NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this is an interesting point of view that I have happened to have come under discussion in one of my classes. Even though other countries acknowledge this already, some people in America tend to have the view that addiction is a disease. I am wondering what people think about this point of view.

Edit: When we are talking about addiction we are talking about stuff like addiction to smoking/alcohol/drugs.

Starting the addiction is a choice, save for a few situations, but the addiction itself is not a choice.

The implication with classifying addiction as a disease is that the person that is afflicted with addiction is in not responsible for being in an addicted state. On the contrary, they are completely responsible because they have to be willing to seek a "cure". How they became addicted is irrelevant.

Starting the addiction is a choice, save for a few situations, but the addiction itself is not a choice.

Why is it not a choice and why then is it considered a disease?

People who state "Addiction is a choice" have neither been clinically depressed nor become addicted, nor known anyone who has been either. People who state "Addiction is a choice" are ignorant of what addiction really is.

As a former drug addict, I can tell you that in my opinion drug addiction is a choice. I chose to use and I chose to quit. It wasn't easy, it wasn't fun. There are days 7 years later that still aren't easy and still aren't fun, but I choose not to use anymore. Addictive personality isn't a disease, it is a personality flaw, just like someone who is a perfectionist (do NOT read OCD that actually is a disease) but like I said that is just one former addicts opinion, in NA they tried to pull that crap about it being a disease like diabetes, one that you can control most of the time. I decided that I would be in control, and that calling it a disease is a cop out. If you don't want to do drugs then don't, it's hard to quit so don't start and if you've already started then stop now. Get support. Don't give up, and don't whine to me about it.

People who state "Addiction is a choice" have neither been clinically depressed nor become addicted, nor known anyone who has been either. People who state "Addiction is a choice" are ignorant of what addiction really is.

Nice ad hominem there. How about telling us how it is not a choice and why you would classify it as a disease instead of insulting people.

Now this is an interesting point of view that I have happened to have come under discussion in one of my classes. Even though other countries acknowledge this already, some people in America tend to have the view that addiction is a disease. I am wondering what people think about this point of view.Addiction is the state in which either your body or mind are dependent on something. It's a disease and not a choice (you can't just "choose" not to be addicted to something, getting off takes time, if it's at all possible). You can be addicted to all sorts of things: Drugs, driving, politics, TV, computers, NationStates...
Mental addictions are easier to get off of than physical addictions. Heroin for instance can kill you if you just stop.

Now this is an interesting point of view that I have happened to have come under discussion in one of my classes. Even though other countries acknowledge this already, some people in America tend to have the view that addiction is a disease. I am wondering what people think about this point of view.
I'll tell you why I consider it a disease--because people who have a lot more experience and medical training than I do consider it to be a disease, based on empirical data and research. Sometimes you've just got to trust the experts when you don't have a clue on your own.

People who state "Addiction is a choice" have neither been clinically depressed nor become addicted, nor known anyone who has been either. People who state "Addiction is a choice" are ignorant of what addiction really is.
Oh yeah?

I'm clinically depressed, and I was addicted to meth for the better part of two months before I got my head out of my ass.

Addiction is a choice.

Addiction is the state in which either your body or mind are dependent on something. It's a disease and not a choice (you can't just "choose" not to be addicted to something, getting off takes time, if it's at all possible). You can be addicted to all sorts of things: Drugs, driving, politics, TV, computers, NationStates...
Mental addictions are easier to get off of than physical addictions. Heroin for instance can kill you if you just stop.

If addiction is a disease then it is not under the control of the individual. Lets consider the case of smoking cigarettes, and millions of people, having adopted the habit, have then given it up. The vast majority of people who give up smoking do so without "treatment" kind. Obviously, if someone gives up smoking, they were able to give up smoking. Therefore, at the point when the gave up smoking they were not suffering from the disease of addiction.-Jeffert Schaler "Why addiction is a choice"

Oh yeah?

I'm clinically depressed, and I was addicted to meth for the better part of two months before I got my head out of my ass.

Addiction is a choice.
That's great--for you. You are not representative of the wide range of human physiology, so to assume that because you beat an addiction that it follows that addiction is a choice is arrogant in the extreme.

If addiction is a disease then it is not under the control of the individual. Lets consider the case of smoking cigarettes, and millions of people, having adopted the habit, have then given it up. The vast majority of people who give up smoking do so without "treatment" kind. Obviously, if someone gives up smoking, they were able to give up smoking. Therefore, at the point when the gave up smoking they were not suffering from the disease of addiction.-Jeffert Schaler "Why addiction is a choice"So you're saying they had no trouble at all giving it up?

I've been trying to quit smoking for at least fifteen years. (On and off, mostly off), and let me say that it is flat out impossible. Can't do it.

I can keep it down to about one-two packs a week (provided I don't go out drinking), but that's it.

Having trouble giving it up doesn't qualify it to be a disease. Like I said it is a personality flaw ( addictive behavior) It often times takes counseling and yes it is physically trying because your chemicals can change with drug use and on top of that we are creatures of habit. Breaking the cycle of what you have done for so long is hard. I just have issue with people who say "oh they are addicted, it isn't thier fault, they can't do anything about it." In my opinion it's crap.

I don't think the question makes sense.

Addiction is addiction.

No one chooses to be addicted.

Someone may choose to do something, sometimes more than once
and one may wind up addicted.




d·dic·tion (-dkshn)
n.

Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

from dictionary.com

That's great--for you. You are not representative of the wide range of human physiology, so to assume that because you beat an addiction that it follows that addiction is a choice is arrogant in the extreme.
Arrogant? Me?! Never!

Besides, I never said I was. The guy I was responding to [I forget his name] made a completely fucking ridiculous generalization that I thought apt to prove false by applying my own personal example.

Basically, it comes down to whether you favor a Determinist viewpoint versus one that allows for more free will. I happen to believe that we're in control of the decisions we make, which means that ultimately, the choice to take up $HABIT is within our control. Certain substances can, however, make it very difficult for us to stop using them once that choice has been made.

Having trouble giving it up doesn't qualify it to be a disease. Like I said it is a personality flaw ( addictive behavior) It often times takes counseling and yes it is physically trying because your chemicals can change with drug use and on top of that we are creatures of habit. Breaking the cycle of what you have done for so long is hard. I just have issue with people who say "oh they are addicted, it isn't thier fault, they can't do anything about it." In my opinion it's crap.Having withdrawal symptoms does qualify though (and I've seen people have those on cigarettes).

Having trouble giving it up doesn't qualify it to be a disease. Like I said it is a personality flaw ( addictive behavior) It often times takes counseling and yes it is physically trying because your chemicals can change with drug use and on top of that we are creatures of habit. Breaking the cycle of what you have done for so long is hard. I just have issue with people who say "oh they are addicted, it isn't thier fault, they can't do anything about it." In my opinion it's crap.

I know there are people who give up smoking, but I believe that they just weren't addicted that's all.

I really like smoking too, which doesn't help. Nor does all the catalogues that Nat Sherman sends me.

So you're saying they had no trouble at all giving it up?

No not at all. People make hard choices every day. But in the end of it the person chooses to give up smoking.

d·dic·tion (-dkshn)
n.

Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

from dictionary.com

Addiction: definition and implications.

Goodman A.

Minnesota Institute of Psychiatry, St. Paul 55105.

Integration of addiction into the theory and practice of psychiatry has been hampered by the lack of a definition of addiction which is scientifically useful. A definition is proposed, with diagnostic criteria specified in a format similar to that of DSM-III-R. Essentially, addiction designates a process whereby a behavior, that can function both to produce pleasure and to provide escape from internal discomfort, is employed in a pattern characterized by (1) recurrent failure to control the behaviour (powerlessness) and (2) continuation of the behaviour despite significant negative consequences (unmanageability). Some practical and theoretical implications of this definition are then explored.

PMID: 2285834 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I voted NO. Having an addiction is akin to having an allergic reaction. You don't choose whether you are allergic to something.

Not all people who use become addicted, just like not all people who touch poison ivy get a rash. Others, though, are more susceptible, chemically speaking. Some people can touch poison ivy without incident, only to develop an allergy to it later. Is that a choice? They should choose to stay away from poison ivy.

Native Americans don't have a chemical called alcohol anhydrase, which is what metabolizes alcohol. Their physical reaction to alcohol is physiologically different. They don't choose to react to alcohol that way. But they can choose not to drink.

The choice comes in deciding to USE or not... addiction isnt the choice.

Arrogant? Me?! Never!

Besides, I never said I was. The guy I was responding to [I forget his name] made a completely fucking ridiculous generalization that I thought apt to prove false by applying my own personal example.And so you thought you'd disprove his ridiculous generalization with one of your own, huh? Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Basically, it comes down to whether you favor a Determinist viewpoint versus one that allows for more free will. I happen to believe that we're in control of the decisions we make, which means that ultimately, the choice to take up $HABIT is within our control. Certain substances can, however, make it very difficult for us to stop using them once that choice has been made.
Free will has precious little to do with it for most people--undoubtedly there are those whose physiology allows them to fight off addiction more successfully than others, but that should not be mistaken for strength of character. We're talking about chemical reactions here--you can have all the determinist viewpoint you want and it won't change the craving you get for heroin once your body has started reacting to it.

You don't choose whether you are allergic to something. I have, actually (to some degree).

It's quite simple. Pick up something on your desk, something light. How certain are you that if you let go of it it will fall to the desk or the ground? Pretty sure?

Now imagine what it might feel like to feel afraid of your own sexual desire, to feel like every time you've had sex with your girlfriend you've raped her, because when you broke up she told you that's what it had been because she had never wanted it, never enjoyed it, but never told you. You feel like a rapist and you never knew what you were doing to somebody you loved. And you know it's true, you know with the same certainty with which you knew that thing would fall to the ground.

You cannot understand what something like that feels like unless you've felt it. I'm not quoting a personal example, but one from a friend. Emotional pain uses many of the same neural pathways as physical pain, but you're not allowed to take painkillers for it, and they wouldn't work anyway. A tight, crushing sensation in the chest, as if you were being compressed. Inability to concentrate properly, or at all. Utter, utter paranoia.

And you know with the same force as you know that black is not white that you should slit your arms from wrist to elbow before you hurt anyone else you love, but you're afraid of the pain, and you hate that cowardice that stops you, even though it's the best thing for everyone you know that you do it.

When that's what's going on in your head, it's not hard to want it to go away. Even though you know you deserve to feel like that, because of what you did. What you are. And you can't change, because you've tried before. When this is what's going on in your head it's not hard to want any way out.

I wouldn't call it a disease. I'd call depression the disease in such cases. In such cases addiction's just a symptom of depression in circumstances where drugs are available to become addicted to. I'm not going to get involved in a definition war here. All I'm going to say is that to try out of desperation is a choice, but nobody ever starts on a drug like heroin wanting to become addicted.

I shall concede to you that "heroin chic", the average rap star's crack addiction and so on are generally choices for image, peer pressure or having more money than sense. I give you that. But I will not let anyone categorise everyone who's become addicted to something in the same category. Plenty of people who work out of depression by the power of Jesus are addicted to Him; why do you think converts to any religion are so famously zealous as to give rise to the phrase "the fervour of the convert"? Why do you think so many strive through self-help programs and fads, doing endless geographicals, hoping that as soon as they change one aspect of their lives they'll be happy?

A lot of addiction is about trying to be happy in a never-ending, often biologically-inspired cycle of self-hatred, as certain as the bloodstained hand in front of your face.

I have, actually (to some degree).

Okay, I'll bite....

What did you choose to become allergic to?

I voted NO. Having an addiction is akin to having an allergic reaction. You don't choose whether you are allergic to something.
An abnormally high sensitivity to certain substances, such as pollens, foods, or microorganisms. Common indications of allergy may include sneezing, itching, and skin rashes.

How is addiction akin to having an allergic reaction? You choose to have that drink of alcohol, you choose to have that cigarette, and you choose to take that hit of heroine. I don't see how you choose to have your throat swell if you eat peanut butter. I think your comparing apples to oranges here.

Native Americans don't have a chemical called alcohol anhydrase, which is what metabolizes alcohol. Their physical reaction to alcohol is physiologically different. They don't choose to react to alcohol that way. But they can choose not to drink.
So their physical reaction to alcohol is different. They still choose to have the drink. They are the ones who make the choice. If it isn't a choice then Native Americans who become alcoholics should not be able to sober up. I'm sure plenty have. So that would mean that they choose to stop doing it wether its for medical reasons, social reasons, or they just want to stop.

Arrogant? Me?! Never!

Besides, I never said I was. The guy I was responding to [I forget his name] made a completely fucking ridiculous generalization that I thought apt to prove false by applying my own personal example.

Basically, it comes down to whether you favor a Determinist viewpoint versus one that allows for more free will. I happen to believe that we're in control of the decisions we make, which means that ultimately, the choice to take up $HABIT is within our control. Certain substances can, however, make it very difficult for us to stop using them once that choice has been made.

*raises eyebrow* Okay, okay, touchy subject. Apologies; I overreacted to the, well, completely fucking ridiculous generalisation proposed in the statement "Addiction is a choice." I think I've explained myself below.

Okay, I'll bite....

What did you choose to become allergic to?
Cheese, most fruit (especially tomatoes), fish, things I haven't tasted before, any kinds of sea food...
Makes me throw up (but only if I notice).

And so you thought you'd disprove his ridiculous generalization with one of your own, huh? Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Please don't do this shit to me. I wasn't making a generalization, I was voicing my opinion and offering a small sampling of my personal history, to show why his was insanely presumptive. Addiction is not as cut and dry as 'choice' or 'not.' I believe that to a certain extent [the initiation of] it is, but once $CHEMICALREACTION in your brain takes place, it's, ultimately beyond your control to a point. Some people can overcome it, some can't. It's always been very easy for me to break addictions , and I suspect it's a very rare trait. I'm quite thankful for it.

