Is addiction a disease?

[stoneinfocus]

Its´totally wrong calling it a cancer, so it might refelct the drug-war thinking: a drug-addict is a cancer to society and I guess this should induce fear, as an addict doesn´t get his drugs to get along but is cut off from society, by society, to get over his addiction, with the choice of being made a homeless criminal and maybe killed down the road.

this, underlined with some nice colored pictures of a brain-scan, and so, even the addicted is sold on that his problem is not a managing and the anti-drug policy problem, but were a desease like cancer.

[cyndi]

I agree with your point. Yes I do see addiction to drugs as being much different than cancer. Cancer sometimes is treatable and there is no stigma attached to it like drug addiction. Drug addiction does create a bunch of problems such as homelessness, etc. where diseases in a lot of cases won't.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by cyndi

I agree with your point. Yes I do see addiction to drugs as being much different than cancer. Cancer sometimes is treatable and there is no stigma attached to it like drug addiction. Drug addiction does create a bunch of problems such as homelessness, etc. where diseases in a lot of cases won't.

These problems are created as a cause of restrictive society reactions to the addiction phenomenone and not by the addiction.

In the case of cancer no-one would ever openly admit, that it was the fault of the ill erson, that he got cancer and all the best means and scientific approaches are being made to keep the cancer under control or get it intio remission, because otherwise one would die of it, which is not the case when using pharma-grade heroine or opiates or cocaine or amphetamine... .

You might be the healthiest of users even among the so called "abstinent" and end up in jail or in miserable scocial conditions, that have ab-so-lutely nothing to do with the effects of taking said substances, but only with a subjective law-making in restricting your use and in punishing it.

Originally Posted by Klaus

Is conceit a disease ?

*g* Only if it´s taken into law making and if it´s violently effecting others... was there some time in history, when conceit was approaching infinity in some countries and still is... ?

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by stoneinfocus

These problems are created as a cause of restrictive society reactions to the addiction phenomenone and not by the addiction.

In the case of cancer no-one would ever openly admit, that it was the fault of the ill erson, that he got cancer and all the best means and scientific approaches are being made to keep the cancer under control or get it intio remission, because otherwise one would die of it, which is not the case when using pharma-grade heroine or opiates or cocaine or amphetamine... .

You might be the healthiest of users even among the so called "abstinent" and end up in jail or in miserable scocial conditions, that have ab-so-lutely nothing to do with the effects of taking said substances, but only with a subjective law-making in restricting your use and in punishing it.


*g* Only if it´s taken into law making and if it´s violently effecting others... was there some time in history, when conceit was approaching infinity in some countries and still is... ?

Sorry I was being factitious I was listening to a Dylan song "disease of conceit

[Klaus]

Is conceit a disease ?

[Lumin8]

IMO, calling addiction a disease is an insult to those who actually have very serious, life threatening diseases. A disease such as brain cancer or luekemia is something that the person who gets it has no control over. Alcoholism for example is a behavior, being a behavior, the person who has it does have control over it. They have a choice, without medical intervention, of controlling the behavior. We live in a society where it is easier for us to label behavior as a disease than to actually take responsibility for our actions. For proof, look no further than the obesity epidemic in the USA. Addicition is very serious and has severe consequences, but labeling it a disease is not accurate.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by Lumin8

IMO, calling addiction a disease is an insult to those who actually have very serious, life threatening diseases. A disease such as brain cancer or luekemia is something that the person who gets it has no control over. Alcoholism for example is a behavior, being a behavior, the person who has it does have control over it. They have a choice, without medical intervention, of controlling the behavior. We live in a society where it is easier for us to label behavior as a disease than to actually take responsibility for our actions. For proof, look no further than the obesity epidemic in the USA. Addicition is very serious and has severe consequences, but labeling it a disease is not accurate.

Who knows, if someone´s needing drugs to overcome child-traumata or others, or needs a drug, for balancing out a not self-create, tormenting imbalance of the CNS or body?

Just because one´s not seeing some-one with a cancer-wild-card for respect and help, it doesn´t mean, that the consequnces of addiction or an desease, were, untreated by drugs, not life- and existence-threatening and just as troublesome?

I would prefer dismissing the words "health" and "desease", as they can be used in any fashion possible, depending on the political enviroment and social predjudeces, so why don´t we just do everything, to make anybody´s live as easy and bearable as possible, by all means and hard work, without judging these ways of life?

