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

[ayjay]

^I think that what you are saying is that the constellation of behaviours and biochemical changes that occur with problematic dependent drug use are analagous to a disease - but is that the same as being a disease?

 

[toastedpanda]

I'm not sure about "disease or not", but you always have a choice to get high or not. I see it as a responsability issue, not something you can be "cured" of.

And to the poster who said the main attraction of religion is the prospect of an afterlife, I disagree. For me its about living a happy and fruitful life with Gods grace. Don't worry though, I'm not a Jesus nut/fanboy.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Entlix, I haven't gotten that far in physiology yet, and haven't taken pharmacology at all. But I can see how addiction as a disease, and most certainly a somatic dysfunction, can be medically supported.

Has anyone not at all affiliated with AA/NA done a survey that correlates successful long-term addictive drug cessation with entertaining the notion that addiction is a disease? A series of positives on studies like these would clear this matter up once and for all.

 

[ayjay]

^ really? Even if you could demonstrate that believing addiction was a disease increases the chance of long-term abstinence, that would in no way demonstrate that addiction (whatever that is) is a disease. In no way..

And tp - people choose to take drugs - but rarely do they choose to become addicted. 2 entirely different things, no?

 

[eon_blue]

And tp - people choose to take drugs - but rarely do they choose to become addicted. 2 entirely different things, no?

I agree, which is why you have a dichotomy amongst drug users; the recreational ones, who can put something down when enough is enough, and the addicts...who continue to use despite everything in life telling them that they're going to end up in jail, rehab, or die if they continue. And they still do.

 

[ayjay]

^I would see it as more of a continuum than a dichotomy. Especially for those who have chosen to be a life long drug user (such as myself, tbh) - the amount of control we have over our use of various substances fluctuates over time, but generally increases with experience and reflection.

 

[maddyboy]

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.

I wanted to use heroin, when I got married and my children were born I had no room for it my life anymore, so I stopped......simple. I always knew I could stop when I wanted to and I did, easy

If its recognised by the medical community as a disease why is illegal for a normal doctor in the USA to treat this disease with any drug at his disposal??

Try using the disease theory in court as a defense.

Again certainly NOT a disease.

 

[eon_blue]

Try using the disease theory in court as a defense.

That would be easy, considering it's recognized by the American Medical Association, whose opinion I'm going to take much more seriously than that of an addict living in denial (as would any jury in court), as a bona-fide disease.

Congrats by the way on being able to stop, but your case only proves that not everyone who uses heroin becomes a true addict. Just because you were able to do it doesn't void the hellish experiences of the users who find it literally impossible to do what you did.

 

[qwe]

an addiction does not necessarily impair your normal functioning (eg, taking opiates every day makes me more productive etc)

according to the definition of disease, normal functioning must be impaired in order for something to be a disease

 

[Enlitx]

an addiction does not necessarily impair your normal functioning (eg, taking opiates every day makes me more productive etc)

according to the definition of disease, normal functioning must be impaired in order for something to be a disease

Normally, one would need no narcotic or chemical beyond food, water, and oxygen to function at a reasonable level daily. Addiction causes one to need narcotics to function just as a diabetic needs insulin to function. The difference between addiction and recreational use is that a recreational user can take an oxy and become more productive, and return to normal the next day. An addict must have that oxy the next day or fall well below normal.

 

[ayjay]

Coffee would fit that definition for many people - however I don't think many people with caffeine dependency would say they had a disease...

 

[Enlitx]

Coffee would fit that definition for many people - however I don't think many people with caffeine dependency would say they had a disease...

Well, caffeine doesen't change anatomical structures in the brain as other chemicals do. You can't define a disease with just one feature.

 

[PillPoppingAnimal]

Just wondering what peoples thoughts were on this subject.
I personally am not sure I like the result of the 'disease' theory, and the 12 step folks always made me want to kill myself.

But that seems to be better than the idea of it being 'weak' and having a problems with ones will-power. I can see how a person feels weak when unable to control their addiction, but...is it all in the mind?

Where is everyone at on this?

its all in the mind if ur dealing with phycadelics (cant spelll lol)

"its all in the mind ya know?"
-The beatles (john lennon)

 

[ayjay]

Well, caffeine doesen't change anatomical structures in the brain as other chemicals do.

Um - not sure what you mean by "change anatomical structure" - but certainly repeated administration of caffeine will lead to tolerance to its effects, and a withdrawal syndrome if it is ceased. These are due to receptor pruning and down regulation - just as with your oxy example in a previous post.

Same same but different, no?

 

[Enlitx]

Well, I guess what I meant was that oxy or other very strong agonists cause alterations in neuronal populations as to induce malignant neuroplasticity. Ya, technically caffeine could do the same thing, but it is not likely your limbic system will be screwed up from a caffeine habit. I guess you could call caffeine a slight cough in the disease model, and oxy something akin to full blown influenza.

