Addiction is not a Disease

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I could say that perhaps it is extreme anxiety that makes me go to SOMETHING to calm the internal "screaming".....but I used to drink BEFORE age 30, yet never drank alcoholically. I CAN stop....and I have many times in the past 15 years I have been drinking alcoholically.....I am in GREAT disagreement to your OP, regardless of your trying to coax out of me some kind of admission that I CAN stop, therefor I mist not have a disease.....but....why can ONE person drink and even drink every day....yet NEVER become alcoholics....and not ONE person in my family can drink ( or take opioids normally....or etc etc) without becoming an "addict".....sure, a Type 2 diabetic can change their eating habits and no longer be diabetic.....but then, if they start to go back to their previous eating habits....there they are....right back to being diabetic.....

I think that you are completely missing the point...and I will NEVER think that it is some kind of personal weakness...that all I have to do is stop....I HAVE stopped...many times.....but I would NEVER EVER again be able to drink ONE BEER...ONE DROP of alcohol without that brain of mine slipping me back into alcoholic drinking.

I might add that I was an opioid abuser for about 5 to 6 years in my mis to late 20's.....I DID "cure" myself of this "addiction and will even turn down painkillers legitimately given to me by doctors for pain....I have CHRONIC pain and have had it since my early 20's....but that "addiction was NOTHING AT ALL like my addiction to alcohol....

Let's just say, apparently not even a SCIENTIST, (from an earlier poster who stated he/she studied neuroscience), can change YOUR mind about YOUR BELIEFS about the disease model of addiction....but I am RIGHT HERE IN THE TRENCHES< so to speak...

So sure, I COULD quit....but that doesn't make my disease less real.

a reply to: Cornczech

Thanks for sharing what is obviously personally painful for you. I agree that someone should not be shamed for a genetic predisposition. No one "chooses" to be addicted. No one says "hey, I think I'll get addicted to alcohol - sounds like fun".

My only concern with your situation, is, seeing all the alcoholism in your family, why did you ever start to drink in the first place? My mother and aunt grew up with an alcoholic father (and there other alcoholics in his side of the family). Both my mom and my aunt refused to ever pick up a drink their whole life, in fear of their possible genetic predisposition to alcoholism. One of the reasons why I have never smoked is that lung diseases run in my father's side of the family, and those who have smoked tend to get lung cancer or emphysema.

Please understand, I am not blaming you in any way for your pain. I know you didn't choose to live it. Just curious as to how your situation developed.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

My question is....

Would it be such a problem if society itself viewed addiction or use in a different light?

Is our cultural perspective a factor in how it's abused?

Treating addictions as diseases has the added benefit of allowing the "patient" to claim, "It's not my fault." rather than having to admit to a flaw in character. The "addiction" here is not taking responsibility.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese


I don't think this complexity in particular situations should mask that a continued will to quit (repattern of the psyche) is the ultimate factor in success or failure.

"repattern the psyche" How?

Granted it can be done...however some addicts are so mentally ill they can't even think logically enough to tie their shoes much less re pattern their psyche. Addiction is a disease that tells you; you don't have a disease....in fact a full blown psychosis, break from reality....slim chance of a repattern there.

Addiction in many cases is a symptom of psychosis. Or an attempt at self medication to escape the underlying mental illness such as PTSD.

a reply to: olaru12

Prison does wonders for the extreme addicts. In the state of Texas we have a facility called SAFEP. It's a prison facility specifically meant to treat addicts. They'll teach you all the basics you leaned as a kid and since forgot, and much more. It's a very rigid structure for a purpose... it's what people with serious issues require to get back to the basics. After they are released they must go through a 2-4 month safe house and remain on probation checking in with their officer on their progress. They must get a job, attend classes, etc... I don't think this is ideal, but it does work for some people who have tried everything else. I've known people who went through the process.

Some people can repattern their psyche on their own, it seems most require a degree of help from others. This was stated in my OP.

All I know is that when you tell an addict they are powerless and not responsible for their choices, it's not helpful to them. And that's what calling it a disease does.

AA/NA are no better, they think a higher power makes you use.

The fact is, they can choose to stop the exact same way they chose to start.



By the way, I spent 7 years in the industry as a detox/inpatient treatment nurse.

a reply to: schuyler

I really think it's a lot more complicated than that. I know really rotten people with lots of flaws in their character who can take a drink or two, then stop. I also know some truly good people who take a drink, and then just can't stop.

