View Full Version : Do you think addiction is a disease?


sarahsweets
09-22-16, 04:36 AM
I was listening to talk radio the other day and the subject of drug addiction came up. So many callers were railing against the idea that addiction is a disease saying that people chose to abuse alcohol and drugs and that its their fault for being an addict. They were talking about the weaknesses of character that would lead a selfish person to ruin their lives and families over lack of willpower.
It really ticked me off and at the same time made me question myself.
I am an alcoholic-used to have food issues too. I remember having these issues at least behavior -wise since I was little, I just didnt recognize them as addictive.

I believe it was a combination of genetics and life experiences. I think the adhd and bipolar being untreated played a huge role in this. I think because I grew up in a sh*tty way, I looked for comfort and found it in mood altering with substances, shopping, etc. As I got older it went up and down. I was able to change the food issues and that flipped the switch with the alcoholism.

I am not trying to blame my upbringing or genetics and use is as an excuse for why I am an alcoholic- but my dad was what they used to call "manic depressive" and abused drugs and alcohol and dropped dead of a heart attack at age 47 due to the substance abuse issues.
I think I was pre-disposed to addiction genetically and maybe my lifestyle sort of opened the door to the beast- and I have been dealing with it ever since.

I had struggled with the idea of addiction as a disease- sometimes I still do. But if you think of the chronic,daily,life-altering,and devastating effects of addiction, it makes sense.
But I can also see how outsiders would see the selfishness of addicts and the manipulation- and feel we are just brats who dont give a sh*t.
I have been sober almost 4 years now and have turned my life around but it requires constant vigilence.

How does everyone feel about it?
And please try and be sensitive about this topic. Even if you disagree and think there is no way it could be a disease- there are many of us that suffer and treat various addictions- and not a single one of us would wish it on our own worst enemies.
xxxooo

Fuzzy12
09-22-16, 06:23 AM
Is the question if people should be blamed for their addictions, or their lack of will power, etc.?

In my opinion, absolutely not.

1. I think most people get addicted in the first place as a form of self medication, to fill some sort of void or numb some sort of pain. Less dramatically, The substance of your choice fulfills a function that you require or are lacking.

2. Some people are more vulnerable to addiction than others and again I don't think that's their fault. There is no need to have a chip on your shoulder for not having am addictive personality. Maybe they just got lucky.

3. Most people are addicted to something or another. At the j3ast to judging others.

4. I don't believe that will power is a virtue in the sense that a lack of will power is a character flaw.

5. I don't really believe in free will. Done people are just like than others to have received more l genetic material and been in an environment that makes them less vulnerable to addiction.

aeon
09-22-16, 07:21 AM
I agree with what Fuzzy said, and I do not think addiction is a disease.


Cheers,
Ian

Hermus
09-22-16, 07:30 AM
Today I read some interesting literature on this which I'm planning to explore in more depth. The social psychologist Bruce K. Alexander in the late 1970s did an experiment on rats called the 'rat park' experiment. His idea was that most conventional tests on rats that were aimed at understanding addiction lacked validity, because rats were separated in cages during those experiments. Since rats are social animals his hypothesis was that not the addictive substance as such (in this case morpine), but the circumstances under which the rats were housed were the cause of addiction.

In order to test this he created two groups of test subjects. One group was separated and one group lived under conditions that as much as possible mimicked natural circumstances in what was called 'rat park'. Through this experiment it was shown while the rats in rat park at first were interested in the morphine, they subsequently stayed away from it since it interrupted with their normal social functioning. On the contrary the rats that were separated started to use more and more of the morphine and became addicted.

Later Alexander made inferences from this research about addiction in humans. According to him it are not the addictive substances that are to blame for addiction, but the social dislocation found in modern societies. Societies that are more socially integrated seem to suffer much less from addictive behaviour. Moreover, Alexander points out that there are a large number of behaviours that in itself have no chemicals in them that cause addiction to which people can become addicted - shopping, sex, video games etc.

Therefore what Alexander believes and what I find at least plausible is that addiction can neither be explained as a lack of willpower, nor as a personal medical condition. Instead addiction can be explained by disintegrated societies.

The remark that needs to be made here is that individual characteristics make it somewhat predictable who will get addicted or not. For example, people with mental disorders seem to be more prone to addiction than others. However, the people with specific characteristics that would lead them to develop addictions in one culture and social environment, don't get addicted in others. Thus, individual characteristics in my point of view are only secondary.

I also tend to agree with a lot of the points Fuzzy made.

Unmanagable
09-22-16, 07:54 AM
I feel whatever we're addicted to fills a void that we've not otherwise learned how to healthily fill. I feel addiction comes from a place of lack, be it a born into lack, or a self-created lack, for a lack of not knowing any better at the time, and an inability to connect to a healthier resolve, for whatever reason.

I don't feel I was ever taught or surrounded by healthy examples of how to fill my voids, so I chose/choose substances to fill in the gaps and help me feel connected to something that brings relief, be it food, alcohol, etc., to take the place of what I'm missing. It most definitely creates a state of dis-ease.

DJ Bill
09-22-16, 10:32 AM
It's definitely a mental health issue even if it isn't technically a disease like the flu. Fuzzy had some great points.

My answer - I dunno, but my addiction sure acts like it isn't in my control. I really don't care if it is a disease or a tendency/ weakness...it doesn't make any difference in how I need to approach it.

I know how it is described by 12 step programs, as a disease, an allergy, etc...any of them work for me. It for sure isn't a moral failure, as much as ADHD is not a case of too little willpower and poor parenting.

salleh
09-22-16, 04:55 PM
.....I think that addiction is more a mental health problem than an actual disease...while both are physical it's true, addiction is a disorder.....eh ....does it really matter what you call it ? semantics......it's a real problem to those who are addicted and anyone close to them ....

Laserbeak
09-22-16, 06:19 PM
No. Absolutely not.

TygerSan
09-22-16, 08:59 PM
So, to me a disease is something with a known pathology, caused by a pathogen or other known agent or toxin. So, no, addiction is not a disease. Neither is ADHD or bipolar disorder. Used to always drive me up the wall when my supervisor would refer to "bipolar disease"

As to whether or not there is a choice and/or willpower behind an addict's actions, *shrug* Usually there's something else lurking below the surface. Community and psychosocial support can make all the difference in the world in terms of outcome.

Laserbeak
09-23-16, 07:32 AM
So, to me a disease is something with a known pathology, caused by a pathogen or other known agent or toxin. So, no, addiction is not a disease. Neither is ADHD or bipolar disorder. Used to always drive me up the wall when my supervisor would refer to "bipolar disease"

Here I think I would disagree a bit... I mean there are such things as genetic diseases which aren't really caused by pathogens but by DNA mutations.

Some diseases, like Type I diabetes, are not well understood as to what causes them. In the case of Type I diabetes, for some reason, the islets of Langerhans on the pancreas all die off, but the reason is not known. There are plenty of theories, but nothing has been proven. Yet, it would be hard to say that's not a disease.

I could list more, but it would just be repetitive.

sarahsweets
09-23-16, 08:23 AM
See, thats what I am conflicted about. Ultimately i dont care whether its considered a disease or whatever so long as I maintain sobriety but, especially now with the heroin crisis, I keep hearing the disease theory. On one hand, because there is a cause (drugs, alcohol) and a treatment (abstinence) I can understand why people call it a disease- but maybe thats because addiction is considered incurable? You can treat it through many programs and stuff like that, but will you always be considered an addict? I know for me, I am not an addict across the board...I never got into hard drugs beyond the recreational part (and only after I had been drinking)- so I dont look at myself as one of those people who can never have a single substance with a potential for abuse but a lot of people think all addicts must protect themselves from any substance.
Maybe I am able to take adderall because I never did any illegal uppers? Maybe I am able to take pain medicine because I never got dopey or sleepy on it, therefore not high?
I dont have the answers. I know I struggle with whether or not addiction itself is a disease. I know I have had an addictive personality since I was a little kid. I used food as comfort in a chaos filled , abusive childhood. When I got older it was smoking, shopping and then alcohol. Because I was so young I dont think willpower or choices even play into the picture. I dont believe at age 8 I made the conscious decision to compulsively and obsessively use or abuse substances.

Fuzzy12
09-23-16, 08:42 AM
I don't think everyone with an addictive personality necessarily gets addicted to any addictive substance. Maybe it depends on exposure and also if that particular substance (or action) fills a particular void abd maybe it also depends on the likes or the temperament of the individual.

Eg a heroine adduct might nit get addicted to gambling even when repeatedly exposed to it. I'm just guessing if course. Maybe there have been studies done on this.

For me, I'm grateful I've never had access to highly addictive abd harmful substances like heroin or cocaine. As a kid I wanted to try everything and I probably would have got hooked if I had.

Hermus
09-23-16, 11:51 AM
The whole idea of a lack of willpower seems to me like stemming from a lack of empathy. Those people see that they can easily stay away from addiction, so they believe that it is that easy for everyone. Not really taking into account that everyone is different.

Laserbeak
09-23-16, 12:25 PM
I think the main problem with classifying addiction as a disease or anything else, is that it requires an external substance. What is an alcoholic who's never had drink? Or a junkie who's never touched heroin?

It's a complicated issue.

bluefoxicy
10-14-16, 10:28 PM
I was listening to talk radio the other day and the subject of drug addiction came up. So many callers were railing against the idea that addiction is a disease saying that people chose to abuse alcohol and drugs and that its their fault for being an addict. They were talking about the weaknesses of character that would lead a selfish person to ruin their lives and families over lack of willpower.

I want to say these people are morons.

That's not quite right.

Anyone who understands ADHD knows impulse control is mediated in the prefrontal cortex. To extend this further: the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is the source of what scientific literature terms "willpower". Once the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is exhausted or overwhelmed, your self-control is gone.

Try doing a thousand push-ups. Right now. I mean for real, do it.

Okay, so at this point, you've probably had the surreal experience of pushing as hard as you can, and noticing your muscles are distinctly not responding. That's because they're so low on ATP they're about to die, and your mitochondria need to consume glucose and manufacture fresh stocks of ATP while your muscle cells migrate fatty acids into them as secondary energy stores.

So apparently you can't do a thousand push-ups in one go. Your muscles actually run out of energy. It doesn't matter if you refuse to give up; you will physically run out of fuel, and will have no chemical energy with which to contract your muscle fibers. This is the same condition as when you push the accelerator down all the way in a car with no fuel in the tank.

You probably can't lift a car over your head with one arm, either.

Addiction might be your fault. Maybe you did something stupid. Then again, maybe you had a delta-FosB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB#Delta_FosB) over-expression issue you only learned about when your doctor put you on Adderall.

That doesn't really matter.

What matters is, now that you're addicted, you must put out an enormous amount of effort to withdraw yourself from the drug. Part of your brain is demanding more feel-goods; another part is demanding you make the pain stop. You have to struggle against rewards-conditioned behaviors which your brain knows should be repeated because they are good, and against punishments which are painful and uncomfortable.

Reframing can dramatically cut down on the strain; but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Reframing is a powerful tool that allows you to motivate yourself into behaviors which have rewards-conditioned outcomes, thus moving your main impulse more toward following those behaviors and reducing the required activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. That doesn't mean the effort magically vanishes, although it can; with addiction, the rewards-conditioned addictive behavior and the punishment of withdrawal are powerful motivators, and you need to overcome them completely.

So I have a head full of obscure and complex information that describes things in the world around me. I know things that most people don't know.

What Hermus mentioned is important in this context as well. For most people (not SPD or social anhedoniacs), social contact triggers reward, and a healthy social support network tends to make addiction easier to eliminate. More generally, a life of strain is hefty in negative environmental factors and low in rewards; addictive substances like alcohol or methamphetamine provide a reward in a vacuum (positive reinforcement) while removing the sensations brought on by negative environmental factors (negative reinforcement).

This reinforcing behavior is insanely powerful, and tends to drive the poor and destitute toward drug addictions and other risk behavior such as sexual behavior. The MINCOME experiment in Canada--which gave everyone an unconditional income for a few years--showed a lower rate of childbirth and less risky sexual behavior in women under the age of 25, as well as a reduction in number of sexual partners; this correlates with other observations in which lower-income, distressed households face more teen sex and pregnancy.

If nothing in your life is good and everything is bad and painful, why would you not smoke crack? When you realize smoking crack was a bad idea, you have very little to anchor yourself to when you try to pull away from the habit. It doesn't matter that you need to break the habit before you can move forward and turn your life around; turning your life around is far off, and the only rewards available now are inhaled out of a glass pipe.

That's ... there's nowhere else to go with this without getting into politics. I like economics, but nobody can discuss economics without politics, because economics inevitably leads to economic policy (otherwise it's a waste of time).

Most of the responses here have struggled with the concept of addiction, recognizing that it's both a result of bad behavior which we morally do not agree with, and an affliction which a person suffers. This is a mature response--technically, you'd need to start with a level 4 defense mechanism. It is impossible to consider the circumstances of a behavior of which you fully disapprove without first tolerating persons engaged in that behavior, exerting self-restraint and emotional self-regulation, and otherwise suppressing every impulse to differentiate yourself from and criticize said behavior.

The respondents Sarah mentions are beyond immature. Literally. Level 2 defense mechanisms are immature responses, and include things like projection or wishful thinking. Level 1 defenses are even less-matured, and include splitting--separating experiences into "good" and "bad" qualities and labeling them appropriately. Level 1 defenses are pathological.

If addiction is an affliction and not your own damned fault, it means anyone could be vulnerable. It means I could be vulnerable. I can respond to this by splitting: I can't possibly be as weak and stupid as you, therefor you have committed some foul act and are a failure of a human being, and I am a superior person not possessing such unacceptable qualities.

This line of reasoning is only a response to a complete lack of capacity to accept vulnerability or any possibility of a personal flaw. It is, in the most basic sense, a delusion formed out of a need to separate oneself from an internal threat.

