Is addiction a disease?

by **Fate Flyer** Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:48 pm

What do you think? Do you believe that being addicted to something -- to anything -- be it alcohol, drugs, or eating too much, is a disease?

(I should say I'm not putting this in the Polls forum, since this is more of a debate.)

I'm currently reading the book by James Fray for a class called A Million Little Pieces. It's about his recovery from an addiction to literally just about every drug out there. I'd highly, highly recommend reading it. It's a sad but good read. Anyway, here were his thoughts on addiction as a disease. I typed this word-for-word (A LOT TO TYPE, GOD DAMMIT, SO READ IT! XD) from the book, and he types in a way that would make a grammatical nut go crazy, but it's a style, and you get used to it.

There is a large, white, laminated board on the wall behind her, a tray at its base is lined with colored erasable markers. Sophie grabs one of the markers a blue marker and she starts writing on the board. When she's finished, she steps away. The words read Addiction = Disease, Alcoholism = Disease. She starts speaking. She tells us that now that we have a general idea about addictive behaviors and the impact that they have on both the Addicts and the Family Members of the Addicts, we need to start understanding the cause of those behaviors. She says that addiction is a disease. Whether it is to alcohol or drugs or food or gambling or sex or anything else, it is a disease. It is a chronic and progressive disease. It is classified as such by most Doctors and by organizations such as the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization. It is a disease that can be arrested, or placed into a state of remission, but that is incurable. No matter how hard we try, no matter what action we take, addiction, she says, is incurable.
Absolutely incurable.
She starts talking about the cause of the disease. As with most diseases, the belief is that the cause is genetic. She says that Alcoholics and Addicts are born with a gene or a gene structure, precisely which is not yet known, that, when activated, caused the disease to present itself in an individual. Once this has happened, and at this point there is no way to know if or when it will, the Addict is at the mercy of the disease. It cannot be controlled, it cannot be held in check by force of will, the decision to use or not use, to indulge or not indulge, to take or do or not take or not do, is not a decision that can be made because the disease makes the decision for you. The Addict always uses, always indulges, always takes, always does. The Addict always wants and always needs and that want and that need is always satisfied. The inability to control and the lack of choice is but a symptom of the disease. A dangerous and horrible symptom, but a symptom nonetheless. It is incurable. If active, there is no way to stop it.
She talks about the environmental aspects of the disease. The Family setting, the prevalence of drinking within the Family, the influence of friends, the availability of drugs and alcohol, factors of stress, the Social reliance and acceptance of chemicals and their use in everyday behaviors and functions. She talks about the control of the environment and its effects on someone who has an active form of the Disease. She says that removing as many triggers, which are environmental factors that may cause relapse, such as bottles of wine in a home or friends who abuse substances, is an important part of maintaining a healthy Recovery Program. When she finishes speaking, Sophie opens the floor to questions. Nearly everyone has one. A young Mother asks about the likelihood of addictive genes being passed from her Husband to their Children. The likelihood is very high. She asks how to deal with it. When they are old enough, talk to the Children and make them aware of it, and try to eliminate as many triggers as possible. The man next to me asks about medication. Are there any that can control the disease the way traditional medications control other diseases. There was one, Antabuse, which made Alcoholics vomit when they drank. It proved ineffective because it could be circumvented by not taking it. A middle-aged woman asks if there are specific groups that are more likely than others to be genetically predisposed to the disease. No, it is an equal-opportunity disease. It affects black, white, yellow, everyone in every culture around the World. A man whose Wife is in her fourth Treatment Center asks why the disease seems to return with greater strength each time she relapses. Sophie says that because of the progressive and chronic nature of the illness, when a state of remission is breached, the illness returns at the same level of strength it had when it remissed. He asks if there is any way to reduce the level of its strength. There answer is no. If active, the disease always becomes stronger.
There are a number of questions about Treatment options. A young man asks if there are any beyond what is traditionally taught in Treatment Centers, which are AA and the Twelve Steps. Yes, of course there are other ways. Do they work? No, they do not. Why? We don't know why, they just don't. AA and the Twelve Steps are the only real options. How successful are they? Fifteen percent of those who try them are sober for more than a year. Fifteen percent seems low. It is. Why? It is an incurable illness. Is there anything else we can do? Beyond loving your Family Member and trying to support them, there's nothing else you can do. Is there any way to increase our chances? Fifteen percent is the best we can give you.
I sit and I listen. I sit and I think. I don't ask any questions and I don't say a word. I would like to stand up and scream bullshit this is all fucking bullshit, but I don't do it. I don't believe that addiction is a disease. Cancer is a disease. It takes over the body and destroys it. Alzheimer's is a disease. It takes over the body and the mind and it ruins them. Parkinson's is a disease. It takes over the body and the mind and makes them shake and it wrecks them. Addiction is not a disease. Not even close. Diseases are destructive Medical conditions that human beings do not control. They do not choose when to have them, they do not choose when to get rid of them. They do not choose the type of disease they would like or in what form it is delivered, they do not choose how much of it they would like or at what time they would like it. A disease is a Medical condition that must be dealt with using Medical technology. It cannot be dealt with using a Group or a set of Steps. It cannot be dealt with by talking about it. It cannot be dealt with by having Family Members attend three-day seminars about it or by reading books with blue covers or saying prayers about serenity.
Although genetics and a genetic link may be undeniable, everything about us is genetic, and everything about our physical selves is predetermined by a genetic link. If an individual is fat but wants to be thin, it is not a genetic disease. If someone is stupid, but wants to be smart, it is not a genetic disease. If a drunk is a drunk, but doesn't want to be a drunk anymore, it is not a genetic disease. Addiction is a decision. An individual wants something, whatever that something is, and makes a decision to get it. Once they have it, they make a decision to take it. If they take it too often, the process of decision making gets out of control, and if it gets too far out of control, if becomes an addiction. At that point the decision is a difficult one to make, but it is still a decision. Do I or don't I. Am I going to take or am I not going to take. Am I going to be a pathetic dumbshit Addict and continue to waste my life or am I going to say no and try to stay sober and be a decent Person. It is a decision. Each and every time. A decision. String enough of those decisions together and you set a course and you set a standard of living. Addict or human. Genetics do not make that call. They are just an excuse. They allow People to say it wasn't my fault I am genetically predisposed. It wasn't my fault I was preprogrammed from day one. It wasn't my fault I didn't have any say in the matter. Bullshit. Fuck that bullshit. There is always a decision. Take responsibility for it. Addict or human. It's a fucking decision. Each and every time.

