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

Tools    





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.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



You ready? You look ready.
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.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



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.





My life isn't written very well.
It's too bad I'm an alcoholic, because I love to drink!

PW, I am also a friend of Bill...
__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?



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
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




My life isn't written very well.
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.



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.
Now I'm just going to give you a brief explanation because I don;t want to write all that out again

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).
__________________
One day you will ask me, what's more important...me or your life. I will answer my life and you will walk away not knowing that you are my life



Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
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 cocaďnum 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 cocaďnum 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 cocaďnum 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.




You can't win an argument just by being right!
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.



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.)



You can't win an argument just by being right!
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.



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).



You can't win an argument just by being right!
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.



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.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
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.



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.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
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.



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.



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.
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.