Addiction is a disease

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had this argument with someone a while ago. He went so far in the defense of the "it's a disease" statement that he suggested that, because some people are pre-disposed genetically to have alcoholism, they could therefore be said to be alcoholics even if they never have a drink. Needless to say, I found that a bit absurd.

I think it has been established that a person predisposed to addiction must still experience disease triggers. Just as being predisposed to cancer may not mean you will get it. There are many things which reflect a combination of nature and nurture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Psychology is mostly quackery and non-scientific, but psychiatry is not that much better.

The problem is that the brain is incredibly hard to study, much different than a heart or a lung. We know nohting about how the brain works, so as a result we stumble in defining disease vs behavior for all these psychological issues.

And I'm so freaking sick of people using MRIs and CT scans to "prove" that something is a disease. Yes, your brain lights up differently when you drink alcohol vs when you are sober. So what. Your brain also lights up differently when you eat chocolate vs eating bread, does that mean eating chocoloate is a pathological process? Of course not.

Your brain lights up differently for every single thing you do. When you are doing laundry, your brain lights up very differently than when you are sleeping. So lets please drop the sensationalistic crap with brain imaging "proving" anything at all.

This is a poor understanding of what MRIs and PET scans look at. You don't compare drunk and sober, you compare a drunk alcoholic to a drunk non-alcoholic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course people jump on the bandwagon of "it's a disease so it's not my fault" or "it's a lack of willpower so it's all your fault," to further whatever agenda they want.....

Unfortunately, it is lawyers who came up with the idea of using disease models of behavior as a mainstay of criminal defense. However, society typically distinguishes between not knowing what you were doing and knowing it was wrong but doing it because of your predisposing factors be they abuse as a child or genetic. We don't let pedophiles off the hook for behavior, but we recognize they are highly likely to re-offend.

Disease does not equate to "therefore no responsibility". If you cannot stop yourself, you are responsible to seek treatment. And I think that is the terminology we could use to discuss "diseases" which result in behavior that harms other people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

I think the problem is that people put free will on a pedestal that it really doesn't deserve to be on. People don't really like to admit that willpower is simply another part of the brain, so when people find out that something is caused by some sort of problem with the brain, they feel that free will is simply out of the picture. This really isn't the case.

There are two ways to solve a brain problem, from the inside through will power, or from the outside through medical treatment. It so happens that alcoholism is a problem where dealing with the problem from the inside is extremely necessary. But it still seems valid to call it a disease.

You raise a good point. We also have this approach to free will that says if you don't volunteer for treatment, we won't force you. Yet addiction is a disease which seriously affects "will power". It creates a dilemma with no easy answers. But in an effort to protect free will, we may be going too far when we allow addicts who harm other people to make their own decisions.

I'm not advocating screening people for addiction then locking up people in treatment facilities. But I do think we need more mandatory treatment for addicts who repeatedly break the law. And it could be based on how dangerous the behavior is. Drunk drivers kill about 15,000 people a year in this country. Think about it, 15,000 people is five 911s every year. Sentencing laws need reform.

Yet we view selling drugs as as serious crime and our jails are filled with users and dealers alike.

We need a few less addicts in jail and a few more in mandatory treatment in my opinion.

 

[yersinia29]

This is a poor understanding of what MRIs and PET scans look at. You don't compare drunk and sober, you compare a drunk alcoholic to a drunk non-alcoholic.

So what that comparison is still bogus.

Suppose I'm a chocolate connoisseur and eat chocolate all day long. I'm subject A.

Subject B is a person that never eats chocolate.

Now you get a fMRI or PET of both of us while eating chocolate. My brain scan will be different than his, because over all the years of chocolate eating I've formed a lot more synaptic connections than subject B has related to chocolate.

So the results of that scan are meaningless. However, I've repeatedly heard so-called scientists and their lawyer cronies claim that this imaging difference proves that its a "disease process" and therefore the person cant control their own actions or behavior.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what that comparison is still bogus.

