RATHER than looking for the few (and not always guaranteed) ways that can actually help some people overcome addiction.

Just as going to a group meeting isn't going to send cancer into remission (it might help, but probably only psychologically), treating a drug addiction like a disease isn't going to get an addict into recovery.

[Captain Steel]

Some interesting points:
http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-articles/how-and-why-addiction-is-not-a-disease-a-neuroscientist-challenges-traditional-views/

[False Writer]

Heart disease can be brought on by bad eating habits. Diabetes the same. Lung cancer is most common in smokers. Do you guys consider these diseases since they began with a choice?

No those are just bad habits that lead to the disease. Like Captain Steel said even people who don't eat bad or smoke can still get those diseases. No one can be a drug addict without first taking the drugs.

[violet1]

Is this a solution, or a wrong step?
Seattle to let heroin addicts shoot up in first-ever government ‘supervised injection facility’

News Story Link
(http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/26/seattle-to-let-heroin-addicts-shoot-up-in-first-ever-government-supervised-injection-facility/)

It's the best thing they can do. It has worked well in Portugal, among other European countries.

Quoting the WHO: Society as a whole benefits from substitution maintenance therapy through reductions in the incidence of criminal behaviour,reduced health and criminal justice system costs, reduced risks of transmission of HIV and other bloodborne viruses, and increased productivity. There is a strong case for investing in opioid substitution maintenance therapy, as the savings resulting from treating an individual far exceed the costs.

who.int/hiv/pub/idu/position_paper_substitution_opioid/en/

[seanc]

No those are just bad habits that lead to the disease. Like Captain Steel said even people who don't eat bad or smoke can still get those diseases. No one can be a drug addict without first taking the drugs.

And people who don't use drugs can become physically addicted to things. It is just t hast you don't care about my coffee addiction because my kidney stones won't be the drain on you that my heroin addiction would be.

I don't want to come across as not caring about personal responsibility. I just think we need to be careful when we start talking about withholding help from people who obviously need it. In short, our fallen condition is a disease.

There but for the grace of God go I.

[ash_is_the_gal]

poor Slappydavis, everyone keeps ignoring his arguments.

[seanc]

poor Slappydavis, everyone keeps ignoring his arguments.

:D He's too good at debating. If I disagreed with him I would probably ignore him too. ;)

[Captain Steel]

And people who don't use drugs can become physically addicted to things. It is just t hast you don't care about my coffee addiction because my kidney stones won't be the drain on you that my heroin addiction would be.

I don't want to come across as not caring about personal responsibility. I just think we need to be careful when we start talking about withholding help from people who obviously need it. In short, our fallen condition is a disease.

There but for the grace of God go I.

You make a good point, Sean.

Caffeine addiction is a perfect example - it's an addiction, it's not a disease. It operates exactly like nicotine, cocaine or heroin addiction (although perhaps at different levels based on the potency of the drug).

The reason no one makes a big deal over caffeine addiction is that the health risks are undetermined (in fact, one of its delivery systems: coffee, is said to have newly discovered health benefits!), it is not a "mind altering" drug that negatively effects one's physical or mental abilities, users remain functional while taking, and there is no question of legality. Yet caffeine is a highly addictive substance.

The same people who call alcoholism or heroin addiction "diseases" would scoff at calling a daily need for coffee a disease despite the week's worth of headaches, fatigue and depression a user might experience from the withdrawals of quitting coffee cold turkey.

[seanc]

You make a good point, Sean.

Caffeine addiction is a perfect example - it's an addiction, it's not a disease. It operates exactly like nicotine, cocaine or heroin addiction (although perhaps at different levels based on the potency of the drug).

The reason no one makes a big deal over caffeine addiction is that the health risks are undetermined (in fact, one of its delivery systems: coffee, is said to have newly discovered health benefits!), it is not a "mind altering" drug that negatively effects one's physical or mental abilities, users remain functional while taking, and there is no question of legality. Yet caffeine is a highly addictive substance.

The same people who call alcoholism or heroin addiction "diseases" would scoff at calling a daily need for coffee a disease despite the week's worth of headaches, fatigue and depression a user might experience from the withdrawals of quitting coffee cold turkey.

I am not sure they would scoff at it. Treatment would just be much much different. Opiates and cannabis have health benefits as well. Would you consider codine a gateway drug?

[mattiasflgrtll6]

I'm butting in late, but I really hate the condencending tone the OP has. Whether drug addiction is a disease or not, looking down on those who become addicts to the point where you barely treat them like human beings is just horrible. If you overcome your addiction you definitely deserve respect and support, since it's far from the easiest thing to do.

[ash_is_the_gal]

The same people who call alcoholism or heroin addiction "diseases" would scoff at calling a daily need for coffee a disease despite the week's worth of headaches, fatigue and depression a user might experience from the withdrawals of quitting coffee cold turkey.
except people aren't calling the drug itself a disease. they're calling addiction disease.

people with extreme addictive personalities are automatically going to be drawn to those extreme drugs that give them the best, euphoric highs, or the ones that make them completely disassociate from everything going on around them. people who drink coffee could very well have addictive personalities, too, but obviously coffee addicts aren't as extreme as heroine addicts.

EDIT: just wanted to make a point to say that i'm pretty sure i have an addictive personality. on the spectrum, i'm probably moderate. i don't take life destroying drugs, but weed is important to me (i'm well aware smoking weed is habit forming, even if thc itself isn't addictive). i also have an addictive relationship with food, i have to be careful about what i buy and when because i'll eat 2 bags of chips and a stack of cookies in one sitting if i'm not careful. this is kinda what i'm talking about when i say that coffee addicts, like food addicts, still have an addictive personality, but it's obviously not as extreme.

[Captain Steel]

I am not sure they would scoff at it. Treatment would just be much much different. Opiates and cannabis have health benefits as well. Would you consider codine a gateway drug?

Any drug that makes you feel good could be a gateway drug.

My earlier point (using coffee) was that few people would call addiction to caffeine a "disease," yet many people want to call addiction to alcohol & other drugs a "disease." An addiction (whether it's to caffeine or heroin) is an addiction - it works on the same metabolic brain functions. Either all addictions are diseases (- and then that takes us into the area of habits, compulsions, fetishes and other realms of psychology which are not necessarily considered biology based diseases) or they are simply addictions.

Why do people think they can pick and choose their semantics & classifications regarding the same thing?