WTF? Why, at a recovery clinic, would they be telling their patients this garbage?? No wonder only 15% get better. I fully agree with James.

Has anyone else seen that South Park episode where Stan's dad has the alcoholism disease? XD It's called Bloody Mary. Good stuff.

by Adrius Frostglare Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:52 pm

It would depend on your view of what a disease truly is. If to you a disease is a condition caused by a foreign pathogen, then I would say no because outside influence is not pathogenic, since it does not enter your physical body. If disease classifies as a psychological impulse that is unhealthy to the well-being of a person, I'd say yes it is.

Because I hold no absolute view on either of these since they both have good points, I'll vote "unsure".

EDIT: However, I do have to disagree on one matter. There is a choice, indeed. Perhaps one cannot choose what to feel, but one can decide how to or not to act based on an emotion or belief.

Emotions do not rule our bodies. We do. They influence us, true... but they do not have to be the deciding factors of our decisions. Not always.

Then again, I'm partial to the belief that people have free will, but truth be told this is not what the thread is about and I'll refrain from further debate.

by **Kalon Ordona II** Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:14 pm

I definitely agree with Mr. Fray.
"Addiction = Disease" is like saying "the devil made me do it."
Nobody made you do it. There's no Drug Addict gene. Own up!

While it may be possible to figuratively label an addiction a disease, addictions aren't diseases, per se. They're sort-of in the middle, but most of the time addictions lead to diseases through stress on several levels. I suppose it would depend on the level of the addiction. However, I don't believe any addiction, no matter how far progressed, is incurable. I've seen people who've been on things like crystal meth for years become completely free, normal and happy. Of course, all extreme cases like this that I know of involve the supernatural, so I can see why some people would think of addictions as incurable.

So, specifically: Is Addiction a disease? Not exactly. It can be, I think, but most of the time it's not, because most addictions can be cured purely by choice. Is Addiction genetic? Nope. Or, even if it is, its effect is negligible. Like Adrius said, it's still a decision.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what we call it. Addicts don't need to worry about what categories their addictions fall into; they just need to overcome the addiction.

by Weiss Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:27 pm

At first, I was worried that the excerpt was going to proclaim that addiction was a disease, because then my workload would have increased to explain how and why that statement would be complete and absolute bullshit. Fortunately, since Mr. James Fray adequately expressed my feelings on that matter, I'll skip to the part where I debase the entire concept of a genetic link to addiction based on personal experience.

My mother and father have always both been smokers. Unless my father has quit in the past couple of years, they both still smoke to this day. Furthermore, until I was about 16, my mother was an alcoholic, ranging all the way back to slightly before my older brother was born. My father, also, was even more of an alcoholic than she was. He managed to get clean when I was about 13, but since he's still a worthless human being, it didn't mean much.