Free will has precious little to do with it for most people--undoubtedly there are those whose physiology allows them to fight off addiction more successfully than others, but that should not be mistaken for strength of character. We're talking about chemical reactions here--you can have all the determinist viewpoint you want and it won't change the craving you get for heroin once your body has started reacting to it.
That's nice, but I didn't really say anything that argues with this. If anything, we're pretty much on the same page. I am aware of the chemical nature of most addictions, but at the same time it's kind of hard for me to approach the issue while taking this into account, as it doesn't seem to happen to me. That said, you're just as capable of saying "no" to your first cigarette as you are of saying "yes," I believe. Then again, it's one of those issues that's probably very difficult to ascertain. I generally don't bother myself with it too much since I seem to be more or less immune. I did meth for 6-8 weeks and quit cold turkey after watching what it did to my roommates. I did coke once [which supposedly has an addiction rate of 100%] and decided it was not particularly exciting. I might do it once or twice a year, for special occasions, but I'd never buy any of my own. I can stop smoking for days--even [i]weeks at a time and it doesn't affect my temperment in the least: just ask any of my relatives or friends.

How is addiction akin to having an allergic reaction? You choose to have that drink of alcohol, you choose to have that cigarette, and you choose to take that hit of heroine. I don't see how you choose to have your throat swell if you eat peanut butter. I think your comparing apples to oranges here.It's in the sense that you can choose to get a fix, but after doing it often enough, you can't choose not to be on turkey if you leave them out.

It's in the sense that you can choose to get a fix, but after doing it often enough, you can't choose not to be on turkey if you leave them out.

Are you saying here that once one does something often enough they cant quit cold turkey? I'm just trying to understand the last part of this because I can't quite make out what your trying to say.

Addiction: definition and implications.

Goodman A.

Minnesota Institute of Psychiatry, St. Paul 55105.

Integration of addiction into the theory and practice of psychiatry has been hampered by the lack of a definition of addiction which is scientifically useful. A definition is proposed, with diagnostic criteria specified in a format similar to that of DSM-III-R. Essentially, addiction designates a process whereby a behavior, that can function both to produce pleasure and to provide escape from internal discomfort, is employed in a pattern characterized by (1) recurrent failure to control the behaviour (powerlessness) and (2) continuation of the behaviour despite significant negative consequences (unmanageability). Some practical and theoretical implications of this definition are then explored.

PMID: 2285834 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



So the jury's still out on whether it is addition has any psychological aspects to it. Oops. My (and that dictionary's) bad.

Integration of addiction into the theory and practice of psychiatry.....

An abnormally high sensitivity to certain substances, such as pollens, foods, or microorganisms. Common indications of allergy may include sneezing, itching, and skin rashes.

How is addiction akin to having an allergic reaction? You choose to have that drink of alcohol, you choose to have that cigarette, and you choose to take that hit of heroine. I don't see how you choose to have your throat swell if you eat peanut butter. I think your comparing apples to oranges here.

yes, both fruit, though from different trees.

If you are allergic to cats and you pet a cat, you will suffer from the consequences of your physiological reaction to the cat. If you stay away from cats, no suffering. Same with drugs or alcohol. If you expose yourself to it, and you're an addict, you will suffer specific physiological reactions. If you remove yourself from exposure, the symptoms go away.

But either way, you're still allergic to cats , even if you aren't suffering an allergic reaction, and you're still an addict even if you aren't using.

i repeat, its the USING that is the choice. (certainly, some allergies you can't choose whether to be exposed or not, thats besides my point here)


So their physical reaction to alcohol is different. They still choose to have the drink. They are the ones who make the choice. If it isn't a choice then Native Americans who become alcoholics should not be able to sober up. I'm sure plenty have. So that would mean that they choose to stop doing it wether its for medical reasons, social reasons, or they just want to stop.

Right. they can choose to use or not to use, but physically they are an addict even if they aren't using.

I love how you edited out how you said you didn't commit an ad hominem attack.

People who state "Addiction is a choice" have neither been clinically depressed nor become addicted, nor known anyone who has been either. People who state "Addiction is a choice" are ignorant of what addiction really is.
I love how you instead of explaining why addiction is not a choice decided to say that people who take the opposite point of view are ignorant of what addiction is. That sounds like an attack on the person instead of the arguement. Ad hominem
It's quite simple. Pick up something on your desk, something light. How certain are you that if you let go of it it will fall to the desk or the ground? Pretty sure?

Now imagine what it might feel like to feel afraid of your own sexual desire, to feel like every time you've had sex with your girlfriend you've raped her, because when you broke up she told you that's what it had been because she had never wanted it, never enjoyed it, but never told you. You feel like a rapist and you never knew what you were doing to somebody you loved. And you know it's true, you know with the same certainty with which you knew that thing would fall to the ground.

You cannot understand what something like that feels like unless you've felt it. I'm not quoting a personal example, but one from a friend. Emotional pain uses many of the same neural pathways as physical pain, but you're not allowed to take painkillers for it, and they wouldn't work anyway. A tight, crushing sensation in the chest, as if you were being compressed. Inability to concentrate properly, or at all. Utter, utter paranoia.
This is not about understanding why they made the choice here. This is about wheter or not addiction is a choice. Wether you choose to have the cigarette or there is some sort of genetic/chemical reaction that makes you unable to make a choice.

And you know with the same force as you know that black is not white that you should slit your arms from wrist to elbow before you hurt anyone else you love, but you're afraid of the pain, and you hate that cowardice that stops you, even though it's the best thing for everyone you know that you do it.

When that's what's going on in your head, it's not hard to want it to go away. Even though you know you deserve to feel like that, because of what you did. What you are. And you can't change, because you've tried before. When this is what's going on in your head it's not hard to want any way out.
What does this have to do with addiction being a choice? How does this relate to drug problems, alcoholism, cigarette smoking etc?

I wouldn't call it a disease. I'd call depression the disease in such cases. In such cases addiction's just a symptom of depression in circumstances where drugs are available to become addicted to. I'm not going to get involved in a definition war here. All I'm going to say is that to try out of desperation is a choice, but nobody ever starts on a drug like heroin wanting to become addicted.
So smokers would be depressed if they were considered addicted to something?

I shall concede to you that "heroin chic", the average rap star's crack addiction and so on are generally choices for image, peer pressure or having more money than sense. I give you that. But I will not let anyone categorise everyone who's become addicted to something in the same category. Plenty of people who work out of depression by the power of Jesus are addicted to Him; why do you think converts to any religion are so famously zealous as to give rise to the phrase "the fervour of the convert"? Why do you think so many strive through self-help programs and fads, doing endless geographicals, hoping that as soon as they change one aspect of their lives they'll be happy?
Your point is here?

yes, both fruit, though from different trees.

If you are allergic to cats and you pet a cat, you will suffer from the consequences of your physiological reaction to the cat. If you stay away from cats, no suffering. Same with drugs or alcohol. If you expose yourself to it, and you're an addict, you will suffer specific physiological reactions. If you remove yourself from exposure, the symptoms go away.

But either way, you're still allergic to cats , even if you aren't suffering an allergic reaction, and you're still an addict even if you aren't using.

i repeat, its the USING that is the choice. (certainly, some allergies you can't choose whether to be exposed or not, thats besides my point here)
1. On the symptoms. Your right they do suffer from specific reactions but they choose to take the drug/drink/etc that will cause them. They won't have the reactions unless they choose to put the drug, alcohol, etc in their body. I don't suppose people choose to inhale pollen or cat fur?
2. The your still an addict even if you arent using is an interesting point of view. How can you be addicted to something if you aren't doing it?

Are you saying here that once one does something often enough they cant quit cold turkey? I'm just trying to understand the last part of this because I can't quite make out what your trying to say.No, what I'm saying is that once someone does things long enough, they suffer from cold turkey. This is the disease part. They don't choose to suffer, its a consequence of their choice.

Economic Associates, let it go. Picking him apart isn't making any points either. Move on.

Having been an addict at one point, I can assure you its a choice. As to why someone would choose to be addicted, that is a much more complicated thing.

No, what I'm saying is that once someone does things long enough, they suffer from cold turkey. This is the disease part. They don't choose to suffer, its a consequence of their choice.

Well then here is the problem we are running up against. The symptoms of a disease are not a disease. When you cough up blood from a lung tumor that is not a disease only a sign of one. The effects of the action are not the disease.

Having been an addict at one point, I can assure you its a choice. As to why someone would choose to be addicted, that is a much more complicated thing.
Isn't it wierd that the two of us--the only admitted ex-drug addicts in this thread [though I'm one to talk: I still smoke pot] insist it's a choice?* Odd, that....


*To the third party reader: before you tear me a new asshole because you think it isn't, please read my previous post in response to the Nazz. I know some of it isn't after a certain point, because I've been there.

If you ever looked at an MRI scan of a cocaine addict or of someone suffering from depression you'd understand how it was a disease. Areas of brain activity in healthy individuals simply aren't working anymore in the addicted brain. The person's thought processes are completely different. The amygdala, critical to rational judgement, literally shrinks in size.

Mentall illnesses are physical conditions that alter the way your mind operates, and determine which neural connections get stimulated. Don't assume that just because the human brain isn't visible, medical researchers don't know some of what's going on in there. They know more than you think.

And to those of you who quit drugs, did you do it on your own? I bet you had a girlfriend/family member/loved one who helped you out, who intervened to help get you clean and then keep you clean. And I bet without that external support you'd be in a lot worse shape right now.

1. On the symptoms. Your right they do suffer from specific reactions but they choose to take the drug/drink/etc that will cause them. They won't have the reactions unless they choose to put the drug, alcohol, etc in their body. I don't suppose people choose to inhale pollen or cat fur?
2. The your still an addict even if you arent using is an interesting point of view. How can you be addicted to something if you aren't doing it?

1. I am making a distinction between the trigger and the consequence. The trigger is the allergen or the drug/alcohol. The consequence is the allergic reaction/addiction. You can avoid the trigger by making choices, but you cannot change the fact that your body reacts a certain way IF you are exposed.

2. The same way you can be allergic to cats even when there aren't cats around. You just don't SUFFER from the addiction if you avoid the trigger.

And yes, some people who are allergic to cats DO choose to pet cats and then take some Benadryl. Too bad there isn't a Benadryl for addiction. ;)

1. I am making a distinction between the trigger and the consequence. The trigger is the allergen or the drug/alcohol. The consequence is the allergic reaction/addiction. You can avoid the trigger by making choices, but you cannot change the fact that your body reacts a certain way IF you are exposed.

2. The same way you can be allergic to cats even when there aren't cats around. You just don't SUFFER from the addiction if you avoid the trigger.

And yes, some people who are allergic to cats DO choose to pet cats and then take some Benadryl. Too bad there isn't a Benadryl for addiction. ;)
I probably should have specified the fact that we are talking about addiction to drugs here. Taking that in mind a drug will always alter the bodies chemistry when injested. So of course if a person takes a drug they will have a reaction. The question then is are they making a choice to take said drug or is there some chemical or genetic cause that makes them do this without choosing to do so.

Addiction is not a choice, but you say some people can quit. That is because their choice to quit was stronger than their addiction.

And addiction is not a disease. I mean what the fuck, everything is a disease anymore. Next thing you know they will say eating, shiting and fucking are diseases.

If you ever looked at an MRI scan of a cocaine addict or of someone suffering from depression you'd understand how it was a disease. Areas of brain activity in healthy individuals simply aren't working anymore in the addicted brain. The person's thought processes are completely different. The amygdala, critical to rational judgement, literally shrinks in size.

Mentall illnesses are physical conditions that alter the way your mind operates, and determine which neural connections get stimulated. Don't assume that just because the human brain isn't visible, medical researchers don't know some of what's going on in there. They know more than you think.
In fairness, I don't think depression and addiction are quite the same thing. The discrepancies in a coke-addled brain compared to a normal one might also be attributed... .you know... to the massive amount of coke that the subject has obviously taken. The research done after addiction sets in doesn't answer the larger question behind this debate. I think most of us are prepared to admit that heroin addicts tend to lose grip of their judgement when it comes to heroin.
.

And to those of you who quit drugs, did you do it on your own? I bet you had a girlfriend/family member/loved one who helped you out, who intervened to help get you clean and then keep you clean. And I bet without that external support you'd be in a lot worse shape right now.
Nice try, but I did it all own my own, thanks. In fact, everyone around me at the time was doing meth all the time, and continued to do so after I quit. I bet that external support never existed.

Addiction is not a choice, but you say some people can quit. That is because their choice to quit was stronger than their addiction.

And addiction is not a disease. I mean what the fuck, everything is a disease anymore. Next thing you know they will say eating, shiting and fucking are diseases.

Well then if addiction is not a choice and not a disease what exactly is it?

Addiction is definitly not a choice. I do believe it IS a disease or at least like one. Addiction is something that developes. No one suddenly DECIDES to become an alcoholic and RUIN, yes RUIN their life. The very notion that addiction is a choice is absurd to me and, having an recovering alcoholic for a father, downright offensive. My father has struggled against alcoholism for many, many years. He has not taken a drink since I was three! He did not choose to be an addict, but he did choose to seek a cure. He still attends A.A., for personal strength and to help others fight addiction.

Addiction is not a choice, but it is not quite a disease either. It would be more like cancer metastasis in how it works.

Recently, researchers have discovered that cancers transmit a chemical signal that prevents dormant cancers from becoming active. Whenever that active cancer is removed surgically, the transmission of the chemical is cut off and therefore other cancer cells that had been laying low because of that signal start to manifest actively.

Similarly, addiction is a signal whether chemical or otherwise that keeps whatever part of the body individually as a whole from reacting badly to the withdrawal.

Addiction is not a choice, but you say some people can quit. That is because their choice to quit was stronger than their addiction.Unlike the flu, overcoming an addiction takes willpower. This does not disqualify it as a disease. Addiction most often comes with two components, the mental part and the physical part. You can get the mental addiction to stop through will power, but you can't "will" the physical symptoms of not feeding an addiction to stop on their own. It takes time and willpower not to give in.

