They’re screaming it from the rooftops: “addiction is a disease, and you can’t stop it without medical treatment”! But why are they screaming it so loud, why are they browbeating us about it, why is it always mentioned with a qualifier? You don’t hear people constantly referring to cancer as “the disease of cancer” – it’s just “cancer”, because it’s obvious that cancer is a disease, it’s been conclusively proven that the symptoms of cancer can’t be directly stopped with mere choices – therefore no qualifier is needed. On the other hand, addiction to drugs and alcohol is not obviously a disease, and to call it such we must either overlook the major gaps in the disease argument, or we must completely redefine the term “disease.” Here we will analyze a few key points and show that what we call addiction doesn’t pass muster as a real disease.
Real Diseases versus The Disease Concept or Theory of Drug Addiction
In a true disease, some part of the body is in a state of abnormal physiological functioning, and this causes the undesirable symptoms. In the case of cancer, it would be mutated cells which we point to as evidence of a physiological abnormality, in diabetes we can point to low insulin production or cells which fail to use insulin properly as the physiological abnormality which create the harmful symptoms. If a person has either of these diseases, they cannot directly choose to stop their symptoms or directly choose to stop the abnormal physiological functioning which creates the symptoms. They can only choose to stop the physiological abnormality indirectly, by the application of medical treatment, and in the case of diabetes, dietetic measures may also indirectly halt the symptoms as well (but such measures are not a cure so much as a lifestyle adjustment necessitated by permanent physiological malfunction).
In addiction, there is no such physiological malfunction. The best physical evidence put forward by the disease proponents falls totally flat on the measure of representing a physiological malfunction. This evidence is the much touted brain scan[1]. The organization responsible for putting forth these brain scans, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Addiction (NIDA), defines addiction in this way:
Addiction is defined as a chronic relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain – they change it’s structure and how it works. These brain changes can be long lasting, and can lead to the harmful behaviors seen in people who abuse drugs.
The NIDA is stating outright that the reason addiction is considered a disease is because of the brain changes evidenced by the brain scans they show us, and that these changes cause the behavior known as addiction, which they characterize as “compulsive drug seeking and use”. There are three major ways in which this case for the disease model falls apart:
- the changes in the brain which they show us are not abnormal at all
- people change their behavior IN SPITE OF the fact that their brain has changed in response to repeated substance use jump to section
- there is no evidence that the behavior of addicts is compulsive (compulsive meaning involuntary) (point two addresses this, as well as some other research that will be presented) jump to section
This all applies equally to “alcoholism” as well. If you’re looking for information on alcoholism, the same theories and logic discussed here are applicable; wherever you see the term addiction used on this site, it includes alcoholism.
Brain Changes In Addicts Are Not Abnormal, and Do Not Prove The Brain Disease Theory
On the first count – the changes in the brain evidenced by brain scans of heavy substance users (“addicts”) do not represent a malfunctioning brain. They are quite normal, as research into neuroplasticity has shown us. Whenever we practice doing or thinking anything enough, the brain changes – different regions and neuronal pathways are grown or strengthened, and new connections are made; various areas of the brain become more or less active depending upon how much you use them, and this becomes the norm in your brain – but it changes again as you adjust how much you use those brain regions depending on what you choose to think and do. This is a process which continues throughout life, there is nothing abnormal about it. Here, Sharon Begley describes neuroplasticity: [2]
The term refers to the brain’s recently discovered ability to change its structure and function, in particular by expanding or strengthening circuits that are used and by shrinking or weakening those that are rarely engaged. In its short history, the science of neuroplasticity has mostly documented brain changes that reflect physical experience and input from the outside world.
So, when the NIDA’s Nora Volkow and others show us changes in the brain of a substance user as compared to a non-substance user, this difference is not as novel as they make it out to be. They are showing us routine neuroplastic changes which every healthily functioning person’s brain goes through naturally. The phenomenon of brain changes isn’t isolated to “addicts” or anyone else with a so-called brain disease – non-addicted and non-depressed and non-[insert brain disease of the week here] people experience neural adaptations too. One poignant example was found in the brains of London taxi drivers, as Begley and Jeffrey Schwartz pointed out in The Mind and The Brain. [4]
Is Being A Good Taxi Driver A Disease?
A specific area of the brain’s hippocampus is associated with creating directional memories and a mental map of the environment. A team of researchers scanned the brains of London taxi drivers and compared their brains to non-taxi drivers. There was a very noticeable difference, not only between the drivers and non-drivers, but also between the more experienced and less experienced drivers:
There it was: the more years a man had been a taxi driver, the smaller the front of his hippocampus and the larger the posterior. “Length of time spent as a taxi driver correlated positively with volume in…the right posterior hippocampus,” found the scientists. Acquiring navigational skills causes a “redistribution of gray matter in the hippocampus” as a driver’s mental map of London grows larger and more detailed with experience. [4]
So, the longer you drive a cab in London (that is, the longer you exert the mental and physical effort to quickly find your way around one of the world’s toughest to navigate cities), the more your brain physically changes. And the longer you use drugs, the more your brain changes. And indeed, the longer and more intensely you apply yourself to any skill, thought, or activity – the more it will change your brain, and the more visible will be the differences between your brain and that of someone who hasn’t been focused on that particular skill. So, if we follow the logic of the NIDA, then London’s taxi drivers have a disease, which we’ll call taxi-ism, that forces them to drive taxis. But the new diseases wouldn’t stop there.
Learning to play the piano well will change your brain – and if you were to compare brain scans of a piano player to a non-piano player, you would find significant differences. Does this mean that piano playing is a disease called Pianoism? Learning a new language changes your brain, are bilingual people diseased? Athletes’ brains will change as a result of intensive practice – is playing tennis a disease? Are soccer players unable to walk into a sporting goods store without kicking every ball in sight? We could go on and on with examples, but the point is this – when you practice something, you get better at doing it, because your brain changes physiologically – and this is a normal process. If someone dedicated a large portion of their life to seeking and using drugs, and their brain didn’t change – then that would be a true abnormality. Something would be seriously wrong with their brain.
Its not just physical activity that changes our brains, thoughts alone can have a huge effect. What’s more, whether the brain changes or not, there is much research which shows that the brain is slave to the mind. As Begley points out elsewhere, thoughts alone can create the same brain activity that would come about by doing things[2]:
Using the brain scan called functional magnetic resonance imaging, the scientists pinpointed regions that were active during compassion meditation. In almost every case, the enhanced activity was greater in the monks’ brains than the novices’. Activity in the left prefrontal cortex (the seat of positive emotions such as happiness) swamped activity in the right prefrontal (site of negative emotions and anxiety), something never before seen from purely mental activity. A sprawling circuit that switches on at the sight of suffering also showed greater activity in the monks. So did regions responsible for planned movement, as if the monks’ brains were itching to go to the aid of those in distress.
So by simply practicing thinking about compassion, these monks made lasting changes in their brain activity. Purely mental activity can change the brain in physiologically significant ways. And to back up this fact we look again to the work of Dr Jeffrey Schwartz[3], who has taught OCD patients techniques to think their way out of obsessive thoughts. After exercising these thought practices, research showed that the brains of OCD patients looked no different than the brains of those who’d never had OCD. If you change your thoughts, you change your brain physically – and this is voluntary. This is outside the realm of disease, this shows a brain which changes as a matter of normality, and can change again, depending on what we practice choosing to think. There is nothing abnormal about a changing brain, and the type of changes we’re discussing aren’t necessarily permanent, as they are characterized to be in the brain disease model of addiction.
These brain change don’t need to be brought on by exposure to chemicals. Thoughts alone, are enough to rewire the very circuits of the human brain responsible for reward and other positive emotions that substance use and other supposedly “addictive” behaviors (“process addictions” such as sex, gambling, and shopping, etc.) are connected with.
The Stolen Concept of Neuroplasticity in the Brain Disease Model of Addiction
Those who claim that addiction is a brain disease readily admit that the brain changes in evidence are arrived at through repeated choices to use substances and focus on using substances. In this way, they are saying the disease is a product of routine neuroplastic processes. Then they go on to claim that such brain changes either can’t be remedied, or can only be remedied by outside means (medical treatment). When we break this down and look at it step by step, we see that the brain disease model rests on an argument similar to the “stolen concept”. A stolen concept argument is one in which the argument denies a fact on which it simultaneously rests. For example, the philosophical assertion that “reality is unknowable” rests on, or presumes that the speaker could know a fact of reality, it presumes that one could know that reality is unknowable – which of course one couldn’t, if reality truly was unknowable – so the statement “reality is unknowable” invalidates itself. Likewise, the brain disease proponents are essentially saying “neuroplastic processes create a state called addiction which cannot be changed by thoughts and choices” – this however is to some degree self-invalidating, because it depends on neuroplasticity while seeking to invalidate it. If neuroplasticity is involved, and is a valid explanation for how to become addicted, then we can’t act is if the same process doesn’t exist when it’s time to focus on getting un-addicted. That is, if the brain can be changed into the addicted state by thoughts and choices, then it can be further changed or changed back by thoughts and choices. Conditions which can be remedied by freely chosen thoughts and behaviors, don’t fit into the general understanding of disease. Ultimately, if addiction is a disease, then it’s a disease so fundamentally different than any other that it should probably have a completely different name that doesn’t imply all the things contained in the term “disease” – such as the idea that the “will” of the afflicted is irrelevant to whether the condition continues.
People change their addictive behavior in spite of the fact that their brain is changed – and they do so without medication or surgery (added 4/18/14)
In the discussion above, we looked at some analogous cases of brain changes to see just how routine and normal (i.e. not a physiological malfunction) such changes are. Now we’re going to look directly at the most popular neuroscientific research which purports to prove that these brain changes actually cause “uncontrolled” substance use (“addiction”).
