Do You Believe Addiction is a Disease, Or... [POLL!]

[MynameisnotDeja]

There is no such thing as a soul, spirit, or whatever supernatural bullshit you want to throw around.

Newsflash. Many people on this earth have a spirituality, and just because YOU don't believe in something doesn't make it unreal for other people. No point in debating someone who thinks having a soul is "supernatural bullshit". We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Enlitx]

Newsflash. Many people on this earth have a spirituality, and just because YOU don't believe in something doesn't make it unreal for other people. No point in debating someone who thinks having a soul is "supernatural bullshit". We will just have to agree to disagree.

You want to believe in a soul, fine. For the purpose of this thread, you need to define what a soul is. More importantly, you need to define how this "soul" can interact with the brain to change the way physics dictates neuronal behavior. Otherwise, I could say leprechauns from mars let you make choices so addiction isn't a disease. You have mountains of empirical evidence against you, I am afraid you will need a little more than the claim of a soul to have any validity in denying addiction as a disease.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I see what you are saying. It's hard for me to explain myself because you are obviously very scientifically minded and are talking about the actual definitions, etc. I don't know the actual definition of a "disease" and I'm sure you are right that addiction could be classified as such.

My opinion is from a completely different place, as I'm a philosophical/spiritual minded person more than scientific. I believe the term "disease" implies something that takes away a persons power. And I would even go as far as to say this for physical ailments too. My problem is with the mental attachment most people have to the term "disease", not whether or not addictions technically fit the definition.

Most people hear "disease" and think of a scary, strong force which takes over the body and mind and I think giving addiction, depression, even physical ailments like cancer such power takes power and choice away from the individual.

I've just heard so many times people say "I have addiction. I have a disease. I can't stop." and it just sounds to me like whining, because I'm sorry, I had an addiction and I simply chose to stop because I wanted to. I see people using this label as a way to give up their power and remain weak.

You are right that my opinion doesn't really have to do with whether or not it can technically be called a disease, but this is just my way of seeing things. I'm aware some of my opinions are far from conventional, but I really believe that the way we see things and define things are so important to living a healthy life, and a lot of the attachments society makes to certain terms, words, or viewpoints are not healthy IMO.

Sorry I'm babbling on, but my problem really isn't with the word, but the people who use the word to indicate lack of a choice, when that really isn't the case.

 

[NickyBundles]

^ We all have souls, if people choose not to believe that, thats on them, music brings us closer to our souls, and addiction is once again, learn'd, so girls and guyette's, un learn it and burn that mother fuckin DISEASEEEE right out of your god fearing souls. have a good day, i really mean that, spread the peace, spread the love, and maybe one day we'll have love be the dominant force amongst us opposed to the one right now, that being evil. god speed

 

[Enlitx]

I see what you are saying. It's hard for me to explain myself because you are obviously very scientifically minded and are talking about the actual definitions, etc. I don't know the actual definition of a "disease" and I'm sure you are right that addiction could be classified as such.

My opinion is from a completely different place, as I'm a philosophical/spiritual minded person more than scientific. I believe the term "disease" implies something that takes away a persons power. And I would even go as far as to say this for physical ailments too. My problem is with the mental attachment most people have to the term "disease", not whether or not addictions technically fit the definition.

Most people hear "disease" and think of a scary, strong force which takes over the body and mind and I think giving addiction, depression, even physical ailments like cancer such power takes power and choice away from the individual.

I've just heard so many times people say "I have addiction. I have a disease. I can't stop." and it just sounds to me like whining, because I'm sorry, I had an addiction and I simply chose to stop because I wanted to. I see people using this label as a way to give up their power and remain weak.

You are right that my opinion doesn't really have to do with whether or not it can technically be called a disease, but this is just my way of seeing things. I'm aware some of my opinions are far from conventional, but I really believe that the way we see things and define things are so important to living a healthy life, and a lot of the attachments society makes to certain terms, words, or viewpoints are not healthy IMO.