Suppose I'm a chocolate connoisseur and eat chocolate all day long. I'm subject A.

Subject B is a person that never eats chocolate.

Now you get a fMRI or PET of both of us while eating chocolate. My brain scan will be different than his, because over all the years of chocolate eating I've formed a lot more synaptic connections than subject B has related to chocolate.

So the results of that scan are meaningless. However, I've repeatedly heard so-called scientists and their lawyer cronies claim that this imaging difference proves that its a "disease process" and therefore the person cant control their own actions or behavior.

I don't usually say this sort of thing but, you are talking out of your ass.

If you have a specific issue you think brain research claims an answer to and you have contradictory evidence, that might be worth discussing. But here you have made an absurd blanket statement that brain scans have not been successful in studying the brain. All it shows is your incredible lack of knowledge of neuroscience research.

Have you considered actually reading a little bit about the diagnostic tools you so oddly dismiss out of hand? Have you read what the tools can reveal, what they are being used for that might not yet be solid science and what they are not useful for? Because your claim is evidence you don't know a lot about the science or the scans.

 

[Solus]

So oddly enough I think from the way you are defining disease a car accident counts.

I quoted wikipedia not myself.

I looked at my psychology textbooks I've kept over the years. It's not defined as a disease after all. If someone really wants me to, I'll take pictures of the pages; there is some good information within the book.

Way too much for me to type out however.

 

[Solus]

There is of course plenty of BS in psychology but do note that's it's a newer science only about 200 years old. Consider how long other sciences have had to develop.

Coffin therapy
Weird psycholpgist

I personally know this guy, he is a character indeed. I would not allow him to practice psychology, I think he is so full of it. I've dealt with him not as patient but an observer. I wish I had the videos he showed. He was on Montel Willams (I think) and he actually showed the video of that to patients in the waiting room.



I wish could get new information maybe he gave up that idea. Amusing.

 

[Simone]

For example, drunk drivers should IMO be given jail sentences, even for first offenses.


Now you know that that would be almost impossible for all drunk drivers to be given jail sentences, while its just considered a misdemeanor, 364 days in jail, most offenders pay a fine and go on their way. If they do a weekend in jail, they continue to drink, it doesn't change their ways.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Not necessarily. I can have the disease of diabetes and choose to take care of myself or not. Having the disease is not an excuse to ignore its consequences.

Diabetes is a result of lifestyle in some cases and not the lifestyle itself. "Alcoholism" is simply drinking too much alcohol. If someone gets cirrhosis of the liver, pancreatitis, polyneuropathy, alcoholic dementia, heart disease, increased chance of cancer, nutritional deficiencies or sexual dysfunction from drinking too much alcohol then those things can be considered diseases. But "alcoholism" itself can't. Moreover, Addiction can simply be ended by not drinking anymore.

I have an un-neutered male and female dog. The female is in heat. There is no way you can watch that male dog whine night and day and literally stop eating for a couple of the worst days and not recognize this is biologically determined behavior. They also have some pretty strong hunting behaviors no one taught them such as sniffing out underground moles and digging like crazy, sometimes successfully catching them.

So?

Pigs have addictive behaviors when you offer them the choice of certain drugs or food. Some animals will starve to death choosing drugs over food.

So?

You can find a wealth of Addiction Research at Brookhaven including the following studies:

Gene Therapy Reduces Drinking in Rats with Genetic Predisposition to “Alcoholism”
Finding confirms earlier result using better model for human alcohol abuse

Methamphetamine Delivers ‘One-Two’ Punch to the Brain Mechanism may knock out brain’s ability to “just say no.”

