Addiction, a disease? or self inflicted?

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.

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 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.

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.

Self affliction.

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.

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

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.