P.S. "Oh, you have diabetes? I know exactly how you feel because I too have a disease. I have the disease of caffeine addiction. Like you, I must take my "medicine" everyday. As you need insulin, I need coffee. Unlike you, I won't die without my medicine, but my disease means that I'll feel really bad for a while if I don't get my several cups of coffee a day. I know... living with disease is horrible. ;)

[Captain Steel]

except people aren't calling the drug itself a disease. they're calling addiction disease.

people with addictive personalities are automatically going to be drawn to those extreme drugs that give them the best, euphoric highs, or the ones that make them completely disassociate from everything going on around them. people who drink coffee could very well have addictive personalities, too, but obviously coffee addicts aren't as extreme as heroine addicts.

EDIT: just wanted to make a point to say that i'm pretty sure i have an addictive personality. on the spectrum, i'm probably moderate. i don't take life destroying drugs, but weed is important to me (i'm well aware smoking weed is habit forming, even if thc itself isn't addictive). i also have an addictive relationship with food, i have to be careful about what i buy and when because i'll eat 2 bags of chips and a stack of cookies in one sitting if i'm not careful. this is kinda what i'm talking about when i say that coffee addicts, like food addicts, still have an addictive personality, but it's obviously not as extreme.

I agree with most of what you say (and suffer from some of the same).

But I daren't say that my addictive personality and overeating are a disease.

The thing is, both of these can be controlled with things like education, therapy, step-programs, religious practice, group support and even ultimately though willpower and self-discipline - all mental things that put power and self-control back into the hands of the addict.

That is why addiction is not a disease in the medical sense - the same cannot be done for medical illnesses.

A psychiatrist can't help someone discipline themselves to overcome diabetes, a step group can't help someone put cancer into remission.

[Yoda]

There's an interesting potential response to Slappydavis' request for a definition: it's a disease if you can't conquer it through resolve or willpower alone.

[ash_is_the_gal]

The thing is, both of these can be controlled with things like education, therapy, step-programs, religious practice, group support and even ultimately though willpower and self-discipline - all mental things that put power and self-control back into the hands of the addict.

That is why addiction is not a disease in the medical sense - the same cannot be done for medical illnesses.

A psychiatrist can't help someone discipline themselves to overcome diabetes, a step group can't help someone put cancer into remission.i'm not really sure why that means it's not a disease. i've never seen it written in any definition that a disease is something that can only be treated in a "certain" way.

[Captain Steel]

There's an interesting potential response to Slappydavis' request for a definition: it's a disease if you can't conquer it through resolve or willpower alone.

I may be shooting myself in the foot here regarding my argument, but I do believe there is the POTENTIAL that these things could greatly alter the course of medical disease or even prevent it - and that we all potentially have the power to live to be 900 years-old (like the little guy in your avatar). But that's getting into the realm of mysticism & metaphysics, for which I have little evidence beyond speculative references. ;)

[Slappydavis]

There's an interesting potential response to @Slappydavis (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=86075)' request for a definition: it's a disease if you can't conquer it through resolve or willpower alone.

I think that needs elaboration still, right? (I can conquer a hot dog through tremendous willpower, but most hot dogs aren't diseases)

Or did you mean that as a part of a definition?

I'm not sure it works as a criteria anyway, I can "conquer" the flu if I just wait it out, right? Though it's totally possible you aren't including the flu as a disease, and it depends on what you mean by "conquer" and "alone". And there are people who have weak immune systems and would die without treatment. (but then it seems like it'd be a disease for some people and not others, which while not necessarily untrue, seems very departed from how I currently understand the idea of disease)

I appreciate a reply on this in any case. And I'm cognizant that you said "potential response", so I recognize you're looking for a discussion and not that you're demanding this IS the definition.

[Captain Steel]

i'm not really sure why that means it's not a disease. i've never seen it written in any definition that a disease is something that can only be treated in a "certain" way.

Well, because we've made common-sense delineations of terms.

If addiction is a disease and half the population is addicted to caffeine, then they all have a disease. No one's going to the doctor over their caffeine addiction since it doesn't have the life-altering effects of other addictions, yet any doctor will tell you that the brain function of addiction is the same (of lesser or greater intensities) when dealing with any addictive substance that closes brain synapses. So we've made separate terms for actual diseases that are not addictions and addictions themselves (since addiction is a very specific type of problem).

They are all biological problems - but addictions can only be "healed" (overcome, recovered from, etc.) with the mind. Ultimately, it is the only known way they can be overcome. While diseases require something more - medical treatment: drug intervention, nutritional changes, surgeries, chemical or radiation treatments, or even time.

Time does "cure" some diseases (we don't know how), but it only cures addictions if a sufficient amount of it is spent without the addictive substances. There is no amount of time that will help an addiction while the substance is still being taken.

[Citizen Rules]

I don't know if we're equating: drug addiction = disease as a need to have more sympathy for drug addicts...or if we're just debating the vernacular usage.

My opinion is this: all people deserve sympathy and help, even if they make stupid decisions like shooting up heroin.

On the other hand let's not lose insight that hard drugs are crap, are illegal, cause countless burglaries and property crimes by addicts stealing to get enough money for their daily fix. Not to mention the appalling number of gang murders which in part is over drug turf battles.

I sometimes think we've lost the ability to hold the individual responsible for their own actions.

[Yoda]

I think that needs elaboration still, right? (I can conquer a hot dog through tremendous willpower, but most hot dogs aren't diseases)
I don't follow what you mean here. But I feel confident in the position that hot dogs are not diseases.

OR SANDWICHES.

I'm not sure it works as a criteria anyway, I can "conquer" the flu if I just wait it out, right?Though it's totally possible you aren't including the flu as a disease, and it depends on what you mean by "conquer" and "alone". And there are people who have weak immune systems and would die without treatment. (but then it seems like it'd be a disease for some people and not others, which while not necessarily untrue, seems very departed from how I currently understand the idea of disease)
Right, the key is in "conquer" and "alone." No matter how dedicated someone is to not wanting to have leukemia, that dedication, by itself, will not cure them. But it is technically possible for any given addict to stop using. However hard it may be, we cannot see anything literally stopping them.

On the flip side, you'd say something was a disease if they could theoretically be perfectly willing to take any action to stop it, and that willingness alone would not be sufficient to rid them of it.

I appreciate a reply on this in any case. And I'm cognizant that you said "potential response", so I recognize you're looking for a discussion and not that you're demanding this IS the definition.
Correct, though at first blush it feels like a pretty workable definition, with a little sanding around the edges. So I invite criticisms/questions to see how it holds up.

