Addiction is a disease

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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.

Do violent criminals function normally? No. Therefore they are suffering from a disease?

 

[athon]

Do violent criminals function normally? No. Therefore they are suffering from a disease?

Is this an argument? A refutation and a ? Seriously?

I'll pretend you had something valid to say and respond anyway. Yes, according to text book definitions of disease, psychoses that lead to criminal activity (which is an impediment of function) are diseases. An action that leads to a crime, though, is not always a disease, as the organism's function is unimpeded. Their action may simply have contravened an established rule.

The problem is not in the definition of disease, but rather the connotations of the term, which are readily related to a physical malformation or complete cessation of function. People find it difficult to see slight deviations in brain wiring or neurochemistry as impediments, especially if willpower can influence the effects.

So, I'll pretend you defined criminal and run with that. Next time you have something to say, in the very least articulate your point clearly, give some rationalisation and try not to come across so ignorant.

Athon

 

[Solus]

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.

Some people have addictions to stupidity that's nearly incurable I'm afraid...

Really now be nice and compliment the man, no need to more bitter than I am.
Did you die in world of warcraft today or something, I morn for your loss.

 

[athon]

Side-note; my father spent years blaming his alcoholism on being a disease. In one essence he was correct. The problem was his understanding of disease to include aspects he had no personal control of, as if the effects absolved him of responsibility. 'It's a disease, I can't help it' is irresponsible.

Everybody has the responsibility of their own differences in society. Therein lies the difference.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is this an argument? A refutation and a ? Seriously?

I'll pretend you had something valid to say and respond anyway. Yes, according to text book definitions of disease, psychoses that lead to criminal activity (which is an impediment of function) are diseases. An action that leads to a crime, though, is not always a disease, as the organism's function is unimpeded. Their action may simply have contravened an established rule.

The problem is not in the definition of disease, but rather the connotations of the term, which are readily related to a physical malformation or complete cessation of function. People find it difficult to see slight deviations in brain wiring or neurochemistry as impediments, especially if willpower can influence the effects.

So, I'll pretend you defined criminal and run with that. Next time you have something to say, in the very least articulate your point clearly, give some rationalisation and try not to come across so ignorant.

Athon

Let's assume someone doesn't have psychosis but is simply a pathological criminal. Do all pathological criminals have diseases?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Some people have addictions to stupidity that's nearly incurable I'm afraid...

Really now be nice and compliment the man, no need to more bitter than I am.
Did you die in world of warcraft today or something, I morn for your loss.

Addictions to stupidity, huh?

 

[athon]

Let's assume someone doesn't have psychosis but is simply a pathological criminal. Do all pathological criminals have diseases?

Are they at the whim of their compulsions? Is there a deviation in their mental functioning? Then yes.

How is this definition difficult to comprehend? There are aspects of it which are tricky to apply (such as stating precisely when something becomes an impediment, a status which is always related to the environment), but all in all the concept is quite clear.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Are they at the whim of their compulsions? Is there a deviation in their mental functioning? Then yes.

So are all pathological criminals diseased? Should we then punish them?

 

[athon]

So are all pathological criminals diseased? Should we then punish them?

The question of punishment in relation to pathological illnesses is a massive can of worms with no simple answer and is a somewhat different topic, related more to the rationalisation of a penal system than to do with the definitions of disease.

Do you question whether schizophrenia is a disease as well? If somebody kills under the influence of their schizophrenic condition, should they go to jail? If somebody has any neurological condition which influences their behaviour, should they be released into society? These are not simple questions.

I don't think you've really read these posts at all, or are skimming them and refusing to really think about them, satisfied with your preexisting assumptions. If you had have read my above post about alcoholics believing that 'disease' is the equivalent of release from responsibility, then you'd already know my opinion.

Seriously, where are you going with these questions? If you have a point, state it. Games such as these make you look feeble.

Athon

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Side-note; my father spent years blaming his alcoholism on being a disease. In one essence he was correct. The problem was his understanding of disease to include aspects he had no personal control of, as if the effects absolved him of responsibility. 'It's a disease, I can't help it' is irresponsible.

Everybody has the responsibility of their own differences in society. Therein lies the difference.

Athon

If he went on to commit suicide for that alcoholism, would that be from the disease, depression? Or would the depression just be an excuse like the alcoholism?

There is no reason NOT TO separate out disease from responsibility. Who says having a disease releases you from responsibility? That simply is added on but it doesn't have to follow.

Here's a gross example that will stick in your head since it seems my example of a person with epilepsy still having the responsibility not to get behind the wheel of a car if they don't have their seizures under control just went past people.

Suppose you had a person with a colostomy. It's a disease. Does that mean if they never bothered to put on a bag and let sh!+ pour out anywhere they went they are excused because they have a disease?

