Addiction, a disease? or self inflicted?

dartboardio

Some of you may have heard the recent podcast on 98FM, where a woman came onto the radio sharing her story that she was a recovering drug addict, and that addiction IS infact a disease, apparently 'physical, spiritual and mentally'


Same as myself, the presenter Adrian was disgusted that she was trying to compare a self inflicted drug addiction (whether over years or months) was the same as let's say a stroke, or cancer, etc.

What does everybody think of this?

RobertKK

Some of it is due to genetics.

DontThankMe

Everyone's circumstances are different but to say it is a disease is a stretch Imo. Drugs like heroin are extremely addictive but if you start saying it's a disease does a person addicted to weed have a disease? or a person addicted to caffeine? Where do we draw the line if we start saying some addictions are diseases and others are not.

srsly78

Some people may have brain chemistry such that they are more susceptible to addiction. Brain chemistry can be influenced by genetics or by disease, so there is no definitive answer.

Also, go lookup the definition of disease - it's probably not what you think.

corner of hells

dartboardio wrote: »

Some of you may have heard the recent podcast on 98FM, where a woman came onto the radio sharing her story that she was a recovering drug addict, and that addiction IS infact a disease, apparently 'physical, spiritual and mentally'


Same as myself, the presenter Adrian was disgusted that she was trying to compare a self inflicted drug addiction (whether over years or months) was the same as let's say a stroke, or cancer, etc.

What does everybody think of this?

Possibility her addiction is the manifestation of a trauma.Whatever she was addicted to may have been her way of coping with a trauma.

You could , I suppose define a chronic addiction as a disease if you consider that drug use may change how the brain functions and works.

begbysback

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/

Allinall

A stroke isn't a disease.

FFS.

stimpson

It depends on how you define disease. Not sure why you would be disgusted at the comparison. Maybe you look down on addicts? At the end of the day, an approach like Portugals, where they treat it like a disease has better outcomes for addicts and scociety. Here we just say drugs are bad, therefore illegal, therefore addicts must be punished. We've had 50 years of this approach and it doesn't work. Maybe it's time to try something else.

One eyed Jack

RobertKK wrote: »

Some of it is due to genetics.

That's a bit like saying that having two legs is a disease because some of it is due to genetics.

No, addictions aren't diseases, and framing them as such only muddies peoples understanding of diseases in an attempt to normalise an abnormal mental disorder.

srsly78

No jack, go lookup definition of disease. Please use standard definition not your personal one.

One eyed Jack

srsly78 wrote: »

No jack, go lookup definition of disease. Please use standard definition not your personal one.

Or, y'know, you could just post the definition of disease for me if you think I'm wrong.

It's both. Many diseases are self inflicted, few people hold the same disgust when a smoker gets lung cancer or someone with a lifetime of poor eating develops heart disease. Lifestyle choices can also increase your risk of stroke - not a disease.

Treating addicts with disgust and contempt doesn't seem to work as a treatment, help, support and compassion is what anyone with addiction needs, whether it's illegal class A's or alcohol or any other substance.

srsly78

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or, y'know, you could just post the definition of disease for me if you think I'm wrong.

I could but choose not to.

One eyed Jack

srsly78 wrote: »

I could but choose not to.

Thanks for stopping by to tell me you think I'm wrong but you choose not to say why.

begbysback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a bit like saying that having two legs is a disease because some of it is due to genetics.

No, addictions aren't diseases, and framing them as such only muddies peoples understanding of diseases in an attempt to normalise an abnormal mental disorder.

An abnormal mental disorder? Like a mental illness?

srsly78

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks for stopping by to tell me you think I'm wrong but you choose not to say why.

Ok I will say why - I don't feel like helping someone that wades into a discussion without making the slightest effort to understand the terms being discussed.

Just type the fscking thing into google.

Rubberchikken

Self affliction.

Vincent Vega

I think it's a social/interpersonal disease. Not genetic, but epigenetic.

Gabor Maté's take on it was really an eye opener for me, and I'd highly recommend his book 'In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCzXbsGAXiI

One eyed Jack

begbysback wrote: »

An abnormal mental disorder? Like a mental illness?

That's part of the problem with how these things are originally defined and redefined and being constantly examined and the language used is constantly shifting, probably why srsly78 wants to tell me I'm wrong, as they define disease differently, therefore addiction is a disease, from their point of view.

