Addiction is not a disease

S.J.B.

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
6,924
Location
Canada
Addiction is not a disease: A neuroscientist argues that it’s time to change our minds on the roots of substance abuse
Laura Miller
Salon
June 27th, 2015

The mystery of addiction — what it is, what causes it and how to end it — threads through most of our lives. Experts estimate that one in 10 Americans is dependent on alcohol and other drugs, and if we concede that behaviors like gambling, overeating and playing video games can be addictive in similar ways, it’s likely that everyone has a relative or friend who’s hooked on some form of fun to a destructive degree. But what exactly is wrong with them? For several decades now, it’s been a commonplace to say that addicts have a disease. However, the very same scientists who once seemed to back up that claim have begun tearing it down.

Once, addictions were viewed as failures of character and morals, and society responded to drunks and junkies with shaming, scolding and calls for more “will power.” This proved spectacularly ineffective, although, truth be told, most addicts do quit without any form of treatment. Nevertheless, many do not, and in the mid-20th century, the recovery movement, centered around the 12-Step method developed by the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous, became a godsend for those unable to quit drinking or drugging on their own. The approach spread to so-called “behavioral addictions,” like gambling or sex, activities that don’t even involve the ingestion of any kind of mind-altering substance.

Much of the potency of AA comes from its acknowledgement that willpower isn’t enough to beat this devil and that blame, rather than whipping the blamed person into shape, is counterproductive. The first Step requires admitting one’s helplessness in the face of addiction, taking recovery out of the arena of simple self-control and into a realm of transcendence. We’re powerless over the addictive substance, and trust in a Higher Power, and the program itself, to provide us with the strength and strategy to quit. But an important principle of the 12 Steps is that addiction is chronic and likely congenital; you can be sober indefinitely, but you will never be cured. You will always remain an addict, even if you never use again.

The flourishing of the 12-Step movement is one of the reasons why we now routinely describe addiction as a “disease.” To have a disease — instead of, say, a dangerous habit — is to be powerless to do anything except apply the prescribed cure. A person with a disease is unfortunate, rather than foolish or weak or degenerate. Something innate in your body, particularly in your brain, has made you exceptionally susceptible to getting hooked. You always have and always will contain a bomb, the important question is how to avoid setting a match to it. Another factor promoting the disease model is that it has ushered addiction under the aegis of the healthcare industry, whether in the form of an illness whose treatment can be charged to an insurance company or as the focus of profit-making rehab centers.

This conception of addiction as a biological phenomenon seemed to be endorsed over the past 20 years as new technologies have allowed neuroscientists to measure the human brain and its activities in ever more telling detail. Sure enough, the brains of addicts are physically different — sometimes strikingly so — from the brains of average people. But neuroscience giveth and now neuroscience taketh away. The recovery movement and rehab industry (two separate things, although the latter often employs the techniques of the former) have always had their critics, but lately some of the most vocal have been the neuroscientists whose findings once lent them credibility.

Read the full story here.

The disease model of addiction is terribly dangerous for drug users, so I'm always happy to see articles like this one.
 
Dr. Lewis definitely has a sensible theory that's worth further testing and research.

But that's not the real issue on the table here. Reading Laura Miller's article (and then her bio blurb at the bottom) made it very clear to me that the elephant in the room here is atheists' annoyance with God-talk in the recovery industry. Semantic debates over the use of the word "disease" in reference to addiction get so heated, because this word is a proxy, a synecdoche, for the secular left's annoyance with AA & NA.

To many people's chagrin, "disease" is in fact a technically correct word for describing addiction, including Dr. Lewis' model of it. The medical definition of psychiatric disease is a pattern of mentations that causes needless suffering. It's pretty hard to argue that addiction doesn't fit this definition. But as with any disease, there are a multitude of potential approaches to treating it and alleviating the suffering it causes. AA/NA does not have a trademark on the word "disease"; just because you use this word, it does not logically follow that you endorse the 12-step approach to treatment.
 
Dr. Lewis definitely has a sensible theory that's worth further testing and research.

But that's not the real issue on the table here. Reading Laura Miller's article (and then her bio blurb at the bottom) made it very clear to me that the elephant in the room here is atheists' annoyance with God-talk in the recovery industry. Semantic debates over the use of the word "disease" in reference to addiction get so heated, because this word is a proxy, a synecdoche, for the secular left's annoyance with AA & NA.

