I was watching bill nye and he asked people a question. Is addiction a disease? I personally do think it is a disease. But what do you think?
I don't believe my addiction was a disease. It was my fault. I could have spoke up and said "stop giving me narcotics" but I didn't That said I think that decision is personal and would never disagree with a person who said they felt their addiction was disease
I think some people (like me) are prone to it, for an unexplained reason. I don't know what that reason is.
A disease is merely an illness that affects an organism, impairing natural function. Though, personally, I prefer it be considered a condition rather than a disease. Addiction is much more of a psychological ailment rather than biological condition. The term disease often carries the assumption of a biological disposition or something that can't be helped without medical care and treatment.
a question that hurts my brain ahhhh I really don't know, it feels like an illness and if you've ever watched an alcoholic on forced withdrawal it certainly seems like a fucking disease but ~technical definitions~ and etc....
No, it's a psychological issue that often had physical consequences. Also, diseases tend to naturally spread whereas addictions, not so much. Happy days
From my experience with my grandma, it's a mental health issue and a disease that causes many other diseases. She's drank to deal with every problem that she encountered in her life, with all her stresses, her abusive husband, everything. That leads to liver disease/cirrhosis, all leading to death if untreated.
My personal understanding is that addiction is a multi-layered disease with mental, spiritual and psychological aspects that all need to be addressed and dealt with in order for recovery. As an recovering person, I know it didn't take me long to get PHYSICALLY sober. However, it has taken me many years to get a healthy mind and a healthy soul.
The neurological state of being inclined towards addiction is a genuine condition, although I'm not sure it could be classified as a disease. How this then manifests itself in a person with this brain type depends on a number of factors. I spoke to my friend who is a recovering alcoholic about this and she was telling me that studies have been done which show the brain of someone inclined towards addiction reacts differently to those of other people. Someone with this brain type has an area of the brain which 'remembers' alcohol or other substances, and becomes active again when reminded of this even long after periods of successful abstinence. Of course anyone can become dependent on a specific chemical if taken often enough but it is those with this specific brain type that will face a lifelong struggle of having to resist temptation long after the body is clean and past the withdrawal stage.
It is considered a disease by most addiction treatment centers, but that designation is somewhat controversial. Based on the latest brain chemistry research we have, it is not a psychological issue, and (in the overwhelming majority of cases) in no way the fault of the addicted person. There is solid evidence for an early-in-life failure of proper neurotransmitter pathway development which creates a high risk for the development of addictions (and, for that matter, a number of other physical illnesses.) Of course, not everyone who has the risk factors for addiction will develop it if they are never exposed to the addictive materials, in the same way that only a portion (in some cases as low as 10%) of the women that have the gene for breast cancer will develop it. There are other psychoneuroimmunological factors at work, and this is an interesting area of new research. So in short, by recognizing it as a disease, we can then recognize that it is likely to require ongoing care and treatment, and that it is not the fault of the person with the addiction. This, in turn, reduces the shame of the person with the addiction and increases the likelihood that s/he can attain and maintain sobriety.
I would place addiction into a class of disease similar to emotional/mental/personality disorders, but definitely a disease. Alcoholism is a variant. While I do feel there could be a small percentage who are a little more in-control of their substance abuse, I feel that largely addiction for most is definitely a disease that, once it progresses to a certain point, becomes beyond their control. However, having said that, I also feel like people bring this disease on themselves; you cannot become addicted to something if you don't consume it. There's a certain amount of personal responsibility that goes along with it. I guess you could say it's kind of like diabetes... Your lifestyle can bring on the disease, and then you've got this affliction to deal with and treat. I speak from personal experience, and I'll just leave it at that.
"Disorder" is a better word for it. Many addictions, especially chemical dependencies, involve actual changes in brain functioning which reinforce the dependency. That said, not all addictions have that neurological component. For those that don't, the answer depends on whether or not you buy the medical model of mental illness in general. I would say its more a question of definitions than of objective facts.
I think it is a disease to an extent. I certainly think some people are genetically predisposed to it. And when an addiction really takes hold on you, a lot of times it's impossible to go cold turkey without medical intervention.
I'd imagine it as a psychological issue that shouldn't be taken likely.. Instead of tossing people in jail for drugs we should put that funding for them in a rehab or something along those lines.. There are so many things that contribute to drug addiction though, can't imagine how hard it is to overcome.
How do you feel about people who recognize their role in addiction and don't feel it is a disease? I mean it isn't to shame anyone by any means and as I posted originally I am not here to tell any other addict how to feel...but for me personally my addiction was indeed my fault and not due to chemistry or anything of the sort I know you said in your post that the science was not absolute...I just wondered what you thought about that approach?
You know, my feelings on this are evolving as I study it more. But to answer your specific question, I think it is complicated and nuanced. If we look at the research (all conducted by third parties at respected institutions and pretty much stuff that isn't in dispute)... there is no question, for example, that anybody exposed to refined opiates, amphetamines, or benzos over a long enough period will develop a physical addiction to them. Thus, when you take a random group of people who are exposed to opiates and develop addiction to them, a fairly large portion of that group will have relatively minimal difficulty getting and staying sober, because there are no broken neurotransmitter pathways. The best example of this is the soldiers who came back from the Viet Nam war addicted to heroin. 5 years later, about 85% of them were clean and sober with no relapses. But there is also a portion of the population for whom the addiction is immediate and it is very difficult to maintain sobriety; in a typical population of heroin addicts (actually, most any opiate addiction) statistically, one would typically see only about 20 or 30% of the population remaining sober for periods greater than 5 years, and the 20 year sobriety rate is lower than that. Of course... at the end of the day, someone who never tries heroin, or has never taken or abused opiates is at zero risk of addiction to them, so in that way, we can argue that someone who takes that risk, even if it is one time, may need to accept some responsibility for his or her addiction. But we also know, at least based on the best evidence we currently have (which is solid but not irrefutable) that most of the people who do have addictions that are difficult to kick do, in fact, appear to have the biochemical predisposition toward it.
That's about what I think of it, too. There is some genetic predisposition to it, and it has very clear symptoms, but I'm not sure I'd call it a disease.