Alcoholism & Drug Addiction are Diseases

[psy]

Genetic predisposition to loss of control with a chemical does NOT mean disease.  It does *not* mean people are out of control.  It does *not* mean some gene causes people to pick up a drink ( a behavior ) and another and another.

hereditary baldness is a disease.  there is nothing a person can do to avoid it.  drinking, on the other hand, is a CHOICE.  C H O I C E.  If somebody who knows he has a hard time controlling his alcohol decides to drink anyway he/she is fucking stupid.  Fucking stupid is a subset of C H O I C E.  *NOT* disease.  A *disease* is out of a person's control and cannot be controlled with willpower.  People DO quit drinking by willpower alone.  There are so many differences between what constitutes a "disease" and what AA labels a "disease".

Plus.  All the CREB gene (studied in *rats*) shows is that people with that gene are more prone to anxiety.  People who have anxiety problems are more prone to deal with it using alcohol.  This does not mean that the gene causes alcoholism of that the gene somehow means a person has a disease.

Research with identical twins and children of alcohlics shows that there is an incereased chance (something like 20%) or problem drinking activity, but it does NOT mean that these people are somehow born diseased or that they cannot drink normally.

Check out the genetic section of this chapter in this book:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html

The Genetics of Alcoholism

AA originally claimed that alcoholics inherit an "allergy" to alcohol that underlies their loss of control when they drink. Today this particular idea has been discarded. Nonetheless, a tremendous investment has been made in the search for biological inheritances that may cause alcoholism, while many grandiose claims have been made about the fruits of this search. In 1987, almost two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) agreed that "alcoholism can be hereditary"; only five years earlier, in 1982, more people had disagreed (50 percent) than agreed (40 percent) with this statement. Furthermore, it is the better educated who agree most with this statement.15 Yet widely promulgated and broadly accepted claims about the inheritance of alcoholism are inaccurate, and important data from genetic research call into doubt the significance of genetic influences on alcoholism and problem drinking. Moreover, prominent genetic researchers themselves indicate that cultural and environmental influences are the major determinants of most drinking problems, even for the minority of alcoholics who they believe have a genetic component to their drinking.

Popular works now regularly put forward the theory — presented as fact — that the inherited cause of alcoholism has been discovered. In the words of Durk Pearson and Sandra Shaw, the authors of Life Extension, "Alcohol addiction is not due to weak will or moral depravity; it is a genetic metabolic defect... [just like the] genetic metabolic defect resulting in gout." One version of this argument appeared in the newsletter of the Alcoholism Council of Greater New York:

    Someone like the derelict. . . , intent only on getting sufficient booze from the bottle poised upside-down on his lips. . . [is] the victim of metabolism, a metabolism the derelict is born with, a metabolic disorder that causes excessive drinking.16

Is it really possible that street inebriates are destined from the womb to become alcoholics? Don't they really have a choice in the matter, or any alternatives? Don't their upbringings, or their personal and social values, have any impact on this behavior?

Several well-publicized studies have found that close biological relatives of alcoholics are more likely to be alcoholics themselves. The best-known research of this kind, examining Danish adoptees, was published in the early 1970s by psychiatrist Donald Goodwin and his colleagues. The researchers found that male adoptees with alcoholic biological parents became alcoholics three to four times more often than adoptees without alcoholic relatives. This research has several surprising elements to it, however. In the first place, only 18 percent of the males with alcoholic biological parents became alcoholics themselves (compared with 5 percent of those without alcoholic parentage). Note that, accepting this study at face value, the vast majority of men whose fathers are alcoholics do not become alcoholic solely because of biological inheritance.17

Some might argue that Goodwin's definition of alcoholism is too narrow and that the figures in his research severely understate the incidence of alcoholism. Indeed, there was an additional group of problem drinkers whom Goodwin and his colleagues identified, and many people might find it hard to distinguish when a drinker fell in this rather than in the alcoholic group. However, more of the people in the problem drinking group did not have alcoholic parents than did! If alcoholic and heavy problem drinkers are combined, as a group they are not more likely to be offspring of alcoholic than of nonalcoholic parents, and the finding of inherited differences in alcoholism rates disappears from this seminal study. One last noteworthy result of the Goodwin team's research: in a separate study using the same methodology as the male offspring study, the investigators did not find that daughters of alcoholic parents more often became alcoholic themselves (in fact, there were more alcoholic women in the group without alcoholic parents).18

