"So wait, if pot addiction is a disease..."
"...does this mean that I can get a prescription for medical marijuana?"
"...and Obamacare will pay for it?!!"
"I've gotta vote for THAT guy... what was his name again?"
Posted on 06/11/2012 12:36:15 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the National Drug Control Policy, has announced a new focus on treating drug addiction as a disease, not a moral failing, and emphasizes removing the stigma placed on drug abusers.
Speaking at the Betty Ford Center in Palm Springs, Calif., on Monday, Kerlikowske declared “this country hasn’t looked at recovery in a way that makes sense,” and that he intended to “use the bully pulpit of the White House in a way that brings it out into the open.”
Previous federal drug policies were a three-legged stool, Kerlikowske said, with criminalization, prevention and treatment serving as the foundation for national policies. Now, there will be a fourth leg – recovery.
Forming the administration’s new attitude toward drug problems “meant moving beyond talking in the beltway … it meant talking to real people dealing with addiction,” Kerlikowske said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Of course that's hogwash as 'doing drugs' is a willful choice. We all know full well that 'street' and some prescription drugs are addictive but often young people, in their youthful hubris, believe the warnings don't apply to them and boast: "I can handle it'. Some can but many fall into addiction and ruined lives, even early death.
The point being that it's a choice to use addictive drugs just as it's a choice to drink alcohol and allow yourself to depend on it's effects to function. Same with many other life choices, including having sex outside of wedlock and the sometime resulting pregnancy ("it just happened" often being the excuse, as if the person involved had nothing to do with it).
The 'disease' label attached to addictions is phony and meant to excuse the addict of responsibility. Just as no one blames a person with the flu for contracting the virus, how can we blame a drug/alcohol addict for 'catching' a disease? BS on stilts - and very frustrating. Yet another example of the willful abandonment of personal responsibility that government programs and bureaucracies promote and society all too eagerly embraces. This erosion of recognizing and dealing with harsh reality cannot end well for our nation.
It isn’t cancer, you frigging moron...it’s a disorder.
Every person connected to Obama is a retard of epic proportions.
The addiction process may be medical in nature, but the original decision to use the drug to begin with is a moral decision. Drug addiction is truly a life choice, every addict at some point made a choice to try drugs. Choices have consequences.
I am for federal government to get out of running our personal lives and families, period. Federal government has a particular job which is enumerated and does not include rewards and “help” for those on drugs. If we allowed personal responsibility and death on the streets for druggies-—we would eliminate the need for “war on drugs”.
Now, the states have a right to promote Virtue-—in fact, the Founding Fathers stated that was the purpose of public schools. This “Virtue” is Christian ethics and embedded in our legal system of inalienable Rights from God. This standard where Rights originate from God and NOT Barney Frank is what is destroying our country whose government is now actively redefining words, language and “Good and Evil” to the pagan/occult/Marxist ideology to destroy the Ethics that produced the Constitution .
Welfare states destroy responsibility and rewards evil behavior—it is unconstitutional anyways. Education (which is not done in schools anymore) is what it will take to destroy the dependence on drugs. We need to get government out of schools because they are just indoctrination centers teaching slaves to passion and creating addicts.
Government always is evil—always produces “evil”—that is understood by all freedom loving people-—that is why the Leviathan HAS to be LIMITED.
Only virtuous people can be free and responsible and government is not needed where you have men who are angels. Being sinful, men do need some government-—but it should always be promoting Christian Ethics because that is where the idea of individual dignity and worth and responsibility for oneself originate. Subsidiarity is a Catholic creation. These ideas, embedded in Natural Law Theory-—Rights come from God and in a “Higher Law” is totally American (and Judeo-Christian) -is what has made this country superior and more free and diverse than any other country in the history of the world.
We need to get back to creating responsible human beings and promoting Virtue which has been known for all freedom and civil societies since Plato and Aristotle. It is what made Western Civilization so superior to all ideologies.
Most recovering alcoholics would refer to alcoholism/addiction as a spiritual malady. If you limit discussion of it to a simple "nature vs. nurture" you're ultimately going to have two sides that merely condone the behavior of the addict or alcoholic. The "nature" side will excuse the practitioner as having been, "born that way." The "nurture" side would argue that a learned behavior can be unlearned. It's been my experience with more than a few years of sobriety under my belt, that until and unless one is willing to recognize the spiritual component and dimension of the dysfunction, one will never start down the path of solid recovery.