... I'm really not feeling charitable tonight.

dvdnvwls
10-15-16, 01:16 AM
I think "Is addiction a disease?" is a loaded and unfair question. We don't have a single universally-agreed definition of disease.

Bringing up this question is rarely done out of genuine curiosity; most of the time, the person bringing it up is simply on a fishing expedition to have their own biases confirmed, and there will always be enough people on both sides of the question that every individual is pretty much guaranteed to come out of the discussion saying "See? I told you!"

I believe the right thing to do is to come up with a better question.

Joker_Girl
10-15-16, 02:53 AM
There is the issue of self medication as well.
Alot of people who drink or do drugs are trying to numb some kind of pain.
Any self destructive behavior I've ever engaged in was because I was tired of feeling bad and wanted to feel better.
It's never been about fun.

Pilgrim
10-15-16, 03:21 AM
I don't think it's a disease per Se. I just think it's part of the human condition.

I think the important thing about it is to not be ashamed, just hope you have, or can get the tools to deal with it.

I read a book recently, and I won't go into details of who this was, but a well known person in Australia, he said, addictions have to be addressed if they are only harming your personality.

Little Missy
10-15-16, 06:53 AM
There is the issue of self medication as well.
Alot of people who drink or do drugs are trying to numb some kind of pain.
Any self destructive behavior I've ever engaged in was because I was tired of feeling bad and wanted to feel better.
It's never been about fun.

This.This.This.This.This.

ToneTone
10-15-16, 07:10 PM
I used to attend a recovery group that used the term "disease" to describe addiction. I don't think I ever heard "disease" as a literal term as much as a metaphor intended to help addicts add an "external" element to the problem of addiction. This problem is real and urgent and dangerous and not the equivalent of a passing cold. That's what I hear from the term "disease" when used to describe addiction.

But here's the thing that same group (that used the metaphor of "disease") told people to STOP acting out (engaging n addiction behavior) right now. Go to multiple meetings a day, call as many people as you need--do anything to not use or engage in the addiction this one day. There was no assumption that disease meant the condition was beyond human agency. Interesting, so many literal diseases can be treated and some can be cured.

I sense that some people don't like the term "disease" because they think people in recovery are saying they can't help it and don't want to be held accountable. That's not what people in recovery are saying. Recovery is all about doing absolutely everything you can to release the addiction and move toward healthy behavior. Recovery is NOT about saying, "hey, you stole from your mother, you couldn't help it." It's saying, you stole from your mother. Do you get how terrible this THING is, and why you need to confront it with all your might? ... Oh, you got arrested, well that again shows you how important it is for you to take this thing seriously!"

I don't remember a single statement from therapists involved in addiction treatment or people in support meetings indicating that people with addictions who commit crimes ought to get a pass. I knew several people who ended up in prison for committing crimes in the course of acting out their addiction. (And these crimes weren't for purchasing drugs.) I don't remember any of these folks saying--or anyone else suggesting--that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.

I sense that in recent years the law enforcement community has come to embrace a "treatment" model as opposed to a prison model for drug abuse when it comes to the prescription medication addiction epidemic.

Ironically, what gets people in trouble, it seems to me, is minimizing the power and hold of the addiction, as in saying and believing "I can stop this any time I want." That's the path of denial and submission to the problem. I didn't get a hold on my particular addiction until I stopped with the "I can stop this at any time" thinking. That was pure and utter delusion. The use of the word "disease" is what helped me escape that delusion.

Tone

Impromptu_DTour
10-16-16, 06:12 PM
I guess i can only speak from my own experiences both as a former psych student, and someone who has dealt with addictions - so i want to frame my position within that.

I grew up in a world surrounded by addictions which stemmed from a variety of causes. The world has always tried recently to "help" more than "rebuke" the addicts.. and i believe the framework of an addiction being considered as a "disease", began to stir more of the humanistic approach mental health professionals were seeking from the communities. I agree with the "purpose" of labeling alcoholism a "disease".. and i guess at the end of the day, when you're just trying to foster an environment of support and encouragement for the afflicted.. then it really doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

But to me it is.. A disease infers that the host is faultless except that they somehow managed to become infected. In my mind, while its useful to consider how important it is to not beat myself up when i have a drink or 15.. or masturbate to porn for 12 hours straight, or shoplift an entire months paycheque worth of clothes on a lunchbreak... its unhealthy (for me at least) to ignore the accountability that i have ever step of the way.. regardless of my status as an "addict".

I think "disease" markets better.. makes rehabilitation more achievable.. its friendlier.

But.. lets be honest. People become addicted, for a huge number of reasons.. and breaking that cycle of addiction has a massive psychological component that "medicine" cannot expedite.. not truely. You can disable certain systems of the brain, reduce specific neurotransmitters.. but then you're essentially faux-rehabilitated.. but at least its not a frontal lobotomy.

I have a disorder, which i am very comfortable with. And I am also very comfortable identifying this disorder within the realm of a substance abuse disorder. My "addictions".. vary. But they seem to pronounce themselves when i have a serious lacking in my life where that addiction steps in and is (of course) a quick fix to "fill the void". Addictions for me have only developed because of a combination of encouraging the behavior.. and as a response to life stressors encouraging a provocative number of scenarios to encourage those behaviors to be modified. Nobody just wakes up and is addicted, without there having been some kind of nurturing.. however.. i do believe very strongly that a persons nature.. can make them FAR more predispositioned to find themselves addicted.. unexpectedly fast.

Having done all manner of drugs recreationally.. some of which (clinically) could have been considered abusively.. While i have been able to put down enough chemicals that would make a dead horse fall over.. I have only had to deal with a few "addictions", one of which of course was nicotine.. another was alcohol, and another which is sex. It never helped me to consider my struggles to be the result of a "disease"; a label which i feel is more useful for the people around me, than myself. I kicked nicotine when i wanted to.. and only when i truly wanted to.. I held onto alcohol until such a time that i had enough resources around me to walk away from that (it was nice being able to choose my battle with that one). And sex is.. well thats still a work in progress. People die for the stuff.

I guess my ultimate destination here is (in referring to myself), im talkin about coping mechanisms that are either not healthy, or non existent.. when they are needed. The dry times make you look for water where you can. Coping mechanisms and healthy strategies make you more resilient or hardy. To me this is a psychological component.. and a component that I might not be initially at fault for where its lacking, but I am responsible for developing it where it is, and i am responsible for enabling it to be underdeveloped. Im talking about self awareness and accountability.. certain combinations of scenarios dont work, and will set off triggers. I need to make note of these and identify how my personality traits might be contributing to how easily my triggers are set off here, and not there.. and make adjustments to reduce that challenge until such a time that i can shrug it off. Setting myself up to run away from a trigger whenever it happens, is only going to make that trigger surprise me.. so i need to figure out how to change my perspectives, and approaches.. to empower me when im engaged. For instance.. school just started up.. im in a different living situation.. and im behind in my comprehension, and i have a mid-term in 3 days and im a week behind. Patterns are swinging hard, and im a fool for not paying attention to that (very aware) observation.. and holding myself accountable for not having a bit more of a backbone. Afterall, I did the same thing this time last year.. for the same reasons.

I dunno.. i could put a powerpoint presentation together and record a TED talk if i dont cork it right here and now.

Its a disorder to me. Labeling it as a disease.. (for me.. and i dont judge people who do consider it a disease).. for me, it takes the .. uh.. the right "to fail".. away from me. if that makes sense. I need to be able to risk it all and fail.. and lose.. if i ... well you cant win without the possibility of losing. You're just practicing then.. but this is also coming from a person who has a very internal locus of control.

iDTour

sarahsweets
10-17-16, 10:44 AM
I think "Is addiction a disease?" is a loaded and unfair question. We don't have a single universally-agreed definition of disease.

Bringing up this question is rarely done out of genuine curiosity; most of the time, the person bringing it up is simply on a fishing expedition to have their own biases confirmed, and there will always be enough people on both sides of the question that every individual is pretty much guaranteed to come out of the discussion saying "See? I told you!"

I believe the right thing to do is to come up with a better question.

I hope you dont .think my intention was to discuss anything other than what I asked. I also didnt know there were ways of looking at disease differently. If I had to say what definition I was going with I would choose this:

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.
"bacterial meningitis is a rare disease"
synonyms: illness, sickness, ill health;
a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people
I am not sure why I gave the impression that this was a fishing expedition. Its a genuine question. I struggle with the question because in the recovery circles I roll in there is no question that addiction is anything but a disease, but I am not sure how to apply that to myself. Maybe I should have been specific with the type of addiction?
For myself that would be acoholisim.

bluefoxicy
10-17-16, 12:46 PM
If I had to say what definition I was going with I would choose this:

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

Technically, it's just something that lowers probability of survival. Disease is "Dis-ease", i.e. "makes living harder." In low-level biology classes, "Disease" is often explained as an abnormal condition which lowers the probability of survival of an organism.

Addiction is an abnormal condition. Whether it's by delta-FoSB over-expression (you tried alcohol or amphetamine once? You'll never be able to stop yourself from using tons of it!) or by corner cases in normal biological function (Opium and Amphetamine aren't common in diet!), the systems which keep you alive have encountered an abnormal condition which reduces your ability to function. That lowers your ability to survive: you have an additional need (e.g. you'll be too tired to spot the tiger before it spots you if you don't have more caffeine).

Modern medicine has developed more-complex domain language out of necessity. The blunt litmus test is still "does this hurt you, and can you make it stop?" Notably, if you can just drop the drugs and deal with the withdrawal, you have a drug habit, not an addiction. My amphetamine prescription is managing some other disease, and it does cause a physical dependence; I can stop taking the MAS whenever I want, and it'll hurt for a little while, but it won't create a compulsion to take more. Not addicted.

The fact that I can do it doesn't mean everyone else can do it. (Besides, some of my defenses are probably pathological; I'm as resilient to negative psychological events as I am to letting go and enjoying my life, so at what cost?)

WheresMyMind
10-17-16, 09:26 PM
Alcoholics Anonymous, in the 1950s and 1960s, pushed hard to get addiction to be called a disease.

Medically, it isn't...it doesn't follow predictable patterns of treatment, the underlying causes are unlike anything else medical.

However, if it could be re-labeled as a disease, then treatment could be covered by health insurance - which is a good thing.

But...in order for US gov't to get on board, they had to take God out of AA. "Higher power" always meant God, and in the 50s, anyway, the 13th step meant graduating from AA and returning to church!!! 13th stepping is a very different thing today...and now that AA cannot encourage people back to church, the replacement model says that you're in AA forever.

I'm fine with all that. If staying in AA, and believing that you're a perpetual addict works as well as when folks used to go back to church, then it's doign the job right. And it is correct that health insurance should cover it.

Just my opinion....

Joker_Girl
10-18-16, 04:35 PM
Maybe the way I experience things is like it is for others, or maybe I am totally different.
But for me, if I am in a good place psychologically (which probably means, I am on my meds and things are going okay), I have little to no desire to get messed up.
I'm a born social drinker, and will eschew drugs.
When I am NOT in a good place, all I want is to make the pain go away. I will drink, I will use and abuse any drug (with a preference for uppers, but whatever is around, I'll do), and I don't care about myself at all during these times.
Whether or not I'm going to be a hot mess depends on my initial state.

peripatetic
10-19-16, 12:35 PM
so, full disclosure: i don't have any addiction diagnosis and i've never been treated for addiction.

that said, i have abused/seriously overused cigarettes and alcohol at times. those times are pretty exclusively linked to my mental illness.

so, i guess the question would be, for me... especially given substance abuse falls into the DSM... is mental illness a disease?

i'm not talking about adhd here, just to clarify for those who might read this and aren't sarah as she knows full well what i'm talking about.

if we consider what's called "serious mental illness" (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, among others) "disease", then my substance usage is a symptom of it.

i thought to post on this thread because i don't really know the answer, but i saw someone mention accountability.

unfortunately, when i become ill, and i am, when stable, able to see my primary diagnosis as "illness"...though when i lose insight i'm unable to see it that way... when i become ill i basically lose touch with reality and i've done some incredibly regrettable things. some of those things have been illegal. some of them have been violence towards myself. none have been violence toward others, but i have destroyed property.

although i am held responsible insofar as i have been put onto court ordered medication (which, i think can happen to those with substance issues as well...court ordered treatment of some sort) and i generally make restitution if possible...replacing things i've damaged, for example. i am not held accountable in the way that has been described in this thread.

i'm unsure exactly why that is, but it does seem to me that the problem with addiction is that it's treated as a moral failing so often and not treated and addressed as a public health concern, as symptomatic of larger issues, etc.

in my mind, i don't know if addiction is technically a disease, but for me substance abuse is directly a result of something that is considered a disease by many. plus, we are all in the same DSM so i think instead of looking at addiction as a disease vs disorder vs ??? maybe we should look at it as a mental health concern that can be a cause or a symptom of dysfunction. ???

those are my thoughts...hope it was helpful, s. xx

Impromptu_DTour
11-01-16, 03:36 AM
so, full disclosure: i don't have any addiction diagnosis and i've never been treated for addiction.

that said, i have abused/seriously overused cigarettes and alcohol at times. those times are pretty exclusively linked to my mental illness.

so, i guess the question would be, for me... especially given substance abuse falls into the DSM... is mental illness a disease?

i'm not talking about adhd here, just to clarify for those who might read this and aren't sarah as she knows full well what i'm talking about.

if we consider what's called "serious mental illness" (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, among others) "disease", then my substance usage is a symptom of it.

i thought to post on this thread because i don't really know the answer, but i saw someone mention accountability.

unfortunately, when i become ill, and i am, when stable, able to see my primary diagnosis as "illness"...though when i lose insight i'm unable to see it that way... when i become ill i basically lose touch with reality and i've done some incredibly regrettable things. some of those things have been illegal. some of them have been violence towards myself. none have been violence toward others, but i have destroyed property.

although i am held responsible insofar as i have been put onto court ordered medication (which, i think can happen to those with substance issues as well...court ordered treatment of some sort) and i generally make restitution if possible...replacing things i've damaged, for example. i am not held accountable in the way that has been described in this thread.

i'm unsure exactly why that is, but it does seem to me that the problem with addiction is that it's treated as a moral failing so often and not treated and addressed as a public health concern, as symptomatic of larger issues, etc.

in my mind, i don't know if addiction is technically a disease, but for me substance abuse is directly a result of something that is considered a disease by many. plus, we are all in the same DSM so i think instead of looking at addiction as a disease vs disorder vs ??? maybe we should look at it as a mental health concern that can be a cause or a symptom of dysfunction. ???

those are my thoughts...hope it was helpful, s. xx

that was me. if i can take a stab at responding.. these types of cases are different i feel. loosing insight and losing touch with reality as you've stated in your previous post.. i mean we could break down philosophically what that means from Kantic perspectives to .. well im just tryin to sound cool, and i cant think of anybody else.. and i only really know of Kant because ive been accused of being "Kantic" in how i approach things ;)

we could easily.. and completely derail this thread. imho.. but in efforts not to.. the rules corresponding to the citizens of this society.. depend richly on their understanding of said rulership of those doctrines. in situations where there is a (certainly) measurable lack of clarity.. then clearly a law has not been broken.. intentionally.

