Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: PriscillaMarie90 on November 07, 2012, 12:58 am
-
This may be the wrong board for this topic.. But I was just wondering what anyone thinks about the concept of drug addiction and alcoholism being a disease? I personally have a really complex opinion about the subject, and I do believe drug addiction and alcoholism are a disease. However, after being in rehab for so long, I often wonder if there is really any truth to it or if I am just very susceptible to suggestibility and have been "brainwashed" perhaps. I'd like to hear some of your opinions on it before I go into any detail about what I learned. Do you think it is a disease you are born with or are some people with OTHER diseases just more prone to become drug addicts? Do you think something in your genes might contribute to becoming a drug addict? Please share any feelings or knowledge you may have on this subject.
xoxo
PM90
-
Disease is a widely used term, do you consider it a physical disease or a mental disease? Personally, I would say it's a mental disease if you would call it a disease. I think it's simple human nature really, we are animals after all.
For me a disease is something that physically affects you like a virus or bacteria, addiction lives in the head. Anyone that has an addiction that affects their life negatively is simply weak minded in my eyes. Interesting topic though and I'm completely ignorant to any factual data regarding the issue.
-
Disease is a widely used term, do you consider it a physical disease or a mental disease? Personally, I would say it's a mental disease if you would call it a disease. I think it's simple human nature really, we are animals after all.
For me a disease is something that physically affects you like a virus or bacteria, addiction lives in the head. Anyone that has an addiction that affects their life negatively is simply weak minded in my eyes. Interesting topic though and I'm completely ignorant to any factual data regarding the issue.
I agree ^.^
-
Not a disease but a behavioral issue,yet I feel it's only an "issue" if your "addiction" continues despite negative consequences to yourself and the people around you.
-
Great question there PM90. As a former additionologist whose addictions seem to get the best of me, I would say that there is a good deal of evidence to support this. Most persuasive to me as a biologist/MD is the genetic evidence. Many studies show that alcoholism for instance is inherited to at least an equal extent, if not greater, than say diabetes type 2 or coronary artery disease which have strong family risk components and are considered models for multifactorial illnesses with strong genetic components seen in families as well as ethnicities.
As it turns out the studies that have looked at the issue in some detail--that is, is it truly bad genes or modeling negative behaviors that is at fault show conclusively (thru twin studies, adoption of children born to alcoholics into teetotaling households and vice versa) that the genetics are for more influential tha the habits of your "parents." And the plight of Native Americans with respect to alcoholism has more to do with genetics than the angst of having your culture stolen and living on some shitty rez in North Dakota or New Mexico.
That's folks here who have commented that it is only some form of mental weakness piss me off to the max. There are abundant numbers of counter examples--people who are smart, hardworking, and perseverant--yet end up afflicted by the "curse" and truly powerless to do much about it in spite of proven willpower in almost every aspect of their lives. What I also find interesting is that this genetic association has been far more difficult to prove with other drugs of addiction. Whether all of this turns out to be different facets of the same cube, time will tell but my guess is ultimately they will isolate any number of minor genetic differences--some of which may have very positive aspects associated with them--that predispose to chemical and even behavioral addictions.
What we do know is that there is nothing like an addictive personality provided one strictly defines personality--in other words, there are no psychological tests that can accurately compute the risks of becoming an addict based on premorbid data. In other words, being an addict makes you into an asshole and not the other way around.
What we also know with certainty that while availability and legality cam change the odds of your using a particular substance, say for example opium, but whether opiates, amphetamines, or alcohol a similar percentage seem to get in trouble--about 10-15%. This was true in the sixties with amphetamines, again in the nineties with the same, when opiates were legal in the US and widely purveyed, and has been that way for nearly forever with EtOH. And no these 15% are not crippled in some obvious way such as lacking self esteem, or the products of broken households. Factors such as these can mitigate or amplify risk but to a smaller extant than most imagine, especially those that argue all forms of addiction are some sort of self medication.
Anyhow, as I said a very interesting topic--would love to get your take on it. Oh and BTW, when you define disease in terms of a similar pattern of signs and symptoms that can be diagnosed across time and cultures, chemical addictions fit the model to a tee. There is absolutely no argument to be made against. It is just many people (and in particular under educated stupid americans) tend to see any behavioral issue or mental illness as the fault of the sufferer and not a true disease. My god I went to school and have worked with plenty of physicians who think of depression, and even schizophrenia in this way.
-
I disagree with the idea I've heard in conservative circles, that being an addict is a voluntary lifestyle choice.
I'd say that addiction is a disease that has both physical and psychological elements. So it's a disease, a disease originally caused by behavior of the patient, but once you have it there is no voluntary component to it. Special medical attention is required to solve it.
-
That is a very interesting topic you have brought up OP. There are many arguments for drug addiction and alcoholism being diseases. To be honest though, I don't think they are diseases. Sometimes people let themselves be victims of drug/alcohol abuse because it is easier than face up to whatever it is that is driving them to abuse.
For the last few years, I have studied holistic health. One of the founding principles of holistic health is that every physical pain/disease has an emotional connection. As such, when one goes for holistic health, they try to heal both the physical condition as well as the emotional hindrance attached to it. I.E. The whole person. If you apply that logic to alcoholism and drug addiction, it could be surmised that people turn to drink or drugs rather than facing up to whatever emotional problems they have. I don't know about you, but most people I know that are alcoholics/addicts have got serious emotional issues that have never been dealt with.
If these issues were dealt with, the holistic treatment would be working and the 'disease' could be cured, or at least controlled. The like of alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous preach that once a person has either of these 'diseases', they must refrain from using alcohol/drugs. I firmly believe that if the emotional issues are dealt with, one could continue mild use of their chosen substance.
Here is a ***clearnet link*** that explains the principles of holistic health:
http://ahha.org/articles.asp?id=81
Of course, I am not an expert, so all of what I have said above is just my opinion. I am interested to hear what other people have to say on the subject.
On a side note, for anyone that is having difficulty with emotional issues from their youth, on indeed any time in their life, would highly recommend a practice called holotropic breath work. It has been very successful over the years in helping people deal with their issues.
Peace,
Psy
-
I think the word 'disease' can be misleading when discussing addictions. My dictionary (which sits next to my keyboard as my spelling is terrible) states; Disease - n. an unhealthy condition caused by infection or diet or by faulty functioning of a bodily process. It also states that; Addicted - adj. 1. doing or using something as a habit or compulsively. 2. devoted to something as a hobby or interest. addiction n. (Hobby? Bit of an understatement).
I believe its misleading because it suggests less of a mental ownership of the addiction process. To me, a disease is a totally involuntarily acquired condition. Whereas an addiction has an element of choice to it. However, by saying I believe there's an element of choice, I'm not ignoring the evidence of genetic predisposition in addiction.
I recently watched a program where some scientists were investigating the role of genetic predisposition in addiction. They found that compulsive and habit forming behaviour (addiction) was present in rodents to the same degree as in human, around 10% if I remember correctly. One of there tests involved a button, when pressed it would deliver as small dose of a pleasurable substance (I can't remember if it was cocaine or some other stimulant that would work on rats). They found that the majority of the rats would press the button a few times, but in general they'd continue with their normal routines of social interactions and feeding or sleeping. Whilst a minority of the rats (around 10%) would continue pressing the button and let it interfere with their daily routine to the detriment of their social interactions, feeding and sleep patterns. They would even keep pressing the button after it stopped producing the pleasurable substance, until it started working again.
Now the important findings about these tests wasn't that a variety of species all displayed a similar percentage for predisposition to addictive behaviour, it was that the predisposition could be showed to be genetic. They found the human patients who all displayed a predisposition to addiction all had similar brain activity. They all had the same specific areas of their brain that functioned differently. And these areas could be showed to relate to addictive behaviour, and would have developed that way at the genetic level.
Finally, on a personal level, I believe that as human beings we are ultimately responsible for our own actions. Because we have higher thought processes and a greater level of understanding. Whilst it is a great disadvantage to be one of the 10% who are predisposed to addictive behaviour, one can not lay the blame entirely at genetics as some level of personal responsibility must come into it. In my humble opinion. :)
-
Personally I believe that drug use is a choice in all circumstances. Certainly it is not an easy choice for some people to stop using drugs, but it is a choice which is available to them at all times.
If someone has a disease like cancer they can not choose to stop growing mutated cells.
If someone is addicted to a drug, it is a volitional action every time they use that drug. If a drug addict were deprived of access to drugs, they wouldn't be able to use them no matter how badly they wanted to. This is not analogous to a disease in the traditional sense that I understand it.
I think that by leading someone to believe that their drug use is not their fault or is outside of their control discourages them from accepting responsibility for their actions.
I am addicted to smoking. It is entirely my fault. I could stop at any time by simply not breathing in smoke, but it is a difficult choice to make. That does not mean it is not my choice.
-
It all depends on how you look at things.
Is a headache a paracetamol deficiency, or a symptom or something else - please supply evidence to your stance on that.\
From a much broader point of view, humans found an insight into what substances will improve their quality of life. Historically that may be plants like cannabis, coca or poppies. Translated into the modern world that would include a huge number of substances.
Who is to prove that finding and using such substances was not the goal of humanity to begin with?
-
I would state addiction is NOT a disease. In fact, one could argue that addiction is a sign of a well functioning brain. Humans, like other animals have evolved due to our ability to seek out the things we need to survive. Our dopamine 'reward' system re-enforces behaviors that bring pleasure, such as eating, reproduction, or reaching for another beer. Therefore, a person whose dopamine reward pathway has been altered due into causing drug seeking behaviors is in fact operating in line with evolutions purpose. Unfortunately for some, evolution never knew that we would have cocaine, heroin or high speed internet with an unlimited amount of pussy.
So I conclude, addiction is a natural process that occurs when neurological changes take place within the dopamine behavioral reward pathway, a natural process that also occurs when you find a new type of cake you like or make a new friend. When drug addiction becomes chronic, down-regulation of the reward system occurs, (tolerance). This means addiction is very hard to overcome, because our brain will forever remain wired to seek out the drug, but will not achieve the same satisfaction.
REFERENCE: Neuroscience, exploring the brain, 3rd ed, Mark. F Bear. P. 526.
-
I would state addiction is NOT a disease. In fact, one could argue that addiction is a sign of a well functioning brain. Humans, like other animals have evolved due to our ability to seek out the things we need to survive. Our dopamine 'reward' system re-enforces behaviors that bring pleasure, such as eating, reproduction, or reaching for another beer. Therefore, a person whose dopamine reward pathway has been altered due into causing drug seeking behaviors is in fact operating in line with evolutions purpose. Unfortunately for some, evolution never knew that we would have cocaine, heroin or high speed internet with an unlimited amount of pussy.
So I conclude, addiction is a natural process that occurs when neurological changes take place within the dopamine behavioral reward pathway, a natural process that also occurs when you find a new type of cake you like or make a new friend. When drug addiction becomes chronic, down-regulation of the reward system occurs, (tolerance). This means addiction is very hard to overcome, because our brain will forever remain wired to seek out the drug, but will not achieve the same satisfaction.
REFERENCE: Neuroscience, exploring the brain, 3rd ed, Mark. F Bear. P. 526.
Yes there are some aspects to the argument that make perfect sense from a neurobiological standpoint--and motivation to do anything needs to come from some where--but what it neglects is the more subtle aspects of the process. An oft cited example being carrots--taste good, are good for you--but if eating them led to time in jail, loss of job, alienation of family and friends--you'd likely stop eating them. Not a tough call. Well when it comes to alcohol and other drugs the difference is that the booze, cigs, meth, etc are harder to put down then the carrots, but still can be done as there is now a motivational override. With the hapless addict, they truly are in most instances powerless. Unless you are an addict or have been addicted to something, all this self-righteous talk about it being a choice at some level is just so much blather. Again it is a disease because 1) it has biological cause 2) leads to a predictable and recognizable set of signs and symptoms, which also has a roughly predictable course/prognosis 3) that these signs and symptoms are both culturally and historically independent--in other words a sot today looks pretty much the same today as he/she did in the middle ages or a US sot looks pretty much the same as his Asian counterpart. This is the big picture of the disease concept. People think too much about diseases as being caused by what they perceive as "physical" causes whereas mental issues are somehow generated psychologically--maybe in the beginning, but ultimately there are physical changes that just aren't as obvious as the cobble-stoning of a cirrhotic liver. That good behavior/choices can lead one away from addiction also confuses the point--most of these successful individuals have one or two things going for them: a high level of motivation and family/external support or 2) a less severe for of the illness. Now I realize that last logic is circular--but no more flawed than believing something is not a disease when recovery is possible. Again great subject. And I dont mean to come off as some arrogant doc who knows all the answers--it is a baffling and too often tragic ailment that has cost me a number of fear friends, and dozens of patients. But the medical field has gotten its head of its arse in the past 30 years and quite a bit is now known about the physical side of addiction including the precise area of the brain that is dysfunctional.
-
Good posts in here, unfortunately way out of my scope of knowledge...please continue :)
-
Human beings by our very nature, are naturally programmed to feel good,optimistic and contented in any shape or form which most fits us.Even it is for a short period,we all crave that state of well beingness and happiness. It is in our inherent nature as humans.It is what defines us!There is absolutely no denying this fact!And we pursue that feeling in a wide variety of ways..and in this case for this discussion /debate about addiction and alcoholism.
I personally believe that,being "addicted" to substances such as alcohol or drugs of any kind are personal choices made by Individuals,such as ourselves who consciously made that choice!Nobody held a gun to our heads and said,Listen man/woman..if your not gonna take a sip of that fine southern comfort or a toke of that beautiful hash,or snort that killer coke,im gonna blow your freaking brains out!And i firmly believe that we are not born with this desires or cravings!I mean think about,when you were a kid,what was your inner most thought?Jeez,i feel like snorting some high grade no4 H?Rather we were "exposed" to i.t as we grow,we were introduced to it through friends and even family and just everyday life.It is not a weakness,as some posters stated,nor is it a source of strength.It is simply a state of well beingness, which we all crave, however temporary for any high inducing substance.Simply put,it just feels good and in tune with us for that moment.And i guess,that's where the addiction sets in.You wanna feel more and more in tune with your true self,which is Your Highest excitement at that moment!
Moderation is the key,i believe,and im not gonna hide my head in the ground and say that alcoholism or any sort of heavy drug abuse is moral.There have been families,relationships destroyed by over- indulgence of these substances.Not to mention the violence.DIS-EASE,simply put, is a condition/state where you are not feeling at" ease" with yourself. It is often talked about as "striking a victim"and in someways implies a sort of randomness!Well,enough ranting on my part.dunno if this post makes any sense at all.LOL!!
A parting shot folks,whatever we partake in,do with respect to the substance itself and the people around you.We are individuals in our own right.Me and you are uniquely different,and i absolutely despize the fact that society in general,conveniently thinks what is right or wrong for us.We and we alone make our own choices,whether it right or wrong!(if such a concept ever exists)IT is ultimately our choice and ours alone!And i will dare say this...and i know alot SR"s are gonna flame me,even hate me and generously give negative karma for saying this. BUT,If you think,that by indulging drugs or alcohol.. to escape from reality and you feel that you want the fastest way out of this life and that's the choice you made,i say go right ahead!Thats true freedom in my most humble and twisted opinion!Doing what you want to do as a individual!Having said all this,im not advocating suicide of course ..just remember,that you can straighten your life out at any time and any moment,if you CHOOSE TO!A little out of topic, i know!!Comments,rebuttals are welcome.
Anyways,as always..
Stay Safe!
With love
BP35
-
I personally believe that calling or labeling something like drug addiction a disease is an easier way for people to deal with the idea as they are separating it from themselves. Rather than taking ownership and saying "yeah I'm a fuck up, I know and it was all me" it's used to somehow justify that their addiction was out of their control. Just like some people are mentally stronger than others and some people are affected by traumatic events more than others, I think that it comes down to the strength of the individual.
I find it hard to accept that it's a disease, but at the same time, if it helps people to deal with their addiction, kudos to you and I won't tell you to your face that I think you're wrong. But if the end justifies the means, I'm all for it.
-
This discussion has prompted me to take a deeper interest in this discussion. What I have learned is that while it is natural for our brains to act on the conditioning of our reward pathway, it does seem the case the about 10% of the population, (similar in rats/mice) have some kind of disposition to addiction, this includes those with a hereditary condition due to a parents habits. I think we could come to an agreement that this predisposed group of the population has the 'addiction disease' - and are therefore more likely to allow their addictive behaviors to take over their lives.
Whether labeling addiction as a disease is constructive to the addicted persons potential rehabilitation will probably vary from individual to individual, some will find it liberating to blame their genetics rather than being labeled as a 'week willed druggy' by society... thus allowing them to engage with treatment like we would with any other disease, while others will feel like their predisposition means they don't have to take responsibility for their drug taking. mmmmm can't know this until you've experienced it.
-
My view is that:
Drug addiction, which includes alcoholism, is not a disease.
Disease implies a disease transmitter, something like a virus or bacteria infecting you and making you susceptible to taking drugs. This is highly unlikely (but it may be possible, I've just never heard of such a thing). People veer off into semantics that aren't accepted definitions of words, it isn't helping anybody to do that.
That drug addiction isn't a disease doesn't imply pine is callous or cruel, I'm not saying there is no problem. Drug addiction is an illness, not all illness are diseases.
Mental illnesses, such as depression, are real, but we do not categorize depression as a disease. The vector for illnesses of these kinds is more abstract than a biological virus or bacterium. If we were talking about a computer network you might say a mental illness or drug addiction is at the application layer and diseases are more low level, at the network level.
I do not think using the word 'disease' improves communication that there is a problem. In fact people will take it less seriously if you conflate disease with addiction. I think people who use this word for their addiction are trying to say: "This is real problem for me and I'm not ok with it", but this is too painful to say out loud without feeling insecure so a 3rd party receives the blame: the Disease. In the case of psychoanalytical rubbish "Mom and Pop" replace Disease, something I regard as reprehensible. Yeah, sometimes people really suck, now what? Maybe later on other smaller human beings think you suck too. Nobody's remotely close to perfect. Forgive yourself, forgive other people and move on. Get help if that's what you need.
Everybody screws up at some point in their lives. That is ok. It is not ok to pretend you never screw up and it's always something or somebody else's fault, that is dishonorable. The center of gravity for things that affect our lives act like concentric circles surrounding yourself. Primarily, you affect you and everybody and everything else is secondary.
Secondly, even the word addiction itself is controversial because it has different levels to it depending on what drug you're taking.
If you're taking weed or MDMA on a event basis, like a party or a festival, this cannot be categorized as addiction. You might as well say a weekly Friday visit to a KFC is an addiction to fried chicken at that rate.
If you're taking MDMA and smoking joints every day and living paycheck to paycheck to do so, then yeah, you have a problem.
However at this point I must point out that you're not actually addicted to weed or MDMA physically. You are experiencing psychosomatic addiction. You are doing it because it brings you (short term) pleasure. It is similar to a glutton gorging themselves, a gambler going to the races or an anorexic purging, it brings momentarily pleasure. There is a cycle, a habit you need to break here to progress financially, socially.
This is nothing remotely like physical addiction to opiates or methamphetamine. This is addiction of an entirely different order. Physically addictive drugs are far more sneaky than purely psychosomatic addictive ones. I do not know many people who can take heroin periodically and then stay off it by sheer dint of willpower. Like I said, it is sneaky.
Here is where I take a sort of reverse Non Aggression Principal (one shouldn't initiate violence) with drugs. If taking drugs is a voluntary choice it is not coercive and so it should be a free choice. Taking heroin the first time is a free choice. It is not a free choice when you cannot stand up without retching and your life is based around obtaining more heroin. That is chemical coercion, it doesn't violate NAP at the start, but in the end it does. It is kind of the reverse of the NAP principal in that way. The majority of drug consumers understand that degrees of addiction exist, which is why the proportion of drug consumers who smoke weed is enormous in contrast to the number who smoke crack.
I would never advocate anybody take crack cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin, or indeed any opiate outside of strictly controlled dosages for pain relief. So I don't sell them. Your decision to take them is indeed a free choice, but if you keep taking them eventually it won't be. Then you don't have a right to take more heroin because you're not making a voluntary choice. I mention the opiates but I could just as easily have mentioned prescription drugs because more people are physically addicted to those.
Free choices we make in life have something in common. Over long periods of time they trend to making our lives better. New ideas, new friends. But with free choices you have hazards, and physically addictive drugs are a pretty darn well known hazard.
Finally I do not believe there is a gene for 'addiction'. I believe some people may be more genetically prone to addiction because they have low impulse control. Addiction is just one of many side effects of poor impulse control. The good news is that there's lots of ways you can combat low impulse control. Scientists for example, have shown if you take one of those wrist exerciser tools and flex it for 10 or 20 minutes, your propensity to give in reduces considerably. This is only partly genetic, it is also environmental. By controlling your environment, your behavior, you can eventually attain levels of self control that people with average amount of impulse control find extraordinary. So you can learn from weakness and become a better person. There are lots of tools and techniques, such as time lock safes, having yourself to report to somebody else and so on, which can allow you to master impulse control. You don't need to be a Buddhist monk or sit atop a snowy mountain to reach such conclusions, almost everybody has some habit they want to kick, drugs are just a specific genre.
That's my $0.02.
-
I personally believe that calling or labeling something like drug addiction a disease is an easier way for people to deal with the idea as they are separating it from themselves. Rather than taking ownership and saying "yeah I'm a fuck up, I know and it was all me" it's used to somehow justify that their addiction was out of their control. Just like some people are mentally stronger than others and some people are affected by traumatic events more than others, I think that it comes down to the strength of the individual.
I find it hard to accept that it's a disease, but at the same time, if it helps people to deal with their addiction, kudos to you and I won't tell you to your face that I think you're wrong. But if the end justifies the means, I'm all for it.
I'll reply once more and maybe for the last time on this topic and picked this post as it has all the elements of the strong/weak mind/willpower argument. Sure the the first time a user of any substance picks up a substance and puts it into his/her body they bear responsibility for the choice. This is why prohibitionist laws exist: to limit access to substances that may taste a little too sweet. But what is wrong with what I will call the free will model is that 8 to 9 out of 10 folks can drink or use drugs, gamble, have sex, and eat in moderation. I know very well the 10-15% who seem to have trouble in this regard--not necessarily with all these behaviors, but sooner or later one or more will bring heavy duty consequences.
Let me illustrate with an example: Doc Jones was of mixed descent, mostly Asian American who breezed thru k-12/undergraduate studies (Princeton)--kind of guy who everyone could count on and always did the responsible thing. Went to med school at Cornell and was the class valedictorian. Married along the way and had 2 beautiful children. Entered a very difficult residency at Hopkins in cardiothoracic surgery and again excelled. Received on graduation a very lucrative offer (now for those of you unfamiliar with medical training this is 4 years of college + 4 years of med school + 6 years of residency)--in other words he was in his early thirties when he entered private practice. Made a lot of dough during his first 3 years and living high on the hog in a near mansion but working 60-80 hrs a week. Then he met crack cocaine. Within 6 months, nearly penniless and busted by the med authorities who shipped him off to rehab. Relapsed within 2 weeks. Detoxed and eventually completed a 6 month residential program. Never made it back to medicine ASFAIK but instead moved to Greenwich Village and took up art--found a new mate and had a kid. Lost contact at that point. I personally know of hundreds of such cases--maybe he had some trauma I know nothing about, but there was an A+++ achiever that had the willpower and ability to defer gratification 100x the average joe. No he wasn't weak--he had a brain defect that prevented him from seeing the damage a most of us would--as I said earlier, about 10-15% just don't seem to have the escape mechanisms. This guy was a very special person and a whole lot smarter than myself and 99.5% of the folks reading this. Unique--hardly.
-
i've been surrounded by addiction my whole life, and while i don't think it's a disease in the traditional sense of the word, i definitely would consider it to be a social disease. the society we live in causes so much pain and suffering and i think self-medication is just a natural human response.
-
i dont think that using drugs is a "Disease " but it is to ruin your life because of drugs