Researchers Document Brain Damage, Reduction in Motor and Cognitive Function from Methamphetamine Abuse; "Speed" Shows More Neurotoxic Effects Than Heroin, Cocaine, or Alcohol

MAPPING THE ROOT OF COCAINE CRAVING: SURPRISING FINDINGS ON DRUG'S EFFECT IN BRAIN REGIONS

Here are some more studies just to give you an idea, you can use the scientific process to reach a better understanding of the complexity of addiction rather than a judgmental moralistic knee jerk reaction.

Mouse Models for Addictions

Addiction research in a simple animal model: the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.

The Neurobiology of Addiction Research Center (NARC)

Genetic determinants of alcohol addiction.

Substance Abuse Among Women: Familial Factors and Comorbidity (pdf file)

See previous comments and perhaps consider dismounting from your moral high horse.

All of your studies do nothing but argue that addiction can be genetically predisposed to specific individuals. This doesn't mean it's a disease. CRIME and VIOLENCE can be genetically predisposed to specific individuals. Is crime a disease now? If it's a disease why punish violent criminals? After all they just suffer from a disease!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So what that comparison is still bogus.

Suppose I'm a chocolate connoisseur and eat chocolate all day long. I'm subject A.

Subject B is a person that never eats chocolate.

Now you get a fMRI or PET of both of us while eating chocolate. My brain scan will be different than his, because over all the years of chocolate eating I've formed a lot more synaptic connections than subject B has related to chocolate.

So the results of that scan are meaningless. However, I've repeatedly heard so-called scientists and their lawyer cronies claim that this imaging difference proves that its a "disease process" and therefore the person cant control their own actions or behavior.

I guess Subject A has "acute coco syndrome"

 

[chris epic]

Exactly, the "cure". You can't "cure" pedophelia, or homosexuality, or addiction. I do believe there is part genetic drive/part environmental/and part what ever further intricacies weave together our behavior.

I was never "cured" from my addictive behavior- I am thankful for it when it manifests itself through positive things in my life: like music, school, my fiancee, art-

My father was a crack addict and an alcoholic he's been sober for 15 years- is he still an addict? Absolutely- he smokes, drinks a lot of coffee, runs a company full time, does international ministry full time, and is still raising children.

I guess the "cure" is the positive things you can channel that "predisposition" into- like service, or whatever. But even the compulsivity an addict displaces into positive activities can be unhealthy

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't usually say this sort of thing but, you are talking out of your ass.

If you have a specific issue you think brain research claims an answer to and you have contradictory evidence, that might be worth discussing. But here you have made an absurd blanket statement that brain scans have not been successful in studying the brain. All it shows is your incredible lack of knowledge of neuroscience research.

Have you considered actually reading a little bit about the diagnostic tools you so oddly dismiss out of hand? Have you read what the tools can reveal, what they are being used for that might not yet be solid science and what they are not useful for? Because your claim is evidence you don't know a lot about the science or the scans.

He didn't argue that brain scans can't effectively study the brain. He argued that they are irrelevant to the discussion of whether addiction is a disease or not. Brain scans can show that people who are more violent tend to have differently working brains than non-violent people. Do you now argue that violence is a disease? If it's a disease then why should we punish violent criminals?

 

[chris epic]

The way I see it (coming from a predisposed addict), is by asking the biological question: how does this genetic disposition benefit someone? If there are benefits, how can it be a disease? After all, which ever way an "addict" chooses to channel their behavior is only a symptom or side effect.

Tenacity! Human beings need to be tenacious to "get things done." I excel, with compulsivity, at anything I personally enjoy (whether those values are natural or nurtured). The same is with a junkie: they may not have a job, and could care less about their family or themselves, but when it comes to their addiction, they WILL find a way to get, they WILL have all the proper tools to execute the activity, and they WILL be an expert on what ever it is they are putting in their body.

I see this trate being merely a human behavioral necessity that just happens to be more concentrated in some than others.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The way I see it (coming from a predisposed addict), is by asking the biological question: how does this genetic disposition benefit someone? If there are benefits, how can it be a disease? After all, which ever way an "addict" chooses to channel their behavior is only a symptom or side effect.