I dunno.. we deal with mania in my family to certain (and varying) degrees.. the fallback on certain members has been honestly very lax in comparison to if someone who was not afflicted in these types of ways.. the "mallet of justice" has.. not fallen as hard as it could have.. and i dunno. maybe im disclosing too much..

diagnostic criteria.. is heavily based on the rules of society. I feel that DSM.. is a diagnostic tool based off of primarily American (not westernized.. i mean American).. norms and abnorms.. So sue me. Im waiting for it.. take a number. Get it over with. Im not changing my opinion. If you take a family from Italy or France. They will have "a drinking problem" over here.. "problematic" is.. what is abnormal to the localized social structure that it is being measured against.

my two canadian cents.. in an american economy.

iDTour

Fuzzy12
11-01-16, 04:32 AM
I think it's not just about using a friendlier term to remove the stigma and-or make addicts more optimistic but I think there is also a question if there is a specific pathology related to.addiction. I'm not sure that's the right term to use but I mean the question also is if some people are born with a physical tendency to get addicted when exposed to addictive substances even with reduced exposure.

It's like being born (or acquiring) a weak immune system. You still need to put yourself in the way of a virus or bacteria to catch an infection but (maybe even with sensible and reasonable measures to avoid exposure) you are still more likely to get infected if you do get exposed.

stef
11-01-16, 05:36 AM
I havent read this thread in detail at alll but if you just asked me the question i would say that there is some genetic, physipre-disposition to addiction

i have a friend who smoked occasionally but simply never got addicted to nicotine, he just got sick of it and quit. id assume its the same with alchohol, say there were 2 friends from similar backgrounds who went to the bars several times a week and one says, ugh ok im so done with this ; but the other is actually now becoming an alcholic.

my 3 cousins each battled a specific addiction ( street drugs, precription drugs, food). i have no idea where this came from.

sorry my totally uninformed opinion

dvdnvwls
11-01-16, 02:09 PM
It's usual (I'd say it's part of the normal definition, but as I wrote earlier people don't all agree) to expect that "disease" always refers to something that has an external cause (using the word "cause" in its strictest sense as something that absolutely made the disease happen). I think that's where people tend to get uncomfortable calling addictions diseases - there's never an external cause, even though there are nearly always several external factors that don't add up to a cause.

In general, the people who get all huffy about insisting that addictions are not diseases are misunderstanding most of the people who say addictions are diseases. Some go further, accusing the "it's a disease" proponents of fabricating false external causes as excuses, when the vast majority are not doing that at all

Are addictions diseases with external causes? No, certainly not. Are they some type of disease? Depends what you mean by disease. There's a danger of misusing words by declaring new meanings for them. Maybe we need a better word.

dvdnvwls
11-01-16, 02:42 PM
One of the major difficulties inherent in addiction is how tightly it attaches to the self and the personality.

I think one of the major reasons for needing a word like "disease" is that without such a word people who are addicted feel that they are under personal attack every time addiction is mentioned. Having a word like "disease" is a way of "other-ing" the addiction so that the addicted person doesn't have to feel that they're being asked to attack or reject their own self and their own personality.

In war, the evil propaganda technique of de-humanizing the people's perception of the other side is universally known. In addiction treatment, de-humanizing the addiction seems to me like a far better use of a similar technique.

Stevuke79
11-01-16, 04:14 PM
Addiction is a disorder. That's a basic scientific fact.

Does it require you to do certain things before you can have an addiction? Sure.

Do we therefore consider those risky behavior and caution people about doing them? Absolutely.

But some people can do those same exact things and never be addicted.

I've smoked. I've drank (heavily). And never got addicted.

Yes, you have SOME control over getting addicted. But once you're addicted it's a disorder. And it's a matter of medical and professional help - not a matter of self control.

dvdnvwls
11-01-16, 04:40 PM
Addiction is a disorder. That's a basic scientific fact.

Does it require you to do certain things before you can have an addiction?

Sure.

But some people can do those same exact things and never be addicted.
Sort of true, on the surface. But (for example) having X number of drinks daily was never one of the required "certain things" involved in alcoholism. The "certain thing" (or at least one of them) is to make a consistent practice of continuing to drink while unable to successfully handle the results. People who aren't impaired by the results of their drinking aren't alcoholics, similar to how people who aren't impaired by ADHD symptoms don't actually have ADHD.

Fuzzy12
11-01-16, 05:17 PM
Sort of true, on the surface. But (for example) having X number of drinks daily was never one of the required "certain things" involved in alcoholism. The "certain thing" (or at least one of them) is to make a consistent practice of continuing to drink while unable to successfully handle the results. People who aren't impaired by the results of their drinking aren't alcoholics, similar to how people who aren't impaired by ADHD symptoms don't actually have ADHD.

I'm not sure that's true. I don't think you have to show impairments for ah addiction. People are addicted to coffee but it doesn't necessarily impair them. I was addicted to smoking but there was a net benefit for me from smoking and no significant impairments.

I think addiction just means that you compulsively need to take a substance in order to not feel negative physical or psychological symptoms.

C15H25N3O
11-01-16, 09:21 PM
Addiction is a self-destructive disease, no matter what you are addicted to.

Stevuke79
11-01-16, 10:38 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I don't think you have to show impairments for ah addiction. People are addicted to coffee but it doesn't necessarily impair them. I was addicted to smoking but there was a net benefit for me from smoking and no significant impairments.

I think addiction just means that you compulsively need to take a substance in order to not feel negative physical or psychological symptoms.

Exactly Fuzzy.

And when the compulsion to drink interfere with your life in unhealthy ways, that's addiction.

Dvd : forgive me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If your alcohol consumption is not negatively interdering with your life, you're not addicted. That would be the impairment you speak of.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dsm5.org/documents/substance%2520use%2520disorder%2520fact%2520sheet. pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiFwcathInQAhWV3oMKHeTWCa8QFggxMAM&usg=AFQjCNER1ju40bJGDNC-nD8e-BzyD9hcaQ&sig2=vqquZzqZf3_o1o7hnd9b7A

Fuzzy12
11-02-16, 12:54 AM
Exactly Fuzzy.

And when the compulsion to drink interfere with your life in unhealthy ways, that's addiction.

Dvd : forgive me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If your alcohol consumption is not negatively interdering with your life, you're not addicted. That would be the impairment you speak of.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dsm5.org/documents/substance%2520use%2520disorder%2520fact%2520sheet. pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiFwcathInQAhWV3oMKHeTWCa8QFggxMAM&usg=AFQjCNER1ju40bJGDNC-nD8e-BzyD9hcaQ&sig2=vqquZzqZf3_o1o7hnd9b7A

But what if the compulsion doesn't interfere negatively with your functioning?? YOU can still be addicted isn't it?

dvdnvwls
11-02-16, 02:04 AM
Exactly Fuzzy.

And when the compulsion to drink interfere with your life in unhealthy ways, that's addiction.

Dvd : forgive me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If your alcohol consumption is not negatively interdering with your life, you're not addicted. That would be the impairment you speak of.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dsm5.org/documents/substance%2520use%2520disorder%2520fact%2520sheet. pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiFwcathInQAhWV3oMKHeTWCa8QFggxMAM&usg=AFQjCNER1ju40bJGDNC-nD8e-BzyD9hcaQ&sig2=vqquZzqZf3_o1o7hnd9b7A
I think I was trying to understand how your first post squared with the topic of the thread.

Stevuke79
11-02-16, 08:37 AM
Do you think addiction is a disease.

"Disease", so far as I know, doesn't have a technical definition. So we can debate that all day.

I make an assumption. For the purpose of this thread, disease and disorder are interchangeable. (Without a technical definition there is nothing to stop me. )

So I say, "Addiction is a disorder" (as defined by dsm)

Stevuke79
11-02-16, 08:40 AM
But what if the compulsion doesn't interfere negatively with your functioning?? YOU can still be addicted isn't it?

I was agreeing with you btw.

According to DSM I think there has to be some maladaptive behavior that impairs some aspect of your life.

But I think that even simply having alcohol cravings qualifies.Wanting to drink more than u would like. Being drunk more than you would like. Being hung over more than you would like.

I think.

Fuzzy12
11-02-16, 08:49 AM
I was agreeing with you btw.

According to DSM I think there has to be some maladaptive behavior that impairs some aspect of your life.

But I think that even simply having alcohol cravings qualifies.Wanting to drink more than u would like. Being drunk more than you would like. Being hung over more than you would like.

I think.

Ah...in that case I agree with you too!! ;):D

I would have thought that just having cravings and the compulsion to drink would be enough. Impairments are very subjective aren't they? I mean, what about an alcoholic, ie someone who has to drink so they don't feel unpleasant but who doesn't mind drinking or anything associated with it (hangovers etc). or a coffee addict who knows they have to drink coffee to avoid a headache but are perfectly happy to do so....

Stevuke79
11-02-16, 10:13 AM
They are subjective...

This is the trouble with any disorder that lacks a biological marker or specific known pathology.

But if you're going to a doctor for help... if how much u drink is no longer 100% up to you... i would think that is enough.

Stevuke79
11-02-16, 02:59 PM
Ah...in that case I agree with you too!! ;):D.

It's only fair.. ;)

sarahsweets
11-03-16, 10:20 AM
Wow lots of great insights. I agree with almost all of them. For me, I began to have minor consequences like memory loss and then major ones like being totally out of control, blacking out and risk taking behaviors. I was terribly physically addicted due to needing more and more chasing that high- I would shake and sweat and my heart would race. The psychological part was harder to manage once I got the physical addiction out of my system. Finding new coping mechanisms and dealing with why I drank and all that. I believe I was definitely pre-disposed to addiction-at least with alcoholism so I guess I should never have really drank-but its started off as so normal I guess I thought it couldnt happen to me. And I think swapping disease for disorder and vice versa makes sense. My father in law drinks everyday. A cocktail in the afternoon and wine with dinner. I think he gets a little buzzed but usually not the kind of drunk that I can identify with. I have never seen him out of hand and he has been drinking like this for 40 years. And I dont think he is an alcoholic and not even sure he has a alcohol problem. Could he not drink everyday? I am not sure , but because hes never been told to not have cocktails I cant see why he would even try. Its a tough thought because I know for me, one of the problems with alcohol was that one drink lead to many drinks and I could never stop with just one.

ADXP
11-30-16, 09:48 PM
REVIEW

Drug addiction: Pathways to the disease
and pathophysiological perspectives☆
Michel Le Moal a,⁎, George F. Koob b
a Laboratoire Physiopathologie du Comportement — Inserm U.588, Institut François Magendie




http://66.199.228.237/boundary/addiction/Le%20Moal_Drug%20addiction%20pathways.pdf

Postulate
03-06-17, 11:35 AM
Calling substance addiction a disease, or selfishness, or bad character, or criminal character, or carelessness, etc. is any human's effort to persuade themselves they are in control. People like telling themselves a story until they believe it. Control is the antithesis of pleasure and similarly to how humans can't control pleasure very well, there's not much about them that they can control.

What I find paradoxical is that, humans usually ask the question why, it's how they gain exclusiveness from other mammal species, but for whatever reason, when it comes to addiction they are much more preoccupied with the question how. They ask how to pretend they are in control but deep down, they are afraid of the why. The why is bothering them, because they know that the answer to that question will be extremely satisfying :)

unstableAngel
03-07-17, 11:44 AM
I'm not sure what they mean by disease (guess i couldve looked that up first eh?, impulsive??) but NO it is not selfish!! I agree it appears that way to others who have no understanding of addiction. But they have no clue..hate ppl who judge while knowing nothing about the subject 😒. FYI, i saw a documentary on addiction involving fish. It was awhile ago so forgive my lack of details..anyways, it involved 2 fish in a tank with the ability to enter a tank containing cocaine, both fish entered the cocaine tank 1 left never to return, the other fish kept returning over & over. Was that fish selfish? I think that was proof possitive that genetics are indeed a HUGE factor regarding addiction. And undiagnosed mental issues are certainly a factor as well, if given the opportunity to use. I feel its part genetic, therefore uncontrollable to a degree as well as relief from the pain we feel be it an illness, abuse etc. People need to look at themselves before judging others period! Be informed on a subject before opening your mouth! And unless youve walked in their shoes, no one has any right to judge another. nough said.

