• The Dark Side 💕 Welcome Guest 💕
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads Urgent Hotlines
    Bereavement Mindfulness
    Suicide Support Anger Management
  • TDS Moderators: AlphaMethylPhenyl | paranoid android

Is addiction a disease?

I don't consider addiction a disease. Even though you may have a strong compulsion to endulge it is ultimately your decision whether or not to act on that impulse.
 
So diabetes is not a disease then? How about schizophrenia? How about PKU (don't even know what that is do you?). I have never met an addict who set out to become one nor have I met one who is happy about it. Your response is bullshit. Many people are born with genetic aborations that can be controlled by the consistent use of certain substances. Others can't. I suppose you don't consider mental illness a disease? How about depression? Need I go on. Think!

Not going to get into one of these things again.
Click to expand...
Diabetes is certainly a disease. Yes, i know what PKU is- there's no need to be condescending just because we have differing views on addiction. Both of these are related to enzyme or hormone deficiencies (involuntary physical problem). Someone with pku/diabetes can't wake up in the morning and think, "Hmmm i guess i'll have my body process phenylalanine/glucose properly today!" whereas an addict can decide, "Hmmm i think i won't use drugs today." There's no chemical imbalance forcing them to use a drug of choice, and by forgoing drugs they don't put their body at risk or compromise vital processes. The diseases you mentioned aren't dependant upon any choice by the afflicted person, but on an abnormality in the body, so i really don't understand the comparison.

i agree completely that addicts may have more intense or more distracting CRAVINGS than 'normal people' but that's a minor, psychological annoyance that doesn't affect your body's ability to function (unless you're physically addicted- a point you push yourself to). A craving isn't a disease, it's an excuse. You may disagree but that is the way i see it (and the way i experience it).

You don't get addicted to any drug over a day, or a week. It takes continued and repeated dosing, during which you are CONSCIOUS and fully aware of what you're doing, and of the inevitable results of those actions. If you know you're predisposed, you should be smart enough to avoid it at all costs. Even if you do start to drink/use, and have difficulty stopping, you can always make the choice to quit, or to use less if you're at a point where your body will suffer without your DOC. It's not as if the drug-demon possesses you and forces it down your throat independent of your mind and free will (although that's the way many addicts try to represent it).

There's obviously a huge difference between someone who uses coke every day because it helps them feel 'better' and someone who takes insulin everyday because their body needs it to avoid physical damage. The coke/heroin/meth/etc addict won't have any health issues from staying sober.

Of course drugs help with certain illnesses. i'm pretty sure that's the intended purpose of drugs from a medical standpoint- but someone with intense social anxiety (for example) who uses benzos to counteract the problem isn't afflicted with the 'disease of addiction,' they're afflicted with mental illness, and are using the benzos as treatment to correct the chemical problem in their brain.

i've been addicted to heroin, IV meth, and crack, all of which i quit by just deciding i wanted to stop. i didn't taper down, or get on maintenance drugs, or fuck around with 12 step meetings, or go back and forth between using and sobriety. i just used free will to stop (ANY addict can do this, if they want to badly enough). It was uncomfortable, but far from physically damaging or life-threatening. Any 'disease' that can be cured by a simple decision is not, imo, a disease. I'm not debating that addiction can be difficult and is an incredibly powerful pulling force. i'm just saying that i don't see it as a disease in the sense of a physical problem that you can't do anything WITHIN yourself to cure.

Defining addiction as a disease sets people up for failure. Instead of taking control of their own problem, they surrender to 'powerlessness' and allow the addiction to run rampant because they're told that it's something they can't control. Viewing it as a disease gives it a more powerful hold over the addict.

i do believe in mental illness, but i think it's grossly over-diagnosed and that many people use a mis-diagnosis or self-diagnosis as an excuse for succumbing to personal weakness.

when your desire to be clean outweighs your desire to get high, you'll quit. i can't think of any real disease that can be solved this simply.

There's no point in arguing this because it's really a matter of opinion.
 
^ since when has something only being a 'matter of opinion' stopped all the egos arguing on bluelight? :p

Can i firstly say that I think it is great that you have been able to stop using drugs without much hassle. However, I think it is very dangerous for people to assume that simply because they have been able to cease drug use relatively easily, it is the same for everyone else. I would consider your experiences an exception, rather than a model, for drug cessation.