To many people's chagrin, "disease" is in fact a technically correct word for describing addiction, including Dr. Lewis' model of it. The medical definition of psychiatric disease is a pattern of mentations that causes needless suffering. It's pretty hard to argue that addiction doesn't fit this definition. But as with any disease, there are a multitude of potential approaches to treating it and alleviating the suffering it causes. AA/NA does not have a trademark on the word "disease"; just because you use this word, it does not logically follow that you endorse the 12-step approach to treatment.
Good point. Then again I would be "annoyed" at any treatment with less than a 10 percent success rate.
 
Can you isolate and observe under an electron microscope the causative virus or micro-organism responsible for the 'disease' of addiction? No.

Is the 'disease' of addiction contagious? No.

Have you ever passed a year's worth of AP or college Biology? If so, then you know that addiction is NOT a disease. To state otherwise is laughable and flies in the face of common sense.
 
I hate this debate. I can understand both sides of the argument. It does fit the "disease model".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_model_of_addiction

I recommend watching "Pleasure Unwoven" which is a film made by this doctor named Kevin McCauley in 2009. It presents both sides of the argument, but ultimately goes on to explain recent science on how addiction is like a disease. Here is a link to the trailer and some really good segments from the film that are worth checking out if you have time.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA8F89537FD4C3FD1
 
This entire debate misses the mark imho.

What's a much more useful topic of debate how the concept of "addiction" is akin to a learning disorder, in that its components are learned behaviors. It goes along part and parcel with a discourse on with social identity regarding the significance isolation/stigmatization (by definition to be an addict is to be stigmatized with our cultural associations about what it means to be an "addict" as such) play in keeping the addict identity stagnant and stationary in one's career as opposed to a more fluid part of identity, such as if support were more available and accessible - such as housing for one - that would support one's efforts in movement past or "beyond" the primacy addict identity, or to be identified primarily as an "addict", and accordingly a discussion as to the way in which such supports are not socially in place and conceptualizations as to how they might become a part and not just apart of our society (and its culture).

.02

edit:
I consider it more a drug induced brain injury
exactly! %)

edit #2: check out Creating the American Junkie, Acker (Johns Hopkins) for a lot of insight into why we look at addiction the way we do, why we're having this debate AGAIN ("medicine" and professional culture has already such a debate two or three times since the mid to end of the 19th century), and the irony of how we're looking at addiction again, perhaps in a more nuance way, but largely incorrect way at that. Or if not incorrect recycled, recreated, but not reframed or reimagined in any even approaching radical sense. Part of the important history teaches us is the need for needle exchanges, safe shooting rooms, OTC naloxone, and maintenance program, ideally HAT as opposed to buprenorphine (methadone falls inbetween, closer to buprenorphine than d-m though) and pretty much every other possible Harm Reduction strategy. It's ironic after reading said book that the measures just mentioned are so catastrophically taboo and unconventional given the circumstances and shameful outcomes. The criminalization of users and docs who attempt to proscribe effective maintenance drugs to patients, and it's place as the status qua, is the most ironic thing./rant
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as we begin with the same definition of addiction - and that should include addictions to gambling, viewing porn, overeating, work, and adopting various attitudes, as well as drugs - we can start to discuss whether addiction is like a disease. I think that it is important to remember what addiction encompasses.

The disease model seems to fit pretty well, but I don't think that most people employ the disease model in their thinking, at least not all of its entailments.
Otherwise, it would not make sense to send addicts to jail.
 
Or maladaptive learning phenomenon.

Well said.

The disease model seems to fit pretty well, but I don't think that most people employ the disease model in their thinking, at least not all of its entailments.
Otherwise, it would not make sense to send addicts to jail.

Exactly. This problem has plagued "addiction treatment" or the way we deal with addiction as a society since the earliest days of understand the whole phenomenon as "addiction". That book I mentioned really hashes out this oddity. In very very brief summary, the reason for it is almost entirely political or ideological in original: the product of people wanting a more prominant role and power in American political life, like Anslinger, as well as the urban vice reform movements that came before/with him, which focused on prostitution, gambling, drug use (well with the exception of tobacco and caffeine, later alcohol as well), etc. etc.
 
toothpastedog,

Thank you! It's nice to see someone on the internet with good manners for once.
 
