Pillthrill
Bluelighter
I kinda do. Like in alcoholics they talk about the allergy concept...but in myself and my drug use. I see it as a way to cope, in others too. Or a way to deal with phsysical or mental suffering...
Do You Believe Addiction is a Disease, Or... [POLL!]
- Thread starter ATF
- Start date
Did you know, that when the body is in CHRONIC PAIN, it produces certain chemicals that BLOCK the body from becoming phydically dependent? I was perusing the PDR and found this. I wish I would have marked the page but I didnt, Im sorry!!! I hate not being able to reference things. If I can find it again, I will DEFINTELY be back to start a whole thread on it. So the real addiction, is in those who ABUSE the meds, after the pain is GONE, and the REST of the addiction, is psychological.
Peace out Y'all!!
Guardian
Peace out Y'all!!
Guardian
eon_blue
Bluelighter
I just want to point out that just because someone believes that addiction is a disease, does not mean that they use that as an excuse for their behavior.
Alot of people assume that if they "give in" to the disease concept that they're automatically giving up responsibility for their choices. That is entirely NOT TRUE. There are many diseases, like addiction, that are self-inflicted. Being predisposed to the disease of addiction is tragic, but ultimately it is the user that makes the decision to pick up. Just because someone who is predisposed gives in to the cravings and furthers the disease does not mean that they are excused from making the choice; we aren't animals, we're humans with an ability to reason.
I'm an addict and I have a responsibility to keep my disease in check. If I use, it's my own stupid fault for failing to address my cravings appropriately and giving into it. I don't sit there and cry "but I have a diseeeeasesee" 8) People who DO do that are the inexcusably weak ones, and probably blame everything in life on someone/something else, not just their addiction.
Alot of people assume that if they "give in" to the disease concept that they're automatically giving up responsibility for their choices. That is entirely NOT TRUE. There are many diseases, like addiction, that are self-inflicted. Being predisposed to the disease of addiction is tragic, but ultimately it is the user that makes the decision to pick up. Just because someone who is predisposed gives in to the cravings and furthers the disease does not mean that they are excused from making the choice; we aren't animals, we're humans with an ability to reason.
I'm an addict and I have a responsibility to keep my disease in check. If I use, it's my own stupid fault for failing to address my cravings appropriately and giving into it. I don't sit there and cry "but I have a diseeeeasesee" 8) People who DO do that are the inexcusably weak ones, and probably blame everything in life on someone/something else, not just their addiction.
manic_panic
Bluelighter
im surprised at how many think it ISNT a disease. a lot of it is genetic...like diabetes etc... some of it yes is environmental... but addict's brains have different wiring. its kinda old fashioned as hell to believe its a weakness. i can see how it can be both, yeah, but when your brain chemistry is altered you start behaving irrationally. and insanely. i've had the mind of an addict my whole life. food sex cigarettes drugs alcohol music EVERYTHING that provides pleasure to me...anything thats gonna help me feel good/better than i want more and more. thats because my chemistry is twackt. its really not that hard to comprehend if you look at it socially and scientifically...
manic_panic
Bluelighter
man. wikipedia that shit or somethin, dog. there are sources all over the net that clearly explain in layman's terms that alcoholism/addiction is a disease. due to altered brain chemistry. it's easy to understand, believe me.. i know all bout this stuff man ive had my struggles... happy huntin!
by the way..theres a difference between somebody who isn't an alcoholic and has a "drinking problem"... usually they can get over that quick--provided that they are not alcoholic--but for those who are...sa'nother ballpark, bubby. peace%)
slimvictor
Bluelight Crew
I don't think that I consider addiction a disease, but I am still making up my mind.
For those who consider addiction a disease, what about an addiction to negative thinking? Is that a disease, too? How about an addiction to power struggles, or exercise? Certainly, it's not just physical addiction that counts, right? The disease is primarily psychological, so any psychological addiction should be enough, but I have a lot of trouble thinking of those addictions as diseases.
For those who consider addiction a disease, what about an addiction to negative thinking? Is that a disease, too? How about an addiction to power struggles, or exercise? Certainly, it's not just physical addiction that counts, right? The disease is primarily psychological, so any psychological addiction should be enough, but I have a lot of trouble thinking of those addictions as diseases.
I finally voted, and voted 'I don't believe it is a disease', but I honestly believe your addiction is what you make it. Where addiction turns from habit to disease (at least by clinical standards) is hard to say. I think many people who have a reversible chemical dependency tend to believe what they are experiencing is a disease, as it gives them some rationalization to make a otherwise unwise choice (continuing to use).
At least this is what I want to believe, because I appear to be coming out of an addiction stage of my life at this point, and I don't want this to be just another up point in an endless cycle of addiction. What I will admit is I am always addicted to something. If its not a hard drug, then it alcohol and cigarettes, if not cigs then food/sugar. Something! Perhaps this is a 'disease', perhaps it deserves a more precise classification.
But I have to believe that there is hope, otherwise I would never try to stop, and I wouldn't be a 'functional addict' or 'normal person', depending on your opinion.
arg.
At least this is what I want to believe, because I appear to be coming out of an addiction stage of my life at this point, and I don't want this to be just another up point in an endless cycle of addiction. What I will admit is I am always addicted to something. If its not a hard drug, then it alcohol and cigarettes, if not cigs then food/sugar. Something! Perhaps this is a 'disease', perhaps it deserves a more precise classification.