Other studies also discourage global conclusions about inheritance of alcoholism. One is by a highly respected research group in Britain under Robin Murray, dean of the Institute of Psychiatry at Maudsley Hospital. Murray and his colleagues compared the correlation between alcoholism in identical twins with that between fraternal twins. Since the identical pair are more similar genetically, they should more often be alcoholic or nonalcoholic together than twins whose relationships are genetically equivalent to ordinary siblings. No such difference appeared. Murray and his colleagues and others have surveyed the research on inheritance of alcoholism.19 According to a longtime biological researcher in alcoholism, David Lester, these reviews "suggest that genetic involvement in the etiology of alcoholism. . . is weak at best." His own review of the literature, Lester wrote, "extends and. . . strengthens these previous judgments." Why, then, are genetic viewpoints so popular? For Lester, the credibility given genetic views is "disproportionate with their theoretical and empirical warrant," and the "attraction and persistence of such views lies in their conformity with ideological norms."

Several studies of male children of alcoholics (including two ongoing Danish investigations) have not found that these children drink differently as young adults or adolescents from their cohorts without alcoholic relatives.20 These children of alcoholics are not generally separated from their parents, and we know that for whatever reason, male children brought up by their alcoholic parents more often will be alcoholic themselves. What this tells us is that these children aren't born as alcoholics but develop their alcoholism over the years. In the words of George Vaillant, who followed the drinking careers of a large group of men over forty years:

    The present prospective study offers no credence to the common belief that some individuals become alcoholics after the first drink. The progression from alcohol use to abuse takes years.21

What, then, do people inherit that keeps them drinking until they become alcoholics? Milam asserts in Under the Influence that the source of alcoholism is acetaldehyde, a chemical produced when the body breaks down alcohol. Some research has found higher levels of this chemical in children of alcoholics when they drink22; other research (like the two Danish prospective studies) has not. Such discrepancies in research results also hold for abnormalities in brain waves that various teams of researchers have identified in children of alcoholics — some find one EEG pattern, while other researchers discover a distinct but different pattern.23 Psychiatrist Mare Schuckit, of the University of California at San Diego Medical School, found no such differences between young men from alcoholic families and a matched comparison group, leading him to "call into question. . . the replicability and generalizability" of cognitive impairments and neuropsychologic deficits "as part of a predisposition toward alcoholism."24

Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger (along with several other researchers) claims that an inherited antisocial or crime-prone personality often leads to both criminality and alcoholism in men.25 On the other hand, antisocial acting out when drinking, as well as criminality, are endemic to certain social and racial groups — particularly young working-class and ghetto males.26 The Cloninger view gets into the slippery realm of explaining that the underprivileged and ghettoized are born the way they are. In addition, Schuckit has failed to find any differences in antisocial temperament or impulsiveness to differentiate those who come from alcoholic families and those without alcoholic siblings or parents.27 Instead, Schuckit believes, one — perhaps the — major mechanism that characterizes children of alcoholics is that these children are born with a diminished sensitivity to the effects of alcohol28 (although — once again — other researchers do not find this to be the case29).

In Schuckit's view, children of alcoholics have a built-in tolerance for alcohol — they experience less intoxication than other people when drinking the same amounts. (Note that this is the opposite of the original AA view that alcoholics inherit an allergy to alcohol.) In the Schuckit model, alcoholics might unwittingly drink more over long periods and thus build up a dependence on alcohol. But as a theory of alcoholism, where does this leave us? Why do these young men continue drinking for the years and decades Vaillant tells us it takes them to become alcoholics? And even if they can drink more without experiencing physical effects, why do they tolerate the various drinking problems, health difficulties, family complaints, and so on that occur on the road to alcoholism? Why don't they simply recognize the negative impact alcohol is having on their lives and resolve to drink less? Certainly, some people do exactly this, saying things like "I limit myself to one or two drinks because I don't like the way I act after I drink more."

One insight into how those with similar physiological responses to alcohol may have wholly different predispositions to alcoholism is provided by those who manifest "Oriental flush" — a heightened response to alcohol marked by a visible reddening after drinking that frequently characterizes Asians and Native Americans. Oriental flush has a biochemical basis in that Asian groups display higher acetaldehyde levels when they drink: here, many believe, is a key to alcoholism. But individuals from Asian backgrounds who flush do not necessarily drink more than — or differ in their susceptibility to drinking problems from — those who don't flush.30 Moreover, groups that show flushing have both the highest alcoholism rates (Native Americans and Eskimos) and the lowest rates (Chinese and Japanese) among ethnic groups in the United States. What distinguishes between how people in these two groups react to the same biological phenomenon? It would certainly seem that Eskimos' and Indians' abnegated state in America and their isolation from the American economic and achievement-oriented system inflate their alcoholism rates, while the low alcoholism rates of the Chinese and Japanese must be related to their achievement orientation and economic success in our society.