"I can catch cold, I can't catch heroin."
One of the early founders of AA was a medical doctor who likened the physiological effects of alcoholism to an allergy. It's not something you "catch", but it's something different people react to differently. Subsequent studies of alcohlics have established that their bodies and brains respond differently to alcohol than do those who are not alcoholics, so there is a physiological difference. The question, to the best of my knowledge, remains unsettled as to whether those changes are inborn or if they develop over time with the consumption of alcohol. Certainly there are some who appear to be predisposed to alcoholism.
Are they now going to hold fundraising telethons to fund the research for a cure?
Good for you buddy. One day at a time.
Andy
“Tomorrow = 19 yrs without a drop. Are there other diseases you can quit? How about cardiovascular disease?”
Eighteen years, four months and six days. This is nothing new at all. Alcoholism/drug addiction HAS been considered a disease, for decades by medical science.
Neither alcoholism, or cardiovascular disease is “quit” but rather effectively treated as well as possible.
Alcoholism/drug addiction is most effectively treated by total abstinence, just as cardiovascular disease is most effectively treated by following all doctor’s instructions, such as diet, exercise, medications, etc.
People do NOT avoid moral blame for damage done while intoxicated. The trend in California is towards making a drunk driver stand trial for murder, if he kills someone while driving.
That is the opposite from using the disease thory an excuse to avoid consequences, is a relatively legal jurisdiction.
Statistically bout one in ten people exposed to alcohol will become problem drinkers.
For an 18 year old high schooler, is being addicted to legal nicotine a smaller “sin” than being addicted to illegal (unprescribed) pain killers?
Behavior is the cause of addiction, so it is not a disease. Don’t want to be addicted? Don’t take the drugs, the booze, whatever. Enough of the excuses for misbehavior!
an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors
To me, the description of a disease being that of an "impairment of normal state..." unquestionably describes the addiction model, while the genetic anomaly condition leads to it. So, yes, it fits. I think the problem is that people, in general, like to have their own working definitions of "disease," and that's where things get hairy. And others have doubted a genetic link, but that cannot be soberly espoused these days. Right?
It is a failure of our morals in this society.
Really? I know of no other disease that can be controlled by strength of character. I think that calling addiction a disease has some very scary implications.
They have been saying drug and alcohol addiction was an illness back in the early 80s when I worked as a drug rehab tech. Probably earlier then that too.
So they are arresting people for getting sick?
Now, the states have a right to promote Virtue
They are not constrained by the United States Constitution from doing so, agreed.
Government always is evil—always produces “evil”—that is understood by all freedom loving people-—that is why the Leviathan HAS to be LIMITED. [...] Being sinful, men do need some government-—but it should always be promoting Christian Ethics
That promotion, if taken far enough, can become the opposite of limited. So the question is whether properly limited government promotion of Christian ethics encompasses prohibition of drugs by any level of government.
That was my first thought also..might we soon hear some news about obama. He already used when he was younger, per himself. He has never mentioned getting clean.
The reality is that addiction is not a disease. Its a condition that all of us are susceptible to, just at varying levels. Some of us can take one legal mothers little helper and become addicted. Others will not. Or it will take longer for addiction to take hold. But you never know until you try, which drug will turn you into an addict. And when you find out, life will suck after that no matter how strong you are.
The reality is that addiction is not a disease. Its a condition that all of us are susceptible to, just at varying levels. Some of us can take one legal mothers little helper and become addicted. Others will not. Or it will take longer for addiction to take hold. But you never know until you try, which drug will turn you into an addict. And when you find out, life will suck after that no matter how strong you are.
Well, I look at sorta like a Venn diagram. Legal and moral outlooks overlap, as does culpability, or individual fault. Suppose a doc prescribes benzos, like xanax, which is highly addictive, to a patient for anxiety. Then, the patient becomes addicted; big surprise. I don’t believe that patient shares, in any way, the moral culpability of a crack or meth addict.