The difference between mental illness and mental disorder is that just like physical health, we can also experience ill mental health, but a disorder is neurological and can have a genetic basis, and there are arguments in psychology that use the personality traits model to suggest that for example schizophrenia isn't a mental disorder, but rather that it's absolutely normal to hear voices.

Normalising addictions does nothing to address the underlying condition which can manifest and express itself in an infinite number of ways, including experiencing ill mental health and destructive behaviours.

andekwarhola

The argument about its categorization is largely rhetorical and just used for blame games

The fact is that alcohol and drug addicts present a problem to society and it ends up needing to be addressed in one way or another.

begbysback

begbysback wrote: »

An abnormal mental disorder? Like a mental illness?

Addiction changes the actual structure of the brain, and the response to the addiction - compulsive drug seeking behaviours - is one of the results of those changes.

That's why addiction is a life long recovery, the addicts ability to control the compulsion is impaired to some extent for a very long time, if not for the rest of their lives.

nkav86

I feel with all we now know about drugs/addiction, taking any drug is a risk you are aware of when taking them so that's a choice.

But the addiction that forms is so powerful that it can take away your power of control and choice, maybe like a disease can.

I think to call it a disease though, negates the choice that someone made to take drug and can absolve them of the blame that is there. Rightly or wrongly, that's the best way I can describe my thoughts on it.

andekwarhola

Let's face it, the reason that people are so eager to classify it as a black and white issue of self infliction (which it obviously sometimes is) is the same as people needing to believe that a lot of social issues like poverty are always predestined and in blanket meritocracy.

In other words, to justify not attempting to 'waste' empathy and money on at least attempting to address it at root cause

Wanderer78

cause and effect!

dartboardio

I certainly don't look down on addicts.

As a young teen I spent years smoking weed everyday, some would say psychologically addicted, which I was, due to myself and my own choices and stupid decisions. Had I ever become an addict, it would have certainly not been a disease... more due to selfish decisions, as someone said, early trauma, emotional problems, mental illness whatever.

After that, I became very fond of taking other drugs, class A, constantly drinking, etc, it's being the kind of person who has it inside of them, they don't want to go home, they want that buzz constantly, that is not a disease, now I know that's far stretched from being a heroin addict, but it all starts the same. A heroin addict would have started out like I did. Now I know nothing about being a heroin addict, but I know the type of people and mindset they would have, I'd like to think.

Trying to get away, escape reality is not a disease...so far into that, years down the line, where the addiction takes over you as a person, due to you still using, that is still, not a disease..

dartboardio

nkav86 wrote: »

I feel with all we now know about drugs/addiction, taking any drug is a risk you are aware of when taking them so that's a choice.

But the addiction that forms is so powerful that it can take away your power of control and choice, maybe like a disease can.

I think to call it a disease though, negates the choice that someone made to take drug and can absolve them of the blame that is there. Rightly or wrongly, that's the best way I can describe my thoughts on it.

I completely agree with you there, it certainly doesn't start out as a disease, and if anything, the person using CREATES that 'disease'.. from their own choices. (maybe not choice, maybe they felt they had to) but still doesnt change the fact that it is a conscious decision.

dartboardio

IMO addiction is a result of impulsive decision, thrill seeking gone too far, possibly emotional problems.. how you were brought up, your personality and of course the crowd you hang around with and what's ''normal'' in your circle.

nkav86

Exactly, happy someone understood my point so it wasn't gibberish. I have addiction of many kinds in my family, luckily, I've only been addicted to nicotine. I don't look down on addicts either, I wouldn't wish their struggles on anyone.

hatrickpatrick

I think to be fair there's a difference now, to the past. In the 80s, when the heroin epidemic fired up, there really wasn't a huge amount of widespread knowledge or education among the general public, particularly the lower socioeconomic classes which drug pushers deliberately targeted, about just how addictive and difficult to recover from those drugs really were. I can easily imagine someone in one of the heroin-flooded estates back in those earlier decades trying it a few times while being completely oblivious to the fact that they would rapidly become totally incapable of feeling normal or ok without continuing to take it. With heroin, the tolerance and physical dependence have an extraordinarily rapid onset, far more so than with most other drugs, and this was not something which people were widely educated about.