Not even genetically oriented researchers (as opposed to popularizers) deny that cultural and social factors are crucial in the development of alcoholism and that, in this sense, alcoholism is driven by values and life choices. Consider three quotes from prominent medical researchers. Mare Schuckit: "It is unlikely that there is a single cause for alcoholism. . . . At best, biologic factors explain only a part of " the alcoholism problem31; George Vaillant: "I think it [finding a biological marker for alcoholism] would be as unlikely as finding one for basketball playing. . . . The high number of children of alcoholics who become addicted, Vaillant believes, is due less to biological factors than to poor role models"32; Robert Cloninger: "The demonstration of the critical importance of sociocultural influences in most alcoholics suggests that major changes in social attitudes about drinking styles can change dramatically the prevalence of alcohol abuse regardless of genetic predisposition."33 In short, the idea that alcoholism is an inherited biological disease has been badly overstated, and according to some well-informed observers, is completely unfounded.

Also check out this post:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26453&start=15#p322193

[Anonymous]

I think there is semantical confusion about the term 'disease' and how it defines mental illness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease

A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1][2][3] It may be caused by external factors, such as invading organisms, or it may be caused be internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases.
In human beings,"disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes extreme pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories.

http://www.myaddiction.com/education/ar ... sease.html

Here is drug addiction disease as defined by the genetic science learning center at the University of Utah
“Drug addiction is a chronic disease characterized by changes in the brain which result in a compulsive desire to use a drug. A combination of many factors including genetics, environment and behavior influence a person's addiction risk, making it an incredibly complicated disease. The new science of addiction considers all of these factors - from biology to family - to unravel the complexities of the addicted brain.”
Research indicates that drugs have an intense and immediate effect on the brain’s physiology. Over time the changes contribute to profound alterations or ‘hard-rewiring’ within the brain because in effect the brain reacts to the presence of the drug and tries to adapt to it.

So, if there is an element of choice in the development, intensity, syndromatic display of addiction (there is) that is neither here nor there. “Disease” in general, and as used neurologically, designates the presence of pathological, biological abnormality, and thusly, is used appropriately. Addiction has to do with basic science, not linguistical tautologies.

[Anonymous]

You want to erase all progress made in the science of addiction and treatment and go back to a world in denial and shame.

AA is not science.  Science changes over time.  AA members believe Bill Wilson's writing is inspired by GOD and as such has not been changed much at all since it's first publishing.  That's not science.  It's religion masquerading as science and cancerously influencing the treatment industry.

If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).

AA advertises "recovery" but in AA, recovery means something entierly different in AA, as does "serenity" and even "sanity:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cul ... cult_speak

AA may not technically be a cult, but it is a CANCER.  Not a cure.

AA believe that those who quit drinking without their program are "merely abstaining" or "dry".  In other words, if you don't do it with them, your not really "recovering" since they believe only they have "recovery" which means a lifelong program of "spiritual" horse shit.

Spiritual is not science.  Spiritual does not even fucking exist.  AA, is a cancerous boil on science's ass that needs to be lanced off.

[Anonymous]

 
If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).

.

What a horrible thing to say. You are indistinguishable from the programmies who arrive to tell people suffering from  PTSD that they are merely "failures' who blame their problems on fictional induced mental problems.

I’ll never understand the utter lack of compassion that enables people who were brainwashed to claim their experience was one of mental disorder, life altering PTSD and DD, but not allow that for others. Shame on you.

And if you werent so fixated on AA, you would note that this is not a discussion of it. Were you even in a program and which one was it?

[Anonymous]

 
If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).

.

What a horrible thing to say. You are indistinguishable from the programmies who arrive to tell people suffering from  PTSD that they are merely "failures' who blame their problems on fictional induced mental problems.

Truth sucks, huh?  People who won't control themselves I have no compassion for, no.  I have no condemntation for it either.  People have a right to self harm.  On the other hand, When people say "wwaaaahhhh.  the disease made me do it" it makes me hope the disease puts them out of their misery sooner rather than later.