I never liked talking about alcoholism as a disease because it altered the way I looked at it. For me, it was a subtle way to take the power out of my hands. A disease for me was/is something you get medical care for and then hope for the best.
At some point I started envisioning myself sitting across the table from the liar that used to run around in my head and I’d say, “You wanna kill me? No, I’m gonna kill you!” It sounds quite weird but putting things in those terms worked for me. The fight went from me hanging in there to a saw-off to me getting the upper hand to me rag-dolling that evil b*astard.
Keep fightin’ RacerX! :)
Yeah, you have to hand it to masturbaters...
Ummm... That didn’t sound right! ;-P
True. Now we get into “Just Law”. (See tagline).
Laws should never promote evil—they are “unjust” if they do or if they promote that which is against God’s Laws and the Laws of Nature.
For Radical Liberty—as John Stuart Mill would condone—you can not control any substance even alcohol consumption in children. Also, any government involvement in schools would be evil, because the nature of government is always to make slaves of the state.
The Founders knew that Virtue was essential for any freedom and civil society. That is why the “general welfare” clause and the idea that Just Law (Rule of Law) depends on Virtue and the idea of “Higher Laws” than arbitrary man-made up law (like Hitlers).
So, Moderation, being one of the Cardinal Virtues, along with Justice, Wisdom, and Courage—it would be a duty of government to allow laws which would create laws which would discourage drug-using-—like driving laws under the influence which could kill innocent human beings.
Laws which safeguard children are also necessary, but as I say, government is not in a position—and can never be-—able to be in every house and monitor every action and save every child. With such intrusion—there is no liberty.
This utopian society of Marxism—is a fraud-—Safety at the expense of liberty is slavery. Virtue is necessary for freedom. We have to create a society which is moral—and who choose to do “good” as defined by Christian Ethics (not Ancient Greek ethics where slavery and pederasty and homosexuality and child sacrifice and women were 2nd class citizens was “Good” and ethical.
Education with parental control is the only course to responsibilty-—but government should have the ability to punish actions which destroy other people and their freedoms.
Common Sense and Moderation and the promotion of Justice, Wisdom, Courage, and Temperance were the foundation of Western Civilization.
With Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (John Austin) we took reason and logic out of Law and inserted irrational (feelings determine Right and Wrong) Marxism/paganism into our jurisprudence-—which is unconstitutional because it destroys the intent and meaning of our Constitutional Rights. it destroys Logic and Reason—private property rights and inserts irrational thinking as a “good” which promotes evil through laws—arbitrary laws which conflict with God’s Laws (homosexual “marriage”, abortion, welfare (forced charity which destroys charity) etc.
Should drug dealers be prosecuted when selling to minors. Absolutely. Should cocaine be outlawed—and meth-—yes. The destruction of society and family and the severe costs to civil society was noted in China during the Opium Wars. There is a destruction of the family unit with rampant drug use and promotion-—it should be illegal to promote drugs to children since it is destructive and never a “good” and creates addiction and slavery and destroys free will.
Evil can never be promoted in a civil society. (Abortion, drug use, fornication, adultery-—the obscenity laws were important in America until the 60’s when the Communist ACLU and other organizations under the guidance of Cultural Marxists targeted schools and laws to destroy Virtue. Should we have laws which prevent the promotion of Evil. Yes, I think so because it destroys Civil society. There should be obscenity laws-—our Founders did not agree with the radical John Stuart Mill-—it was Christianity which made the difference.
,
It’s more of a neural receptor defect than a disease.
Adult Diabetes can be controlled without drugs by changes in life style
First of all, I do agree that some are more prone to addictions than others. I have a friend who can get a strong habit out of just about anything. But I strongly object to calling it a disease.
For instance there is billboards promoting stomach surgery saying “Overeating is a disease, not a choice!” The implication is that it is not your fault for you addiction.
A habit can be very strong, but that still has an element of will in it.
What you clearly fail to understand is that the natural inclination of an alcoholic's will is to drink. It's a common misunderstanding that an alcoholic "has little or no will." The fact of the matter is, if you lock up an alcoholic in prison, he'll find a way to ferment fruit in a commode. An alcoholic will risk family, career, freedom and life itself in order to drink, and in fact, many fall into despair because they can not overcome their will to do so.