These days, it's harder to justify it. You can still chalk it up to "young people believe themselves to be invincible and are prone to do stupid things regardless of the consequences", but at least to those who are educated and engaged, most schools have very honest campaigns about drugs (Not just the generic "drugs are bad, mmmkay?" but specific talks and in-depth education on specific drugs, their effects, their addictive potential and withdrawal symptoms, etc) - I was taught in school that above all other mainstream drugs, heroin and opiates have quasi-permanent affects on how the brain works and how mood is regulated, such that even short-term dabbling can quickly lead to an almost inescapable addiction - in comparison to other drugs such as MDMA and marijuana, which are addictive and have negative side effects but it's not inconceivable to dabble and then grow out of them. Opiates wreak a type of special havoc on one's brain which is fairly unique in the world of drugs.

It's for that reason that I find it hard to criticise heroin / opiate addicts as having entirely brought it upon themselves - I can see how some unsuspecting young people who know nothing about how the drug works could assume it's something they can try as a passing fancy, or addictive in the same way that alcohol is in that many people can consume it regularly and still control their consumption and avoid becoming dependent. Opiates simply don't work that way, but I can understand how people, particularly in earlier generations, may simply not have had this information as readily as today's young people do.

Bitches Be Trypsin

I think it depends on what the subject is actually addicted to. An argument can be proposed that if a person didn't come into contact with the addictive substance, then they could never get addicted.

However, the GABRG3 gene, one of the genes on chromosome 15, was heavily researched. It is one of the genes that is involved in GABA (a brain chemical) movement between neurons (cells of the nervous system, the brain in this case). It was statistically linked with alcoholism in families with a particular problem with drinking. This posed the question is alcoholism genetic?

Again, argument could be made that they couldn't be alcoholics if they didn't drink in the first place. But it could certainly be said that having this gene makes a person more likely to become an alcoholic.

It depends on your own interpretation as to whether you class carrying an unfortunate gene as a disease or not

djPSB

dartboardio wrote: »

Some of you may have heard the recent podcast on 98FM, where a woman came onto the radio sharing her story that she was a recovering drug addict, and that addiction IS infact a disease, apparently 'physical, spiritual and mentally'


Same as myself, the presenter Adrian was disgusted that she was trying to compare a self inflicted drug addiction (whether over years or months) was the same as let's say a stroke, or cancer, etc.

What does everybody think of this?

People need to take personal accountability. We all have an addictive trait in us somewhere and need the self control to know when to stop.

For gambling, a lot of it comes down to greed. Not surprisingly, alot of the high profile GAA players who have come out with these problems are not very nice people. One was stealing from parents, families and charities and had over ten incidents of assault. Another is up in court for assaulting his girlfriend.

These lads chased the high life and went bust and didn't care who they hurt on the way. 100% self centered.

They then come public to 'help others'. Who are they trying to cod. They tell their story to try make a few pound for themselves by selling books telling their story. Or by making a career in counseling out of it. Everything evolves around themselves.

May sound crude but that's the reality.

Wanderer78

djPSB wrote: »

People need to take personal accountability. We all have an addictive trait in us somewhere and need the self control to know when to stop.

For gambling, a lot of it comes down to greed. Not surprisingly, alot of the high profile GAA players who have come out with these problems are not very nice people. One was stealing from parents, families and charities and had over ten incidents of assault. Another is up in court for assaulting his girlfriend.

These lads chased the high life and went bust and didn't care who they hurt on the way. 100% self centered.

They then come public to 'help others'. Who are they trying to cod. They tell their story to try make a few pound for themselves by selling books telling their story. Or by making a career in counseling out of it. Everything evolves around themselves.

May sound crude but that's the reality.

sounds like you need to do a bit more research into all this, id highly recommend chatting to mental health professionals for more info

Capt'n Midnight

I'm not addicted to brake fluid. I can stop anytime.

Capt'n Midnight

There was an ultra marathon from Dublin to Cork a good few years back.

IIRC many of the people involved were previously addicted to drugs or alcohol.

An odd association.

ballsymchugh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There was an ultra marathon from Dublin to Cork a good few years back.

IIRC many of the people involved were previously addicted to drugs or alcohol.

An odd association.

used to work with a rehabilitated alcoholic who spent every weekend doing some 10k or half marathon, and trained every day in between.

alcoholism only became classified as a disease in the US a few decades ago so that treatment could be paid for out of health insurance.

Dravokivich

I think you're doing someone a disservice trying to identify 1 complete anwser to "what causes addiction." There's so many stereotypes behind it and I've seen people trying to conform to them, so they could relieve themselves of the immense pressure envolved in tackling thier various issues that have lead to addiction.