Putting alcohol in one's body is a choice.  Same with drugs.  No disease causes it or takes away control.  Study after study shows that people can control themselves.  If they choose not to and then later say "waaah...".  Well they're weak.  Tough shit if they kill themselves.  Cleans out the gene pool (if it is, indeed, genetic).

There's another point. If alcoholism really was genetic, and alcoholics are more prone to die early or kill themselves, why are there still alcholics?  Shoudn't natural selection have taken them out of the game?

I’ll never understand the utter lack of compassion that enables people who were brainwashed to claim their experience was one of mental disorder, life altering PTSD and DD, but not allow that for others. Shame on you.

PTSD results when other people do things to you.  That I have compassion for.  What I don't have compassion for is when people harm themselves and then whine about it or blame it on some fictional disease instead of simply saying "well.. shouldn't have done that, i guess...  should probably quit doing that".
 

And if you werent so fixated on AA, you would note that this is not a discussion of it.

AA and the disease concept are one in the same and insperable.

[Carmel]

It doesnt really make sense to me that AA agrees with the idea of Alcoholism being a genetic disease....hence a physiological impairment (simplification)....and yet they only offer a mental rehabilitation process to reverse the effects of this "disease".  

It seems like the equivalent of someone walking up to a guy on the ground with a compound fracture in his leg and hurling health care insurance pamphlets at it to try and get it to re-set.  Its not only ludicrous it cancels their ideology out altogether in my opinion.

I know there are all sort of factors that run the entire length of the argument....but I see it as pretty basic.  I teach Anatomy and Physiology on an intermediate level so that my students can get a working knowledge of how things conduct physically....they in turn apply learned techniques that directly address the physiological issue in one way or another (again a simplification here) but you'll never see one of them sitting down trying to convince a person that if they just re-organize their thinking their chronic pain will stop.

Just to touch on the genetic issue....I agree that a genetic pre-disposition does not constitute a malfunction or impairment of some sort.  I think here is where society comes in alot....for example being born with brown eyes instead of blue eyes isnt a problem at all......but if you want to join a club that only admits people with blue eyes, then does your genetic make-up become sub standard and your condition labeled a disease?

[Anonymous]

 
If you can feel better about yourself by blaming your problems on some fictional disease, that's fine by me, but don't push that bullshit as science or force people into your twisted variety of "treatment" which is really nothing more than indoctrination into a religion (AA).

.

What a horrible thing to say. You are indistinguishable from the programmies who arrive to tell people suffering from  PTSD that they are merely "failures' who blame their problems on fictional induced mental problems.

Truth sucks, huh?  People who won't control themselves I have no compassion for, no.  I have no condemntation for it either.  People have a right to self harm.  On the other hand, When people say "wwaaaahhhh.  the disease made me do it" it makes me hope the disease puts them out of their misery sooner rather than later.

Putting alcohol in one's body is a choice.  Same with drugs.  No disease causes it or takes away control.  Study after study shows that people can control themselves.  If they choose not to and then later say "waaah...".  Well they're weak.  Tough shit if they kill themselves.  Cleans out the gene pool (if it is, indeed, genetic).

There's another point. If alcoholism really was genetic, and alcoholics are more prone to die early or kill themselves, why are there still alcholics?  Shoudn't natural selection have taken them out of the game?

I’ll never understand the utter lack of compassion that enables people who were brainwashed to claim their experience was one of mental disorder, life altering PTSD and DD, but not allow that for others. Shame on you.

PTSD results when other people do things to you.  That I have compassion for.  What I don't have compassion for is when people harm themselves and then whine about it or blame it on some fictional disease instead of simply saying "well.. shouldn't have done that, i guess...  should probably quit doing that".
 

And if you werent so fixated on AA, you would note that this is not a discussion of it.

AA and the disease concept are one in the same and insperable.

'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors

AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.


And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid

[Anonymous]

It doesnt really make sense to me that AA agrees with the idea of Alcoholism being a genetic disease....hence a physiological impairment (simplification)....and yet they only offer a mental rehabilitation process to reverse the effects of this "disease".  

It seems like the equivalent of someone walking up to a guy on the ground with a compound fracture in his leg and hurling health care insurance pamphlets at it to try and get it to re-set.  Its not only ludicrous it cancels their ideology out altogether in my opinion.

