Treat Addiction as a Disease

[eyeball]

But it does mean there will always be avenues for organized crime even if we adopt sensible policies on mood altering chemicals because a certain percentage of society will always seek an escape from reality.

The ONLY reason there's an avenue for organized crime is because of that percentage of the population that remains addicted to treating substance use like certain fundies treat abortion or apostates.

Edited April 11, 2016 by eyeball

[Wilber]

The ONLY reason there's an avenue for organized crime is because of that percentage of the population that remains addicted to treating substance use like certain fundies treat abortion or apostates.

No, that is not the case, unless you are prepared to legalize everything and make it available. That includes every fad drug dreamed up by some amateur chemist. Abortion is abortion, not some new fad flavour of the day cooked up in someones basement.

[eyeball]

No, that is not the case, unless you are prepared to legalize everything and make it available. That includes every fad drug dreamed up by some amateur chemist. Abortion is abortion, not some new fad flavour of the day cooked up in someones basement.

Yes that is the case and that's exactly what you have to do. Make getting high completely legal and recreational drugs available but make them safely and make them safer. It's good news that professional chemists are developing non-addictive medical drugs and I'm sure they'll be able to develop non-addictive recreational drugs too.

Edited April 11, 2016 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Yes that is the case and that's exactly what you have to do. Make getting high completely legal and recreational drugs available but make them safely and make them safer. It's good news that professional chemists are developing non-addictive medical drugs and I'm sure they'll be able to develop non-addictive recreational drugs too.

So if I brew up some new conception in my basement, it should be made legal no matter what the side effects or consequences of unrestricted use may be. You're out of your mind, who is going take liability for the consequences?

[TimG]

I'm sure they'll be able to develop non-addictive recreational drugs too.

You clearly have no idea WHY people use recreational drugs. If you did you would understand that statement is absurd. Non-additive pain killers do so by killing pain without stimulating the portions of brain associated with pleasure. Recreational users would not be interested in such a drug because they want the pleasure that comes with them. But drugs that stimulate the pleasure centers are addictive by their nature.

[eyeball]

So if I brew up some new conception in my basement, it should be made legal no matter what the side effects or consequences of unrestricted use may be. You're out of your mind, who is going take liability for the consequences?

The idiot who buys it from you.

[eyeball]

You clearly have no idea WHY people use recreational drugs.

They clearly use recreational drugs because they want to.

[eyeball]

But drugs that stimulate the pleasure centers are addictive by their nature.

Not always. And as you said yourself the nature of addiction is in the individual.

[Wilber]

The idiot who buys it from you.

That's not the way the law works.

[jacee]

That's not the way the law works.

It does if all drugs are legal.

.

[eyeball]

It's getting high that needs to be addressed in a Substance Use Act that encourages people to use safer drugs safely.

I bet that word encourages makes the bristles stand up on end.

[Wilber]

It does if all drugs are legal.

.

If you sell something to someone and it poisons them, you are liable. It doesn't matter if it was legal or not.

[eyeball]

In that case they should be charged with assault.

[jacee]

If you sell something to someone and it poisons them, you are liable. It doesn't matter if it was legal or not.

Only if they did it knowingly.

Buyer beware.

Buy the government regulated drugs.

Follow the instructions.

I really don't care if people want to kill themselves with drugs.

It's a choice they are free to make.

I think all this hoopla of keeping drugs illegal is just nanny state nonsense.

And it costs us a lot of unnecessary money in policing, courts, jails, crime-ridden neighbourhoods, death damage and destruction ... feeding profits to organized crime.

Make it all legal, put organized crime out of business, save money and make profits for ourselves ... and use some of it to address the mental health, housing and jobs issues that contribute to drug use instead.

Turn the drug dealers into drug counselors, community workers instead.

Treat addiction as a disease, not as a crime.

.

Edited April 11, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

I really don't care if people want to kill themselves with drugs.

I take you think safe injection sites are a waste of money then?

[WestCoastRunner]

Make it all legal, put organized crime out of business, save money and make profits for ourselves ... and use some of it to address the mental health, housing and jobs issues that contribute to drug use instead.

Turn the drug dealers into drug counselors, community workers instead.

Treat addiction as a disease, not as a crime.

.

I agree with everything you say except this last one. There are many thoughts on whether addiction is a disease or not.

Here are two comments from a neuroscientist and former addict and a physician and addiction reseacher:

"Lewis is a neuroscientist and former addict; Heilig is a physician and addiction researcher. Lewis is convinced that addiction is not a disease, but a habit created by the neural circuitry of desire in the course of its normal functioning. Heilig is convinced that addiction is a chronic disease like diabetes that can’t be cured but that must be managed by lifelong treatment."

Lewis goes on to say:

• The brain changes disappear when people stop using.
• Psychological and environmental predictors have more to do with how we experience our environment, but diseases are based on exposure, not experience
• Addiction treatment targets cognitive and emotional processes; there is no disease that can be arrested by doing that.

Heilig says:

• addiction is a malfunction of some of the most fundamental brain circuits that make us tick, and a disease that is not much different from other chronic, relapsing medical conditions.
• Just as in any other chronic disease, addiction requires lifelong disease management with behavioral interventions and relapse-prevention medications.

Whatever label we want to assign to the addiction, they are in agreement that:

They agree that we should reject the stigma of addiction as a kind of moral failing. They reject the hypotheses that addiction is a matter of choice or self-medication. They think current diagnostic labels are inadequate. They both try to integrate two levels of information: the case histories of addicts and the scientific knowledge from research. They are both skeptical of AA and of conventional rehab programs. They both support evidence-based treatments. They both think addicts are not all alike and that individual addicts will respond better to individualized approaches.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-addiction-a-disease-yes-and-no/

Edited April 11, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[jacee]

Ya I'm not hung up on the 'disease' concept.