[Captain Steel]

I don't know if we're equating: drug addiction = disease as a need to have more sympathy for drug addicts...or if we're just debating the vernacular usage.

My opinion is this: all people deserve sympathy and help, even if they make stupid decisions like shooting up heroin.

On the other hand let's not lose insight that hard drugs are crap, are illegal, cause countless burglaries and property crimes by addicts stealing to get enough money for their daily fix. Not to mention the appalling number of gang murders which in part is over drug turf battles.

I sometimes think we've lost the ability to hold the individual responsible for their own actions.

I'm simply debating the vernacular (and I agree on sympathy).

But I'm debating it for good reason - classifying addiction as a disease is an instant "out" for addicts to say (like someone with stage 4 cancer) that they are beyond doing anything about it other than rely completely on divine intervention.

When in reality, their decision to take control, to decide to get help, to act, and do something about it is the ONLY way they will get into recovery. Since they now have been told they are "diseased" (which means none of their choices are their fault and their condition is beyond any personal ability to change or control) they might as well resign themselves to the fact, go home, rest and take some medicine (i.e. their drug of choice)... after all, they have a "disease."

It's an inaccurate and bad approach to drug addiction because it lets the addict "off the hook" - when the only thing that's really going to help them is realizing that they are on the hook and the only help they are going to receive will begin when they make the decision to get some.

[False Writer]

And people who don't use drugs can become physically addicted to things. It is just t hast you don't care about my coffee addiction because my kidney stones won't be the drain on you that my heroin addiction would be.

I don't want to come across as not caring about personal responsibility. I just think we need to be careful when we start talking about withholding help from people who obviously need it. In short, our fallen condition is a disease.

There but for the grace of God go I.

I don't care about coffee addicts because they don't go around robbing and killing people like drug addicts do.

I said it myself in my first post in this thread that anyone should receive help if they seek it, but the need to treat them like a victim is something I disagree with.

poor @Slappydavis (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=86075), everyone keeps ignoring his arguments.

What's his argument exactly?

[Dani8]

I don't care about coffee addicts because they don't go around robbing and killing people like drug addicts do.

I could quite easily murder someone when I go cold turkey with caffeine, but I certainly dont feel like a victim because I have an addictive personality, and no one has ever treated me as one, the same as no one treated me like a victim when I had cancer, and I wouldnt have it any other way. :shrug:

[False Writer]

I could quite easily murder someone when I go cold turkey with caffeine, but I certainly dont feel like a victim because I have an addictive personality, and no one has ever treated me as one, the same as no one treated me like a victim when I had cancer, and I wouldnt have it any other way. :shrug:

How many times have you heard of someone killing people because they have caffeine withdrawal? While literally hundreds of thousands of people have been killed because of cocaine and heroin and other hard drugs (maybe not just by using them, but when you count drug deals gone bad, gang violence, cartels, drug busts etc.)

Glad to hear you were able to beat cancer btw.

[Dani8]

How many times have you heard of someone killing people because they have caffeine withdrawal?.

I've never heard it, but the point I was making is I get very bad withdrawals, and I'm down to one cup a day. A couple of cold turkey attempts were so horrifically painfu;l I'd put it right up there with cerebral malaria/ Hand me a gun and I'd fire it, I;m sure.

And thanks. Me too. :up:

I just dont understand the angst in the thread about calling an addictive personality a disease. It's certainly not 'ease' to be addicted to something, and I certainly dont think it excuses the behaviour which some people think. It also does not invalidate the severity of disease like cancer to my way of thinking, so being told in this very thread I should be offended that addiction was being compared to cancer which it was not, and that I should have felt like I was a victim for having the big C was so condescending and macho comacho ludicrous.

[Slappydavis]

I don't follow what you mean here. But I feel confident in the position that hot dogs are not diseases.

OR SANDWICHES.
Ignore the hot dog part, it's a joke that got away from me and didn't translate from idea to words.

My point is that there isn't anything about negative symptoms or anything "bad" or really anything about. Which I guess I hadn't considered really because it seemed really necessary for negative implications to be involved. I can't conquer the the love that parents have for their children through willpower alone. I can't conquer Ohio through willpower alone.

Right, the key is in "conquer" and "alone." No matter how dedicated someone is to not wanting to have leukemia, that dedication, by itself, will not cure them. But it is technically possible for any given addict to stop using. However hard it may be, we cannot see anything literally stopping them.

On the flip side, you'd say something was a disease if they could theoretically be perfectly willing to take any action to stop it, and that willingness alone would not be sufficient to rid them of it.


So

1) Is influenza a disease to someone that CAN get rid of it through willpower alone?

2) If so, is disease relative under this definition? E.g. if some can deal with it via willpower alone and others can't, is it a disease to the second group and not the first? (I'm not trying to trap you here, I don't think I'm outright opposed to "disease" being relative)

I feel like I understand the direction you're going in by the way. The thought I had with it being a criteria was basically slapping it on the end of a previous definition, such as:

A condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms which cannot be conquered by willpower alone.

In any case, the clause you're talking about, regardless if it is sufficient or just necessary, is what I was looking for someone to add in anyway. So I'm not all that concerned with whether or not it's a full definition as long as it's "part" of it.

(Note: I'm going to be switching from a direct reply to Yoda to a larger reply to the thread here)

The inclusion of willpower if what I was looking for because it codifies that in many people's mind, addiction is the result of a character deficiency. I think that aspect is so strong that a lot of people arguing in that way might not even disagree with me before context. And I think that is so, so dangerous.

Quick model. If you believe that addiction occurs out of a character deficiency, then people that believe they are NOT character deficient cannot fall prey to addiction. This is a trope at this point, the "I'm not addicted, I can stop at any time" because admitting they CAN'T stop is saying they lack virtue within this mode of thinking.

I also can't help but notice the many, many times within this thread that there has been outright condescension toward addicts, and how much better they are than these people. I believe that stems from viewing addiction as a character flaw as well. So I'm not sure how much of that attitude is drawn from actual concern for addicts and hope for their recovery rather than using them as an easy target for feelings of superiority.

I'm also not sure that superiority is warranted. I'll say that I could have ended up an addict were it not for my easy, easy life.

Here's a quote from Yoda, where he correctly calls me out on likely misunderstanding what "powerless" means in the context of AA.

I think it's more about the necessity of a support system, IE: powerless to stop on our own, through sheer force of willpower, without changing the kinds of things that led to it in the first place, for example.

