Reply to Topic
Sarcasm noted.
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).
Can I please just get this out - drug addiction is NOT A DISEASE!
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).
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Captain Steel; 07-19-17 at 10:52 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
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.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
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.
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.
And addiction is addiction. No one said it was a competition.
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/45...pamine-levels/
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/45...pamine-levels/
X
Favorite Movies
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/45...pamine-levels/
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/45...pamine-levels/
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.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
__________________
Letterboxd
Letterboxd
X
Favorite Movies
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.
I think I am done with this discussion.
Perhaps this article will shed some light on the topic:
http://nypost.com/2015/07/12/addicti...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.”
X
Favorite Movies
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
@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
X
Favorite Movies
To reject the disease label is not to demote addiction, nor is it to diminish sympathy for the addict’s plight.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Captain Steel; 07-20-17 at 01:36 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
__________________
letterboxd
letterboxd
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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.
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.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
X
User Lists
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.
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.
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.
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.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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.
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.
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?)
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
X
User Lists
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?)
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?)
X
Favorite Movies
X