|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Samadhi
+1
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
I've always had a problem with the meme that "addiction/alcoholism is a disease." While it is a physical affliction, I think it's a choice. Or perhaps a mental disorder.
My main problem with the premise is that I am addicted to nicotine. I have absolutely no doubt about this. But I choose not to smoke. I still want to smoke. I have dreams about smoking. But I choose not to smoke. I will give props to the NA/AA on this: I don't know about tomorrow, but I'm not smoking today. 
The first step for NA or AA is admitting that you are powerless over [your drug of choice]. It works, I'll give it that. I've known upstanding women that used to be prostitutes and honorable men that used to be car thieves or muggers. But why don't I need that? Why am I able to just choose?
I've done many things not on the FDA's approved list and I'm probably physically addicted to one or more. I don't take them because that would be a BAD IDEA. I find it hard to believe that I'm so super special that I can be addicted to something and yet choose to not do it, while the rest of addicted kind need meetings. However, I am willing to hear arguments in favor of my awesomeness.
Back to my main point: Calling it a disease strains credulity. "Fred you've got Lou Gehrig's disease. Just go to meetings and you'll be all right." It's OCD at worst. Granted the withdrawal from the drug is physical (and sucks...at least for nicotine) but the rest is all mental.
Anyway, if someone has another POV (or more scientific cred) I'd like to hear it.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: 2 |
|
|
All I can say is watch the appropriate South Park episode.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logain
Stretch Armstrong
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: 3 |
|
|
Antrax, that's the first thing that popped into my head as soon as i saw this topic Great episode.
Personally I feel an addiction is not a disease. An addiction is something that can be broken or freed from through choice and mental training. A disease is something that can be cured or supressed through healing and/or drug intervention.
Edit: Of course the mental training part of breaking an addiction can be aided by drugs like a disease, but it's not in the same way IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: 4 |
|
|
i missed the part about why it has to be one or the other. that many diseases are not a result of choices does not imply that none are.
i'm not sure who has the burden of proof here, but either way the "right" answer depends on one's definition of disease. if you require that it must be caused by germs that takes out things like alzheimer's. if you require that a disease cannot be caused by choices, one could argue lung cancer resulting from a lifetime of smoking isn't really a disease.
so, what's necessary for you to consider something a disease? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logain
Stretch Armstrong
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: 5 |
|
|
worm, your example mixes the point.
Smoking is the addiction, lung cancer is the disease.
For alcoholics, drinking and being hooked on alcohol is the addiction, but physical ailments resulting from drinking can be diseases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jesternl
Yankee Doodle Dutchie
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| I agree with worm. You need to define disease first before we can properly answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| Logain wrote: |
| worm, your example mixes the point. |
the point was mixed before my example...that's why i was asking for clarification.
you say that drinking or smoking can cause "physical ailments" that can be diseases. an addicted smoker has screwed with his/her acetylcholine receptors enough that the body only feels normal when its smoking. as samadhi pointed out in his first post, this is a physical condition, not simply a matter of willpower. obviously, willpower can be enough to stop. the symptoms eventually pass, but it's easier for a former addict to become addicted again. i suspect the body becomes sensitized for life.
so, how can you distinguish between the "physical ailments" (e.g. liver disease and lung cancer) and the physical condition of withdrawal? in either case, it's a body in distress (although, i'd say withdrawal symptoms have a much better ring to them than carcinoma). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| Alcohol withdrawal can kill a person. Sure, you were able to choose not to smoke, but for some people simply choosing and following through with quitting drinking can be lethal. A body being that dependent on something seems like a disease to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: 9 |
|
|
Antrax: That episode was on recently and made me think of this.
Courk: But alcoholics consider themselves to always have the disease. While their not drinking they're 'in recovery'. They're never 'recovered'.
Worm: I'll get back to you on that definition.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Aren't cancer patients always in remission? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: 11 |
|
|
That's equivocation IMO. Remission != recovery. All cancer patients face the grim reality that their cancer might come back, for whatever reason. Living healthy seems to be the best plan for preventing a resurgence of the cancer. Beyond that, there's not much a cancer survivor can do.