(Note: This is paraphrasing AA's ideas, so I'm not alleging self-contradiction)

There was also a video that was posted earlier that is actually compelling in a lot of regards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg
While
1) I think it overreaches when it tries to tie in a bit of utopian design to solve addiction. And

2) I do believe that addiction is not purely the failure of society's design (which the video doesn't state either, but just want to make it clear that I'm not absolving the individual's choices)

I do think that the video is right to challenge the substance-oriented view of addiction. And has some good points.

Gotta stop here for now.

[Slappydavis]

That being said though, I do believe every addict deserves help if they seek it, everyone deserves a second chance. I won't however give them a pity party and say "Oh you poor thing" when it was really their fault they were even in that position.

Real quick, I agree that it's not the place of rehabilitation to throw a "pity party" for people. But I do think that in general, I'd reverse part of this.

I think that the first step of getting people with addictions help is the part that is the most needed for society to provide. After those initial stages, if the person still refuses to follow the path, then yeah, it's not society's place to force the person all the way through to the bitter end. The individual has to have a little buy-in, or it won't work IMO.

But, that initial stage is the important part, and the part that it seems an addict would be the most blind to/need most assistance with.

In short, offer help, offer kindness, challenge delusions it isn't an addiction. But don't pursue with help/kindness perpetually, if only to divert those resources to others that will respond better.

[Slappydavis]

Also just want to make clear that my beliefs are rooted more in cost effectiveness not being a good person. I'm selfish.

[Citizen Rules]

I'm simply debating the vernacular (and I agree on sympathy).

But I'm debating it for good reason - classifying addiction as a disease is an instant "out" for addicts to say (like someone with stage 4 cancer) that they are beyond doing anything about it other than rely completely on divine intervention.

When in reality, their decision to take control, to decide to get help, to act, and do something about it is the ONLY way they will get into recovery. Since they now have been told they are "diseased" (which means none of their choices are their fault and their condition is beyond any personal ability to change or control) they might as well resign themselves to the fact, go home, rest and take some medicine (i.e. their drug of choice)... after all, they have a "disease."

It's an inaccurate and bad approach to drug addiction because it lets the addict "off the hook" - when the only thing that's really going to help them is realizing that they are on the hook and the only help they are going to receive will begin when they make the decision to get some.
I wasn't criticizing you, or anyone actually. Just blogging.

In fact I can see your point: if drug addiction is classified as a disease, it sort of removes person responsibility for the decision to quit drugs.

And so if someone has an addiction disease that then suggest they aren't responsible for their own actions (because they are acting from a disease, and not out of free will)....even though they are breaking the law by using hard drugs, it's not really their fault.

And that's how society has been going, we don't hold people or even institutions (like the banking crisis) responsible for their actions. Remember it 'takes a village' to raise a child;) when a few generations ago it took parents (gasp!)

[Dani8]

And so if someone has an addiction disease that then suggest they aren't responsible for their own actions (because they are acting from a disease, and not out of free will)....even though they are breaking the law by using hard drugs, it's not really their fault.

Does AA suggest substance abusers are not responsible? I've never heard this, and I certainly dont feel that way. I've only ever heard one person say she couldnt help her addiction and it wasnt fair people looked down upon her and made her a pariah - she was a smoker who simply didnt like having to smoke outside.

If even one addict can say 'I have a monkey on my back but there is help available to get the bastard off' just by thinking they have 'a disease' then to my way of thinking that is not a bad thing. Disease comes in many shapes and sizes.

[seanc]

I'm simply debating the vernacular (and I agree on sympathy).

But I'm debating it for good reason - classifying addiction as a disease is an instant "out" for addicts to say (like someone with stage 4 cancer) that they are beyond doing anything about it other than rely completely on divine intervention.

When in reality, their decision to take control, to decide to get help, to act, and do something about it is the ONLY way they will get into recovery. Since they now have been told they are "diseased" (which means none of their choices are their fault and their condition is beyond any personal ability to change or control) they might as well resign themselves to the fact, go home, rest and take some medicine (i.e. their drug of choice)... after all, they have a "disease."

It's an inaccurate and bad approach to drug addiction because it lets the addict "off the hook" - when the only thing that's really going to help them is realizing that they are on the hook and the only help they are going to receive will begin when they make the decision to get some.

This is where you and I have a huge disconnect on these types of issues. I agree 100% that the only way a drug addict kicks their addiction is by deciding to take control and get help. I couldn't disagree more that drug addict are using the word disease as a get out of personal responsibility card. I simply have never seen that, like ever. Again if you are applying that to drug addiction you have many other diseases you have to apply the same rules to. I won't rehash them because I feel icky when I keep bringing up, but you know what I am talking about.

Your over arcing argument seems to be something can't be labeled a disease if they make choices that lead to it. I don't see that being true in any definition and I don't see you applying the logic to any other diseases.

[Citizen Rules]

...If even one addict can say 'I have a monkey on my back but there is help available to get the bastard off' just by thinking they have 'a disease' then to my way of thinking that is not a bad thing... I think there should be all kinds of help available for drug addicts, I never said there shouldn't be.

[Dani8]

I think there should be all kinds of help available for drug addicts, I never said there shouldn't be.

Oh I know you never said that. I was just giving my PoV. Still curious if groups like AA tell addicts they're not responsible, though?

My caffeine addiction started when I was a kid. One of my brothers was a bit of a mischief troll and made me a coffee one morning, saying I couldnt be a grown up unless I had one every day. Do I hold him responsible for my addiction? No - entirely my fault for wanting to grow up too fast. Am I prepared to go cold turkey again? Not at this point in time. I;m not human when I detox. That causes me and my husband way too much stress which at this point in time is far more detrimental than one cup of stuff I dont even enjoy drinking each day. I lose my eyesight when I go cold turkey, get rigors that match malaria, and have a jackhammer on my brain. Only lasts a day but that's enough to make me want to kill someone.

[etai]

never thought of it like that.
always called them sick, but you are right.

[Captain Steel]

Oh I know you never said that. I was just giving my PoV. Still curious if groups like AA tell addicts they're not responsible, though?

My caffeine addiction started when I was a kid. One of my brothers was a bit of a mischief troll and made me a coffee one morning, saying I couldnt be a grown up unless I had one every day. Do I hold him responsible for my addiction? No - entirely my fault for wanting to grow up too fast. Am I prepared to go cold turkey again? Not at this point in time. I;m not human when I detox. That causes me and my husband way too much stress which at this point in time is far more detrimental than one cup of stuff I dont even enjoy drinking each day. I lose my eyesight when I go cold turkey, get rigors that match malaria, and have a jackhammer on my brain. Only lasts a day but that's enough to make me want to kill someone.

