Addiction is a disease?

[CarlSpackler]

I won't comment on the other addictions you've listed, but I've studied drug addiction (this includes alcoholism) for over 12 years, and drug addiction is just as much a disease as AIDS and cancer. There is no cure for drug addiction, just like there's no cure for AIDS or cancer. For all practical purpose, one develops the disease of drug addiction the same way one contracts the HIV virus, by making one or more ignorant and irresponsible decisions (of course this excludes babies born with HIV or born with drug addiction i.e. crack babies, etc.).

Unfortunately, the money spent on research to cure/treat drug addiction is miniscule compared to the money spent on AIDS and cancer research. The most horrific thing of all with regards to drug addiction, is the war on drugs, which treats this disease as a crime rather than the massive health problem it is. Many drug addicts end up in prison or jail, and most get no treatment there. To make matters worse, drugs are readily available in prison/jail, and these drug addicts get the bonus of learning and being conditioned to be a violent criminal -- all because they have a disease.

Addiction may be a symptom of a disease, but I don't believe addiction itself is a disease.

[EnderIII]

No, addiction is not a disease. This is not a widely held position, but seems clearly true.

Consider a disease such as cholera, which cannot be fixed by a choice of the person who has it. Contrast this with being addicted to cigarettes, which people fix by quitting every day. There seems be a significant and substantial difference between the two so much that the same word should not apply to both of them. I highly recommend the following website as a resource for this subject:

http://www.schaler.net/

So in answer to your orignal question, if they aren't using it metaphorically, they should be.

Anybody see last night's south park episode? They did a pretty good bit on this very topic....

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody see last night's south park episode? They did a pretty good bit on this very topic....

[/ QUOTE ]

DAMN, beat me to it.

I cant say i totally agree w/ it, but it brought up some good points... and it was quite funny.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This part is not exactly true. For example a heroin addiction is going to have different features than a sex addiction.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, there are subtle differences. But the overall effects seem to be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

A heroin addict going through withdrawal experiences significant physical symptoms (chills, running nose, etc.). A so-called sex addict does not.

I'd be inclined to say that this difference was overt rather than subtle.

[AlanBostick]

Not all addictions are created equal, then. I was hooked on cigarettes for a decade, finally quitting in 1988. I spent this past October in Biloxi, Mississippi, doing hurricane relief work. Everyone there smoked, and it was a high-stress situation. It wasn't long before I started smoking again, too.

Just before I boarded my plane home, I threw away what remained of my cigarettes. There is no room for smoking in my home life. I resigned myself to a week or two of misery until the nicotine fits passed.

To my complete surprise, they never arrived. I noticed when the effects of my last cigarette wore off, but I never felt any of the shaking and nervousness that I remembered from my many earlier attempts to quit.

N.B.: Some addiction and recovery experts would not describe my physiological dependence on cigarettes in my youth as an "addiction"; under a widely-used definition, for a condition to be an addiction it has to have an immediate negative impact on one's life, relationships, or work situation.

I find it foolish to say 'mental illness' or 'addictions' are diseases. What constitutes a mental illness or an addiction? Is it a lesion, an abnormal x-ray finding, elevated enzymes, tissue damage, insufficient insulin?

No, mental illneses and addictions are repetitive behaviors that are socially undesireable. The labels are a very convenient mechanism for both the 'sufferer' and the labeler. The person labeled wins because they are exonerated from personal responsibility. Instead of actively chosing to engage in undesired behaviors, the addict/neurotic is the victim of 'bad brain chemistry.' The labeler (such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, chemical dependency evaluator, social worker, medical doctor, drug company representative, parole officer) benefits because they have created a whole new class of clients needing assessment, treatment and diagnosis for these 'diseases.'

It's almost comical how many new 'diseases' are being evented each year. Look at the explosive growth of the DSM (Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) if you need proof. We are now being told that using too much caffeine, smoking, being shy, easily distracted, staying online for long hours, shoplifting, drinking, etc. are diseases. They are said to be the function of 'bad brain chemistry.' Every year we're told they're on the breakthrough of finding the cause of these pernicious disorders and disease. Of course, one is never found. It's called being HUMAN!

Why do think the advocacy groups were so hellbent on getting the AMA to call alcoholism a 'disease.' Because the label of disease conveys a lot of weight and exonerates the afflicted of responsibility. They no longer freely choose their behavior but are compelled to act in a certain way by virtue of 'brain chemistry disequilibrium.' There are financial incentives as well; think of the windfall created by labeling drug and alcohol abuse a disease. Insurance companies now are doling out billions to medically treat what was once thought of as merely immoral, sinful, neurotic, foolish behavior. And then there are billions spent on researching possible treatments.

My personal bias is seeking explanations that maximize free will. Rather than viewing chronic alcohol abusers as 'diseased alcohlics' I see them as individuals who make the foolish and self-defeating choice to persist in drinking large quantities. I believe that labels of 'mental illness' and 'addictive disease' do represent true diseases in the traditional sense. Rather, they describe problems in living.

I am not trying to say that chronic drinkers or chronic drug abusers do not suffer as a result of their behavior. Obviously, an addict can create real disease states by persisting in chronic use of intoxicating agents. I believe that we largely choose our behaviors and destinies. I believe that 'addictive disease' and 'mental illness' are metaphors for problems in living; not legitimate or verifiable diseases. Unfortunately, many people tend to underestimate their ability to actively choose their thoughts and behaviors.

JeffreyREBT "Wherein I don't promise to make you rich without trying, or even trying very hard; I do promise to say things that will make you FEEL rich."

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be inclined to say that this difference was overt rather than subtle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the overall effects of, and damage done by addictions - psychological and spiritual. Of course physical withdrawal from dependence on a chemical substance differs from withdrawal from sex or gambling addictions. Sorry if I even implied that.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
Addiction is a disease.

When you see first hand what it can do to your family and people you know you will understand. People can become monsters and do things that they know are wrong and justify it with [censored] that only makes sense to them, they become posessed, they aren't even human, their mind is turned off and the drugs take over the conrols.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how this makes it a disease. I am not saying that it isn't, but just because it changes a person into something they are not, does that necessarily make it a disease.

craig

p.s. I have experienced it first hand.