Is Addiction a Disease?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The idea of addiction being a disease has seemed to have taken root as of late; at least, I keep hearing it. It's the idea that people have genetic dispositions that make them more prone to addiction, such as drug addiction, alcoholism, or even obesity. These traits can also make it harder for them to break the addiction. In other words, they can't help it. What do you think?

Personally, I think it's a load of crap. I in no way believe that addiction is a disease. Asthma is a disease. Diabetes is a disease. Cancer is a disease. Not having enough willpower to put down a cigarette, beer, or hamburger is not a disease, in my opinion. Frankly, as someone who does have a legitimate, genetic disease, the idea is borderline offensive. Plus, I've dealt with addiction before, even if it was mild. I got a bit addicted to taking Percocet after a surgery. You know what I did? I stopped taking it. It was that easy. I was shaky and didn't sleep more than two hours a night for a week, but it was pretty simple, really.

[cl154576]

An addiction is a compulsive behavior that brings shame and pain. Addicts do not necessarily enjoy the object of their addiction but are addicted nonetheless. Some people are more genetically or environmentally susceptible to addictions.

I think whether you consider addiction a disease can relate to your opinion on other mental disorders. I have had addictions before (not substance related, but still very damaging) and personally I would weigh their "realness" as equal to anxiety disorders. Do you consider anxiety disorders illnesses?

[Emil Miller]

No, addiction is the abandonment of personal responsibility.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

An addiction is a compulsive behavior that brings shame and pain. Addicts do not necessarily enjoy the object of their addiction but are addicted nonetheless. Some people are more genetically or environmentally susceptible to addictions.

I think whether you consider addiction a disease can relate to your opinion on other mental disorders. I have had addictions before (not substance related, but still very damaging) and personally I would weigh their "realness" as equal to anxiety disorders. Do you consider anxiety disorders illnesses?

Yes. Anxiety disorders are out of someone's control. Addictions aren't.

[Buh4Bee]

I find the authoritative statements about what is and is not misinformed. I would suggest a better what to find the answer to this question is to talk to some people who have fought an addiction and succeed. I haven't luckily had to ever walk that path, but I do have "clinic" anxiety that I can control through cognitive behavioral techniques. And yes, anxiety is classified in the United States as an emotional disorder. (I hope that was polite, because I rewrote this about 5 times!)

[Vonny]

I agree Mutatis and Emil. I have the anxiety, and do some things I shouldn't do.

As humans we're all going to do some things we shouldn't, at least for a time until we get beyond it, and some of us struggle more than others, so it's hard to know where to draw the line, and that's why the bible says not to judge.

Sometimes it's difficult to keep a handle on many different activities at once. I have a problem of forgetting to eat. If I have other things on my mind, or many things to do, I'll just not eat the entire day. Plus, I don't eat because my stomach is nervous - it's difficult to eat. (I'm the opposite of the obesity people who get nervous and hungry - I can't imagine but I'm sure it's a problem the same as mine is.) And then, I don't sleep for the same reasons. I don't forget to clean and run up and down stairs, I'm just programmed to clean and run.

But I know that I control what I do, and I'm responsible for what I do.

In my mind, addiction isn't disease. I think there are political reasons this notion got going.

[billl]

I do think that there are probably cases where someone who is addicted to cigarettes (and can't quit) has exhibited greater willpower (in sports, negotiations, endurance of a shared pain or struggle, or some other challenge) than someone who has successfully quit smoking. I don't have any science or proof to back me up, but I think it's a little overboard to make a general suggestion that someone who can't quit smoking would necessarily be lacking in willpower compared to someone who could.

What's the difference between two such individuals? Maybe genetics, maybe emotional/psychological history, maybe both, who knows? Maybe somebody, not me, maybe there's lots of variations of factors.

I've met people who are able to have a smoke 0-10 times per year, and keep that minimal pace for years on end. Many others become hard-core nicotine addicts, and it can be hard to say when their smoking went from experimental to full-blown habit. Does it really seem like this would *simply* be a matter of willpower?

