"Weak minded people get addicted to drugs" - master_bates

[naughtylady]

namely an academic problem.

DSM-IV is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision..

You can repeat the 12 step blather all you want folks, but addiction is not a disease.

Even ICD 10 refers to behavioral problems as a disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10

Lets try another example from DSM-IV:

Schizophrenia included in DSM-IV. Schizophrenia is known to be physiologically based (the brain is different from that of a normal person). The WHO describes it as an illness, DSM-IV a disorder.

After wandering around a bit on the WHO ICD Version 10 2007 web site, it seems to me that all diseases are considered disorders however not all disorders are considered diseases.

Anyway disease or disorder, it is recognized as a medical problem. Can we at least agree on that?

Why does it upset you so much if somebody calls it a disease? Whether in general laymen's or medically?

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[YouVantOption]

Why does it upset you so much if somebody calls it a disease? Whether in general laymen's or medically?

Because it is patently and moronically wrong, and serves to heighten the underlying causes unnaturally to a degree which, as techman noted, are used as an excuse to avoid responsibility.

When one contracts a disease, it is generally unwittingly and without intent to do so (bareback sex and HIV/AIDS (which IS a disease) being an exception that leaps to mind). Is it really any shock to an addict that sucking on the business end of a crackpipe ends up in dependency? Do they not play a role in the process?

If they have a disease, the thinking goes, maybe not.

Homosexuality is considered a disease, a lifestyle choice that can be treated, by some. Do you agree with that assessment? Or does it bother you that people are perpetuating something that is patently false?

It irks me to see any wrong-headed myth perpetuated. It is, as Penn & Teller said, bullshit.

 

[YouVantOption]

Hell YVO,

It's not just a matter of being "weak-minded" as you mischaracterize addiction generally. It's also about foolish frivolous recreational choices and unknown individual
susceptibility. Your branding of everyone as weak-minded is quite unfair and deceptive.

While the first situation could be related to your "weak-minded" label, to imply that is the only cause is gross-oversimplification. Even when the addiction is entirely psychological it's not simply a matter of will. A developed pattern of behavior, learned means of coping, or lifestyle creates far more elements to overcome than just will.

Perhaps you own insistence on limiting your view of the issue here to one very rigid conclusion is some form of learned psychological direction where you tend to dismiss or deny the complexities of situations in preference for a simpler view. Some things are very simple. Where human being are concerned they usually are NOT.

Agreed. for example, you seem to be able to write, without being able to read, or comprehend what I wrote. I never said addicts are weak minded, in fact, I argued quite the opposite. But thanks for playing.

 

[Merlot]

Because it is patently and moronically wrong, and serves to heighten the underlying causes unnaturally to a degree which, as techman noted, are used as an excuse to avoid responsibility.

When one contracts a disease, it is generally unwittingly and without intent to do so (bareback sex and HIV/AIDS (which IS a disease) being an exception that leaps to mind). Is it really any shock to an addict that sucking on the business end of a crackpipe ends up in dependency? Do they not play a role in the process?

If they have a disease, the thinking goes, maybe not.

It irks me to see any wrong-headed myth perpetuated. It is, as Penn & Teller said, bullshit.

I never said addicts are weak minded, in fact, I argued quite the opposite. But thanks for playing.

Well YVO,

Fine. So I am guilty of mischaracterizing you in part. My bad! But my point was about oversimplification of complex conditions. Master Bates is just as wrong to suggest weak-mindedness is the problem as any is to deny there aren't disease or disease-like elements to addiction.

I agree that the availability of endless foreknowledge of the consequences of using both prescription and illicit drugs and substances puts a great deal of the responsibility for the results on the user. However addiction can also be "unwitting" when a person couldn't have known his/her specific biological chemistry was more susceptible to addiction of certain drugs and substances. Addiction or becoming addicted has multiple complex causes such as foolish frivolous recreational choices, ingrained learned patterns of behavior and problem solving, and unknown individual susceptibility to chemical dependency, plus many more aspects.