Noel82

Some addictions are "self inflicted" due to life circumstances or experiences they've had to live through where it's easier to get drunk than deal with the problems. Continue it over years and letting the problems build up inside can lead to serious mental problems imo. Alcoholism is a terrible affliction.

nozzferrahhtoo

nkav86 wrote: »

I think to call it a disease though, negates the choice that someone made to take drug and can absolve them of the blame that is there. Rightly or wrongly, that's the best way I can describe my thoughts on it.

Choice is not a part of the definition of disease though. So while it is clear what you want to say here, and you say it clearly, it is not actually a relevant point.

Lung cancer is a disease for example despite the "Choice" involved in starting to smoke cigarettes. Obesity and certain types of diabetes can also be formed based on the "choice" to feed yourself swaths of cola, sweets, crisps and biscuits every day.

What is or is not a disease is not defined by whether it's root causes were formed in or by choice or not. Though, like yourself, I think a lot of the reluctance to use the word "disease" in conjunction with "addiction" very much is couched here....... in the fear that it will remove our ability to allocate initial blame for the condition at the feet of the patient.

dartboardio wrote: »

I completely agree with you there, it certainly doesn't start out as a disease, and if anything, the person using CREATES that 'disease'.. from their own choices. (maybe not choice, maybe they felt they had to) but still doesnt change the fact that it is a conscious decision.

While pedantically accurate in some senses though, I am not sure this is a useful way to look at it. It may have been a conscious decision to START drinking SOME alcohol. But I doubt very much that many people with addictions made any kind of conscious decision to first abuse.... and subsequently become addicted to....... it.

A huge % of people in our country drink alcohol. I would suggest that the "conscious decisions" of those not addicted to it are not all that different to the "conscious decisions" of the people who are if you were able to hold them up side by side and compare them usefully.

djPSB wrote: »

People need to take personal accountability. We all have an addictive trait in us somewhere and need the self control to know when to stop.

You are over simplifying the issue here by speaking of it from the perspective of a "healthy" person that has that self control and the borders on where to stop. But as the ASAM says when they define addiction as a disease..... the processes and development of addiction basically alter the reward structures and decision making areas of the brain and actively impinge upon the very processes you are calling on when discussing their "accountability".

The very motivational hierarchies of the brain you are appealing to here when discussing accountability are exactly the ones that are altered and impaired by the processes of addiction.

So yes, by all means we should not lose sight of accountability by any means. But when a person with addiction issues presents before us for treatment and assistance......... it is only a small part of a much bigger and more important picture........ and the treatment of the disease becomes distinct from the initial causal pathways of it.

djPSB wrote: »

For gambling, a lot of it comes down to greed.

Actually for gambling a lot of it comes down to poor judgement and desperation, not greed. The person is not being greedy when they get into dire straits and debt, rather they get locked into a cycle of simply believing they can recoup their loses eventually. They are not being motivated by greed for more and more money........ they are motivated by a desperation to get back to square 1 and simply recoup the money they lost.

I am not sure there is much benefit to be gleaned from cherry picking 2 or 3 anecdotes of people with such addictions as if to paint the entire world of gambling addiction by the crimes of one girlfriend beating horror. 2 Anecdotes is not, as you claimed, "a lot".

I am not even convinced, as you appear to be, that people who get into a cycle of gambling addiction were ever "chasing the high life" while doing so. Rather it is often a cyclical series of minute abuses of their brains reward mechanisms that probably started out with them putting a little money on a horse "Just because".

djPSB wrote: »

They then come public to 'help others'. Who are they trying to cod.

Yea because it is impossible that people who recovered from addiction might sometimes ACTUALLY genuinely intend to help others. Absolutely unimaginable that that can sometimes be the case, is it?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

an attempt to normalise an abnormal mental disorder.

I have never quite understood your need to invent motivations for people you simply disagree with. I guess it is something to do with wanting to bypass their argument by instead inventing some nefarious agenda behind their having made it.

That said I am not clear what you think it even means to be "normalizing addiction". Perhaps you could explain what you think normalizing it means, entails, and consists of.

But the REAL motivation for most people defining it this way has literally nothing with an attempt to "normalize" anything. Rather it is motivated by the simple fact that the treatment of any condition requires accurate diagnosis and classification of it. Only when we really understand what condition a person or people have can we move towards effective treatment plans.