So, theoretically, the likelihood of my developing an addiction to smoking or alcoholism would be incredibly high, as well as my older brother's. So, here's the funny thing. My brother doesn't drink at all, and despite having smoked a couple of times when he was a teenager, he decided it wasn't something he was fond of and hasn't smoked since. I've never smoked a cigarette (or anything else, for that matter) in my life, and I drink maybe 4-5 times a year at social gatherings with friends, but truly have no recurring desire to drink at all, much less a case of alcoholism. Granted, one could argue that we are merely a rare example of how one can go against genetics, but I disagree. The simple fact is that, despite the world of difference between my older brother and myself, we simply never gave in to desperation to the point where we needed to use substance abuse to escape the stress of daily life. Without being too dramatic or emo, our lives have been anything but easy. We've been through Hell twice over, and yet we have never once resorted to drugs, alcohol abuse, anything of the like.

When someone tells me they do a certain thing because they can't help it; because it's genetic or because of some traumatic event in their past; because they have a disorder that causes them to act against their will, I can only regard them with disdain because their lack of willpower becomes so glaringly obvious. As James Fray stated, every single time you perform an action, whether it be a thought, a movement, lifting the glass to your lips or puncturing your skin with a needle, you do so consciously and while aware of the consequences. The world has become one of contentment, where people want to be comforted. No one wants to believe that anything is their fault. When things go wrong, everyone wants a scapegoat - someone they can push the blame onto so as to clear their own names. Some turn to God. Some use the insanity plea. Some rely on the growing list of weird-ass 'medical conditions'. In the end, they're all just excuses.

People need to accept responsibility for their own actions. Other people need to stop spouting nonsensical bullshit about how it isn't the fault of the person who's addicted; how they didn't have a choice, and it couldn't be avoided. You always have a choice. You just have to be strong enough to make it. You have to want to make the right decision. Otherwise, you won't. It's that simple...

by Adrius Frostglare Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:12 pm

I think Weiss pretty much beat the crap out of that. Wonderfully spoken, and it covers the angle I believe it to be, which is "no".

But since we all know that ideas are not so simple, I'll go again in the matter of what we classify to be a disease. Is nicotine a pathogen, since it induces addiction and is therefore a disease? Is a disease a choice (a person who avoids going out in the cold rain would be unlikely to be sick like one who does) as well?

What IS a disease? Let's see what society believes these 7 letters arranged in such a matter stand for.

dis⋅ease
/dɪˈziz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-zeez] Show IPA noun, verb, -eased, -eas⋅ing.

–noun
1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

Hmmm... the most common definition. Let's see... well, it's not an incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body and we've ruled out the genetic/development errors. It's not really an infection, since it has nothing much to do with pathogens, nor is it nutritional deficiency or imbalance. Poison, toxicity... as stated before, nicotine is a drug that causes impulsive desires for the substance, commonly found in tobacco. Does this count, I wonder? Unfavorable environmental factors... well, having "triggers" does add to the likelihood of someone picking up the glass or stick. After all, you can't really drink air and get drunk, now can you?

2. any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.

Well, we're not plants... so this is out of the picture.

3. any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.

Oooooooooo this one does tickle the matter a little, doesn't it? "As of the mind or society"? It's a matter of opinion, then. Addictions can certainly be harmful or depraved and, at times, morbid.

4. decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

We're organic. Move along.

–verb (used with object)

5. to affect with disease; make ill.

"Addiction" is a noun, but it can be "socially contagious" through influence.

NOW, let's look at the word "addiction".

ad⋅dic⋅tion
/əˈdɪkʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-dik-shuhn]

–noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

Hmmmm... I see...

Well, I'm not one to decide for others what to think, but from varying angles it certainly has the aspects of a "disease".

So, is it or not? Doesn't really matter, in my opinion, because the cure is one and the same: willpower.

by ACK! Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:51 pm

Weiss... I like... Love you. You said everything I wanted to say.

My dad has been smoking since I remember, along with being an alcoholic (I never called it that until recently)... And I've never picked up a cigarette, and you can't get me to drink a thing of booze.

Of course, this has positioned an intense distaste and hatred toward those that DO find recreation in substances, to the point of nearly destroying good friendships... But that's another conversation for another time. I agree with what you all are saying.

Intervention is one of my favorite shows, and they call addictions diseases, and I guess I can see how it is in some regards... But I've always been under the impression that there's better ways to deal with things, and giving it the excuse of a disease isn't really helping anybody. :/

by Sunni Ookami Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:49 pm

See, I never understood why people claimed that addiction is a disease. As I remember, disease either cripple, kill or even help you. Addiction doesn't do anything but keepyou wanting to do all the things that ARE doing all that. That's like saying I have a disease because I'm addicted to drawing. That doesn't make any sense. Really, it's just an excuse for addicted people to use to either get sympathy or have a reason to not help themselves.

I completely agree Weiss and Ack. If it were a disease I would be a smoker, drinking and would even accidentally end up almost dead from perscription drugs and illegal drugs, but I'm not any of these. Granted, I have thought of these things, but fear of wrecking up something in my life always kept me from doing it. And, as I remember, you can't fight off a disease with your fear of having it.