Some addiction is habitual originating in and maintained by psychological patterning that perpetuates the perception of a need or dependence on something. But addiction is also a physical-biological where the body chemistry of the body forms a an impulsive reliance on the substance due to a genetic predisposition and therefore creates a de facto disease. Both to over-simply addiction as in simplistic labels or deny possibly characteristics indicating disease elements are just as misguided and doing either can lead to incomplete solutions that fail.

In your phrasing above you suggest that frivolous indulgence in drugs of any sort or addictive substances of any sort despite abundant foreknowledge of the consequences nullifies any disease aspect of the resulting condition. Intentions do not nullify the reality of the condition.

You also seem devoted to narrowing the definition of diseases to strict medical definition limited to diseases that one might label "natural diseases" like everything from a cold to cancer that is not the result of recreational abuse of some drug or substance. Under the medical definition below it would seem that anything that alters the normal functioning of the body with negative impact could be considered a "disease". But regardless of whether causes defining a disease are actually that open or not I doubt that even the New England Journal of Medicine wants to define the parameters of what constitutes a disease within perfectly aligned boundaries that cannot be expanded or altered.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/disease

disease /dis·ease/ (dĭ-zēz´) any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown.

Those who seek to employ over-simplification, use absolute definitions, or deny possible aspects to complex issues and problems all contribute to creating impediments that can stifle the discovery of real effective solutions. It is disturbing when addicts use the concept of "disease" as a crutch for their difficulty. But that does not nullify of itself whether addiction is a disease. Don't let your reaction to excuses deny reality.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Ben Dover]

Agreed. for example, you seem to be able to write, without being able to read, or comprehend what I wrote. I never said addicts are weak minded, in fact, I argued quite the opposite. But thanks for playing.

Yes YVO. This is quite baffling... Seems like Merlot has a comprehension disorder. Like some sort of disease. Perhaps brought on by a weak mind.

Disagreeing with him however, will only bring you one thing. A PM box full of cheap-shot baseless insults!


BD

 

[Ben Dover]

Nope. Not as good as those.

Let's not get this thread off track. Keep the insults in my PM box, I still have room for a couple more.


BD

 

[Mod 8]

BD Merlot, let's keep it civilized please. This topic makes for great reading and debate lets not have it shutdown because of insults.

This is excellent advice.

BD, if you cannot contribute anything to this discussion other than taking shots at other posters who are contributing, do not bother posting in this thread. This goes for everyone else as well.

Mod 8

 

[Ben Dover]

Thanks for the hand slap mod 8. I am trying to curb my addiction to pointing out stupidity. I think my previous post made it clear that I did not want to have any part in the derailment of this thread.

On that note, here are a couple excerpts that I found very interesting from an aricle published on slate.com

http://www.slate.com/id/2171131/pagenum/all/

As a psychiatrist who treats heroin addicts and a psychologist long interested in the philosophical meaning of disease, we have chafed at the "brain disease" rhetoric since it was first promulgated by NIDA in 1995. Granted, the rationale behind it is well-intentioned. Nevertheless, we believe that the brain disease concept is bad for the public's mental health literacy.

Characterizing addiction as a brain disease misappropriates language more properly used to describe conditions such as multiple sclerosis or schizophrenia—afflictions that are neither brought on by sufferers themselves nor modifiable by their desire to be well. Also, the brain disease rhetoric is fatalistic, implying that users can never fully free themselves of their drug or alcohol problems. Finally, and most important, it threatens to obscure the vast role personal agency plays in perpetuating the cycle of use and relapse to drugs and alcohol.

Finally, dare we ask: Why is stigma bad? It is surely unfortunate if it keeps people from getting help (although we believe the real issue is not embarrassment but fear of a breach of confidentiality). The push to destigmatize overlooks the healthy role that shame can play, by motivating many otherwise reluctant people to seek treatment in the first place and jolting others into quitting before they spiral down too far.