When alcoholics stop drinking, many adopt a healthy lifestyle. This is a good idea (for everyone) because a healthy diet tends towards a healthy mind. But that's the only similarity. Cancer may come back for whatever mysterious cause, but you only start drinking again by picking up that first drink. "Oh crap, I have another tumor" != "Oh crap, I'm drunk again"
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Courk
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| Ideally, a recovering alcoholic knows that by drinking again they run the risk of becoming dependent again. That's why they're never fully recovered -- they can't drink without running that risk. A non-alcoholic doesn't have that same risk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| =Cancer may come back for whatever mysterious cause, but you only start drinking again by picking up that first drink. "Oh crap, I have another tumor" != "Oh crap, I'm drunk again" |
my aunt (who i never knew) died of cancer. she was in remission and her prognosis was good, but the doctors told her whatever she did, she shouldn't try to have children b/c it would likely cause the cancer to return. she decided ito take the risk, had a baby, the cancer returned, metastasized, and she died all within a couple years. my parents took her son in for a while untill i was born shortly after (they realized that eight really is enough). i'm not sure whatever happened to him.
anyway, it was her choice to have a baby. while not a definite cause of the return and metastasis of the cancer, it was known even back then that it was a large risk and it's very likely she would have had many years ahead.
i agree that the addict who has recovered from withdrawal symptoms is responsible for the choice to pick up that first drink, but still, is choice related to the definition of a disease? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tally*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: 14 |
|
|
I think alcoholism can be an illness, but a mental one. (Illness might be a better word than 'disease'). Think about anorexia. Some people might say "They're not ill, they just need to bloody well eat something!". Not true - anorexics have a problem in their mind that may well kill them. So do some alcoholics.
I think the disease/illness model is the most useful way of looking at mental disorders, because people with them need understanding, support and help to get better. They don't have the physical evidence of their illness, so are more likely to be dismissed, ignored, not given the help they need to get better.
| Quote: |
| But why don't I need that? Why am I able to just choose? |
IMO you can be physically addicted without having a mental disorder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: 15 |
|
|
worm:
| Quote: |
| i agree that the addict who has recovered from withdrawal symptoms is responsible for the choice to pick up that first drink, but still, is choice related to the definition of a disease? |
I don't think so. But what disease is a "recovering" alcoholic afflicted with?
Your aunt might have had a recurrence of the cancer no matter what her choice. Her choices mitigated or exacerbated the possibility of relapse. The ONLY thing that will make an alcoholic start drinking again is that first drink.
The two are entirely dissimilar.
tally:
I agree. I mentioned OCD earlier but I failed to make the distinction that you have. There are physical aspects to any addiction (after my knee surgery I was prescribed percosets. I took them for 3 days and I was miserable coming off of them..if a doctor wants to give you them, don't take them!) but the key is the mental aspects. The physical is 4-5 days, the mental is forever.
I wouldn't call it an illness though. I thankfully have some tools in my belt in this regard. I feel the megrims or isucks from time to time. Everyone does. I'm simplifying, but the essence of the POV is that I *choose* not to believe these feelings. I don't see why alcoholics can't choose to ignore their compulsions. They take no drugs to achieve their 'recovery', so logically they should be able to achieve it without anything except the right state of mind.
People with schizophrenia or diagnosed OCD, etc legitimately have a mental illness. An alcoholic just wants to drink. It's an obsession perhaps, but it's not a mental illness.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: 16 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
worm:
| Quote: |
| i agree that the addict who has recovered from withdrawal symptoms is responsible for the choice to pick up that first drink, but still, is choice related to the definition of a disease? |
I don't think so. But what disease is a "recovering" alcoholic afflicted with? |
by recovering i assume you mean one who has made it through the physical withdrawal. in that case i tend to agree with you...i would be surprised if the body doesn't readjust and, in that sense, i see it as more of a mental dependence/craving.
| Quote: |
Your aunt might have had a recurrence of the cancer no matter what her choice. Her choices mitigated or exacerbated the possibility of relapse. The ONLY thing that will make an alcoholic start drinking again is that first drink.