So, yeah. If anything, disease could be a bad metaphor of addiction. The only thing that makes it contagious or genetic is just peer pressure, social lives and other factors like that. In fact, I think it might have started out as a metaphor and people took it too seriously and was like "YEAH! I'm sick! That's what my problem is!!"

Oh, and watch South Park. They do a wonderful job of making fun of this disease-theory.

by **Kalon Ordona II** Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:24 am

So, to sum it all up:

It looks like "disease" can, in fact, at a stretch, apply to Addiction.

However, why do these people want to call Addiction disease? They want to say that, if it's a disease, and diseases are incurable, then Addiction is incurable, and we're okay to have our addictions. They want to keep their addictions and ease their conscience. To make themselves feel okay about what they do. In short, to run from the truth.

Therefore, as many of us have said, whether Addiction is disease or not is irrelevant. The case for Addiction = Disease is a ruse, a smoke-screen to hide what's really going on. When talking to people like this, we need to pierce the heart of the matter--that they are trying to justify that which in reality cannot be justified.

by Kaito Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:21 am

Just a moment, guys.

Addiction doesn't neccessarily mean addiction to drugs?!

Also, getting away from drugs gets harder the further you are into it. People who never drank and never smoked have it easy, saying "haha all it took was WILLPOWER not to drink".
So. Let's see the situation. There are enough factors to lose willpower. You guys who have addicted parents see this everyday and think: I don't want to end up like that. It's a constant reminder of what happenes once you lose your willpower, your guard. Maybe (or quite possibly) many other people don't have anything to remind them? Anything to hold onto?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having respect for addicts or want to make up excuses, but get the facts right; those people are freaking suffering. They take that stuff to get away from the suffering, but in the longterm all it does is make it worse. AND THEY KNOW. That's the bad thing, really. Willpower isn't for granted. If people don't have it, they can seriously get fucked up. And guess what they need? SOMETHING TO HOLD ONTO.

/ramble

ps: I didn't ever do drugs, I drink sporadically and never smoked. But I am addicted to quite a many things: Addicted to doing sports, addicted to the taste of coke, addicted to the attention of others, and probably many things I do NOT know about.
Addiction is normal, it's habitual. Only when your addiction actually harms your body and soul can it be considered a disease (which is every drug addiction). A disease which can only be cured by willpower, right.

by Weiss Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:51 pm

Kaito, I think you're stretching the concept of addiction a bit much. To say that you're addicted to sports, Coca Cola, attention, etc., seems like - and no offense intended here - you're just trying to conveniently apply the term to serve your point. If you were never allowed to drink Coca Cola again, you might be unhappy about it, but I feel incredibly confident saying that you would not suffer a physical or psychological trauma because of the deprivation. The same applies to drawing, sports, etc. It may be conceited, but there's no way I can take what you're saying seriously if you intend to apply addiction to those fields. It simply sounds ridiculous.

Furthermore, I moved in with my grandmother at 13 in order to separate myself from my mother's household, so to say that I was constantly reminded of the dangers of addiction to the aforementioned substances would be inaccurate. Granted, you could say that it was already ingrained into my mind, but that still debases the concept that genetics can wholly control whether or not you develop an addiction to a substance. If they could, I would be an alcoholic who blows through a carton of cigarettes per week.

Your argument centers around the assimilation of data into one's lifestyle. To be a conceited ass, I would argue that if my reasons for not becoming a smoker or an alcoholic are because I saw what it did to my parents, then it means that I was intelligent enough to understand where those addictions would lead me and made the conscious choice to avoid an addiction to them, despite that I still, as mentioned before, drink recreationally, among friends. When I do drink, I usually go all out. Drinking contests, trying new things (like Tequila, which I highly do not recommend drinking straight - my grandfather recently explained to me the way you're supposed to drink it, involving salt and a lemon or something like that), and occasionally getting sick because I tried to one-up Mike or Phil. I have the time of my life when I'm drunk, because I, as well as those I hang out with, are all happy drunks. However, when the party's over, I never touch alcohol again until we have another of those gatherings sometimes as much as half a year later, depending on the time of year.

So, why is it that I'm able to drink like that when it's appropriate, but haven't developed the habit? Simple. I have no desire to lose myself to a substance in order to forget my troubles. I drink because I'm normally a very stiff and unsociable person, so drinking during our parties allows me to let loose a bit and show the personality that I usually have trouble putting on display. Sometimes I drink heavily, sometimes I take a couple shots and call it a night. I think I'm the very epitome of average young-adult drinking.

You said that we should get the facts right; that addicts are suffering. Are you certain? Not everyone who becomes a drug addict does so because they're suffering through some great trauma in their life, and millions of people live through times of great strife without turning to drugs, myself included. I see no reason to feel remorse, sympathy, much less respect for people who are so weak that they collapse under the pressure of their lives and try to escape.