You would think Congress has better things to do than legislate name changes. And in the long run, the well-meaning effort to overmedicalize addiction could have baleful consequences. Addiction is not as hopeless or uncontrollable as the brain disease metaphor suggests. Yes, like other bad habits, it is in our brains—but like other bad habits, it can be broken.

_______________

In case anyone is wondering. I agree with the article and think that calling drug addiction a disease, is incorrect and a bad idea.


BD

 

[Merlot]

Thanks for the hand slap mod 8. I am trying to curb my addiction to pointing out stupidity.
BD

Right, so this is your view of following instructions. After I privately offer peace, more insults and a PM threat. How expected!

LOL,

Merlot

 

[hormone]

Because it is patently and moronically wrong, and serves to heighten the underlying causes unnaturally to a degree which, as techman noted, are used as an excuse to avoid responsibility.

That is your opinion only (yours and techman, of course). But i think that this avoidance of responsability is plaguing much of today's society, it's like a disease

When one contracts a disease, it is generally unwittingly and without intent to do so (bareback sex and HIV/AIDS (which IS a disease) being an exception that leaps to mind).

Of course, we know that all alcoholics, all crack and heroin addicts started out wanting to become addicts! It had been their goal to do so way before trying the first gulp of snort or...

So what would you say of lung cancer, which in 95% of the cases is related to smoking... is it a disease? After all people had the choice not to smoke...

Homosexuality is considered a disease, a lifestyle choice that can be treated, by some. Do you agree with that assessment? Or does it bother you that people are perpetuating something that is patently false?

Homosexuality used to be a diagnosis of mental illness until 1973 when it was removed from the DSM III. Sadly some people still perpetrate that mentality... and many other things. But that something be a disorder or disease does not make it more or less treatable. It does not mean either that there are no outside influence from environmental or personal factors.

Diseases have pre-disposing or risk factors. We can act on many of these risk factors and change the evolution of the consequential disease. Cardiovascular disease risk or evolution can be lowered by not smoking, proper diet and exercise and controlling your weight (which also play on diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol). But you can't change the genetic factors you inherit...

 

[naughtylady]

Because it is patently and moronically wrong, and serves to heighten the underlying causes unnaturally to a degree which, as techman noted, are used as an excuse to avoid responsibility.

When one contracts a disease, it is generally unwittingly and without intent to do so (bareback sex and HIV/AIDS (which IS a disease) being an exception that leaps to mind). Is it really any shock to an addict that sucking on the business end of a crackpipe ends up in dependency? Do they not play a role in the process?

If they have a disease, the thinking goes, maybe not.

Homosexuality is considered a disease, a lifestyle choice that can be treated, by some. Do you agree with that assessment? Or does it bother you that people are perpetuating something that is patently false?

It irks me to see any wrong-headed myth perpetuated. It is, as Penn & Teller said, bullshit.

Homosexuality has not been considered a psychological problem since DSM-III. Now this is interesting homosexuality was considered a mental illness for over 150 years. Now it is not (unless one is having a difficult time accepting one's own sexuality.) Compare this to addiction which was not considered a mental illness until recently....
just something to think about. Things that make you go hmmm.

I do not know of any one who had their first drink thinking, "I am going to become an alcoholic" Same goes for drugs. Most people do not become addicted to the first mind altering substance they try.

Also it has been proven that their is a genetic component to addiction.

Anyway back to my second to last question:
Anyway whether disease, disorder, or illness, it is recognized as a medical problem. Can we at least agree on that?

I still do not know of anyone personally who uses the thinking of it being a disease as an excuse of responsibility. Only as a way of saying they need help and a plea for some understanding that it is something stronger than themselves. Once hooked so many want to quit, and so few succeed.