The two are entirely dissimilar.
|
the first paragraph shows similarities (they were both choices) and dissimilarities between the two (one choice was a likely cause, the other is a "certain" cause). to say that they are entirely dissimilar with the last sentence doesn't make sense to me.
i think my father somewhat discredits the certainty of the "first drink" idea. in my mind, he is unquestionably a "recovering" alcoholic. he came to visit with my mom and a few sibs last year. he had quit drinking (not the aa route) several years ago, but during the visit he had a lot of wine and i was pissed, mainly b/c i remember how much of an ass he was when i was younger. in retrospect, he was actually pretty pleasant that night, and more importantly, it didn't throw him into a downward spiral of drinking all the time. afaik, he's been drunk once since (maybe a month ago), and hasn't had a drink since then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| to say that they are entirely dissimilar with the last sentence doesn't make sense to me. |
You're quibbling. Both of these descriptions use words, so they are, of course, not *entirely* dissimilar. I used invective. Sue me. But don't try to turn your grammatical contention into a real argument.
| Quote: |
| i think my father somewhat discredits the certainty of the "first drink" idea. |
So he only had one drink?
If he did, he's probably not an alcoholic. If he drank a shit tonne and then finally passed out, then woke up and didn't drink again, that's different.
If you can drink X drinks and you're cool: You're probably not an alcoholic. Oh, and X > 0.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
worm
unregistered
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Quote: |
| to say that they are entirely dissimilar with the last sentence doesn't make sense to me. |
You're quibbling. |
quibbling is a very offensive word to me. please don't use it so loosely. i felt i supported the lack of distinction between the two examples later in my post.
| Quote: |
| i think my father somewhat discredits the certainty of the "first drink" idea. |
| Quote: |
| So he only had one drink? |
i'll say this...i remember being very embarrassed at little league games b/c he was drunk as a skunk and DRINKING AT THE GAMES. this was not a singular event as getting drunk was a nightly thing for him.. and no he didn't have one drink either time i mentioned (that one night last year or the one night this year). last year, there were several bottles of wine, shared somewhat. the time a month ago he bought a bottle of vodka he intended to drink over 2 nights. it was gone in a few hours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
So he only had one drink?
If he did, he's probably not an alcoholic. If he drank a shit tonne and then finally passed out, then woke up and didn't drink again, that's different.
If you can drink X drinks and you're cool: You're probably not an alcoholic. Oh, and X > 0. |
I'll bet he wasn't a Scotsman either. 
Sam, here's a thought for you: maybe you were able to quit smoking not because you had strength of will, but simply because you were never truly addicted to nicotene in the first place. If addiction is indeed a disease, then it's foolish to state it can be overcome merely by an act of will. People who make such claims were obviously never really addicted in the first place.
And it's equally foolish to claim that people who, after 'overcoming' an addiction, could have a momentary lapse of will and then regain that will, all in the same evening. Obviously, such a person was never addicted at all, or they wouldn't have had the ability to regain that will.
So I guess we've proven that addiction really is a disease. Diseases can't be cured simply through force of will. Those who claim to have done so were never actually infected in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
worm: no offense intended. You're right, that's an emotionally charged word I'll be more careful in the future.
coyote: Of course I wasn't addicted to nicotene. I don't even know what that is. 
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aleesha
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:51 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
Does drinking coffee help reduce the addiction or daily cravings of alcohol. Can one develops an addiction to coffee? (from the caffeine) Will the coffee addiction ever have a chance of switching over from alcohol to coffee?
Last edited by aleesha on Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:08 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
| Granted the withdrawal from the drug is physical (and sucks...at least for nicotine) but the rest is all mental. |
Aside from the main question, I've recently read that cigarettes also deliver MAOIs (a kind of antidepressant), and that nicotine alone is not nearly as addictive as when taken in combination with an MAOI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:44 pm Post subject: 23 |
|
|
I've been hesitant to weigh in here, because we've been dealing with some very serious addiction issues in my house. (Those of my soon-to-be-former son-in-law, and I'm talking about heroin, alcohol, and gambling, as well as tobacco, but tobacco really isn't the problem.)
Also living in my house is my wife, who has been in a wheelchair for 23 years with FSH Muscular Dystrophy. Of all the people still in my house (the two of us and our daughter), my wife is the one most adamant that the addiction is a disease, and "it's not his fault." I find it hard to equate the problems "his addiction" has caused to the problems my wife's muscular dystrophy has caused. She didn't steal our silver to feed her muscular dystrophy (though she did require us to buy a $60,000 van  ) . She hasn't cleaned out her spouse's bank account to take a trip to Las Vegas for some hot wheelchair action, then called home, broke and sorry. (It's funny how much those two go together. That is, he isn't sorry until he is broke.)
