News4 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.
Perhaps I should have added that I am "a recovering alcoholic",just in case anyone has the image of me posting nonsense on AB because I have been drinking. I do that sober!
We do tend to call ourselves alcoholics even though in "recovery". The "recovery" bit is to remind us that we are still dependent underneath it all, and any, or any given, amount of alcohol will send us back to where we were, but, by all accounts, worse.
We do tend to call ourselves alcoholics even though in "recovery". The "recovery" bit is to remind us that we are still dependent underneath it all, and any, or any given, amount of alcohol will send us back to where we were, but, by all accounts, worse.
I agree EB that it is a condition rather than a disease. It comes from personal choice. Whether your (not you EB) mother/father/uncle/aunty whoever was an alcoholic has no bearing what-so-ever in your decision to take to drink.
A member of my family has been an alcoholic for years and has had their obnoxious behavior excused countless times using the "well X's father was an alcoholic so they can't help it, it's in their genes." Bo11ox!
A member of my family has been an alcoholic for years and has had their obnoxious behavior excused countless times using the "well X's father was an alcoholic so they can't help it, it's in their genes." Bo11ox!
Whether addiction itself is a disease or not is open for debate - but the consequences of that addiction can lead to disease states.
There is a fair degree of evidence from familial studies, studies with identical twins and studies with non-identical twins to suggest that addiction can be attributed at least in part to a hardwired biological imperative, so the latest thinking on addiction is that it is part genetic predisposition, part exposure to addictive substances.
And if something is part genetic predispostion, part nature - such as some forms of heart disease, or cancer, and if they can be treated and classified as a disease, then its does not seem a great stretch to describe addiction that way either.
And in terms of treating the addiction, is it better to treat it as a medical issue, a disease, or as a social/ cultural issue?
There is a fair degree of evidence from familial studies, studies with identical twins and studies with non-identical twins to suggest that addiction can be attributed at least in part to a hardwired biological imperative, so the latest thinking on addiction is that it is part genetic predisposition, part exposure to addictive substances.
And if something is part genetic predispostion, part nature - such as some forms of heart disease, or cancer, and if they can be treated and classified as a disease, then its does not seem a great stretch to describe addiction that way either.
And in terms of treating the addiction, is it better to treat it as a medical issue, a disease, or as a social/ cultural issue?
Evian, current research may be summarised by saying that there is a greater vulnerability because of the presence of certain genes. The study of twins and other studies suggest that this is so:
http://
http://
I don't know enough about genetics to comment on whether people can be predisposed to addictions. I know an alcoholic whose mother and grandfather are alcoholics but if it is down to genetics then why aren't the siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins etc similarly affected?
What I do know is that whether the addiction be drink, drugs, smoking or overeating, no one made the addict take that first step. They did it of their own free will and in most cases were well aware of the consequences.
I do not wish to upset anyone who has an addiction, but IMO many addicts are not well rounded, emotionally secure people and tend to have a variety of issues.
What I do know is that whether the addiction be drink, drugs, smoking or overeating, no one made the addict take that first step. They did it of their own free will and in most cases were well aware of the consequences.
I do not wish to upset anyone who has an addiction, but IMO many addicts are not well rounded, emotionally secure people and tend to have a variety of issues.
But to me, that means you could in theory label anything as a disease, when it suited. Lazy? No, I've got a disease that makes me want to sit on my arse doing nothing.
I know exactly what I want to say in reply to you Lazygun and Fred but my mind is half on other things and I can't put the words together concisely at the moment. Think I'm going to have to come back to this later on when I can focus on it properly.
I know exactly what I want to say in reply to you Lazygun and Fred but my mind is half on other things and I can't put the words together concisely at the moment. Think I'm going to have to come back to this later on when I can focus on it properly.
"I know exactly what I want to say to you LazyGun and Fred" -Sounds ominous, Evian :)
Genetic predisposition means exactly that - it does not mean an automatic 100% addiction necessarily. Genetics and biology are not as precise as that, its far more messy.
I think I know where you are coming from, and that fact that an addiction could be classified as a disease should not mean that it can therefore be used as an excuse for destructive behaviour - I am not suggesting that.
Genetic predisposition means exactly that - it does not mean an automatic 100% addiction necessarily. Genetics and biology are not as precise as that, its far more messy.
I think I know where you are coming from, and that fact that an addiction could be classified as a disease should not mean that it can therefore be used as an excuse for destructive behaviour - I am not suggesting that.
missnemesis, what your describing is the classic behaviour of an alcoholic, familiar to all of us. Alcoholics will always look for external causes to justify their continued drinking.The drink has taken over their lives, and the most frightening prospect is the thought that they may not get another as soon as they want it. Nothing else matters; indeed, waking up without a drink to hand is physically hard, the brief withdrawal being painful as well as frightening.