Addiction is deadly. Either directly or indirectly addiction can and all too often kills the addict.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[naughtylady]

Thanks for the hand slap mod 8. I am trying to curb my addiction to pointing out stupidity. I think my previous post made it clear that I did not want to have any part in the derailment of this thread.

On that note, here are a couple excerpts that I found very interesting from an aricle published on slate.com

http://www.slate.com/id/2171131/pagenum/all/

As a psychiatrist who treats heroin addicts and a psychologist long interested in the philosophical meaning of disease, we have chafed at the "brain disease" rhetoric since it was first promulgated by NIDA in 1995. Granted, the rationale behind it is well-intentioned. Nevertheless, we believe that the brain disease concept is bad for the public's mental health literacy.

Characterizing addiction as a brain disease misappropriates language more properly used to describe conditions such as multiple sclerosis or schizophrenia—afflictions that are neither brought on by sufferers themselves nor modifiable by their desire to be well. Also, the brain disease rhetoric is fatalistic, implying that users can never fully free themselves of their drug or alcohol problems. Finally, and most important, it threatens to obscure the vast role personal agency plays in perpetuating the cycle of use and relapse to drugs and alcohol.

Finally, dare we ask: Why is stigma bad? It is surely unfortunate if it keeps people from getting help (although we believe the real issue is not embarrassment but fear of a breach of confidentiality). The push to destigmatize overlooks the healthy role that shame can play, by motivating many otherwise reluctant people to seek treatment in the first place and jolting others into quitting before they spiral down too far.

You would think Congress has better things to do than legislate name changes. And in the long run, the well-meaning effort to overmedicalize addiction could have baleful consequences. Addiction is not as hopeless or uncontrollable as the brain disease metaphor suggests. Yes, like other bad habits, it is in our brains—but like other bad habits, it can be broken.

_______________

In case anyone is wondering. I agree with the article and think that calling drug addiction a disease, is incorrect and a bad idea.


BD

Statistics show that a success rate of 10% at best when it comes to kicking a drug addiction. Regardless of method used.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[YouVantOption]

Mr Demagogue is always RIGHT and you guys are always WRONG: its written in DSM IV,lancet and NEJM

When you have finished playing with your balls and racket, you might want to look up the difference between its and it's. I'd suggest the OED since you proclaim to have a penchant for things British, but really, and dictionary would do.

And if, as MOD 8 said, you have nothing to contribute, you are cordially invited to buzz off.

 

[YouVantOption]

Anyway back to my second to last question:
Anyway whether disease, disorder, or illness, it is recognized as a medical problem. Can we at least agree on that?

Wherever did you see any disagreement on my part there? It is a medical problem, and it is a serious problem, of course.

So what would you say of lung cancer, which in 95% of the cases is related to smoking... is it a disease? After all people had the choice not to smoke...

Cancer is a disease, smoking is not. Also, lung cancer comes from many different sources, and not all smokers get lung cancer.

 

[Ben Dover]

Statistics show that a success rate of 10% at best when it comes to kicking a drug addiction. Regardless of method used.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

I'm very curious to know where this 10% statistic is from? Please cite the source. I find it very questionable as all the reading I've done indicates that the success rate varies drastically based on a multitude of factors such as the type of addiction (nicotine, heroin, crack, alcohol etc), the type of treatment program (cold turkey, detox, many different types of rehab programs and philosophies etc). Is this for Canada? US? Worldwide?

I guess I just fail to see how you can combine every type of addiciton and every type of treatment and every demographic into one neat little number like 10%...

Like most people, I have known many addicts over the course of my life and just though anecdotal evidence, the rate of those specific people who can successfully kick their habits seems much higher than that to me. Probably less than 50%, but certainly better than 10%...

Of course, going back to the original topic, some people are just weak minded, or stupid, or full of insecurities that make them "touchy" about every little thing or paranoid that everyone is out to get them. These problems are exacerbated by substance abuse in most cases, or can be created by substance abuse if they didn't exist in the first place. Most addicts probably have significant underlying problems of some kind.