Sorry I'm babbling on, but my problem really isn't with the word, but the people who use the word to indicate lack of a choice, when that really isn't the case.

I can live with that.

On a side note, I have never understood how people can believe so strongly in something when they can't even define it. Its like believing passionately in the variable x :D .

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Well, I don't know the technical definition, let's see.

Soul- the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life

from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I would define my "soul" as my energy, the part of "me" that will go on after I die and stop being "me". The part of my energy and existence that is composed of an essence beyond the limitations of my ego mind.

I can define soul all I want, but it still won't change your mind if you do not believe in it. Belief in the soul is something faith based, but that's what it means to me.

 

[ATF]

Enlitx seems to be coming from a reductionist perspective, which is very refreshing when dealing with a condition that hasn't been explained thoroughly and scientifically, with an observers unbiased perspective, to most people.

Many feel an innate connection with something inspiring in their lives, and while we can scientifically dissect all of it down to chemically sparked sensations in the brain; to think that (electrons, hormones, chemicals, etc.) is the end-all be-all, that there is no deeper to look, is an arrogance often repeated throughout history (Flat earth, bacteria, etc. no one suspects the spanish inquisition! ) ~

Scientifically, statistically, it would be more logical to believe that we definitely dont have the whole picture as to how this universe works, as we have never had it right in the past. When religion claimed it knew what it was talking about, it was only trying to gain more control, and many do the same with science (mostly the pharmaceutical companies and those who make the profit). They are trying to sell you happiness. Either through the blood of a wise man or through balancing all your chemical reactions.
And happiness is basically what we're all trying to find through all our different habits and beliefs isn't it?

So if someone has figured out how to get a little of that happiness from doing something that looks silly to you, what harm is it? Why not approach it with curiosity (assuming they aren't Mormons or Baptists; they'll approach you ) and see if maybe you could learn something from them?
Or tell em to fuck off. Whatever your pleasure.

I guess im just saying beliefs can help get peoples heads together sometimes, and its not a bad thing. Only bad when they start telling other people they are stupid because they have different beliefs.

But I digress, or something

 

[Enlitx]

Many feel an innate connection with something inspiring in their lives, and while we can scientifically dissect all of it down to chemically sparked sensations in the brain; to think that (electrons, hormones, chemicals, etc.) is the end-all be-all, that there is no deeper to look, is an arrogance often repeated throughout history (Flat earth, bacteria, etc. no one suspects the spanish inquisition! ) ~

I don't want to derail this thread, but I had to respond to this. It is not arrogant to believe in what is empirically verified. When certain parts of your brain are damaged, "you" are damaged corresponding to those parts. When your brain dies, you cease to function. In fact, you can become an entirely different person depending on what happens to your brain. Therefore, it is entirely logical to assume your brain is you. Methinks it is simply an emotional need that people fulfill when they have faith in a soul. People never want to die, this is why religion and a "soul" are such attractive propositions.

Scientifically, statistically, it would be more logical to believe that we definitely dont have the whole picture as to how this universe works, as we have never had it right in the past. When religion claimed it knew what it was talking about, it was only trying to gain more control, and many do the same with science (mostly the pharmaceutical companies and those who make the profit). They are trying to sell you happiness. Either through the blood of a wise man or through balancing all your chemical reactions.
And happiness is basically what we're all trying to find through all our different habits and beliefs isn't it?

We definetely don't have the whole picture. Quantam physics suggests that there is a holographic representation of your brain that has afferent properties. Still, this is only an extension of your neurons, not an entirely different entity that can exist without them, and it is very much dependent on neurons. It will most definetely not exist after your brain doesen't.
And since happiness can be induced directly through the release of monoamines, it is most definetely a "chemical" thing. Just because pharmaceutical companies make a buck off of it doesen't mean its not real.

So if someone has figured out how to get a little of that happiness from doing something that looks silly to you, what harm is it? Why not approach it with curiosity (assuming they aren't Mormons or Baptists; they'll approach you ) and see if maybe you could learn something from them?
Or tell em to fuck off. Whatever your pleasure.