Disease and responsibility are two different things. An addict is responsible to get treatment. If they kill someone or beat their wife, they are responsible. It doesn't change the nature of addiction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So are all pathological criminals diseased? Should we then punish them?

Yes and yes.

Thieves may not fit the definition of having a pathology but a serial murderer like Jeffry Dahmer certainly did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The question of punishment in relation to pathological illnesses is a massive can of worms with no simple answer and is a somewhat different topic, related more to the rationalisation of a penal system than to do with the definitions of disease.

Do you question whether schizophrenia is a disease as well? If somebody kills under the influence of their schizophrenic condition, should they go to jail? If somebody has any neurological condition which influences their behaviour, should they be released into society? These are not simple questions.

I don't think you've really read these posts at all, or are skimming them and refusing to really think about them, satisfied with your preexisting assumptions. If you had have read my above post about alcoholics believing that 'disease' is the equivalent of release from responsibility, then you'd already know my opinion.

...

You are correct about the complexity and I didn't mean to lessen it in my last post. I simplified it for those having a harder time understanding 'disease' does not equate to 'excused'.

 

[athon]

If he went on to commit suicide for that alcoholism, would that be from the disease, depression? Or would the depression just be an excuse like the alcoholism?

I don't think alcoholism is an excuse, per se. But it doesn't absolve anybody of the responsibility one has to seek some form of treatment.

There is no reason NOT TO separate out disease from responsibility. Who says having a disease releases you from responsibility? That simply is added on but it doesn't have to follow.

Here's a gross example that will stick in your head since it seems my example of a person with epilepsy still having the responsibility not to get behind the wheel of a car if they don't have their seizures under control just went past people.

Suppose you had a person with a colostomy. It's a disease. Does that mean if they never bothered to put on a bag and let sh!+ pour out anywhere they went they are excused because they have a disease?

Disease and responsibility are two different things. An addict is responsible to get treatment. If they kill someone or beat their wife, they are responsible. It doesn't change the nature of addiction.

Ummm... I agree. That was kind of the point of my post; that my father remained responsible for his actions in spite of it being a 'disease' as such.

Athon

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do you question whether schizophrenia is a disease as well? If somebody kills under the influence of their schizophrenic condition, should they go to jail? If somebody has any neurological condition which influences their behaviour, should they be released into society? These are not simple questions.

They're simple questions. Is schizophrenia a disease? Yes.
Should people with schizophrenia be punished like other criminals? No.
Should people who have neurological conditions which influence their behavior be free to live in society? Only if the conditions influence on their behavior doesn't make them violent.

Seriously, where are you going with these questions? If you have a point, state it.

Alcoholism isn't a disease.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes and yes.

Thieves may not fit the definition of having a pathology but a serial murderer like Jeffry Dahmer certainly did.

Why punish them if they can't control their actions? If they have a disease then they aren't responsible for their actions. How can you punish them?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

This is irrelevant. There are plenty of sciences much newer, genetics for example. Or if you connect it to previous ideas like chemistry and biology then you can tie psychology to previous ideas of human behavior.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do violent criminals function normally? No. Therefore they are suffering from a disease?

Mabey, does it matter? Should an alcoholic who is a drunk driver be treated differently from someone else who drives drunk?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

For the not-addiction crowd: what evidence would convince you that addiction is infact a disease?
For the addiction proponents: what evidence would convince you that addiction is NOT infact a disease?
Would brain scan evidence settle the issue? Why and Why not?
Is there any extent to the prevelance of willfull behavior that would settle the issue? why and why not?

BTW, there is a word for people who say psychology and psychiatry are non-scientific... scientologists.

 

[Dancing David]

I believe that "addiction is a disease" is a cop out. I speak as someone with an alcohol problem currently under control. I have heard researchers say that abstinence from alcohol for a period of more than 12 months can lead to control of the addiction, but I haven't been dry for 12 months yet so cannot say.

Gambling is an equally serious addiction, but what could be the biological basis for this? If something is a disease, surely there must be some biological basis. Or am I wrong on this???

I didn't say there was a disease, I said there is a biological basis for human behavior. Simply we have bodies. Most addictions are based upon the same set of behaviors as paraphilias. Not all addiction will work the same way but you have the adrenaline involved, or an obsessive compulsive disorder or other mental illness(in some cases). Then there is the compulsive cycle, which is involved in the anxiety release cycle, tension about the cognitive object and then the release of that tension. Most of what keeps the addiction going is the cognition supporting it and the training of the habits.

Then there are those who have biological vulnerabilities to addiction whatever the route may be. But anyone who has heard me speak about addiction or mental illness knows that i am a firm believer in personal responsibility.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Yeah, that sure is. Biological vulnerability does not translate to disease, even in cancer.
Now the issue of self medication , especialy in bipolar disorder, is another issue. But the alcoholism is not the disease