Historically, as the "recovery village" points out, "addiction to alcohol and drugs has been seen as a moral failing. The person addicted was viewed as lacking in willpower". A set of attitudes that is the direct opposite of what is required to understand and treat the condition.

So no, no one is out to "normalize" anything so much as we are out to accurately portray it, understand it, and develop new and ever better treatments for it based on what it actually is, rather than what people like you simply want it to be for the sake of simplicity or judgement or whatever floats your particular boat.

Or put another way, calling it a disease is often motivated not solely by definitions and recognition of how many aspects of it DO match the definition of "disease" (which you are unwilling or unable to provide) but also by the realization that treating it with the "disease model" is the best approach. There is a paper in Science by Leshner for example on not just why we classify it as disease, but why it actually matters.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or, y'know, you could just post the definition of disease for me if you think I'm wrong.

Ah the old "Everyone has to cite for their arguments except me" move that you love so well.

Interestingly though, as the "center on addiction" points out.... it is defined as a disease by "most medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Society of Addiction Medicine.". The latter for example define addiction as "Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry."

Also the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) also uses the word "addiction" to define compulsive drug seeking behaviors, though they do note that although the use all the same criteria for this as the DSM.... the DSM prefers to call it "substance use disorder" rather than addiction.

While DrugAbuse.gov tells us that “Addiction is a chronic, often relapsing brain disease that causes compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences to the addicted individual and to those around him or her.”

Leshner wrote in the peer reviewed magazine "Science", and you can source the paper on ncbi.nlm.nih.gov also, that "As with many other brain diseases, addiction has embedded behavioral and social-context aspects that are important parts of the disorder itself. " And while on the subject of magazines it was reported on also in Medical-News-Today why this definition is used in 2011 if you care to go read it.

So if anyone is put out by your own unwillingness to define your lay man terms, then they are welcome to go to these actual medical bodies, and actual scientists, and see how they define theirs.

topper75

RobertKK wrote: »

Some of it is due to genetics.

Could we tease apart the following two things?

• weakness to resist a habit (yes genetics may play a part here - possible brain chem issues)
• the stupidity to start a habit (not genetics - total personal responsibility issue and absolutely nothing to do with a disease)

Pure tashte

I think it's on a sliding scale, and some people are much more predisposed to intense addiction. Maybe a mental health issue would be a better term?

For instance, if you take cigarettes for example. They are certainly addicted and if you smoke enough of them you'll get addicted. But some people smoke for years and only smoke a few a days or less, and then some people smoke 60+ a day, from using the same product.

nozzferrahhtoo

topper75 wrote: »

Could we tease apart the following two things?

• weakness to resist a habit (yes genetics may play a part here - possible brain chem issues)
• the stupidity to start a habit (not genetics - total personal responsibility issue and absolutely nothing to do with a disease)

Again a massive over simplification going on there. For many people there is no distinction between the two things on your list.

If, for example, you are genetically disposed to it then that is not something you are likely to know. You are going to start drinking at the same time, and in the same way, as most of your peers most likely.

So one is stupidly "starting a habit". Abuse, dependence, and addiction are often something that happens so incrementally that it sneaks up on one before they even see it. Sometimes they do not even see it even when people around them start to see it. A real "not seeing the woods because all the trees around you are getting in the way" kind of situation.

It would indeed be stupid of anyone to sit down and decide to form a dependence or addiction to something. To sit down and say "this is going to become a problematic habit". But I am not convinced many, if any, people are actually doing that.

I myself have a few addictions, mostly benign and mostly sugar based. I was never "addicted" to alcohol but I think I narrowly missed that bullet myself. My drinking patterns were once a week only, but in slightly ever increasing amounts. I did not see it as a problem until SUDDENLY I realised it potentially was. And I stopped drinking.

Now it has been 14 months since I have had any alcohol and looking back I can NOW see blatantly obvious warning signs of my developing issue that I was, to say the least, absolutely and entirely blind to at the time.

So blatantly obvious that I genuinely can not get myself BACK into the head space of being blind to them. But at the time, that is what I was. Totally. Entirely. Blind.

And I do not, though I suppose self evaluation is a dangerous game, think any of this was due to "stupidity". Rather the changes in my behaviors and alcohol use were so incremental and tiny over the space of a 7 year period that they were simply invisible to me at the time.