The drinking itself is a symptom, not the dysfunction. Many alcoholics do become "dry drunks," and while they "resist" indulging their "habit" (as you call it) they still suffer from many other unsettled aspects of alcoholism.
Or look at it another way. I know women who are addicted to shopping. They go to the mall, buy things they don't need, just for that little high they get. One has hit rock bottom, and is in danger of losing everything. It is an addiction, and she is arguing that "I have no choice but to shop! IT IS A DISEASE!" to her creditors. Is she a victim or an active participant?
Or how about my previous example of those who over eat massive amounts. We have had two gastric bypass surgeries at the plant in the last few years, both by people who say "I have a disease! I have no choice but to over eat! I am addicted to food!" One would smuggle in soft drinks and chips to the control. Should they be excused for all responsibility because they have a disease that they can't control? Or do they have a habit that can be controlled, or changed?
Did you read what you wrote, because this line contradicts pretty much everything else in your post. If somebody is "driven" to do something, they're not really acting out of choice, are they?
"Should they be excused for all responsibility because they have a disease that they can't control?"
Nobody's excusing anybody, nor saying that the disease is something that can't be controlled. An infection can be controlled. Bipolar disorder can be controlled. That does not mean they aren't maladies or that the sufferers of those maladies can't choose to seek treatment for them.
Similarly, a diabetic can indulge his sweet tooth which aggravates his symptoms, but the sugar intake is not the disease. Alcoholism or addiction can be controlled but never really go away, and certainly the alcoholic or addict can do things to avoid the aggravating factors, which the responsible ones find ways of doing.
It's readily evident that you have never personally suffered or dealt with the pain of alcoholism or addiction. Be grateful you don't have the intimate understanding of it that many do.
Bingo!
19 years sober for me. Living proof that all things are possible. Keep up he good work.
As the parent of two children who have a real disease (juvenile diabetes) I couldn't agree more.
Call it a crutch, character flaw, bad habit, weakness of will, whatever. But putting something in your mouth or veins or up your nose is not a disease.
Now, I do know people that have had very crippling addictions. From booze to drugs to sex. Many in my own family. The ones who say “I can't stop, it is a disease!” try to manage the symptoms, but never kick it. The ones who own up to it, and realize “This is a habit I have chosen. It is my responsibility to work on.” are the ones who succeed.
Now, from what I understand about you (just from FR), you have taken those steps. You are calling your addictions a disease, and that has worked for you. So be it. But, in my experience with my friends, family, and coworkers, calling a habit or addiction a disease is most often enabling them to not change.
Is addiction a moral failing if it was come by in a "bad" way, but not if it was come by in a "good" way?
Well, I look at sorta like a Venn diagram. Legal and moral outlooks overlap, as does culpability, or individual fault. Suppose a doc prescribes benzos, like xanax, which is highly addictive, to a patient for anxiety. Then, the patient becomes addicted; big surprise. I don’t believe that patient shares, in any way, the moral culpability of a crack or meth addict.
To say that the latter are morally culpable for his addiction is not to say that the addiction is itself a moral failing.
And what about addiction to legal nonprescription drugs, such as alcohol? Are alcoholics "good people"?
That promotion, if taken far enough, can become the opposite of limited. So the question is whether properly limited government promotion of Christian ethics encompasses prohibition of drugs by any level of government.
True. Now we get into “Just Law”. (See tagline).
Laws should never promote evil—they are “unjust” if they do or if they promote that which is against God’s Laws and the Laws of Nature.
For Radical Liberty—as John Stuart Mill would condone—you can not control any substance even alcohol consumption in children.
I'm against that - children are fundamentally different from adults.
The Founders knew that Virtue was essential for any freedom and civil society. That is why the “general welfare” clause and the idea that Just Law (Rule of Law) depends on Virtue and the idea of “Higher Laws” than arbitrary man-made up law (like Hitlers).
So, Moderation, being one of the Cardinal Virtues, along with Justice, Wisdom, and Courage—it would be a duty of government to allow laws which would create laws which would discourage drug-using
You've made an unsupported leap there: from the necessity of virtue, to governmental imposition of virtuous behavior. I know of no evidence that any of the Founders thought that government force could make people virtuous.
-—like driving laws under the influence which could kill innocent human beings.