The most popular research is Nora Volkow’s brain scans of “meth addicts” presented by the NIDA. The logic is simple. We’re presented with the brain scan of a meth addict alongside the brain scan of a non-user, and we’re told that the decreased activity in the brain of the meth user (the lack of red in the “Drug Abuser” brain scan presented) is the cause of their “compulsive” methamphetamine use. Here’s how the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) explains the significance of these images in their booklet – Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction :
Just as we turn down the volume on a radio that is too loud, the brain adjusts to the overwhelming surges in dopamine (and other neurotransmitters) by producing less dopamine or by reducing the number of receptors that can receive signals. As a result, dopamine’s impact on the reward circuit of a drug abuser’s brain can become abnormally low, and the ability to experience any pleasure is reduced. This is why the abuser eventually feels flat, lifeless, and depressed, and is unable to enjoy things that previously brought them pleasure. Now, they need to take drugs just to try and bring their dopamine function back up to normal.
[emphasis added]
They go on that these same sorts of brain changes:
..may also lead to addiction, which can drive an abuser to seek out and take drugs compulsively. Drug addiction erodes a person’s self-control and ability to make sound decisions, while sending intense impulses to take drugs.
[emphasis added]
That image is shown when NIDA is vaguely explaining how brain changes are responsible for “addiction.” But later on, when they try to make a case for treating addiction as a brain disease, they show the following image, which tells a far different story if you understand more of the context than they choose to mention:
Again, this graphic is used to support the idea that we should treat addiction as a brain disease. However, the authors mistakenly let a big cat out of the bag with this one – because the brain wasn’t treated at all. Notice how the third image shows a brain in which the red level of activity has returned almost to normal after 14 months of abstinence. That’s wonderful – but it also means that the NIDA’s assertions that “Addiction means being unable to quit, even in the face of negative consequences”(LINK) and “It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain… These brain changes… can lead to the harmful behaviors seen in people who abuse drugs” are dead wrong.
When these studies were done, nobody was directly treating the brain of methamphetamine addicts. They were not giving them medication for it (there is no equivalent of methadone for speed users), and they weren’t sticking scalpels into the brains of these meth addicts, nor were they giving them shock treatment. So what did they do?
These methamphetamine addicts were court ordered into a treatment program (whose methodology wasn’t disclosed in the research) which likely consisted of a general mixture of group and individual counseling with 12-step meeting attendance. I can’t stress the significance of this enough: their brains were not medically treated. They talked to counselors. They faced a choice between jail and abstinence. They CHOSE abstinence (for at least 14 months!) – even while their brains had been changed in a way that we’re told robs them of the ability to choose to quit “even in the face of negative consequences.” [5]
Even with changed brains, people are capable of choosing to change their substance use habits. They choose to stop using drugs, and as the brain scans above demonstrate – their brain activity follows this choice. If the brain changes caused the substance using behavior, i.e. if it was the other way around, then a true medical intervention should have been needed – the brain would’ve needed to have changed first via external force (medicine or surgery) before abstinence was initiated. They literally wouldn’t have been able to stop for 14 months without a real physical/biological medical intervention. But they did…
Substance Use Is Not Compulsive, It Is A Choice
In his classic book Addiction & Opiates, Alfred R Lindesmith PhD explained the requirements of reliable scientific theories explaining the causes of things such as heroin addiction:
…a genuine theory that proposes to explain a given phenomenon by relating it to another phenomenon must, in the first place, have clear empirical implications which, if not fulfilled, negate the theory.
If the theory is that neural adaptations alone cause uncontrolled behavior, then this proposition can easily be shown to be false. I demonstrated above that in the midst of having fully “changed” or “addicted” brains, people do indeed stop using substances, so essentially, it is case closed. But the depths to which the brain disease theory of addiction can be negated go even further, because the basic theory of addiction as representing uncontrolled substance use has never been explained. Explanation of the mechanism by which substance use happens without the individual’s consent is conspicuously missing – yet such explanation is a necessary part of such a theory, as Lindesmith writes (again in Addiction & Opiates):
…besides identifying the two types of phenomenon that are allegedly interrelated, there must be a description of the processes or events that link them. In other words, besides affirming that something causes something else, it is necessary to indicate how the cause operates to produce the alleged effect.
“Here Comes the Bogey-Man” by Goya, circa 1799
There doesn’t seem to be any explanation or evidence that substance use is involuntary. In fact, the evidence, such as that presented above, shows the opposite. Nevertheless, when the case for the disease is presented, the idea that drug use is involuntary is taken for granted as true. No evidence is ever actually presented to support this premise, so there isn’t much to be knocked down here, except to make the point I made above – is a piano player fundamentally incapable of resisting playing the piano? They may love to play the piano, and want to do it often, they may even be obsessive about it, but it would be hard to say that at the sight of a piano they are involuntarily driven by their brain to push aside whatever else they need to do in order to play that piano.
There is another approach to the second claim though. We can look at the people who have subjectively claimed that their substance use is involuntary, and see if the offer of incentives results in changed behavior. Gene Heyman covered this in his landmark book, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice[3]. He recounts studies in which cocaine abusers were given traditional addiction counseling, and also offered vouchers which they could trade in for modest rewards such as movie tickets or sports equipment – if they proved through urine tests that they were abstaining from drug use. In the early stages of the study, 70% of those in the voucher program remained abstinent, while only 20% stayed abstinent in the control group which didn’t receive the incentive of the vouchers. This demonstrates that substance use is not in fact compulsive or involuntary, but that it is a matter of choice, because these “addicts” when presented with a clear and immediately rewarding alternative to substance use and incentive not to use, chose it. Furthermore, follow up studies showed that this led to long term changes. A full year after the program, the voucher group had double the success rate of those who received only counseling (80% to 40%, respectively). This ties back in to our first point that what you practice, you become good at. The cocaine abusers in the voucher group practiced replacing substance use with other activities, such as using the sports equipment or movie passes they gained as a direct consequence of abstaining from drug use – thus they made it a habit to find other ways of amusing themselves, this probably led to brain changes, and the new habits became the norm.
Long story short, there is no evidence presented to prove that substance use is compulsive. The only thing ever offered is subjective reports from drug users themselves that they “can’t stop”, and proclamations from treatment professionals that the behavior is compulsive due to brain changes. But if the promise of a ticket to the movies is enough to double the success rate of conventional addiction counseling, then it’s hard to say that substance users can’t control themselves. The reality is that they can control themselves, but they just happen to see substance use as the best option for happiness available to them at the times when they’re abusing substances. When they can see other options for happiness as more attractive (i.e. as promising a greater reward than substance use), attainable to them, and as taking an amount of effort they’re willing to expend – then they will absolutely choose those options instead of substance use, and will not struggle to “stay sober”, prevent relapse, practice self-control or self-regulation, or any other colloquialism for making a different choice. They will simply choose differently.
But wait… there’s more! (Added 4/21/14) Contrary to the claims that alcoholics and drug addicts literally lose control of their substance use, a great number of experiments have found that they are really in full control of themselves. Priming dose experiments have found that alcoholics are not triggered into uncontrollable craving after taking a drink. Here’s a link to the evidence and a deeper discussion of these findings: Do Addicts and Alcoholics Lose Control? Priming dose experiments of cocaine, crack, and methamphetamine users found that after being given a hit of their drug of choice (primed with a dose) they are capable of choosing a delayed reward rather than another hit of the drug.
Three Most Relevant Reasons Addiction Is Not A Disease
So to sum up, there are at least two significant reasons why the current brain disease theory of addiction is false.
- A disease involves physiological malfunction, the “proof” of brain changes shows no malfunction of the brain. These changes are indeed a normal part of how the brain works – not only in substance use, but in anything that we practice doing or thinking intensively. Brain changes occur as a matter of everyday life; the brain can be changed by the choice to think or behave differently; and the type of changes we’re talking about are not permanent.
- The very evidence used to demonstrate that addicts’ behavior is caused by brain changes also demonstrates that they change their behavior while their brain is changed, without a real medical intervention such as medication targeting the brain or surgical intervention in the brain – and that their brain changes back to normal AFTER they VOLITIONALLY change their behavior for a prolonged period of time
- Drug use in “addicts” is not compulsive. If it was truly compulsive, then offering a drug user tickets to the movies would not make a difference in whether they use or not – because this is an offer of a choice. Research shows that the offer of this choice leads to cessation of substance abuse. Furthermore, to clarify the point, if you offered a cancer patient movie tickets as a reward for ceasing to have a tumor – it would make no difference, it would not change his probability of recovery.
Addiction is NOT a disease, and it matters. This has huge implications for anyone struggling with a substance use habit.
References:
- 1) NIDA, Drugs Brains and Behavior: The Science of Addiction, sciofaddiction.pdf
- 2) Sharon Begley, Scans of Monks’ Brains Show Meditation Alters Structure, Functioning, Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2004; Page B1, http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/News/Meditation_Alters_Brain_WSJ_11-04.htm
- 3) Gene Heyman, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, Harvard University Press, 2009
- 4) Sharon Begley and Jeffrey Schwartz, The Mind And The Brain, Harper Collins, 2002
- 5) Links to the 2 methamphetamine abuser studies by Nora Volkow:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/21/23/9414
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/158/3/377
Important Notes from the author to readers and especially commenters:
On “badness” or immorality:
Please do not attribute to me the idea that heavy substance users must be “bad” or “immoral” if they are in fact in control of and choosing their behavior. I do not think this. I think that at the time they’re using, it is what they prefer, given what life options they believe are available to them – and I don’t think it’s my job to decide what other people should prefer for themselves, and then declare them bad if they don’t live up to my vision of a “good” life. That’s what the disease recovery culture does, de facto, when they present the false dichotomy of ‘diseased or bad’. To say that addiction is chosen behavior is simply to make a statement about whether the behavior is within the control of the individual – it is not a judgment of the morality of the behavior or the individual choosing it.
On willpower:
Please do not attribute to me the suggestion to “use willpower.” I have not said that people should use willpower, nor do I think it’s a coherent or relevant concept in any way, nor do I think “addicts lack willpower” or that those who recover have more willpower, nor, and this is important, do I believe that a choice model of addiction necessarily implies willpower as the solution.