I also know someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder who is a good person with no flaws in their character, but they can't stop going back to their house 20 times a day to make sure their door is locked. Should we blame or shame them for that?

a reply to: kaylaluv

I was married, the first time, to a religious nut...and I mean one of those snake handling, off the grid living "Fundies" one can only read about, (no offense intended for anyone who is an evangelical or "one of those" kinds of Christians....)...so, I was only allowed to care for our baby, cook his meals, take his abuse and...welll...you get the picture....we never drank...

After I ran away from him, I moved to UTAH.....so I drank....my friends bowed their own beer...but I would just have one or two...

maybe it was after my brain changed from all the painkillers I was given for migraines and horrible endometriosis...I have NO CLUE....however, when I met my CURRENT husband, (married 15 years), HE came from a hard drinking Polish family...and we moved from Utah to Chicago......now, I have nobody to blame at all.....but...I started to drink every day after a year of living here...because it calmed me down...at first.....we went to bars...he grew up in Milwaukee...beer is king up here! I also had a hysterectomy around this time....no painkillers, remember? I also am a pot smoker....yes...(and sorry if this is against the rules...I rarely post)..but this was before it was so easy to get like it is now.....so...I started to use it as a means to calm myself...help me sleep.....then...my brain changed, I guess.....I wish I could pinpoint it.

The BEST way for me to not desire to drink is to NEVER see it...NEVER see another person drink it....basically I could moved to Saudi Arabia...(I lived there for a few months...to work...and there was even alcohol THERE...though illegal!)

I wish I had been like you....but...I am a very loud, out there...don't tell me what to do, (dumb ass, I sometimes think)....

(shrug)

All I wish is that I had been born with a different disease than this one....I can keep the Type 2 diabetes at bay, (for now) by staying away from the things that can "cause" it.......

now my heart IS racing.....but this is from coming out of my anti-social cave and writing here today.....

a reply to: Cornczech

It in fact does. A disease can not be self cured by will power alone. That's simply not what a disease is.

I have tried to hint at, though not directly mention my issues in particular. It's correct to assume that I am in the exact same situation as you. Not a puff, else all will be lost. I'm fully aware of this.

Life is certainly not easy for some, but that doesn't mean drugs are the only answer. There are too many examples of people who suffer that choose life over drugs.

Excuse me for stating, your reasoning is circular. You don't require to remain an addict. You managed before your 30s without, and you can do so again.

a reply to: SteeBoo

This is EXACTLY my point.

a reply to: Cornczech

Okay, that all makes a certain amount of sense. I would imagine it would be very difficult to be around someone drinking, and not have a drink with them. I started to drink in college, and I knew about my mom and aunt not drinking and why, but I drank anyway - guess I thought I would be lucky enough not to have inherited the addiction gene. But to be honest, I didn't really think too hard about it in college. Just wanted to have fun with others who were drinking around me. Luckily, I did not inherit that gene, because I rarely drink now - just an occasional glass of wine with a meal.

But about the time I might have started smoking, I watched my grandfather slowly and painfully die of emphysema, as well as another relative with lung cancer. That made it very personal to me, and stopped me dead in my tracks from ever smoking a cigarette.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Boadicea

That's correct, you're an individual who chooses confusion instead of clarity.

Hahaha!!! I made myself very clear. I tried to get you to clarify yourself, and you chose to insult rather than clarify your position. But I'm the one choosing confusion instead of clarity??? Hahahaha!!!

You would choose to misquote me, and parse words in order to manipulate than seek clarity.

Please clarify... oh wait! You won't! I copied and pasted your exact words. No room for misquoting there. Hahaha! If I misunderstood something, then please clarify... oh wait! You won't!!!

Certainly not worth the time.

Indeed.

The really sad thing is that there may be something "there" in your OP... something practical, productive and constructive to learn from -- and benefit from -- in terms of redefining and/or reclassifying addictions and their treatment, and I gave you every opportunity to expand on your thoughts and to explain the virtue -- the higher purpose -- to your OP. You refused to do so. Perhaps you cannot do so. Perhaps your thought processes are just that limited in their scope. Perhaps you can, eventually, but not yet. Perhaps you can, but do not want to. Perhaps your ego just likes looking down on others so you can feel better about yourself. I really don't know. Doesn't matter. End result is the same, and it is what it is.

a reply to: Boadicea

"everyone" "everyone else"

I refuse to waste my time with someone who will continue to remain so terribly confused.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Boadicea

"everyone" "everyone else"

I refuse to waste my time with someone who will continue to remain so terribly confused.

LOL! I'm waiting... stop with the threats and make it so!!!

