Road rules6 mins ago
Addiction = Disease
48 Answers
I realise this won't be a popular point of view but I'd like to know when we started labelling addictions to alcohol, drugs, etc as diseases. And Why.
To be honest, in my mind it's just a label that excuses the behaviour because it's easier than tackling the problem.
Addictions tear entire families apart because someone continually chooses to take a substance, which is something a cancer sufferer would not have the luxury of. I'm certainly not saying it's an easy choice, I've seen with my own eyes how hard it can be but I really feel like this disease label panders to people who could control it with the right attitude and help.
Just interested to see other peoples views on it really?
To be honest, in my mind it's just a label that excuses the behaviour because it's easier than tackling the problem.
Addictions tear entire families apart because someone continually chooses to take a substance, which is something a cancer sufferer would not have the luxury of. I'm certainly not saying it's an easy choice, I've seen with my own eyes how hard it can be but I really feel like this disease label panders to people who could control it with the right attitude and help.
Just interested to see other peoples views on it really?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EvianBaby. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think some addictions can be pre-disposed by childhood/ teenage years. Sometimes I read about a case and it seems a tad easier to understand how and why this or that person succumbed. I used to drink a great deal, wine every night , a bottle at least. I managed to stop before the absolute dependancy grabbed me but I must have been pretty close. I don't think addictions should be labelled as disease, more condition.
;-) ............I agree with you completely.
Disease to me has either 1) abnormality present at birth,2) an infection,3) a malignancy,4) a biochemical disorder 5) an age related problem 6) a genetic predisposition.
To me alcoholism and or drug abuse, doesn't fit into any of my categories as above on present day medical research and hence an addiction is just that..an addiction.....not a disease.
Disease to me has either 1) abnormality present at birth,2) an infection,3) a malignancy,4) a biochemical disorder 5) an age related problem 6) a genetic predisposition.
To me alcoholism and or drug abuse, doesn't fit into any of my categories as above on present day medical research and hence an addiction is just that..an addiction.....not a disease.
Addiction is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain—in structure and in function. It's true that for most people, the initial decision to take drugs is voluntary. Over time, however, drug abuse can cause changes to the brain that erode a person's self control and ability to make sound decisions, while sending intense impulses to take drugs
I tend to agree that addictions are an initial choice made by the person, but quickly becomes out of control when the person finds it easier to deal with life with the help of their preferred drug than without it. I don't think it's a disease in the truest sense of the word but I do think that it should be treated with sympathy rather than just labelling the person as a wate of time who makes a conscious decision to behave destructively because for most people it appears to be a coping mechanism.
I agree too that it should be labelled as a disease but more of a condition. I saw somewhere that they have said some people have an addictive nature (guess that's genetic or built in from birth?) which can kick in at anytime. Maybe it also applies to addiction to shopping, collecting and so on too, you have that sort of nature or not.
@ dave, IMO I don't think obesity can be called addiction but smoking can of course by the nature of the chemicals in cigarettes apparently causing the addiction. I think some people have a tendency towards obesity because of something in their bodies. I have known a family who are extremely lean and skinny who eat much more than average but don't put on an ounce of weight. I feel sure body/genetics can play a part in whether someone gets fat on what they eat or stay slim too. Just an opinion of mine.
SD, in my opinion they are not diseases either.
I'm a smoker. I'm addicted to it. But my addiction is not a disease. Although it could cause a disease.
To call it a disease would to me suggest it's not my fault. I smoke because there's something wrong with me, rather than just making little to no effort to put a stop to it. It's an excuse.
I'm a smoker. I'm addicted to it. But my addiction is not a disease. Although it could cause a disease.
To call it a disease would to me suggest it's not my fault. I smoke because there's something wrong with me, rather than just making little to no effort to put a stop to it. It's an excuse.
Alcoholism does have a genetic base and so fits sqad's definition of 'disease'. There's been research which has demonstrated the link.
It was previously thought that it ran in families because alcohol dependent parents brought their children up to think that such consumption was normal and so it was a case of nurture, rather than nature, when their child became an alcoholic. I am an alcoholic. Neither of my parents drank to excess; I never saw my father drink more than a couple of drinks, and that rarely, and my mother was virtually teetotal. My grandfather, who died before I was born, died of drink,as I was to discover from my mother, his daughter, who had kept that a secret until she blurted it out when she saw the way I was going. It turns out, from attending AA,from lectures during counselling and from reading up, that I am not unusual in that because the tendency passed down through the generations.
I think of it as like diabetes. Once established it requires constant attention to stop it causing harm. But whatever you call it, it is still fatal if unchecked.
It was previously thought that it ran in families because alcohol dependent parents brought their children up to think that such consumption was normal and so it was a case of nurture, rather than nature, when their child became an alcoholic. I am an alcoholic. Neither of my parents drank to excess; I never saw my father drink more than a couple of drinks, and that rarely, and my mother was virtually teetotal. My grandfather, who died before I was born, died of drink,as I was to discover from my mother, his daughter, who had kept that a secret until she blurted it out when she saw the way I was going. It turns out, from attending AA,from lectures during counselling and from reading up, that I am not unusual in that because the tendency passed down through the generations.
I think of it as like diabetes. Once established it requires constant attention to stop it causing harm. But whatever you call it, it is still fatal if unchecked.
Well, I certainly believe that nurture is a cause. Although of course, not in all cases. As you say, there are plenty of addicts who were raised in near sober homes. However, to suggest that it may be predisposed in your genes, that's something I would need to see some serious evidence to back up.
I do believe that's some people are more susceptible to addiction than others. And of course, once you're sucked in it's hard to get back out but that's not a disease in my eyes.
I do believe that's some people are more susceptible to addiction than others. And of course, once you're sucked in it's hard to get back out but that's not a disease in my eyes.