For most people, fighting their addiction is not nearly so simple, and certainly not a matter of simply deciding to stop. The most worrying.
thing about your argument is that people then follow the logic to say "well, if i can do it so easily, so can everyone else." The reality is, we are all different, with a plethora of issues that makes our individual addictions very complex. To use the whole 'i did it with willpower so should you", to my mind, is a gross over-simplification of a very difficult situation.
 
itsjustme said:
this is complete and total bullshit. a DISEASE is something like cancer, where your body or mind is sick and you can't really do a thing within yourself to cure it. the whole 'addiction disease' crap is just a way for drug users to justify continued use. maybe abuse makes it more difficult to 'say no' but you ALWAYS have the option to refuse drugs. ALWAYS. even if you're strung out, sick, puking, you can still choose not to take drugs/drink. i really don't buy this whole thing where people say, 'i'm an addict, i can't help it,' or that something 'takes over' in your mind making use unavoidable. i've been very addicted and still chosen to say no even when my body was in excruciating pain from lack of drugs.

'addiction as a disease' is what people say when they won't muster up the strength from within themselves to use their willpower to just STOP. i find it sickening. it's an excuse to be weak, and a way to blame your decisions on 'something else' outside your control. using drugs is always in your control.

maybe some people have more addictive personalities or are more prone to addiction. still, they are always in control of it and the 'disease' can be cured with something as simple as putting down the pipe/needle/etc.
Click to expand...

There appears to be a great deal of anger and conflict in your post. How long was your active addiction? How long have you been clean and drug-free? If not currently, than what was your longest period of sobriety, post-addiction. Did you enjoy life during this period, or were you just hanging on?

Your posts here are thoughtful, and I enjoy reading them. I think it would be helpful for you to consider that your experiences with drug use, and quitting are not the same as everyone else's . . .

FC
 
burn out said:
its a disease of the mind. its best understood as resulting from a variety of social, environmental, psychological and biological factors.

the problem with the disease model is that the responsibility of choice cannot be overlooked. in other words, addiction is a disease which results from poor choices. once a person has made enough poor choices reguarding drug use, then over time chemical changes occur in the body which make it more difficult to make better choices. its a downward spiral and could be viewed as a disese in that sense. also, some people are much more prone to substance abuse than others. for example, one person may try alcohol and drugs and become completely obsessed with them, even if they are physically able to abstain from using they will still experiencing cravings. whereas other people will never feel inclined to abuse substances to begin with.

do you see what im saying? the disease model is fine so long as you dont use it to justify the wrongfulness of your actions and or negate the fact that your own free choices lead to your condition. of course it must be acknowledged that some people have a much harder time abstaining than others but the disease lies in the craving (something someone has relatively little control over), not the actual useage (something which is always a decision). i hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

couldn't have said it better
 
It's a Disease and it's Treatable, not Curable

The American Society of Addiction Medicine states that Addiction is...
"a disease process characterized by the continued use of a specific psychoactive substance despite physical, psychological or social harm."

TakeAPill.jpg
 
Back It Up

^ Can I see your MD license?
Addiction: A chronic, relapsing disease characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain.
 
Just a question, all the people who don't think addiction is a disease... have you ever lived it?? Do you actually believe you know more than the thousands of M.D.'s and Ph.D.'s who have sponsered hundreds of studies on addiction? Do you disbelieve all the Magnetic Residence Imaging (MRI) evidence showing the molecular changes underwent in the brain's of addicts?

I agree completely that addiction is a disease, but its a disease that we have a choice in the beginning. And yes, depending on family history and genetics, this choice may be more difficult for others. But once you're in the grips of that addiction, you no longer have a choice. At www.suboxone.com the literature states (paraphrase):

opioid addiction creates such strong reinforcement in the primitive parts of the brain that using opioids becomes a survival function, just as strong as if not stronger than, the desire for food, shelter, sex, etc.

The only way out when in full fledge, active addiction is the will to want to quit, and reaching out for help. B/c we don't have a choice anymore in heavy, active addiciton. We can't do it alone. This is why NA is so vital to addiction recovery, it saved my life from heroin.
 
so long as you dont use it to justify the wrongfulness of your actions and or negate the fact that your own free choices lead to your condition.
Click to expand...

the disease of addiction NEVER justify's actions that are morally deficient. NA and AA both acknowledge the choices we made in active addiciton were wrong.

but the disease lies in the craving (something someone has relatively little control over), not the actual useage (something which is always a decision)
Click to expand...

I disagree. In heavy, active addiction the actual usage is not a choice. Having been there, and being active in NA, i have seen and experienced first hand, no matter how much you may want to stop, you have absoloutly no control over your use.

Some addicts may have some choice to stop using in the short term, but thats only b/c they aren't in severe active addiction yet. It becomes a compulsion, and like i stated above, its medically proven that getting that dope becomes a survival function to the primative parts of the brain.