“Addicts” do not need extra willpower, strength, or support, to change their heavy substance use habits if that is what they want to do. They need to change their preference for heavy substance use, rather than trying to fight that preference with supposed “willpower.”
On compassion:
Please don’t accuse me of not having compassion for people who have substance use problems. You do not know that, and if you attack my motives in this way it just shows your own intellectual impotence and sleaze. I have a great deal of compassion for people with these problems – I was once one such person. I am trying to get at the truth of the nature of addiction, so that the most people can be helped in the most effective way possible. I don’t doubt the compassion of those who believe addiction is a disease, and I hope you’ll give me the same benefit of the doubt. I assure you I care and want the best for people – and I don’t need to see them as diseased to do so. When you see someone who’s gotten themselves into a mess, don’t you want to help, even if it’s of their own making? Why should we need to believe they have a disease to help them if the mess is substance use related? I don’t get that requirement.
Some Agreement I’ve Found From Addiction Researchers (added 6/10/14)
I began working out my understanding of the brain disease model back in 2005 as I started working on a book about addiction; published this article in 2010; and was happy to find in 2011 when I went back to work with Baldwin Research that they had arrived at a similar conclusion. The way they stated it amounted to “either everything is addiction, or nothing is” – referring to the fact that the brain changes presented as proof of addiction being a brain disease are so routine as to indicate that all behavior must be classified as addiction if we follow the logic.
I was also gratified to have found a neuroscientist who arrived at the same conclusions. I think Marc Lewis PhD and I may disagree on a few things, but it seems we may see eye to eye on the logic I presented above about such brain changes being routine, and thus not indicative of disease. Check what he wrote in 2012 for the PLOS Blog, Mind The Brain:
every experience that has potent emotional content changes the NAC and its uptake of dopamine. Yet we wouldn’t want to call the excitement you get from the love of your life, or your fifth visit to Paris, a disease. The NAC is highly plastic. It has to be, so that we can pursue different rewards as we develop, right through childhood to the rest of the lifespan. In fact, each highly rewarding experience builds its own network of synapses in and around the NAC, and that network sends a signal to the midbrain: I’m anticipating x, so send up some dopamine, right now! That’s the case with romantic love, Paris, and heroin. During and after each of these experiences, that network of synapses gets strengthened: so the “specialization” of dopamine uptake is further increased. London just doesn’t do it for you anymore. It’s got to be Paris. Pot, wine, music…they don’t turn your crank so much; but cocaine sure does. Physical changes in the brain are its only way to learn, to remember, and to develop. But we wouldn’t want to call learning a disease.
….
In my view, addiction (whether to drugs, food, gambling, or whatever) doesn’t fit a specific physiological category. Rather, I see addiction as an extreme form of normality, if one can say such a thing. Perhaps more precisely: an extreme form of learning. No doubt addiction is a frightening, often horrible, state to endure, whether in oneself or in one’s loved ones. But that doesn’t make it a disease.
I think that quote is very important, because it highlights neuronal changes that occur in the same region implicated in addiction (whereas the examples I presented earlier in the article represented some other regions).
In a brilliant paper titled “The naked empress: Modern neuro science and the concept of addiction”, Peter Cohen of The Centre for Drug Research at University of Amsterdam, states that:
The notions of addiction transformed into the language of neurology as performed by authors like Volkov, Berridge, Gessa or De Vries are completely tautological.
He essentially argues that Volkow et al take for granted that heavy drug and alcohol use is uncontrolled, identify neural correlates, and present them as evidence of uncontrollability. Yet they don’t do so with other behaviors, and he provides plenty of examples. He notes that they start with assumptions that certain patterns of behavior (e.g. heavy drug use) are uncontrolled, and others are controlled – based purely on cultural prejudices. He accurately identifies addiction as a learned behavior, or as routine bonding to a thing, and then expresses something very close to my thesis presented above (that all learned/intensely repeated behaviors result in “brain changes”).
The problem of course is that probably all learning produces temporary or lasting ‘change in neural systems’. Also, continuation of learned behavior may be functional in the eyes and experience of the person but less so in the eyes of the outsider. Who is right? We know of people remaining married in spite of-in the eyes of a beholder- a very bad marriage. Who speaks of lasting ‘neural change’ as the basis of the continued marriage? But, even when a person herself sees some behavior as counter functional, it is not necessarily seen as addiction. It may be seen as impotence, ingrained habit or unhappy adaptation. It all depends on which behavior we discuss, not on the brain.
The great points contained in this article would be done an injustice if I tried to sum them up here, so check it out for yourself at The Center for Drug Research University of Amsterdam. As with Marc Lewis, I suspect that Peter Cohen and I might have some substantial disagreements about the full nature of addiction and human behavior in general, but I think we at least agree that the changes in the brain of an “addict” do not necessarily represent disease, and more likely represent a routine process.
Writing in 2013 for the journal Frontiers In Psychiatry, esteemed behavioral and addiction researcher Gene Heyman pointed out something so painfully obvious that we don’t even take notice – no causal link has ever been found between the neural adaptations caused by excessive substance use and continued heavy use. That is, correlation is not causation:
With the exception of alcohol, addictive drugs produce their biological and psychological changes by binding to specific receptor sites throughout the body. As self-administered drug doses greatly exceed the circulating levels of their natural analogs, persistent heavy drug use leads to structural and functional changes in the nervous system. It is widely – if not universally – assumed that these neural adaptations play a causal role in addiction. In support of this interpretation brain imaging studies often reveal differences between the brains of addicts and comparison groups (e.g., Volkow et al., 1997; Martin-Soelch et al., 2001) However, these studies are cross-sectional and the results are correlations. There are no published studies that establish a causal link between drug-induced neural adaptations and compulsive drug use or even a correlation between drug-induced neural changes and an increase in preference for an addictive drug.
Did you get that? Let me repeat the words of this experienced researcher, PhD, and lecturer/professor from Boston College and Harvard who, in addition to publishing scores of papers in peer reviewed medical journals has also had an entire book debunking the disease model of addiction by Harvard University press (I say all of this about his credentials so that I can hopefully STOP getting commenters who say “but you’re not a doctor, and what are your credentials wah, wah, wah,……” here’s a “credentialed” expert who essentially agrees with most of what I’ve written in this article – so please, for the love of god, save your fallacious ad hominems and appeals to authority for another day!)- he (Gene Heyman PhD) said this, as of 2013:
There are no published studies that establish a causal link between drug-induced neural adaptations and compulsive drug use or even a correlation between drug-induced neural changes and an increase in preference for an addictive drug.
And this was in a recently published paper in a section headed “But Drugs Change the Brain”, in which he continued to debunk the “brain changes cause addiction” argument by saying:
There are no published studies that establish a causal link between drug-induced neural adaptations and compulsive drug use or even a correlation between drug-induced neural changes and an increase in preference for an addictive drug. For example, in a frequently referred to animal study, Robinson et al. (2001) found dendritic changes in the striatum and the prefrontal cortex of rats who had self-administered cocaine. They concluded that this was a “recipe for addiction.” However, they did not evaluate whether their findings with rodents applied to humans, nor did they even test if the dendritic modifications had anything to do with changes in preference for cocaine in their rats. In principle then it is possible that the drug-induced neural changes play little or no role in the persistence of drug use. This is a testable hypothesis.
First, most addicts quit. Thus, drug-induced neural plasticity does not prevent quitting. Second, in follow-up studies, which tested Robinson et al.’s claims, there were no increases in preference for cocaine. For instance in a preference test that provided both cocaine and saccharin, rats preferred saccharin (Lenoir et al., 2007) even after they had consumed about three to four times more cocaine than the rats in the Robinson et al study, and even though the cocaine had induced motoric changes which have been interpreted as signs of the neural underpinnings of addiction (e.g., Robinson and Berridge, 2003). Third [an analysis of epidemiological studies] shows that the likelihood of remission was constant over time since the onset of dependence. Although this is a surprising result, it is not without precedent. In a longitudinal study of heroin addicts, Vaillant (1973) reports that the likelihood of going off drugs neither increased nor decreased over time (1973), and in a study with rats, Serge Ahmed and his colleagues (Cantin et al., 2010) report that the probability of switching from cocaine to saccharin (which was about 0.85) was independent of past cocaine consumption. Since drugs change the brain, these results suggest that the changes do not prevent quitting, and the slope of [an analysis of epidemiological studies] implies that drug-induced neural changes do not even decrease the likelihood of quitting drugs once dependence is in place.
Read the full paper here – it’s an amazingly concise summary of the truths about addiction that contradict many of the accepted opinions pushed by the recovery culture – Heyman, G. M. (2013). Addiction and Choice: Theory and New Data. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00031
Why Does It Matter Whether or Not Addiction Is A Brain Disease?
When we accept the unproven view that addiction and alcoholism are brain diseases, then it will lead us down a long, painful, costly, and pointless road of cycling in and out of ineffective treatment programs and 12 step meetings. You will waste a lot of time without finding a permanent solution. When we examine the evidence, throw out the false disease concepts, and think rationally about the problem we can see that addiction is really just a matter of choice. Knowing this, we can bypass the rehabs, and find the true solution within ourselves. You can choose to end your addiction. You can choose to improv your life. You can choose to stop the endless cycle of “recovery” and start living. You don’t need to be a victim of the self-fulfilling prophecy that is the brain disease model of addiction. There are alternative views and methods of change which I hope you’ll take the time to learn about on The Clean Slate Addiction Site.
There are many different ways to argue against the brain disease model of addiction. I have only presented 3 basic arguments here. But beyond just addiction, many modern claims of “brain disease” are fatally flawed, in that they are founded on the logically impossible philosophical stance of psychological determinism. From this standpoint, any evidence of any brain activity is immediately interpreted as a “cause” of a particular mind state or behavior – with no regard for free will/the ability to choose one’s thoughts and thus behaviors. If you understand the impossibility of psychological determinism (or “epiphenomenalism”) then you’ll take all such claims with a grain of salt. For a detailed examination of this issue, see the following article: The Philosophical Problem with the Brain Disease Model of Addiction: Epiphenomenalism
How To End Addiction, Substance Dependence, Substance Abuse, Alcoholism, and General Drug and Alcohol Problems (updated 11/4/2015)
Due to the fact that most conventional rehab and addiction treatment programs follow the false belief that addiction is a disease, they are generally not effective at dealing with these problems – so I really can’t ethically recommend any “treatment” programs other than a run of the mill detoxification procedure if you feel you may be experiencing physical withdrawal symptoms – you can find that through your local hospital or emergency room; by asking your primary care doctor; or by calling 911 if you feel your life is in danger due to withdrawal (beware that withdrawal from alcohol and some prescription drugs such as the class known as benzodiazepines can lead to fatal seizures). But what comes after detoxification is simply personal choices, and treatment programs actually discourage productive personal choices by attempting to control people and feeding them nonsense such as the disease theory and idea of powerlessness.
If you want to end or alter your own substance use habits you need to make the choice to do so. Many readers will object to this answer as flippant, cruel, out of touch, et cetera. I realize this, but I chose to change, and in reality everyone who moves beyond problematic substance use chooses to change as well.
There is too much to unpack within what people believe is contained in the statement “choose to change.” I have tried to address some of that here in the past, but I realize this article is not the place to do that. This article’s scope needs to remain limited to the question of whether or not addiction is a disease.
My conclusion is that addiction is freely chosen behavior, and that the person who continues heavy substance use despite mounting costs still sees heavy substance use as their best viable option at the time they’re doing it – even though they recognize many costs and downsides. Choosing to change then, really means that they rethink whether heavy substance use is their best viable option. The only way I know to come to new conclusions is to re-examine the issues methodically, and this may often mean gathering new information and perspectives. Thus, the help that can be given to troubled heavy substance users is information. Helpers can provide accurate information that troubled people can use to change their perspective and come to believe they have better viable options than continued heavy problematic substance use.
I endeavor to give accurate information here that will help people to understand that change is possible, and that they are not doomed to a lifetime of addiction. Hopefully, this helps them on their way to believing in better viable options.
About this article:
I originally published this article on September 25, 2010. I have since added some significant supporting work I was able to find over the years, and those additions are noted. Some other minor edits from the original article are not noted.
Author
Hi, I’m, Steven Slate, the author of this post and of all content on this website. Yes, I was what you would call an “addict.” If you want to know more about me, go to the About page. If you want quotes from PhDs and such (as if I haven’t given enough here already) go to my Quotes From Experts About Addiction page. Please be civil in your comments, and many of your angry comments may already be answered on my FAQs page, so maybe check that out before you scream at me.
Interesting But I noticed How twisting words and Mis -quoting others who do not Believe as you do…actually fuels you to rant nonsence Mr Commentor.We and people like me Millions of us are infact The Scientific Evidence that it does work (you’re going to HATE this) IF now IF is a Big word it means Contingent upon…if you work it. As I said …..apparently you completely missed this part..I am no longer a AA member and there is some of their Info I disagree with But that being said I learned Alot from AA and it Truly Saved and Changed my Life for the Better. There are No Negatives that come out of it..none only Positives. Again this Article is Not about AA or about Bashing other peoples efforts at getting better living better And Contributing Healthy Choice and Changes THAT WORK. Again Thank you for your Article of information Steven because of my personal experience I believe it.
Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits Mr Papamick. Please do not quote me if you are not going to do it Honesly. AA and The truth were not linked sentences in my comment you linked them to support your Negative Rant. Have Good day Sir. Oh and remember Being open minded promotes Healthy growth.
I agree with you, Cathy. Whatever works, as long as it hurts nobody else, is evidence that it does work (at least for the person who is remaining clean and sober). And, as Steven has stated, I would never recommend anyone leave AA/NA if it is working well for them. I thing the “choice” (DECISION) comes into play, in reference to what this article is about, when one is abstaining from drug use, the addict continues to make reasonable “choices” on a daily basis to stay clean. When an addict is living a balance life, making healthy choices, the addict, their family, their friends, and society benefits as a whole. AA/NA is not perfect but does help many.
Some people believe that they can stay clean and sober by “choosing” to make life choices – if this works for the, bravo. For some who are anti AA/NA, and ant- disease/treatment, for whatever reason, are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. I also believe that open minds does indeed promote healthy dialogue and healthy growth in understanding alternative views, opinions, theories, and science-based facts.
I do not think its right when addicts claim it’s a disease because it costs society money. It is a cop out when they again and again mess up and then skip accountability since they have a disease. People that injure them self like this are destructive and that is a disorder, it is self induced people who injure them selves for attention should be penalized somehow because they are a liability to others. We should bring back insane asylums because people surely don’t want to go there do they ., but if addicts are coddled again and again they develop a habit of that as well. Some people are lost unproductive to mankind .. You know by now that I believe there is hope for being sober and loving it,but without God abstaining from sin or even recognizing sin is hard to fantom .. Not that God followers are without sin completely we often detect it in advance and quickly turn from the temptations .. Sincerely, BB
I believe putting methamphetamines in your body is going to alter your bodies chemical balance causing mental disorders and physical diseases. Some ppl become physically ill when they can’t get their fix. They can literally DIE!! Maybe it is a choice to live, but your body literally depends on that drug or drink or the body could shut down. You think that’s a cop out and they shouldn’t get help because their choosing to feel better, normal even. Smh
Remember this “altering chemical balance” STOPS when the poisonous drug ingestion STOPS! ONLY THE INGESTOR has the POWER TO STOP IT! Either they want to, or they don’t. The fact that they can stop for one second, or one minute, one hour, or one day, PROVES. THEY. CAN. STOP! The body (brain included!) has the power to “regenerate itself” once the ingestion of the destructive substance STOPS! MD’s who treat ex-smokers see the ex-smokers lungs return to NORMAL FUNCTIONING. The same can occur with an ex-methamphetamine users brain. They just have to make the decision to STAY QUIT, and decide they WANT NORMAL FUNCTIONING as opposed to ADDICTED FUNCTIONING! The drug has ZERO CHOICE in the matter. The addict does.
Agreed! 🙂
wow some people are so ignorant. I’m not even gonna waste my time here except say that if you think an addict can just STOP well become addicted and try it..
BECOMING “addicted” IS. A. CHOICE! The drug does NOT get to CHOOSE the human being it goes into! The human being DOES get to CHOOSE THE DRUG! So, if I get to CHOOSE my drug (hence the term, “drug of CHOICE”!), then I guess I get to decide HOW LONG I will use it for, and in what method, and in what quantity. Inanimate objects (as drugs are!) DO. NOT. GET. TO. CHOOSE those variables. And just as I get to choose the substance, and the quantity, and the method of ingestion, I ALSO get to CHOOSE. TO. STOP. all of those variables. Again, the drug has NO CHOICE in being ingested, or discriminated against, and NOT INGESTED. The ingestor makes the choice to use. The “recovering” addict makes the CHOICE TO NOT USE. It’s all about CHOICE!
And also A Lot of what you claim they teach is completely untrue False and either a lie on your part or you went to AA on another Planet and Read a different BB. For example they teach COMPLETE HONESTY or it wont work dont even bother. Second the idea of putting AA (Design for Living) first is the same as on a plane…my mask first so that I am able to help you with yours ( being a contributor and Available for my Family) requires me to remain Sober. Again Im no longer in AA but I credit them with teaching me tools to cope w/Life and to be empowered w/self esteem. They help me to get to a place where I could SEE AGAIN that I have a choice. There is more than one road to success.
AA is a great tool to stay sober, however it is useless to the addict who has yet to detox from the physical aspects of their addiction. Words, prayer, sponsors, and sober support are no match for the withdrawals. It is a choice, much like someone with a broken leg has a choice whether to let the leg heal with medication or let it heal with will power. It is possible, but realistically it will rarely happen. Addicts have a disorder. Their brains do not work the same way as non addicts. There is an uncontrollable obsession. Yes, I am a recovered addict, and parted ways with the grandfather of all drugs, heroin. Anyone who says quitting is a matter of simply saying, “I quit” is either ignorant, inexperienced, or both. There’s NOTHING that can be told to me that I haven’t already learned about addiction. I have more knowledge on the subject, as well as first-hand experience, than most. I am offended that there are peons on here thinking a few “experts” can negate decades of research and analysis that concludes, beyond doubt, that addiction IS A DISEASE. If you have a problem with this, you know where to go, and no, the sun isn’t shining there.
Hi Todd,
I am the author of everything on this website. I have taken great pains to explain my position, and I assure you it doesn’t amount to, as you put it:
I have explained this on the following pages, among others, and frequently in direct response to angry commenters like yourself who mischaracterize my views:
Frequently Asked Questions
Choices Come In All Shapes and Sizes
Addiction: The Problem & The Solution
And in fact, within this very article I gave some depth to what I mean by choosing to change, writing:
Of course that’s a very short passage and doesn’t go into too much depth because the main point of this article is that substance use doesn’t become an involuntary behavior compelled by a brain disease. Nevertheless, it shows that I think there’s much more to the choice to quit than simply saying, “I quit.”
Best wishes,
-Steven Slate
The point is – if you are not an addict then you don’t know… You dont know what goes through the mind. You don’t know why addicts do what they do. You don’t know how to explain ANYTHING about it because all you have to base your opinion on is second hand information. This cannot be put any simpler. I do not comment on the life of athletes because I am not an athlete. I do not speak on veteran affairs because I am not a veteran. To act as if I were an expert on these matters because I read a lot of books would be careless and offensive to those who truly know those matters ( which would be the athletes and veterans). There is no, “but….” Case closed. Have a nice day.
Honestly – did you read anything on this page other than the title before you decided to chime in with an ignorant comment? I mean did you read anything???
I really don’t welcome comments from people who haven’t read what’s here or made any attempt to understand it. If you want to have random arguments about addiction and angrily spout off, do it elsewhere please.
-Steven Slate, the author of this article, and FORMER “ADDICT”
So, can you simply pick up your old habit and control it, or can you not control it? People who get lung cancer from smoking, they have cancer, a disease…a disease that can be put into remission if caught in the early stages…but guess what? It never goes away. Smoking was a choice…so I supposed to result (Cancer) isn’t a disease, either.
There is no such thing as a “former addict”.
In one sense, Mary, you are correct. There is no such thing as a former addict, because the concept of addiction is built on the myth that an addict is someone who has “lost control” of their substance use. In fact, no one ever loses control of their substance use. No matter how ugly it gets, every hit, dose, or drink is fully freely chosen.
However, in another sense, you are wrong. There are people whose substance use habits get classified as addiction, and fits into a formal set of criteria used to diagnose them. So we’ll call them addicts. The thing is that decades worth of good research shows that by age, less and less people are classified as addicts as they age. So for example, about 25% of 22 year olds are classified as alcohol addicts. That rate drops off rapidly so that only 6 or 7% of 30 years olds are considered alcohol addicts. It continues to drop off from there – it only ever goes down with age. If people were permanently addicts, then it shouldn’t drop off with age year after year in massive epidemiological surveys – so for example, if 25% of 22 year olds are addicts, then we should find that 25% of 30 year olds, 25% of 40 year olds, et cetera are alcohol addicts. That’s how the data would look if there were no such thing as a former addict. The rate keeps dropping because people really do get over these problems permanently.
However, a small minority (less than 1% of those who’ve gotten over their addictions), become zealots of an ideology in which it is believed that they are permanently addicts. This ideology holds that they’ll need to battle addiction for the rest of their lives. This minority is extremely vocal. They are the permanent victim class, and anoint themselves the experts of addiction, and become the activists and the counselors in treatment programs. The other 99% usually move on with their lives, and don’t speak up too much, because the vocal minority promise to make their lives a living hell if they say anything that contradicts their ideology. They attack them and say that they’re “not real addicts” and smear them as insensitive to the plight of the “real addicts.” And so, it is generally in the 99%’s self interest to just shut up and not expose themselves to the zealots’ wrath.
to Steven Slate I just have a question, because like you I have always believed that addiction is not a disease, that it is a choice, but I got into a argument with a friend who says that addiction is not only not a choice but it is caused genetically. What is your stance on genetics and alcoholism and drugs being genetically induced.
So Mary, HOW EXACTLY is someone “addicted” to something they NO LONGER USE? IS a person who quits smoking somehow “still a smoker”? Please grow out of this co-dependent mindset that idiotic 12 Step groups utilize to keep their adherents psychologically insecure!
So? It seems to me using the word disease helps decrease the stigma and may allow more people to get better. I really believe that whatever works is the best approach. Why all the anger? Be kind. No one would wish this kind of soul kill on their worst enemy.
(Now before you say my punctuation is nowhere to be seen or the paragraph is poorly written it gets the point out I was making ) You are both very intelligent people but you perceive addiction in a different way and you both have a past so you have a deeper relation to it which brings it to a biased opinion you know people are different they lived a different point of view in a different household depending on specifics in a different state but you didn’t sit down and go to the same aa treatments or weaned yourself off the substance but you lived it you’re proud of that moment So which will make it a never ending argument or someone getting hurt and you think that would be childish to get hurt by being wrong in an argument Bc it implies you can’t take a loss but that’s what they went through blood sweat and tears in this scenario agree the diferences and move on please I would appreciate this keep doing what you believe in you’re both helping addiction in a way why does it matter there’s a path for everyone
Truth matters; it helps. Misinformation hurts.
“Choosing to change then, really means that they rethink whether heavy substance use is their best viable option.”
I wonder if you believe addicts truly maintain that level of ability in regards to objective thinking?
Yes, I do. Because year after year they keep quitting/moderating use to levels and patterns that no longer fit the diagnosis for Substance Use Disorder. I’ve seen plenty do it, up close and personal. And by the way, everyone who quits/moderates their use does so by their own choice. EVERYONE – even those in treatment programs and 12 step groups. They have all ceased/moderated their use at their own will. The only exceptions are those who are literally locked up and deprived of drugs against their own will in prisons.
Well said , Steven Slate. Accountability has rewards .. when good choices are made you and I are the winners. To keep it simple right and wrong do matter; it matters who we join ourselves with ! I have seen people revert back to addictions because of peer pressure that they subject themselves to…..keep up the good work because accountability is best, that sums up that people’s mistakes should not be written off as beyond their control, therefore they are innocent because they have become diseased.
If you truly purport that I wonder how many addicts you have been around. I have personally encountered addicts in the depths of depravity who had no objective conscious thought beyond delusion, paranoia, and finding their next hit. Meth addicts in the height of psychosis are a prime example. I have witnessed these people die before they reached any kind of treatment. There was no hope for them beyond intervention of another party, in which end they are not capable of quitting before they reach untimely death. I personally think that, based on my own experiences, that this is a somewhat shortsighted point of view. Most of the time, simply throwing an addict into a 12 step program will not work, depriving them of drugs for a time wont automatically rewire reward pathways in the brain that lead to reform – it does take a conscious effort (a choice to) – but there are also cases where intervention is absolutely critical otherwise there simply will be no recovery from the disease. There is simply no choice available that exists in objective reality for these people. Often times such cases even after intervention the people are left in a vegetative state, incapable of conscious choice and rendered entirely helpless on third party care to function in society. Addiction is a disease that can maim and kill – in many cases, it is up to the individual and only the individual, and other times, that conscious choice is robbed from them by the systematic rewiring of neural pathways, and intervention by another party is the only path that leads back to reclaiming the ability to choose consciously, and the path out of the disease that would seek to kill them.
I read your entire article. While I appreciate and value your opinion, I without a doubt disagree. The people you referenced above. Those who “quit” or “moderated” on their own we’re likely not addicts or alcoholics but rather abusers or heavy users. There is a difference between those who abuse substances and those with the disease. Prolonged use of any substance will alter brain chemistry in such a way that the frontal lobe is no longer effective. As I am sure you know. In addition, the lymbic system, the most primitive part of the brain is also activated which in turn stimulates the amigdala. This is the area where our most basic survival instincts reside. This is the part of the brain that is alerted when we are experiencing stress or danger. The disease lives in this part of the brain. Those who had higher anxiety levels, lower neuroepinephrine and saratonin prior to substance use, will likely have less control over the substance once introduced. The “progression” or “cycle” begins and the disease is activated. This class of individuals are born with this imbalance. Once they ingest a substance, it is Russian Rullette. They have no more control over this than they do the color of their eyes, if they are born with type 1 diabetes, Downs Syndrome or Bi polar disorder. They are born with a disease that is triggered by ingesting the substance. Much like a diabetic’s disease is also triggered by ingesting a substance only it is sugar. There would be no way of knowing this beforehand. They would need to abstain for life not to suffer from the illness. When you note that the disease of addiction is stored in the area of the brain responsible for survival, the part of our brain which tells us we are thirsty, need food, need air, or are in danger,you can imagine the need and drive that propels the addicted person to reach for more. Imagine you were staving, you would do whatever you had to do to get food, to survive. This is what the addict experiences when they are without the substance. Painful, torture. Now consider the part of the brain that is most affected by substances, the frotal lobe. The area of our brain that is responsible for decision making and self control. Combine those two factors and you can easily see why a person with this disease would continue to use. It is shameful to think their is a choice of blame the addict for their poor choices.
There are people who suffer these deficits over time with prolonged use, but they are no more at fault. Type 1 diabetes is typically diagnosed in childhood. Type 2 diabetes is often triggered by lifestyle and diet. It is still none the less, a disease.
There are people who do not suffer with either of the above conditions. Perhaps they have only been abusing a short time. They have not done significant damage to their brain. They were not born with the disease. They realize they are in trouble and seek help to stop. Yes. There are people who can do this. But that does not negate the truth about the manifestation of the disease in many others. This is the difference between an abuser and an addicted person. As your statement above exemplifies. I have never witnessed a real alcoholic or addict achieve this and I have seen many try, repeatedly. A doctor can identify a person has high blood pressure and is “in danger of stroke or heart attack. Some lifestyle changes can prevent this from happening, but once the disease is active, a person is affected for life. The disease of addiction functions the same way. Does the person with cardio vascular disease ever relapse on red meat and high fat food? Sure they do. Does this put them in danger? Of course it does.Yes. It happens. Yet when a person suffering a brain disorder which has hijacked their ability to reason, we stigmatize and blame. It is unconscionable. Generally it is wbecause of fear and ignorance. Those of us who have suffered the anguish and torture of the disease can without a doubt testify to the fact that we were powerless. A condition of the disease that has been scientifically proven over and over. To say there is a choice is to say a person enjoys the horror they are living. To believe this is to be ignorant to the truth.
Kristin writes:
“Those of us who have suffered the anguish and torture of the disease can without a doubt testify to the fact that we were powerless. A condition of the disease that has been scientifically proven over and over. To say there is a choice is to say a person enjoys the horror they are living. To believe this is to be ignorant to the truth.”
Were powerless? Past tense? What happened? Are you still powerless? Is your brain still diseased? Is your limbic system still misfiring and telling you you MUST abuse substances to survive? Is your amygdala still stimulated?. Or have you recovered, grown new brain cells and regained your power?
To say “powerless[ness] is a condition of the disease that has been scientifically proven over and over” is not only factually wrong but rises to the level of foolish gibberish.
Calling addiction a disease is meant, in part, to emphasize the seriousness of being in thrall to drugs or alcohol. In reality, it’s just a gimmick used to try to elevate addiction to the level of a noble battle with cancer- which clearly is NOT.
To reject the disease label is not to demote addiction, nor is it to diminish sympathy for the addict’s plight.
The severe consequences of addiction don’t make it a disease, any more than the severe consequences of violence make violence a disease, or the severe consequences of racism make racism a disease, or the folly of loving thy neighbor’s wife makes infidelity a disease. What they make it is a very bad habit.
The brain disease model of addiction, by far, has alienated and harmed more people than it’s helped
Powerless? In this digital age and shotgun media, everyone know the dangers of drinking and driving, smoking, unprotected sex, drugs etc etc. Somehow you did not know this when you cooly tried drugs the first time? Or engaged in unorotected sex. Of course its a choice and you suffer if you get addicted. You do not have to try it. It was your UNDISCIPLINED ACTION THAT GET YOU ADDICTED.
The point of this article is that substance use is never involuntary. That is, people don’t ever “get addicted” if addiction is considered involuntary substance use (which is the popular view).
To be extra clear – this article is not about “how people get addicted”, because they never get addicted. At all. I am not saying it’s a choice to get addicted, I am saying that substance use is always a choice and never an involuntary behavior.
Wow, you are pretty damn ignorant. Please show me one heroin addict who has went to “moderation”. Please, just one. You are spreading garbage and nothing you say is proven, it is and has only been DISPROVEN by many doctors, who are a lot more educated than you regarding what is and what is not a disease. It is genetic, progressive, fatal and you will always have it. No matter what. Keep telling people “you’ve seen” many addicts drop their usage to the point where it doesn’t put them in the abuse category…great work man, just great advice!
You know it’s amazing to me how many people read things that I literally haven’t written here. Where exactly did I “advise” anyone to use heroin? All I’m doing is putting the facts out there. There is a ton of data demonstrating that “alcoholics” become moderate drinkers – about half of them do. I’ve seen it plenty up close and personal too. There is less data on heroin “addicts” becoming moderate heroin users, because frankly, researchers don’t look for it. But in fact this happens, and when we look for it, it can be found. See the book “Drug Set and Setting” by Norman Zinberg, where he reports on his decade long study funded in part by NIDA, in which he found plenty of moderate heroin users, many of whom had previously been “addicts”.
Anyone can moderate the use of any drug. That they don’t isn’t proof that they can’t – it’s proof that they want to use at levels considered disordered. To say that anyone can is not the same as telling anyone that they should. Anyone can spend a whole week eating nothing but junk food. By saying that, am I advising anyone to do it? Is saying you can tantamount to saying you should? I think not.
I was schooled in the disease concept era and it served me well in the time I practiced. This change in theory is a natural progression, demonstrating how old theories are debunked. It’s not so much the change that rattles me in this discourse, rather the tone of dismissal for a path to recovering that many have found to be helpful in my past. We never questioned that choice was central to the behavior. Did the disease concept cause any harm? So why all the prattle? Does putting the focus more on choice give us free reign to bash addicts? Is the point one of a return to the blame and shame ethic? It disappoints me if the concept of addiction is totally lacking of empathy. There is a place for tough love but it is not helpful to make it the banner headline. Yes I ascribe to the choice theory. No, it’s not okay to use it for beating the user up. Enough harm is done already.
I really hope you’re not accusing me of blaming, shaming, or beating anyone up. And if you are, I hope you’ll back it up with evidence. My goal is to show people they have the power to change if they want to.
Serenity prayer really big on this one sir. You are really playing God….. it’s a disease based on the way the body and brain reacts. If I pick up a drink, I can’t stop. Do I have the choice to not pick up the drink, sure. But, once I drink, I can’t stop. That’s the disease. I find everything you stand for vile and ignorant.
Mike writes:
“It is genetic, progressive, fatal and you will always have it.”
This numbskull is DOOMED. Sheesh. And you wonder why there are so many suicides in 12 step programs. They ‘ALL’ promote this fraudulent, destructive garbage. They pound and pound this childish bullshit into their member’s minds on a daily basis- which serves only to increase an addict’s sense of despair and hopelessness.
Anyone who truly hopes to recover from substance abuse needs to stay as far away as possible from people like Mike.
Indeed, I met some of those Mike’s. Happily they were in the minority and the circles of recovery I enjoyed had lots of celebrating and enthusiastic support.
Mike:
here’s the Truth About the Rehab Industry and 12-Step Programs
https://youtu.be/OBh1kUnLKsU
Cause and effect is inexorable down here on planet Earth and never more so than when one picks up a drink or drug. As the macrobiotic teacher Kushi liked to say “Everything that has a front has a back”. Physiological withdrawal does not a disease make. Better choices of ingested substances inevitably leads to a life featuring thoughts like “What the h%#* was I doing back then?” The answer is something like “Finding out what doesn’t work.” In sobriety, one’s evolution as a conscious being can resume.
I wish people would stop trying to make the point that addiction is not a disease by making comparisons or rather trying to describe “real” diseases such a cancer or diabetes. Both cancer and diabetes can be a result of bad life choices just as addiction. I don’t really believe addiction is a disease either. It comes to be as a result of something else and is preventable. Some people with cancer or diabetes could have theoretically avoided getting said diseases if they didn’t smoke or drink too much soda. Likewise there are some who are going to get cancer regardless of their choices. To me it’s pointless to try to decide what’s a disease and what’s not. You might despise a junkie thinking they were just a weak dumbass who mindlessly did drugs until addicted. You may also look at an obese diabetic and feel similar disdain and believe their plight is self afflicted. No matter what you believe the debate is academic at best and completely useless.
Agreed. Very well stated. Thank you.
To john sorry you are wrong sometimes not all the time cancer and diabetes can’t be avoided, my sister has diabetes and it is because she was born with her insulin making organ not working not because of her diet, and I also had a friend who was a vegetarian never touched sweets or alcohol or drugs was the poster child for health, and ended dying from cancer explain that.
Great reply.
I once heard that trying to explain addiction to those who don’t suffer from it, is probably the hardest thing to do. When people are convinced their views and opinions are correct, you can’t reach them.
Todd I totally agree with you I also had a really bad heroin addiction my ex had a million dollar trust fund and we did extreme amounts of heroin for years. Also I’m in the process of getting my bachelors degree in addiction psychology. addiction IS a disease this article is the perfect example of the word fallacy! the way this talks well then nothing is a disease because the brain adjusts to everything! the fact is adjusting to a job like taxi driving is normal behavior. the brain changes to syphilis and can be changed back when its treated I guess this article is saying SYPHILIS IS NOT A DISEASE???!!! absolutely ridiculous. I could go on all day but I’m not going to waste my time anymore.
For someone who has trouble with basic English grammar, its understandable you would adopt this pathetic position of “addiction is a “disease”. So, what second-rate school (run by 12 Steppers no doubt!) are you getting this “addiction studies” degree from (I doubt the school has ANY level of accreditation that makes the “degree” valid!). Saying something is a “disease” over and over, does not make it anymore a “disease” then the Nazi’s claims that “Jews were evil” because THEY said it OVER AND OVER! Repetition of a fallacious claim does not prove its validity just because it gets said over and over (do thousands of years of people claiming there is a “god” PROVE that there is one?). Where a person has VOLUNTARY CONTROL over the acquisition and ingestion of ANY SUBSTANCE (liquid, solid, or gas!) and gets to decide the place, method, quantity, and desired effect OF that substance in their bodies, that pretty much PROVES that “addiction” to a substance IS. A. CHOICE! People with REAL medical disease (e.g. cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, Parkinson’s, etc.) DO. NOT. GET. to pick: a.) the type of medical disease they get afflicted with, b.) the part of the body that gets affected by the affliction, c.) how long they have the disease for, or d.) whether they “recover” from it or not. Addiction is the reverse of all this. It is willingly, knowingly, and VOLUNTARILY acquired and maintained! It is and remains a CHOICE. CHOICE. CHOICE!
Are you referring to me when you say trouble with basic English grammar? Because I would beg to differ…
Your entries reflect someone who lacks COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF ANY punctuation competence. Was the 5th grade your “senior year”? WHO TIES YOUR SHOES FOR YOU? Because not only do your entries reflect a lack of even middle school competence, but they reflect ineptitude at a whole lower level that even a 5th grader would be offended by! Were you HIGH when you made your entries? It would explain SO MUCH!
Just like diabetes or cancer can develop as a result of one’s unhealthy choices, addiction is likewise the result of the choice to use drugs. Why is it so hard to view addiction the same way we view these other diseases? The compulsion to use drugs to stimulate warped dopamine receptors is as much physiological as it is psychological, and just because a person can recover from this disease doesn’t mean it’s not a disease.
The logic of this article is incomplete, and the author clearly has never experienced addiction.
Please demonstrate where you think the gap in logic resides here.
Also, my parents might disagree with your assertion that I have never experienced addiction – the list of things that I stole from them and pawned for heroin and cocaine is truly staggering.
I hate to mention that of course, because you don’t need to experience it to understand that there is literally no evidence proving that addiction is a disease.
How can you say there is no evidence to support addiction being a disease? Ive seen a bunch of posts supporting this opinion.
Derek
You answered your own question. You wrote:” Ive seen a bunch of posts supporting this opinion.” Well, “Opinion’ is not evidence and facts don’t care about your feelings or your opinion. You might be of the opinion that the Earth is flat but that doesn’t make it so.
I’ve made the case here in this very article. I’ve made the case all over this website. Maybe start with actually reading this page for a clue as to “how” I “can say there is no evidence to support addiction being a disease.”
Yes, there are other opinions published out there; I’m well aware of that. If this is your first time encountering it, let me welcome you to the real world where there are differing opinions on controversial issues.
Indeed, ” welcome you to the real world where there are differing opinions on controversial issues.” Steven, I have been reviewing several of your publications on your website in reference to the “disease” versus “choice” theories. I try, as best I can, to keep an open mind concerning the drug addiction, the causes, and thus, what may or could help those who continue to use. Although I do find many theories controversial, such as yours, I do believe many approaches has merit. I have seen… and personally experienced, that what works for some, may not work for others. Meaning – some can choose not to use and live a healthy, productive life without mainstream addiction treatment – others prefer treatment and succeed in abstinence, and others agree to replacement therapy such as methadone. I hesitate to promote the latter, although, in some cases, methadone does help remove an addict from toxic environments, and many return to happy, productive lives. Some even return to alcohol and ‘some’ drugs – using them in moderation. This, of course, can be a high risk decision for an alcoholic or addict.
I find the “choice” theory to be quite interesting even though the research I’ve read does not support effective relief for ALL addicts. However, if this works for some, why not… the end result is that the addict ceases to use debilitating substances. Many millions of people have successfully been treated using drug rehab facilities and have remained drug free. Countless people find AA & NA works well for them. BRAVO… keep on using it. I know dozens or people who believe that God has cured them.
Since we are discussing “brain disease” and “choice” in this forum, I wondered if it really does matter what words we use, and/or if it helps addicts and society as a whole. I refer to your theory that: “When we accept the unproven view that addiction and alcoholism are brain diseases, then it will lead us down a long, painful, costly, and pointless road of cycling in and out of ineffective treatment programs and 12 step meetings. You will waste a lot of time without finding a permanent solution.” In my opinion, stating that “… pointless road or cycling in and out of *ineffective* treatment programs and 12 Step meetings” negates the FACT that these treatments and groups have worked for millions. Yes, some treatments and AA/NA meetings do use negatives, others do not. Not ALL programs are the same, nor are ‘meetings’ the same in reference to negative and positive projections upon the addict.
I agree with you that, “The only way I know to come to new conclusions is to re-examine the issues methodically, and this may often mean gathering new information and perspectives.” Gathering new information, as long as it is proven fact, rather than opinion, is paramount in making informed decisions (choices) to help yourself and others. Many opinions and conclusions are based on ‘subjective’ views, and/or thoughts proposed by the speaker or author. Even though we all can find professionals with credentials, followed by the alphabet (PHD’s etc), many of their perspectives (drawing conclusions) are just that… their own perspective. More often than not, accredited professionals have opposing views and theories that contradict each other’s view. This is not a negative thing as it creates critical thinking and observations on forums such as yours.
In my opinion, it won’t be far in the future before the theory of “brain disease” is science-based fact, and not a matter of choice. Whether it’s a disease or choice, science is moving fast, “Researchers at UC San Francisco have managed to use laser lights as a means of eradicating addictive behaviors: They targeted light in the prelimbic region of the brain in rats who were addicted to cocaine. They found that after exposure to the laser lights the rats demonstrated a significant reduction in addictive behavior. Among humans, the therapy would likely not involve the use of lasers, but instead the use of electromagnetic stimulation outside the scalp, with a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/258703.php
In keeping an open mind, I try to understand, sympathize and make sense of someone else’s story, opinion or response. Keeping an open mind is one of the most difficult things to practice. For me, it means I am open to everyone and everything that comes my way, allowing me to embrace different possibilities, opportunities, people, views, suggestions and interests. I enjoy reading your publications here because they help me understand someone’s point of view, even when I disagree.
Have a great day, Steven – I look forward to your next online publication.
David Love writes:
“I’m still not convinced that using drugs is simply a “choice” – rather, in many cases, an active addict reaches out for someone to “help” them make a better “choice” than continue to use drugs. Does that make sense?”
Hell no! It doesn’t make sense. According to David, addiction is not a choice until the active addict “REACHES OUT” for help to some narcissistic control freak in a 12 step program to make choices for him- THEN …. It IS a choice. Sheesh David, that’s what I call pretzel logic – as in twisted into weird shapes.
David’s approach then is to reject asking addicts to be accountable for the consequences of the choices they make, to keep pretending that their drug use is an incurable brain disease so they will have an excuse to continue using while pleading that they are powerless over their disease , to caress and coddle the “Addicts that are huddled under raggedy umbrellas up against sidewalk walls” and throw more and more money at them as if wasting more MONEY will prove or disprove the propositions about addiction being a choice.
David also believes that giving addicts scalp massages with magnets will “eradicate addictive behaviors…” in their “diseased brains.
It’s plain to see that he’s David is mainly talking about failing [PC liberal do-gooder] political policies and the societal and cultural rot that always grows within them rather than brain chemistry. He’s talking about hopelessness, homelessness, shelters and rain. He’s talking about throwing more and more money towards these failed dystopian political policies that are, in reality, the cause of the failures and hopelessness in the first place.
David’s [12 step devotee] bottom line is this:
“12 Step meetings” ……. have worked for millions. Not ALL programs are the same, nor are ‘meetings’ the same in reference to negative and positive projections upon the addict.”
Then he writes:
“In my opinion, it won’t be far in the future before the theory of “brain disease” is science-based fact, and not a matter of choice. “
(This sentence is a bit wacky- I think he meant to say that science will prove “addiction’ is a brain disease and not a matter of choice.)
Absolute nonsense on both accounts! There is no evidence anywhere that 12 step groups have worked for “MILLIONS” — NONE!! That’s AA propaganda. Anecdotal testimony is not proof and correlation doesn’t prove causality. There will NEVER be any evidence that addiction is a brain disease. In fact the disease theory, and the science sometimes used to support it, fail to take into account the plasticity of the human brain. Of course, the brain changes with addiction but the way it changes has to do with learning and development — not disease.
An important study led by University of New Mexico psychologist William Miller found that two critical factors predicted relapse for those treated for alcohol problems: “lack of coping skills and belief in the disease model of alcoholism.”
University of New Mexico Study = http://bit.ly/2dhSLD7
The primary attraction of these 12 step programs is that an addict is excused from either changing or assuming responsibility for their behavior.
Addicts are not powerless. Addicts do not have a brain disease. Addicts are not condemned to abuse substances by their genetic makeup. Addicts are not spiritually deficient. The sooner you juvenile 12 steppers realize this, the sooner you’ll be able to give real help to those who suffer from addiction.
papamick1956…
First, I’m not a “12 Stepper” as you assume and articulate so eloquently with lovely adjectives and a verbose narrative of what appears to be “your opinion is equal to fact” without a shadow of a doubt.
“David Love writes?”… sorry papamick, I’m not going to take your trolling bait and say, “papamick writes.”
And I’m not a Liberal either… as your ASSumption comments speak for themselves without a need for reply to your dogmatic rhetoric. Do you ever become dizzy from your ‘Spin-Doctoring’ people’s comments? Perhaps your neat little fabrications are easy to excuse within your own mind and help you really feel they serve or shore up an idealized version of yourself that distracts you from the intolerable fear that you are actually NOT right?
This article Steven wrote is quite interesting, and I am keeping an open mind about whether addiction is a “choice” or a “disease” – there’s some really great comments and views here… even yours are interesting to skim through… and to roll my eyes over some of the nonsense sentences… 🙂
Have a great day…
I’m confused. If I choose to smoke cigarettes and 20yrs later I am diagnosed with lung cancer, is it no longer considered a disease because I ‘chose’ to smoke? Your logic seems to come from an emotional place,, and logic not so much?
William writes: “I’m confused.”
Finally I can agree with him on something. Yes, William IS confused. But that’s understandable. Intellectually vacuous people who live in a fantasy world are often befuddled.
David writes;
“Researchers at UC San Francisco have managed to use laser lights as a means of eradicating addictive behaviors: They targeted light in the prelimbic region of the brain in rats who were addicted to cocaine. They found that after exposure to the laser lights the rats demonstrated a significant reduction in addictive behavior.”
So David supports lobotomizing rat brains with lasers and somehow applying a derivative of this procedure to human beings.
I prefer furthering the lessons learned from this rat experiment.
“In 1981, a scientist named Bruce Alexander and his team ran a study that could have completely changed the dialogue around addiction, but at the time, it was brushed under the rug. That study is known informally as the Rat Park Experiment.
First, some background: Rat Park came in response to a number of addiction studies in the ‘60s and ‘70s where rats were placed in solitary, cramped cages. The rats were given free rein to choose between water and a solution laced with different drugs like morphine (a close relative of heroin) or cocaine. Inevitably, the rats drank enough of the drug to kill themselves, and the outcome was publicized as evidence of drugs’ all-consuming nature. These studies are still used as key support for zero-tolerance policies around drugs to this day.
Bruce Alexander — a psychologist who has researched and taught on the psychology of addiction in British Columbia, Canada, since 1970 — wasn’t satisfied with this answer. Instead, he looked at the isolated condition of the rats and asked himself: who wouldn’t drug themselves to oblivion, trapped in a tiny cage alone and without stimulation?
So he designed a new study where a control group of rats was placed individually in the same solitary conditions but with another group of 20-30 rats in a place he called Rat Park: a huge, well-furnished cage with many friends, nooks and crannies to explore, running wheels, interesting objects, and places to hide. He gave the rats the same choice of water or drugs. Even with unlimited access to abusive substances, the well-socialized, community-living rats overwhelmingly chose water. Alexander’s follow-up studies found that even rats that had been stuck in drugged isolation for as many as 57 days, once transferred to Rat Park, voluntarily went through withdrawal and kicked their habit.
What are the lessons to be learned from Rat Park? For starters, we should look at why this theory—and the evidence behind it—has been ignored. The story of Rat Park doesn’t fit neatly into the popular conception of what addiction is.
Professor Alexander argues this discovery is a profound challenge to the liberal view that addiction is a disease taking place in a chemically hijacked brain. In fact, he argues, addiction is an adaptation. It’s not you. It’s your cage.
http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/rat-park/282-rat-park-versus-the-new-york-times-2
With a smarmy pretense of superior intellect and an insincere [deceitful] proclamation of guru-style, I’m-above-it-all, neutral “open-mindedness” David Love Writes:
“Since we are discussing “brain disease” and “choice” in this forum, I wondered if it really does matter what words we use, and/or if it helps addicts and society as a whole.”
