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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

But if you're going the Darwinism route, you can't ignore the link between drug addiction and higher intelligence. Yes, the smarter you are the more likely you are to do drugs.

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

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

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

Above all, I must not play at God.

Hippocratic oath. Johns Hopkins.

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

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

Haha

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

a-holes.

__________________
letterboxd

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

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

Mercifully, paramedics don't make decisions like that.

You said darwinism, that's how darwinism works.

Blix did, and you responded with "Haha." Which is exactly what ash described:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.