Postulate
03-10-17, 04:12 PM
I'm not sure what they mean by disease (guess i couldve looked that up first eh?, impulsive??) but NO it is not selfish!! I agree it appears that way to others who have no understanding of addiction. But they have no clue..hate ppl who judge while knowing nothing about the subject ��. FYI, i saw a documentary on addiction involving fish. It was awhile ago so forgive my lack of details..anyways, it involved 2 fish in a tank with the ability to enter a tank containing cocaine, both fish entered the cocaine tank 1 left never to return, the other fish kept returning over & over. Was that fish selfish? I think that was proof possitive that genetics are indeed a HUGE factor regarding addiction. And undiagnosed mental issues are certainly a factor as well, if given the opportunity to use. I feel its part genetic, therefore uncontrollable to a degree as well as relief from the pain we feel be it an illness, abuse etc. People need to look at themselves before judging others period! Be informed on a subject before opening your mouth! And unless youve walked in their shoes, no one has any right to judge another. nough said.

Feeling unlimited amounts of pleasure inside a human body is not controllable. What genetics can affect is how much pleasure the person can feel upon using, say, alcohol. If the person does not feel pleasure drinking alcohol, no problem, try amphetamines. If that does nothing, then try oxycodone. At the end of the day, something will give them access to their accumbens neurons and the pleasure they will feel will be uncontrollable.

There is no such thing as a human being able to control unlimited amounts of pleasure. There's only people who have a really hard time feeling pleasure because not much works on them, and they are the ones who brag the most about being in control. The fish analogy is non-sense though, cocaine does not affect fish like it affects mamals. And even if it did, isn't a fish allowed not to like cocaine? Maybe it likes honey! Have you tried honey?

Greyhound1
03-10-17, 05:22 PM
I am not convinced addiction is actually a disease or not. Certainly after becoming addicted it manifests itself like a disease. My daughter is a recovering addict from crystal meth. She has 120 days sober now.:yes:

She and I have had this debate multiple times about whether substance addiction is a disease or not. She believes it definitely is. I asked her if people who smoke cigarettes regularly have a disease or not and she says no. Cigarettes have the same addictive qualities, kill many users and ruin lives.

I can't seem to get a reasonable answer from her why meth addiction is a disease and smoking addiction is not.

To me addiction is actually that rather than a disease. Certainly, some people are more genetically predisposed to a certain addiction(s) but I wouldn't call that a disease.

Please don't misinterpret that I believe addiction is somehow a choice. No one chooses to be an addict.

Fuzzy12
03-10-17, 05:26 PM
Congrats miss hound!! :yes:

Just guessing but maybe she feels that comparing Meth and nicotine trivialises her struggle.

Postulate
03-10-17, 07:16 PM
I am not convinced addiction is actually a disease or not. Certainly after becoming addicted it manifests itself like a disease. My daughter is a recovering addict from crystal meth. She has 120 days sober now.:yes:

She and I have had this debate multiple times about whether substance addiction is a disease or not. She believes it definitely is. I asked her if people who smoke cigarettes regularly have a disease or not and she says no. Cigarettes have the same addictive qualities, kill many users and ruin lives.

I can't seem to get a reasonable answer from her why meth addiction is a disease and smoking addiction is not.

To me addiction is actually that rather than a disease. Certainly, some people are more genetically predisposed to a certain addiction(s) but I wouldn't call that a disease.

Please don't misinterpret that I believe addiction is somehow a choice. No one chooses to be an addict.

Congrats on getting your daughter clean but you need to be cautious of the red broccoli she's trying to feed you. First of all, you cannot become physically addicted to meth because even though there are withdrawal symptoms, those are either pleasant or not severe enough to qualify as acute withdrawal. So if she told you that she would get sick unless she took more, that's bulloks.

Addiction to meth is mainly psychological because once you felt a meth rush, going to the movies to watch Star Wars is no longer going to cut it. So this is a lifelong addiction and she will have to abstain day by day. Also, saying that addiction to one hard drug is a disease and towards another hard drug is not a disease is bullocks. I personally dispute that addiction is a disease, I think that addiction is a way in which a person can have access to quantities of pleasure they can't control and it can be anything.

dvdnvwls
03-10-17, 07:44 PM
My question is either crazy or very sane, I'm not sure which.

If "no one chooses to be an addict", isn't it necessarily also true that no one chooses NOT to?

Fortune
03-10-17, 08:32 PM
You can choose not to indulge in something.

dvdnvwls
03-10-17, 10:51 PM
You can choose not to indulge in something.
Yes, and you can equally choose to indulge in that thing. And both of those statements miss the point about addiction.

Postulate
03-10-17, 10:59 PM
Yes, and you can equally choose to indulge in that thing. And both of those statements miss the point about addiction.

Addiction is a very flawed concept because people understand it only in the way THEY would like to understand it. For example, if you talk about addiction, when it comes to life, they will have a problem with that and they label those who are able to quit it mentally ill.

dvdnvwls
03-10-17, 11:43 PM
Well, that's true I guess, sort of :)

Like being addicted to oxygen hahaha :)

But people are not being silly or arbitrary when they say addiction to oxygen or addiction to life are nonsense ideas. It's important to simplify things when possible - but only when possible!

Fortune
03-11-17, 12:00 AM
Yes, and you can equally choose to indulge in that thing. And both of those statements miss the point about addiction.

I don't think that statement misses the point at all. You can choose to not be an addict even if you cannot choose to be an addict. I made that choice for myself several years ago. It wasn't easy but I stuck to it.

I have also chosen not to indulge in other things that could possibly lead to an addiction. That's not to say I've never tried them, but that's about as far as it goes.

Postulate
03-11-17, 12:12 AM
Well, that's true I guess, sort of :)

Like being addicted to oxygen hahaha :)

But people are not being silly or arbitrary when they say addiction to oxygen or addiction to life are nonsense ideas. It's important to simplify things when possible - but only when possible!

Well, humans are the only species on Earth that are mostly preoccupied with the duration of their life rather than its intensity, and even when they speak of improving their quality of life, they claim it's to become more efficient, more productive or better in some way. Functional! That's my favourite term. They like to function these humans. If only they had some spots to stick in some duracels and go Bzz Bzz Bzz Bzz.

Or they are ashamed to say they do more than to function? Blasphemy would be for them to claim they are chasing something else! Or that they drink with friends for fun! How would that look on a resume? No, they call that socialising. It has a use. It makes them better.

What's paradoxical is that humans want to live life so badly, and yet, they keep themselves busy with not living it 24/7. And if you dare to live some of your life, about 11 folks who don't want to live anything special will push you aside and take your job.

If this is not a complicated system to be part of, I don't know what is lol. So while people are not being silly or arbitrary when they say addiction to oxygen or addiction to life are nonsense ideas and invoke over-simplification, they are being arbitrary about their definition of simple and complicated. To them living life is a very complicated thing to do, not living it is very simple because that's what you were taught since your Day 1 on Earth.

Greyhound1
03-11-17, 01:00 AM
Congrats miss hound!! :yes:

Just guessing but maybe she feels that comparing Meth and nicotine trivialises her struggle.

Thanks Fuzzy, really proud of her. She just started a great new job and is doing extremely well. She has even done this in the absence of her newlywed husband.

They dated for 10 years prior and 3 mos. into the marriage he decides he wants to separate just as soon as she decides she wanted to get clean. He's been to rehab 3 times and she stood by him the entire time. He never offered her any financial or emotional help, hope or even support.

She would disagree with you about cigarettes. They are so much more than just nicotine. She has tried multiple times to stop smoking and has been unsuccessful.

She has actually succeeded much longer now quitting meth. than she ever did trying to stop smoking. She even worked for a distributor of Vaporizers that sold everything thing imaginable and had nearly free access to them and continued to smoke.

Cigarette addiction sure isn't trivial to those who are heavily addicted.:) I know other people who have said cigarettes were much harder to quit than their cocaine addiction was.

Sorry for going off topic.

mildadhd
03-11-17, 01:28 AM
...The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the widely used psychiatric manual that defines all mental disorders, uses the term general medical condition to refer to all diseases, illnesses, and injuries except for mental disorders.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease




If I understand correctly the DSM considers all diseases, illnesses, and injuries as general medical conditions, except mental disorders?

Considering anxiety, depression and addiction are the 3 most common neurodevelopmental deficits of self-regulation (aka ADHD) comorbidities, I think I get why neurodevelopmental deficits of self-regulation (aka ADHD) and associated comorbidities, are not considered diseases.

But I do not get why neurodevelopmental deficits of self-regulation (aka ADHD) and associated comorbidities, like addiction, are not considered "general medical conditions" in the DSM?




m

Greyhound1
03-11-17, 01:44 AM
My question is either crazy or very sane, I'm not sure which.

If "no one chooses to be an addict", isn't it necessarily also true that no one chooses NOT to?

People must choose NOT to be an addict in order to quit and be successful.

No one chooses to be an addict but all recovering addicts are choosing NOT to be.

Fuzzy12
03-11-17, 06:13 AM
Thanks Fuzzy, really proud of her. She just started a great new job and is doing extremely well. She has even done this in the absence of her newlywed husband.

They dated for 10 years prior and 3 mos. into the marriage he decides he wants to separate just as soon as she decides she wanted to get clean. He's been to rehab 3 times and she stood by him the entire time. He never offered her any financial or emotional help, hope or even support.

She would disagree with you about cigarettes. They are so much more than just nicotine. She has tried multiple times to stop smoking and has been unsuccessful.

She has actually succeeded much longer now quitting meth. than she ever did trying to stop smoking. She even worked for a distributor of Vaporizers that sold everything thing imaginable and had nearly free access to them and continued to smoke.

Cigarette addiction sure isn't trivial to those who are heavily addicted.:) I know other people who have said cigarettes were much harder to quit than their cocaine addiction was.

Sorry for going off topic.

Totally agree.I didn't mean that quitting smoking is trivial compared to quitting meth. I think I meant that smoking might seem more trivial than meth to her.

I didn't mean that cigarettes are easy to quit. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances as far as I know and quitting is one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do. I was just wondering if she thought that smoking is more trivial or less of a deal than crystal Meth. I don't know. I could be wrong.

I agree it's so much more than just nicotine too. It's the whole ritual of smoking. Sigh...I still miss it.

Super well done to her and Uggh at the husband. It's probably good he's out of her life though. He doesn't sound very nice.

dvdnvwls
03-11-17, 06:46 AM
In my opinion, if addiction can be ended by making a choice, then it can't be a disease in any useful sense of that word. Of course it's "a disease" in so far as it's an unpleasant situation to be in, but that's not how people use that word.

The fact that it's a very hard choice rather than an easy one doesn't change anything.

sarahsweets
03-11-17, 07:22 AM
Congrats on getting your daughter clean but you need to be cautious of the red broccoli she's trying to feed you. First of all, you cannot become physically addicted to meth because even though there are withdrawal symptoms, those are either pleasant or not severe enough to qualify as acute withdrawal. So if she told you that she would get sick unless she took more, that's bulloks.
I dont know if Greyhounds' daughter said she would be sick unless she took more meth- I suspect it wasnt like that at all but people can most definitely be addicted to meth. I have never used meth but I know enough people in my recovery circles to say that those who were addicted to meth definitely had withdrawal. I would say that once they got over the horrible physical crash, the intense depression as a result of the lack of meth was almost unbearable for them and hurt so much, its what made them want to use meth again. Its not the same as being dope-sick from heroin but it is its own personal hell.

Fortune
03-11-17, 08:11 AM
In my opinion, if addiction can be ended by making a choice, then it can't be a disease in any useful sense of that word. Of course it's "a disease" in so far as it's an unpleasant situation to be in, but that's not how people use that word.

The fact that it's a very hard choice rather than an easy one doesn't change anything.

In my opinion, this is not true. Addiction can still be considered a disease, and can still be ended by choice. I mean if the only way you can view addiction as a disease is by viewing people who are addicted as too abject to help themselves, then I would say the problem isn't in the definition of "disease."

Maybe the problem is confusing "You can choose to end your addiction" as "You can easily end your addiction by choosing to do so" which is not the case. Giving up an addiction is really hard and often people need a lot of help to do so. But that doesn't mean they can't choose that path.

Greyhound1
03-11-17, 10:33 AM
Totally agree.I didn't mean that quitting smoking is trivial compared to quitting meth. I think I meant that smoking might seem more trivial than meth to her.

I didn't mean that cigarettes are easy to quit. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances as far as I know and quitting is one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do. I was just wondering if she thought that smoking is more trivial or less of a deal than crystal Meth. I don't know. I could be wrong.

I agree it's so much more than just nicotine too. It's the whole ritual of smoking. Sigh...I still miss it.

Super well done to her and Uggh at the husband. It's probably good he's out of her life though. He doesn't sound very nice.

Sorry Fuzzy, I misunderstood you.:) You are absolutely right. She does think smoking is more trivial and much less of a deal than meth. I think that's why she considered meth addiction to be a disease and smoking addiction not to be.

I think smoking does get trivialized because the damage caused by them usually takes so much longer to manifest into a problem, I assume.

Greyhound1
03-11-17, 10:56 AM
Congrats on getting your daughter clean but you need to be cautious of the red broccoli she's trying to feed you. First of all, you cannot become physically addicted to meth because even though there are withdrawal symptoms, those are either pleasant or not severe enough to qualify as acute withdrawal. So if she told you that she would get sick unless she took more, that's bulloks.

Addiction to meth is mainly psychological because once you felt a meth rush, going to the movies to watch Star Wars is no longer going to cut it. So this is a lifelong addiction and she will have to abstain day by day. Also, saying that addiction to one hard drug is a disease and towards another hard drug is not a disease is bullocks. I personally dispute that addiction is a disease, I think that addiction is a way in which a person can have access to quantities of pleasure they can't control and it can be anything.
Thanks for the congrats. Super proud of her.

Like cigarettes it's the psychological addiction that's the hardest part of it. She did have some physical withdrawals from meth but they were relatively minor. Mainly tiredness and exhaustion for about a week. She also had sleeping difficulties for about the first 3 weeks of sobriety.

