Jump to content

Treat Addiction as a Disease


Big Guy

Recommended Posts

I disagree. They have a disease that is very different from all others. Like mental illness, there is no need to disguise it or make excuses for it. The first step for any addict to seek help is to accept the fact that they are addicts and need help. They are members of our society and deserve all of the same resources and assistance as do all other who suffer from a disease.

I am certainly not covering up the issue. But you confirm my issue. You are labelling them as addicts. They would like to address themselves as individuals with an issue with alcohol etc.

There is great issues with labelling this as a disease.

Much research has proven this isn't a disease.

Edited by WestCoastRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My suggestion is to place people addicted to opiates on permanent opiate prescription for the rest of their lives.

And I am saying it can't work unless an addict is willing to accept treatment because no addict in denial is going to limit their consumption to what the doctor is willing to provide. That is why the only real option is treatment designed to get the addict off drugs entirely with maintenance only as a tool of last resort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would like to address themselves as individuals with an issue with alcohol etc.

Why do you think you speak for addicts? Are you one? If not get off your high horse. I know many addicts in recovery and none of them have an issue with being called an addict/alcoholic. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key in any case is to stop wasting money on enforcement and reroute that funding to medical research and treatment.

The real key is to stop wasting so much time on morality. I'm loath to suggest that be rerouted anywhere though. I'm sure they'd find something else to freak out about soon enough. Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the latest research.

Not an answer. You arrogantly presumed to speak for all addicts. An appeal to an unknown authority does not grant you that right. The only people who can speak for addicts are addicts themselves and even then each person is an individual and can only speak for themselves.

As I said: many addicts in recovery use the label and see it as a statement of fact and not an insult.

You cannot refute that claim by selectively citing some unknown study that tells you what you want to hear.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know they are avoiding treatment?

And so what of if they aren't? It's clear there will always be some who will never accept treatment.

Instead of wasting money on enforcement and forcing people into treatment it should be spent on housing for homeless people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you suggest anything to further enhance this discussion.

You mean you haven't gone over this discussion already in a dozen other threads?

Morality has always been the prime force driving opposition to doing anything constructive about this issue. Until it's dealt with it'll always remain an uphill struggle. A very unnecessary one too.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so what of if they aren't? It's clear there will always be some who will never accept treatment.

Instead of wasting money on enforcement and forcing people into treatment it should be spent on housing for homeless people.

I agree. As I have said its a complex issue. And I heve never advocated enforcement of treatment. Edited by WestCoastRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. As I have said its a complex issue. And I heve never advocated enforcement of treatment.

A lot of help and support yes but forcing treatment is a waste of time. People need to make the decision to get off drugs or alcohol by themselves. It can't happen until they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is people referring to them as addicts which further stigmatizes them. We need to as a society work together to allow them to reach out to resources in a respectable and humane way. They are our mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, etc. They aren't addicts. They are first of all humans.

I disagree. I smoked for years, I was a tobacco addict. It was my habit being stigmatized, pressure from my family and concern for my own health that made me quit for good. I "quit" several times before that but went back. I was just a smoker taking a break from smoking. Then one day it was different, I was ready and never looked back. I've had recovered alcoholics tell me the same thing. Yes, they needed a lot of help and support but they had to make the decision before it could happen.

I also disagree that so called "funtioning" addicts should receive free drugs or alcohol. If they are "functioning" they should be able to pay for their own but legally and under supervision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then one day it was different, I was ready and never looked back. I've had recovered alcoholics tell me the same thing.

Exactly. Addiction is a disease that can't be treated until a person makes a decision. Many well meaning people have only prolonged an addiction by sheltering the addict from the consequences of their drug use. That is why any help offered by society has to start after the addict admits they have a problem and they need to change. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why is there an illegal trade of Oxycontin? It *is* legal after all. Or are you suggesting that we should stop requiring prescriptions to access drugs and let people by as much as they want of any drug they want?b

I believe Oxycontins are off the market now in Canada and have been for awhile. But oxycodone or percocets are still available.

Edited by jazzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so what of if they aren't? It's clear there will always be some who will never accept treatment.

Instead of wasting money on enforcement and forcing people into treatment it should be spent on housing for homeless people.

One of the biggest reasons that people don't get treatment is because of the social stigma. If you end decriminalization the number of people seeking treatment will go through the roof... you just need to make sure that treatment exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest reasons that people don't get treatment is because of the social stigma. If you end decriminalization the number of people seeking treatment will go through the roof... you just need to make sure that treatment exists.

The problem is addiction, not legalization or decriminalization. That is a different issue. What about the social stigma of smoking and alcoholism? They are both legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest reasons that people don't get treatment is because of the social stigma.