I know there are all sort of factors that run the entire length of the argument....but I see it as pretty basic.  I teach Anatomy and Physiology on an intermediate level so that my students can get a working knowledge of how things conduct physically....they in turn apply learned techniques that directly address the physiological issue in one way or another (again a simplification here) but you'll never see one of them sitting down trying to convince a person that if they just re-organize their thinking their chronic pain will stop.

Just to touch on the genetic issue....I agree that a genetic pre-disposition does not constitute a malfunction or impairment of some sort.  I think here is where society comes in alot....for example being born with brown eyes instead of blue eyes isnt a problem at all......but if you want to join a club that only admits people with blue eyes, then does your genetic make-up become sub standard and your condition labeled a disease?

just curious, are you a college professor or hs teacher?

[Anonymous]

[

And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid

sorry i called you stupid. didnt mean to.  i thought i edited that out

[Anonymous]

'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors

As I said.  I have no condemnation for people who use drugs to cope with problems or even diseases (induced or otherwise).  I actually encourage it if it works.  Lots of survivors find that pot, for example, helps deal with the symptoms of PTSD.  It's "self medication" and frowned on by the 12 stepping proselytizers, but it's really none of their fucking business if it works.  Heal they self.

All I have a problem with and no compassion for is when people claim they have some fictional disease and can't control themselves.  They use it as an excuse to, like Zappa said, act like assholes.  If you break in to my house.  I don't give a fuck whether you're doing it for drugs or something else you have a desire (not need) for. You get two in the brain pan.  Problem solved.  Disease didn't cause it.  As Psy implied, "fucking stupid" caused it.

AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.

And homosexuality was once a disease.  Authorites are not infallible and they should be challenged when they make mistakes.  It should be noted that even if the AMA recognizes addicition as a disease (after they interviewed AA MEMBERS (the only population they could find)), the APA does not.  "Addition" is not in the DSM, and the closest thing in that book bears very little resemblance to what AA defines "disease" as.

And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid

And you have a problem with reading comprehension.  I said AA and the disease concept are the same.  Addiction exists, yes, but it is not a disease, much one that is always progressive or fatal or bla bla bla.  That's AA spiritual horse shit.

[Carmel]

It doesnt really make sense to me that AA agrees with the idea of Alcoholism being a genetic disease....hence a physiological impairment (simplification)....and yet they only offer a mental rehabilitation process to reverse the effects of this "disease".  

It seems like the equivalent of someone walking up to a guy on the ground with a compound fracture in his leg and hurling health care insurance pamphlets at it to try and get it to re-set.  Its not only ludicrous it cancels their ideology out altogether in my opinion.

I know there are all sort of factors that run the entire length of the argument....but I see it as pretty basic.  I teach Anatomy and Physiology on an intermediate level so that my students can get a working knowledge of how things conduct physically....they in turn apply learned techniques that directly address the physiological issue in one way or another (again a simplification here) but you'll never see one of them sitting down trying to convince a person that if they just re-organize their thinking their chronic pain will stop.

Just to touch on the genetic issue....I agree that a genetic pre-disposition does not constitute a malfunction or impairment of some sort.  I think here is where society comes in alot....for example being born with brown eyes instead of blue eyes isnt a problem at all......but if you want to join a club that only admits people with blue eyes, then does your genetic make-up become sub standard and your condition labeled a disease?

just curious, are you a college professor or hs teacher?

Neither one....I teach Massage Therapy for state licensure.  We teach about 325 hours of A&P, Kinesiology (which is like more A&P) and Clinical Pathology, I'd call it equivalent to your beginning college courses, however its structured a little differently to compliment our application.

[Carmel]

'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors

As I said.  I have no condemnation for people who use drugs to cope with problems or even diseases (induced or otherwise).  I actually encourage it if it works.  Lots of survivors find that pot, for example, helps deal with the symptoms of PTSD.  It's "self medication" and frowned on by the 12 stepping proselytizers, but it's really none of their fucking business if it works.  Heal they self.

All I have a problem with and no compassion for is when people claim they have some fictional disease and can't control themselves.  They use it as an excuse to, like Zappa said, act like assholes.  If you break in to my house.  I don't give a fuck whether you're doing it for drugs or something else you have a desire (not need) for. You get two in the brain pan.  Problem solved.  Disease didn't cause it.  As Psy implied, "fucking stupid" caused it.

AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.

And homosexuality was once a disease.  Authorites are not infallible and they should be challenged when they make mistakes.  It should be noted that even if the AMA recognizes addicition as a disease (after they interviewed AA MEMBERS (the only population they could find)), the APA does not.  "Addition" is not in the DSM, and the closest thing in that book bears very little resemblance to what AA defines "disease" as.

And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid

And you have a problem with reading comprehension.  I said AA and the disease concept are the same.  Addiction exists, yes, but it is not a disease, much one that is always progressive or fatal or bla bla bla.  That's AA spiritual horse shit.

The AMA and western medical philosophy in general should ALWAYS be questioned about MANY MANY things.

[Anonymous]

'PTSD' may have resulted from what ‘people did to you,’ but its effects linger long after their doing stuff finishes. So, shouldn’t you be hunting down people who commit suicide 10 years after their abduction and torture and telling their families what losers they were? Shouldn’t you hunt down the kids who turn to drugs to medicate their emotions or BECOME drug addicts after they were brainwashed into thinking of themselves that way and maybe tell them what failures they are? I mean, so many people you could be hurting..you better get going. I mean PTSD DD makes people hurt themselves--so therefore you have no compassion for survivors

As I said.  I have no condemnation for people who use drugs to cope with problems or even diseases (induced or otherwise).  I actually encourage it if it works.  Lots of survivors find that pot, for example, helps deal with the symptoms of PTSD.  It's "self medication" and frowned on by the 12 stepping proselytizers, but it's really none of their fucking business if it works.  Heal they self.

All I have a problem with and no compassion for is when people claim they have some fictional disease and can't control themselves.  They use it as an excuse to, like Zappa said, act like assholes.  If you break in to my house.  I don't give a fuck whether you're doing it for drugs or something else you have a desire (not need) for. You get two in the brain pan.  Problem solved.  Disease didn't cause it.  As Psy implied, "fucking stupid" caused it.

AA and addiction are one not in the same.
The AMA classified addiction as disease more than 60 years ago, and investigation and measurement of this pathology has been conducted by scientists and classified as a disease by scientists, not random AA attendees. You are extraordinarily ignorant.

And homosexuality was once a disease.  Authorites are not infallible and they should be challenged when they make mistakes.  It should be noted that even if the AMA recognizes addicition as a disease (after they interviewed AA MEMBERS (the only population they could find)), the APA does not.  "Addition" is not in the DSM, and the closest thing in that book bears very little resemblance to what AA defines "disease" as.

And AA and the addiction are not in the same. You are very ignorant or very stupid

And you have a problem with reading comprehension.  I said AA and the disease concept are the same.  Addiction exists, yes, but it is not a disease, much one that is always progressive or fatal or bla bla bla.  That's AA spiritual horse shit.

What youre saying, in so many words, is ‘addiction’  does not exist. As you repeat, “it’s fucking stupidity” not addiction “that’s the problem.”

But addiction, scientifically speaking is quantified as disease, NOT “stupidity.”
Google addiction and disease. Read scientists, not AA members, explainations of why their research proves addiction is pathology, a disease. You will find slides of brains which capture the character of addiction and show addicts’ brains rewritten through addiction. Neurologists are not AA members. MRIs are not AA members

The pathology of addiction is not “spiritual AA horse shit” Mainstream scientific consensus is that addiction is real, a disease, a pathology, NOT “stupidity,” there is as much overwhelming consensus on this as there is on that global warming is real. If you feel that addiction is not a disease, recognize your opponents are scientists, neurologists, pathologists, geneticists, and every medical body I can think of. Your adversary is science, not AA.

So, AA and the "disease concept are not one in the same." That is some unbelievable ignorance about even the existence of modern day science, right there

[Anonymous]

The AMA and western medical philosophy in general should ALWAYS be questioned about MANY MANY things.

I’m all for questioning. Compassionless dismissal of addicts as “losers with bad choices” I don’t like. Ignorance of even the occurrence science (ie. The belief that AA, not the medical community purports and supports the “disease concept”) horrifies me.

[Anonymous]

Once someone becomes physically[/b] dependent on the drug (has physical w/d when stopped)....then you have an addiction.  Someone who compulsively uses, while it may not be healthy for them or their relationships, is NOT an addict.

There.  Feel better now?

Jesus fucking christ!!  Can you really NOT see this??  Compulsion does NOT equal addiction.  Addiction is a PHYSICAL dependency on a substance.  There are no food addicts, there are no sex addicts, no internet addicts, gaming addicts or whatever other behavior you try to associate with the word addiction.