I guess im just saying beliefs can help get peoples heads together sometimes, and its not a bad thing. Only bad when they start telling other people they are stupid because they have different beliefs.

But I digress, or something

Belief has been proven to help people, but ultimately I believe any supernatural viewpoint is determental to a society in the long run, or at least not as fulfilling as the correct stance.

And I have no problem telling people they are stupid for following a tenet because they lack a comprehensive understanding of biology. Isn't that the definition of stupid? Rarely do you find an well versed biologist who would even consider the "soul" as who you are, and that says something.

 

[BumpyJohnson]

addiction in my mind just a repeated behavior pattern.. just as jerking off too much.. hanging out with "Fistina" isn't a disease, is it??....

 

[ATF]

I understand holding that viewpoint, as it is a part of my own. The only thing that ever got me to consider past that, was meeting people who were much happier than myself, who had logical answers to complex emotional questions, and who were completely open to further evolving their own viewpoints, when necessary.
These people were what I would call 'scientists of the mind', and had figured some things out that most people I had ever encountered hadn't.

These particular people were Tibetan Buddhists, and their ideas have been spotlighted recently because of their correlations with quantum physics.
Basically a culture of people devoted to understanding their minds, and thus the world around them, for thousands of years.

Anyway, I could ramble, but basically, no one is going to be able to argue with an empiricist about the validity of their experiences in their own minds. You believe the sum of consciousness and all human experience is in (or in some way essentially connected to) the brain.

What exactly is consciousness and can it be measured?

I would love to believe that someday we will be able to completely control our human experience through whatever technological progresses we accomplish, but I think the more we fine-tune ourselves and the world around us through outer means, that happiness will be increasingly difficult to pin down technologically, if we are even able to progress with our current technology after we run out of oil, plastics, etc.

All this talk is grand, then we're nuked! We're not going to live much longer if we can't figure out how to get along with people with different beliefs.

Ugh, ive got to go clean out my rental car. Im being glared at.
Peace and jeebus and all that to ya!

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

People never want to die, this is why religion and a "soul" are such attractive propositions.

I have no fear of dying. What souls should be afraid of is being born! Life.. now there's a crazy (but awesome) rollercoaster ride! Death seems relatively easy when you compare it to life. lol

 

[maddyboy]

addiction is certainly not a disease, I walked away from 20 years of methadone 3 years ago using nothing more than will power. The disease for life theory was invented by methadone clinics to make $$$$ Seems to only be recognised in the USA as well, interesting considering how many addicts they put in jail.

The disease theory is as valid as saying the devil made me do it.

 

[maddyboy]

Addicts take narcotics to escape from life, chronic pain patients take narcotics so they can participate in life.
-BB

At first maybe, most opiate addicts are trying to feel normal..... so they can participate in life.

The disease theory is also an excuse used by people to justify lack of will power to themselves.

 

[SmokeTrails]

i didnt read this whole thread...

i know for me... if i get anywhere nere painkillers... i will get high... and continue to get high... untill somthing stops me... ether police... rehab... family... somthing like that... i can in no way control it... my thinking gets completely centered around making money and geting high... when im off painkiller for awhile (4 months and longer) i dont really think about them anymore... they are far from my mind... but say i get in a car wreck and i "forget" to tell the doctor im an addict and they shoot me up with somthing... from then on my main focus will switch from whatever i was doing... to making money to get high...

now do i believe there is somthing wrong with my brain? hell yeah i do... i think there is alot more to it then just some moral failing... or being weak willed

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

As a medical student, I have quite a lot of random thoughts on this debate, in no particular order:

What constitutes a 'disease' is a culturally defined phenomenon. If a society or culture deems a certain bodily state in an individual to be detrimental, then at least amongst them, it's a disease.

As a medical student, yes, I'm familiar with the concepts of homeostasis and set points for bodily functions. But for every vital sign or indicator you care to mention, there are plenty of people who appear to function in a healthy fashion with a wild deviation from the norm on that indicator.