Ever tried to stop smoking?Desease or behaviour, chemically induced imbalance, not solely caused by the individual´s behaviour?(caused by what? -I think just consuming nicotine a few times, isn´t enough, by far!)

Then we have a problem here.

The fact is, we don´t know.
What next? Permitting cigarettes, upping tobacco taxes until the -over very long periods of use not controlable- habit is even more existence threatening?

Or leaving it to one´s own decisions and creating an enviroment, in which working and being satisfied with one´s work and create culture was more pleasant, than 30 stinky plant rolls/day, and the by far better alternative to it, which will make any damaging habit more vulnerable to the user´s will of interception and having a good reason for it, decided by his own will for quitting _damaging_ habits. Damaging and not damging is relative, too, mostly a free individuum in a free enviroment, connected to its true nature, knows it best, instinctively.

Bingo here we go, it´s just that easy! Ups, this is the hard way, I apologize.

[UpAllNiteOCXTC]

this is very controversial to say the least. there are arguments to prove, and arguments to refute. swim is right in the middle.

Obviously, potential for addiction varies on the person. One may also argue that addiction is hereditary. SWIM believes that most forms of addiction are hereditary, with environmental factors playing a central role. If one is easily influenced, swayed, or partial to going with the crowd, one may unintentionally develop a serious addiction.

SWIM thinks that some people are born with that innate desire. Some people, such as a buddy of swim's, has tried various substances but doesnt like any of them. Whereas another person, with that innate desire, will find comfort and self-medication in altering their consciousness. It could also have a lot to do with experiences throughout life, or just plain curiosity.

SWIM knows several people who have checked in and out of rehab a number of times, just to relapse. Sad but true, some will never conquer the addiction demon. The key is moderation, don't let it get to that level. Research, educate and be aware of the risks swiy is taking when they relax..

UpAllNiteOCXTC added 2 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

wow, very well said...

[oggy]

This is very serious, Swim believes drug, alcohol, smoking and any other addictions is NOT a disease. Swim had been addicted to drugs from 2 n a half years, Swim is very angry with himself for being so bloody selfish. Selfish to his family, friends and people with real diseases.

Swims uncle that he never See's has sarcoidosis, diabetes, encephalitis and for the last 10 years of his life he's been in and out of hospital, and many times it was an A & E call.
He is taking so much medications too much to list and its not through his choice. Drug addicts have a choice!

That's something he never asked for. It was Swims choice to take drugs, addicts should WAKE up and realise how great life is. Unless you suffer from a disease then Swim can have pity on those that are addicted to drugs.

If you tare addicted for any other reason, depression, anxiety, paranoia then not to worry, life is a journey, you need to build the confidence within yourself and believe that there are far greater things than addiction.

There is always hope, Love and peace and God bless your soul and may God give you strength to kick that monkey off your back.

[UpAllNiteOCXTC]

swiy has a lot of valid points..

maybe addiction is a disease in the sense that some cases are incurable? just throwing that out there.. actually though i have never heard of someone with a "chronic" addiction..

categorizing addiction as a disease has a lot to do with how you use the word. The term 'disease' refers to any abnormal condition of an organism that impairs function. Now, SWIM fails to see how this definition corresponds with recreation...seems more to me like an internal abnormality, not a psychological attachment..

again i am back and forth

Reputation Comments on this post:

Quality contribution

[Beanfondler]

Originally Posted by oggy

Drug addicts have a choice!

This is an unreasonable basis for the disqualification of addiction as a disease. The vase majority of diseases are either acquired, sustained, or worsened purely based on the individuals choices. The majority diabetics are in the situation they are because they choose not to have healthy eating/exercise habits throughout their life. Similar choices lead to the contraction of STDs, cardio problems, etc... Beyond that the diabetic cannot simply wish away the illness just as the addict cannot simply choose to magically reharmonize the brain chemistry to normal levels.

[UpAllNiteOCXTC]

swim agrees, wanted to make that point earlier but didnt know how to demonstrate with such eloquence as swiy did.

swim also thinks addiction is a widespread epidemic, like obesity. Is obesity a disease? Again, inheritance versus environment. One also has to put into perspective the fact that addicts can be cured, liver damage can repair over time, gain weight lost (people with CNS stimulant addictions) etc etc. Yet a person with a textbook chronic illness lives differently...some diseases causing internal deterioration of vital organs necessary to function. The addict can gain some of their quality of life back, and work towards a new beginning, while a person with a chronic disease can only sit and wait for their time to be up.