 

[garuda]

My beef with calling psychological addiction a disease is that it turns drug use from a lifestyle choice into a mental illness, a drug user can therefore be laughed off, any suggestion of legalizing drug use is just their disease talking.

I and many other users don't feel like we have a disease, our lives are not in shambles, we don't feel guilty, we actually feel like drug use improves our lives.
To us the only problem with drug use is societies condemnation forcing us into contortions to satisfy our desires. To me any behavior can be pronounced a mental illness by the "powers that be/society at large", and thats simply unacceptable, basically might makes right science.

If someone is troubled by their own use and wants help learning to control or change their behavior thats great, but not calling all drug users mentally ill or forcing users of even non-physically addictive drugs into treatment.

To me this attitude is very much akin to labeling homosexuals as mentally ill and attempting to force their desires to change through treatment, instead of accepting it as a normal variant on human existence.

 

[rachamim]

Noooo....There is a difference between moderate use and addiction. Alcohol is socially acceptable in an incredibly wide variety of circumstances in society despite SOME people becoming alcoholics.

Legalisation is a no-brainer and most people today realise this whether or not they are willing to make changes. The question then becomes just how to implement this.

As per the disease...Again, it is like diabetes. Not everyone pigging out on cupcakes is going to have to inject insuling. Some will take pills to control it, but most will not develop diabetes and the same is true of addiction. It develops due to a wide range of intersecting circumstances, which I may or may have not already said. Enviornment, physiology, genetics, and so on.

Addiction is not a mental disease, psychological addiction is. Physical addiction is an actual physical disorder that primarily affects physiology (not even gettoing into the semantics game about "dependance" versus "addiction"). Psychological addiction is by nature mental because , of course, that is where psychology lies. the problem you and many others have is with the stigma attached to mental illness.


When folks say mental illness, people automatically tend to think of schizophrenics and psychotics. The mind is at least just as important as the body and ther should be no stigam but hey, that is the world we live in.

 

[garuda]

Noooo....There is a difference between moderate use and addiction. Alcohol is socially acceptable in an incredibly wide variety of circumstances in society despite SOME people becoming alcoholics.

Legalisation is a no-brainer and most people today realise this whether or not they are willing to make changes. The question then becomes just how to implement this.

As per the disease...Again, it is like diabetes. Not everyone pigging out on cupcakes is going to have to inject insuling. Some will take pills to control it, but most will not develop diabetes and the same is true of addiction. It develops due to a wide range of intersecting circumstances, which I may or may have not already said. Enviornment, physiology, genetics, and so on.

Addiction is not a mental disease, psychological addiction is. Physical addiction is an actual physical disorder that primarily affects physiology (not even gettoing into the semantics game about "dependance" versus "addiction"). Psychological addiction is by nature mental because , of course, that is where psychology lies. the problem you and many others have is with the stigma attached to mental illness.


When folks say mental illness, people automatically tend to think of schizophrenics and psychotics. The mind is at least just as important as the body and ther should be no stigam but hey, that is the world we live in.

Yea but who defines the point where use becomes addiction? In a society where alcohol is illegal and socially unacceptable I imagine any level of consumption will be considered a "problem" and a disease.

The thing I hate is that people with no addiction are being labeled addicts, marijuana addiction anyone? Mandatory rehab for drug possession mandated by courts, and the rehab industry is gleefully raking in the profits instead of calling bullshit.

If use of drugs, even non-physically addictive drugs, can be defined as a mental disorder or disease then why can't homosexuality? It seems to meet all the same criteria in that its defined only by desire and behavior not in the majority.
There is a very good reason gays would take offense, and drug users should take the same offense and the only reason we don't is that most have yet to work through the guilt and societal expectations completely.

Like it or not disease does have a stigma attached, and its not fair that social attitudes can change the definition of disease.

 

[Deadhead420]

I think South Park said it best... just watch this episode. Funny as hell.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/914/

And no I don't believe addiction is a disease. A disease is something that's physically wrong with your body. The only thing wrong with an addict is that they keep putting drugs into their bodies and that's their own fault. No one is born an addict (well I guess unless your mom did drugs while she was pregnant).

 

[eon_blue]

I think South Park said it best... just watch this episode. Funny as hell.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/914/

And no I don't believe addiction is a disease. A disease is something that's physically wrong with your body. The only thing wrong with an addict is that they keep putting drugs into their bodies and that's their own fault. No one is born an addict (well I guess unless your mom did drugs while she was pregnant).

I believe addiction is a disease and I loved that episode, mostly because of how it portrayed the 12 step program and how they tend to make everyone think they have a problem with drugs or alcohol...the whole 'misery loves company' sort of thing I guess. One of the few things I've realized that definitely makes that kind of program not work for me at all...