I think the only definition of 'disease' that everyone can agree on is a functioning of the body that's problematic to the person's existence. If this is disease, then I don't see how addiction doesn't fit this definition.

I never bought the whole argument of "If one can stop addiction by choosing to, then it's not a disease, since real diseases don't work like that." The way I see it, most cures to most diseases necessarily involve the patient choosing, and actively working toward, ridding himself of the disease. Some diagnosable diseases CAN be overcome simply by waiting them out, with a mental attitude firmly set against doing anything that prolongs or aggravates the symptoms.

In what way does calling addiction a disease exonerate the addict from responsibility for his problem? As I just said, you might not be able to be faulted for catching a disease. But once you've been accurately diagnosed, you most certainly CAN be held responsible for what you choose to do about it. Say I catch a cold, and can't come to work for a day. Not my fault. But if I lie to myself that I'm really perfectly fine (despite ample evidence that I have a cold), and I let it go to the point where it develops into a case of pneumonia that uses up all my sick days, I'd say I bear some culpability for that. Since when does catching a bona-fide disease give someone a ticket to be as helpless and lazy as they want? If I got diagnosed with anything, I'd be scrambling to find a way to fix it, as would most people.

I agree with MyNameIsDeja that for some addictions, willpower alone is all that's needed to stop it. But doesn't that fall under the category of 'doing something about it'? Having the right mental attitude improves the outcome of lots of diseases, as I said before.

Failing to stay sober by one's own willpower alone is not a moral failing -- it's an ineffective treatment. The real moral failing would be stubbornly refusing to go back to the proverbial drawing board, and trying a different sort of treatment.

This is not to say that being hard on onesself isn't a very useful mental tool for some recovering addicts. Some.

I've noticed that this debate is often a thinly-veiled debate about the Twelve Step programs, which annoys the hell out of me. Whether or not the Twelve Step programs are effective or ethical has nothing to do with whether or not addiction is a disease. Proving addiction to be a disease doesn't vindicate the Twelve Step programs in all regards. Proving addiction to not be a disease doesn't discredit the Twelve Step programs in all regards. I really think a lot of the vitriol this debate brings out could be eliminated if not for this unfortunate conflation of issues.

Besides attempts to poke holes in the Twelve Step programs, what IS there to be gained by proving that addiction is not a disease?

My verdict on the Twelve Step programs: an excellent treatment option for some. A mediocre treatment for others. An ineffective and unhelpful one for others. Kind of like the gamut of treatment options for lots of diseases, huh?

If someone gets free from an addiction, and is physically and mentally adapting to life far better then they were on the drug, does it really even matter what you categorize their old addiction as? They've succeeded at something hard and worthwhile, and deserve respect for that.

 

[ATF]

Thank you for that ^ very well thought through!

 

[ayjay]

addiction is certainly not a disease, I walked away from 20 years of methadone 3 years ago using nothing more than will power. The disease for life theory was invented by methadone clinics to make $$$$ Seems to only be recognised in the USA as well, interesting considering how many addicts they put in jail.

The disease theory is as valid as saying the devil made me do it.

Umm - drug dependence is not a willpower issue. Why did it take you 20 years to change? Did you not have enough willpower before? I don't think so - circumstances aligned so that you could act on your desires; a combination of internal and external factors.

The "disease for life" is a 12 step thang - "once an addict always an addict" (sorry MDAO) - nothing to do with methadone and other pharmacotherapies. It's hard to get away from the conflation of 12 step programs into this argument - because without them there would be no argument. Problematic drug use is a health issue - not a legal or moral issue. That's the most important point.

 

[Rexeh]

Not a disease

Addiction is not a disease in most cases IMHO, some drugs seem to affect the brain / neurotransmitters / receptors / whatever in such a way that it requires the drug in order to function. However using a drug a few times will most certainly not cause such changes, making the user responsible for his own actions. Either choose to keep using the drug (thus getting addicted maybe) or stop using.