Which was not helped by the fact that during that 7 year period I had a 7 month period with zero alcohol and I did not miss it once. So I convinced myself, as many with developing issues do, that I was a "I can stop any time no problem" case and therefore I did not have any alcohol problems. Now I realize that alcohol problems take many forms, some of which do indeed mean you CAN stop any time.

It is so easy to merely hand wave it away with things like "your choice" or "stupid" and so on. But to do so is an over simplification that I think misses the masses of nuance and incremental changes that actually go on in the life of many people who end up with dependency, abuse and addiction problems.

sbsquarepants

My personal 2 cents is that if you can't catch it without being at least partially to blame, it's not a disease.

You may be more inclined to be an addict than the next person - but without you kick starting the whole thing, it never happens. Nobody takes a mouthful of a pint and hey presto they're an alcoholic, or does a line at a party and they're suddenly a coke addict.

Becoming an addict takes time and effort on the part of the addict.

It's like being genetically pre-disposed to gaining weight. That in itself won't make you fat, over eating is what will make you fat. Over indulging will make you an addict. It's your own fault - stop making excuses!

nozzferrahhtoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My personal 2 cents is that if you can't catch it without being at least partially to blame, it's not a disease.

I am not sure I am parsing your post right? Perhaps the double negative is throwing me and I am parsing it as meaning exactly the opposite of what it does mean? If so my bad!

But if I am reading the above correctly..... HIV and AIDS is not a disease then?

What about people who drink loads of cola and eat loads of sweets and develop diabetes? Are those forms of diabetes not a disease then?

What about lung cancer caused by cigarettes?

I do not think anyone in the medical industry defines what is and is not a disease in terms of the initial hand the patient has (or has not had) in the causes of it.

Stonedpilot

Some in AA call it a disease despite the main text of the big book not stating this.

She meant its a disease of the mind. Its not whats in a bottle or syringe makes you take it its whats in your head.The disease in her head will always try get her back on drugs. She's powerless as such once she takes thus total absinence is the only option.
Some call it disease others dont. Anyone who gets hung up on it is pathetic.

He should have praised her on being clean and sober. He acted like a pure prick

Trying to explain that to a narcississtic simpleton like Adrian Kennedy impossible.

Staggering how he has a radio show. He has the mind of a spoilt 12 year old and an ego the size of Russia.

Horrible horrible human being.

CruelCoin

RobertKK wrote: »

Some of it is due to genetics.

I don't see it so much as genetics than just plain old "monkey see monkey do"

Nurture, not nature.

sbsquarepants

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But if I am reading the above correctly..... HIV and AIDS is not a disease then?

I suppose that is what I actually said....but it's not what I meant:D

I'll elucidate!

HIV, AIDS, STD's in general - I suppose you normally do play some part in acquiring things like this, and no that doesn't mean they aren't diseases. But it is also quite possible to catch them accidentally without ever endangering yourself. Say via a blood transfusion for example. You don't HAVE to put the effort in.

Diabetes, lung cancer etc. can develop without ever over doing the biscuits or smoking like a chimney.

Addiction however, any and every addiction, REQUIRES the addict to take steps to get themselves addicted. The only exception would be in newborn babies - where their mother has so thoughtfully put in the legwork for them.

They are the only innocent addicts.

So, to my mind - addiction is not a disease, not in the normal meaning of the word disease anyway - it is more a weakness in the personality of the addicted person. If you as an adult find yourself addicted to anything - you brought it on yourself, plain and simple. Don't use the word "disease" to make yourself a victim and absolve yourself of blame. It's your own fault - nobody elses, not genetics, not circumtstance, not the big bad world.....it's you!

If you're lying on your death bed riddled with cancer because you were just unlucky enough for your cells to mess up their division - then you are a victim. If you've destroyed your lungs through your own actions - then you are merely reaping what you've sown.

nozzferrahhtoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Addiction however, any and every addiction, REQUIRES the addict to take steps to get themselves addicted.

I am not really getting the distinction you are trying to make.

You recognize that the vast majority of people who get HIV did something themselves that led to it (took drugs, unprotected sex, whatever) but there are SOME exceptions to this like transfusions.

You then go on to say that the vast majority of people with addictions, did something themselves that led to it (actively taking alcohol or whatever for example) but there are SOME exceptions to this (babies of addicted people being the example here).

So..... both the same thing then? In both cases they are VASTLY more often caused by the patient initiating it in some way..... and in both cases there are a set of minority exceptions.