Addiction is definitly not a choice. I do believe it IS a disease or at least like one. Addiction is something that developes. No one suddenly DECIDES to become an alcoholic and RUIN, yes RUIN their life. The very notion that addiction is a choice is absurd to me and, having an recovering alcoholic for a father, downright offensive. My father has struggled against alcoholism for many, many years. He has not taken a drink since I was three! He did not choose to be an addict, but he did choose to seek a cure. He still attends A.A., for personal strength and to help others fight addiction.

One question for you. How does addiction develop?

Addiction is not a choice, but it is not quite a disease either. It would be more like cancer metastasis in how it works.

Recently, researchers have discovered that cancers transmit a chemical signal that prevents dormant cancers from becoming active. Whenever that active cancer is removed surgically, the transmission of the chemical is cut off and therefore other cancer cells that had been laying low because of that signal start to manifest actively.

Similarly, addiction is a signal whether chemical or otherwise that keeps whatever part of the body individually as a whole from reacting badly to the withdrawal.
Cancer grows in you, but you do not introduce it to yourself. You don't choose to put that chemical in your body. You choose to smoke a cigarette, or to drink alcohol. The chemical reaction happens after you have put it there.

I probably should have specified the fact that we are talking about addiction to drugs here. Taking that in mind a drug will always alter the bodies chemistry when injested. So of course if a person takes a drug they will have a reaction. The question then is are they making a choice to take said drug or is there some chemical or genetic cause that makes them do this without choosing to do so.

It's not an either/or issue. It is possible for both conditions to be true.

For instance, my body is genetically hardwired to tell me when I am hungry and need food, but I choose whether to have a meal or not. There is both a chemical cause that I have no control of and a dimension of free will that I exercise. That's what it means to be human. We aren't mindless amoebas, but we aren't super-beings devoid of impulse either.

I've been trying to find a good way to phrase this and probably haven't, but in my view while quiting is a choice, remaining addicted is a non-choice. An addict doesn't chose to remain addicted, but can chose to quit. Even those with interupted use (a prison term for example) who go back to their drug are not so much chosing to regain their addiction as not chosing to remain free of it.

I noticed someone mentioned that s/he knows an individual who attends AA for 'personal strength.' Tell me, what 'personal strength' comes from an admission of powerlessness?

I went to one or two AA meetings and decided it was a load of garbage. They say AA is a valid treatment for alcoholism, then they turn around and say that it works if you want it to and doesn't work if you don't. You hardly ever hear anyone say that about penicillin.

Besides, if alcoholism [and therefore, we can assume, most other addictions] is a disease, then why has the treatment for it not changed at all in the last 50-some odd years? Isn't the whole point of fighting disease to develop new tactics and treatments with which to destroy it?

It's not an either/or issue. It is possible for both conditions to be true.

For instance, my body is genetically hardwired to tell me when I am hungry and need food, but I choose whether to have a meal or not. There is both a chemical cause that I have no control of and a dimension of free will that I exercise. That's what it means to be human. We aren't mindless amoebas, but we aren't super-beings devoid of impulse either.

Yes but you don't put that chemical in your body. Its a natural part of it. However you introduce the nicotine in a cigarette or heroine into you body. It doesn't get there unless you choose to ingest/inject/etc it or someone holds you down and forces it in you.

Cancer grows in you, but you do not introduce it to yourself. You don't choose to put that chemical in your body. You choose to smoke a cigarette, or to drink alcohol. The chemical reaction happens after you have put it there.What about kids whose mothers smoke whilst they're pregnant that have an unquenchable desire for cigarettes? This is a case of addiction without choice.

The question was whether or not addiction is a choice. While many addicts do actively make the decisions that lead them to become addicted, chemicals and hormones in the body (which aren't controlled significantly by choice) account for the main reasons people become addicted to alchohol and illegal (as well as certain legal) drugs.

One question for you. How does addiction develop?
It begins when someone loses the ability to stop themselves. Like, you know you should stop with two drinks, but you have a third, then a fourth, a fifth, so on and so forth. Really, you should be thinking, "Ok, this is too much," but the addiction counters rational thought, telling you to just take one more drink. Of course, alcohol is only one example. There are other addictions.

I noticed someone mentioned that s/he knows an individual who attends AA for 'personal strength.' Tell me, what 'personal strength' comes from an admission of powerlessness?

I went to one or two AA meetings and decided it was a load of garbage. They say AA is a valid treatment for alcoholism, then they turn around and say that it works if you want it to and doesn't work if you don't. You hardly ever hear anyone say that about penicillin.

Besides, if alcoholism [and therefore, we can assume, most other addictions] is a disease, then why has the treatment for it not changed at all in the last 50-some odd years? Isn't the whole point of fighting disease to develop new tactics with which to destroy it?Melkor, don't condemn AA if it wasn't what you needed. Not everyone is the same, and I'm sure it helps some people get off of alcohol.

What about kids whose mothers smoke whilst they're pregnant that have an unquenchable desire for cigarettes? This is a case of addiction without choice.
That is a result of the mother's decision to smoke and have nicotine go through her system. If the mother did not make the decision to smoke the kid would not have said desire for cigarettes. It all comes back to a choice though in this example the choice is made by the mother instead of the child. Without that choice the kid would not have the need for cigarettes.

It begins when someone loses the ability to stop themselves. Like, you know you should stop with two drinks, but you have a third, then a fourth, a fifth, so on and so forth. Really, you should be thinking, "Ok, this is too much," but the addiction counters rational thought, telling you to just take one more drink. Of course, alcohol is only one example. There are other addictions.
How do they lose the ability to stop themselves?

Yes but you don't put that chemical in your body. Its a natural part of it. However you introduce the nicotine in a cigarette or heroine into you body. It doesn't get there unless you choose to ingest/inject/etc it or someone holds you down and forces it in you.And when's the last time you injected yourself with influenza? ;)

That is a result of the mother's decision to smoke and have nicotine go through her system. If the mother did not make the decision to smoke the kid would not have said desire for cigarettes. It all comes back to a choice though in this example the choice is made by the mother instead of the child. Without that choice the kid would not have the need for cigarettes.So you're saying because there was a choice involved, said child is not "sick" because although it suffers from an unnatural need for nicotine, it is due to a choice and therefore it is perfectly healthy?

So you're saying because there was a choice involved, said child is not "sick" because although it suffers from an unnatural need for nicotine, it is due to a choice and therefore it is perfectly healthy?

Who said anything about it being healthy? You were saying that the kids were addicted without a choice. When in reality a choice is made but its by the mother who's choice has a direct effect on the child. Sure the kid will have the craving for nicotine. But they are going to choose to act on it or not.


It begins when someone loses the ability to stop themselves. Like, you know you should stop with two drinks, but you have a third, then a fourth, a fifth, so on and so forth. Really, you should be thinking, "Ok, this is too much," but the addiction counters rational thought, telling you to just take one more drink. Of course, alcohol is only one example. There are other addictions.
How do they lose the ability to stop themselves? I mean your own father choose to have the drink. If they were to lose the ability to stop themselves then by your own admission your father should still be an alcoholic.

And when's the last time you injected yourself with influenza? ;)
Last time I checked influenza was a disease and not a chemical. I don't suppose right after I take that injection I can say you know what I choose not to get sick and infact not get sick because of that choice.

I noticed someone mentioned that s/he knows an individual who attends AA for 'personal strength.' Tell me, what 'personal strength' comes from an admission of powerlessness?

I went to one or two AA meetings and decided it was a load of garbage. They say AA is a valid treatment for alcoholism, then they turn around and say that it works if you want it to and doesn't work if you don't. You hardly ever hear anyone say that about penicillin.

Besides, if alcoholism [and therefore, we can assume, most other addictions] is a disease, then why has the treatment for it not changed at all in the last 50-some odd years? Isn't the whole point of fighting disease to develop new tactics and treatments with which to destroy it?

The "personal strength" comes from the other members there. They lean on eachother for support, in some cases great friendships are forged. And they work to stay on top of eachother. Older members help newer members clean up and newer members remind older members of why they got clean or sober or whatever. I'm not an expert on A.A. I'm just basing this off of what my dad has told me about his experiences there.

Addiction is more of an abstract disease as well, not like a cancer or virus.

Melkor, don't condemn AA if it wasn't what you needed. Not everyone is the same, and I'm sure it helps some people get off of alcohol.
Yes. Like I said, it works when you want it to work. In that case, the variable is you, not AA. If it helps you get off the sauce that's perfectly fine, but a lot of folks run around claiming it's the be-all end-all of ending addiction, claiming that it's a 'scientific' method that's 'proven' to 'cure' addiction.

Addiction is more of an abstract disease as well, not like a cancer or virus.

A disease is a lession or a wound of the body. So show me how alocholism is a wound or lession of the body.

How do they lose the ability to stop themselves?

They get a physical or psychological dependence on the subtance due to either certain properties of the subtance (nicotene in cigarettes for example) or the effect alters their rationale to make them believe they need it. So when then try to quit, they feel horrible without the thing, need one last dose, go back for one thinking it'll be ok, and then it gets out of hand again and they're back at square one.

Addiction is characterized by tolerance to a substance (you need more to get the same effect) and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal. It is a real thing and no more of a choice then schizophrenia. Can a person who is addicted choose to quit and succeed even without help? Absolutely, but to say addiction is a choice is just plain wrong.

A disease is a lession or a wound of the body. So show me how alocholism is a wound or lession of the body.
Ok, then due to your strict definition of disease, an addiction is not one. That does not however, make it a choice.

It seems to me that before we can answer this question we need to draw a distinction between addiction and physical dependency:

"The medical community now carefully distinguishes between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological addiction (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm;' if there is no harm to the patient or another party, there is no addiction. The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated because of its pejorative connotations, especially in modern pain management with opioids where physical dependence is nearly universal but addiction is rare.

Physical dependency on a substance is defined by the appearance of characteristic withdrawal symptoms when the drug is suddenly discontinued. While opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, alcohol and nicotine are all well known for their ability to induce physical dependence, other drugs share this property that are not considered addictive: cortisone, beta-blockers and most antidepressants are examples. Also, some highly addictive drugs, such as cocaine, induce relatively little physical dependence. So while physical dependency can be a major factor in the psychology of addiction, the primary attribute of an addictive drug is its ability to induce euphoria while causing harm."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction )

I've never (EDIT: had a drug habit), but it would seem to me that physical dependence can seriously inhibit or disrupt an individuals ability to exercise free will (indeed, I consider a strong anti-drug abuse stance to be integral to my libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29) beliefs for exactly that reason - although I do oppose drug prohibition). At the same time, however, people do quit their drug habits all the time. So, while the process can be extremely difficult or even dangerous, drug habits can be overcome; people can choose to quit. Besides, a person is responsible for his actions if he freely chooses the very first dose, before any addiction or physical dependency is present.

They get a physical or psychological dependence on the subtance due to either certain properties of the subtance (nicotene in cigarettes for example) or the effect alters their rationale to make them believe they need it. So when then try to quit, they feel horrible without the thing, need one last dose, go back for one thinking it'll be ok, and then it gets out of hand again and they're back at square one.

All drugs alter the bodies chemistry. Its a fact and we all agree on that point. There bodies can develop a dependency on the chemical which if taken away cause certain effects such as the feelings you just described or other symptoms of withdrawl. However many people who have developed the dependence on the drug proceed to quit. If they did not choose to stop the action how exactly does the addiction go away?

Over the past fifty years, there has been a lot of research into addiction and, all of this research has failed to corroborate the disease model. Whether it be alcohol or illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, or marijuana, the evidence clearly shows that people who consume these substances can control their intake. For example, they will reduce their consumption if they are given incentives to do so. Many of them will abruptly quit or moderate if their circumstances change.- Jeffery Schaler "Why Addiction is a Choice"

Ok, then due to your strict definition of disease, an addiction is not one. That does not however, make it a choice.
Sure it is. People make bad, self destructive choices all the time. Your father choose to drink and in the end he choose to stop. The addiction to alcohol was brought about by your father's conscious choice to drink.

Who said anything about it being healthy? You were saying that the kids were addicted without a choice. When in reality a choice is made but its by the mother who's choice has a direct effect on the child. Sure the kid will have the craving for nicotine. But they are going to choose to act on it or not.OF COURSE they choose whether to act on it or not, but most children most certainly do not have the willpower to resist. And that doesn't account for the craving, which is the disease we're talking about.

Last time I checked influenza was a disease and not a chemical. I don't suppose right after I take that injection I can say you know what I choose not to get sick and infact not get sick because of that choice.This may surprise you, but a hormone isn't any more or less chemical than the influenza virus.
You know, you CAN'T choose not to get phyisically addicted to heroin or cigarettes either. (And you're also more likely to recover faster from a flu if you think you'll recover.)

OF COURSE they choose whether to act on it or not, but most children most certainly do not have the willpower to resist. And that doesn't account for the craving, which is the disease we're talking about.

How is a craving a disease? A disease is a wound or lession of the body. Show me what type of wound or lession a craving is. If the child does not have the willpower to resist then they will choose to smoke. They are the ones who are going to light up because of a concious decision to do so. Either they choose to resist the craving or they choose to give into it but either way its a choice.

I used to smoke a pack of cigarettes almost everyday, and I did that for twenty two years... Then my daughter started coming home from school crying every time she saw me light up. She claimed that she had learned that I was sure to die.... etc., etc., etc.

Then I quite smoking purely for the singular purpose that my daughter told me she needed me to quit, with daily tears in her eyes. Then, after a couple of weeks, I went to the school and beat the hell out of that damn bitch that told my daughter that her Dad was going to die. (just kidding, but I suffered :p )

Now, 16 months later and smokeless, I'm here to tell you that addiction is a choice.

If you want to quit, stinking quit. Stinking rotten addictions anyway, those bastards, just STOP. Don't do it. Quit. Period.

Before I go to sleep, I just want to make another point.

An addiction is not literally a disease. It does have warning signs or symptoms though. There are very harmful effects associated with addiction. The addiction itself can control someones mind, long after they think they are better. It is unfair to think people choose to become addicts. There must be something wrong where the person looses control. I would have to research the topic for a while to form a concrete argument. Certainly the initial choice to use the substance is there, but many people handle drinking and gambling and such fine without addiction. So, addicts can't be blamed for trying something (unless it's illegal, in which case no one should be trying it)

Now, like a disease, addiction can be beaten too. It takes a lot of willpower to cause overpower the addiction and often a person needs help from others. Even then, the addiction is still there waiting for another opportunity to regain control.

Sleep now. I'd probably make a better argument on a full-tank, so to speak.

http://www.ni-cor.com/thediseaseconceptandbrainchemistry.html

http://www.bhrm.org/papers/addpapers.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/

How is a craving a disease? A disease is a wound or lession of the body. Show me what type of wound or lession a craving is. If the child does not have the willpower to resist then they will choose to smoke. They are the ones who are going to light up because of a concious decision to do so. Either they choose to resist the craving or they choose to give into it but either way its a choice.Not quite true. Children do not have the mental capability of resisting temptation that adults do. This is due to the brain structure of small children. It's still developing. And feeling all jittery until you light up is what I'd consider a disease.

Before I go to sleep, I just want to make another point.

An addiction is not literally a disease. It does have warning signs or symptoms though. There are very harmful effects associated with addiction. The addiction itself can control someones mind, long after they think they are better. It is unfair to think people choose to become addicts. There must be something wrong where the person looses control. I would have to research the topic for a while to form a concrete argument. Certainly the initial choice to use the substance is there, but many people handle drinking and gambling and such fine without addiction. So, addicts can't be blamed for trying something (unless it's illegal, in which case no one should be trying it)
This is one of the main reasons why people want to say addiction is a disease. They want to remove blame from that person. In the end though those people choose to become addicts. They choose to take the first drink, second drink and so on. Each time they are presented with the choice they either stop or keep doing so. In the end its up to the person to make the choice to stop.

Now, like a disease, addiction can be beaten too. It takes a lot of willpower to cause overpower the addiction and often a person needs help from others. Even then, the addiction is still there waiting for another opportunity to regain control.
This is another perplexing idea about addiction. Even when your clean your still addicted. How is it that when your no longer introducing the chemicals into your body you are still addicted to them?

A disease is a lession or a wound of the body. So show me how alocholism is a wound or lession of the body.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/gallery/neuroscience/images/scansp150.gif

Comparing a non-alcoholic's brain to that of an alcoholic. It seems to me to be a pretty significant physiological mental affliction. Addiction physically changes the way one's brain operates, just as persistent smoke inhalation changes the functionality of the lungs.

I would actually classify mental illness as being more unhealthy than most other bodily injuries. It is possible to repair damaged organs, and to replace a damaged lung, limb, or even heart. But there is no cure for a damaged brain.

Not quite true. Children do not have the mental capability of resisting temptation that adults do. This is due to the brain structure of small children. It's still developing. And feeling all jittery until you light up is what I'd consider a disease.

A disease is a wound or lession of the body. How is feeling jittery until you light up a disease. If you were to say the lung cancer cause by smoking was a disease you would have been right. But a feeling is not a disease. In the end the kid is the one who will choose. Even if the kid does not have the capacity to resist the temptation that means the they will continue to be addicted to smoking. But every time the kid has the craving to light up they can either choose to do so or not. This does not change if they don't have the mental capability of resisting temptation. This only means they are more likely to choose to smoke.

That's great--for you. You are not representative of the wide range of human physiology, so to assume that because you beat an addiction that it follows that addiction is a choice is arrogant in the extreme.

Well, nazz, if you havent had an addiction, and think that, you're an arrogant bastard to assume that someone has gone through that is wrong because they dont agree with you, and if you have had an addiction and think its a disease : you're a pathetic loser who is just trying to adjust things so its not your fault. The only way that it isnt a choice is if someone forced a person to smoke/inject/do whatever with whatever it is that their currently addicted to. heh. your not exaclty representative of the population either you know. And yeah, i have been addicted, to painkillers and antidepressants.
To the point where I couldnt function properly without them. Its a choice. I thought: this is costing to much, is probably stuffing me up, I'll stop. I could afford them easily still, so dont use 'you couldn't afford them' in an argument. I would just rather not waste money.
I gave up, despite feeling like crap for weeks afterwards. Now, kids, if you get withdrawal symptoms, that means that you were physically addicted. If you want them, that means your mentally addicted too. So you cant go round saying that if people quit by themselves its because they weren't addicted. If, despite wanting to take them, and feeling like your heads about to split and your going to throw up, you stop taking them, that means its a goddamned choice.

The "personal strength" comes from the other members there...
Then it's not really a 'personal strength,' then is it? Really, did you even think this through before you posted it?

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/gallery/neuroscience/images/scansp150.gif

Comparing a non-alcoholic's brain to that of an alcoholic. It seems to me to be a pretty significant physiological mental affliction. Addiction physically changes the way one's brain operates, just as persistent smoke inhalation changes the functionality of the lungs.

Okay here is your problem you seemd to be confused between the activity and the actual disease.

People assume that because some activity may cause disease, it is a disease. It should be clear that this is not so. Various injuries are associated with sports, and there are even medical specialists who focus on sports injuries. But playin sports is not a disease. If you consume a lot of alcohol you may get cirrhosis of the liver. If you smoke cigarettes you may get lung cancer. If you ski you may break an arm or a leg. These are activites which can cause diseases, but this doesn't show that they are themselves diseases.-Jeffery Schaler "Why addiction is a choice"

In this case the brain damage that results from drinking the alcohol is the disease. However the actual drinking is not a disease.


I would actually classify mental illness as being more unhealthy than most other bodily injuries. It is possible to repair damaged organs, and to replace a damaged lung, limb, or even heart. But there is no cure for a damaged brain.
A mental illness is a considered a disease of the mind not the brain. So if we agree that a disease is a wound or lession of the body how can the mind have a wound or a lession?

Well, nazz, if you havent had an addiction, and think that, you're an arrogant bastard to assume that someone has gone through that is wrong because they dont agree with you, and if you have had an addiction and think its a disease : you're a pathetic loser who is just trying to adjust things so its not your fault.

WARNED! for flaming. Read my user title, then remove foot from mouth.

Please don't do it again: besides, I already answered this statement in a much more appropriate manner. Seeing as he was talking to me in the first place, I see little reason for you to intervene, especially since this statement appeared a number of pages ago.

There seem to be lots of loose terms through around here without much definition. "Addiction," "disease," and "choice are primary culprits that need defintion.

What is a choice?

What is a disease?

disease (http://216.251.232.159/semdweb/internetsomd/ASP/1510286.asp) : Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition ("1. An interruption, cessation, or disorder of body function, system, or organ. Syn: illness, morbus, sickness. 2. A morbid entity characterized usually by at least two of these criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations. 3. iterally, dis-ease, the opposite of ease, when something is wrong with a bodily function.
4. nosophobia, pathophobia")

disease (http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_d_22zPzhtm#973496) : Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary ("any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of a part, organ, or system of the body as manifested by characteristic symptoms and signs; the etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown.")

What is an addiction?

addiction (http://216.251.232.159/semdweb/internetsomd/ASP/1486527.asp) : Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition ("Habitual psychological and physiologic dependence on a substance or practice that is beyond voluntary control. ")

Addiction (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/Art.asp?articlekey=10177) : MedTerms.com Medical Dictionary ("Addiction: A chronic relapsing condition characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain. Addiction is the same irrespective of whether the drug is alcohol, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or nicotine. Every addictive substance induces pleasant states or relieves distress. Continued use of the addictive substance induces adaptive changes in the brain that lead to tolerance, physical dependence, uncontrollable craving and, all too often, relapse. Dependence is at such a point that stopping is very difficult and causes severe physical and mental reactions from withdrawal. The risk of addiction is in part inherited. Genetic factors, for example, account for about 40% of the risk of alcoholism. The genetic factors predisposing to addiction are not yet fully understood. ")

addiction (http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_a_13zPzhtm#915094) : Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary ("1. the state of being given up to some habit or compulsion. 2. strong physiological and psychological dependence on a drug or other psychoactive substance")

Addicition is a disease

The American Medical Association endorsed the concept in 1957. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the World Health Organization and the American College of Physicians have also classified alcoholism as a disease.

I am equating addiction with dependence under the Substance-Related Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Model (http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html) (DSM IV). That is, by definition, a disease.

For example, Alcohol dependence is a disease defined by the DSM IV (http://www.psychologynet.org/alcohol.html).

The National Institute of Health (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/q-a.htm) also characterizes alcoholism as a disease.

I don't believe addiction is a choice, as scientists have found that some people are genetically predisposed to be more likely to become addicted to things than others. True that as individuals we don't always go the way our genes dictate, but seeing as they've found it on that level, that suggests to me that its' not something we have much say in, whether we can smoke a few cigarettes down the pub in our teens then just stop one day, or whether that turns into a lifelong habit.

Addiction is characterized by tolerance to a substance (you need more to get the same effect) and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal. It is a real thing and no more of a choice then schizophrenia. Can a person who is addicted choose to quit and succeed even without help? Absolutely, but to say addiction is a choice is just plain wrong.
addiction is nothing like schizophrenia. someone can choose to quit thier addiction(you said that) you can't choose not to be schizophrenic, you need medicine.

Addiction is difficult and yes you have chemical changes in your body because of the drugs, does that mean that the drugs gave you a disease NO.

Addiction is a personality flaw. Someone off of drugs, fully clean, has no difference in brain chemicals than someone who was never addicted to anything. Do you still have a tendency to get addicted then? yes you do, because you have a personality flaw.
I think that a disease is something that causes adverse effects on your body that are uncontrollable without medicine or surgery. Addiction does not fit this description. (many mental illnesses do ie depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder ect, but addiction does not. therefor it is a choice.)

As a former drug addict, I can tell you that in my opinion drug addiction is a choice. I chose to use and I chose to quit. It wasn't easy, it wasn't fun. There are days 7 years later that still aren't easy and still aren't fun, but I choose not to use anymore. Addictive personality isn't a disease, it is a personality flaw, just like someone who is a perfectionist (do NOT read OCD that actually is a disease) but like I said that is just one former addicts opinion, in NA they tried to pull that crap about it being a disease like diabetes, one that you can control most of the time. I decided that I would be in control, and that calling it a disease is a cop out. If you don't want to do drugs then don't, it's hard to quit so don't start and if you've already started then stop now. Get support. Don't give up, and don't whine to me about it.
Congratulations on your recovery and best wishes for you to remain clean and sober. However, I do think that you have interpreted addiction incorrectly. From what I understand, addiction is in fact a disease (http://www.soberrecovery.com/):

What is addiction? Addiction is a disease that affects your brain and your behavior. When you become addicted to alcohol or other drugs, your brain actually changes in certain ways. Someone who is addicted uses drugs without thinking of the consequences, such as problems with health, money, relationships and performance at work or at school.

It is also my understanding that many who recover are the ones that were able to identify that their addiction was in fact a disease, and that their well being is based on a lifetime program of recovery, and that they cannot do it alone.

Here's a hypothetical case:

Person A drinks alcohol regularly. He goes without it for whatever reason and finds that he doesn't miss it. He is not addicted to alcohol.

Person B drinks alcohol regularly. He goes without if for whatever reason and finds that he does miss it. It causes both physical and psychological pain. He is addicted to alcohol.

The difference here is not that they each chose to have a drink. Of course that's a choice. The difference is that one of them is addicted, and one isn't, without any individual involvement from either person A or B.

Ya I think taking the initial choice of taking the item of addiction is the persons own, but there are always two sides to every arguement. Breaking it down into a simple yes or no isn't the easist of options.

Here's a hypothetical case:

Person A drinks alcohol regularly. He goes without it for whatever reason and finds that he doesn't miss it. He is not addicted to alcohol.

Person B drinks alcohol regularly. He goes without if for whatever reason and finds that he does miss it. It causes both physical and psychological pain. He is addicted to alcohol.

The difference here is not that they each chose to have a drink. Of course that's a choice. The difference is that one of them is addicted, and one isn't, without any individual involvement from either person A or B.


That's very true. Addiction, as in the state in which a person has a bio-chemically induced urge to do something, is part of someone's physiology. It can therefore be called a disease.

On the other hand, a person with such a disease will always still have the choice to quit doing it. They are not zombies, unable to control their actions. The disease simply affects the parameters of the choice, making it much harder not to do something than it would be for a normal person, because they have the effects of non-gratification to deal with (like cold turkey for heroin addicts), which non-addicts don't have to think about when they make the choice. And that makes a massive difference.


So I don't think it's quite as simple as saying it is either a disease or a choice. I think the question doesn't quite address the root of the issue.

I wish there was an "Other" option in the poll.

The first few times you use an addictive drug like heroin, for example, it's purely by choice. Later it's still a choice, but other factors come into play. Physical symptoms of withdrawl make one decide to keep using because withdrawal is painfull and unpleasant, and because it may be inconvenient to just take a few days to sit in bed and drink plenty of fluids while your body adjusts to life without drugs. Also drugs rewire your brain chemistry. They make it more difficult to decide not to use because your brain begins to crave them. You feel like there's an itch that's nagging you and can only be scratched with your drug of choice.

Using drugs is a decision that becomes easier to make over time. Quitting drugs is also a decision but it's one that becomes progressively more difficult to make due to physical withdrawal and the changes in the brain of an addict.

Here's a hypothetical case:

Person A drinks alcohol regularly. He goes without it for whatever reason and finds that he doesn't miss it. He is not addicted to alcohol.

Person B drinks alcohol regularly. He goes without if for whatever reason and finds that he does miss it. It causes both physical and psychological pain. He is addicted to alcohol.

The difference here is not that they each chose to have a drink. Of course that's a choice. The difference is that one of them is addicted, and one isn't, without any individual involvement from either person A or B.
true but couldn't you also say that person a doesn't have an addictive personality and person b does? I don't see how this proves one way or the other.

starting the bad habit is a choice however addiction is not. nobody wants to be addicted to things

A disease is a wound or lession of the body.
Under your definition, getting poked by a needle is a disease. Also under your definition, schitzophrenia is not a disease. Hell, several forms of cancer aren't diseases with your definition. AIDS isn't a disease under your definition.

Long story short, your definition is complete and utter crap.

starting the bad habit is a choice however addiction is not. nobody wants to be addicted to things
no but nobody wants to be stressed out all the time either. dealing with stress is similar to dealing with addiction. stress isn't a disease. someone who gets stressed out easily has a personality flaw, they have to learn to avoid stress and change thier thinking patterns. stress can have physical symptoms, and can even lead to other diseases, but stress isn't a disease and neither is addiction.

Under your definition, getting poked by a needle is a disease. Also under your definition, schitzophrenia is not a disease. Hell, several forms of cancer aren't diseases with your definition. AIDS isn't a disease under your definition.

Long story short, your definition is complete and utter crap.

Lesion- 1. A wound or injury.
2. A localized pathological change in a bodily organ or tissue.
3. An infected or diseased patch of skin.

wound-
1. Injury to a part or tissue of the body, especially one caused by physical trauma and characterized by tearing, cutting, piercing, or breaking of the tissue.
2. An incision.

Looks like by my deffenition aids and cancer are a disease. I would go into schitozophrenia but I made a thread on that already and I don't want to derail this one. Looks like my definition is not crap after all. How about next time you actually try to debunk it instead of just trying to insult me?

It seems to me that before we can answer this question we need to draw a distinction between addiction and physical dependency:

"The medical community now carefully distinguishes between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological addiction (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm;' if there is no harm to the patient or another party, there is no addiction. The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated because of its pejorative connotations, especially in modern pain management with opioids where physical dependence is nearly universal but addiction is rare.

Physical dependency on a substance is defined by the appearance of characteristic withdrawal symptoms when the drug is suddenly discontinued. While opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, alcohol and nicotine are all well known for their ability to induce physical dependence, other drugs share this property that are not considered addictive: cortisone, beta-blockers and most antidepressants are examples. Also, some highly addictive drugs, such as cocaine, induce relatively little physical dependence. So while physical dependency can be a major factor in the psychology of addiction, the primary attribute of an addictive drug is its ability to induce euphoria while causing harm."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction )

I've never (EDIT: had a drug habit), but it would seem to me that physical dependence can seriously inhibit or disrupt an individuals ability to exercise free will (indeed, I consider a strong anti-drug abuse stance to be integral to my libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29) beliefs for exactly that reason - although I do oppose drug prohibition). At the same time, however, people do quit their drug habits all the time. So, while the process can be extremely difficult or even dangerous, drug habits can be overcome; people can choose to quit. Besides, a person is responsible for his actions if he freely chooses the very first dose, before any addiction or physical dependency is present.
I think this is a very important point we need to recognize. There is a difference between the terms physical dependence and addiction.


I wish there was an "Other" option in the poll.

The first few times you use an addictive drug like heroin, for example, it's purely by choice. Later it's still a choice, but other factors come into play. Physical symptoms of withdrawl make one decide to keep using because withdrawal is painfull and unpleasant, and because it may be inconvenient to just take a few days to sit in bed and drink plenty of fluids while your body adjusts to life without drugs. Also drugs rewire your brain chemistry. They make it more difficult to decide not to use because your brain begins to crave them. You feel like there's an itch that's nagging you and can only be scratched with your drug of choice.

Using drugs is a decision that becomes easier to make over time. Quitting drugs is also a decision but it's one that becomes progressively more difficult to make due to physical withdrawal and the changes in the brain of an addict.
I thought the unsure option would be enough for a third option. And to reply to your point yes as a person uses a drug more and more they become physically dependent on it. It makes it harder to quit the drug but in the end they are still choosing to quite. We make hard decisions every day and the decision to quit using a drug is a very hard decision.

no but nobody wants to be stressed out all the time either. dealing with stress is similar to dealing with addiction. stress isn't a disease. someone who gets stressed out easily has a personality flaw, they have to learn to avoid stress and change thier thinking patterns. stress can have physical symptoms, and can even lead to other diseases, but stress isn't a disease and neither is addiction.
Addiction as a Disease (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/)

Scientific research into addiction, however, has led experts to conclude that addiction is actually a disease, a chronic illness like diabetes or hypertension. The American Medical Association broke new ground approximately forty years ago when it declared alcoholism to be a disease. And in the past decade, dramatic advances in technology have allowed scientists to examine the brain itself in search of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of addiction. Today, scientists and physicians overwhelmingly agree that while use and even abuse of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine is a behavior over which the individual exerts control, addiction to these substances is something different. Scientists have begun to understand why addicted people may sacrifice everything that's important to them -- their jobs, their families, their homes -- in the quest for a chemical fix.

"When you get into an addicted state, it's a disease of the brain," says Alan Leshner, Ph.D., director of the federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Leshner says the stigma associated with alcohol and drug addiction is one of the biggest problems experts continually face in dealing with it. Leshner says that the public has little sympathy for addicts, but he adds that "whether you like the person or not, you've got to deal with [their problem] as an illness."

Why do you believe that addiction is not a disease? Is that your personal thought on the matter or do you have professional information that you could share to clarify your belief?

Addiction as a Disease (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/)


"When you get into an addicted state, it's a disease of the brain," says Alan Leshner, Ph.D., director of the federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Leshner says the stigma associated with alcohol and drug addiction is one of the biggest problems experts continually face in dealing with it. Leshner says that the public has little sympathy for addicts, but he adds that "whether you like the person or not, you've got to deal with [their problem] as an illness."[/i]

Why do you believe that addiction is not a disease? Is that your personal thought on the matter or do you have professional information that you could share to clarify your belief?

1. Show me what part of the brain is diseased that causes people to drink.
2. You should remember to quote all of the relevant article

The so-called disease model doesn't mean that addicts cannot stop using drugs -- only that doing so is difficult and often requires treatment and major lifestyle changes. Addiction is a disease that causes changes in the brain, which then drive certain behavior -- taking the drug compulsively -- but addicts can learn to change the behavior.

While I might have started smoking voluntarily by choice, I am now addicted to nicotine and can't say that it's a choice any longer. I can't stop. Isn't that how addiction is defined?

While I might have started smoking voluntarily by choice, I am now addicted to nicotine and can't say that it's a choice any longer. I can't stop. Isn't that how addiction is defined?

Why can't you stop? I mean if you can not stop then certainly other smokers should not be able to stop either. Yet there are plenty of smokers who choose to stop smoking and do so. How would you explain this?

Addiction as a Disease (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/)

Scientific research into addiction, however, has led experts to conclude that addiction is actually a disease, a chronic illness like diabetes or hypertension. The American Medical Association broke new ground approximately forty years ago when it declared alcoholism to be a disease. And in the past decade, dramatic advances in technology have allowed scientists to examine the brain itself in search of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of addiction. Today, scientists and physicians overwhelmingly agree that while use and even abuse of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine is a behavior over which the individual exerts control, addiction to these substances is something different. Scientists have begun to understand why addicted people may sacrifice everything that's important to them -- their jobs, their families, their homes -- in the quest for a chemical fix.

"When you get into an addicted state, it's a disease of the brain," says Alan Leshner, Ph.D., director of the federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Leshner says the stigma associated with alcohol and drug addiction is one of the biggest problems experts continually face in dealing with it. Leshner says that the public has little sympathy for addicts, but he adds that "whether you like the person or not, you've got to deal with [their problem] as an illness."

Why do you believe that addiction is not a disease? Is that your personal thought on the matter or do you have professional information that you could share to clarify your belief?

mostly it is my personal opinion. I have seen studys that show that the tendency to get addicted is a personality flaw but I can't really find any of them today (bad luck on my part) I don't dispute that there are severe physical side effects that are associated with drug abuse and also with quitting, I don't think that addiction in itself is a disease.

1. Show me what part of the brain is diseased that causes people to drink.
I am not a doctor, but there were some pictures earlier in this thread that displayed an alcoholic brain and a normal brain and they were disimilar through abuse.

2. You should remember to quote all of the relevant article.

The so-called disease model doesn't mean that addicts cannot stop using drugs -- only that doing so is difficult and often requires treatment and major lifestyle changes. Addiction is a disease that causes changes in the brain, which then drive certain behavior -- taking the drug compulsively -- but addicts can learn to change the behavior.
I posted some of the more relevant facts. I didn't think it necessary to post the entire article.

Even in the section you posted, it points out that "addition is a disease".

I am not a doctor, but there were some pictures earlier in this thread that displayed an alcoholic brain and a normal brain and they were disimilar through abuse.
just because the brains were disimilar through abuse, doesn't mean that addiction changed the brain, when you use alcohol you are ingesting a toxic substance, any toxic substance can do damage to your body. It doesn't mean that being addicted to them is a disease.

I am not a doctor, but there were some pictures earlier in this thread that displayed an alcoholic brain and a normal brain and they were disimilar through abuse.
Well then that is brain damamge caused by drinking. That does not mean the actual drinking is the disease.

People assume that because some activity may cause disease, it is a disease. It should be clear that this is not so. Various injuries are associated with sports, and there are even medical specialists who focus on sports injuries. But playin sports is not a disease. If you consume a lot of alcohol you may get cirrhosis of the liver. If you smoke cigarettes you may get lung cancer. If you ski you may break an arm or a leg. These are activites which can cause diseases, but this doesn't show that they are themselves diseases.-Jeffery Schaler "Why addiction is a choice"

I posted some of the more relevant facts. I didn't think it necessary to post the entire article.

Even in the section you posted, it points out that "addition is a disease".

And I've pointed out that a disease is a lesion or a wound of the body. So what part of the body is addiction a disease of?

I don't think that addiction in itself is a disease.
Apparently the medical professionals disagree with your opinion?

Do you place a particular importance on whether addiction is a "choice" or a "disease"?

Apparently the medical professionals disagree with your opinion?
Not all medical professionals agree on this. In America addiction is viewed as a disease while in Britain it is viewed as a choice.

Do you place a particular importance on whether addiction is a "choice" or a "disease"?
What is the point of this question?

The act of getting an addiction (such as starting to smoke) is almost always a choice, but the act of having one is most certainly not. (Whay else would it be hard work to quit smoking? If it was a choice, you could just say "I'm done" and never have anything to do with it again.) This is, because addictions cause the release of chemicals on the brain that cause you to crave whatever it is that you're addicted to. The release of these chemicals is not a choice. (Although, fo heroin addicts, someone recently came up with a drug that is supposed to be able to block the release of these chemicals, thus freeing people from the addiction. So far, it is legal in some countries, but in the U.S, it is still being tested by the FDA.)

Apparently the medical professionals disagree with your opinion?

Do you place a particular importance on whether addiction is a "choice" or a "disease"?
I battled addiction to drugs and alcohol for many years. I found that it was easier to stay addicted when I was told that my addiction was a disease and that "I couldn't help it" I nearly died because of people telling me that. One day I ended up in rehab with someone who told me what I to believe to be the truth. That is, that I had flawed thinking that led me to abuse drugs in the first place and that by realizing that I can quit abusing drugs and re-train myself to avoid addictions in the future. I know that I was physically addicted, I ended up in the hospital for detox, because of severe symptoms. I do not think that my physical symtoms were caused by my "addictive personality" but more because I was pumping my body full of toxins. It is hard for me still to explain myself very well, so I am sorry if this is confusing to read. I know that you can be psychologically and physically addicted to things, I also know that you can quit and train yourself not to be overcome with addiction. In my opinion a disease is something that you can't overcome without medical intervention (ie medicine, surgery) a personality flaw is something that while it may be hard to change you can through non-medical intervention (counseling,will power,ect.)
For example Bipolar disorder is a disease because you need medicine to overcome it, cancer is a disease because you need chemo/surgery to overcome it. Addiction, stress, and obesity are not diseases because you can overcome them without the help of medicine.
and before anyone tries to jump all over me about the obesity thing, I have been fat, 5ft2in and 250lbs and lost 90 pounds without diet pills or surgery, and yes overcoming that was just as hard (if not harder) than overcoming drugs, but it isn't a disease. (although it can lead to diseases just like drug abuse)

I would also say that an addiction is not a choice or a disease. It is a chemical reaction (as in, your reaction to the chemical). It is not a disease, but rather a symptom and a side effect.

Well then that is brain damamge caused by drinking. That does not mean the actual drinking is the disease.

People assume that because some activity may cause disease, it is a disease. It should be clear that this is not so. Various injuries are associated with sports, and there are even medical specialists who focus on sports injuries. But playin sports is not a disease. If you consume a lot of alcohol you may get cirrhosis of the liver. If you smoke cigarettes you may get lung cancer. If you ski you may break an arm or a leg. These are activites which can cause diseases, but this doesn't show that they are themselves diseases.-Jeffery Schaler "Why addiction is a choice"

And I've pointed out that a disease is a lesion or a wound of the body. So what part of the body is addiction a disease of?
Well, I am not about to get into a pissing match about the beliefs of Dr. Jeffery Schaler. I don't know if his qualifications as a psychologist trumps those of the medical profession, and I would have my reservations in that regard.

Whatever works for the individual is the key, and there has been a lot of success in the programs that have preceeded his works?

The act of getting an addiction (such as starting to smoke) is almost always a choice, but the act of having one is most certainly not. (Whay else would it be hard work to quit smoking? If it was a choice, you could just say "I'm done" and never have anything to do with it again.) This is, because addictions cause the release of chemicals on the brain that cause you to crave whatever it is that you're addicted to. The release of these chemicals is not a choice. (Although, fo heroin addicts, someone recently came up with a drug that is supposed to be able to block the release of these chemicals, thus freeing people from the addiction. So far, it is legal in some countries, but in the U.S, it is still being tested by the FDA.)

I would agree that the choice to quit is not easy but it is still a choice. We make hard choices every day. Also you have to realise that drugs alter the bodies chemistry. So of course when you take them there will be chemcials released from the ingestion of them. And of course you don't choose to release the chemicals but you choose to put the drug which does so into you body. So in the end it is your choice which causes the chemical reactions to happen. On cravings, we experience cravings all the time wheteher its for food or other things and we choose to not give into them all the time. You can choose to give into the cravings or you can choose not to.

ADDICTION IS NOT A CHOICE OR A DISEASE!



(please see earlier posts)

Sorry about that; I wrote the thing in big letters before I realised that someone had responded. Just a second and I'll write my response.

Isn't it weird that the two of us--the only admitted ex-drug addicts in this thread [though I'm one to talk: I still smoke pot] insist it's a choice?* Odd, that....


Its highly ironic. I can also add that I suffer from Bipolar Disorder, so I know full well the implications that has on a persons choices. I chose to get high, because, golly geee, IT WORKED. Only for the 1st 2 years, but it damn sure solved the problems I was having. I think you can only get over a drug addiction if you realize its not worth it and that you do indeed have the power to make a different choice besides using drugs (which have usually stopped working by that point anyway).

I used to believe addiction was disease. When I made my first attempt to get clean, I had the extreme misfortune of intersecting with that dreadful organization, Narcotics Anonymous. They shovelled me full of their BS about addiction being a disease and I believed it, because of the state I was in at the time. (going cold turkey off of Morphine, have been high daily, for 2 years straight)

The concept of Addiction as a Disease is part an parcel of the 12-Step Movement (AA, NA, etc.) and it would be foolish to discuss Addiction as Disease without discussing the groups that have made it part of their agenda.

The AMA has let a bunch of addicts and alcoholics define addiction for them. Unfortunately, that definition is just another excuse for the addict to continue their behaviour.

The entire 12 Step movement is ludicrous, and is nothing more than the blind leading the lost. The 12 Step movement are the ones we have to blame for the entire idea of Addiction as a Disease. Its a ridiculous situtation, and it doesn't look like the concept will be going away anytime soon.

Well, I am not about to get into a pissing match about the beliefs of Dr. Jeffery Schaler. I don't know if his qualifications as a psychologist trumps those of the medical profession, and I would have my reservations in that regard.
Jeffery Schaler, Ph.D. is a professor of justice, law, and society at American University's School of Public Affairs in Washington D.C., and Exectuive Editor of Current Psychology. He is the author of several books, including "Addiction is a Choice."


Whatever works for the individual is the key, and there has been a lot of success in the programs that have preceeded his works?
I'm not questioning the programs here, rather looking at addiction and trying to classifiy it either as a disease or a choice. From what I've seen it looks to be a choice. But if you want to talk about the treatment these programs give here is another quote.

Since the theory that addiction is a disease is constantly screamed at us, and usually followed by the demand that what adicts need is "treatment," you might suppose that "treatment" is medical. You might imagine that people who go for addiction treatment are given a physical examination, diagnosed as addicts, and then given pills or perhaps operated on, to "treat" their addiction. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am familiar with "addiction treatment" as it is actually conducted, and I can tell you that it is virtually never like this.

Addiction treatment consists of trying to motivate the addict to give up the activity, such as drug-taking, to which he or she is addicted. Much of addiction treatment is derived from the Twelve Step approach associated with Alcoholics Anonymous and its various offshoots. As a matter of simpel fact, addiction treatment in the United States today does not consist of doing things to the addict's body, to correct some physical malfunction. It consists of talking to the addict, sometimes sympathetically, sometimes threateningly, somtimes cajolingly, to get the addict to change his outlook. I am not opposed to talking to addicts, offering them advice and help, or even trying to change their outlooks. What I object to is the pretence that this is medicine.-Jeffery Schaler "Why addiction is a choice"

Its highly ironic. I can also add that I suffer from Bipolar Disorder, so I know full well the implications that has on a persons choices. I chose to get high, because, golly geee, IT WORKED. Only for the 1st 2 years, but it damn sure solved the problems I was having. I think you can only get over a drug addiction if you realize its not worth it and that you do indeed have the power to make a different choice besides using drugs (which have usually stopped working by that point anyway).

I used to believe addiction was disease. When I made my first attempt to get clean, I had the extreme misfortune of intersecting with that dreadful organization, Narcotics Anonymous. They shovelled me full of their BS about addiction being a disease and I believed it, because of the state I was in at the time. (going cold turkey off of Morphine, have been high daily, for 2 years straight)

The concept of Addiction as a Disease is part an parcel of the 12-Step Movement (AA, NA, etc.) and it would be foolish to discuss Addiction as Disease without discussing the groups that have made it part of their agenda.

The AMA has let a bunch of addicts and alcoholics define addiction for them. Unfortunately, that definition is just another excuse for the addict to continue their behaviour.

The entire 12 Step movement is ludicrous, and is nothing more than the blind leading the lost. The 12 Step movement are the ones we have to blame for the entire idea of Addiction as a Disease. Its a ridiculous situtation, and it doesn't look like the concept will be going away anytime soon.
So, if you are drugging (smoking pot) and/or drinking, what has changed? You are still addicted?

So, if you are drugging (smoking pot) and/or drinking, what has changed? You are still addicted?


I'm not drugging. I'm also no longer addicted. I went cold turkey (for the umpteenth time) but this time I asked for some real help, and got it. I was self-medicatiing with my drug use. Once I stopped doing drugs, I was able top work on my problems, rather than just further them.

I would agree that the choice to quit is not easy but it is still a choice. We make hard choices every day. Also you have to realise that drugs alter the bodies chemistry. So of course when you take them there will be chemcials released from the ingestion of them. And of course you don't choose to release the chemicals but you choose to put the drug which does so into you body. So in the end it is your choice which causes the chemical reactions to happen. On cravings, we experience cravings all the time wheteher its for food or other things and we choose to not give into them all the time. You can choose to give into the cravings or you can choose not to.


I still disagree. It is a choice to try to quit, but not a choice to succeed. That is a result. Some people try their hardest and still don't acheive their results. This is especially true for strong drugs (such as heroin). Additionally, the kinds of cravings that you get when you're really in the mood for chocolate are completely different from the kinds that addicts get. When people give in to cravings (although (again referring to serious things only) it someimes is a choice), it is usually not a choice so much as a weakness. Also, drugs can control people. I don't mean that in an "aliens are taking over the Earth" sort of way, only that they influence people's decisions. Things such as (again heroin) will force their users to do almost anything to get their fix. We have also neglected to mention (or at least I have) withdrawls. They put people (again speaking of major drugs) through excruciating pain, to the point that they will frequently be writhing on the floor in agony until doctors tie them to the bed, have exteme cravings, and become very depressed (and if you've ever had depression, you know how serious that is). Withdrawls force people into taking drugs, just to stop the pain. As I said earlier, drugs can influence or even control your decisions, so therefore choices you make because of them, are not really choices.

Its highly ironic. I can also add that I suffer from Bipolar Disorder, so I know full well the implications that has on a persons choices. I chose to get high, because, golly geee, IT WORKED. Only for the 1st 2 years, but it damn sure solved the problems I was having. I think you can only get over a drug addiction if you realize its not worth it and that you do indeed have the power to make a different choice besides using drugs (which have usually stopped working by that point anyway).

I used to believe addiction was disease. When I made my first attempt to get clean, I had the extreme misfortune of intersecting with that dreadful organization, Narcotics Anonymous. They shovelled me full of their BS about addiction being a disease and I believed it, because of the state I was in at the time. (going cold turkey off of Morphine, have been high daily, for 2 years straight)

The concept of Addiction as a Disease is part an parcel of the 12-Step Movement (AA, NA, etc.) and it would be foolish to discuss Addiction as Disease without discussing the groups that have made it part of their agenda.

The AMA has let a bunch of addicts and alcoholics define addiction for them. Unfortunately, that definition is just another excuse for the addict to continue their behaviour.

The entire 12 Step movement is ludicrous, and is nothing more than the blind leading the lost. The 12 Step movement are the ones we have to blame for the entire idea of Addiction as a Disease. Its a ridiculous situtation, and it doesn't look like the concept will be going away anytime soon.
I fully agree. thank you for stating so clearly what I have been trying to say

I still disagree. It is a choice to try to quit, but not a choice to succeed. That is a result. Some people try their hardest and still don't acheive their results. This is especially true for strong drugs (such as heroin). Additionally, the kinds of cravings that you get when you're really in the mood for chocolate are completely different from the kinds that addicts get. When people give in to cravings (although (again referring to serious things only) it someimes is a choice), it is usually not a choice so much as a weakness. Also, drugs can control people. I don't mean that in an "aliens are taking over the Earth" sort of way, only that they influence people's decisions. Things such as (again heroin) will force their users to do almost anything to get their fix. We have also neglected to mention (or at least I have) withdrawls. They put people (again speaking of major drugs) through excruciating pain, to the point that they will frequently be writhing on the floor in agony until doctors tie them to the bed, have exteme cravings, and become very depressed (and if you've ever had depression, you know how serious that is). Withdrawls for force people into taking drugs, just to stop the pain. As I said earlier, drugs can influence or even control your decisions, so therefore choices you make, because of them are not really choices.

1. You seem to be associating withdrawl with addiction which is not the case. Withdrawl is associated with physical dependence which is something different then addiction. And even if you do suffer withdrawl when you stop taking the drugs it is your choice to start taking the drug. It is their choice wheteher they want to take the drug to stop the pain or not to and continue having the pain. Its their choice.

"The medical community now carefully distinguishes between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological addiction (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as 'uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm;' if there is no harm to the patient or another party, there is no addiction. The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated because of its pejorative connotations, especially in modern pain management with opioids where physical dependence is nearly universal but addiction is rare.

2. Drugs can influence decisions but they can not control them. People are not machines that have no ability to control themselves. They choose to give into the temptation or not. We have our choices influenced every day. You make a choice becasue of your morals. These morals influence your choice but in the end it is still a choice made by you.

we're all addicted to life, so let's cure ourselves by blowing our brains out. problem solved!

we're all addicted to life, so let's cure ourselves by blowing our brains out. problem solved!

If your not going to post something useful don't post.

Personally, I think addiction is both a disease and a choice.

It's a physical disease, as demonstrated by all the research. Once you are addicted, if you have the disease, it has a physical impact, unlike on someone who does not have the disease of addiction.

But, anyone who takes drugs, drinks alcohol, smokes cigarettes etc. KNOWS the possibility of addiction exists. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses to have a drink, smoke a cigarette, take drugs (legal and illicit) is choosing to risk having an addiction.

I don't take drugs because I know many people who became addicted and I know how dangerous it is. I don't smoke because I know how easy it is to become addicted. I choose not to drink on a regular basis because I know the potential for addiction exists.

In other words, I'm not an idiot. I know the risks, and I don't take them.

Personally, I think addiction is both a disease and a choice.

It's a physical disease, as demonstrated by all the research. Once you are addicted, if you have the disease, it has a physical impact, unlike on someone who does not have the disease of addiction.

But, anyone who takes drugs, drinks alcohol, smokes cigarettes etc. KNOWS the possibility of addiction exists. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who chooses to have a drink, smoke a cigarette, take drugs (legal and illicit) is choosing to risk having an addiction.

I don't take drugs because I know many people who became addicted and I know how dangerous it is. I don't smoke because I know how easy it is to become addicted. I choose not to drink on a regular basis because I know the potential for addiction exists.

In other words, I'm not an idiot. I know the risks, and I don't take them.

The question is addiction a disease. Now if it was a disease and a choice who would purposely give themselves a disease that would have no benefit to themselves longterm wise? Also we have established that a disease is a wound or lesion of the body. So what part of the body is addiction a disease of?

I used to believe addiction was disease. When I made my first attempt to get clean, I had the extreme misfortune of intersecting with that dreadful organization, Narcotics Anonymous. They shovelled me full of their BS about addiction being a disease and I believed it, because of the state I was in at the time. (going cold turkey off of Morphine, have been high daily, for 2 years straight)
Just because NA did not work for you, does not mean that it doesn't work for others? You could be doing a huge disservice to others by suggesting that it does not work, when the facts are that it does work.

"The concept of Addiction as a Disease is part an parcel of the 12-Step Movement (AA, NA, etc.) and it would be wise to discuss Addiction as Disease and mention the groups that have made it part of their agenda."

I borrowed your quote with a few changes.

The AMA has let a bunch of addicts and alcoholics define addiction for them. Unfortunately, that definition is just another excuse for the addict to continue their behaviour.
If people are looking for excuses, they have no real desire to end their addiction, regardless of your opinion. Willingness is the key to any program of recovery?

The entire 12 Step movement is ludicrous, and is nothing more than the blind leading the lost.
Again, just because a 12 Step program doesn't work for you, even though it works for millions of others, doesn't make it a failed program. For you to suggest that it is "ludicrous", is somewhat arrogant and could be downright deadly for someone who needs such a program.

The 12 Step movement are the ones we have to blame for the entire idea of Addiction as a Disease. Its a ridiculous situtation, and it doesn't look like the concept will be going away anytime soon.
Again, I believe that you are making an arrogant statement by trying to "blame" organizations that are actually saving millions of peoples lives.

The question is addiction a disease. Now if it was a disease and a choice who would purposely give themselves a disease that would have no benefit to themselves longterm wise? Also we have established that a disease is a wound or lesion of the body. So what part of the body is addiction a disease of?

Read through all the pages of stuff in this thread. Was under the impression that the definition of disease was not finalised yet. And anyway, you'd think it would obviously be a disease of the brain, like mental illnesses. And I think you need to read what I said. I explain my thinking quite clearly. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who takes drugs, drinks alcohol, coffee, coke, smokes cigarettes, pot, anything else is fully aware that they are taking the risk that they will become addicted to the drug in question. Therefore, when they make the choice to put it in their bodies, they are making a choice about becoming an addict. Same as a smoker who gets lung cancer as a result, made a choice about smoking, knowing there was a risk of getting lung cancer. Not every smoker gets lung cancer, and not every person who uses drugs (of any kind) gets addicted. But it is a risk. And people are aware of it. That's why it's a choice.

Read through all the pages of stuff in this thread. Was under the impression that the definition of disease was not finalised yet. And anyway, you'd think it would obviously be a disease of the brain, like mental illnesses. And I think you need to read what I said. I explain my thinking quite clearly. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who takes drugs, drinks alcohol, coffee, coke, smokes cigarettes, pot, anything else is fully aware that they are taking the risk that they will become addicted to the drug in question. Therefore, when they make the choice to put it in their bodies, they are making a choice about becoming an addict. Same as a smoker who gets lung cancer as a result, made a choice about smoking, knowing there was a risk of getting lung cancer. Not every smoker gets lung cancer, and not every person who uses drugs (of any kind) gets addicted. But it is a risk. And people are aware of it. That's why it's a choice.

Dude I made the thread so I've read it all. Could you show me the parts of the brain that alcoholism effects? Keep in mind that there is a distinction here between the behavior and the disease. There should be some part of the brain that is has a lesion or wound which causes a person to drink if alcoholism is a disease. If there is brain damage in response to the drinking of alcohol then alcoholism is not a disease and just a behavior which leads to one.

The question is addiction a disease. Now if it was a disease and a choice who would purposely give themselves a disease that would have no benefit to themselves longterm wise?
Millions of people, while not wanting to give themselves a disease, could very well be doing so by choosing to put drugs or alcohol in their bodies. Once addicted to alcohol or drugs, the person who freely chose to poisin their minds and bodies with these "drugs", has in fact given themselves a disease with possible longterm consequences, up to and including death.

Also we have established that a disease is a wound or lesion of the body.
You have?

Disease:

From Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/disease.html):

1. medical condition: a condition in humans, plants, or animals that results in pathological symptoms and is not the direct result of physical injury

2. specific disorder: a disorder in humans, animals, or plants with recognizable signs and often having a known cause

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease):

A disease is any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.

There should be some part of the brain that is has a lesion or wound which causes a person to drink if alcoholism is a disease. If there is brain damage in response to the drinking of alcohol then alcoholism is not a disease and just a behavior which leads to one.
Again from Wikipedia:

Although acceptance of the "American Disease Model" of alcoholism is not entirely universal, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the World Health Organization and the American College of Physicians have all classified alcoholism as a disease.

I would be interested to know what qualifications that you possess that could refute all of these professional organizations?

You have?

Disease:

From Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/disease.html):

1. medical condition: a condition in humans, plants, or animals that results in pathological symptoms and is not the direct result of physical injury

2. specific disorder: a disorder in humans, animals, or plants with recognizable signs and often having a known cause.


From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease):

A disease is any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.

Really well here are two more definitions of disease.

Disease: A condition of the body, or some part or organ of the body, in which its functions are disturbed or deranged; a morbid physical condition.-Oxford English Dictionary

For pathologists, disease is a bodily lesion, something they can observe objectively demonstrate, perhaps even deliberately reproduce.-Thomas Szasz "Pharmacracy Medicine and Politics in America"


Here we have two more definitions of disease. I think we need to first agree on what the term disease means in order to properly debate or else we will end up talking about totally different things. I'm going to quote a definition here and lets see if you will agree with it.

Diseases are changes in tissue. They are lesions or wounds of the physical body. Generally speaking, if someone has a disease, it can be observed in his body after he has died.-Jeffery Schaler "Why Addiction is a Choice"

Heroin for instance can kill you if you just stop.

Not true.

Opioid withdrawl is comparable to having the flu... and 'itchy blood', but it won't kill you.

Alcohol or valium withdrawl can kill you, however.

Really well here are two more definitions of disease.

Disease: A condition of the body, or some part or organ of the body, in which its functions are disturbed or deranged; a morbid physical condition.-Oxford English Dictionary

For pathologists, disease is a bodily lesion, something they can observe objectively demonstrate, perhaps even deliberately reproduce.-Thomas Szasz "Pharmacracy Medicine and Politics in America"


Here we have two more definitions of disease. I think we need to first agree on what the term disease means in order to properly debate or else we will end up talking about totally different things. I'm going to quote a definition here and lets see if you will agree with it.

Diseases are changes in tissue. They are lesions or wounds of the physical body. Generally speaking, if someone has a disease, it can be observed in his body after he has died.-Jeffery Schaler "Why Addiction is a Choice"
Like I stated before, I am not a doctor, and I am not about to engage in wordsmithing with you. Apparently Mr. Schaler's ideology conflicts with the organizations that I listed. Those organizations clearly accept addiction as a disease, whereas Mr. Schaler doesn't. What does Mr. Schaler or you for that matter have to gain by trying to change their view on this subject?

Not true.

Opioid withdrawl is comparable to having the flu... and 'itchy blood', but it won't kill you.

Alcohol or valium withdrawl can kill you, however.
Actually, it is true. The prison system in certain parts of this country is starting to get in a lot of trouble because some prisoners have died from heroin withdrawl. In most cases, it's not liable to happen, but if the subject had been a heavy enough user, enough time without treatment can in fact kill them.

Like I stated before, I am not a doctor, and I am not about to engage in wordsmithing with you. Apparently Mr. Schaler's ideology conflicts with the organizations that I listed. Those organizations clearly accept addiction as a disease, whereas Mr. Schaler doesn't. What does Mr. Schaler or you for that matter have to gain by trying to change their view on this subject?
Why are you asking what I have to gain? It has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Also you have given me defenitions from dictionaries. Those are in no way organizations which deal with medicine. How can a dictionary accept addiction as a disease when it does not deal with medicine at all?

Why are you asking what I have to gain? It has nothing to do with the debate at hand.
Okay, lets back up to the beginning, with your intial post.

Addicition is a choice

Now this is an interesting point of view that I have happened to have come under discussion in one of my classes. Even though other countries acknowledge this already, some people in America tend to have the view that addiction is a disease. I am wondering what people think about this point of view.

Edit: When we are talking about addiction we are talking about stuff like addiction to smoking/alcohol/drugs.
You were soliciting other people's views on this topic, while clearly stating that "Addicition is a choice".

I have presented facts that suggest that your opinion is incorrect.

To back up your argument, you continue to quote material from a Mr. Schaler. What makes him an authority in your mind, I have no idea.

Also you have given me defenitions from dictionaries. Those are in no way organizations which deal with medicine.
Yet I have listed organizations that do deal with medicine and they all agree that "addiction is a disease":

American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the World Health Organization and the American College of Physicians

What makes you believe that Mr. Schaler's opinion is more informed than the opinions expressed by the above organizations?

What do you hope to accomplish by trying to prove that Mr. Schaler's opinions are facts?

Okay, lets back up to the beginning, with your intial post.


You were soliciting other people's views on this topic, while clearly stating that "Addicition is a choice".

I have presented facts that suggest that your opinion is incorrect.

To back up your argument, you continue to quote material from a Mr. Schaler. What makes him an authority in your mind, I have no idea.
1. I titled the thread in such a maner as to draw attention to it so that people would post. I find the view addiction as a choice interesting and I am arguing from the point of view that it is a choice.
2. Lets take a look at the "facts" you have posted.

Congratulations on your recovery and best wishes for you to remain clean and sober. However, I do think that you have interpreted addiction incorrectly. From what I understand, addiction is in fact a disease (http://www.soberrecovery.com/):

What is addiction? Addiction is a disease that affects your brain and your behavior. When you become addicted to alcohol or other drugs, your brain actually changes in certain ways. Someone who is addicted uses drugs without thinking of the consequences, such as problems with health, money, relationships and performance at work or at school.

It is also my understanding that many who recover are the ones that were able to identify that their addiction was in fact a disease, and that their well being is based on a lifetime program of recovery, and that they cannot do it alone.
1. I'd like to point out that when you are on certain drugs it kills brain cells, changes the functions so in a way its not an addiction that changes the brain rather the drugs that are taken.
2. Contrary to your understanding most of the people here who have posted admitting they were addicted at one point say it is a choice.


Addiction as a Disease (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/science/)

Scientific research into addiction, however, has led experts to conclude that addiction is actually a disease, a chronic illness like diabetes or hypertension. The American Medical Association broke new ground approximately forty years ago when it declared alcoholism to be a disease. And in the past decade, dramatic advances in technology have allowed scientists to examine the brain itself in search of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of addiction. Today, scientists and physicians overwhelmingly agree that while use and even abuse of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine is a behavior over which the individual exerts control, addiction to these substances is something different. Scientists have begun to understand why addicted people may sacrifice everything that's important to them -- their jobs, their families, their homes -- in the quest for a chemical fix.

"When you get into an addicted state, it's a disease of the brain," says Alan Leshner, Ph.D., director of the federal government's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Leshner says the stigma associated with alcohol and drug addiction is one of the biggest problems experts continually face in dealing with it. Leshner says that the public has little sympathy for addicts, but he adds that "whether you like the person or not, you've got to deal with [their problem] as an illness."

Why do you believe that addiction is not a disease? Is that your personal thought on the matter or do you have professional information that you could share to clarify your belief?

This is the post where you only quoted parts of the article where it acknowledges that people have a choice in overcomming the addiction whether it be through treatment or lifestyle changes.

I am not a doctor, but there were some pictures earlier in this thread that displayed an alcoholic brain and a normal brain and they were disimilar through abuse.


I posted some of the more relevant facts. I didn't think it necessary to post the entire article.

Even in the section you posted, it points out that "addition is a disease".
Of course an alcoholic's brain would be different because alcohol kills brain cells. Thats like saying a smokers lung will be different from a non-smokers lung. The actual drinking causes the damage but it is in no way caused by some sort of disease labeled as addiction.

Well, I am not about to get into a pissing match about the beliefs of Dr. Jeffery Schaler. I don't know if his qualifications as a psychologist trumps those of the medical profession, and I would have my reservations in that regard.

Whatever works for the individual is the key, and there has been a lot of success in the programs that have preceeded his works?
No real facts in this post. Only attacking the credibility of the person I have been quoting.

Millions of people, while not wanting to give themselves a disease, could very well be doing so by choosing to put drugs or alcohol in their bodies. Once addicted to alcohol or drugs, the person who freely chose to poisin their minds and bodies with these "drugs", has in fact given themselves a disease with possible longterm consequences, up to and including death.


You have?

Disease:

From Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/disease.html):

1. medical condition: a condition in humans, plants, or animals that results in pathological symptoms and is not the direct result of physical injury

2. specific disorder: a disorder in humans, animals, or plants with recognizable signs and often having a known cause

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease):

A disease is any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.
1. Here you make a statement that is saying they make a choice but they really havent and its a disease doing it. How can you make a choice of putting something in your body yet you really aren't choosing? Well if this is true what part of the body is the disease attacking? Can we see this when we do an autopsy? Have we classified how the disease manages to override our free will and force us to use these drugs?
2. You use defenitions from 2 places. I went and searched online after this post and saw that there are many different definitions of disease online and that all of them are not the same. So you chose 2 definitions out of many that seem to match what you are saying. That seems odd doesnt it.


Again from Wikipedia:

Although acceptance of the "American Disease Model" of alcoholism is not entirely universal, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the World Health Organization and the American College of Physicians have all classified alcoholism as a disease.

I would be interested to know what qualifications that you possess that could refute all of these professional organizations?
I also wonder if those associations have classified heroin addiction, cocain addiction, etc as diseases just like alcoholism?

Like I stated before, I am not a doctor, and I am not about to engage in wordsmithing with you. Apparently Mr. Schaler's ideology conflicts with the organizations that I listed. Those organizations clearly accept addiction as a disease, whereas Mr. Schaler doesn't. What does Mr. Schaler or you for that matter have to gain by trying to change their view on this subject?
So when I ask your opinion on a definition to see if we can come to an agreement on what a disease is you don't even touch on the ones I gave. Not only that but you question my motivation here instead of responding to the points. Why do you do that?

Yet I have listed organizations that do deal with medicine and they all agree that "addiction is a disease":

American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the World Health Organization and the American College of Physicians

What makes you believe that Mr. Schaler's opinion is more informed than the opinions expressed by the above organizations?
These organisations all stated that alcoholism was a disease not that addiction itself is a disease. Now granted the reason I use Mr. Schaler's opinion so much is that in America the opinion that addiction is a choice is held by few. However in other countries such as Britain the dominant point of view is that addiction is a choice.

What do you hope to accomplish by trying to prove that Mr. Schaler's opinions are facts?
Once again trying to question my motives here. Why do you go after them instead of attacking the points I present. My motives here are that I have come across an iteresting point of view and I want to debate about it online.

Once again trying to question my motives here. Why do you go after them instead of attacking the points I present. My motives here are that I have come across an iteresting point of view and I want to debate about it online.
You came across an "interesting point of view", accept it to be your truth, and refuse to except evidence to the contrary.

There would be no logical reason to continue the debate, unless you could offer compelling evidence that Mr. Schaler is correct and all the organizations that I listed are wrong.

Taking drugs or alcohol is definitely a choice. That is fairly obvious. However, once a person is "addicted", then they are deemed to be suffering from a "disease" according to the medical professionals in North America.

Perhaps if you want to clarify what "their" definition of disease is in relation to alcohol or drug addiction, then you could write them a letter, bearing in mind that they do consider "addiction as a disease".

IMHO I do not believe that you have proven that "addiction is a choice", and I will stick to the beliefs of the medical professionals that addiction is indeed a disease.

You have debated well and refrained from personal attacks and I commend you for that.

Now this is an interesting point of view that I have happened to have come under discussion in one of my classes. Even though other countries acknowledge this already, some people in America tend to have the view that addiction is a disease. I am wondering what people think about this point of view.

Edit: When we are talking about addiction we are talking about stuff like addiction to smoking/alcohol/drugs.
You can choose to try to resist an addiction, and you can choose to try to avoid addiction. Some may wish to become an "addict" in order to no longer be responsible for their actions. I do not believe that addiction is a choice.