But I have to believe that there is hope, otherwise I would never try to stop, and I wouldn't be a 'functional addict' or 'normal person', depending on your opinion.
arg.
the_ketaman
Bluelighter
My posts obviously got deleted by someone who didnt like what I was saying but Addiction is NOT a disease, now you may have your own opinion, but I am addicted to oycontin and I know I my addiction is not a disease. Yours may be but mine certainly aint, I made some choices, one being that I didnt want to stop when I could have, so therefor my addiction was a choice. I honestly can not see how the hell anyone could think or prove that addiction is a disease, its just sounds absurd to me.
ringsting
Greenlighter
i definitely dont think its a disease i reckon its people who are weak and cant stand up and say no. its only an issue if it brings misery to your life or other people's and at that point the addiction should be stopped no if's or buts.
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
It is almost pathetic how people are coming to their decisions. The American Medical Association defines it as a disease. They have given very clear biological answers as to why. So, if one was to refute this position they would need to explain the biological challenges to this theory, and they would have to present a compelling argument if they wish for anyone to believe their ideas over the AMA.
So, instead of arguments about quantam physics and the biology of volition, we get people saying that it isn't a disease because people are weak and it is all willpower. Hello 1900, its been a while.
Seriously, this thread makes me sad, I thought bluelighters were smarter than this.
So, instead of arguments about quantam physics and the biology of volition, we get people saying that it isn't a disease because people are weak and it is all willpower. Hello 1900, its been a while.
Seriously, this thread makes me sad, I thought bluelighters were smarter than this.
Its obvious that nearly 2/3 of bluelighters are basing their belief on experience. If I went to an Australian doctor and tried the "disease theory" excuse I'd get laughed at by most doctors.
It doesnt fit the model of a disease at all, and if it was a disease, accepted by americans and The American Medical Association why do they continue to put people in prison every day who suffer this disease and are only seeking medication? Hello 1900 its been a while alright (well zt least in 1900 people had the right buy their "medication")
Its a will power issue, how people justify their addiction to themselves is up to them.
Last edited:
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
It does fit the disease model, and like I said, I have the most respected association of doctors in the world to back me up, what exactly do you have? Your intuition?
Legislation and prohibition have nothing to do with the medical nature of addiction. In fact, they made many of the laws concerning narcotics when the antiquated thinking was that addiction was a willpower issue. Our courts haven't kept up with our science.
The AMA is not infallible. Up until around the mid 70's, they didn't believe diet had any direct effects on our health, people began to intuit that what they ate had an effect on them and science got around to figuring out why later.
Im not saying they are wrong, but perhaps the disease of addiction, for which science offers no cure, can be controlled through a process of mental discipline. Just because it's a 'disease' doesn't mean willpower isn't a part of its antidote.
Im not saying they are wrong, but perhaps the disease of addiction, for which science offers no cure, can be controlled through a process of mental discipline. Just because it's a 'disease' doesn't mean willpower isn't a part of its antidote.
ayjay
Bluelighter
But what is "willpower"...???!!!
Actually I'm pretty happy to reject both the willpower and the disease model
Actually I'm pretty happy to reject both the willpower and the disease model
Please explain how it fits the model and provide a valid Link?? Not a link created by people making $$$$$$ from methadone and friends.
Why does the disease theory only exist in the USA ?
Last edited:
But what is "willpower"...???!!!
Actually I'm pretty happy to reject both the willpower and the disease model
Will power is saying, I've wasted 20 years, time to get my shit together and succeed in doing so. I didn't realize I was curing a disease at the same time.
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
I have to get to class, but how about this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5335/45
"Recognizing addiction as a chronic, relapsing brain disorder characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use" and "Scientific advances over the past 20 years have shown that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease that results from the prolonged effects of drugs on the brain"
Then again, this guy only works for the National Institute of Health, and since that is in the U.S. it must be a conspiracy. Let me explain it as best I can. Just like carcinogens, drugs work to alter the normal physiology of an individual. Unlike, carcinogens, drugs primarily affect specific portions of the mesolimbic pathway. Both result in abnormal physiology that is maladaptive. For cancer patients, that means organs can't work. For drug addicts, that means the brain can't work correctly (which is an organ). Drugs do not completely destroy the brain or else it would be a fatal disease every time. They simply make your choices less and less normal, and more centered around your altered neurochemistry. After addiction sets in, there are a predictable set of signs and symptoms that progress the development of the disease.
Please explain to me how that isn't a disease.
Enlitx
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 735
I have to get to class, but how about this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5335/45
"Recognizing addiction as a chronic, relapsing brain disorder characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use" and "Scientific advances over the past 20 years have shown that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease that results from the prolonged effects of drugs on the brain"
Then again, this guy only works for the National Institute of Health, and since that is in the U.S. it must be a conspiracy. Let me explain it as best I can. Just like carcinogens, drugs work to alter the normal physiology of an individual. Unlike, carcinogens, drugs primarily affect specific portions of the mesolimbic pathway. Both result in abnormal physiology that is maladaptive. For cancer patients, that means organs can't work. For drug addicts, that means the brain can't work correctly (which is an organ). Drugs do not completely destroy the brain or else it would be a fatal disease every time. They simply make your choices less and less normal, and more centered around your altered neurochemistry. After addiction sets in, there are a predictable set of signs and symptoms that progress the development of the disease.
Please explain to me how that isn't a disease.