Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(11,463 posts)
11. "Do you give in to 'the inevitable'?" - is that what you really think classifying addiction
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:53 PM
Jul 2016

Last edited Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:23 AM - Edit history (3)

as a disease is all about?

[font color = blue]>>But in fact I dont find your suggested definition of disease to be narrow enough to be of any use.<<[/font]

So give us your definition, rather than ducking, weaving, and dodging. Mine comes from a medical dictionary. I would have included narrower definitions, but there weren't any.

Where does your definition (if any) come from, and who subscribes to that definition, other than using it as a strawman to bash the "disease theory"? Or is it just some notions in your head about what you think a disease is?

You asked us in your OP whether addiction is a disease. You seem obsessed (sorry) to me with whether addiction is a disease or not. I'm not saying you are obsessed, or wrongly obsessed with addiction. But rather whether it is a "disease" or not. Not just this thread but just about all the others you've started in this group. Without any definition, all this discussion about whether addiction is a disease or not is meaningless pseudo-intellectual twaddle.

I still don't understand the hang-up on the D-word. Especially when you don't define it. You can't categorize X as a Y or not a Y until you have some kind of definition of both.

[font color = blue]>>I try to avoid insulting adjectives. Please reciprocate.<<[/font]

You've made your share of insulting put-down statements if not any bad single adjectives. Some people are obsessed with the disease thing, and if it’s a bit too strong of a word to fit you, I'm sorry, but IMHO its pretty darn close.

[font color = blue]>>If you just want to know what most people think, then addiction as disease is right on the money. But that view hasnt got much solid science backing it.<<[/font]

Depends on the definition of disease, and whose opinion is being asked etc. etc. Quite a royal statement and yet you don't even offer a definition of disease. And I don't know any medical or psychological or psychiatric associations that think addiction is not a disease. You dismiss that as just being about money. But often the anti-disease people are trying to sell a book or a program.

[font color = blue]>>My view a bit simplified: I tend to think that severe and deep stress is a huge factor in most cases, but other causes can be dominant in other cases.<<[/font]

I don't doubt social and psychological factors are a big part of it.

[font color = brown]>>And, do you think bipolar disorder, major depression, schizophrenia and other so-called "mental diseases" are diseases or just disorders or something other than the dreaded "D-word"?<<[/font]

[font color = blue]>>Nobody really understand how the brain works at this point in time. And the subject is way off topic here.<<[/font]

I'm just seeing whether you think so-called mental diseases are diseases, and what distinguishes them from addiction other than the presence of a chemical. I don't agree its "way off topic here". They all fit my "uselessly" broad definition of disease. Since you don't have a definition, I have to prod and probe to find out what constitutes a disease in your mind.

(From #10) [font color = blue]>> The way that you feel about that might color your perception of people like Lewis (or me) who tries to move addiction into a social or psychological category. So what we can treat addiction with better success.<<[/font]

Again, I have seen no definition of disease that doesn't allow for a major or even primary role for social and psychological factors. (Again that's why I asked about the "mental diseases&quot . I am a big fan of cognitive techniques, Rational Emotive Therapy, etc. I quit smoking and drinking by carrying around cards with rational statements, like "if I have just one, I'll want the next one even more than the first, so by having "just one", I won't satisfy any craving but rather make it worse".

Or in short hand: "3>2>1" which means I'll want the 3rd one even more than I wanted the 2nd one, and I'll want the 2nd one even more than the first one.

And although I'm no fan of the A.A. 12-steps, I do give A.A. a big thumbs up for creating a social environment where people can spend time and have fun with others soberly.

[font color = blue]>>Where this will be important in real life is when you make choices about how to help yourself or loved ones. Do you give in to "the inevitable"? Do you rearrange your life to take care of vulnerabilities. There are practical implications to these very different views.<<[/font]

Uhh, explain how. Do you think someone who thinks of addiction as a disease "gives into the inevitable"? That's the rough-hewn type logic I see on other message boards. That's the old "if its a disease, its permanent and incurable, so what the fuck" working definition that some people seem to have, but matches no medical definition of disease that I know of.

Most people think that diabetes is a disease, but very few diabetics that I know of use it as an excuse to do nothing and just drop dead. Most diabetics take insulin and try to maintain a healthy diet, for example.

Likewise, [font color = blue]"Do you rearrange your life to take care of vulnerabilities"[/font]. Oh fuck no. Since I believe I have a disease, therefore, I moved into an apartment above a bar, and keep a full liquor cabinet. Do you really believe that's what thinking of addiction as a disease leads to?

Latest Discussions»Support Forums»Addiction & Recovery»Is addiction really a dis...»Reply #11