In consequence they say absurd things like "Well, anybody would drink, married to you" to a wife who simply comments on their drinking, and so saying that they were born alcoholic is another, and convenient one, though it may be a bit truer than they realise.
In consequence they say absurd things like "Well, anybody would drink, married to you" to a wife who simply comments on their drinking, and so saying that they were born alcoholic is another, and convenient one, though it may be a bit truer than they realise.
Why then is there a need to do that FredP? Why can't they just put their hands up and say "I'm an alcoholic because I drink too much, because I think my getting a drink is more important than feeding my children or paying my bills."
Using anything and everything to justify their behavior is deplorable. It's nobody's fault but their own.
Using anything and everything to justify their behavior is deplorable. It's nobody's fault but their own.
As far as I have read some people are more disposed to becoming alcoholics than others . There is a diffrence between alcohol dependence and true alcoholism. A true alcoholic can not function without alcohol , they go into a condition similar to an epileptic fit with tremors and hallucinations if they can't get alcohol. I personally know 3 such people and I have seen what happens if they have to go with out booze, one of them gets very violent as well if he can't get a drink.
In short any one can have an alcohol problem but only a % will become true alcoholics.
In short any one can have an alcohol problem but only a % will become true alcoholics.
missnemesis, they don't "put their hands up" and say that they drink too much because they are in denial, a psychological state brought on by the developing alcoholism. It goes through stages, each more extreme than the last. In the last stage, the alcoholic may be sitting in a room surrounded ankle- deep by nearly a thousand empty vodka bottles, as I was, and still denying that he needs help or has a problem.
No practising alcoholic is capable of doing that because the addiction doesn't let them. The moment that the alcoholic accepts that he is an alcoholic and needs help is the moment he can recover, though he is unlikely then to use the word "alcoholic", preferring to say that he thinks he has a problem ! He will the word alcoholic only later. When and if, that happens is unexplained and unpredictable. I fear that those who are lucky enough to have that happen are vastly outnumbered by those to whom it never does.
No practising alcoholic is capable of doing that because the addiction doesn't let them. The moment that the alcoholic accepts that he is an alcoholic and needs help is the moment he can recover, though he is unlikely then to use the word "alcoholic", preferring to say that he thinks he has a problem ! He will the word alcoholic only later. When and if, that happens is unexplained and unpredictable. I fear that those who are lucky enough to have that happen are vastly outnumbered by those to whom it never does.
LazyGun......in my opinion we may be falling onto a genetic trip here with aetiological explanations to diseases of which we cannot classify.....here we have "addictions."
Way back in the 60's we investigated a disease by laboratory methods and any abnormality was quickly attributed as the cause, when in many cases it led us up a " blind alley."
We are now in an area of genotype investigation and any abnormality is now being attributed as the cause of the disorder and thus allowing us to label it as a disease.
In my opinion that " blind alley" may well be re appearing.
Way back in the 60's we investigated a disease by laboratory methods and any abnormality was quickly attributed as the cause, when in many cases it led us up a " blind alley."
We are now in an area of genotype investigation and any abnormality is now being attributed as the cause of the disorder and thus allowing us to label it as a disease.
In my opinion that " blind alley" may well be re appearing.
@Sqad - Not sure I follow your argument there - can you offer any specific examples of these "blind alleys" that you mention?
To use addiction as an excuse or self-justification for destructive actions that harm themselves and others is obviously wrong, but that does not in itself make it any less a disease.
The aetiology of many of the more common diseases are now recognised as being in part a genetic predisposition, coupled with environmental exposure, through lifestyle or otherwise. I am not of the opinion that unravelling the genetic code will be the Rosetta Stone of health and medicine, but it is undoubtedly true that genetics and perhaps more importantly epigenetics have a critical role in whether people will develop one disease state in preference to another, say....
To use addiction as an excuse or self-justification for destructive actions that harm themselves and others is obviously wrong, but that does not in itself make it any less a disease.
The aetiology of many of the more common diseases are now recognised as being in part a genetic predisposition, coupled with environmental exposure, through lifestyle or otherwise. I am not of the opinion that unravelling the genetic code will be the Rosetta Stone of health and medicine, but it is undoubtedly true that genetics and perhaps more importantly epigenetics have a critical role in whether people will develop one disease state in preference to another, say....
Latest Posts
Home & Garden5 mins ago
I Don't Believe In Peace Now...
News30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Watching Queen's Tennis And It's Driving...
Sport47 mins ago