Further, just to be a little extra pedantic since it is what I am apparently known for when you say "possible to catch them accidentally without ever endangering yourself. Say via a blood transfusion for example. " I do not see that distinction either. Giving or taking a transfusion IS endangering yourself. Undertaking any medical procedure is to endanger yourself. Every medical procedure comes with risks. Risks of complications. Side effects. Infection.

Not meaning to hammer on you too much here as I know you are just giving YOUR PERSONAL definition of "disease" here and not claiming in any way that it is the correct one, the medical one, a useful one, or anything but your own personal one..... so no one can be called "wrong" for making up their own word or their own definition for an existing word.... as long as they are acknowledging that is, in fact, what they are doing.

But it does, I hope you forgive me for saying so, come across strongly like having come to a conclusion first and are attempting to fit the definition to it second. Which is..... not an approach I generally recommend if asked.

But what I would say is that the "choices" (which seem to be the focus of your definition) that an addict made are generally little different to the choices non-addicts made. They start drinking a little, like most of us did. They over time increase how much they drink like most of us did. And some point along the process this went awry. I think you would be hard pushed to analyse, say, 100 random addicts and coherently identify any point in their process where they made a "choice" we can point at and say "There, that was it".

The path to addiction for most, I warrant, is a slow and incremental one that.... for much of the initial stages.... likely map near 1:1 with the same things that go on in the rest of us "normal" people.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sorry for the seperate reply to the same post, but you appear to have added the text below while I was writing my previous reply.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Don't use the word "disease" to make yourself a victim and absolve yourself of blame. It's your own fault - nobody elses, not genetics, not circumtstance, not the big bad world.....it's you!

Firstly I do not think that that IS the motivation of people who are using the word disease. This sounds like the kind of thing One Eyed Jack would spew out at us. The people who use the word "disease" to describe the issue of addiction have many motivations for doing so. And I have seen little to suggest that absolving themselves or others of "blame" is one of them. People like ASAM are VERY clear why they thing the definition fits. While people treating addiction are VERY clear why the disease model....... if not the word disease itself...... has been very important and relevant in how we treat and view people with addictions.

Secondly though we already have good reasons to suspect there is a genetic element at play here. Some people are simply more prone to addiction and addiction behaviors than others. No one is saying "it is all genetics" of course, but it would be a fools game to discount it's role at all, let alone to discount it entirely.

I think what people have is some idea that a person chooses to drink remarkably heavily, for a sustained period, until they are addicted. A leads to B.

The actual process is more iterative than that. A person starts on their "vice" of choice. Alcohol. Gambling. A drug. Whatever. And as ASAM describe, it modifies a tiny bit the areas of the brain related to reward mechanisms, self control, motivational hierarchies and so forth.

That then feeds back into the usage behavior of the vice of choice.... which feeds into a brain change.......... so on so on. It is a cyclical and iterative process of a level of complexity that is not acknowledged in your descriptions of it. I genuinely suspect very strongly that if you map out the Decisions and choices of people who drink to.... say.... modern average irish standards.......... and people who drink to the point of addiction and dependence......... you are going to be hard pressed to identify much difference between them. And that result, should you test it, should be highly informative to you if you let it be.

I do not think anyone is trying to discount blame entirely from the discussion. It should be part of a much larger picture of course. But the two places blame do not seem to be useful are in treating a person with an addiction, or in defining the meaning of the word "disease". The latter, especially, is not somewhere where blame should have anything to do with it at all.

sbsquarepants

I take your point.

To be honest I suppose what I've done is I've equated the word disease with blameless - which is not correct.

I still don't believe that addiction is an actual disease per se - but the points you make about blood transfusions etc are correct, so i'll withdraw my ill thought out comments entirely.

I think, largely from personal experience, that to become an addict you must ignore quite a few warning signs. You simply can not become an addict without being complicit. When you get to the stage where you are prioritising the buzz of anything over relationships, work, normal everyday life - you need to ask yourself some tough questions. If you don't ask those questions that's not a disease, that's a choice. Sometimes people don't make the hard choices, the allure of the easy route is very strong.

I've taken lots of drugs in my time, I know all to well that it is much more enjoyable to stay partying than sober up and go to work (I've done just that many times) But overall you just have to do what you have to do. Being irresponsible is not a disease, it's a character flaw.

donegaLroad

this is well worth the 5 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg