nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Addiction, a disease? or self inflicted?

dartboardio

Some of you may have heard the recent podcast on 98FM, where a woman came onto the radio sharing her story that she was a recovering drug addict, and that addiction IS infact a disease, apparently 'physical, spiritual and mentally'

Same as myself, the presenter Adrian was disgusted that she was trying to compare a self inflicted drug addiction (whether over years or months) was the same as let's say a stroke, or cancer, etc.

What does everybody think of this?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RobertKK

Some of it is due to genetics.

DontThankMe

Everyone's circumstances are different but to say it is a disease is a stretch Imo. Drugs like heroin are extremely addictive but if you start saying it's a disease does a person addicted to weed have a disease? or a person addicted to caffeine? Where do we draw the line if we start saying some addictions are diseases and others are not.

srsly78

Some people may have brain chemistry such that they are more susceptible to addiction. Brain chemistry can be influenced by genetics or by disease, so there is no definitive answer.

Also, go lookup the definition of disease - it's probably not what you think.

corner of hells

dartboardio wrote: »

Some of you may have heard the recent podcast on 98FM, where a woman came onto the radio sharing her story that she was a recovering drug addict, and that addiction IS infact a disease, apparently 'physical, spiritual and mentally'

Same as myself, the presenter Adrian was disgusted that she was trying to compare a self inflicted drug addiction (whether over years or months) was the same as let's say a stroke, or cancer, etc.

What does everybody think of this?

Possibility her addiction is the manifestation of a trauma.Whatever she was addicted to may have been her way of coping with a trauma.

You could , I suppose define a chronic addiction as a disease if you consider that drug use may change how the brain functions and works.

begbysback

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/

Allinall

A stroke isn't a disease.

FFS.

stimpson

It depends on how you define disease. Not sure why you would be disgusted at the comparison. Maybe you look down on addicts? At the end of the day, an approach like Portugals, where they treat it like a disease has better outcomes for addicts and scociety. Here we just say drugs are bad, therefore illegal, therefore addicts must be punished. We've had 50 years of this approach and it doesn't work. Maybe it's time to try something else.

One eyed Jack

RobertKK wrote: »

Some of it is due to genetics.

That's a bit like saying that having two legs is a disease because some of it is due to genetics.

No, addictions aren't diseases, and framing them as such only muddies peoples understanding of diseases in an attempt to normalise an abnormal mental disorder.

srsly78

No jack, go lookup definition of disease. Please use standard definition not your personal one.

One eyed Jack

srsly78 wrote: »

No jack, go lookup definition of disease. Please use standard definition not your personal one.

Or, y'know, you could just post the definition of disease for me if you think I'm wrong.

[Deleted User]

It's both. Many diseases are self inflicted, few people hold the same disgust when a smoker gets lung cancer or someone with a lifetime of poor eating develops heart disease. Lifestyle choices can also increase your risk of stroke - not a disease.

Treating addicts with disgust and contempt doesn't seem to work as a treatment, help, support and compassion is what anyone with addiction needs, whether it's illegal class A's or alcohol or any other substance.

srsly78

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or, y'know, you could just post the definition of disease for me if you think I'm wrong.

I could but choose not to.

One eyed Jack

srsly78 wrote: »

I could but choose not to.

Thanks for stopping by to tell me you think I'm wrong but you choose not to say why.

begbysback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a bit like saying that having two legs is a disease because some of it is due to genetics.

No, addictions aren't diseases, and framing them as such only muddies peoples understanding of diseases in an attempt to normalise an abnormal mental disorder.

An abnormal mental disorder? Like a mental illness?

srsly78

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks for stopping by to tell me you think I'm wrong but you choose not to say why.

Ok I will say why - I don't feel like helping someone that wades into a discussion without making the slightest effort to understand the terms being discussed.

Just type the fscking thing into google.

Rubberchikken

Self affliction.

Vincent Vega

I think it's a social/interpersonal disease. Not genetic, but epigenetic.

Gabor Maté's take on it was really an eye opener for me, and I'd highly recommend his book 'In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCzXbsGAXiI

One eyed Jack

begbysback wrote: »

An abnormal mental disorder? Like a mental illness?

That's part of the problem with how these things are originally defined and redefined and being constantly examined and the language used is constantly shifting, probably why srsly78 wants to tell me I'm wrong, as they define disease differently, therefore addiction is a disease, from their point of view.

The difference between mental illness and mental disorder is that just like physical health, we can also experience ill mental health, but a disorder is neurological and can have a genetic basis, and there are arguments in psychology that use the personality traits model to suggest that for example schizophrenia isn't a mental disorder, but rather that it's absolutely normal to hear voices.

Normalising addictions does nothing to address the underlying condition which can manifest and express itself in an infinite number of ways, including experiencing ill mental health and destructive behaviours.

andekwarhola

The argument about its categorization is largely rhetorical and just used for blame games

The fact is that alcohol and drug addicts present a problem to society and it ends up needing to be addressed in one way or another.

[Deleted User]

begbysback wrote: »

An abnormal mental disorder? Like a mental illness?

Addiction changes the actual structure of the brain, and the response to the addiction - compulsive drug seeking behaviours - is one of the results of those changes.

That's why addiction is a life long recovery, the addicts ability to control the compulsion is impaired to some extent for a very long time, if not for the rest of their lives.

nkav86

I feel with all we now know about drugs/addiction, taking any drug is a risk you are aware of when taking them so that's a choice.

But the addiction that forms is so powerful that it can take away your power of control and choice, maybe like a disease can.

I think to call it a disease though, negates the choice that someone made to take drug and can absolve them of the blame that is there. Rightly or wrongly, that's the best way I can describe my thoughts on it.

andekwarhola

Let's face it, the reason that people are so eager to classify it as a black and white issue of self infliction (which it obviously sometimes is) is the same as people needing to believe that a lot of social issues like poverty are always predestined and in blanket meritocracy.

In other words, to justify not attempting to 'waste' empathy and money on at least attempting to address it at root cause

Wanderer78

cause and effect!

dartboardio

I certainly don't look down on addicts.

As a young teen I spent years smoking weed everyday, some would say psychologically addicted, which I was, due to myself and my own choices and stupid decisions. Had I ever become an addict, it would have certainly not been a disease... more due to selfish decisions, as someone said, early trauma, emotional problems, mental illness whatever.

After that, I became very fond of taking other drugs, class A, constantly drinking, etc, it's being the kind of person who has it inside of them, they don't want to go home, they want that buzz constantly, that is not a disease, now I know that's far stretched from being a heroin addict, but it all starts the same. A heroin addict would have started out like I did. Now I know nothing about being a heroin addict, but I know the type of people and mindset they would have, I'd like to think.

Trying to get away, escape reality is not a disease...so far into that, years down the line, where the addiction takes over you as a person, due to you still using, that is still, not a disease..

dartboardio

nkav86 wrote: »

I feel with all we now know about drugs/addiction, taking any drug is a risk you are aware of when taking them so that's a choice.

But the addiction that forms is so powerful that it can take away your power of control and choice, maybe like a disease can.

I think to call it a disease though, negates the choice that someone made to take drug and can absolve them of the blame that is there. Rightly or wrongly, that's the best way I can describe my thoughts on it.

I completely agree with you there, it certainly doesn't start out as a disease, and if anything, the person using CREATES that 'disease'.. from their own choices. (maybe not choice, maybe they felt they had to) but still doesnt change the fact that it is a conscious decision.

dartboardio

IMO addiction is a result of impulsive decision, thrill seeking gone too far, possibly emotional problems.. how you were brought up, your personality and of course the crowd you hang around with and what's ''normal'' in your circle.

nkav86

Exactly, happy someone understood my point so it wasn't gibberish. I have addiction of many kinds in my family, luckily, I've only been addicted to nicotine. I don't look down on addicts either, I wouldn't wish their struggles on anyone.

hatrickpatrick

I think to be fair there's a difference now, to the past. In the 80s, when the heroin epidemic fired up, there really wasn't a huge amount of widespread knowledge or education among the general public, particularly the lower socioeconomic classes which drug pushers deliberately targeted, about just how addictive and difficult to recover from those drugs really were. I can easily imagine someone in one of the heroin-flooded estates back in those earlier decades trying it a few times while being completely oblivious to the fact that they would rapidly become totally incapable of feeling normal or ok without continuing to take it. With heroin, the tolerance and physical dependence have an extraordinarily rapid onset, far more so than with most other drugs, and this was not something which people were widely educated about.

These days, it's harder to justify it. You can still chalk it up to "young people believe themselves to be invincible and are prone to do stupid things regardless of the consequences", but at least to those who are educated and engaged, most schools have very honest campaigns about drugs (Not just the generic "drugs are bad, mmmkay?" but specific talks and in-depth education on specific drugs, their effects, their addictive potential and withdrawal symptoms, etc) - I was taught in school that above all other mainstream drugs, heroin and opiates have quasi-permanent affects on how the brain works and how mood is regulated, such that even short-term dabbling can quickly lead to an almost inescapable addiction - in comparison to other drugs such as MDMA and marijuana, which are addictive and have negative side effects but it's not inconceivable to dabble and then grow out of them. Opiates wreak a type of special havoc on one's brain which is fairly unique in the world of drugs.

It's for that reason that I find it hard to criticise heroin / opiate addicts as having entirely brought it upon themselves - I can see how some unsuspecting young people who know nothing about how the drug works could assume it's something they can try as a passing fancy, or addictive in the same way that alcohol is in that many people can consume it regularly and still control their consumption and avoid becoming dependent. Opiates simply don't work that way, but I can understand how people, particularly in earlier generations, may simply not have had this information as readily as today's young people do.

Bitches Be Trypsin

I think it depends on what the subject is actually addicted to. An argument can be proposed that if a person didn't come into contact with the addictive substance, then they could never get addicted.

However, the GABRG3 gene, one of the genes on chromosome 15, was heavily researched. It is one of the genes that is involved in GABA (a brain chemical) movement between neurons (cells of the nervous system, the brain in this case). It was statistically linked with alcoholism in families with a particular problem with drinking. This posed the question is alcoholism genetic?

Again, argument could be made that they couldn't be alcoholics if they didn't drink in the first place. But it could certainly be said that having this gene makes a person more likely to become an alcoholic.

It depends on your own interpretation as to whether you class carrying an unfortunate gene as a disease or not

djPSB

dartboardio wrote: »

Some of you may have heard the recent podcast on 98FM, where a woman came onto the radio sharing her story that she was a recovering drug addict, and that addiction IS infact a disease, apparently 'physical, spiritual and mentally'

Same as myself, the presenter Adrian was disgusted that she was trying to compare a self inflicted drug addiction (whether over years or months) was the same as let's say a stroke, or cancer, etc.

What does everybody think of this?

People need to take personal accountability. We all have an addictive trait in us somewhere and need the self control to know when to stop.

For gambling, a lot of it comes down to greed. Not surprisingly, alot of the high profile GAA players who have come out with these problems are not very nice people. One was stealing from parents, families and charities and had over ten incidents of assault. Another is up in court for assaulting his girlfriend.

These lads chased the high life and went bust and didn't care who they hurt on the way. 100% self centered.

They then come public to 'help others'. Who are they trying to cod. They tell their story to try make a few pound for themselves by selling books telling their story. Or by making a career in counseling out of it. Everything evolves around themselves.

May sound crude but that's the reality.