stardust.hero
Bluelight Crew
I would say the definition hits it straight on. A disease of the mind, I think can be cured. Just as any self destructive habit can be.
-
H&R Moderators: VerbalTruist
is addiction really a disease?
- Thread starter laCster
- Start date
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
disease of the MIND; then from there you end up making it a legit disease once we starting using MEDS to help us overcome this disease.
have had this convo for so long now; everyone has their views/ways. take it as you will, but as long as you do your best and stay clean/attempt/try/whatever, then keep it that way. we all have a choice, believe it or not, to use or not to use, thats up to you.
have had this convo for so long now; everyone has their views/ways. take it as you will, but as long as you do your best and stay clean/attempt/try/whatever, then keep it that way. we all have a choice, believe it or not, to use or not to use, thats up to you.
Lightning-Nl
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,245
You cannot change a disease. An addiction you CAN change. Even certain diseases of the mind you can't change - schizophrenia for instance.
Drug use is mediated by something else. The addiction is just a side-effect of the real reason why you're using. For instance, you feel depressed, so you use drugs to treat that. You find they work amazing, so you start adjusting your life for drug use - because it treats your depression so well. But now, all of a sudden, you have no drugs. So what happens? Your depression comes back...with a vegence.
You try to fight it, but what have you become accustom to doing when you feel depressed? Using drugs. So why do you feel depressed now? Because you don't have drugs. The relief of depression you get from Jain the drugs is the actual addiction. You had habits in place to reduce the pain associated with your depression before your drug use, but now your whole coping strategy has become drug based. So you rely on drugs to take away the pain when you start feeling depressed again.
So how do you cure yourself of having to use drugs? You find a different way to treat your pain. You see? Addiction is just the way you've become accustom to treating the way you feel. When you find a foundation that can really help your pain - other than drugs, you cure yourself of addiction.
Addiction is just a mind game. The key is figuring out how to beat the game.
Game over. Thanks for playing.
Drug use is mediated by something else. The addiction is just a side-effect of the real reason why you're using. For instance, you feel depressed, so you use drugs to treat that. You find they work amazing, so you start adjusting your life for drug use - because it treats your depression so well. But now, all of a sudden, you have no drugs. So what happens? Your depression comes back...with a vegence.
You try to fight it, but what have you become accustom to doing when you feel depressed? Using drugs. So why do you feel depressed now? Because you don't have drugs. The relief of depression you get from Jain the drugs is the actual addiction. You had habits in place to reduce the pain associated with your depression before your drug use, but now your whole coping strategy has become drug based. So you rely on drugs to take away the pain when you start feeling depressed again.
So how do you cure yourself of having to use drugs? You find a different way to treat your pain. You see? Addiction is just the way you've become accustom to treating the way you feel. When you find a foundation that can really help your pain - other than drugs, you cure yourself of addiction.
Addiction is just a mind game. The key is figuring out how to beat the game.
Game over. Thanks for playing.
Last edited by a moderator:
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
They are infections.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
mind game, yes. sometimes it becomes a body game, too. thats when they are winning that game.
Swamp this is not true at all.
Staff infection is an infectious disease.. with the addition of a antibiotic or even if left alone the disease will reduced and then eliminated. Being reduced and eliminated is change in my book.
Type 2 diabetes is a disease.. if someone reduces their weight and makes other changes to their life it can be reduced and eliminated. Being reduced and eliminated is change in most peoples books.
lemongaga
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2010
- Messages
- 111
no it's not a fucking disease- that's offensive to people who really have diseases BEYOND their control. it's a compulsion - bad happy - mental illness - ADDICTION - not a disease. It can be controlled and it can kill you- depends on why a person is using too -
@neversick you were picking @swamp apart --- I think they meant that you cannot completely get rid of a disease using your mind
this was very well written. why did neversickedit it
@neversick you were picking @swamp apart --- I think they meant that you cannot completely get rid of a disease using your mind
this was very well written. why did neversickedit it
Last edited by a moderator:
SayingSeven
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Messages
- 81
I like this guy a lot, but I disagree that a person must have a childhood trauma in order to become an addict... Of course, I realize that in many cases this is true, and his patients are probably among the most extreme examples, so I'm not surprised that he sees childhood trauma across the board. I mean, I guess it depends on his definition of "trauma". I had a great childhood--but it wasn't perfect, and I was very sensitive to things that may have been inconsequential for someone else. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I was traumatized, though.
I think people who had happy childhoods can still get addicted. What do you guys think? I mean, do people ever get addicted just because they like getting high a little too much and it gradually slips out of their control?
^I had a really good childhood and totally became addicted... but i think that any traumatic event is someones life can cause motivation to both try addicting drugs and to use them in a fashion that is more likely to lead to addiction.
"You cannot change a disease", how would that mean "that you cannot completely get rid of a disease using your mind" this seems to be quite the jump to me lemon?