In the end, of course, someone who wants to quit will have to make recourse to their store of willpower in order to succeed, but it is apparently not a level playing field. Pretending that it is some physical/genetic/chemical problem that the individual is helpless against---some disease that simply needs an outside cure--seems wrong, definitely. But pretending that is simply a matter of personal weakness is not wholly accurate, in my opinion.

[Vonny]

Actually it has nothing to do with willpower or weakness.

You begin to witness the thoughts that your brain is sending out, and you recognize that the urge (to smoke, or whatever) is only a thought, and is a false signal that your brain is emitting. Then you practice ignoring those signals. The thoughts are only thoughts, and can't control you.

My problem is that sometimes I forget this. And then with eating - I forget to eat. I think if I was eating too much, I could ignore the urge.

[Delta40]

Do you seriously believe everyone is born at the same starting line though? I disagree that 'in other words, they can't help it' You're simplifying a statement and being judgmental. It doesn't justify the person's addictive practice but it does go some way to explain how overcoming addiction may be a greater obstacle for some than it is for others.

Since people living in starving third world countries have a genetic predisposition to survive longer under abject conditions than consumerist westerners like me, I have absolutely no compulsion to help them because I'm sure they'll do just fine, meets yours same principal.

Any objections?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Of course I was simplifying my statement. I made the "elaborate" statement about genetics and what not, and then even prefaced saying "they can't help it" with "in other words." Still, I stand by it, because all those arguments are essentially making excuses for people who have addictions.

As to the starving people analogy, I don't think it works. Starving people don't one day decide to not eat like a person decides to start smoking or drinking. People have to start something they weren't doing before to become addicted, and that something is almost always bad and they know it, but they start anyways.

And I never said people with addiction shouldn't get or receive help, or that I have no compulsion to help them. I'm saying the problem should not be put into the same category as actual diseases, and that people with addiction need to take more accountability for their actions, and not claim it's out of their control.

[Delta40]

Of course I was simplifying my statement. I made the "elaborate" statement about genetics and what not, and then even prefaced saying "they can't help it" with "in other words." Still, I stand by it, because all those arguments are essentially making excuses for people who have addictions.

As to the starving people analogy, I don't think it works. Starving people don't one day decide to not eat like a person decides to start smoking or drinking. People have to start something they weren't doing before to become addicted, and that something is almost always bad and they know it, but they start anyways.

And I never said people with addiction shouldn't get or receive help, or that I have no compulsion to help them. I'm saying the problem should not be put into the same category as actual diseases, and that people with addiction need to take more accountability for their actions, and not claim it's out of their control.

Reap what you sow. As usual, the issue is brought down to the individual and not the dysfunction of the societies we live in. On that basis your theory explains why third world individuals deserve what they get because they actually expect other people to solve their problems! (but they do live longer in these conditions so perhaps they should not be helped in case their mortality rate rises....) Oh of course they should seek help but their denial of responsibility for their own circumstance means they too should be accountable for their actions and not claim it's out of their control.

[cl154576]

People have to start something they weren't doing before to become addicted, and that something is almost always bad and they know it, but they start anyways.

Addictions can progress from something harmless. Internet, for instance. We all use it, but some of us might become addicted to it and others might not.

[Delta40]

Addictions can progress from something harmless. Internet, for instance. We all use it, but some of us might become addicted to it and others might not.

My older brother had an addiction for raping me. He insists it wasn't his fault and incest runs in my family. Many families have this conspiracy of silence going on behind closed doors (maybe yours for all I care) but rather than state it is genetic, I would say there is a predisposition, making it at the very least, a social disease. This is because the problems of the previous generations go unsolved and are then passed down to the next generation to cope with. This applies to the so-called individual addictions that Mutatis referred to in his first post, like alcoholism and drug use.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Reap what you sow. As usual, the issue is brought down to the individual and not the dysfunction of the societies we live in. On that basis your theory explains why third world individuals deserve what they get because they actually expect other people to solve their problems! (but they do live longer in these conditions so perhaps they should not be helped in case their mortality rate rises....) Oh of course they should seek help but their denial of responsibility for their own circumstance means they too should be accountable for their actions and not claim it's out of their control.