People say that you can't control the "disease" of addiction with will-power. Well, what the hell can you control it with? I totally understand that someone with these problems needs help, and can't control it by himself, but will-power -- a personal decision by the afflicted never to give in to it again -- is the only answer, and is the only way that anyone with those problems ever has controlled it. People HAVE succeeded, my idiot son-in-law might still succeed (I doubt it), and will-power is the ONLY way it will happen. I don't begrudge someone getting outside help, even chemical help (he was on suboxone for months), to get through the difficult stages. But ultimately, the only way the problems can be managed is by will-power, nothing else.
There is no amount of will-power that would make my wife walk again. Even if she were to accept her disease, accept that she can never _____ again, and even if she had all the will-power in the world, there is nothing that she could do to walk again. It isn't going to happen. Now THAT's a disease.
Bottom line: I agree that there is something "wrong" with him that makes him such an addictive personality, something that he was born with and that he has no control over, just the same as my wife's disease. However, calling it a disease has, at times, given him an excuse. He gets to say, "it wasn't me, it was my disease." Bullshit. You're the one who stole from my wife a bunch of jewelry that had far more sentimental than monetary value, and sold it for a fix. It wasn't your disease that's a giant, fucking, piece of scum for doing that, it's you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: 24 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| People say that you can't control the "disease" of addiction with will-power. Well, what the hell can you control it with? |
Very complex issue. There are many kinds of addiction, and if any or all of them should be called a disease, it's certainly a different sort of disease. And it's more complicated by the fact that the disease is in some sense criminalized (and stigmatized). A heroin addiction might be managed, for instance, by providing cheap, quality and quantity controlled heroin, along with open, stigma-free support in kicking it when ready.
| Quote: |
| It wasn't your disease that's a giant, fucking, piece of scum for doing that, it's you. |
I'm thankful I've never been addicted to anything (other than a rather miserable recent 4 day withdrawal from caffeine drinks consumed in ungodly amounts). Can any of us who haven't been addicted know for sure what depths we might sink to to avoid the pain of withdrawal? I really don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:43 pm Post subject: 25 |
|
|
| Sorry, it's tough for me to talk rationally about the subject. This isn't something in my distance past, it is only the past year, and I'm still carrying a lot of anger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Sorry, it's tough for me to talk rationally about the subject. This isn't something in my distance past, it is only the past year, and I'm still carrying a lot of anger. |
The anger is certainly justified, and your questioning not irrational, but thought provoking.
It reminds me of a close relative I have who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. I'm often torn having to decide whether she's just an incredibly hateful bitch of an asshole or if it's just her disorder.
I don't have answers in either case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beartalon
'Party line' kind of guy
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:13 pm Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Sorry, it's tough for me to talk rationally about the subject. This isn't something in my distance past, it is only the past year, and I'm still carrying a lot of anger. |
I'm currently angry about the fact that my husband has recently been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. It is certainly a disease, but not an addiction. While there was some stimulus that caused it, it could have been anything from overexposure to benzene to a simply idiosyncratic response to an over-the-counter medication.
The anger is not entirely resolvable, since I have no absolute thing or person to blame. Whatever source there was may not even exist any longer but the disease remains.
Turning the lens on myself, I have been told that I am addicted to food, because my brain uses it to resolve every negative emotional issue I ever have.
My doctor says that I should try to refocus on something other than food as a method to cope. However, I cannot choose not to eat at all, since that has other disastrous consequences, the most decisive being death. If Samadhi will forgive me for using this analogy, it's not always a branded box of danger I can leave up on the shelf or on a drug-dealer's corner. My addiction isn't just to potato chips or pretzels that I can avoid. Any food will make me feel better so it doesn't come down to eating healthy things, but the control to portion it and to balance myself with exercise. it just so happens I pick the comfort foods first.
The food itself is the addiction. If I keep a small pantry, you can guarantee that at the first sign of control issues, I'll be out buying something. If I stock well, I'll eat the reserves and have to restock.
However, would we consider the real disease to be my problem with coping through negative emotional events? Is it a chemical imbalance in my body or a mental disorder and food is my cure of choice, or am I really addicted to the food as well, since it's so much more immediately satisfying than exercise? It's hard to remember when I chose between those solutions. I've been like this since I was young.