And I dont think arguing against one statement from swamp that I felt was totally wrong, as picking apart or on swamp. Just expressing disagreement with swamps opinion in this matter and support for that disagreement.
antidisease
Addiction is NOT a Brain Disease, It is a Choice
prodisease studies
Your Brain on Drugs: Imaging of Drug-related Changes in the Central Nervous System
http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.323115115
The addicted human brain viewed in the light of imaging studies:brain circuits and treatment strategies
http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~pineda/COGS175/readings/Volkow.pdf
Imaging the Addicted Human Brain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851068/
I didn't I accidently pushed edit instead of quote. but i didn't edit anything. I dont want to swing this thread into getting rid of diseases with your mind but some people claimed to have cured cancer have attributed their success to meditation. the scientific and medical community is still very skeptical about these claims.
"You cannot change a disease", how would that mean "that you cannot completely get rid of a disease using your mind" this seems to be quite the jump to me lemon?
And I dont think arguing against one statement from swamp that I felt was totally wrong, as picking apart or on swamp. Just expressing disagreement with swamps opinion in this matter and support for that disagreement.
antidisease
Addiction is NOT a Brain Disease, It is a Choice
prodisease studies
Your Brain on Drugs: Imaging of Drug-related Changes in the Central Nervous System
http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.323115115
The addicted human brain viewed in the light of imaging studies:brain circuits and treatment strategies
http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~pineda/COGS175/readings/Volkow.pdf
Imaging the Addicted Human Brain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851068/
Last edited:
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,725
My last post wasn't exactly my best ever, let me try again... Yes hepatitis and HIV are indeed diseases, albeit self inflicted in the cases you state. So you're right, addiction or recklessness can LEAD to diseases, but I personally don't consider the addiction itself a disease. A chemical dependency sure, but not a disease. If you develop hepatitis from shooting up then yeah, you've given yourself a disease.
The main thing I have against people calling addiction a disease I guess mainly comes from the AA dogma that you have an incurable disease. If it were just for semantics I wouldn't care so much, but to me telling someone that they will always have this disease even if they've been clean for however long isn't very positive or beneficial to treatment.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,725
And I'm sure if all the children that died of cancer had just meditated they would still be alive... I'm all for exploring the spiritual and metaphysical, but this all just sounds like The Secret to me. If I just believe hard enough it will happen right? Sorry to say but I think if everyone just went by this guy's advice there would be a lot more dead people from cancer than there already are. Plus the fact that he keeps holding up and mentioning the healing tape all throughout the lecture. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were to pan down that there wasn't a table full of the tape ready to be sold.
I think you may be right.. but if I had cancer I would incorporate it into my effort to get better. That and im sure no more children would have died if they meditated to try and fight cancer. In fact im planning on trying something similar to this to try and cure my diabetes and I will let you know if it works at all.. maybe it wont be able to regrow the cells that heaved been destroyed but it may help keep my blood sugars down. That's kinda how i go after tough challenges I draw of everything I can and don't rule out anything especially if it can cause no harm. If monks suposidly have been able to slow thier metabolism down enough be bricked into caves and walk out hundreds of years later.. and are able to put themselfs into states where they are able to light themselfs on fire with little or no pain.. or how about this.
But I guess I dont care one Iota if addiction falls into another person's definition of addiction as it seems people all over are wasting allot of time with basically a meaningless classification of definition.
But I guess I dont care one Iota if addiction falls into another person's definition of addiction as it seems people all over are wasting allot of time with basically a meaningless classification of definition.
nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,725
I'm guessing you meant in conjunction with modern treatment? If that's what you meant then I have no disagreement. People should use whatever other methods they see fit if they feel it beneficial. Like for instance I remember hearing something about hemp oil fighting cancer a while back (although I think that my have some scientific backing). But I just think it's unsafe to be leading people into believing that they can beat cancer through something not scientifically proven without professional medical treatment. And that's not to say doctors are perfect but you get the idea. I just say use whatever you want in conjunction, but otherwise I see it no different than faith healing and you're putting your life in jeopardy. Unfortunately a lot of people out there are all to eager to cash in on new age healing, whether they actually believe it works or not.
Cool video btw, monks are badass although I felt like I was watching a self attempted snuff lol.
Last edited:
Fellowed
Bluelighter
Wouldn't you say it's possible for someone to experience trauma while still having an overall happy childhood though? There is obviously a sliding scale. If someone is both physically and mentally abused when they are younger, then they will probably have deeper and more serious addictions. But trauma might occur for other reasons and be more subtle, even be normal in the context of the modern world we live in.
I can't remember if it was this video or another where he talks about implicit memory (the subconscious lessons we all have learned within the womb and the first couple of years of life that shape the way we act now) but I think that is a big part of it. Maybe when you were a baby you were crying for your parents and didn't get a response, thus learning that you cannot always rely on those who are meant to be there for you. Or maybe when your mother was pregnant she had to go to work every day plus had other things to deal with which led her to be under an incredible amount of stress, and also you by proxy. This has nothing to do with bad parenting or character, it's a by-product of living in this kind of society.
To answer your question on whether someone can get addicted to something just because they like getting high a little too much and it gradually slips out of their control... I think that still leads to the question of why they don't have that control in the first place. There are plenty of people who love taking substances but are not addicted to them.
SayingSeven
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Messages
- 81
I guess it could be said that there is inherent trauma involved in simply being human... and that is why there are very few people who live a life completely free of addictive behavior, whether it involves sex or TV or food or drugs. A lot of people sow the seeds of their addiction to drugs and alcohol in their teenage years--years which, if not traumatic per se, are difficult in various ways for just about everyone. I suppose what I'm getting at is just that a drug addict's past does not necessarily have to be any more traumatic than the average healthy person... but then again, how many healthy people are there these days, really?
I think nurture does play a role, but nature has to be part of the equation, too. We may be able to affect our genes, but I think different people's brains react in different ways to the same things. There are people who don't particularly enjoy eating, and there are people who overeat to the point that they feel completely out of control. These people must have a different brain reaction to the act of consuming food. Maybe the former doesn't get enough of a chemical reward in their brain, while the latter gets too much reward, you know what I mean? A lot of it may just have to do with how our reward systems are wired... it is natural to seek out something that produces a dopamine response. That's why some drugs are more addictive than others. A normal, healthy person might be able to drink alcohol recreationally and never have a problem, but that same person might not be able to shoot heroin recreationally. Of course there are always underlying psychological reasons for addiction... but I just can't dismiss the idea that there is a strong biological component, too.
I dunno, I'm really just thinking out loud (or in text). It's a fascinating topic.
herbavore
Bluelight Crew
I have often thought that being on the super sensitive end of the sensitivity continuum is a factor in addiction. I think the most important thing to remember is that there are many known factors at this point but there are still so many unknown and the key word is "factors". There are no doubt physiological predispositions and vulnerabilities as there are psychological predispositions. I think everyone comes with their unique perfect storm of factors.
Fellowed
Bluelighter
it truly is a fascinating topic, to the point where I think I want to study Psychology so I can learn more about it (amongst other things) and myself.
Genes obviously play a part but my hunch is that the environmental factors are the main cause. It's been shown that serial killers for example all share a particular gene that leads to them being psychopaths, but that those who have the gene and experience traumatic childhoods will that way. That might not be entirely relevant though as I'm not sure they've found any genes which lead to cravings of particular substances, although I haven't even looked into it so there may well be! I think they have found genes which make it easier for that individual to process certain chemicals though so that might play a part if say it helps them process stimulants faster.
What you say about some people getting hooked on certain substances while not being attached to others is true, but in a way I think the substance is largely irrelevant in only so much that it depends on the brain of who takes it. I don't know exactly what areas of the brain alcohol or heroin work on, but if they do the same thing then I reckon the person who's brain doesn't function correctly in those areas would have a similar attachment to both substances.
Chocolate addicts and opiate users are pretty much the same in that regard, as both things work on the brain to the same degree (although heroin will do the job better). It was only recently I found out dairy products / cheese contained a form of morphine, which makes sense considering how moreish it is...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casomorphin
also.......
"Many people have experienced food addictions. Take chocolate, for example. To some people, chocolate is an occasional treat. But for a true chocolate addict, it is a deep-seated need.
University of Michigan researchers showed that chocolate does not merely tickle your taste buds; it actually works inside your brain in much the same way opiate drugs do. The researchers gave 26 volunteers a drug called naloxone, an opiate-blocker used in emergency rooms to stop heroin, morphine, and other narcotics from affecting the brain. It turned out that naloxone blocked much of chocolate’s appeal. When they offered volunteers a tray filled with Snicker’s bars, M & M’s, chocolate chip cookies, and Oreos, chocolate was not much more exciting than a crust of dry bread.
In other words, chocolate’s attraction does not come simply from its creamy texture or deep brown color. It appears to stimulate the same part of the brain that morphine acts on. For all intents and purposes, it is a drug—not necessarily a bad one and not a terribly strong one, but powerful enough nonetheless to keep us coming back for more."
>> http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=1290
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
kinda had enough of addiction being a disease or not; so I'll have to unsubscribe to this threat.
disease or not, it sure cost a lot of money and a lot of pain depending on how this disease "plays out".
disease or not, it sure cost a lot of money and a lot of pain depending on how this disease "plays out".
Fellowed
Bluelighter
Following on from what I quoted in my last post I've started watching a talk from the author. Thought I'd link it here to see if anyone else is interested...
Chocolate, Cheese, Meat, and Sugar -- Physically Addictive
Chocolate, Cheese, Meat, and Sugar -- Physically Addictive
caseface99
Bluelight Crew
Whether or not it's a disease by definition, it's absolutely an illness characterized by a physical allergy and a mental obsession. alcoholics and addicts get different effects from certain substances than most normal people would get. The definition of an allergy is a physical reaction different from what is considered normal. The mental obsession, i doubt needs an explanation.