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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

Please doctor, is there any cure?

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.

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!

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!)

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

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'm insulted

No not really. Your posts are hilarious fun.

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.

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?

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?