Can I please just get this out - drug addiction is NOT A DISEASE!

I think that needs elaboration still, right? (I can conquer a hot dog through tremendous willpower, but most hot dogs aren't diseases)

Or did you mean that as a part of a definition?

I'm not sure it works as a criteria anyway, I can "conquer" the flu if I just wait it out, right? Though it's totally possible you aren't including the flu as a disease, and it depends on what you mean by "conquer" and "alone". And there are people who have weak immune systems and would die without treatment. (but then it seems like it'd be a disease for some people and not others, which while not necessarily untrue, seems very departed from how I currently understand the idea of disease)

I appreciate a reply on this in any case. And I'm cognizant that you said "potential response", so I recognize you're looking for a discussion and not that you're demanding this IS the definition.

Well, because we've made common-sense delineations of terms.

If addiction is a disease and half the population is addicted to caffeine, then they all have a disease. No one's going to the doctor over their caffeine addiction since it doesn't have the life-altering effects of other addictions, yet any doctor will tell you that the brain function of addiction is the same (of lesser or greater intensities) when dealing with any addictive substance that closes brain synapses. So we've made separate terms for actual diseases that are not addictions and addictions themselves (since addiction is a very specific type of problem).

They are all biological problems - but addictions can only be "healed" (overcome, recovered from, etc.) with the mind. Ultimately, it is the only known way they can be overcome. While diseases require something more - medical treatment: drug intervention, nutritional changes, surgeries, chemical or radiation treatments, or even time.

Time does "cure" some diseases (we don't know how), but it only cures addictions if a sufficient amount of it is spent without the addictive substances. There is no amount of time that will help an addiction while the substance is still being taken.

I don't know if we're equating: drug addiction = disease as a need to have more sympathy for drug addicts...or if we're just debating the vernacular usage.

My opinion is this: all people deserve sympathy and help, even if they make stupid decisions like shooting up heroin.

On the other hand let's not lose insight that hard drugs are crap, are illegal, cause countless burglaries and property crimes by addicts stealing to get enough money for their daily fix. Not to mention the appalling number of gang murders which in part is over drug turf battles.

I sometimes think we've lost the ability to hold the individual responsible for their own actions.

I don't follow what you mean here. But I feel confident in the position that hot dogs are not diseases.

OR SANDWICHES.

Right, the key is in "conquer" and "alone." No matter how dedicated someone is to not wanting to have leukemia, that dedication, by itself, will not cure them. But it is technically possible for any given addict to stop using. However hard it may be, we cannot see anything literally stopping them.

On the flip side, you'd say something was a disease if they could theoretically be perfectly willing to take any action to stop it, and that willingness alone would not be sufficient to rid them of it.

Correct, though at first blush it feels like a pretty workable definition, with a little sanding around the edges. So I invite criticisms/questions to see how it holds up.

I'm simply debating the vernacular (and I agree on sympathy).

But I'm debating it for good reason - classifying addiction as a disease is an instant "out" for addicts to say (like someone with stage 4 cancer) that they are beyond doing anything about it other than rely completely on divine intervention.

When in reality, their decision to take control, to decide to get help, to act, and do something about it is the ONLY way they will get into recovery. Since they now have been told they are "diseased" (which means none of their choices are their fault and their condition is beyond any personal ability to change or control) they might as well resign themselves to the fact, go home, rest and take some medicine (i.e. their drug of choice)... after all, they have a "disease."

It's an inaccurate and bad approach to drug addiction because it lets the addict "off the hook" - when the only thing that's really going to help them is realizing that they are on the hook and the only help they are going to receive will begin when they make the decision to get some.

I don't care about coffee addicts because they don't go around robbing and killing people like drug addicts do.

I said it myself in my first post in this thread that anyone should receive help if they seek it, but the need to treat them like a victim is something I disagree with.

What's his argument exactly?

I could quite easily murder someone when I go cold turkey with caffeine, but I certainly dont feel like a victim because I have an addictive personality, and no one has ever treated me as one, the same as no one treated me like a victim when I had cancer, and I wouldnt have it any other way.

How many times have you heard of someone killing people because they have caffeine withdrawal? While literally hundreds of thousands of people have been killed because of cocaine and heroin and other hard drugs (maybe not just by using them, but when you count drug deals gone bad, gang violence, cartels, drug busts etc.)

Glad to hear you were able to beat cancer btw.

I've never heard it, but the point I was making is I get very bad withdrawals, and I'm down to one cup a day. A couple of cold turkey attempts were so horrifically painfu;l I'd put it right up there with cerebral malaria/ Hand me a gun and I'd fire it, I;m sure.

And thanks. Me too.

I just dont understand the angst in the thread about calling an addictive personality a disease. It's certainly not 'ease' to be addicted to something, and I certainly dont think it excuses the behaviour which some people think. It also does not invalidate the severity of disease like cancer to my way of thinking, so being told in this very thread I should be offended that addiction was being compared to cancer which it was not, and that I should have felt like I was a victim for having the big C was so condescending and macho comacho ludicrous.

Ignore the hot dog part, it's a joke that got away from me and didn't translate from idea to words.

My point is that there isn't anything about negative symptoms or anything "bad" or really anything about. Which I guess I hadn't considered really because it seemed really necessary for negative implications to be involved. I can't conquer the the love that parents have for their children through willpower alone. I can't conquer Ohio through willpower alone.

So

1) Is influenza a disease to someone that CAN get rid of it through willpower alone?

2) If so, is disease relative under this definition? E.g. if some can deal with it via willpower alone and others can't, is it a disease to the second group and not the first? (I'm not trying to trap you here, I don't think I'm outright opposed to "disease" being relative)

I feel like I understand the direction you're going in by the way. The thought I had with it being a criteria was basically slapping it on the end of a previous definition, such as:

In any case, the clause you're talking about, regardless if it is sufficient or just necessary, is what I was looking for someone to add in anyway. So I'm not all that concerned with whether or not it's a full definition as long as it's "part" of it.

(Note: I'm going to be switching from a direct reply to Yoda to a larger reply to the thread here)

The inclusion of willpower if what I was looking for because it codifies that in many people's mind, addiction is the result of a character deficiency. I think that aspect is so strong that a lot of people arguing in that way might not even disagree with me before context. And I think that is so, so dangerous.

Quick model. If you believe that addiction occurs out of a character deficiency, then people that believe they are NOT character deficient cannot fall prey to addiction. This is a trope at this point, the "I'm not addicted, I can stop at any time" because admitting they CAN'T stop is saying they lack virtue within this mode of thinking.

I also can't help but notice the many, many times within this thread that there has been outright condescension toward addicts, and how much better they are than these people. I believe that stems from viewing addiction as a character flaw as well. So I'm not sure how much of that attitude is drawn from actual concern for addicts and hope for their recovery rather than using them as an easy target for feelings of superiority.

I'm also not sure that superiority is warranted. I'll say that I could have ended up an addict were it not for my easy, easy life.

Here's a quote from Yoda, where he correctly calls me out on likely misunderstanding what "powerless" means in the context of AA.

(Note: This is paraphrasing AA's ideas, so I'm not alleging self-contradiction)

There was also a video that was posted earlier that is actually compelling in a lot of regards:
While
1) I think it overreaches when it tries to tie in a bit of utopian design to solve addiction. And

2) I do believe that addiction is not purely the failure of society's design (which the video doesn't state either, but just want to make it clear that I'm not absolving the individual's choices)

I do think that the video is right to challenge the substance-oriented view of addiction. And has some good points.

Gotta stop here for now.

Real quick, I agree that it's not the place of rehabilitation to throw a "pity party" for people. But I do think that in general, I'd reverse part of this.

I think that the first step of getting people with addictions help is the part that is the most needed for society to provide. After those initial stages, if the person still refuses to follow the path, then yeah, it's not society's place to force the person all the way through to the bitter end. The individual has to have a little buy-in, or it won't work IMO.

But, that initial stage is the important part, and the part that it seems an addict would be the most blind to/need most assistance with.

In short, offer help, offer kindness, challenge delusions it isn't an addiction. But don't pursue with help/kindness perpetually, if only to divert those resources to others that will respond better.

Also just want to make clear that my beliefs are rooted more in cost effectiveness not being a good person. I'm selfish.

I wasn't criticizing you, or anyone actually. Just blogging.

In fact I can see your point: if drug addiction is classified as a disease, it sort of removes person responsibility for the decision to quit drugs.

And so if someone has an addiction disease that then suggest they aren't responsible for their own actions (because they are acting from a disease, and not out of free will)....even though they are breaking the law by using hard drugs, it's not really their fault.

And that's how society has been going, we don't hold people or even institutions (like the banking crisis) responsible for their actions. Remember it 'takes a village' to raise a child when a few generations ago it took parents (gasp!)

Does AA suggest substance abusers are not responsible? I've never heard this, and I certainly dont feel that way. I've only ever heard one person say she couldnt help her addiction and it wasnt fair people looked down upon her and made her a pariah - she was a smoker who simply didnt like having to smoke outside.

If even one addict can say 'I have a monkey on my back but there is help available to get the bastard off' just by thinking they have 'a disease' then to my way of thinking that is not a bad thing. Disease comes in many shapes and sizes.

This is where you and I have a huge disconnect on these types of issues. I agree 100% that the only way a drug addict kicks their addiction is by deciding to take control and get help. I couldn't disagree more that drug addict are using the word disease as a get out of personal responsibility card. I simply have never seen that, like ever. Again if you are applying that to drug addiction you have many other diseases you have to apply the same rules to. I won't rehash them because I feel icky when I keep bringing up, but you know what I am talking about.

Your over arcing argument seems to be something can't be labeled a disease if they make choices that lead to it. I don't see that being true in any definition and I don't see you applying the logic to any other diseases.

__________________
Letterboxd

I think there should be all kinds of help available for drug addicts, I never said there shouldn't be.

Oh I know you never said that. I was just giving my PoV. Still curious if groups like AA tell addicts they're not responsible, though?

My caffeine addiction started when I was a kid. One of my brothers was a bit of a mischief troll and made me a coffee one morning, saying I couldnt be a grown up unless I had one every day. Do I hold him responsible for my addiction? No - entirely my fault for wanting to grow up too fast. Am I prepared to go cold turkey again? Not at this point in time. I;m not human when I detox. That causes me and my husband way too much stress which at this point in time is far more detrimental than one cup of stuff I dont even enjoy drinking each day. I lose my eyesight when I go cold turkey, get rigors that match malaria, and have a jackhammer on my brain. Only lasts a day but that's enough to make me want to kill someone.

never thought of it like that.
always called them sick, but you are right.

You're a caffeine addict too, Dani?
Ah, I know what that disease is like. I have the same disease.

I "caught" my disease at a young age by drinking coffee when I started working in a restaurant at age 16. Who knew the restaurant was "contaminated" with the infectious viral caffeine contained in coffee and that so many people would become diseased from it?

Yes, my choice to continue drinking coffee was my responsibility, but it doesn't change the fact that by some unlucky hand of fate I contracted the disease of addiction. I've had the disease ever since. It must have been a contagious disease that I caught from the other coffee drinkers. Maybe one of them spread it to me through transference of bodily fluids?

The disease must have metastasized because I'm now addicted to other things - that's just the nature of the disease - the addiction disease "spreads" through the brain & body.

Sarcasm noted.