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

Define. Disease.

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

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

I'm also fine with the one on Wikipedia:

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.

@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.

__________________
Letterboxd

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

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

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.

Some interesting points:
http://www.rehabs.com/pro-talk-artic...itional-views/

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.

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/

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.

poor @Slappydavis, everyone keeps ignoring his arguments.

__________________
letterboxd

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.