I feel the same way about suicide. If my life became so horrible that killing myself started to seem like my only option, I would sooner walk straight out of my house and begin traveling in a random direction, whether I had a goal in mind or not. If my life was causing me that much stress, instead of being weak and giving in and ending everything, I'd sooner walk away from it all on the off chance that my life could improve if I stayed alive, no matter how pathetic a state I was reduced to. Because in the end, I might still die as a homeless bum on the street, but at least I'd have tried to keep living, instead of giving up and pathetically stealing away my own life, causing inconvenience to everyone around me.

Diseases can't be cured by willpower. The dictionary might give a broad definition that could encompass addiction through a stretch of the imagination, but I personally believe - and I'm not expecting anyone else to adapt my beliefs, as even I'm not that conceited - that something that can be cured by choice and by decision cannot possibly be classified as a disease. To even attempt doing so is to create an excuse, which sets a pattern that will repeat itself forever, because no one wants to believe that something is their fault. The truth is, however, that we need to make them see that they have a choice, and it's no one's fault but theirs if they don't make the right one.

by Ms. Night Surgeon Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:45 pm

That, my friend, is a load of horse shit. Addiction is no disease, absolutely not. Cancer is a disease, and likening addition to it belittling real illnesses. People want to blame their lack of control on outside influences, and in some ways they are at fault, but at the same time people just don`t want to admit that they were wrong, and that they got themselves into a position where they weren`t able to stop themselves from using. Taking responsibility is hard, and alot of people start doing drugs to escape having to do it.

No one twists your arm into using, you arn`t forced into lighting up, or snorting coke, or shooting up. I mean sure, it does take some physical assistance to clean up, because once you get to a certain point your body does need it to function and it would be very possible it die without it, but you can still stop.

Please bare in mind now, that I was a hardcore heroin addict for three years. No it wasn`t a disease, no one made me do it, and I`m happy to admit that.

by Sunni Ookami Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:54 pm

Kaito, as far as I see, no one has said anything about addiction being easy to get over. We're talking about addiction = disease, not how the recovery is.

Well, that was pretty much short and to the point.

by Weiss Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:12 pm

Ms. Night Surgeon wrote:Please bare in mind now, that I was a hardcore heroin addict for three years. No it wasn`t a disease, no one made me do it, and I`m happy to admit that.

You're 19 now and apparently clean, meaning you were a Heroin addict at, what, 15-18? Earlier?

Interesting...

by Ms. Night Surgeon Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:37 pm

Weiss wrote:
Ms. Night Surgeon wrote:Please bare in mind now, that I was a hardcore heroin addict for three years. No it wasn`t a disease, no one made me do it, and I`m happy to admit that.

You're 19 now and apparently clean, meaning you were a Heroin addict at, what, 15-18? Earlier?

Interesting...

Yes. I`ve been clean for three years, four in~... June. So 13- 16. So yeah... D:

by Kaito Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:53 am

meh guys.

You do realize that you guys are very radical? And being radical is never healthy. Don't just generalize "the addict" or "the addiction". Every human has his circumstances. What they are, I don't know. And you don't either. Just stop looking down on people, please, I understand that you have disrespect for them, even more so, because you guys overcame the situation.
I have discovered the very same phenomenon with myself, too. There were things I really wanted to get rid of, and it took and still takes willpower not to get back to it, and since I did that, I emotionally have a kind of hatred towards those people. I guess it's just a way to distance yourself, because you don't actually want to get close to the situation ever again.
But since I realised I feel that way, I've tried to think out of the box. Behind the facade. And like I said, everyone has their circumstances.

by Dio the Awesome Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:38 am

Looks like my work here is done. My position was expressed here by most people already.

Very quickly, here are my views.

Addiction is not a disease, as far as the strict definition is concerned. I have heard people claim that alcohol or eating produces chemicals in the brain that make you feel good, and that's why people get addicted. Fair enough, but that's still not a disease.

As a struggling addict, I understand the difficulties you face when you try to change. A very large part of you does not want to change. That part is hard to suppress. I will be a fence sitter, for while I know addiction is defiantly not a disease, in my mind I could classify it as a mental condition, where you express an unexplainable need for something.

EDIT: I realized I didn't really want to get into a debate about this. Read my thoughts if you'd like, but I won't be responding. It's too touchy of a subject for me. *frowny face*

by Gunneh Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:43 am

I'd love to say my piece, but it looks like everyone else had said it for me. Addiction is not a disease, and even though the definition -could- stretch towards that outcome, it's my opinion that even the dictionary is full of shit now-a-days. It seems as if that definition was put in there just to appease the many people that are starting to hop on the bandwagon.