[oggy]

Originally Posted by Beanfondler

This is an unreasonable basis for the disqualification of addiction as a disease. The vase majority of diseases are either acquired, sustained, or worsened purely based on the individuals choices. The majority diabetics are in the situation they are because they choose not to have healthy eating/exercise habits throughout their life. Similar choices lead to the contraction of STDs, cardio problems, etc... Beyond that the diabetic cannot simply wish away the illness just as the addict cannot simply choose to magically reharmonize the brain chemistry to normal levels.

Swim agrees with Swiy. So what Swiy is saying we do have a choice with all disease?

So what can we do about it?

When we feel sad and empty inside, we become part of the problem rather than the solution. Often, we try to comfort ourselves by blaming other people and circumstances, but that only makes matters worse. Instead we have to learn how to make our mind strong. That means, filling it with positivity.

How can I not worry when my body is unwell?

When I awaken to the power of the mind I can begin to step back from what is happening inthe body. The more I can become the observer, watching whatis happening instead of being cought up in it, the more free the mind can become. It is my mind, my thoughts and my feelings, and even when the body is ill I can still create thoughts and feelings of happiness and peace. These positive feelings then help the body, so that quite often pain and sickness decrease or may even go away.

[UpAllNiteOCXTC]

swim clicked on the link about swiy's heroin addiction and was unable to reply there...swim wishes swiy well and looks up to swiy for coming so far and making the decision to stop.


back on topic...if people were able to prove addiction a disease, would it make much difference? swim is curious on more opinions. wouldnt it just give addicts a reason to continue the vicious circle they're in? Why enable them?

[Beanfondler]

Originally Posted by oggy

Swim agrees with Swiy. So what Swiy is saying we do have a choice with all disease?

All diseases? No.

The vast majority of what is generally considered to be a disease/sickness similarly are primarily the result of the same factor. That factor is the way in which an individual lives their life which is the manifestation of freewill. The individual living unhealthily or a similar one consuming addictive substances both are aware on some level that they are opening the chance to become addicted and/or contract an illness.

Swibf doesn't argue that addiction is a disease because he believes it is removes free will providing a scapegoat to avoid personal accountability, but rather that diseases in general (save various examples, a substantial minority) and the situation that it creates for the individual is as equally alterable through free will. Addicts should be held completely accountable for their disease as should the vast majority of people suffering from other diseases. One cannot survive if they cannot see their life truthfully. Once personal realization, accountability, and empowerment are achieved just about any disease or similar detriment is conquerable(with some limits obviously).

[UpAllNiteOCXTC]

yes, no one ever put a gun to their head and forced them to do drugs. a synopsis: you reap what you sew.

some people just make bad decisions all around. like the obstinate old man who refuses to step foot in a hospital. without annual checkups, a disease can easily go unnoticed. Consider the diseases that lay dormant, are asymptomatic, and the only outbreak the person has could be their first and last one. Not saying this could be ultimately prevented, but at least they'd be diagnosed and set up for some type of treatment.

[oggy]

Originally Posted by Beanfondler

All diseases? No.
Once personal realization, accountability, and empowerment are achieved just about any disease or similar detriment is conquerable(with some limits obviously).

My point exactly. Swim never meant all diseases. Say 2 people with HIV, one thinks shit I'm gonna die might as well take drugs and drink and feel sorry for myself. The other person thinks positively and goes on living healthy and enjoys what they have got in life.

Who will live longer?

[oggy]

Thank you Upallnite, first 2-5 days were pure hell but Swim is happy now.

Addiction a mental disease. Swim found faith and the inner strength to kick it. He was never happy being on opiates more so methadone. He used heroin as an antidepressant when he spit up with his girlfriend and was then too scared to come off because of negative thoughts. All opiates done was block his emotions for a while, they helped Swim cope with life for a few years. Until Swim got sick of picking up his daily methadone dose, he felt like a slave, it put him down more and more.

Then the thought of being on this drug any longer is wasting his life. Swim felt emotionless on methadone, a drone, just another sucker.

Swim had asked for help to come off methadone but the doctors say it will be another 2-3 years before they would start tapering, Swim demanded that they took him off this meth and put him on a months tapper of subutex. Nope the Dr knows best, END OFF!