Why do you think you know this? Addiction by its nature leads people to deny they have a problem. The biggest barrier to seeking treatment are addicts who believe they are 'in control'. That is one of the reasons why getting addicts to admit they are addicts is the first step to recovery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think you know this? Addiction by its nature leads people to deny they have a problem. The biggest barrier to seeking treatment are addicts who believe they are 'in control'. That is one of the reasons why getting addicts to admit they are addicts is the first step to recovery.

My point is that what you are suggesting is what is currently being done. My position is that it is not working, nor has any method attempted in the past - from "Just Say No", to education, to targeting drug dealers to ...?

If you feel the issue has been satisfied then we continue the same process again and again and ... I feel that it has not only not been effective but the situation is getting worse - so I have proposed a different approach. It may or may not work but what do we have to lose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you feel the issue has been satisfied then we continue the same process again and again and ... I feel that it has not only not been effective but the situation is getting worse - so I have proposed a different approach. It may or may not work but what do we have to lose?

Your approach is nonsensical. The problems have been pointed out numerous times and you have not even attempted to address the criticisms. It is a waste of time for you to keep posting your "ideas" until you make an attempt to address the criticisms.

Specifically: giving drugs to addicts is like treating diabetes with sugar or lung cancer with smoking. No competent medical professional would give such ideas credence. That said, managing withdrawal is important and small quantities of the drugs in question can help. But managing withdrawal as part of a more comprehensive treatment program is a lot different from your proposal which is basically 'as much free drugs as the addict wants'

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I also disagree that so called "funtioning" addicts should receive free drugs or alcohol. If they are "functioning" they should be able to pay for their own but legally and under supervision.

I do not include alcohol in my proposal. I am talking about opiate addiction. I consider "functioning" as those who are able to hold down a job and/or satisfy their responsibilities as parents, caregivers etc. while on a supervised and prescribed program of free drugs. The actual cost of heroin and Methadone is miniscule as compared to street prices.

I understand that anecdotal evidence can be suspect and statistics are a better indicator but since this is a new approach there are few previous results to compare. In our small town in Southern Ontario, there are a number of people who give their urine sample at 7:30 in the morning and then go to a local pharmacy to get their sip of Methadone at 8:00 so they can continue to their 9 to 5 jobs as factor workers, self employed, civil servants et al.

Edited by Big Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem for inner city addicts is environment. My cop son tells me he has seen lots of cases where people who have been sent to prison for crimes committed in order to feed their habit, have received treatment in prison and been released clean, have shown up in their same old haunts. He asks them what the hell they are doing back here and they say, oh just visiting some old buddies but they are OK now. Next time he sees them, they are back to square one.

I don't know what you do about that in a free society but it takes an extremely strong person who was addicted themselves, to stay clean in an environment where they are surrounded by addicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not include alcohol in my proposal. I am talking about opiate addiction. I consider "functioning" as those who are able to hold down a job and/or satisfy their responsibilities as parents, caregivers etc. while on a supervised and prescribed program of free drugs. The actual cost of heroin and Methadone is miniscule as compared to street prices.

I understand that anecdotal evidence can be suspect and statistics are a better indicator but since this is a new approach there are to previous results to compare. In our small town in Southern Ontario, there are a number of people who give their urine sample at 7:30 in the morning and then go to a local pharmacy to get their sip of Methadone at 8:00 so they can continue to their 9 to 5 jobs as factor workers, self employed, civil servants wet al.

If they can hold down a job and look after their other obligations, they can pay for their own poison. The financial cost of addiction should be another disincentive even if it is minimal. I agree that there should be a way of doing it legaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your approach is nonsensical. The problems have been pointed out numerous times and you have not even attempted to address the criticisms. It is a waste of time for you to keep posting your "ideas" until you make an attempt to address the criticisms.

Specifically: giving drugs to addicts is like treating diabetes with sugar or lung cancer with smoking. No competent medical professional would give such ideas credence.

If you still believe that what we are currently doing is OK then good for you! Do not expect the rate or destruction of addiction to change.

What criticisms have I not addressed? That you think the current methods are OK and I do not think so?

As to the medical communities giving "credence" to the idea: "Opioid maintenance treatment of opiate addiction, including methadone maintenance, has been found to be effective in curtailing drug use, reducing crime, enhancing social productivity, and preventing both overdose deaths and the spread of infectious diseases, including HIV."

That is from that (perhaps not competent medical journal) Journal of General Internal Medicine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495048/

I suggest that you review your position based on the few statistics that are beginning to surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they can hold down a job and look after their other obligations, they can pay for their own poison. The financial cost of addiction should be another disincentive even if it is minimal. I agree that there should be a way of doing it legaly.

You may be correct but the cost of illegal opiates could triple and the addicts would still pay it. I do not believe that it is a disincentive. If the cost goes up, the addict will steal more to satisfy that habit or increase the number of Johns that they service daily.

Edited by Big Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...