Let's see: My father is a smoker, but he doesn't touch alcohol. My mom used to drink on a regular basis, but now she hardly touches the stuff. Myself and my sister are both smokers, but it's not because my dad smokes or because my mamaw smoked or even because my step-mother smokes. It was a -choice- and we could choose just as easily to kick the habit altogether if we so chose. The point is that no one is to blame but yourself, and that's it.

Gah...I need a cigarette XD

P.S. Technically, Weiss, if Kaito couldn't drink his Coke like he used to there -could- be a physical and psychological response to it: The lack of caffeine would make him tired, irritable and could mess up his system a little bit more. If your body is used to something it gets regularly, it'll bitch and moan and complain at you till it gets what it needs. No, the response wouldn't be so bad as to go through a harsh withdrawal like with drugs and alcohol, but he'd see a change in himself till his body adjusted.

by Kaito Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:04 am

The point is not that I could get away from it, but that I don't want to.

by Weiss Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:10 am

Just because you don't want to stop doing something doesn't make it an addiction. It simply makes it something you enjoy doing. Again, an addiction is a physiological or psychological dependency on a substance (or sometimes an activity) to the degree that the cessation of indulgence in said substance or activity would lead to physical or mental trauma.

Gunneh, Kaito said he was addicted to the taste of Coca Cola, not to the caffeine. Therefore, he could stop drinking Coke and start drinking another caffeinated product and your statement would be null.

Kaito, I don't see how it's anymore radical to have feelings of disdain for those who want to make excuses than it is to have feelings of disdain for those who feel disdain toward the ones who make excuses. If I asked you to sympathize with a man who murdered his wife and child because he surely had his reasons, would you sympathize with him? Granted, that's an extremist way to go about making my point, but it's valid on some levels. Drug/substance abuse often leads to the advent of crimes in the addicted. In order to get drugs, or while under the effects of drugs or alcohol, many people will resort to crime or simply commit indecent (or downright despicable) acts that they normally wouldn't while their mind - furthermore, their conscience - wasn't being suppressed by chemical reactions to worthless substances.

Humans, in general, seem to take great pride in being human. We assume that we are the greatest creatures on this Earth. We assume that we are the highest power. We take for granted the world around us, and we assume that we may take and do with whatever as we please, and we need not be punished for it, or feel the weight of consequence. If that is the case, then I feel humans have a moral obligation to live in a way that doesn't constantly waste the limited resources that we have. I believe that humans should not be such a worthless race, so completely bent on self-gratification. Yet, we are. We seek nothing more than to relinquish our responsibilities and to do as we please while shifting the blame for our actions onto a power that is greater than us. When it's convenient, we will claim to be the greatest beings in all of creation, but then - again when it's convenient - we will turn into sniffling children who are crumbling beneath the weight of our oh-so complicated lives.

It's hypocrisy. It's pathetic. I'm tired of people making excuses. Hell, I'm tired of convicted felons having rights. I'm tired of prisons providing such a high standard of living to their inmates. I'm tired of nationality, which is nothing but another form of segregation.

So, you want me to pity people who are too weak to stand on their own two feet? You want me to consider how much they're suffering? Laughable...

by Kaito Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:46 am

Well, now you've gone from radical to extremist and elitist.

*sighs*

Should I tell you what I'm tired of?

I'm tired of people who don't know what they should be grateful to have.

by Gunneh Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:52 am

Watch it, kids. I'm about a hair away from locking this thread right now, but I'll just keep an eye on it. Keep it civil.

by Kaito Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:09 am

Don't see where this discussion is unciviliced.

by Adrius Frostglare Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:58 pm

Weiss: You're not convincing him otherwise.
Kaito: You're not convincing him otherwise.

This is why I avoid debates over the internet. You see, persuasion is not only on logic or information but also in emotion, tone, body language, etc. Without those, it becomes much more challenging to convince a staunch believer otherwise.

Someone believes something different. Leave it at that. The poll isn't a competition, it is a method of data-gathering. Now, if you're still willing to debate the matter (though I sincerely doubt that will do much beyond kill time), the PM button is found underneath the website banner.

by Guest Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:07 pm

Adrius Frostglare wrote:This is why I avoid debates over the internet.

To quote the Broadway musical, "The Internet is for Porn."

"Debates" on the internet are evidence of why this is true.

The porn, at least, gets something done. Wink

by Weiss Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:21 pm

Fate Foretold wrote:What do you think? Do you believe that being addicted to something -- to anything -- be it alcohol, drugs, or eating too much, is a disease?

(I should say I'm not putting this in the Polls forum, since this is more of a debate.)

@Gunneh: I'm almost certain nothing I said was a direct insult to anyone. I spoke generally of humanity as a whole, and did so in a negative way, but that's because some of my views are a precipitant of my opinion on human society. It was brought up as a contributory factor in the debate.