Definitely the mental addiction by a long shot was the hardest thing for her.

Unmanagable
03-11-17, 11:16 AM
I think, for whatever it's worth, just as with many other neuro-related things, it's all in how we are wired and what we've been exposed to, be it within our entire lifetime and/or simply within a moment. Some are wired to more easily, and often automatically, choose the healthiest/wisest/least harmful/or whatever you wish to call it options and others aren't.

Circumstances dictate a lot of our choices as well, most especially when it comes to the legal things we can so readily attain and become obliviously addicted to, like food and beverage, for instance. How often is alcohol marketed as just a healthy beverage to enjoy with dinner, especially red wine? No gateway opportunities there, ay?

I never really thought of myself as an addict until I tried to give up the things I'm expected to, and had been wrongly educated to, ingest daily, even though I had tried and regularly used many illegal substances through the years.

I guess I'm lucky in that regard, that I was able to walk away from the illegal ones. At the time, though, I didn't realize that 'pushers' are on every corner, and in every store, every restaurant, every kitchen, etc. and they get paid well to market and push their substances.

Then I realized how deeply ingrained and out of control those 'legal habits' had become, not to mention how deeply they lessen the quality of life for self and many others, and I had to consciously remain aware of each and every thought related to them, and often had to ask for experienced outside help to navigate it all.

The misguided inexperienced judgement of others who have never faced the same dilemmas, and even a few who have who remain convinced they already have ALL of the answers (most especially in the professional arenas), was the hardest part to deal with aside from my own self-defeating thoughts.

Had I not been willing and able to recognize there was a problem (via a medical emergency) to be prompted to act on the things I needed to in order to overcome my greatest suffering, along with having access to knowledgeable understanding folks to help guide me, I'd still be willfully indulging while still desperately seeking my way out. Not sure if it's a disease as dictated by textbooks and such, but it sure is a dis-ease to live with and to manage.

stef
03-11-17, 11:39 AM
Food addiction is a real addiction and I was blessed to not have this ( my mom- and my cousin, who has had both knees replaced, lost at least 50 lbs and then gained it all back...)

Her sister was addicted to precription drugs ( she was a nurse, lost her job, started all over, now successful new career) and she said, giving up smoking was the hardest thing she had ever done.

and their brother had years of variois addictions but clean for 25 yrs now and a proud dad and grandfather :)

And this brings me to the idea, i read this somewhere i dont have time to look it up now: genetic predisposition to addiction?

dvdnvwls
03-11-17, 12:32 PM
In my opinion, this is not true. Addiction can still be considered a disease, and can still be ended by choice. I mean if the only way you can view addiction as a disease is by viewing people who are addicted as too abject to help themselves, then I would say the problem isn't in the definition of "disease."

Maybe the problem is confusing "You can choose to end your addiction" as "You can easily end your addiction by choosing to do so" which is not the case. Giving up an addiction is really hard and often people need a lot of help to do so. But that doesn't mean they can't choose that path.
No, I'm not confused, I just don't agree. If it was discovered that influenza or cancer or the common cold could be immediately cured by the patient just choosing not to have them anymore, they would cease to make sense as diseases.

Postulate
03-11-17, 12:50 PM
I dont know if Greyhounds' daughter said she would be sick unless she took more meth- I suspect it wasnt like that at all but people can most definitely be addicted to meth. I have never used meth but I know enough people in my recovery circles to say that those who were addicted to meth definitely had withdrawal. I would say that once they got over the horrible physical crash, the intense depression as a result of the lack of meth was almost unbearable for them and hurt so much, its what made them want to use meth again. Its not the same as being dope-sick from heroin but it is its own personal hell.

While I understand that due to excessive fatigue they may not be functional, there is no such thing as horrible physical crash, most meth addicts report a very pleasent rest, a bit like after you ran a marathon, resting and having some water will feel amaizing, most report how amaizing it feels to drink water and eat tasty food and some are even happy they decided to come off and feel like it was a break they really needed so no, they were feeding you a nice salad so you would feel sorry for them.

The long term depression is debatable also, most who start meth are already depressed and healthy users who wanted to try a new thrill often report no depression. After such intense CNS stimulation some people report their crash as an opioid high, one user reported that the dreams they had while crashing from 1g of meth were far superior even to Heroin.

Little Missy
03-11-17, 01:39 PM
While I understand that due to excessive fatigue they may not be functional, there is no such thing as horrible physical crash, most meth addicts report a very pleasent rest, a bit like after you ran a marathon, resting and having some water will feel amaizing, most report how amaizing it feels to drink water and eat tasty food and some are even happy they decided to come off and feel like it was a break they really needed so no, they were feeding you a nice salad so you would feel sorry for them.

The long term depression is debatable also, most who start meth are already depressed and healthy users who wanted to try a new thrill often report no depression. After such intense CNS stimulation some people report their crash as an opioid high, one user reported that the dreams they had while crashing from 1g of meth were far superior even to Heroin.

hmmm...try shooting it for five years and then quit and let us know how it was before you write your speculation tales.

Postulate
03-11-17, 03:36 PM
hmmm...try shooting it for five years and then quit and let us know how it was before you write your speculation tales.

I can produce over 25 testimonies of people who shot it for 10+ years and had no acute withdrawal. You might be confusing acute withdrawal with:

1) diminuished health due to natural aging
2) permanent damage from barbaric abuse, like abusing codeine without a cwe on acetaminophen, shooting products contaminated with red phosphorus or other irresponsible/barbaric abuse.
3) finally feeling the consequences of poor eating/ sleeping habits and the general disregard that one had for his health during the abuse

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 12:09 AM
I didn't read all the posts in this thread, just wanted to say that yes, I do believe it is a disease. Mainly in the sense that I see it as a medical issue.

My oldest daughter is an addictions counselor, she is very passionate about it and also views it as a disease. She worked at a methadone clinic, there were all types of people she saw, and none of them chose to be addicts.

mildadhd
03-12-17, 02:11 AM
If I understand correctly, the DSM 5 refers to addiction as "substance use disorder"?



m

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 06:17 AM
Lots of things are medical issues without being diseases. A disease is a certain type of medical issue that's different from other types. For example, a broken leg is certainly a medical issue, but also certainly not a disease. Often but not always, a disease is something you catch, like the flu.

So, maybe a better question - Is addiction a state or a trait? In other words, is it permanently built into the person from the beginning, as is the case with ADHD, or do people start life without it and then acquire it in some way?

Or, to someone who's going through it or who went through it in the past, was there a time when you "got" the addiction - meaning that before that time it didn't exist - or was it always in you and waiting to happen?

Fuzzy12
03-12-17, 06:47 AM
I think people can have a predisposition to addiction. F I remember right the reward pathway is affected if you have yhis predisposition.

I think some people are just more likely to become addicted to substances or behaviours and might also be more likely to seek them out.

I remember reading a paper where they argued that people with adhd were more likely to take up regularly smoking, less likely to quit, had more unsuccessful attempts at quitting and were more likely to relapse when they did quit. Also withdrawal was supposed to Be more severe. So good news all round .... :doh:

I agree that it's not necessarily a disease but it is a biological issue.

If starting or stopping is a choice I don't know (I think the free will thst we have is vastly overestimated but that's a different discussion) but addictive substances have a fairly significant impact on he brain and withdrawal is a medical issue

sarahsweets
03-12-17, 07:26 AM
Lots of things are medical issues without being diseases. A disease is a certain type of medical issue that's different from other types. For example, a broken leg is certainly a medical issue, but also certainly not a disease. Often but not always, a disease is something you catch, like the flu.

So, maybe a better question - Is addiction a state or a trait? In other words, is it permanently built into the person from the beginning, as is the case with ADHD, or do people start life without it and then acquire it in some way?

Or, to someone who's going through it or who went through it in the past, was there a time when you "got" the addiction - meaning that before that time it didn't exist - or was it always in you and waiting to happen?

Like I said earlier, I struggle with the disease model. I can say with hindsight that I believe the potential for addiction was always there. I remember things as a child and teen that danced around the addiction label. A lot of people in recovery are able to look back at their life and find patterns of addiction. I know that I always suffered with the "not enough" syndrome when it came to indulgence with stuff like alcohol or anything that made me feel the way alcohol did. Most people try to get to that area of feeling a nice buzz, but I always overshot it, I didnt know when to stop. And, If I had reached that nirvana of buzzdom, I still dont think I would have stopped and I would have kept going. Part of addiction, I believe is that chase for the perfect balance of inhibition and intoxication. That happy place that normal people can experience over and over seems to be what a lot of us are looking for.
But other than a few times, I could never recreate it. I always ended up too drunk and then came the consequences.

I think addiction has a few components:
-The constant thought about the substance
-The constant experimentation with the substance to achieve a certain level -of high, or intoxication-something that a normal person might experience
-The frequent "overshooting" of that state of mind-i.e trying to bet happy-buzzed and ending up sloppy-drunk
-Using a substance to numb or escape feelings that are too intense, be it negative or positive.
I can just as easily want alcohol with a really great or really horrible situation.
-The consequences that repeatedly happen again and again, without a person ever learning from them and then repeating the same behavior
-The sneaking, manipulation and attempts to acquire and hide the substance, and use of substance,
-needing more and more to achieve the same feelings-tolerance
-physical symptoms of withdrawal or feeling symptoms when you do not have the substance
-panic and anxiety about running out of the substance
There are more but these are the basics.

I think I always like alcohol a little too much my addictive behavior before the alcoholism bounced around more like abuse of certain things.
One day when I was 33 I started hanging with this new friend who dabbled in certain other substances. We had a pattern of cocktails either at her house, or while regularly chatting on the phone. I always say that I started cocktail hour when I was 33 and in 6 months was a horrible alcoholic.
It was really bad. I was really sick and I put myself in a dangerous situation when I stopped cold Turkey. I should have gone to detox and I believe the only thing that saved me from alcohol induced seizures was the lamictal I took for bipolar.
I have only been sober 4 years.

I guess that doesnt really answer the question about whether its a disease or not and I guess I am on the fence. I tend to believe that "addiction" is the umbrella term for what all addicts have, and their drug of choice is sort of like the symptoms.
I seriously struggle with my beliefs about the disease portion. I have heard people say things like:
"This disease wants me dead"
"This disease ruined my life"
But then, if you have a disease can you treat it by just stopping a substance? It doesnt work that way with other diseases.
I dont know, now I am rambling-sorry.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 11:25 AM
Sarah: Thanks for describing reality so carefully.

It's easy to see that "This disease wants me dead" is nothing but a cop-out.

"This disease ruined my life" can be just a statement of fact, even though it has the difficult word disease in it. (Though it could be said as a cop-out too - it would depend on individual intent.)

Postulate
03-12-17, 11:29 AM
If those are symptoms of addiction then women should be banned at once :)

A good percentage of men lack self-control and lose their mind around women.

So addiction may somehow overlap with animal instinct and yes, some men are animals. That's why I claim addiction makes little sense as a term.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 11:38 AM
Sarah, your description makes me wonder if what's "really wrong" (not good words but don't know how else to say it) is something genetic that makes people constantly feel like something is missing, and that getting addicted to things is "just" (hmmm that's a horrible word too) an accident arising from that feeling.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 12:06 PM
So addiction may somehow overlap with animal instinct and yes, some men are animals. That's why I claim addiction makes little sense as a term.
"Potentially overlapping" doesn't mean "equal". "Potentially overlapping" doesn't mean "mutually exclusive" either.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 12:12 PM
Postulate: Did you mean that women should be banned for your personal benefit because you think you have a sex addiction?

Postulate
03-12-17, 12:17 PM
Postulate: Did you mean that women should be banned for your personal benefit because you think you have a sex addiction?

I think you missed the "if" statement. How are your programming skills?

And by comparing my example to sex addiction shows your knowledge on the subject is very weak or you like to pretend you never bent a book in your life and arent very familiar with figures of speech especially hyperbole.

There are not many reasons why my example would upset you.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 12:25 PM
I think you missed the "if" statement. How are your programming skills?

And by comparing my example to sex addiction shows your knowledge on the subject is very weak or you like to pretend you never bent a book in your life and arent very familiar with figures of speech especially hyperbola.

There are not many reasons why my example would upset you.
Not upset at all. I couldn't figure out if you meant all women act as if they're addicts and was that the reason for your obviously hyperbolic recommendation.

midnightstar
03-12-17, 01:11 PM
Mod Note from your local friendly moderating team : Please get back on topic. This is the OP:

I was listening to talk radio the other day and the subject of drug addiction came up. So many callers were railing against the idea that addiction is a disease saying that people chose to abuse alcohol and drugs and that its their fault for being an addict. They were talking about the weaknesses of character that would lead a selfish person to ruin their lives and families over lack of willpower.
It really ticked me off and at the same time made me question myself.
I am an alcoholic-used to have food issues too. I remember having these issues at least behavior -wise since I was little, I just didnt recognize them as addictive.

I believe it was a combination of genetics and life experiences. I think the adhd and bipolar being untreated played a huge role in this. I think because I grew up in a sh*tty way, I looked for comfort and found it in mood altering with substances, shopping, etc. As I got older it went up and down. I was able to change the food issues and that flipped the switch with the alcoholism.

I am not trying to blame my upbringing or genetics and use is as an excuse for why I am an alcoholic- but my dad was what they used to call "manic depressive" and abused drugs and alcohol and dropped dead of a heart attack at age 47 due to the substance abuse issues.
I think I was pre-disposed to addiction genetically and maybe my lifestyle sort of opened the door to the beast- and I have been dealing with it ever since.

I had struggled with the idea of addiction as a disease- sometimes I still do. But if you think of the chronic,daily,life-altering,and devastating effects of addiction, it makes sense.
But I can also see how outsiders would see the selfishness of addicts and the manipulation- and feel we are just brats who dont give a sh*t.
I have been sober almost 4 years now and have turned my life around but it requires constant vigilence.

How does everyone feel about it?
And please try and be sensitive about this topic. Even if you disagree and think there is no way it could be a disease- there are many of us that suffer and treat various addictions- and not a single one of us would wish it on our own worst enemies.
xxxooo

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 03:57 PM
No, I'm not confused, I just don't agree. If it was discovered that influenza or cancer or the common cold could be immediately cured by the patient just choosing not to have them anymore, they would cease to make sense as diseases.


Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict.

Like someone with heart disease choosing to alter their eating and lifestyle habits that caused their heart disease.

Disease does not just vanish because of a thought, but the choice to take action.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 04:04 PM
If I had to say what definition I was going with I would choose this:

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.


a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people


This is how I interpret the term "disease". So yes, according to this definition, addiction is a disease.

Postulate
03-12-17, 04:09 PM
Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict.

Like someone with heart disease choosing to alter their eating and lifestyle habits that caused their heart disease.

Disease does not just vanish because of a thought, but the choice to take action.

I think the problem is the word addict: It's a slur. It's mostly used to insult people, and like all slurs, they are synecdoches without scientific substance, oversimplifying what's otherwise a very complex concept.

Addiction is mainly split into:

- physical addiction (I need more or I'll crawl in the worst pain known to man)
- psychological addiction (damn! that would be a really nice thing to have right now!)

As much as you try to put the two together, they don't mix, and they will never mix, no matter what mental efforts and combinations you do.

The clinic your daughter works in mainly deals with "physical addiction". Ok? That is their speciality, that is their expertise. So I would take her advice on how to fight physical addiction very seriously, and her advice on how to fight psychological addiction with a huge grain of salt. She simply doesn't know. You can agree with me that a Heroin user is unable to stop due to "physical addiction", and that a Meth user is unable to stop due to "psychological addiction", because the physical addiction with meth is almost non-existant. So it's like two different worlds. Both keep taking but not for the same reason.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 04:17 PM
I guess that doesnt really answer the question about whether its a disease or not and I guess I am on the fence. I tend to believe that "addiction" is the umbrella term for what all addicts have, and their drug of choice is sort of like the symptoms.

I seriously struggle with my beliefs about the disease portion.
But then, if you have a disease can you treat it by just stopping a substance? It doesnt work that way with other diseases.


There are treatable diseases. I will use the heart disease example again. There is heart disease caused by poor eating habits. You can treat the heart disease by choosing to stop eating poorly.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 04:22 PM
I think the problem is the word addict: It's a slur. It's mostly used to insult people, and like all slurs, they are synecdoches without scientific substance, oversimplifying what's otherwise a very complex concept.

Addiction is mainly split into:

- physical addiction (I need more or I'll crawl in the worst pain known to man)
- psychological addiction (damn! that would be a really nice thing to have right now!)

As much as you try to put the two together, they don't mix, and they will never mix, no matter what mental efforts and combinations you do.

The clinic your daughter works in mainly deals with "physical addiction". Ok? That is their speciality, that is their expertise. So I would take her advice on how to fight physical addiction very seriously, and her advice on how to fight psychological addiction with a huge grain of salt. She simply doesn't know. You can agree with me that a Heroin user is unable to stop due to "physical addiction", and that a Meth user is unable to stop due to "psychological addiction", because the physical addiction with meth is almost non-existant. So it's like two different worlds. Both keep taking but not for the same reason.

I don't think the two exist on isolated voids. They co-exist. A huge part of staying sober is to address the psychological needs as well as the physical needs. The nurses and Drs control the physical needs. The counselors address the psychological ones. (My daughter no longer works at the clinic. Now she works for an inpatient center.)

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 04:26 PM
About addicts being seen as brats who don't give a ****, well, I (with ADHD but no addiction) can easily be seen that way too.

In fact, anybody who needs from life something that they aren't getting, can be (and probably is) sometimes looked down on as a spoiled brat. Addicts have been seen as spoiled brats because they are driven, by something no one understands, to dedicate a disproportionate amount of their time and energy to a cause that others don't see as worthy.

But people who have undergone trauma of some kind - witnessing or participating in horrible events, being abused, being abandoned - also often become dedicated to causes that others can't understand, and they too are viewed as spoiled brats. For example, try being a police officer or soldier who doesn't appear to "bounce back" immediately after undergoing massive trauma. There's immense pressure on such people to disregard their own needs, even (perhaps especially!) when those needs are debilitating and persistent. If they're not right back to work, they may be harassed, ridiculed, passed over for promotion, and/or ostracized.

I'm viewed as a spoiled brat when my apparently "irresponsible" actions and my mental chaos take up others' time, energy, or resources, or invade the calm and order of their lives. I can't do "responsibility" and orderliness the way others do it, and therefore I need something from the world that others don't need.

What's going on, that all these large groups of people are being labelled spoiled brats?

I think maybe my ultimate point is that special needs aren't special at all. And that there's a huge group of spoiled brats out there who need to be labelled prominently for all to see: those who believe that "special needs" must mean someone other than themselves.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 04:32 PM
Lots of things are medical issues without being diseases.






Yes. But but there are no diseases that are not medical issues.

Postulate
03-12-17, 04:32 PM
I don't think the two exist on isolated voids. They co-exist. A huge part of staying sober is to address the psychological needs as well as the physical needs. The nurses and Drs control the physical needs. The counselors address the psychological ones. (My daughter no longer works at the clinic. Now she works for an inpatient center.)

If Timbits were illegal and it was the only source of sugar in town, buying a box from someone would make you feel very guilty. Knowing that if you get caught having it, you will go to jail and no doctor will ever treat your type-2 diabetes if you ever get it, your health insurances will become void. Etc.

And yet you buy it because you think it's a really nice thing to have right now. Then you realise that society and people around you, sugar-less people, are not very receptive to your sugar-rushed self and are starting to ask themselves questions. "what is she on?!" "what's wrong with her?"

So anxiety builds up. You think of yourself as a horrible person. You become stressed and...need more sugar, more Timbits.

And this is how Humanity can make a HUGE issue out of eating a box of Timbits. Really not the same as eating Timbits for 2 weeks and then upon stopping, having to crawl in pain for 4 days. This would be a huge issue and not a laughing matter.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 05:05 PM
... Really not the same as eating Timbits for 2 weeks and then upon stopping, having to crawl in pain for 4 days. This would be a huge issue and not a laughing matter.
In the context of your post, why would the crawling in pain matter, if the person chose to eat Timbits for 2 weeks?

Postulate
03-12-17, 05:13 PM
In the context of your post, why would the crawling in pain matter, if the person chose to eat Timbits for 2 weeks?

Because even if it was legal, the pleasure of using is not worth:

(pain of withdrawing) + (time wasted withdrawing) + (the cost of the substance and cost of living during withdrawal)

So the substance only tricks the person into using it without being worth it altogether, from any point of view. Not even from the point of view of what luvmybully calls an "addict". So we have to protect our intellectually deficient who cannot work out this equation because they are part of our society, the cook our meals, they clean our cars, they make sure our flight can take off in icy conditions.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 05:16 PM
Not even from the point of view of what luvmybully calls an "addict".

I never defined what I call an addict.

Postulate
03-12-17, 05:16 PM
I never defined what I call an addict.

Then it's from the point of view of whatever you define an addict to be.

:)

I am not even attempting to define addict. You go ahead and define them how you choose.

I already did:

I think the problem is the word addict: It's a slur. It's mostly used to insult people, and like all slurs, they are synecdoches without scientific substance, oversimplifying what's otherwise a very complex concept.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 05:21 PM
Because even if it was legal, the pleasure of using is not worth:

(pain of withdrawing) + (time wasted withdrawing) + (the cost of the substance and cost of living during withdrawal)

So the substance only tricks the person into using it without being worth it altogether, from any point of view. Not even from the point of view of what luvmybully calls an "addict".
Why is crawling in pain to be eliminated as a possibility due to the fact that it ruins an elegant equation, but ignoring one's family or losing one's job, which ruin a lot of equations, are apparently supposed to be OK in comparison?

Kind of a solipsistic approach, no?

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 05:22 PM
Then it's from the point of view of whatever you define an addict to be.

:)

I am not even attempting to define addict. You go ahead and define them how you choose.

mildadhd
03-12-17, 05:25 PM
I think the problem is the word addict: It's a slur. It's mostly used to insult people, and like all slurs, they are synecdoches without scientific substance, oversimplifying what's otherwise a very complex concept.

Addiction is mainly split into:

- physical addiction (I need more or I'll crawl in the worst pain known to man)
- psychological addiction (damn! that would be a really nice thing to have right now!)

As much as you try to put the two together, they don't mix, and they will never mix, no matter what mental efforts and combinations you do.

The clinic your daughter works in mainly deals with "physical addiction". Ok? That is their speciality, that is their expertise. So I would take her advice on how to fight physical addiction very seriously, and her advice on how to fight psychological addiction with a huge grain of salt. She simply doesn't know. You can agree with me that a Heroin user is unable to stop due to "physical addiction", and that a Meth user is unable to stop due to "psychological addiction", because the physical addiction with meth is almost non-existant. So it's like two different worlds. Both keep taking but not for the same reason.

I think behavioural addictions and substance addictions are both physical medical conditions.

I think diseases and disorders are both physical medical conditions.



m

Postulate
03-12-17, 05:26 PM
Why is crawling in pain to be eliminated as a possibility due to the fact that it ruins an elegant equation, but ignoring one's family or losing one's job, which ruin a lot of equations, are apparently supposed to be OK in comparison?

Kind of a solipsistic approach, no?

No it's not, you seem to ignore my initial assumption: "if it was legal"

You have trouble with the "ifs" today! :)

Because if it is legal where is the question about the person losing their job and family? They just take a sick leave, like everyone else using that legal substance.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 05:28 PM
I already did:

No, you stated the problem you have with the word. You did not say what YOU think an addict is.

Postulate
03-12-17, 05:32 PM
No, you stated the problem you have with the word. You did not say what YOU think an addict is.

Me personally? I don't think it means anything. It's like the word chill. What is the definition of chill? Let's look:

Chill: phrase employed by a person who is not making the effort to use the right word.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 05:33 PM
Because if it is legal where is the question about the person losing their job and family? They just take a sick leave, like everyone else using that legal substance.

Legal like alcohol is legal? Yes, people do lose their jobs and family because of very legal alcohol.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 05:36 PM
If Timbits were illegal and it was the only source of sugar in town, buying a box from someone would make you feel very guilty. Knowing that if you get caught having it, you will go to jail and no doctor will ever treat your type-2 diabetes if you ever get it, your health insurances will become void. Etc.

And yet you buy it because you think it's a really nice thing to have right now. Then you realise that society and people around you, sugar-less people, are not very receptive to your sugar-rushed self and are starting to ask themselves questions. "what is she on?!" "what's wrong with her?"

So anxiety builds up. You think of yourself as a horrible person. You become stressed and...need more sugar, more Timbits.

And this is how Humanity can make a HUGE issue out of eating a box of Timbits. Really not the same as eating Timbits for 2 weeks and then upon stopping, having to crawl in pain for 4 days. This would be a huge issue and not a laughing matter.

I do not see how this is relevant to my response?

Postulate
03-12-17, 05:37 PM
Legal like alcohol is legal? Yes, people do lose their jobs and family because of very legal alcohol.

Good example, you got me xD

Sure dvd, you can make the equation bigger, you can add, losing the bulldog! I wouldn't wana lose my Maltese either! :lol:

I do not see how this is relevant to my response?

Because, the question nobody is asking is, why a person was never able to feel good in any situation their entire life, until they took Xanax? Why couldn't they enjoy their trips and parties like everyone else could? Why are they only able to enjoy Xanax? Why? Because they are addicteed to it? NO. Because even before they took it the first time, they couldn't enjoy anything. Why? Why can't they enjoy anything in life except Xanax? Why?

Addict theory does not come even close to providing an answer. Let's ask ourselves the REAL question.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 05:40 PM
Good example, you got me xD
Not trying to "get" you, just trying to have a conversation.


Sure dvd, you can make the equation bigger, you can add, losing the bulldog! I wouldn't wana lose my Maltese either!

Losing the bulldog!?!?!? Devastating tragedy!

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 05:46 PM
Because, the question nobody is asking is, why a person was never able to feel good in any situation their entire life, until they took Xanax? Why couldn't they enjoy their trips and parties? Why are they only able to enjoy Xanax? Why? Because they are addicteed to it? NO. Because even before they took it the first time, they couldn't enjoy anything. Why? Why can't they enjoy anything else except Xanax? Why?

Your addict theory does not come even close to providing an answer. Let's ask ourselves the REAL question.

I have no addict theory? I think you have me confused with someone else.

My post was about physical AND psychological needs NEEDING to be addressed. Regardless of the type (physical or psychological) of addiction.

And, I think the Why question has been asked quite frequently, in this thread.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 05:51 PM
Because, the question nobody is asking is, why a person was never able to feel good in any situation their entire life, until they took Xanax? Why couldn't they enjoy their trips and parties like everyone else could? Why are they only able to enjoy Xanax? Why? Because they are addicteed to it? NO. Because even before they took it the first time, they couldn't enjoy anything. Why? Why can't they enjoy anything in life except Xanax? Why?

Addict theory does not come even close to providing an answer. Let's ask ourselves the REAL question.
I actually did introduce that question into this discussion, just a few posts ago. (Not saying it hadn't already been included before that as well - I can't remember.)

Postulate
03-12-17, 06:26 PM
I have no addict theory? I think you have me confused with someone else.

My post was about physical AND psychological needs NEEDING to be addressed. Regardless of the type (physical or psychological) of addiction.

And, I think the Why question has been asked quite frequently, in this thread.

Wait, you're getting back at me for calling upon your accountability? You wrote:

Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict.

Like someone with heart disease choosing to alter their eating and lifestyle habits that caused their heart disease.