If American society stopped mutilating the genitals of it's baby boys I think we'd see a lot of progress, at least on an overall mental health picture. They REALLY need to stop doing this to little boys. It's disgusting, and is really nothing more than a century+ old atrocity, that IMHO is WORSE than the war on drugs.

The so-called health benefits are a fraud. Women have twice as much chance of a UTI or other venereal diseases, yet we don't circumcise little girls. So why is it being done to boys? Money? Power? More like it. Acceptable? Certainly NOT. Appropriate? Surely you must be a nutjob to think that any form of genital mutilation is appropriate given today in a society where the right to an abortion is more or less taken for granted under the argument that a person has the right over their own body...which once again brings us back to the war on drugs.

I think the whole thing is all about power and money. Someone makes the money, someone has the power. It's as simple as that. And it's very sad.
 
If American society stopped mutilating the genitals of it's baby boys I think we'd see a lot of progress, at least on an overall mental health picture. They REALLY need to stop doing this to little boys. It's disgusting, and is really nothing more than a century+ old atrocity, that IMHO is WORSE than the war on drugs.

The so-called health benefits are a fraud. Women have twice as much chance of a UTI or other venereal diseases, yet we don't circumcise little girls. So why is it being done to boys? Money? Power? More like it. Acceptable? Certainly NOT. Appropriate? Surely you must be a nutjob to think that any form of genital mutilation is appropriate given today in a society where the right to an abortion is more or less taken for granted under the argument that a person has the right over their own body...which once again brings us back to the war on drugs.

I think the whole thing is all about power and money. Someone makes the money, someone has the power. It's as simple as that. And it's very sad.
I think people should have the right to legally put whatever drugs they want into their bodies, even though I have not used anything in years or in some cases a decade or more, and my use is in the past.

I have heard that addiction is a learned behavior, and that in some cases it is like a disease or self-destructive repetitive behavior.
 
I think people should have the right to legally put whatever drugs they want into their bodies, even though I have not used anything in years or in some cases a decade or more, and my use is in the past.

I have heard that addiction is a learned behavior, and that in some cases it is like a disease or self-destructive repetitive behavior.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I think a large part of this addiction problem would stop if the government outlawed genital mutilation so that future generations would know and experience what their bodies were naturally designed to provide them. Here is a good point on this website:

Here we go: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
 
The Jews have been doing it for thousands of years, because they were desert nomads and couldn't rinse off the smegma by taking a bath or shower very easily as a result. Circumcision has also been shown to reduce the risk of catching HIV, however that is not the real reason it is so commonly performed in the U.S. The real reason is that many fathers who are circumcised want their son's dick to resemble theirs and that many parents here in the U.S. are very Christian, and even the new testament states that circumcision is a necessary procedure for salvation, which is of course laughable. And since the Christians basically adopted the Jews' religion verbatim and then added on another God (Jesus) or two (the Holy Spirit), they embrace the Torah's edicts. Circumcision has also, in the past, been promoted as a way of curbing excessive interest in sex by men, as it dulls the physical sensations of pleasure of the glans (head).
 
The Jews have been doing it for thousands of years, because they were desert nomads and couldn't rinse off the smegma by taking a bath or shower very easily as a result. Circumcision has also been shown to reduce the risk of catching HIV, however that is not the real reason it is so commonly performed in the U.S. The real reason is that many fathers who are circumcised want their son's dick to resemble theirs and that many parents here in the U.S. are very Christian, and even the new testament states that circumcision is a necessary procedure for salvation, which is of course laughable. And since the Christians basically adopted the Jews' religion verbatim and then added on another God (Jesus) or two (the Holy Spirit), they embrace the Torah's edicts. Circumcision has also, in the past, been promoted as a way of curbing excessive interest in sex by men, as it dulls the physical sensations of pleasure of the glans (head).

The New Testament does not promote circumcision, and circumcision is not neccessary for someone to be Christian or practice Christianity. I remember reading one part where it says that someone did not need to be cut in order to be Christian or practice Christianity. Greek and Roman men would never have converted to Christianity had circumcision been mandatory.

The whole argument that circumcision reduces risk of catching HIV or infecting others with HIV or other STDs was based on flawed research and junk science, and has been shown to be ineffective, plus there's such a thing as using a condom and having safer sex which is far more effective.

The majority of men in the world are not cut, and they and their sexual partners do not have HIV or have health consequences.
 
Last edited:
Top