I doubt there's more than one person in 1000 who thinks DUI laws' discouragement of drinking is any more than a side-effect of the laws' goal of protecting innocent lives.
government should have the ability to punish actions which destroy other people and their freedoms.
Certainly - and drug use does not destroy other people or their freedoms, whether the drug is alcohol or any other substance.
Should drug dealers be prosecuted when selling to minors. Absolutely.
Agreed.
Should cocaine be outlawed—and meth-—yes. The destruction of society and family and the severe costs to civil society was noted in China during the Opium Wars.
Ours is a very different society than 19th century China. And unlike China, the USA is not being forced by a foreign power to accept drug shipments.
There is a destruction of the family unit with rampant drug use
Who said anything about "rampant" drug use? This old bogeyman assumes that there are millions of American adults who are deterred from using drugs by their current illegality but under legalization would be undeterred by the inherent harms of drug use. That's counterintuitive, to put it mildly - are YOU such a person?
And while I agree that a parent violates his/her minor children's rights by drugging him/herself into a state of inability to meet his/her parental responsibilities, I vigorously disagree that this is sufficient reason to ban drug use for ALL adults including those without minor children. (If it were sufficient reason, we should return to Prohibition of the drug alcohol.)
and promotion [...] Evil can never be promoted in a civil society. [...] Should we have laws which prevent the promotion of Evil. Yes
I could accept bans on advertising of legalized drugs. But to allow is not to "promote."
Because it’s up to the drug-addicted to decide.
Agreed—about my leap. But, it is a fact that all the Founders and the Ancient Greeks (Plato, Socrates and Aristotle) knew that Virtue was necessary for civil society to be possible. The Founders all attributed Virtue to religion (Christianity to be specific).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2052821/posts
Without religion and the promotion of Virtue—which is the reason for education (even the Greeks stated that)—character is built and formed in childhood and so education had to teach Virtue—it was the sole reason to have education (for the Greeks and the Founders).
For you to say drug use does no harm to others is completely naive and false. It always harms children in the house because of impaired mental capacity. Look at the woman who was just picked up for smoking marijuana who had left her baby (accidentally?) on the top of her car when she drove off.
Any substance which impairs logic and reason and destroys the inhibition of destructive emotions promotes evil is many cases. Laws always exist for the prevention of evil to vulnerable groups—of course, the children are the most vulnerable and the most damaged by drugs.
I deal with children raised by alcoholics who have been emotionally damaged and abused by such out-of-control parents. This not only made their childhood hell, it is hard for them to treat their own offspring with love and not abuse them. Their behavior is learned and habituated—as all behavior.
The damage done by selfish drug use in horrendous to all societies. Drugs,by their very nature, make addicts and slaves of people. It is narcissism and a disregard for other human beings—uncivil, especially for those that rely on these people for love and support.
It is the opposite of freedom and goodness because it destroys control and logic and reason. it destroys the moral and rational aspects of man, which lifts men above that of base animal instincts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2052821/posts
Without religion and the promotion of Virtue—which is the reason for education (even the Greeks stated that)—character is built and formed in childhood and so education had to teach Virtue—it was the sole reason to have education (for the Greeks and the Founders).
None of that addresses my point: "I know of no evidence that any of the Founders thought that government force could make people virtuous."
For you to say drug use does no harm to others is completely naive and false. It always harms children in the house
Already addressed: "while I agree that a parent violates his/her minor children's rights by drugging him/herself into a state of inability to meet his/her parental responsibilities, I vigorously disagree that this is sufficient reason to ban drug use for ALL adults including those without minor children. (If it were sufficient reason, we should return to Prohibition of the drug alcohol.)"
The damage done by selfish drug use in horrendous to all societies. Drugs,by their very nature, make addicts and slaves of people. It is narcissism and a disregard for other human beings—uncivil, especially for those that rely on these people for love and support.
So government should force people to be civil? And yet remain limited?
It is the opposite of freedom and goodness because it destroys control and logic and reason. it destroys the moral and rational aspects of man, which lifts men above that of base animal instincts.
If these arguments support the current drug laws, they equally support a return to alcohol Prohibition.
You miss my point. Freedom and Civil Society are impossible (as stated by all the Founders) if there is no Virtue.
All Laws to be Just Law—has to promote Virtue. For instance—laws against murder and theft and (used to be)—adultery and fornication—which should still exist because of the severe damage that occurs to the emotional and physical development of children.
Government has the DUTY to promote Civil Society and the duty of all human beings to “do their duty” and take care of all their biological offspring and protect their private property so that men can do their Duty-—that is the only reason for social contracts—period.
Should they have laws against drugs? They should not have to have any if the populace was Virtuous. But if they are not—they need the laws—to prevent car accidents, for instance. When other people—even children—are destroyed by druggie parents—which many are—then there may have to be laws concerning the drugs. With the loss of Virtue—there is a loss of Freedom. That is the point of Virtue and Religion in Republics.
But, in the Libertarian point of view—which is where I lean—No, I wouldn’t have any drug laws, but I would allow the humiliation and consequence of the drug use lead to death or homelessness or whatever. There would be no government involved in services catering to drug users so that children could witness the truth about the narcissism and selfishness and evil of destroying their bodies. Education —in the truth—and not the glorification of dysfunction is necessary in Free Republics.
I would have laws against promotion of dysfunction and evil behaviors in television. There would have to be “truth” in advertisement and the news media would not be able to be “biased” and “lie” and promote sodomy, etc., evil behaviors and treat them as a “right” or “good” when they are, in fact, so destructive to civil societies and an inversion of the principles of Natural Laws—the basis of our Legal System.
Free Speech is crucial—and Truth is necessary so that mass indoctrination—which is now occurring in public schools and MSM would never be tolerated. Solzhenitsyn was correct in his Harvard address—speaking about American “Free Press” in 78-—that it was no different than Stalin’s press. Goebbels was laughing at Americans who thought their Marxist press (W. Chambers) was filling them in about the Truth.
The schools should teach Virtue (Christian Ethics)—(which was ended by the Marxist John Dewey to destroy Virtue in US society). Cultural Marxists (Lucaks) knew to destroy the US—all you need to do is destroy Virtue in the children.
Children learn to be virtuous. Behavior is learned and modeled. I would have obscenity laws like what existed prior to The Beats and Hefner and Flint—when they destroyed and twisted our legal system to be devoid of morality-—which is the basis of all Just Law.
Morality (Virtue) is essential to Just Law and can never be separated as Holmes did to ruin our legal system.
No, I agree with your point, and then go on to note that although virtue is necessary, I know of no evidence that any of the Founders thought that government force could make people virtuous.
Should they have laws against drugs? They should not have to have any if the populace was Virtuous. But if they are not—they need the laws—to prevent car accidents, for instance.
A ban on other drugs is no more necessary than a ban on the drug alcohol to prevent car accidents.
When other people—even children—are destroyed by druggie parents—which many are—then there may have to be laws concerning the drugs.
A ban on other drugs is no more necessary than a ban on the drug alcohol to protect children.
And Bill Clinton once referred to acid rain damage to the Taj Mahal as "stone cancer". By your logic we should take cancer less seriously, perhaps not even treat it as a disease because somebody once made a bad analogy ("used the same language") and likened it to something it's not. If I make an analog between a thing or concept "A" and a thing or concept "B", it may be either a valid, or invalid comparison. It may be a great, or poor analogy, but the relative quality of the comparison does nothing to change the fundamental character of thing "A" or thing "B" which remain two distinct entities.
"Now, I do know people that have had very crippling addictions. From booze to drugs to sex. Many in my own family. The ones who say “I can't stop, it is a disease!” try to manage the symptoms, but never kick it."
So if one of your family members were schizophrenic, but refused to take any medication because, "it was just a disease", would you tell them there's nothing wrong with them and they just need to be more responsible? Indeed, the exercise of their personal responsibility would be in accepting the fact that they have a disorder and seeking treatment for it.
If you'll note one of my early posts on this thread, I indicated that those who come down on either the nature or nurture aspect of alcoholism are only going to eventually justify the behavior, and that it has to be dealt with on a spiritual plane. Your relatives are only proving my point. Justification and excuse making, like the drinking itself are symptoms of the dysfunction.
"But, in my experience with my friends, family, and coworkers, calling a habit or addiction a disease is most often enabling them to not change....The ones who own up to it, and realize “This is a habit I have chosen. It is my responsibility to work on.” are the ones who succeed."
In my experience, those who (in your eyes) have "fixed" things by themselves have either never fully succumbed to alcoholism or have become very succesful in their ability to hide things from you and those around them.
Well, you make good points. After I read my post, I realized it was sorta harsh, and I was gonna supplement it, try to tone it down a little. But I didn’t.
Let me just say we all are weak in different areas. I don’t believe addiction is necessarily, or even likely, a moral failure whether we are talking about legal or illegal substances.
Not to be Captain Obvious, but life is sometimes very tough for a long time and people seek to relieve their suffering. These people need help, compassion, and prayers.
And, yes, I think alcoholics may very well be good people.
They, and other addicts, get ostracized and become socially alienated (through their behavior, low self esteem and fears), which hamper hope of recovery. It’s sad.
Thanks for your comment.
Just about anything can cause it in certain people. There are many books that deal with it, but the most recent (and pretty well written) is "The Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg. I have dealt with people who have had some very odd habits that were as hard to control as drinking can be to an alcoholic. Once a routine gets built, and the brain gets used to the "high" or reward, it can be very hard to change. Many people never break that habit, or even realize that it is possible. Many would rather keep getting that "high" than go with out it. That is in large part what addiction is. Medically, the withdrawal from the chemical is over in at most a few weeks. Mentally, it is the habit that causes the cravings.
And you are right in that my friend, who at his worst was a drug addict, alcoholic, and drug runner, did need help to crawl out of his addiction. A lot of help. He started in AA and NA, but while that gave him some support, it also presented his addictions as a "disease". In other words, something that happened to him, not something that was the result of his own choices. My friend was very blessed in two things. The love of his wife and the advice of an old country doctor. The former stood by him, the latter helped him realize that he can choose to control his addictive habits, and re-channel them. Now I know your response. He was not a "Real" alcoholic. He was. He drank every day, to the point he was either intoxicated or started doing another drug. It was not a quick fall, or a quick climb out. His brain chemistry was permanently damaged by some of the drugs, and his health was also.
But my friends recovery, and the return of the man I call my brother, started when he called out to God and repented. He admitted that this path was one he had chosen, and the patterns that now chained him were those of his own making. He needed help breaking those chains, and help rebuilding his life, but he (an others I have dealt with) admitted that the path that lead him to the depths was that of his own choosing.
I have many things in my life that I do that cause me to sin. From looking to long at a scantly clad woman to a temper. They habits, and often ingrained in my normal path. But those sins, and all that I commit, are my fault. I did them, they did not just happen to me. My temper, and my friends addictive traits, have an element of genetics in them. I was never attracted to alcohol like he was, and his temper was never as large as mine could be. But in the end, it is our responsibility to say "This is my fault. I choose this."
Calling an addiction a disease is a way to remove that responsibility outside of ones self. Be it booze, drugs, shopping, FreeRepublic, what ever. I have managed hundreds of people, and seen the same patterns over and over. By in large, those who come to me and say "Red, I have a problem. I need help, but it is my fault" are the ones who climb out of it. Those who say "Red, I have a disease of (fill in the blank), and need treatment" are the ones who when they hit a rough part, give up. Now there are exceptions. Sounds like you are one of them, and I congratulate you. But if you are not drinking (and from what little I know of you, from what you posted, I hope you are not) and are free to do so, then you have found a way to beat that habit. You have gotten back control of the behavior, and it is working.
Life is an incurable disease. Everybody dies of it eventually.
So President Obama is admitting he’s a disease ridden man-child who snorted coke and took Bogarted the joint at pot parties.
Next candidate, please.
"So wait, if pot addiction is a disease..."
"...does this mean that I can get a prescription for medical marijuana?"
"...and Obamacare will pay for it?!!"
"I've gotta vote for THAT guy... what was his name again?"
Now it is PERFECTLY legal for employers to prohibit tobacco smoking by employees even off premises.
Down is up.
On the heels of major cities all prohibited "unlicensed" giving of food on the streets to homeless people.
AND... the national "day of reckoning" last year to evict Occupy liberals from city parks in major cities.
All of it is orchestrated from above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.