@Adrius: I disagree that debates should involve emotion, tone, etc. Emotion doesn't have anything to do with being right. In spite of conviction, and often because of blind conviction or faith, mistakes are made that could have been avoided through logic. Granted, this is my opinion, but your post was also a matter of opinion, so I consider this a justifiable counter.

Edit: Also, I should note that, when two people debate, it usually isn't to change the mind of their opponent. It's to change or sway the views of those who are paying attention to the debate. It's unlikely that Kaito or myself will yield to one another. On the other hand, the things we say may have an impact on the way others perceive the situation being debated. The same can be applied to a trial. It's unlikely that the Defendant and the Prosecutor will change one another's minds during the procession. They simply wish to sway the opinion of the jury.

Back on the subject: Kaito, I said that my analogy was extremist, but then went on to explain that, in spite of the analogy itself being extremist, the point was valid because you could apply the same logic. Drug abuse is a criminal act and often leads to worse criminal acts. You can say that it's extremist to use the analogy at all, but I feel that isn't true. The fact is that you wouldn't sympathize with someone who killed his wife and children regardless of his circumstances. Why would you sympathize with a person who turns to drug abuse, which not only harms himself, but also those around him and anyone who is a precipitant casualty of his actions. For instance, because of drug abuse, the market for drug dealing increases and it becomes more widely available, which allows even children to get their hands on illegal substances with little difficulty.

I fail to see why I should sympathize with drug abusers anymore than I should sympathize with a murderer. You can flagrantly debase my statements as being extremist or elitist if you want, but unless you provide a logical argument for why they aren't applicable to the debate, it doesn't take away from their credibility.

by **Kathryn Lacey** Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:49 am

All right. First, I want to say that I do not believe addiction is a disease.

However, I will say that I do believe that parent(s) who were addicts of something during the conception of their child(ren) may actually give said offspring a higher chance of becoming addicts of that thing. I’m not saying that I’m right. I’m saying it’s what I believe. I also believe that the offspring has to sample said item of addiction in order to become addicts themselves, so all of you who keep saying your parents were addicts, and you’ve never touched what they have, good for you, but that has nothing to do with your resisting your genes because you’ve never even tried it. That’s like saying, “Well, I’ve never even tasted ice-cream, but I know for a fact that I would hate it, and I know I would never want to have more of it.”

I’m not saying that your parents had to be addicts for the kid(s) to be addicted to something(s). I’m just saying that I believe it raises the likelihood that they will be if they do it enough. I know there are exceptions to this belief, but I’m sure there are also those who do follow that path of self-destruction.

I think addiction is about habits, and I think it’s about choices. People form habits all the time, and change is hard. I used to smoke pot, and I used to smoke cigarettes. My father was a pot head, and both my mother and my father were smokers when I was conceived. I’ve never had issues with alcohol addiction, but I was addicted to cigarettes and pot. Cigarettes were the things I had the hardest time leaving.

I think that the fact that my parents were smokers honestly made it so I was more likely to become addicted, but I don’t see it as a disease at all. I chose to trudge through my first smoking experiences until my lungs were used to the chemicals enough that they wouldn’t try to hack the poison out of my body. If I hadn’t decided to do that, I don’t think I ever would have had a problem with cigarettes. It became a habit, and I have a really hard time breaking away from habits.

However, I am very social about those things. I don’t really like to do them when I’m not among a group of people. I don’t think that that means I’m not addicted. I just think it means that certain feelings for me were tied strongly to my addiction, and the feelings I get in social scenes are not ones I feel when I’m by myself. I consider myself addicted to those feelings, and I feel like cigarettes heighten those feelings. I turn into a royal bitch every time I quit, too… like… worse than usual. ^^_^^;;

I chose to quit smoking and getting high several times, but I always went back. I realized that I need a real reason to quit doing those things, or I don’t have the strength of will to stop doing them. This is all a matter of choices and decisions and actions. It has nothing to do with being a disease.

I think that’s total bullshit that they teach people that addiction is a disease. That’s like saying, “Oh… well… You have an incurable disease, so there’s no reason for you to stop doing what you’re doing because you’ll never escape it.” Once you have a real disease like cancer, there is no going back at all. Once you’re addicted to something, there is an escape.

The only connection I can see with addiction being a disease is that addictions can harm the body and cause it to degrade, but only if the person feeding said addiction isn’t willing to put a halt to it.

Weiss, you said you don’t drink as a means of forgetting your troubles, but obviously you do. You rely on it to take away your social stiffness whether it be one drink or more. You could have the same problem I have where I crave it more during social setting for whatever reasons. You also said that you usually go all-out when you go to a party, and I highly doubt that your true personality is you being completely wasted.

by Weiss Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:18 pm

I'm not sure I follow your logic. I'm not troubled by the fact that I'm normally a very rigid person. Furthermore, if I drink because of feelings that I get in social situations, why is it that I only drink on special occasions, like birthdays, New Year's and July 4th? Those aren't the only times that I hang out in large groups of friends, but those are the only times I choose to drink, even if the alcohol is available at other times.