I have what is called an addictive personality, therefore I have chosen to stay away from needles or methamphetamine / cocaine since I like stims and particularly methylphenidate a lot. I know if I would try certain drugs I have a higher risk of getting addicted to them than the average person has. I have a great interest in most drugs and especially psychedelics but it is still my own choice whether or not I will use something, however most addicts will say that they haven't chosen to be addicted.

I know from personal experience with Benzodiazepines that addiction sometimes happens even when you take breaks every week and are aware of the addiction potential, in my case I suddenly experienced withdrawals while on a break so I didn't choose to be addicted. Why not? Since I needed those medicines in order to function properly and have less social problems.

I think most people who have an addiction whether it is Alcohol or Opiates or Benzodiazepines etc. didn't choose to be addicted yet they had the choice of quitting while they still could. However when you need medicines you don't really have that choice in my experience.

It really is a complicated question since there are a lot of factors involved like addictive personalities, medical problems or simply the need to escape or forget about the issues in your life for a while. I would say that addiction is not a disease since you made the decision to use. However nobody wants to be an addict, just like nobody wants to have a chronic disease but sometimes it just happens: you get meds like Diazepam or OxyContin for a disease you didn't chose for so you can get addicted to those meds and need them while you haven't had the choice.

I voted for "not a disease" since a disease is something that can lead to addiction, but addiction is something people can kick while a disease can be chronic. In some cases addiction is a part of a disease due to medicine use but calling an addiction a disease is a step too far IMHO, they do have a lot in common but I view addiction more as a result from other diseases like despression or chronic pain.

I really find this poll interesting, it was quite hard for me to write down my opinion since my English isn't my first language but my post makes at least some sense I hope.

Peace o/

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Rexeh, as I see it, your core point is this: where is the line between habitual (but non-addictive) use, and addiction? Non-addictive habitual drug use is clearly not a disease, is the underlying assumption.

I'll be interested to take pathology, and learn about the general course of diseases. Every disease has an onset, in which symptoms phase in. Some diseases can have a very long, slow onset. Often a diagnosis can only be made once a key number of hallmark symptoms have been documented.

Can this be applied to addiction too? If so, is any habitual use of a drug definable as part of the onset of addiction, even if the hallmark symptoms of addiction never develop?

Ayjay, I agree that 'disease for life' is isn't quite accurate. However, once the biochemical pathways that result from addiction are triggered for long enough, reactivating them will forever be a cinch. It's like cutting a path in the woods -- you can always choose not to walk on the old path, and to cut new paths to walk on. The old paths will overgrow somewhat, but reestablishing them will never be hard. Thus, the actual disease of addiction can be gotten rid of. But it's easier to 'catch' again once you've caught it once.

There may be established diseases that work like this -- once you've caught it once, you can much more easily catch it again. But I can't think of any, off the top of my head.

 

[Enlitx]

MyDoorsAreOpen, I am a biochemist on his way to graduate school, and I am wondering if your undergrad traning hit on this issue? My physiology professor talked about it at length one day, so perhaps I am biased.

Anyways, I definetely consider it a disease. It is actually very simple. Environmental toxin (drug) affects organ (brain) which leads to destructive physiological behavior (addiction). Not only that, but there is a very defined and predictable course that addiction takes, just like a disease. The brain is a complex organ, so, one would expect a whole range of complex results during the course of a disease. The results of addiction manifests themselves in behavior, not surprisingly considering the limbic system is implicated in all of this.

Again, just because drugs provide a high doesen't mean anything. This is the proverbial Trojan Horse, convincing users to use the substance in the first place. What is really important is what this substance does to you.

I think it is relevant to address the 12 step program. I hate this fucking program, I will never subscribe to its quasi-spiritual line of brainwashing, and I would never suggest anyone else do it either. These people did not come up the idea that addiction is a disease, and I would hate to have people think I support the 12 steps.