Denying the problem exists is not productive in all cases. IMHO.


BD

 

[YouVantOption]

I'm very curious to know where this 10% statistic is from? Please cite the source.

That is one I have seen stated by both the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto, as well as a (suppressed) report done by A.A. - there is mention of it in the Penn & Teller show about A.A.

There is much difficulty arriving at an accurate figure, in part because when people are actively getting drunk or stoned, they often times don't want to admit it, or are too drunk/stoned to do so.

 

[hormone]

Cancer is a disease, smoking is not. Also, lung cancer comes from many different sources, and not all smokers get lung cancer.

Of course I knew that, but it was not obvious you did, since you said:

When one contracts a disease, it is generally unwittingly and without intent to do so (bareback sex and HIV/AIDS (which IS a disease) being an exception that leaps to mind).

And remember that 95% of lung cancers are related to smoking, actively or passively. And I am sure that people who engage in bareback sex ar not intent on contracting AIDS...

Not all people who do cocaine/ drink alcohol get addicted either... sorry but I don't know what you want to show by saying not all smokers get lung cancer.

 

[YouVantOption]

Of course I knew that, but it was not obvious you did, since you said:



And remember that 95% of lung cancers are related to smoking, actively or passively. And I am sure that people who engage in bareback sex ar not intent on contracting AIDS...

Not all people who do cocaine/ drink alcohol get addicted either... sorry but I don't know what you want to show by saying not all smokers get lung cancer.

Diseases are imperfect. Some smokers die of natural causes and never contract lung disease or cancer.

There are well-documented cases of prostitutes in Uganda who are HIV+ but are asymptomatic and do not contract AIDS.

Roll of the dice. Sure, i know tons of folks who can sniff their little sniff, drink their little drink and not have any long-term problems.

And I know perhaps fewer, but far more troubling numbers of friends who weren't so lucky. Some of them so unlucky as to be dead because of coke and smack.

 

[naughtylady]

Diseases are imperfect. Some smokers die of natural causes and never contract lung disease or cancer.

There are well-documented cases of prostitutes in Uganda who are HIV+ but are asymptomatic and do not contract AIDS.

Roll of the dice. Sure, i know tons of folks who can sniff their little sniff, drink their little drink and not have any long-term problems.

And I know perhaps fewer, but far more troubling numbers of friends who weren't so lucky. Some of them so unlucky as to be dead because of coke and smack.

I also know some people who have died because of their addiction. It is hard to see a friend in the throws of addiction, especially when you used to party with them and you are OK and their lives have fallen apart.

I also have seen too many die, either directly or indirectly due to addiction.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[naughtylady]

I'm very curious to know where this 10% statistic is from? Please cite the source. I find it very questionable as all the reading I've done indicates that the success rate varies drastically based on a multitude of factors such as the type of addiction (nicotine, heroin, crack, alcohol etc), the type of treatment program (cold turkey, detox, many different types of rehab programs and philosophies etc). Is this for Canada? US? Worldwide?

I guess I just fail to see how you can combine every type of addiciton and every type of treatment and every demographic into one neat little number like 10%...

Like most people, I have known many addicts over the course of my life and just though anecdotal evidence, the rate of those specific people who can successfully kick their habits seems much higher than that to me. Probably less than 50%, but certainly better than 10%...

Of course, going back to the original topic, some people are just weak minded, or stupid, or full of insecurities that make them "touchy" about every little thing or paranoid that everyone is out to get them. These problems are exacerbated by substance abuse in most cases, or can be created by substance abuse if they didn't exist in the first place. Most addicts probably have significant underlying problems of some kind.

Denying the problem exists is not productive in all cases. IMHO.


BD

I have some friends studying toxicomanie to become a therapist specializing in addiction. That is where I got that statistic. I can get specific references if you like.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady