Why is addiction treated as a disease

[Guest Peeves]

A significant number 'addicted' at 20-24, have chosen to remain free by 35. So why do we insist it need be treated and even perhaps encouraged by some programs?

Obviously that's not being helpful to addicts and contraindicated.

Seems to me some 'programs' that provide needles etc. are self serving..maybe?

[Boges]

Because you can feel like you're a victim that way.

[bleeding heart]

A significant number 'addicted' at 20-24, have chosen to remain free by 35. So why do we insist it need be treated and even perhaps encouraged by some programs?

Obviously that's not being helpful to addicts and contraindicated.

Seems to me some 'programs' that provide needles etc. are self serving..maybe?

Since you question the use of the term "disease" (and many people do), I'm not sure I understand why you put "addicted" in quotation marks.

[Shady]

Because you can feel like you're a victim that way.

Spot on!

[Black Dog]

A significant number 'addicted' at 20-24, have chosen to remain free by 35. So why do we insist it need be treated and even perhaps encouraged by some programs?

Obviously that's not being helpful to addicts and contraindicated.

Seems to me some 'programs' that provide needles etc. are self serving..maybe?

Cite? Reference? Anything?

[bleeding heart]

Cite? Reference? Anything?

You ask a lot of people. Unfair.

Edited September 26, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Moonlight Graham]

This thread fails.

[jacee]

A significant number 'addicted' at 20-24, have chosen to remain free by 35. So why do we insist it need be treated and even perhaps encouraged by some programs?

Obviously that's not being helpful to addicts and contraindicated.

Seems to me some 'programs' that provide needles etc. are self serving..maybe?

Needle programs serve the broader community by reducing transmission of communicable diseases. That's their purpose.

Is your question: If some people quit on their own, why do we have programs for others?

Some addicts are genetic and it's much harder for them to kick than for habitual or social addictions.

Just because some people kick on their own doesn't mean everyone can.

[Michael Hardner]

Whether or not it's a disease - it's a health issue. Even if you see it as law enforcement, there is a large aspect of this that is health related, so we need to let experts from the field of medicine lead our investigation.

It isn't just people from the right that think our approaches to such things are self-serving - many have suspected that the law enforcement approach is exactly that.

[Guest Peeves]

Cite? Reference? Anything?

It seems to be a health disorder of choice. The full article isn't too long. You might read it if you are interested.

It makes the point of the subject in so far as I'm concerned.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/26/barbara-kay-addiction-is-a-disease-of-choice/

I could go on. Millions of people free themselves from addiction. Many of them will be present this Sunday, Sept.30, at the Vancouver Art Gallery to celebrate “Recovery 2012,” Canada’s first official day devoted to addiction recovery.

Conceived and organized by the B.C. Orchard Recovery Centre in partnership with the Drug Prevention Network of Canada (DPNC), the event will rally addiction-recovery stakeholders and supportive politicians to acknowledge the splendid work done in recovery programs by dedicated volunteers. Recovering addicts will step up to the mic and proclaim things like “I’m in Recovery. I’ve been in Recovery for 23 years.” Or 18 months. Or two weeks. It’s a welcome project, worthy of becoming an annual tradition in all Canadian cities, as it already is in the United States.

I wonder if the “progressive” folks who run safe injection sites, such as the infamous Insite, will be in attendance. They’re devoted to a “harm reduction” addiction policy. And many of them see addiction as an incurable disease that can only be compassionately and hygienically managed, never cured. They pay lip service to rehabilitation, but in this domain, you either believe recovery is a viable prospect or you don’t.

Regrettably, the “disease”/“compulsion” model of addiction has taken a firm hold on our collective understanding. Our disproportionately liberal mainstream media complacently swallow the shibboleths of harm-reduction champions (many of whom also advocate for drug legalization) rather than weigh them objectively against arguments from proponents of full-blown recovery — because the latter are more likely to be found amongst practising Christians and other social conservatives.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

Since you question the use of the term "disease" (and many people do), I'm not sure I understand why you put "addicted" in quotation marks.

Probably inappropriately. I was thinking of an opinion in the article I had read,(now linked in another post), which questioned the addiction.."and many of them see addiction as an incurable disease." I see addicted often used as a defense for some circumstance when to me it should not be. Often in my opinion it's simply choice.

[Guest Peeves]

Whether or not it's a disease - it's a health issue. Even if you see it as law enforcement, there is a large aspect of this that is health related, so we need to let experts from the field of medicine lead our investigation.

It isn't just people from the right that think our approaches to such things are self-serving - many have suspected that the law enforcement approach is exactly that.

It's a health issue. Wow! So is over eating, or mountain climbing, (extreme sport), all can impact on your health.

Often a choice of lifestyle impacts on others health, a la Clinton. Factors lead to choices and pasting them under the rubric of disease rather than the more likely label of a choice is harmful to the one making the choice and to collateral damage to those about them.

"By Wendy Kaminer|Posted Sunday, March 22, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

Bill Clinton, our most adept practitioner of therapeutic politics, has always flirted with dysfunction. Six years ago, during his first successful presidential campaign, he discussed his dysfunctional family history during a televised interview. He acknowledged that growing up with an alcoholic parent may have made him particularly eager to please and placate. Veterans of the recovery movement, which remained popular in the early 1990s, would have instantly recognized Clinton as an ACOA (adult child of an alcoholic). Considering his abusive, alcoholic stepfather, his substance abusing brother, his mother's penchant for gambling, and his own compulsive eating and alleged womanizing, Clinton's family looked like a case study in a codependency book."

Why is it a "people from the right" issue? If the facts are as portrayed, it's an issue that should be addressed, not to simply be accommodated, not simply pigeon holed as a right's cause.

[Mr.Canada]

Some people 's brains are predisposed to become addicted.

I am addicted to worshiping strong men of history like General Franco who I think is the greatest Christian warrior leader of our time.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

It's a health issue. Wow! So is over eating, or mountain climbing, (extreme sport), all can impact on your health.

Well mountain climbing isn't a *problem* as far as I know, but I'm not from BC so maybe it is ?

Why is it a "people from the right" issue? If the facts are as portrayed, it's an issue that should be addressed, not to simply be accommodated, not simply pigeon holed as a right's cause.

It's not. Read a little more of what I said - I'm saying that there are people from the left you agree with you - that public organizations can justify themselves around social problems. The police, for example.

It's a problem - that's the first thing to realize. Doctors should lead the charge on how to address it as a health problem.

[cybercoma]

"Drug addiction is a brain disease."

http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/medical-consequences-drug-abuse

But I'm sure the US National Institute of Health's drug abuse division probably doesn't know what they're talking about.

Edited September 26, 2012 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

I am addicted to worshiping strong men of history like General Franco who I think is the greatest Christian warrior leader of our time.

"greatest Christian warrior" is an oxymoron. There are no "great Christian warriors" since according to Jesus one must be a pacifist and condone violence even if said violence is being directed toward you. That's the main point of the New Testament. According to the words and actions of Jesus in the New Testament, any violence to other humans one inflicts themselves or supports is a sin.

That would make the greatest Christian (or Christian-like) leaders of our time people like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. How ironic! Leaders like Stephen Harper, George W Bush, and Obama etc. are very bad Christians.

[WWWTT]

"Drug addiction is a brain disease."

http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/medical-consequences-drug-abuse

But I'm sure the US National Institute of Health's drug abuse division probably doesn't know what they're talking about.

Good link cyber!

Many people are perplexed by the grapple of addiction and how innocently it can start.

WWWTT

[Guest Manny]

Well certainly treating it as criminal hasn't resulted in any solution to the problem, and in some ways made it worse. I'm in favour of trying something else. Decrim, makes sense to me.

Why put all this money into prisons and then shut down the rehab centres? Why not let the scientists and the sociologists have a turn. Hire more of those, not prison guards.

The CPC are not listening to experts, and they ignore valid scientific studies. So totally the wrong direction, but SO TYPICALLY CANADIAN!!!

[jacee]

It seems to be a health disorder of choice. The full article isn't too long. You might read it if you are interested.

It makes the point of the subject in so far as I'm concerned.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/26/barbara-kay-addiction-is-a-disease-of-choice/

I wonder if the “progressive” folks who run safe injection sites, such as the infamous Insite, will be in attendance. They’re devoted to a “harm reduction” addiction policy. And many of them see addiction as an incurable disease that can only be compassionately and hygienically managed, never cured. They pay lip service to rehabilitation, but in this domain, you either believe recovery is a viable prospect or you don’t.

This is just silly. Harm reduction sites are always associated with quit programs, and the people who run them aren't "devoted" to them alone.

Addicts will be abusing substances whether or not there's a needle exchange program, but without it they'll do more damage to those around them.

'They should all just quit' ... who can disagree ... and a lot of them do.

But it's clearly not the whole answer.

[Black Dog]

This is just silly. Harm reduction sites are always associated with quit programs, and the people who run them aren't "devoted" to them alone.

Addicts will be abusing substances whether or not there's a needle exchange program, but without it they'll do more damage to those around them.

'They should all just quit' ... who can disagree ... and a lot of them do.

But it's clearly not the whole answer.

I'd add I'm not really sure what the practical difference is in considering addiction a choice or disease. You still have to mitigate and manage the problem. I suspect the main difference is the choice model makes it easier for privileged shitbags like Babs Kay to feel superior.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Black Dog

[kraychik]

Because you can feel like you're a victim that way.

It's also used as a false premise from which the government can justify further spending it can't afford in order to do the compassionate thing to assist people who, due to no fault of their own (remember that it's a disease, not a choice), suffer the consequences of addiction.

It's the creeping of leftism into all facets of society. Homosexuality used to be recognised as a mental disorder, but now it's delisted from the DSM IV. Isn't "progress" beautiful?

Eventually, independent thought will be viewed as a disease, like Winston Smith was "cured" in 1984 because he was "mentally deranged".

Edited September 27, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Whether or not it's a disease - it's a health issue. Even if you see it as law enforcement, there is a large aspect of this that is health related, so we need to let experts from the field of medicine lead our investigation.

Investigation to determine what, exactly?

[Michael Hardner]

Investigation to determine what, exactly?

To research the problem ? To find an approach to solving it ?

[Black Dog]

It's also used as a false premise from which the government can justify further spending it can't afford in order to do the compassionate thing to assist people who, due to no fault of their own (remember that it's a disease, not a choice), suffer the consequences of addiction.

It's the creeping of leftism into all facets of society. Homosexuality used to be recognised as a mental disorder, but now it's delisted from the DSM IV. Isn't "progress" beautiful?

Eventually, independent thought will be viewed as a disease, like Winston Smith was "cured" in 1984 because he was "mentally deranged".

Well, at least you'll be safe.

[Pliny]

But I'm sure the US National Institute of Health's drug abuse division probably doesn't know what they're talking about.

For once you are right - they don't. If they did they could do something about it. Since they can't and it remains a major social problem I'd say they don't know what they are talking about and the way to solve their dilemma is to say no one knows and call it a brain disease. It doesn't do any good, except for making addicts feel more like they are victims of circumstance than people who determine their own destiny....and... it leads to a lot of research and experimentation to keep the industry busy.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Pliny