Through my experience, i've seen that the disease of active addiction is both a disorder of actual usage and craving. HOWEVER, when active addiction is treated and one is in recovery, the usage then DOES become a choice. And the only thing left is the craving, which does allievate eventually, but never fully goes away.
 
^ ^ ^
So to clarify things, i believe there are two states of addiction...

1. Active addiction- a disease of compulsion and self destruction. The act of using is stronger than one's will to stop. The act of using isn't a choice, one can postpone it maybe for sometime in less severe active addiction, but ultimately there is no way to stop w/o the help of an instution, DRT (drug replacement therapy), through support in AA/NA, or some sort of outside help.

2. Recovering addiction- this is a disease of craving and habit. Using is more of a choice in this state. But i still believe strongly that for some addicts (typically those early to recovery) having dope right in front of them can negate any choice they have in the actual practice of taking the drug.

However, in recovery we develop tools in NA/AA to prevent this. We DO have a choice to use the tools of recovery before picking up that drug: call your sponser, call someone in your support group, pick up the basic text and/or other books, and/or get to a meeting.

So ultimately, in addiction recovery, we do have a choice in using. Much like before we ever started drugs--we had a choice then. The difference now is we are more educated on the ills of addiction, but yet we have that craving that still plagues us.
 
Some drugs do alter your brain chemistry and it may never return to normal. They tested out monkeys, getting them hooked on smack then keeping them clean for 5 years. In a double blind, monkeys who hadn't previously been addicts didn't use the stuff while the former addicts went right for it.
I thought Alcoholism was treated as a disease now so why not drugs? As for it giving people an excuse, they find an excuse anyway so I don't buy into that at all. I personally believe that if it is treated as a disease then there will be less stigma so people might seek help more readily.
Surely harm reduction is the most important thing? Never can understand why you cannot get needles in the US. In Europe, most countries figure that people not getting Hep or HIV is important since treating them is expensive. If drugs were prescribed to addicts, then a lot of crime would go down. Around here, about 80% of the shoplifting & burglery is done by addicts. Legal = tested = harm reduction. Given time, most people give up drugs of their own volition, but if they die before they reach that point we have failed.
 
^Any stats on the LSD therapy, Zophen?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stats nope, but given time I can dig up some very interesting (some of it I found upsetting) links with regards to therapy with LSD and severely disturbed children.There is a lot of evidence (anecdotal and otherwise) of people treated with LSD for alcohol abuse problems who massively praise the treatment they received, and the outcome was extremely positive for the vast majority of these!
 
Interesting discussion - I've done some AOD study in the past and now teach a couple of subjects. The historical progression of explaining drug use is generally explained as:

1. Drug use is a moral weakness (example - Victorian England) - Response: punish the user.
2. Some drugs are too dangerous to use - pharmacological model (example - early 20C USA) - Response: prohibit the drug
3. Some people have a weakness to particular substances - disease model (example - 12 step method) - Response: treat the disease
4. The impacts of drug use can only be understood by examining properties of drugs used, people using, and the context in which use takes place - social learning/interactionist model (example - harm reduction theory, health promotion theory) - Response: Multifaceted approach incorporating assistance to those in need, as well as structural approaches aiming at changing the context of use.

Of course the reality is that all four of these models influence people's ideas about drug use and drug users, consciously or otherwise. Only the last model is of any use, imo. People who use drugs, problematically or otherwise, are not "morally weak". There is no drug that is "too dangerous to use" - although some drugs do have more risks associated with them. Heroin is a fascinating case study. Use of heroin has literally exploded since it's prohibition, as have the harms associated with it's use.

Now - back to the original question - "is addiction a disease?" Hmmm tricky - do some people have a shit time with drugs? Yes. Can people develop compulsive patterns of behaviour around drug use? Yes. Are there things people can do to ameliorate the effects of this compulsive behaviour? Yes - one of these ways (12 step programs) requires conceiving this compulsive behaviour as a disease, but this is different from the behaviour being a disease. Conversely - does believing "addiction is a disease" have any negative consequences? Well, yes. It can lead to denying the effectiveness of maintenance therapy (see some posts above), and it also leads to a narrowing of focus to affected individuals, rather than looking at big picture responses. I don't think the universal roll out of needle exchanges in Australia, for example, could have come about from a disease model.

It's definitely progress to see substance use as a health issue, rather than a moral or legal one. The disease model definitely achieves that much. It's just a little simplistic....
 
I can live with simplistic if people stop getting hurt. Seperate dependance from addiction is step 1. You can be dependant on insulin which nobody minds but addiction to cigarettes proves your weak... fine, how many people die from cancer each year? How much is that costing the country.
Whatever reduces harm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top