I'm not quite understanding your point. Where did I say third worlds deserve what they get? Something that is out of your control, like being born in a third world country, is not a matter of what you deserve.

And, I also don't get the last sentence at all. Why does it have to be either/or? Addiction is within someone's control, but I never said breaking addictions was easy. A person taking accountability can be that person checking into rehab.

[OrphanPip]

The addiction as disease model operates off of the fact that when addiction is treated by physicians and psychiatrist as disease instead of a social flaw, their rates of success are higher.

There are actually genetic causes of addiction that have been identified as well. We like to think the brain is somehow different from our other organs, but it is just as mechanical as every part of our body, its parts can be defective too. Why should a flaw of the brain be a personal failing, but a flaw of the body is just a misfortune of fate.

[MystyrMystyry]

I can only speak for my coffee addiction, which at certain points in the night can reach critical levels, and has the potential to play havoc with sleeping patterns and cause me physical and mental grogginess until I renew the fix

I'm not sure how long it remains in the system but I remember running out whilst camping a couple of years ago and the last few days were unbearable.

One of the party was sent to retrieve a jar at the nearest town, returned with this "Pablo's" instant disgrace, ('all they had' he said) which, though it may have sat on the shelves for a hundred years, had a certain murky soup quality - the first cup seemed quite delicious (due no doubt to the exigent need) but each consecutive grew to such unpalatable proportion that it couldn't be consumed without concomitant wincing and grimacing, and was the direct reason all present contracted acute lockjaw.

Addicted only to a particular standard perhaps, but given the choice of a pure hit over an adulterated concoction - well, give me beans!

[Delta40]

I'm not quite understanding your point. Where did I say third worlds deserve what they get? Something that is out of your control, like being born in a third world country, is not a matter of what you deserve.

And, I also don't get the last sentence at all. Why does it have to be either/or? Addiction is within someone's control, but I never said breaking addictions was easy. A person taking accountability can be that person checking into rehab.

You never said it. I did remember? My point is that genetic disposition and pre-disposition are not the same. How the hell would you know what is in somebody's control and not in others? So diseased third world individuals starving to death are in circumstances out of their control? Your opinion undermines a person who battles addiction aka disease because why? You reckon so. Is that the basis of your argument? That people make free decisions to become addicted to whatever and should accept personal responsibility for it because there are no other contributing factors than that they decided to engage in a practice which led to addiction?

When I said you are simplifying a statement, that is what you are bringing it down to. Perhaps a first grader will appreciate its narrow simplicity better than I.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yes. Anxiety disorders are out of someone's control. Addictions aren't.

What about when psychological disorders give rise to addictions, as they often do? You'd be hard pressed to find someone with a panic disorder who has never been even mildly addicted to benzodiazepines.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The addiction as disease model operates off of the fact that when addiction is treated by physicians and psychiatrist as disease instead of a social flaw, their rates of success are higher.

There are actually genetic causes of addiction that have been identified as well. We like to think the brain is somehow different from our other organs, but it is just as mechanical as every part of our body, its parts can be defective too. Why should a flaw of the brain be a personal failing, but a flaw of the body is just a misfortune of fate.
So, if it's treated like a disease, that makes it a disease? I just don't think it should be put in the same category as cancer, diabetes, etc.

You never said it. I did remember?
Well, as long as you admit to making a straw man out of what I wrote.

My point is that genetic disposition and pre-disposition are not the same.
Okay. I agree with that, and as far as I know, never disputed that, either. Drugs are undoubtedly a social issue, as is over-eating, drinking . . . you can put a societal issue on anything. Never have I said that addiction was due solely to one or the other.
How the hell would you know what is in somebody's control and not in others?
And how the hell would you know what isn't in somebody's control and what is in others? I assume when a person starts drinking, smoking, eating fast food, it's because that person has made the choice to do so.
So diseased third world individuals starving to death are in circumstances out of their control?
In many cases, yes.
Your opinion undermines a person who battles addiction aka disease because why? You reckon so.
When have I tried to undermine someone who is battling addiction? Again, you're putting words in my mouth.
Is that the basis of your argument? That people make free decisions to become addicted to whatever and should accept personal responsibility for it because there are no other contributing factors than that they decided to engage in a practice which led to addiction?
Are you arguing that one shouldn't take responsibility for their actions?