You're a caffeine addict too, Dani?
Ah, I know what that disease is like. I have the same disease.

I "caught" my disease at a young age by drinking coffee when I started working in a restaurant at age 16. Who knew the restaurant was "contaminated" with the infectious viral caffeine contained in coffee and that so many people would become diseased from it?

Yes, my choice to continue drinking coffee was my responsibility, but it doesn't change the fact that by some unlucky hand of fate I contracted the disease of addiction. I've had the disease ever since. It must have been a contagious disease that I caught from the other coffee drinkers. Maybe one of them spread it to me through transference of bodily fluids?

The disease must have metastasized because I'm now addicted to other things - that's just the nature of the disease - the addiction disease "spreads" through the brain & body.

[Dani8]

Sarcasm noted.

[Captain Steel]

Sarcasm noted.

Thank you!

Coincidently, my girlfriend at that same restaurant gave me mononucleosis. Now that's a disease (usually short lived and non-fatal, but a contagious virus nonetheless that can knock you on your butt for a few weeks). :)

[jal90]

I seriously don't get this mindset.

You don't pity people who are in clear trouble and suffering because they made bad decisions? O... kay? What kind of moral high ground is this? Keeping the «you are at fault, you deserve it» narrative when things are beyond their control is something I am finding hard to tolerate, and mentioning drug addiction as if it was a voluntary choice and not a condition people can't easily get rid of when shown is surreal. People may become addict as a consequence of their acts, but they don't become addict by choice. Too much original sin stuff in this thread for me to handle.

[Captain Steel]

I seriously don't get this mindset.

You don't pity people who are in clear trouble and suffering because they made bad decisions? O... kay? What kind of moral high ground is this? Keeping the «you are at fault, you deserve it» narrative when things are beyond their control is something I am finding hard to tolerate, and mentioning drug addiction as if it was a voluntary choice and not a condition people can't easily get rid of when shown is surreal. People may become addict as a consequence of their acts, but they don't become addict by choice. Too much original sin stuff in this thread for me to handle.

Not sure if you're addressing anyone in particular or just making a general statement, jal.

But I am a drug addict. I've lived with alcoholics. No one has more compassion for addicts than I do.

But the reality is that treating addiction like a disease is almost a form of enabling - in essence it tells the addict "accept your condition, go rest, take some medicine, with any luck you may someday recover" (the somewhat "traditional" approach to formerly terminal diseases).

The approach of coming to terms with terminal disease almost describes the lifestyle of hard core addicts (rest as much as possible, take "medicine," don't exert yourself, try to enjoy what time you have left). It's not an approach that can help most addicts because they don't need "medical" treatment since they don't have a disease, they need psychological and behavioral help.

The only thing that's been shown to help addicts recover is a proactive approach of psychologically-based programs (such as therapy, group support, step-programs, etc.)

Facing the reality that calling addictions "diseases" will not get someone into recovery does not connote a lack of compassion, empathy or pity.

[Citizen Rules]

I seriously don't get this mindset.

You don't pity people who are in clear trouble and suffering because they made bad decisions? O... kay? What kind of moral high ground is this? Keeping the «you are at fault, you deserve it» narrative when things are beyond their control is something I am finding hard to tolerate, and mentioning drug addiction as if it was a voluntary choice and not a condition people can't easily get rid of when shown is surreal. People may become addict as a consequence of their acts, but they don't become addict by choice. Too much original sin stuff in this thread for me to handle. I think people are reading way too much into other people's post. Call me dumb but I didn't see anyone say, 'drug addicts deserve to suffer and die'. I didn't see anyone saying we shouldn't try to help them get off drugs.

There seems to be a reverse-mind set that if someone says: 'a heroin addict has an addiction not a disease', then someone else comes along and reads into that statement that it means 'to hell with them, let them suffer'.

I'm dumbfounded by all this. Does it really matter if we say addiction or disease? I mean call the PC police already.

Now if we start talking specifics about what should be done with drug addiction and somebody says 'nothing let them die', then OK you can complain then. But just because I feel alcoholism/drug addiction, is an addiction, that doesn't mean I say screw them. :rolleyes:

BTW, I don't believe anyone is addicted to caffeine. It's habit forming, like chocolate, but to call it an addiction is a disservice to those who are battling real additions to drugs, alcohol and nicotine. Anyone can quit drinking coffee with a little more than a couple days of dull headaches and general tiredness.

[Dani8]

I think people are reading way too much into other people's post. Call me dumb but I didn't see anyone say, 'drug addicts deserve to suffer and die'. I didn't see anyone saying we shouldn't try to help them get off drugs.

There seems to be a reverse-mind set that if someone says: 'a heroin addict has an addiction not a disease', then someone else comes along and reads into that statement that it means 'to hell with them, let them suffer'.

I'm dumbfounded by all this. Does it really matter if we say addiction or disease? I mean call the PC police already.

Now if we start talking specifics about what should be done with drug addiction and somebody says 'nothing let them die', then OK you can complain then. But just because I feel alcoholism/drug addiction, is an addiction, that doesn't mean I say screw them. :rolleyes:

BTW, I don't believe anyone is addicted to caffeine. It's habit forming, like chocolate, but to call it an addiction is a disservice to those who are battling real additions to drugs, alcohol and nicotine. Anyone can quit drinking coffee with a little more than a couple days of dull headaches and general tiredness.

The OP said it.

And addiction is addiction. No one said it was a competition.

[Captain Steel]

Hear, hear Citizen Rules.

I agree entirely with everything you said... except the last paragraph (there's always SOME problem with me, isn't there?)

Caffeine is a drug that stimulates the central nervous system and is an addictive substance as it raises the dopamine production in the brain. This is the operative function of most "feel good" drugs and the nature of what makes them physically addictive.
Granted, caffeine is far less potent than other addictive drugs and is therefore far less dangerous with lesser degrees of withdrawal symptoms.

For more:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/454154-does-caffeine-affect-dopamine-levels/

[Citizen Rules]

Hear, hear @Citizen Rules (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=84637).

I agree entirely with everything you said... except the last paragraph (there's always SOME problem with me, isn't there?)