Disease does not just vanish because of a thought, but the choice to take action.

You sound like you know what you're talking about! Am I wrong in saying you seem to have a clear definition of what an addict is? Or is it in your habit to use words you don't know the meaning for?

So if I'm misquoting you or quoting you out of context...YOU go ahead give us the context!

I actually did introduce that question into this discussion, just a few posts ago. (Not saying it hadn't already been included before that as well - I can't remember.)

Didn't notice it sorry :)

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 06:37 PM
Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict.

Like someone with heart disease choosing to alter their eating and lifestyle habits that caused their heart disease.

Disease does not just vanish because of a thought, but the choice to take action.
Disease doesn't vanish because of the choice to take action, either. The difference is in the type of action required. If I'm wearing earplugs and can't hear you, my "disease" will be instantly cured by removing the earplugs.

Exactly why is wearing earplugs not a disease?

If I remove them, the problem is gone.

If the alcoholic removes the alcohol, is the problem gone?

I can see that the alcoholic wants alcohol. I don't "want" earplugs in the same way.

Is wanting something a disease?

I'm asking these questions because I have no idea what the answers are, and no idea if they're the right questions.

We don't wait for a person to be physically in bad shape before calling them addicted. We do wait for them to be physically in bad shape before diagnosing heart disease.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 07:28 PM
Disease doesn't vanish because of the choice to take action, either. The difference is in the type of action required. If I'm wearing earplugs and can't hear you, my "disease" will be instantly cured by removing the earplugs.

Exactly why is wearing earplugs not a disease?

If I remove them, the problem is gone.

If the alcoholic removes the alcohol, is the problem gone?

I can see that the alcoholic wants alcohol. I don't "want" earplugs in the same way.

Is wanting something a disease?

I'm asking these questions because I have no idea what the answers are, and no idea if they're the right questions.

We don't wait for a person to be physically in bad shape before calling them addicted. We do wait for them to be physically in bad shape before diagnosing heart disease.

No, disease often do not vanish, but they are treated to the point they no longer life threatening. And I DO think we treat heart disease the moment it is discovered, hopefully BEFORE the person gets in physically bad shape.

Many times the heart disease will always be there, just managed. Like addiction may always be there, just managed.

Why are plugs not a disease? I don't think they fit the criteria:

disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.


It's not a disorder of function or structure, it is a foreign body.


a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.

does not fit this one either.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by Luvmybully
I have no addict theory? I think you have me confused with someone else.

My post was about physical AND psychological needs NEEDING to be addressed. Regardless of the type (physical or psychological) of addiction.



Wait, you're getting back at me for calling upon your accountability? You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvmybully

Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict.

Like someone with heart disease choosing to alter their eating and lifestyle habits that caused their heart disease.

Disease does not just vanish because of a thought, but the choice to take action.

You sound like you know what you're talking about! Am I wrong in saying you seem to have a clear definition of what an addict is? Or is it in your habit to use words you don't know the meaning for?

So if I'm misquoting you or quoting you out of context...YOU go ahead give us the context!

No, I was not defining an addict or stating an addict "theory". I was responding to someone's question about choice.

And that STILL has nothing to do with the response about the physical and psychological needs of recovering addicts. And you subsequent "sugar" story.

Postulate
03-12-17, 07:38 PM
Is wanting something a disease?

I'm asking these questions because I have no idea what the answers are, and no idea if they're the right questions.

We don't wait for a person to be physically in bad shape before calling them addicted. We do wait for them to be physically in bad shape before diagnosing heart disease.

Wanting something is no disease, but getting without deserving, ouch! Society has a problem with that! In an anti-marihuana video of the 60s, they say that it's ok to drink a glass of scotch after a long day at work, to relax, but it's not ok to smoke pot and not go to work. Drugs give you plenty of reward without you deserving any! So you lose the skills you acquired to work hard in order to obtain a fraction of that reward, unless you're a smart drug user and keep those skills running and up to date, aka. a "functional addict", terrible word.

But should that truly be a vector of where my life is going? People's opinion on what I deserve in this life? I drive an Acura TLX 2016, worth about $52,000 Canadian, full equipped. Do you know how many people think I deserve to drive that car? If I conducted a survey in my town I wouldn't find a single one, unless they drove a better car, like Jaguar or Tesla. Then they agree.

So when it comes to using certain drugs, are we really at war with the very real possibility that the drugs might strip us of a portion of the joy life has to offer, or are we at war with everyone else who only want you to get less than what they get? What a good question!

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

Postulate
03-12-17, 07:53 PM
No, I was not defining an addict or stating an addict "theory". I was responding to someone's question about choice

Yes, you also woke up today, had breakfast and posted on ADDForums. You also had lunch, you pet your dog. What else have you done today? We're beating around the bush here aren't we? :)

Your theory was clearly formulated that one had a clear choice to no longer be an addict. And you're entitled to your opinion, you just seem never to own what you say that's all :)

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 07:58 PM
Yes, you also woke up today, had breakfast and posted on ADDForums. You also had lunch, you pet your dog. What else have you done today? We're beating around the bush here aren't we? :)

Your theory was clearly formulated that one had a clear choice to no longer be an addict. And you're entitled to your opinion, you just seem never to own what you say that's all :)

No, you are absolutely wrong. My response was not at all about someone having a clear choice to no longer be an addict.

Never own what I say? More like, I will not allow you to dictate to me what *I* am saying.

Postulate
03-12-17, 08:04 PM
No, you are absolutely wrong. My response was not at all about someone having a clear choice to no longer be an addict.

Never own what I say? More like, I will not allow you to dictate to me what *I* am saying.

You said and I quote:

Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict.

Like someone with heart disease choosing to alter their eating and lifestyle habits that caused their heart disease.

Disease does not just vanish because of a thought, but the choice to take action.

So do you agree that, according to you, or to your theory, or to your postulate...whatever...being an addict is the physical manifestation of addiction which is itself a disease, and the person has the choice to manifest his addiction or not.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 08:13 PM
You said and I quote:



So do you agree that, according to you, or to your theory, or to your postulate...whatever...being an addict is the physical manifestation of addiction which is itself a disease, and the person has the choice to manifest his addiction or not.

No, this response was about a disease not vanishing because one chooses it to vanish. That the choice is not enough, it takes action to follow through on the choice.

Postulate
03-12-17, 08:31 PM
No, this response was about a disease not vanishing because one chooses it to vanish. That the choice is not enough, it takes action to follow through on the choice.

Ok so if I understood well, you didn't mean to say:

"Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict."

You actually meant to say:

Someone choosing not to suffer from addiction doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer suffer from addiction and if those steps are successful, the person is eventually cured from addiction.

Is this what you were trying to say?

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 08:36 PM
Why are plugs not a disease? I don't think they fit the criteria:

disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.


It's not a disorder of function or structure, it is a foreign body.


a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.

does not fit this one either.
Neither does alcohol. It's just a foreign substance. Stop introducing it, and the problem instantly vanishes.

OR... If the substance isn't the problem, then what is?

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 08:38 PM
Ok so if I understood well, you didn't mean to say:

"Someone choosing not to be an addict doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer be an addict."

You actually meant to say:

Someone choosing not to suffer from addiction doesn't mean the addiction simply vanishes. It usually means that person has made the choice to take the necessary steps to no longer suffer from addiction and if those steps are successful, the person is eventually cured from addiction.

Is this what you were trying to say?

No. I was saying that if you have a disease, any disease, simply choosing to no longer have it, is not going to make it magically disappear.

You have to act.

It may or may not work. But action is required.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 08:40 PM
Neither does alcohol. It's just a foreign substance. Stop introducing it, and the problem instantly vanishes.

OR... If the substance isn't the problem, then what is?

Alcohol itself is not a disease. Addiction to alcohol is the disease. Simply eliminating it does not make alcoholism vanish.

Postulate
03-12-17, 08:42 PM
No. I was saying that if you have a disease, any disease, simply choosing to no longer have it, is not going to make it magically disappear.

You have to act.

It may or may not work. But action is required.

Ohh! So this is your contribution for the day, that if I have cancer, it's not enough for me to want it gone, I also have to get chemotherapy?

Oh, thank you Luvmybully. Thank you! :)

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 08:43 PM
Alcohol itself is not a disease. Addiction to alcohol is the disease. Simply eliminating it does not make alcoholism vanish.
So how do we figure out what the disease is, if there is one? I mean, you've given it a name - "addiction" - but that explains nothing.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 08:47 PM
Ohh! So this is your contribution for the day, that if I have cancer, it's not enough for me to want it gone, I also have to get chemotherapy?

Oh, thank you Luvmybully. Thank you! :)

Well, the whole thought was a direct response to something else, that involved treatable and manageable diseases, but if you want to take it this way, go for it!

Postulate
03-12-17, 08:48 PM
Alcohol itself is not a disease. Addiction to alcohol is the disease. Simply eliminating it does not make alcoholism vanish.

Neither does alcohol. It's just a foreign substance. Stop introducing it, and the problem instantly vanishes.

OR... If the substance isn't the problem, then what is?

Dvd...the problem is a person having access to quantities of pleasure they can't control. Alcohol can give you that access, if not, oxycodone can give you that access, if not, methamphetamine can give you that access, but whatever the substance is, it doesn't matter, it's a coincidence that a particular substance happens to create that effect.

The problem is the effect itself which is, to unleash quantities of pleasure a human can't control. Like I said, no human being is able to control unlimited amounts of pleasure. If they tell you so, they are lying.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 08:51 PM
So how do we figure out what the disease is, if there is one? I mean, you've given it a name - "addiction" - but that explains nothing.

I think that is the million dollar question. I am sure we will all hear about it if drs and scientists ever figure out addiction. I should say, "when", because I am hopeful they WILL figure it out.

Postulate
03-12-17, 08:56 PM
I think that is the million dollar question. I am sure we will all hear about it if drs and scientists ever figure out addiction. I should say, "when", because I am hopeful they WILL figure it out.

Look, if I give you a magic crystal ball that when you touch it, for every second that you hold your hand on it, your able to feel the sum of all the good moments you had with your bulldog ever since you got her. Like a concentrated effect so if you hold for 10 seconds, it's like having owned 10 bulldogs one after the other, 10 dogs, 10 experiences and you feel all the joy of 90 years of dog owning in 10 seconds.

I ask you, if after holding your hand down for 10 seconds, you remove it, will you touch it again? Be honest.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 09:01 PM
Look, if I give you a magic crystal ball that when you touch it, for every second that you hold your hand on it, your able to feel the sum of all the good moments you had with your bulldog ever since you got her. Like a concentrated effect so if you hold for 10 seconds, it's like having owned 10 bulldogs one after the other, 10 dogs, 10 experiences and you feel all the joy of 90 years of dog owning in 10 seconds.

I ask you, if after holding your hand down for 10 seconds, you remove it, will you touch it again? Be honest.

I can't even answer that because the whole concept of it is so bizarre!

I honestly do not know if something so extraordinary would freak me out or make me want more.

Postulate
03-12-17, 09:09 PM
I can't even answer that because the whole concept of it is so bizarre!

I honestly do not know if something so extraordinary would freak me out or make me want more.

Does your dog freak you out? Why freak out? It's like rejoining with the dogs you had, feeling all the love you felt for them all over again, in seconds. But then, your current dog is not going to be happy! You keep touching your ball and he's getting sad...and lonely. You're hurting him now. You hurt your family.

When exposed to unlimited amounts of pleasure, will you really care why you're here? On Earth? Will you care what's right and what's wrong? Is the concept of care even going to exist? What is care? What is all of this? What is love? A 4 letter word.

You see what I mean? No one can control this, and I do mean no one.

aeon
03-12-17, 09:25 PM
No one can control this, and I do mean no one.

You can believe what you like, but when you speak for anyone beyond your own person in this regard, you only demonstrate your ignorance, or willful disregard, of personal boundaries, and your willingness to judge others and invalidate them.


Cheers,
Ian

Postulate
03-12-17, 09:27 PM
You can believe what you like, but when you speak for anyone beyond your own person in this regard, you only demonstrate your ignorance, or willful disregard, of personal boundaries, and your willingness to judge others and invalidate them.


Cheers,
Ian

My view is that what I say is my humble opinion and communicating it to others is a privilege for which I am thankful. If I spoke for others and knew what they think, why would I bother posting on a forum to read their opinions?

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 09:28 PM
When exposed to unlimited amounts of pleasure, will you really care why you're here? On Earth? Will you care what's right and what's wrong? Is the concept of care even going to exist? What is care? What is all of this? What is love? A 4 letter word.

You see what I mean? No one can control this, and I do mean no one.

I do not believe there is such a thing as unlimited amounts of pleasure.

Postulate
03-12-17, 09:33 PM
I do not believe there is such a thing as unlimited amounts of pleasure.

Do you at least agree that pleasure is 3+ dimensional, it has a duration, an intensity and a physical source?

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 09:39 PM
Do you at least agree that pleasure is 3+ dimensional, it has a duration, an intensity and a physical source?

3+ dimensional = maybe

duration = yes

intensity = yes

physical source = not necessarily

Postulate
03-12-17, 09:43 PM
3+ dimensional = maybe

duration = yes

intensity = yes

physical source = not necessarily

When you scratch an itch and it feels really good, and when you stop scratching, you stop feeling it, what can you conclude on the existence of a physical source?

Could it be because you believe that pleasure is more than a reaction or a shape-shifting occurring in your brain in response to environment stimuli (external stimuli) or medication (internal stimuli)?

Because we can call external stimuli "the right way", and internal stimuli "an abomination" and we wouldn't be gone very far in our debate whether or not addiction is a disease. It so appears that in the same way other things which were once called an abomination are today allowed and accepted, we might be calling internal stimuli an abomination today for no good reason, other than it's what we chose to call it today!

So whenever someone shows a preference for internal stimuli as opposed to external stimuli, we all have a problem with that person and call him an addict! Well, is it possible, that we are to some extend attention freaks, and we cannot tolerate being ignored? So who is the sick and who is the healthy? Hard to tell!

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 09:50 PM
When you scratch an itch and it feels really good, and when you stop scratching, you stop feeling it, what can you conclude on the existence of a physical source?

Could it be because you believe that pleasure is more than a reaction or a shape-shifting occuring in your brain in response to environment stimuli (external stimuli) or medication (internal stimuli)?

Not denying that there is sometimes a physical source.

But do you consider memories a physical source?

AND, how does this relate to addiction? I am genuinely confused.

Postulate
03-12-17, 10:01 PM
Not denying that there is sometimes a physical source.

But do you consider memories a physical source?

AND, how does this relate to addiction? I am genuinely confused.

Memories are stored in memory neurons and when you get Alzheimer's you lose the neurons and your memories with them. How accumbens neurons communicate with memory neurons to trigger pleasure or like, nostalgia, is very complicated and is an important mechanism of addiction. Addicts can feel a sample of the high only by accessing that memory and thus, are tempted to use again. The only difference is you're accessing the memory of an external stimuli, they access the memory of an internal stimuli.

Source: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons

Postulate
03-12-17, 10:20 PM
If you think about it, internal stimuli like meth or 6-MAM, are causing very similar changes in our brain to what external stimuli can cause, it's just that these molecules are 1,000 times better at doing it. Think about it:

External stimuli, like your bulldog having a nap, first has to go through the cornea, the aqueous humor, lens and vitreous humor, to reach the retina, causing a chemical reaction creating electrical impulses through the optic nerve. I could go on like this for 10 pages until I get to the part where this actually triggers a release of dopamine.

Guess what folks, THAT'S NOT EASY! It's much easier to reach the dopamine receptor directly with a molecule! But don't do that, seriously because then people will call you an addict.

:)

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 10:30 PM
If you think about it, internal stimuli like meth or 6-MAM, are causing very similar changes in our brain to what external stimuli can cause, it's just that these molecules are 1,000 times better at doing it. Think about it:

External stimuli, like your bulldog having a nap, first has to go through the cornea, the aqueous humor, lens and vitreous humor, to reach the retina, causing a chemical reaction creating electrical impulses through the optic nerve. I could go on like this for 10 pages until I get to the part where this actually triggers a release of dopamine.

Guess what folks, THAT'S NOT EASY! It's much easier to reach the dopamine receptor directly with a molecule! But don't do that, seriously because then people will call you an addict.

:)


My bulldog IS actually THAT CUTE. And she smells wonderful too. Then there are the warm, soft, wrinkles.

However, I can easily shift attention from her to other things. To take care of vital, crucial things.

Is it really the same thing? The pleasure from bulldog and the pleasure from drug?

Postulate
03-12-17, 10:33 PM
My bulldog IS actually THAT CUTE. And she smells wonderful too. Then there are the warm, soft, wrinkles.

However, I can easily shift attention from her to other things. To take care of vital, crucial things.

Is it really the same thing? The pleasure from bulldog and the pleasure from drug?

Yes, except that, to replicate exactly what you feel when you're petting your bulldog, you would have to use 100+ substances simultaneously, each in extremely small quantities. And many of these substances are probably not yet discovered as recreational agents or just not discovered at all. A great description would be:

If your experience is like a very nice landscape painting of a sunset, and you enjoy the whole thing. An addict using a substance would be like taking a tiny orange portion from the middle of the sun, in that painting, and pasting it everywhere so that everything around him is orange and he can enjoy a pure, "orange" experience. These things are very complicated to describe in words.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 11:06 PM
That's not describing an addict necessarily, just describing a substance user.

Addiction is not the substance use experience itself; addiction is at a different point in the process.

Postulate
03-12-17, 11:15 PM
That's not describing an addict necessarily, just describing a substance user.

Addiction is not the substance use experience itself; addiction is at a different point in the process.

I agree with your point of view, I oversimplify to better communicate with her and keep the text to a minimum.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 11:22 PM
...except that it ends up painting an extremely rosy picture of addiction, which is probably not your point - and probably not that useful either, except as a partial explanation of how it might feel before becoming addicted.

Postulate
03-12-17, 11:39 PM
...except that it ends up painting an extremely rosy picture of addiction, which is probably not your point - and probably not that useful either, except as a partial explanation of how it might feel before becoming addicted.

I agree with you, on the condition that you're talking about opioids, benzos, SSRIs, and other class of drugs that are not selective towards dopamine. Dopamine agents create psychological addiction, and any physical consequences after the abuse are just wear and tear and not acute withdrawal.

If meth addicts experienced acute withdrawal, they would experience coma, seizures, hypotension, or dysrhythmias. They would require isotonic sodium chloride solution IV to bring up their blood pressure before their circulatory system collapses. Unlike natural opioids u-opioid receptors, dopamine doesn't down regulate per se.

dvdnvwls
03-12-17, 11:49 PM
I was not referring to withdrawal but to actual addiction itself.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 11:53 PM
...except that it ends up painting an extremely rosy picture of addiction, which is probably not your point - and probably not that useful either, except as a partial explanation of how it might feel before becoming addicted.

It doesn't even refer to addiction, just the experience of using. Which is not exactly relevant to the OP.

EDIT: I just saw where you said basically the same thing.

Luvmybully
03-12-17, 11:57 PM
Yes, except that, to replicate exactly what you feel when you're petting your bulldog, you would have to use 100+ substances simultaneously, each in extremely small quantities. And many of these substances are probably not yet discovered as recreational agents or just not discovered at all. A great description would be:

If your experience is like a very nice landscape painting of a sunset, and you enjoy the whole thing. An addict using a substance would be like taking a tiny orange portion from the middle of the sun, in that painting, and pasting it everywhere so that everything around him is orange and he can enjoy a pure, "orange" experience. These things are very complicated to describe in words.

I just do not agree that a substance will replicate the real life experience, or that an addict is attempting to recreate a simple, everyday, moment. Why bother?

There is something much more profound in addiction.

sarahsweets
03-13-17, 04:10 AM
Sarah, your description makes me wonder if what's "really wrong" (not good words but don't know how else to say it) is something genetic that makes people constantly feel like something is missing, and that getting addicted to things is "just" (hmmm that's a horrible word too) an accident arising from that feeling.

I think thats entirely possible because many addicts have had a life or history of trauma, abuse and other bad stuff and they use substances as a means of escape or to numb those feelings. I think it could be a combo of genetic pre-disposition and circumstance. Not all people with a family history of say, alcoholism will become alcoholics, but I would bet the farm that most people with a family history of alcoholism AND trauma or abuse would likely end up becoming alcoholics. There are always exceptions to this of course, but IME working with other addicts, its more often the case then not.

sarahsweets
03-13-17, 04:14 AM
Ohh! So this is your contribution for the day, that if I have cancer, it's not enough for me to want it gone, I also have to get chemotherapy?

Oh, thank you Luvmybully. Thank you! :)

I dont understand this. When it comes to cancer- of course you will need medical intervention to treat it.

Postulate
03-13-17, 08:19 AM
I was not referring to withdrawal but to actual addiction itself.

Well, if you don't experience a physical withdrawal it means you're not physically addicted. Then you're left with the psychological addiction of having experienced a moment like the one I described in the other posts. Psychological addiction according to me means, going through life knowing there's something better after having experienced the better and decided to stop having it. So abstaining will have to occur day by day, one day at a time.

We're back at discussing matters like 2 + 2 = 4.

It doesn't even refer to addiction, just the experience of using. Which is not exactly relevant to the OP.

EDIT: I just saw where you said basically the same thing.

How is one's inability to control pleasure not related to drug addiction? Why else do you keep using the drug? Peer pressure?

I just do not agree that a substance will replicate the real life experience, or that an addict is attempting to recreate a simple, everyday, moment. Why bother?

There is something much more profound in addiction.

Ok so you understood nothing of what I explained? How on Earth is the addict trying to recreate a life moment, he couldn't give a squat about what you live...he's only interested in one or few of the ingredients of life and has it by the ton. If you bake a nice cake, he doesn't want to have a slice of the cake, he wants the bag of vanilla sugar from which you added a teaspoon to the cake, so he can eat it all.

Little Missy
03-13-17, 09:14 AM
So, Maltese Boi in the basement, who made you the arbiter?

Little Missy
03-13-17, 09:18 AM
And that makes it a disease? Or an addiction? Or does the person just enjoy sweets?


You make it up as you go while actually never even have experience, right?

Postulate
03-13-17, 09:29 AM
And that makes it a disease? Or an addiction? Or does the person just enjoy sweets?


You make it up as you go while actually never even have experience, right?

Does a surgeon need to have cancer in order to understand and operate cancer? If it's up to me, nothing makes it a disease, I don't believe it's a disease.

And what's up with the "boi", you talk like you have something in your mouth even via writing? :giggle:

Little Missy
03-13-17, 09:36 AM
Does a surgeon need to have cancer in order to understand and operate cancer?

And what's up with the "boi", you talk like you have something in your mouth even via writing? :giggle:

You should know. Or, probably not.

The topic is not cancer, it is addiction and disease. Have you experienced either? Nope. I knew it. You make it up as you go.

Postulate
03-13-17, 09:39 AM
You should know. Or, probably not.

The topic is not cancer, it is addiction and disease. Have you experienced either? Nope. I knew it. You make it up as you go.

It's also not about basements and mouth-full writing styles. It's also not about addiction and disease, it's whether or not addiction is a disease. Your point?

Feel free to contradict me if you have a different opinion.

Little Missy
03-13-17, 09:44 AM
It's also not about basements and mouth-full writing styles. It's also not about addiction and disease, it's whether or not addiction is a disease. Your point?

Feel free to contradict me if you have a different opinion.

0h please, PM me like you always do.

Fuzzy12
03-13-17, 11:08 AM
Well, if you don't experience a physical withdrawal it means you're not physically addicted. Then you're left with the psychological addiction of having experienced a moment like the one I described in the other posts. Psychological addiction according to me means, going through life knowing there's something better after having experienced the better and decided to stop having it. So abstaining will have to occur day by day, one day at a time.

We're back at discussing matters like 2 + 2 = 4.



How is one's inability to control pleasure not related to drug addiction? Why else do you keep using the drug? Peer pressure?



Ok so you understood nothing of what I explained? How on Earth is the addict trying to recreate a life moment, he couldn't give a squat about what you live...he's only interested in one or few of the ingredients of life and has it by the ton. If you bake a nice cake, he doesn't want to have a slice of the cake, he wants the bag of vanilla sugar from which you added a teaspoon to the cake, so he can eat it all.
I think it's not necessarily that with psychological addiction you know that something better is out there but that you need this particular something to function. I don't think there is a big difference between physical and psychological addiction. In both you feel that you require the substance of your addiction. In both the withdrawal symptoms, physical or psychological, makes it difficult to be without the substance or behaviour of your addiction.

With purely psychological addiction (eg gambling) you might not get physical withdrawal symptoms (and even that isn't certain. In fact if I remember right there are studies that show otherwise) but you still get symptoms such as irritability or restlessness

sarahsweets
03-13-17, 11:18 AM
*****

Postulate
03-13-17, 11:47 AM
I think it's not necessarily that with psychological addiction you know that something better is out there but that you need this particular something to function. I don't think there is a big difference between physical and psychological addiction. In both you feel that you require the substance of your addiction. In both the withdrawal symptoms, physical or psychological, makes it difficult to be without the substance or behaviour of your addiction.

With purely psychological addiction (eg gambling) you might not get physical withdrawal symptoms (and even that isn't certain. In fact if I remember right there are studies that show otherwise) but you still get symptoms such as irritability or restlessness

If I hit my Acura against a pole and it's up for repairs for 2 weeks you can damn well bet I will be restless and irritable! I have no OPCF 20. I'd have to take the bus! The bus!!! Or run to the grocery store! That's outrageous!

I would withdraw from it...physically, ok? I would sweat at night.

So let's ban luxury vehicles? No! That's insane! Can you not see the prejudice and double standards people have for substances, especially the ones who don't create physical addiction like Adderall? The only reason it's not ok, is because someone says it's not ok. If someone said cars are not ok, we would run to work and be in much better shape than we are now. Do cars negatively impact your health? Yes. Are they addictive? Yes. Are they banned? No :cool:

Then a guy who always takes the bus can say, what's wrong with you man? What's wrong with the bus? Am I addicted? Yes. And...a pleasent addiction it is. Am I quitting? NO.

stef
03-13-17, 11:55 AM
****Moderator Note****

This thread is getting out of hand. Everyone here knows the guidelines and agreed to them by joining. Insults, flaming and off topic posts violate those guidelines.

Please remain on topic and avoid insulting other members.

Luvmybully
03-13-17, 12:09 PM
From the treatment aspect of things, if you do not treat addiction like a disease, HOW do you treat it?

The addiction is a criminal act, so lock addicts up, approach does not work.

The addiction is a moral failing approach does not work.

Treating it like a disease has a better chance of actually working.

Luvmybully
03-13-17, 12:16 PM
The only reason it's not ok, is because someone says it's not ok. If someone said cars are not ok, we would run to work and be in much better shape than we are now. Do cars negatively impact your health? Yes. Are they addictive? Yes. Are they banned? No :cool:




Saying addiction is a disease that needs to be treated is NOT the same thing as saying ALL things folk are able to get addicted to are not OK, and should be banned.

It is not simply that people are doing/taking (this), and it is not ok to do/take (this), therefore these people have a disease and need to be treated.

It is when doing/taking (this) has a detrimental impact on their body, their health, their livelihood, their families.

It is when the person is no longer able to independently function as a direct result of doing/taking (this) that viewing and treating it as a disease is beneficial to that person.

peripatetic
03-13-17, 12:32 PM
moderator note

thread closed for staff review.

-peri