Swim had to take action himself, he needed to forgive himself first. Then Swim was ready. He had read about tapering off methadone but Swim was sick of it, he could feel that turkey every morning anyway for over 6 months of methadone torture.

Swim read that you will still feel the same rattle from coming off 80mg to 1mg. So it made sense to Swim to go cold turkey at 80mg rather than suffer the dreadful tapering. (you can't die from opiate withdrawal)

Swims withdrawal started about day 2 got worse till day 5 then got better day by day. Its now almost 12 hours into day 9 and he is so happy that he chose life and never let the Dr's/methadone control his life.

Its your body and mind, look after it.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Nicely put.

[UpAllNiteOCXTC]

yes, and if swiy can keep goin this route, swim hopes swiy gives himself recognition for getting clean from not just any typical drug, but the highest addiction potential/dependency. that really takes a person with a backbone. when swim's boyfriend died, she looked to coke but realized when she was done doing it, her problems were still there, and they always would be.

swim looks at it like this- she is disgusted at the thought of something other than her, controlling her life. its like you basically give your life to the drug, and it consumes you and eventually either OD or die from organ failure, etc. Swim tries to think of things that used to make her happy, and recently started playing her drumset again, and riding her dirtbike. and these are things that dont hurt swims family, or her.

Just like one must have a strong mind and be emotionally stable to have a good trip on acid, one must have a strong mind when facing such a huge task. (lol bad example...)

[Beanfondler]

Seems that we're essentially in agreement. We're always capable of bettering our situation no matter how dismal it may be.

[staples]

valium_mark: Please use the preview feature to make sure you've said all that you wanted and to make corrections before posting, rather than posting 4 times in a row. Please review the site rules.

If you have any questions, please take them to the forum use section.

Ok, back on topic:

Originally Posted by jayjohnson81

Fat people. Do they have the disease of glutteny? What percentage of American's have fat-ass syndrom (or, the common male version `beer-belly-itis`) Despite, KNOWING that eating fast food and soda is what is causing their disease? I doubt there are many people with `the bigness` that honestly don't know how to be less big - they're addicted to their food, and lifestyle. Despite knowing the health ramifications. Most people would call that `their choice.` Fat chance! You tried dieting? Cutting out the crap you know isn't good for you - but tastes great? It's f'ing hard! That's an addiction, not a choice!

I was just reading about obesity, actually, this isn't quite right.

When food enters the intestines after a meal, they begins secreting a hormone called peptide YY3-36 (PYY). PYY excites appetite-suppressing neurons and inhibits appetite-stimulating neurons in the arcuate nucleus. Injecting extra PYY into the bloodstream reduces the total amount of food consumed over the next several hours, and in a double-blind study demonstrating this, both lean and obese subjects ate an average of 30% less food at a buffet lunch when injected than under normal circumstances. The same research found that the lean subjects not only had a higher "baseline" level of PYY (i.e, more PYY in their bloodstream normally), but after a meal their PYY levels showed a much greater increase then the levels of obese subjects. Thus, insufficient PYY production seems to contribute to obesity.

Fat cells secrete a hormone called leptin in quantities proportional to the amount of fat in the cells (more fat=more leptin). Leptin acts on the same part of the brain to reduce appetite, but research into leptin found that it's only effective up to a certain blood concentration--any more has no effect--and most obese subjects already had a higher concentration of leptin in their blood. This, along with farther research, suggests that the brain's insensitivity to leptin also contributes to obesity.

Along with a wealth of other research, these two problems lead us to believe that obesity is genetic, and I would classify it as a disorder. But to complicate that, psychology has something to say; this is from a psychology textbook:

Through classical conditioning, any cues that have been previously associated with the opportunity to eat--such as the sight or smell of good food, the sound of a dinner bell, or the sight of a clock showing it is dinner time--can bring on a sudden surge of appetite. Such conditioning is reflected not just in reports of increased hunger but also in the occurrence of reflexive physiological responses, such as the secretion of saliva and digestive juices, that help to prepare the body for food and that add farthur to the sense of hunger (Woods & others, 2000).