Caffeine is a drug that stimulates the central nervous system and is an addictive substance as it raises the dopamine production in the brain. This is the operative function of most "feel good" drugs and the nature of what makes them physically addictive.
Granted, caffeine is far less potent than other addictive drugs and is therefore far less dangerous with lesser degrees of withdrawal symptoms.

For more:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/454154-does-caffeine-affect-dopamine-levels/ Did you know that in pure crystalline form caffeine can be fatal?

I agree caffeine is a drug, it has all the properties to classify it as a drug. But no one is really addicted to coffee, not in the true sense of the word. I guarantee that you could quit drinking all caffeine tomorrow and you will have no problems quitting (outside of a few days of headaches and tiredness).

I know I've quit caffeine cold turkey many times, just as an experiment. Now we can say yes but it's still addictive to a lesser degree, but then that's like saying addiction is a disease. It's all semantics.

[Captain Steel]

Since we're talking about addictive substances - this is just an interesting aside:

Nicotine is listed as one of the top 5 most addictive substances (right up there with heroin and cocaine), yet the most lethal problem surrounding nicotine addiction has to do mostly with the delivery system - the cigarette.

The carcinogenic toxins produced by inhaling burning tobacco can cause all kinds of illnesses and conditions that can kill a user long before any adverse effects of long-term nicotine ingestion.

If a person were to drink nicotine as people consume caffeine in coffee, it probably wouldn't have any worse effects than chronic coffee drinking (except users might drink a lot more coffee than those simply addicted to caffeine).

In fact, one of the common treatments for quitting cigarette smoking is nicotine delivered in other forms because the drug is comparatively harmless when compared to the health dangers of smoking.

[seanc]

Not sure if you're addressing anyone in particular or just making a general statement, jal.

But I am a drug addict. I've lived with alcoholics. No one has more compassion for addicts than I do.

But the reality is that treating addiction like a disease is almost a form of enabling - in essence it tells the addict "accept your condition, go rest, take some medicine, with any luck you may someday recover" (the somewhat "traditional" approach to formerly terminal diseases).

The approach of coming to terms with terminal disease almost describes the lifestyle of hard core addicts (rest as much as possible, take "medicine," don't exert yourself, try to enjoy what time you have left). It's not an approach that can help most addicts because they don't need "medical" treatment since they don't have a disease, they need psychological and behavioral help.

The only thing that's been shown to help addicts recover is a proactive approach of psychologically-based programs (such as therapy, group support, step-programs, etc.)

Facing the reality that calling addictions "diseases" will not get someone into recovery does not connote a lack of compassion, empathy or pity.


Again, lots of diseases and medical conditions are treated with hard work and lifestyle changes. I don't think there is a professional anywhere telling drug addicts to lay down and hope it gets better. Really, your arguments become beyond frustrating. Frankly I think you use the way people frame problems as a placebo for why we are so messed up. As if our wording of things will change the world. There are people who have made trying to fix these problems their life work and you think their job would becoome easier by changing their vocabulary. It's insulting and very reminiscent of the way a president you hate talked down to conservatives about terrorism. Just change your wording, change people's minds. Orwell talked a lot about this.

I think I am done with this discussion.

[Captain Steel]

Again, lots of diseases and medical conditions are treated with hard work and lifestyle changes. I don't think there is a professional anywhere telling drug addicts to lay down and hope it gets better. Really, your arguments become beyond frustrating. Frankly I think you use the way people frame problems as a placebo for why we are so messed up. As if our wording of things will change the world. There are people who have made trying to fix these problems their life work and you think their job would becoome easier by changing their vocabulary. It's insulting and very reminiscent of the way a president you hate talked down to conservatives about terrorism. Just change your wording, change people's minds. Orwell talked a lot about this.

I think I am done with this discussion.

Language is important and speaking accurately about things is important - it does alter perception, which alters attitudes, which changes how people act.

Perhaps this article will shed some light on the topic:
http://nypost.com/2015/07/12/addiction-is-not-a-disease-and-were-treating-drug-and-alcohol-addicts-wrong/

Excerpt:
Are we quibbling over mere word choice, though — synaptic semantics?

No, because how we see addiction is critical to how we treat it. Lewis isn’t suggesting telling addicts, “It’s all in your head. Get over it.” But he views the mushrooming of rehab centers with unease: If these businesses actually succeeded in “curing” everybody, they’d have to shut down. Calling addiction a disease is meant in part to emphasize the seriousness of being in thrall to drugs or alcohol, to elevate it to the level of a noble battle with cancer.

To reject the disease label is not to demote addiction, nor is it to diminish sympathy for the addict’s plight.

“The severe consequences of addiction,” writes Lewis, “don’t make it a disease, any more than the severe consequences of violence make violence a disease, or the severe consequences of racism make racism a disease, or the folly of loving thy neighbor’s wife makes infidelity a disease. What they make it is a very bad habit.”

[ynwtf]

I think there is a bit of word massaging here!
Captain Steel
It seems as though your arguments are suggesting the possibility of some cause and effect relationship, but you then argue those possibilities (yours alone, not all possibilities available to you) as the de facto standard.

"But the reality is that treating addiction like a disease is almost a form of enabling - in essence it tells the addict "accept your condition, go rest, take some medicine, with any luck you may someday recover" (the somewhat "traditional" approach to formerly terminal diseases)."

Defining addiction as a disease then suggests some alternate perception (that one is not at fault for their own addiction on some level)... a perception that could be applied, or it could also not be applied; however, with how strongly you seem to argue your points, it appears as though you have already decided what that perception will be as a matter of fact (based on what I gather by the implications of your comments) rather than of perception (as the words you use seem to suggest), whether influenced by fact or simple anecdotal accounts and opinion.

That approach is odd to me. Also, by a definition I may have misread then I believe brain cancer and heart disease are not diseases because they are not contagious.

As someone else noted, punching fog.

This post isn't really for the topic. Just arguing for the hell of it. It was actually fun typing this for some warped reason. =\



=D

[seanc]

To reject the disease label is not to demote addiction, nor is it to diminish sympathy for the addict’s plight.

And to accept the disease label doesn't diminish the personal responsibility that is required to overcome addiction.

Words are very important but that doesn't mean that a lot of these arguments don't come down to semantics. The two you have decided to take up your cross for absolutely do. You won't change one addict or terrorists mind if you get your way. I won't say not one...maybe one...probably not though.

Thanks for enlightening me. You can continue if you want but I have to be done.

[Captain Steel]

And to accept the disease label doesn't diminish the personal responsibility that is required to overcome addiction.

Words are very important but that doesn't mean that a lot of these arguments don't come down to semantics. The two you have decided to take up your cross for absolutely do. You won't change one addict or terrorists mind if you get your way. I won't say not one...maybe one...probably not though.

Thanks for enlightening me. You can continue if you want but I have to be done.

I'm not trying to get my way, I'm just into truth and accuracy rather than trying to make people feel better about their problems by using inaccurate descriptors that do not aid them, but which tell them they are powerless over their state because they've come down with a disease over which they have no personal control.

The article goes on to say that by changing the label a message is being sent (both to those suffering with addiction and those seeking to help them) - and it's the wrong message, it's an inaccurate message and that's the point I was making in my post that is being so criticized.

Teaching addicts that they have a disease sends the message that they are beyond the only thing known to bring about recovery - and that is ultimately their own psychology (influenced, aided or changed by support systems - be it a therapist, mentor, sponsor, religious group, support group or step program).

A person's own will and decision is the only thing that gets them to seek or accept help - without that first step, they most likely are beyond hope. Their own psychology is what keeps them in treatment which can ultimately lead to recovery. But there is no medicine, antibiotic or chemo-therapy that leads them to accept support and change their brains - in reality that is done on their own.

It is semantics, but it is semantics that delivers a subconscious inaccurate message (especially when espoused by experts and slowly ingrained into the societal consciousness) that may not be influencing the best kind of thinking necessary to expedite change.

[ash_is_the_gal]

ugh. this conversation is just dumb. Captain Steel, i don't have the willpower to go over all your posts about this with a fine tooth comb, but basically, this whole thing boils to your own perception - what you assume addicts do when they are told it's a disease, and why. from what you're saying, i don't see a single source of evidence to back up this claim that telling someone with substance abuse problems they have a disease is somehow worse for their recovery - it seems to be your own worry, based on... i don't know? you haven't said.

earlier this year i was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, which is also a disease. i'm basically addicted to needing/wanting to have something to be worried about. i have to say that when i received the diagnosis, i was relieved to finally have a label to slap on the shet i go through. it really didn't occur to me before this year that what i was experiencing were anxiety attacks. i just thought i got easily stressed, because that's all i was ever told my whole life. once i started working through some of these feelings and understanding how my brain/mind works, i was able to finally recognize my own personal triggers (the things that make me have anxiety attacks, big or small), and how to prevent them or remove myself from situations where this happens.

according to you, i should have heard that i had a disorder and then went home and said to Matt "sorry darlin, i've got this disease, and i can't help it. so you're just gonna have to deal with all my baggage, because i can't do anything about it."

funnily enough, i didn't do that.

i'd really like to know why you think this happens. because what i'm saying, what seanc is saying, is that's not what happens. if there are mental health colleagues out there telling people they can't do anything about their addictions because it's a disease, that'd be wrong and crappy, but that isn't what happens.

[Captain Steel]

ugh. this conversation is just dumb. Captain Steel, i don't have the willpower to go over all your posts about this with a fine tooth comb, but basically, this whole thing boils to your own perception - what you assume addicts do when they are told it's a disease, and why. from what you're saying, i don't see a single source of evidence to back up this claim that telling someone with substance abuse problems they have a disease is somehow worse for their recovery - it seems to be your own worry, based on... i don't know? you haven't said.

earlier this year i was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, which is also a disease. i'm basically addicted to needing/wanting to have something to be worried about. i have to say that when i received the diagnosis, i was relieved to finally have a label to slap on the shet i go through. it really didn't occur to me before this year that what i was experiencing were anxiety attacks. i just thought i got easily stressed, because that's all i was ever told my whole life. once i started working through some of these feelings and understanding how my brain/mind works, i was able to finally recognize my own personal triggers (the things that make me have anxiety attacks, big or small), and how to prevent them or remove myself from situations where this happens.

according to you, i should have heard that i had a disorder and then went home and said to Matt "sorry darlin, i've got this disease, and i can't help it. so you're just gonna have to deal with all my baggage, because i can't do anything about it."

funnily enough, i didn't do that.

i'd really like to know why you think this happens. because what i'm saying, what seanc is saying, is that's not what happens. if there are mental health colleagues out there telling people they can't do anything about their addictions because it's a disease, that'd be wrong and crappy, but that isn't what happens.

I had a feeling that mental disorders and their classification would come up sooner or later, and I don't have an answer (as to if they should be classified as disease) since the realm is so vast, and the spectrum is so large, so interconnected and so complicated.

It kind of draws back to the caffeine points (on the spectrum of addiction): addiction is a "disease", but not addiction to caffeine because caffeine addiction isn't really bad. So addiction to strong psycho-active chemicals is a "disease," but addiction to mild psycho-active chemicals is just a habit.

My problem is I'm scientific - if addiction to psycho-active substances works on the same principles in the brain, and addiction is a disease, then all addictions are diseases.

To address your point - no I'm not saying all addicts say, "I have a disease, so now I'll just go to bed and take more drugs." What I'm saying is that calling it a disease provides a suggestion that addiction is the same as cancer and can or should be approached in similar ways. But few people go to doctors anymore for drug addiction because it's been found that the medical approach to addictions doesn't yield desired results - so even the medical community refers addicts to psychological approaches (therapies, group support, step programs, etc.)

Now psychological approaches may help people with actual diseases (like diabetes or cancer) cope on an emotional level, but they aren't treatments for the diseases themselves.
Whereas with addiction, a psychological approach is the only known one that works - why?
because addiction is not a disease. Treating it like one is ineffectual and calling it one is pointless.

So why would anyone try to classify it as a disease? As the articles I've referenced point out - because there is money to be made by perpetuating it that way.

[False Writer]

Real quick, I agree that it's not the place of rehabilitation to throw a "pity party" for people. But I do think that in general, I'd reverse part of this.

I think that the first step of getting people with addictions help is the part that is the most needed for society to provide. After those initial stages, if the person still refuses to follow the path, then yeah, it's not society's place to force the person all the way through to the bitter end. The individual has to have a little buy-in, or it won't work IMO.

But, that initial stage is the important part, and the part that it seems an addict would be the most blind to/need most assistance with.

In short, offer help, offer kindness, challenge delusions it isn't an addiction. But don't pursue with help/kindness perpetually, if only to divert those resources to others that will respond better.

Agreed for the most part, but it should be their family and/or friends that offer that kindness, not strangers.