My point was that I drink because I feel like drinking at a particular time, not because I feel a craving to drink. There are even times when I choose not to drink simply because everyone else has been drinking and a mature voice is needed to keep things from getting out of hand. In other words, there is nothing that makes me feel as if I need to drink. I drink only when I want to loosen up and feel more relaxed. So, yes, I drink to loosen up, but I drink only when I want to, and not because I feel that I need to. As such, it's not any kind of addiction.

by Kaislynn Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:53 pm

A few things I have noticed/observed/believe:

1) Being able to sympathize with someone's reasons for doing things does not equate with believing them to have made the right decision. I think the myth that "empathy/sympathy = believing someone is right" is one that has been propagated by our society and recent government and media (especially since 9/11 though it's part of our history as well, check out the red scare etc) I can understand why someone made a decision, I can empathize with them (share their feelings), I can do that and still disagree with their decision. As discussed above, I can understand why someone murdered their wife and kids and for a moment feel what they felt without believing or sanctioning their decision as right. Choice is huge, everyone has it--I believe. However, there are situations and there are people who feel that they don't have it. It doesn't mean those choices don't exist but in some people's minds, the choices are not perceived or understood to be possible. It is not an excuse. It is a fact. It does not mean that they are not responsible for their actions, but our ability to understand the why of their decisions is what gives us the tools to start finding solutions that can both change their lives and help to prevent and change more lives.

Rigidity and logic are safe. Rigidity and logic feel strong. Rigidity and logic feel powerful. Unfortunately rigidity and logic are also robotic and moreover they are only half of the equation. Humanity contains an element of emotion which is essential to our make-up. It is often taken advantage of and twisted around. It has been made out by so many societies all over the world and throughout time to be weak and irrational, therefore irresponsible, unnecessary, unintelligent, dangerous, and unstable. But emotion is deeply necessary. It is a huge part of our world and it drives even rigidity and logic. I have noticed that some of the most rigid people I know are some of the most scared. Reverting to rigidity, to black and white ideas to anger and contempt is powerful. When you have that frame, you are untouchable. You are unhurtable. But it is so brittle. And so filled with holes. I don't write these observations as an attack, but with sadness (which inevitably causes anger). It would be wonderful if life could be boiled down to something so simple as: addicted people make excuses for their lack of willpower or plain depravity: or that all murderers and convicted felons are bad people who deserve nothing from us. Unfortunately people are people. As many people make bad decisions as make good ones. But fortunately people can change. But our ability to help people change depends on two things (well I'm sure there are more but I want to point out two): their desire to change, and our ability to understand what they did and why they did it. It's like cooking with infinitely more and complex variables. But if you don't understand or won't understand all the reasons that something happened (like why the cookies rose instead of stayed flat) how can you ever expect to affect the outcome either that time or another time. Sure you could never make cookies again. But your world just got a little smaller and less bright: less free.

Ok, I understand that that was not exactly what this thread is about so here are my two very small cents on addiction.

Addiction is not a disease. I believe that often for ease of communication, people categorize. I think that's part of what has happened in this classification. I don't think it's fair to remove responsibility from addicts by telling them that it isn't their fault. However, I do think that AA has something when they say in their first step that the addict has become powerless against alcohol. I don't believe that the addict became powerless against their will or that they will not be able to change; instead, I believe that the addict has slowly or quickly handed their will over to something other than themselves. It's easy to do that, whether you hand your will to a political party, a religion, or simply the go-with-the-flow crowd. It's easy to not take entire responsibility for thinking out and understanding every action and thought and feeling to make the best decisions. Responsibility is hard.

However, when it comes to substance abuse the additional factor of your body working with the substance jacks up the stakes and adds an unimaginably powerful kick to the thing you've given control to. It's something that those of us who have not experienced substance addiction cannot understand completely. Without completely understanding, I believe it is callous and foolish of us to claim that all they have to do is decide to stop, so why don't they? (they're selfish, they're this they're that etc etc) we can say a lot of nasty things about them and probably on some level those things are not untrue. But slinging them around and using them to differentiate between us and them--i.e. using those characteristics as a stereotype to create a wall--does not help solve the problem, in my opinion.

In any case I have waxed quite eloquent. I'm done for now. I do have to say that I have serious respect for those who beat addiction. The AA steps are inspiring to me, just as a form of living a better and healthier life.

AA Steps

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Reprinted from the book Alcoholics Anonymous (The Big Book)
with permission of A.A. World Services, Inc.

by Sponsored content

Is addiction a disease?

Do you believe addiction is a disease?

Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?

Re: Is addiction a disease?