The taste of food also plays a major role in appetite. People and laboratory animals who eat one type of food until they are satiated experience renewed appetite when a different food, with a different taste, is placed before them. This phenomenon is referred to as sensory-specific satiety, and many experiments show that it is mediated primarily by the sense of taste (Raynor & Epstein, 2001). When people eat one food at a meal, their rating of the taste pleasantness of that food declines relative to their rating of the taste pleasantness of other foods. This effect begins immediately after eating the food and lasts typically for several hours. Experiments with animals show that the sight and smell of a new food can result in renewed activity in appetite-stimulating neurons in the hypothalamus after the animal has been sated on a different food (Rolls & others, 1986). Laboratory animals that can regularly choose from a variety of different-tasting foods eat more, and become fatter, relative to animals that have only one food choice, even if the nutritional content of the different foods is identical (Raynor & Epstein, 2001). People, too, eat more when there are more food choices (Raynor & Epstein, 2001).

It goes on farther to explain that this is why culture (yes yes, americans suck, blah blah blah) can influence obesity, as well as genetics.

Originally Posted by samuraigecko

SWIM believes that addiction is a disease because of the way it can modify brain function on a biochemical level.

So does breathing. The rest of your post seems to attribute anything that invokes the phenomenon of tolerance and as a result becomes a dependence is a disease, which I have to disagree.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Right on - thanks for tickling my brain!

[cyndi]

In my opinion it is a disease. You can be fine and then some primevil craving hits out of nowhere. Also the human body does not want substances in that harm, it goes against the laws of nature. Addiction must be treated, or in the end it will kill you.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by Trose

In my opinion it is a disease. You can be fine and then some primevil craving hits out of nowhere. Also the human body does not want substances in that harm, it goes against the laws of nature. Addiction must be treated, or in the end it will kill you.

this is rubbish, it´s proven, that heroin cocaine and amphetamines (the latter two not per se addicitve in a physiological a way, if one leaves out brain-chemistry as a physiological factum) do _not_ shorten life-span, neither are any of those toxic to organs in a way, other all-day substances are.

the only "sickness" comes from opiate- or other receptordependent withdrawls (left alone alcohol intoxications and cancer of smoke, which is not seen as an first-hand addictionproblem, sarcasticly), when the drug is not around and increasing doses, which might bear a danger to bodyfunction e.g. heroin overdose is not toxic, there´s no damage to organs or cells, but the respiratory system is depressed by repector agonism, which heroin in its natural function seeks, but can be alliviated by naloxon... heroin is not toxic, it´s deadly far before it´s toxic -in this sense- to cells and organs, just as water is not toxic just because one can drown in it.

If one was to define wether addiction is a desease or not, one needs to stick clearly to the scientific convention of its(desease) definition:

-It has to impair the well being or the normal functioning of the body or the way of the functioning of the person, he wants to function.

-(this is important) it can be cured or soothed -as such, homosexuality or some forms of psychiatric "desease" are not anymore clearly deseases as one or the other aspects is missing and addiction applies as well, as it can be eased by giving the drug, to prevent withdrawl and provide a normal functioning of the person, who is addicted.

the failure, which is applied again and again is, that society wants to "cure" all addicted and make them "sober"(meaning the best, affording the worst), as it´s not seen as "normal".

If addiction was seen as a condition, which is part of the uniqueness of this person´s charakter and the result of the circumstances of fate, then it can´t be cured, as it would destroy this person´s charaktere and true beauty and possiblilities to live his life in his natural phenomenology, and this is why therapy just has to fail.(exemptions prove the rule).


It would all be better, if the people would stick exactly to the definitions and do what´s possible,-if they were not to convince a person and force them to be alike them and what should be "normal" and just treated this _condition_ absolutely stereotypically and pragmatically to their best possibilities ,but then again everyone is narrow minded, lazy and the latter two are being sponsored by the state and global players for the profit´s sake of some few potentates.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good read, Swim doesn't believe he had a disease

[F.U.B.A.R]

Is addcition a desease or just a particular thought pattern no more of a desease than toothache? it seems most american literature supports the idea that addiction is a desease.

[robin_himself]

Addiction is not a disease. A disease is something external that influences you. You are physicaly addicted and you have distorted cognitive processes going on. The problem is more linguistic then it is real.

Jim is an alcoholic ---> Everything we can say about jim is that he's an alcoholic

Jim is suffering from alcoholism ---> Alcoholism is a thing (which it is not)

Jim drank to much to long and is physically and mentally addicted to the substance -----> The actual fact

In calling it for what it is there suddenly is major change in cognition. Alcoholism is an action/behaviour.

I think the american way of calling it is designed for you to give up your own responsibility and change it to trust in god. AA meetings and such. But thats just my speculations