I seriously don't get this mindset.

You don't pity people who are in clear trouble and suffering because they made bad decisions? O... kay? What kind of moral high ground is this? Keeping the «you are at fault, you deserve it» narrative when things are beyond their control is something I am finding hard to tolerate, and mentioning drug addiction as if it was a voluntary choice and not a condition people can't easily get rid of when shown is surreal. People may become addict as a consequence of their acts, but they don't become addict by choice. Too much original sin stuff in this thread for me to handle.

Like I said in my first post, I've literally seen people become addicts just to look cool and fit in with some strange crowd. They were well aware what the consequences were gonna be but didn't care. I wouldn't call that "beyond their control" they actually had complete control over it.

Call me heartless but I didn't throw them a pity party when, surprise surprise, they became addicts and their lives spiraled out of control.

[jal90]

Not sure if you're addressing anyone in particular or just making a general statement, jal.

But I am a drug addict. I've lived with alcoholics. No one has more compassion for addicts than I do.

But the reality is that treating addiction like a disease is almost a form of enabling - in essence it tells the addict "accept your condition, go rest, take some medicine, with any luck you may someday recover" (the somewhat "traditional" approach to formerly terminal diseases).

The approach of coming to terms with terminal disease almost describes the lifestyle of hard core addicts (rest as much as possible, take "medicine," don't exert yourself, try to enjoy what time you have left). It's not an approach that can help most addicts because they don't need "medical" treatment since they don't have a disease, they need psychological and behavioral help.

The only thing that's been shown to help addicts recover is a proactive approach of psychologically-based programs (such as therapy, group support, step-programs, etc.)

Facing the reality that calling addictions "diseases" will not get someone into recovery does not connote a lack of compassion, empathy or pity.
Okay, I think I understand the problem with this mindset but I don't know if I follow you with the association you are making that seems so clear, specially when we talk about medical strategies, which is what diseases are defined and classified for.

I mean, psychological and behavioral help is treatment, isn't it? I don't understand the issue with calling a process or condition that deteriorates your body, and that needs some sort of treatment, a disease. It doesn't exert from responsibility if that is the matter (a cold is a cold, whether you caught it because you were running in your undies or not), and much less it means "you'll get rid of it eventually" (I don't even know where do you get this association from to be honest). Recognizing addiction as a disease allows to further investigate and establish guidelines. This is not about hiding from reality, it's about being practical and treating addiction as a condiction that follows certain steps that can be traced, is associated with certain physical and psychological effects that must be solved, and has certain options for treatment that can be explored and standardized.

Then again, if talking from the perspective of an addict there is some sort of "relief" at considering their condition a disease, I guess you have a point. But the meaning of the term disease is much wider than that and it does not imply any judgement of value or exertion.

Like I said in my first post, I've literally seen people become addicts just to look cool and fit in with some strange crowd. They were well aware what the consequences were gonna be but didn't care. I wouldn't call that "beyond their control" they actually had complete control over it.

Call me heartless but I didn't throw them a pity party when, surprise surprise, they became addicts and their lives spiraled out of control.
I don't call you heartless. I just personally think it's a bad excuse for not pitying somebody (among other things, because it's categorical), and in the case of the OP, for denying help. Addiction by definition is something that has gone beyond their control, whether you want to keep the blame on them or not is actually the lesser of the concerns and if you want to condemn morally these people and still recognize that they need help to get out of there I'm perfectly fine.

[Captain Steel]

Okay, I think I understand the problem with this mindset but I don't know if I follow you with the association you are making that seems so clear, specially when we talk about medical strategies, which is what diseases are defined and classified for.

I mean, psychological and behavioral help is treatment, isn't it? I don't understand the issue with calling a process or condition that deteriorates your body, and that needs some sort of treatment, a disease. It doesn't exert from responsibility if that is the matter (a cold is a cold, whether you caught it because you were running in your undies or not), and much less it means "you'll get rid of it eventually" (I don't even know where do you get this association from to be honest). Recognizing addiction as a disease allows to further investigate and establish guidelines. This is not about hiding from reality, it's about being practical and treating addiction as a condiction that follows certain steps that can be traced, is associated with certain physical and psychological effects that must be solved, and has certain options for treatment that can be explored and standardized.

Then again, if talking from the perspective of an addict there is some sort of "relief" at considering their condition a disease, I guess you have a point. But the meaning of the term disease is much wider than that and it does not imply any judgement of value or exertion.

Some good points there.

Certainly psychological help is treatment - it's just not necessarily medical treatment (unless you are seeing a doctor or psychiatrist who is also treating you for medical issues and / or with medicine).

I don't think anyone is saying that by not calling it "disease" we should not study addiction & try to find the best solutions, just that the same medical model for researching cancer or other diseases might not be applicable to addiction. Not sure how classifying addiction as disease allows us to investigate it more (unless the classification provides some sort of funding for more research?)

[False Writer]

I don't call you heartless. I just personally think it's a bad excuse for not pitying somebody (among other things, because it's categorical), and in the case of the OP, for denying help. Addiction by definition is something that has gone beyond their control, whether you want to keep the blame on them or not is actually the lesser of the concerns and if you want to condemn morally these people and still recognize that they need help to get out of there I'm perfectly fine.

Well at the end of my first post I also said that anyone who seeks help should get it, because everyone deserves a second chance. My main point is, like the OP said, so many people treat them as "victims" when in the end it was their choice that they were in that position—and that's what I'm mainly against (barring if there is a really understandable excuse that they got addicted, not just "they wanted to look cool")

But yeah, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I DON'T THINK THAT ADDICTS SHOULD SUFFER, THEY SHOULD GET HELP IF THEY WANT IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS VICTIMS UNLESS THERE WAS A REAL GOOD REASON THAT THEY GOT IN THAT SITUATION.

There, I think I made it clear enough. ;)

[jal90]

Some good points there.

Certainly psychological help is treatment - it's just not necessarily medical treatment (unless you are seeing a doctor or psychiatrist who is also treating you for medical issues and / or with medicine).

I don't think anyone is saying that by not calling it "disease" we should not study addiction & try to find the best solutions, just that the same medical model for researching cancer or other diseases might not be applicable to addiction. Not sure how classifying addiction as disease allows us to investigate it more (unless the classification provides some sort of funding for more research?)
I would assume that it encourages the medical approach, which is necessary in the end for this. The point is trying to standardize addiction as something that can be explored and treated. And I think considering it a disease would help rather than damage.