A mental illness is a considered a disease of the mind not the brain. So if we agree that a disease is a wound or lession of the body how can the mind have a wound or a lession?

Unless you can provide conclusive proof that the brain and the mind are two separate things, I'm going to operate on the assumption that they are the same. Which means that, since addiction has severe physiological effects on the brain, it is also an illness of the mind and is thus a mental illness.

true but couldn't you also say that person a doesn't have an addictive personality and person b does? I don't see how this proves one way or the other.Perhaps, perhaps not. People don't choose to have addictive personalities, either.

Well then that is brain damamge caused by drinking. That does not mean the actual drinking is the disease.It's not quite like that. It's more something like this:

Drink of alcohol ---> a little bit of brain damage ---> drink of alcohol ---> more brain damage ---> more alcohol ---> more brain damage ---> etc.

Or, in other words, the drinking of alcohol causes brain damage which causes more drinking of alcohol which causes more brain damage which causes more alcohol to be drunk which causes more brain damage.

In my opinion a disease is something that you can't overcome without medical intervention (ie medicine, surgery) Well, there are certain mild forms of diabetes that can be changed simply through diet and exercise. Does this mean that those mild forms of diabetes are not, in fact, diseases?

Perhaps, perhaps not. People don't choose to have addictive personalities, either.
no, but you can control it on your own, if you want to.

Well, there are certain mild forms of diabetes that can be changed simply through diet and exercise. Does this mean that those mild forms of diabetes are not, in fact, diseases?
Okay you got me on that one. I did go a little to simplistic. How's this? A disease is something that you need medicine for or there are proven medical tests you can take to identify. For example my daughter has celiac disease which is only controlled through strict diet, yes I do believe that she has a disease. Her dr was able to go in and biopsy her small intestine to see that gluten was damaging her. Doctors are able to do MRI's on addicted patients brains and see that alcohol and drugs are damaging thier brains, use of these is what causes brain changes, not addiction. I hope that I have made my veiw a little clearer. If not let me know. Thanks for pointing out my oversimplification. ;)

Not true.

Opioid withdrawl is comparable to having the flu... and 'itchy blood', but it won't kill you.

Alcohol or valium withdrawl can kill you, however.


Ummm, a) Opiod withdrawal can be a fuck of a lot worse than "having the flu" b) I've seen someone die of Heroin withdrawal with my own eyes.

Addiction is the state in which either your body or mind are dependent on something. It's a disease and not a choice (you can't just "choose" not to be addicted to something, getting off takes time, if it's at all possible). You can be addicted to all sorts of things: Drugs, driving, politics, TV, computers, NationStates...
Mental addictions are easier to get off of than physical addictions. Heroin for instance can kill you if you just stop.

I am addicted to few things (most of all - cigarettes). And I think addiction is really a choice.

Assumption is: people are educated - people know that one can become addicted on internet chat/messanger boards, nicotine, alcohol and drugs. And they just do it. When I started smoking (at age 18), I knew that most probably I will become addicted to that. I still started, I do not regret that and I became addicted. I think it is a choice. I choose it because I wanted to.

My opinion is YES, addiction is a choice. In fact, its defined by that choice. For example, choosing to do heroin... again, and again, and again. Heroin doesn't make that choice for you. Chemicals have no willpower. They can't force you to do things. They can only affect you as chemicals can.

It feels silly having to say that, but many people seem to believe that a drug can ambush you, force it's way down your throat (or whatever), plant hypnotic suggestions in you and turn you into a killer. Watch the old "Reefer Madness" videos to see what I'm talking about. Government of the day wanted you to believe that that was in fact, exactly what marijuana did - turn an ordinary person, instantly, into a mindless psychotic homicidal maniac!

Course we all know that government today is far more trustworthy than to lie at us like that. ;)

Anyway, if you make people believe they have no control over themselves and their behavior - i.e, you make them believe that "addicts" are helpless - you essentially create the addiction. You get them to believe in their own helplessness, their victimhood to this chemical. This means that when it comes time to stop, they find it all too easy NOT to stop. Why? Because they're helpless... an addict. A PERFECT excuse to not bother to control your own behavior! "I can't help it I'm an addict."

Yeah, bullshit. There ARE drugs which cause physical dependency. But "psychological addiction" is just a euphemism for "pussies who can't stop because they believe 100% in their own pussiness." Can't stop smoking cigarettes? Yeah right. You say that to yourself every time you're at a corner market, pulling out your wallet, forking over five dollars and requesting your favorite brand of cigarettes, opening the package, shaking them out, putting each cig in and lighting it and inhaling. Every one of those ACTIONS, you are justifying it by referring to the popular-than-ever concept: people are helpless. They can't control themselves. They are slaves to chemicals and other external forces.

In short, the addiction myth removes all responsibility for the user. If you want to believe in cigarette addiction go ahead. Me, I stopped cold turkey with no problems because I knew the ONLY factor involved was my own choice. If I at any time believed otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered stopping.

Again there are drugs that cause physical dependence. And the trick to getting over that? Free will. Unless you WANT to get off those things, you never, ever will. I hope people are still teaching that in rehab. But it wouldn't surprise me if everyone believes in addiction.

Addiction to everything. Addiction to war! Yeah, Bush can't be blamed for wanting to start wars in every country on the globe. He's an addict! No blame!

Blah.

People who state "Addiction is a choice" have neither been clinically depressed nor become addicted, nor known anyone who has been either. People who state "Addiction is a choice" are ignorant of what addiction really is.

there are several types of addiction
and there may even be evidence that psychological addiction is preventable
but, physiological addiction is something that is impossible to choose
albeit it is the persons choice to become involved with something
they never know if that will turn addictive
when something else takes over an activity of the normal body
the body shuts down its resources for that action
when you remove the thing that had taken over the activity
it takes the body a while to regain the ability to produce what is needed

and, I find it hard to believe that the majority of responders are able
to control their minds and compulsions
This is what I think when I read this post
if you understand what addiction is, it takes a pretty big ego
to tell people it is their choice

If addiction is a disease then it is not under the control of the individual. Lets consider the case of smoking cigarettes, and millions of people, having adopted the habit, have then given it up. The vast majority of people who give up smoking do so without "treatment" kind. Obviously, if someone gives up smoking, they were able to give up smoking. Therefore, at the point when the gave up smoking they were not suffering from the disease of addiction.-Jeffert Schaler "Why addiction is a choice"

There's two types of people in the smoking equation:-
There's people who smoke, and there's smokers. Either can give up. When people who smoke give up, they become non-smokers.

But a smoker will always be a smoker.

You came across an "interesting point of view", accept it to be your truth, and refuse to except evidence to the contrary.
I am arguing from the side of addiction being a choice so of course I am going to argue with that side being the truth. Also you have not presented evidence only saying that certain organizations agree with you. Those organizations while reputable have been wrong before. I do believe they thought homosexuality was a disease and now they say racism is a disease.

There would be no logical reason to continue the debate, unless you could offer compelling evidence that Mr. Schaler is correct and all the organizations that I listed are wrong.
What I have been doing is asking questions of the other side in order to see if their definition of addiction is a disease is right. I have cited an article that offers a different explanation. Short of doing studies myself I do not know what other proof I could present to you. And what do you mean by compelling. You know what I want compelling evidence of what part of the brain is diseased when you say addiction is a brain disease. Show it to me.

Taking drugs or alcohol is definitely a choice. That is fairly obvious. However, once a person is "addicted", then they are deemed to be suffering from a "disease" according to the medical professionals in North America.
And according to Britain what they are suffering from is a choice. So who's word do we take Britain or the USA?

Perhaps if you want to clarify what "their" definition of disease is in relation to alcohol or drug addiction, then you could write them a letter, bearing in mind that they do consider "addiction as a disease".
I'm really debating here just to see the different points of view on these issues. I'm not trying to change conventions here only see what other people think and compare evidence of each. This thread has turned out to be better then I expected.

IMHO I do not believe that you have proven that "addiction is a choice", and I will stick to the beliefs of the medical professionals that addiction is indeed a disease.
I see no problem with this. As long as we try to help people who have this problem I see no harm in considering it from either side. I can't expect to convince everyone of a point of view I find interesting and it was not my intention to.

You have debated well and refrained from personal attacks and I commend you for that.
Thank you.

My opinion is YES, addiction is a choice. In fact, its defined by that choice. For example, choosing to do heroin... again, and again, and again. Heroin doesn't make that choice for you. Chemicals have no willpower. They can't force you to do things. They can only affect you as chemicals can.

It feels silly having to say that, but many people seem to believe that a drug can ambush you, force it's way down your throat (or whatever), plant hypnotic suggestions in you and turn you into a killer. Watch the old "Reefer Madness" videos to see what I'm talking about. Government of the day wanted you to believe that that was in fact, exactly what marijuana did - turn an ordinary person, instantly, into a mindless psychotic homicidal maniac!

Course we all know that government today is far more trustworthy than to lie at us like that. ;)

Anyway, if you make people believe they have no control over themselves and their behavior - i.e, you make them believe that "addicts" are helpless - you essentially create the addiction. You get them to believe in their own helplessness, their victimhood to this chemical. This means that when it comes time to stop, they find it all too easy NOT to stop. Why? Because they're helpless... an addict. A PERFECT excuse to not bother to control your own behavior! "I can't help it I'm an addict."

Yeah, bullshit. There ARE drugs which cause physical dependency. But "psychological addiction" is just a euphemism for "pussies who can't stop because they believe 100% in their own pussiness." Can't stop smoking cigarettes? Yeah right. You say that to yourself every time you're at a corner market, pulling out your wallet, forking over five dollars and requesting your favorite brand of cigarettes, opening the package, shaking them out, putting each cig in and lighting it and inhaling. Every one of those ACTIONS, you are justifying it by referring to the popular-than-ever concept: people are helpless. They can't control themselves. They are slaves to chemicals and other external forces.

In short, the addiction myth removes all responsibility for the user. If you want to believe in cigarette addiction go ahead. Me, I stopped cold turkey with no problems because I knew the ONLY factor involved was my own choice. If I at any time believed otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered stopping.

Again there are drugs that cause physical dependence. And the trick to getting over that? Free will. Unless you WANT to get off those things, you never, ever will. I hope people are still teaching that in rehab. But it wouldn't surprise me if everyone believes in addiction.

Addiction to everything. Addiction to war! Yeah, Bush can't be blamed for wanting to start wars in every country on the globe. He's an addict! No blame!

Blah.

This brings up an interesting point. If addiction is a disease is it capable of overriding free will?

Not that we really need to drag religion into another thread here, but I think that classifying addiction as a disease plays right into the Christian idea that people are powerless to do anything with their life and therefore must rely on God for their salvation. If people are willing to accept responsibility for their lives instead of thinking of themselves as victims of a disease, addiction will take its rightful place in the world as a habitual action that they either choose to engage in or choose not so cease.

Being addicted is not a choice, actually feeding that addiction is. Someone can be addicted to alcohol, but not drink, AA is full of people like that. If, 7 years after you've given up your drug you still feel the desire for it, you're addicted but not feeding the addiction. There is a distinction, and I hope that people realize that. It's a hell of a lot harder to have an addiciton and not feed it than people see. The mental ones are almost harder than the physical ones... because the physical cravings eventually fade, but the mental cravings are always sort of floating around going 'wouldn't it be nice if we...'

Yeah, addiction starts when you first do something, but how many of you can't go through your day without your morning cup of coffe/tea/milk? There's more to it than a routine, if you can't function without your coffee then that's an addiction and you're feeding it regularly. It doesn't have to be herion, it can be computer games or relationships or anything. And sometimes there are mental disorders and diseases that encourage or enable addictions to have a stronger hold - and anyone who fights those holds by not feeding their addictions is a hell of a lot stronger than someone who's never had to.

I personally smoked for more than 8 years and quit, and I don't think about it. I was never addicted to smoking, physically or mentally. There's something in my life that has nothing to do with drugs that is an addiction, and I don't feed it but I think about it and want it something like 2 dozen times a day. I did not choose to be addicted to it, but no matter how hard it is I'm not going to feed it and let it grow. I can't lose my life to it again, and that's where I make my choice.

Not in where you're addicted, or when, but how you deal with it and what control you issue over your own life - even though sometimes you have to tie yourself to your chair to keep from getting up and going over there.

That's just my 2 cents, I hope it helps.

Not that we really need to drag religion into another thread here, but I think that classifying addiction as a disease plays right into the Christian idea that people are powerless to do anything with their life and therefore must rely on God for their salvation. If people are willing to accept responsibility for their lives instead of thinking of themselves as victims of a disease, addiction will take its rightful place in the world as a habitual action that they either choose to engage in or choose not so cease.
where did you hear that Christians are powerless to do anything with thier life? I am just wondering. I am a Christian and it is all about self control and accountability. I do believe that addiction is a choice, all sin is a choice. The difference with me though is I know where those choices lead and I am powerless to change that. All sin leads to spiritual death. Everyone sins. Nobody is perfect. Nobody ever will be perfect. God in his unending mercy has sent His only Son to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. By accepting salvation, we are called to repent(be sorry for the wrongs we have done) and turn away from our sinful lifestyles ( don't do it any more). It takes a great amount of self control and accountability to acheive these goals, sometimes we slip up, but all the time we have control over the choices that we make.

sorry to get off topic.

Well, considering that the initial poster presumably studies Economics...

(it seems like a very economics-like thing to call addiction a "choice" :D )

...I would suggest you check the various Academic Journals. "American Economic Review" comes to mind. Copyrighted though, so I won't link anything.
Otherwise check the page of Gary Becker (Nobel Price Laureate) I'm sure he said a few things about that at some point...

EDIT: The "official" consensus is that it is an asymmetric info problem, where the initial utility diminishes future utility, and the correct amount of the drug consumed is incorrectly measured (or acted upon). There are equations for it, but I would be buggered if I knew them.