Chanllenging certainties on addiction

I tried to post this earlier but couldn't get it to work. Hopefully my second attempt is successful

Addiction: A disorder of choice by Gene M. Heyman, Harvard University Press

Here's the scanned article:

Boo, Hiss.

He, like many other opponents of the Disease Model, lump all substance abuse disorders and related problems together. Alcoholism, Heroin addiction, compulsive Methamphetamine use, etc. Using such broad strokes to classify addiction is how we wound up with Alcohol prohibition and later drug prohibition!.

He is completely, absolutely 100% mistaken if not blatantly lying that the Disease Model of addiction was invented by a publicity agency. To simply state 'there is no science to support the disease model' is utter nonsense.

Until each class of substances is treated specifically for the needs and wants of that population of addicts and users, we will not make any progress treating any kind of compulsive substance abuse disorder.

A good example of what should be going on for every group of substances is the work done on opioids. There is over 60 years worth of studies and different treatment modalities and philosophy related to treating opioid addiction- recent multi-pronged approaches (tiered treatment- best exemplified by the Swiss and Dutch; start with Bupe or Methadone, then try the other, try abstinence-only, try drug-of-choice maintenance, among other options like CBT).

'Rehab's are an abomination. It doesn't matter if you are in there for alcoholism, Heroin addiction, compulsive speed or coke or GHB or Benzo use, the treatment is exactly the same for everyone- therapy and various sedatives. Benzo's and talking, and the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to attend.

People like this author tear down the good work of people acting constructively to treat addicts. He doesn't seem to be proposing anything, other than stop research and treatment based on the Disease Model because he thinks it isn't true (without examining any studies/research to the contrary).

disease, medical condition, health problem, sickness... call it what you want.

I think everyone will agree that taking drugs is a behavioral CHOICE which, over time, can lead to a myriad of physical and mental symptoms that get progressively worse and become more and more difficult to stop with simple will power alone.

Being addicted is not an excuse for continuing the behavior. But when you see an addict is suffering withdrawals, there is no denying that addiction is biological in nature.

AfterGlow said:

disease, medical condition, health problem, sickness... call it what you want.

I think everyone will agree that taking drugs is a behavioral CHOICE which, over time, can lead to a myriad of physical and mental symptoms that get progressively worse and become more and more difficult to stop with simple will power alone.

Being addicted is not an excuse for continuing the behavior. But when you see an addict is suffering withdrawals, there is no denying that addiction is biological in nature.

Click to expand...

Choice and personal responsibility are always involved, I think many disease model proponents do a disservice to everyone by claiming it is entirely physiological. Meaning, there is no choice, which is not true. However, I haven't seen a single, viable alternative theory of what addiction is, how it works, and how to treat it that 1) recognizes the complex relationship between the physiological, economic and social factors that create and maintain addiction, and 2) recognize that the differences between different substance abuse disorders require specific attention be paid to specific drugs (rather than fall into the ever so general category of 'substance abuse' which has lead to the 'Tranq & Talk treatment' offered everywhere today).