I'm simply arguing that addiction is not a disease. An addiction has a very simple cure: stop doing whatever you are addicted to. If you can come up with one disease not caused by an addiction that can be remedied in the same manner, please tell me.

When I said you are simplifying a statement, that is what you are bringing it down to. Perhaps a first grader will appreciate its narrow simplicity better than I.
No. That is what you are bringing it down to.

Frankly, Delta, I don't understand the anger, nor do I appreciate the petty insults. It's beneath you, and you are one of the last members I expected to act in such a manner. Me? Of course. But you? Never.


What about when psychological disorders give rise to addictions, as they often do? You'd be hard pressed to find someone with a panic disorder who has never been even mildly addicted to benzodiazepines.
Now that is an interesting question. First, I don't know what benzodiazepines are. Still, addiction is defined, for the purposes of this discussion, at least, as dependence on an outside substance that effects the body in a negative manner. So, if benzodiazepines help a person, I would not consider it an addiction.

[Delta40]

You're right Mutatis. I'm better than that and have been caught in a bad moment. I was in the middle of writing my latest short story if you care to read it called Monday Afternoon. I was taking time out when I stumbled on your post. Sincere apologies and it's another reminder not to enter into serious discussions when my passions should be channelled elsewhere.

best wishes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No problem, Delta. Trust me, I know how that happens. :nod:

[Calidore]

Related article from yesterday's Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-heb-addiction-isbrain-disease-20110816,0,1545354.story

[Miss 87]

Do you seriously believe everyone is born at the same starting line though? I disagree that 'in other words, they can't help it' You're simplifying a statement and being judgmental. It doesn't justify the person's addictive practice but it does go some way to explain how overcoming addiction may be a greater obstacle for some than it is for others.

Since people living in starving third world countries have a genetic predisposition to survive longer under abject conditions than consumerist westerners like me, I have absolutely no compulsion to help them because I'm sure they'll do just fine, meets yours same principal.

Any objections?

and how long is this genetic predisposition that the have?
does it maintain their health or makes it in decrease?
just i wonder_

[Shalot]

I don't understand why addication can't be placed in the same category as cancer or diabetes.

We all know that there are things we can do to reduce our chances of developing cancer or diabetes. We can choose not to smoke to reduce our chances of getting lung cancer, we can choose not to bake in a tanning bed so as not to develop skin cancer, we can make an effort to maintain a healthy state of mind (studies have shown that people with certain personality types or outlooks on life will develop cancer), we can choose to eat fresh fruits and vegetables instead of processed meals and candy bars so that we don't find ourselves with type II diabetes, we can go to the gym and exercise, we can take care of ourselves in general to prevent these kinds of diseases.

People look down on drug addicts because it was their choice to use drugs. But someone with cancer, even lung cancer probably caused by his/her own smoking, doesn't receive the same harsh judgement as the cocaine addict. Why?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

One can't protect oneself against type 1 diabetes, multiple forms of cancer (including skin cancer, which can occur without self-harm), or fluke genetic conditions such as mine.

[lawpark]

Passion and love - during highest moments of intensity - is an addiction.

[Shalot]

A worthy disease is a health condition suffered by a person through no fault of his own.

Some people can do drugs and stop using them, whereas others cannot quit. Why? Genetic disposition?

Certain cancers, diabetes, obesity, drug addictions, depressions, & anxieties are the physical result of unaddressed emotional/psychological or spiritual issues. The drug addict expresses his grief or self-hatred through the use of drugs and an obese person expresses his grief or self-hatred through abusive overeating. These conditions (being addicted, obsese, sick) take the focus off of the emotional/mental state that gave rise to them in the first place. And then, not only does an addict or obese person have an unaddressed emotional or psychological need or problem, they also have to put up with the shame that comes along with being an addict or a fat person. So, maybe a drug addict can't just quit so easily.

(There are some that would argue that any illness in the physical body or mind is a spiritual issue but this forum is not the place for that discussion).