Call it a bad habit, over consumption, whatever.

Addiction is drug/alcohol use that interferes with functioning - work, community, family.

.

[TimG]

Whatever label we want to assign to the addiction, they are in agreement that:

You omitted the stuff that does not support your thesis:

There is a double standard: relapse in diabetes and hypertension when patients go off their medications means the treatment is effective; relapse to drug or alcohol use following discharge from rehab is seen as treatment failure. Just as in any other chronic disease, addiction requires lifelong disease management with behavioral interventions and relapse-prevention medications.

Recovery from addiction requires a lifelong change in attitudes and lifestyle. There are no drugs that fix this problem. AA does not work for people who do not choose to make the lifestyle changes. Saying that AA is ineffective because many people don't want to accept the treatment is like saying cholesterol meds don't work because people don't want to take them.

A big part of making the lifestyle change requires that one's admit that one's current way of doing things is a failure. This admission starts by accepting the hard and unsympathetic label of 'addict'. If someone does not want to accept this label then they are in denial and will relapse. Trying to avoid the label may make sense in the initial stages of treatment but ultimately an addict must accept the label to get long term recovery.

Edited April 11, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

You omitted the stuff that does not support your thesis:

Recovery from addiction requires a lifelong change in attitudes and lifestyle. There are no drugs that fix this problem. AA does not work for people who do not choose to make the lifestyle changes. Saying that AA is ineffective because many people don't want to accept the treatment is like saying cholesterol meds don't work because people don't want to take them.

A big part of making the lifestyle change requires that one's admit that one's current way of doing things is a failure. This admission starts by accepting the hard and unsympathetic label of 'addict'. If someone does not want to accept this label then they are in denial and will relapse. Trying to avoid the label may make sense in the initial stages of treatment but ultimately an addict must accept the label to get long term recovery.

While it's not my thesis, I do agree with most of it and I didn't think it was necessary to quote every item in the article. I wasn't omitting anything.

AA does not work for everyone and surely you must agree with that. As far as accepting a label 'Addict', that's ridiculous. The only thing they need to accept is that they have a problem and they need help, period!

[WestCoastRunner]

Ya I'm not hung up on the 'disease' concept.

Call it a bad habit, over consumption, whatever.

Addiction is drug/alcohol use that interferes with functioning - work, community, family.

.

Agree. I'm not a big fan of labels and they do nothing to improve one's life.

[jacee]

I take you think safe injection sites are a waste of money then?

That's about preventing harm to addicts and communities too, from needles in parks, reuse and disease, etc.

With legalization, regulation, treatment, housing and jobs addressed for addicts, the harm would be far less.

And the organized crime element removed.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... As far as accepting a label 'Addict', that's ridiculous. The only thing they need to accept is that they have a problem and they need help, period!

Agreed....that's why back in the day we called them "junkies"....still do. "Addict" is too clinical a term.

[TimG]

AA does not work for everyone and surely you must agree with that. As far as accepting a label 'Addict', that's ridiculous. The only thing they need to accept is that they have a problem and they need help, period!

AA does not work for everyone but that does not mean is it not effective for those that do choose to follow the program.

As for accepting the label addict, it would be straight forward to collect data: follow addicts for 2 years after entering treatment. Note which ones accept the word addict at some point during their treatment and which ones are able to be clean and sober 2 years later. My experience tells me that accepting the word addict and recovery will be strongly correlated. IOW, it is not an absurd position and it could be verified with data if someone choose to do so.

Edited April 11, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

As for accepting the label addict, it would be straight forward to collect data: follow addicts for 2 years after entering treatment. Note which ones accept the word addict at some point during their treatment and which ones are able to be clean and sober 2 years later. My experience tells me that accepting the word addict and recovery will be strongly correlated. IOW, it is not an absurd position and it could be verified with data if someone choose to do so.

Do you have a cite for this?

[WestCoastRunner]

AA does not work for everyone but that does not mean is it not effective for those that do choose to follow the program.

As for accepting the label addict, it would be straight forward to collect data: follow addicts for 2 years after entering treatment. Note which ones accept the word addict at some point during their treatment and which ones are able to be clean and sober 2 years later. My experience tells me that accepting the word addict and recovery will be strongly correlated. IOW, it is not an absurd position and it could be verified with data if someone choose to do so.

According to some recovery programs, it is helpful to think of oneself as an addict or alcoholic in the first stages of recovery. This self-labeling or diagnosis by a health professional is thought to help a person realize the extent of the pattern of addiction in one’s life, thereby helping the person see the need for ongoing recovery. But why must a person take this on as a central identity, especially given the risk of relapse associated with any mental identity around self-worth? At the Kiloby Center, we believe it is sufficient to educate a person about addiction being a pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving, rather than an identity. It is possible to simply be aware of this pattern operating in one’s life and to address it with effective treatment methods without adding the extra layer of identity such as “I’m an addict” or “I’m an alcoholic.”

We are not these labels. To wrap up our entire identity, life history and values into these labels is to greatly reduce ourselves into one little conceptual box. These labels are restrictive and unnecessary. They are helpful within the health care community for the purpose of diagnosing and then treating addiction as a disease with medication. But our focus is not on medication at the Center. Our focus is on mindfulness. So we do not need these labels or diagnoses to treat people. If people need medication, we refer them to our doctors who may use these diagnoses for the purpose of prescribing medications that are covered by insurance. But in group and private sessions, we question these identities and all other self-limiting identities in order to free people of the grip of problematic thinking.

http://kilobycenter.com/the-labels-addict-and-alcoholic/