Tenacity! Human beings need to be tenacious to "get things done." I excel, with compulsivity, at anything I personally enjoy (whether those values are natural or nurtured). The same is with a junkie: they may not have a job, and could care less about their family or themselves, but when it comes to their addiction, they WILL find a way to get, they WILL have all the proper tools to execute the activity, and they WILL be an expert on what ever it is they are putting in their body.

I see this trate being merely a human behavioral necessity that just happens to be more concentrated in some than others.

I really doubt that meth addicts can simply "channel" their addiction into something positive. They use meth to get high and only to get high. They don't want to channel it elsewhere. They want to get doped up and become oblivious to the world. That's why they do it. They don't do it simply for "something to do".

 

[chris epic]

If it's a disease then why should we punish violent criminals?

After all, they can't help the fact that they were born with an abnormally small hypothalamus

 

[chris epic]

I really doubt that meth addicts can simply "channel" their addiction into something positive. They use meth to get high and only to get high. They don't want to channel it elsewhere. They want to get doped up and become oblivious to the world. That's why they do it. They don't do it simply for "something to do".

Aye, ya missed me point. I did- I was a meth addict- I still had hopes and dreams, I just put them on hold while I used. You think I was oblivious to the fact that I was destroying my life? Don't be so presumptuous. Because when I got clean, I didn't want to use meth, but I was still the same person I was before- so I replaced my compulsion to use deadly substances with education, community service, goals, love... etc.

 

[Solus]

I don't usually say this sort of thing but, you are talking out of your ass.

If you have a specific issue you think brain research claims an answer to and you have contradictory evidence, that might be worth discussing. But here you have made an absurd blanket statement that brain scans have not been successful in studying the brain. All it shows is your incredible lack of knowledge of neuroscience research.

Have you considered actually reading a little bit about the diagnostic tools you so oddly dismiss out of hand? Have you read what the tools can reveal, what they are being used for that might not yet be solid science and what they are not useful for? Because your claim is evidence you don't know a lot about the science or the scans.

I'll help you out later, I've seen Dustin's posts before and he mustn't be allowed to win on shoddy opinions. Lets give some respect to the science section now.

Opinions are worthless and must be backed by research. Since I have access to that, this should be fun. When I feel like I'll get some pictures of that book I mentioned. I think I can post pictures of a book? I'm giving credit to the authors and it's not the whole book just about 10 pages.

 

[athon]

I've seen more definitions for the word 'disease' then you can poke a stick at. But for the most part, they all have a central point;

A disease is an impeding deviation in the normal functioning of an organism.

'Normal functioning' is always the sticking point; all organisms vary, and the extent to which this variation impedes their wellbeing or way of life can be rather open to debate. Yet diseases are always an alteration of the normal functioning, which is a good place to start with exploring whether something is a disease or not.

The question is; could your functioning be said to be affected which results in an addiction? The straight forward answer is 'yes'. Now, are all addictions perversions of normal functioning? I would argue again 'yes', only on the grounds that the mind and our behaviour have no non-material part, therefore can only result from neural functioning. If this fails, even if from lack of will power, determination or desire, I would define that as a failure in function.

The problem arises because we associate pity with disease, as if we can seperate functioning from desire. If somebody is sick, it's not their fault. I can't make that association with the term 'disease' by any stretch of the definition. Therefore, whether they have control or not, it remains a disease if their functioning is impeded in some manner.

My two cents.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Aye, ya missed me point. I did- I was a meth addict- I still had hopes and dreams, I just put them on hold while I used. You think I was oblivious to the fact that I was destroying my life? Don't be so presumptuous. Because when I got clean, I didn't want to use meth, but I was still the same person I was before- so I replaced my compulsion to use deadly substances with education, community service, goals, love... etc.

You simply stopped using and overcame your addiction and then decided to do something constructive. You didn't "replace" your addiction for meth with an addiction for education.