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Boadicea
If you can't grasp the difference between a condition, a syndrome, and a disease that's your deal.

As an engineer reading all this medical related stuff, I think this is the arguement - what to call an addiction?

So basically if I'm looking at a building problem, one person says "the people are always cold" , another says "there isn't enough heat in the area" and yet another says "the temperature in this enviroment is too low", should we argue about who is right or do we just agree we need to evaluate the problem and make the enviroment comfortable.

Or simply, Does it really matter which word we use to classify an addiction? Lets get them help and "fix" it - this appears to be a waste of time.

a reply to: NickK3

As an engineer you should know you can't fix a problem if you don't know what it is.

a reply to: NickK3

Yes, it does. Saying something is a condition, or syndrome is different from saying it's a disease. The way in which we help people depends on the foundation from which we build. A structure has different load supports depending on the foundation which is designed. If you put the improper foundation in place, the structure will be at increased risk of damage. Similarly, if we use the incorrect programming with addicts from the get-go, they will be at increased risk of relapse.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
First of all I've chosen to put this in medical issues & conspiracies because I think it's a conspiracy to treat addiction as if it was a medical issue. It's not.

Lewis’s argument is actually fairly simple: The disease theory, and the science sometimes used to support it, fail to take into account the plasticity of the human brain. Of course, “the brain changes with addiction,” he writes. “But the way it changes has to do with learning and development — not disease.” All significant and repeated experiences change the brain; adaptability and habit are the brain’s secret weapons. The changes wrought by addiction are not, however, permanent, and while they are dangerous, they’re not abnormal. Through a combination of a difficult emotional history, bad luck and the ordinary operations of the brain itself, an addict is someone whose brain has been transformed, but also someone who can be pushed further along the road toward healthy development.

Link

I have said nearly the exact words countless times since first hearing someone try to tell me that addiction was a disease. Let's just say I was a hoodlum early in life, experienced a lot of tragic situations, and have since turned it all around. I've seen the development of addiction in numerous people over the years, and I've seen how people get well and how people remain with poor habits.

It is very apparent to me that the evidence used to support the notion that addiction is a disease is not real science. It is looking at data after the fact and claiming causation without reason. It makes zero sense. There are numerous things which shape the brain over time. Anything we focus on expands, it creates new neural networks, strengthens existing, and atrophies those not given recent attention. Addiction is no different.

What happens in recovery is an individual learns to repattern their psyche. Some people are intelligent and self aware enough to do this all their own. Some people need instruction and reinforcement from others they trust. Yet others require isolation,the inability to access their substance of choice, and rigid structure (prison). The common denominator in those who come clean is leaving the prior lifestyle and connections associated with their poor habits and choosing to live a more healthy lifestyle. Whether that choice comes internally from within yourself, or after being conditioned sufficiently from outside influences and circumstances is irrelevant.

Seeing addiction as a disease, is claimed to take away the social stigma and shame felt by addicts. This reasoning is used to justify a falsification of the science, all the while padding the pockets of institutions whose interest it is to keep the current model in place. I think it is morally irresponsible, and ethically unsound to keep this position. Addicts have reason for feeling shame of their actions, and society has a cause for stigmatizing addicts. There was once wisdom in these actions, and yet now it can be viewed as folly.

The problem is not feeling shame for prior behavior. The problem is in not placing this shame appropriately on the behavior of the individual, a being who has the will to change. Shame is a social tool which when wielded correctly leads to transformation of the individual for his and societies benefit as a whole. That an individual has failed to place the shame in it's proper place, at the act, and not the being itself, is not justification for doing away with the shaming process entirely.

Do I expect to change anyone's mind in this thread? Not really. I've got a bit of time under my belt, and through the process went to state-mandated classes. In these classes the disease model was hammered into these poor souls. I respectfully challenged the instructor at every chance given. The first couple of months I didn't make a dent in her perspective. The last couple she was at least respecting my view, not trying to block out my reasoning, and conceding I had valid points to offer. She kept to her belief. I've never put so much effort into trying to inform a group of people in my life, and that's the best that could be done with about 200 hours of interaction.

I have no doubt in my mind it is only a matter of time before this addiction is a disease model is replaced by a better one. I do think the interests in place will keep to their story and continue to influence the general public for some years yet, but within the scientific community, it will become obvious that this model is false some years prior.

It is a disease. You can quote this one guy and you can argue for pages, but it remains a disease.

People who have had some kind of damage to the brain are more prone to addiction, but hey you must be a doctor or something.

a reply to: reldra

If you say so, just know that by definition it is not so properly qualified.