Drug addiction a disease, not a moral failing, White House says

latimes.com ^ | June 11, 2012 | Morgan Little

[zzeeman]

...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.

Bingo!

[cornfedcowboy]

19 years sober for me. Living proof that all things are possible. Keep up he good work.

[Lizavetta]

But I maintain calling it a disease is shifting the responsibility away from the person.

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.

[redgolum]

Joe,
The SAME language you are using for alcoholism is now being used for sugar and diet control. My company started a weight loss support class that is modeled very closely on AA, including calling over eating a disease and sugar an addiction. They are saying that the urge to over eat “never goes away” but “can be treated”.

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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

What about all the good people who became addicted to oxycotin or are we talking about illegal drugs here such as pot or crack?

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"?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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.

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."

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Because it’s up to the drug-addicted to decide.

[savagesusie]

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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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).

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.

[savagesusie]

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.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

You miss my point. Freedom and Civil Society are impossible (as stated by all the Founders) if there is no Virtue.

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.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Joe, The SAME language you are using for alcoholism is now being used for sugar and diet control. My company started a weight loss support class that is modeled very closely on AA, including calling over eating a disease and sugar an addiction. They are saying that the urge to over eat “never goes away” but “can be treated”.

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.

[BIV]

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.

[redgolum]

The statements made by doctors saying that overeating is a "disease" is because in some it acts on the brain the same way alcohol or other addictions do. In short, the person gets in a habit, and that habit ends up triggering a response that gives a "reward" (often endorphins) in the brain. The response is the same for those addicted to narcotics as it is for those addicted to gambling or porn.

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.

[Revolting cat!]

Life is an incurable disease. Everybody dies of it eventually.

[MasterGunner01]

Translation: Obama and the White House staff have run out of pot and cocaine.

[a fool in paradise]

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.

[a fool in paradise]

"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?"

[a fool in paradise]

Can't fire a doper. It's a disease, like homosexuality. They can't HELP themselves.

Now it is PERFECTLY legal for employers to prohibit tobacco smoking by employees even off premises.

Down is up.

[a fool in paradise]

Interesting timing, coming within a few days of NYC announcing that marijuana isn’t all that bad.

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.