Doctors and nutritionists can't tell me anything new about how to portion food and what to eat that is healthy just like they would suggest to someone with a nicotine issue to step back the cigarettes or how to deal with cold turkey cut-off. It's in my head, but the application fails, and relapse is so frequent, other people can't even tell that I've tried. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:30 pm Post subject: 28 |
|
|
Beartalon, do you know how long it takes to starve to death? Trust me, you're quite capable of fasting for a day or two without any negative effect. In fact, if you're willing to try it, I think it might be very beneficial to you. You'll be hungry, for sure, but it'll teach you two things:
a) What hunger actually is. That feeling you'll get, 4-5 hours into it? That's BS, that's not hunger. It's just the "I'm used to getting some food by stage in my day, cough it up" feeling. The one you get after 48 hours, that's hunger. It's easier not to eat in a damaging way when you can tell the two apart.
b) That "food is essential" is true in a much more restricted sense than what you're used to. You'd be amazed at how little you need to eat to avoid deficiencies.
I really suggest you give it a try. Drink a ton of water, they fill you up and it's healthy anyway, and don't eat anything for 24 hours. When you hit the 24 hour mark, either quit or continue for another 24 hours. It's much easier not eating anything at all than having to keep in mind that you can have just a bit of this and a slice of that and not exaggerating portions or adding one forbidden food or an extra meal.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beartalon
'Party line' kind of guy
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: 29 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
Beartalon, do you know how long it takes to starve to death? Trust me, you're quite capable of fasting for a day or two without any negative effect. In fact, if you're willing to try it, I think it might be very beneficial to you. You'll be hungry, for sure, but it'll teach you two things:
a) What hunger actually is. That feeling you'll get, 4-5 hours into it? That's BS, that's not hunger. It's just the "I'm used to getting some food by stage in my day, cough it up" feeling. The one you get after 48 hours, that's hunger. It's easier not to eat in a damaging way when you can tell the two apart.
b) That "food is essential" is true in a much more restricted sense than what you're used to. You'd be amazed at how little you need to eat to avoid deficiencies.
I really suggest you give it a try. Drink a ton of water, they fill you up and it's healthy anyway, and don't eat anything for 24 hours. When you hit the 24 hour mark, either quit or continue for another 24 hours. It's much easier not eating anything at all than having to keep in mind that you can have just a bit of this and a slice of that and not exaggerating portions or adding one forbidden food or an extra meal. |
 I never once mentioned hunger in my post, nor starving, nor anything remotely related to either of those. I spoke of eating as a coping mechanism for emotional stress, which has nothing to do with feeling hunger or reacting to it.
I know perfectly well how to fast and have done so, for my bloodtests, colonoscopy and other assorted medical procedures, anywhere from 12 to 48 hours. Also at some point in my past due to sudden job loss at the same time as having absolutely no money, I did not eat for a week excepting a thin broth from whatever vegetables I had left before I received any money to buy groceries.
I know I do not need to eat all the time, and that's the precise point I'm making: what I know and what I do are not connected by rationality. The eating is an emotional response and it does not manifest as hunger or even a thought that I am hungry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:03 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
Oh well.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Karsen
Icarian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:08 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
Just to remind people that addiction is a disease, not a choice. Not only can people be addicted to drugs and alcohol, but to food, television shows etc. However, I know that the biggest problem in relationships is addiction to drugs and alcohol. I am a recovering addict that has been clean for 10 years. I dont even smoke cigarettes. I try not to fall back into my old routine of judging others before I admitted I was hooked on the pills given to me for chronic pain, but now I am watching others judge addicts thinking it is a choice, and trust me, its not. We are dealt a pretty lousy hand in our DNA when addiction is the case. It has been proven to be a disease the same as diabetes and heart disease is a disease and it can be controlled by several drugs, one being methadone, which has saved many lives. It also gets a bad rap because it is so widely abused by addicts to help them overcome being sick. There is no high when using methadone which is why addicts dont like to use it unless its a drug to use when they cant get anything else, and they mix it with other drugs, it is deadly which is why it has a bad rap. Methadone helps shut off the part of the brain that controls cravings for the opiates and it is used to treat addicts like insulin is used to treat diabetes.
Addiction is also recognized as a disease and not a choice by the American medical association. So please, I know its hard when your loved one is an addict but remember, they are not doing it to hurt you or to be selfish, even though it seems that way. They will put everything last and make the drug first, that is how bad the cravings can be. It takes you over totally and you cannot make clear choices without the proper tools. Getting them to stop by saying you will leave wont work, they will lie and say they will stop but without real help, they will always resort to their drug of choice no matter what they promise you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