March 24, 2017 at 3:22 PM
http://www.thecleanslate.org/myths/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease-it-is-a-choice/comment-page-11/#comment-507361
After claiming that words really have no meaning, David Love then prattles on in typical meandering, liberal fashion, refusing to ever fully hash out any single issue, expanding and widening the debate, switching gears, dodging, and distracting and using 3000 WORDS to do it. [LOL – “does it really matter what words we use”]
Instead, David could have said: “Steven, I disagree with you. You’re wrong. Addiction is a brain disease and 12 step groups that propagate this opinion help millions of people”
That’s only 24 words. [LOL]. Why the subterfuge, David. Do you not have the courage of your convictions?
What’s humorous to me is that when liberals and/or 12 steppers [most often one and the same] are defeated in debate- by facts, by science, by experience and most importantly by impeccable reasoning and logic, they always resort to the excuse that the debate is nothing more than semantics.
I can see that you are quite the researcher Papamick 1956. Answer this who wrote this? Have you ever used your researching ability to actually read something? This comes from a report that was left for you to read by some poor soul claiming to be in a masters program or some nonsense. However, the report he left the link for is quite valid and recent. As a 12 stepper and one for several decades whether addiction is a brain disease or not is an outside issue. We believe that if we treat it as if were a disease we get better period. The fact that there are no true hard numbers is because it is an anonymous program. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of the program. Therefore, you can bring that up in all your post, but you still have yet to comment on the link provided from the Surgeon General’s report. This document is a scholarly document and less than six months old.
“I recognize there is no single solution. We need more policies and programs that increase access to
proven treatment modalities. We need to invest more in expanding the scientific evidence base for
prevention, treatment, and recovery. We also need a cultural shift in how we think about addiction. For
far too long, too many in our country have viewed addiction as a moral failing. This unfortunate stigma
has created an added burden of shame that has made people with substance use disorders less likely to
come forward and seek help. It has also made it more challenging to marshal the necessary investments
in prevention and treatment. We must help everyone see that addiction is not a character flaw – it is
a chronic illness that we must approach with the same skill and compassion with which we approach
heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.”
There are more people on this single report that have credentials with valid points and the credentials to back up what is written. Steven does not believe as you do, nor does he belittle the people that come here to post their opinions. Again, he has yet to comment on the report either. Basically, maybe you should read and learn before you use all these fancy words that you articulate to try and find something positive. Running your fat mouth doesn’t impress me and shows your ignorance. Handle yourself with dignity.
Maybe, you’ll actually read something that is current. Just in case you can’t research back far enough to find the pdf I have furnished for you once again. Be productive not counter productive.
https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/surgeon-generals-report.pdf
There’s nothing new there. If there is something in there that disproves the arguments in this article, please point me to it. It is 400 pages of recycled crap after all, so just posting the link again isn’t good enough, and doesn’t prove anything.
The 12 step simpletons who subscribe to the “chronic brain disease” “alcoholic mind” fictitious concept of addiction are IN LOVE with their so called “disease.” They ADORE their disease. Their “disease,” their “powerlessness,” their “spiritual deficiencies,” their “victimhood” define the core of their existence.
They are like toddlers who, growing into adolescence, refuse to give up their security blankets and teddy bears. Mommy, Mommy, please don’t take away my teddy bear [my fake brain disease] and mommy please don’t take away my security blanket [my fake powerlessness]. They lament, whine and protest that they DO NOT have a choice in the matter. They ball up their fists and stomp their feet until they get their 12 step pacifier back.
Malachi reminds me of a grammar school student who, having just seen a three minute video clip on the human body’s circulatory system in science class, now sees himself as an expert [like kids typically do] and believes he is capable of convincing the cardiologist-heart surgeon next door that he knows nothing about the functions of the human heart.
Nevertheless, the closest the book Alcoholics Anonymous comes to a definition of alcoholism appears on p. 44, at the conclusion of the first paragraph of the “We Agnostics” chapter, where we are told that alcoholism “is an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer.” So a spiritual experience can “conquer” the illness but can’t cure it? How odd!
And …. Here’s a smidgen of irony:
“There are zillions of people who say that alcoholism is a disease, but not many of them believe it.”
– Mercedes McCambridge
And ……In a reply Bill Wilson gave when specifically asked about alcoholism as disease after he had addressed the annual meeting of the National Catholic Clergy Conference on Alcoholism in 1961 he said:
“We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease.”
Hi Steven,
Interesting article. Would you kindly answer these questions?
1) You claim you “were” an addict – do you believe you are still a “recovering addict?”
2) When you were an active addict using drugs, would you explain what you think or believe compelled you to use? Was it due to past traumatic experiences, abuse, to kill physical or emotional pain, or was it simply because you chose to use and liked the feeling?
3) You state: “… that I stole from them and pawned for heroin and cocaine is truly staggering.” If your drug addiction was only because you made a choice to use and it was because it felt good and you continued because you enjoyed the feeling, were you not concerned about being arrested and going to jail? Or, did these good feelings over-ride the consequences of perhaps contracting a disease like HIV or HEP C?
I’m trying to understand your views on addiction and your opinions about how one could avoid being subject to the chains of addiction by simply “choosing” not to use. Your opinion that an offer of Movie Tickets would change a person’s mind to enjoy a flick over using drugs is interesting, but, I don’t see any link or citation to the research or controlled study with peer reviews. I would very much appreciate a LINK if you have one?
Thank you, Steven, and I look forward to your earliest reply.
Hi David, and thanks for the productive questions.
As noted above, I try not to build my case on my experiences, because you don’t have to experience this to understand it. There is plenty of research that illuminates the issue, and I prefer to rely on that because personal experiences are subjectively interpreted by each individual. So for example, I “felt” I was out of control for a big chunk of my time as a reckless substance user; many others have felt the same. Some people hold on to the idea that that feeling represents a biological truth about themselves, but I don’t. Who’s correct? I don’t think my feelings of being out of control represented reality any more than my feelings as a teenager that I was the ugliest thing on earth and no one would be attracted to me. These were both feelings created by unrealistic thoughts and perceptions. Luckily, I don’t just have to guess at this. Priming dose experiments and contingency studies demonstrate that so-called “out of control addicts” demonstrate control/choice making abilities in regard to substance use.
To your questions:
1) I was what people would call an addict. But since an addict is supposedly involuntarily using, then I wasn’t really one, and nobody has really ever been one. So when I say that I was ‘what people would call an addict’, or when I’m careful to put addict in scare quotes, I mean that I fit the description fully except for the fact that one major part of the description (involuntariness/compulsion) is such a cornerstone, and so wrong, that I don’t like the word addiction or addict, but I’ll use those word to convey the rest of what we all know as addiction – a reckless pattern of substance use that breaks societal norms.
I never recovered, because there is no disease of addiction, and so there is nothing to recover from. So I’m not recovering, but I did discontinue using substances recklessly 15 years ago, and haven’t resumed it in all that time. I no longer prefer such levels/styles of substance use.
2) You ask what I think “compelled” me to use. To be compelled to do something means to be forced to do it. I view all levels of substance use as freely chosen, not compelled. Some of the things you brought up such as emotional pain and trauma were involved at times, but – and this is important – those things served as reasons for substance use, as did the pleasure of substances and more. That is, they were not causes of my substance use, because human behavior is freely chosen according to reasons, rather than caused. And this distinction really is the crux of the matter. That is, the mind mediates the effect of any so-called cause bearing down on a human being. Many say depression and anxiety cause addiction – yet only 20% of people with depression and anxiety disorders have “addiction.” 80% don’t. What’s the difference between those two groups? It’s likely that the 20 see heavy substance use as a good remedy to their suffering, and the 80% don’t. The 20% see depression and anxiety as worthwhile reasons to use, and the 80% don’t.
I chose to use substances because for all the various reasons I held in my mind, it appeared to me to be what I needed to do to have a happy existence at that time. Each individual choice to use was a matter of thinking that’s what I needed in the moment and could be subject to momentary deliberation if I chose to deliberate, however, as they became part of a bigger pattern, less and less momentary deliberation was involved, because the deliberation was already done – that is, I developed a preference for heavy substance use over most everything else and simply continued choosing based on that preference. Choosing to quit meant changing the perspective (all the thoughts and beliefs about the benefits of substance use versus my thoughts and beliefs about the benefits of living without such levels of substance use) that my preference was built on, and seeing quitting as the genuinely happier state; as I changed my perspective, my desire/preference for relentless heavy substance use went away.
3) I was highly aware of all the negative consequences of my style of substance use, was concerned about them, and obviously didn’t want to suffer any such consequences – nobody does (just as we would all rather have everything we want at no cost). However, I thought the costs/consequences were worth paying/enduring to do what I thought I needed to do. You ask whether “these good feelings [of drugs] over-ride the consequences,” and I think that question needs to be unpacked a bit. I think, it comes from a perspective that consequences are another form of causes (deterrents) that act upon a person to cause them to behave/or not in a particular way (I’m getting this implication from the term “over-ride”). Again, I would say there are reasons rather than causes – reasons being mental products, i.e. thoughts in the mind which the person can choose to believe or not, change or not, re-assess or not, etc.
I believe, as Aristotle said, that “The object of rational wish is the end, i.e. the good or apparent good.” – the “apparent good” part is crucial. What we call addiction is really a person seeing heavy substance use as the “apparent good” for them. I know the objection will be something like “yeah, but who would want contract a disease, lose their marriage, go to jail” etc. But this presupposes that people either never make “irrational” decisions, or that people never willingly pay high prices for things. People go out of their way to pay high prices for things. Everyone could live in inexpensive small apartments which are less costly to us in every way (money, time and energy on upkeep, risk of losing your investment, etc) – yet plenty of people choose giant houses with 30 year mortgages, tons of landscaping and maintenance, cleaning of unnecessary media rooms, dens, rec rooms, dining rooms etc. Are they addicted to big homes? What compels them to suffer all these consequences? Why would they miss a day of work to wait for a plumber when they could live in an apartment where the super would just handle it and they could keep their work and social obligations??? They would do all of this because they see the big home as having the benefits they feel they need in their life to be happy. So it is with heavy siubstance use, which is the apparent good to the person who keeps choosing it. When it cease to be the apparent good, they will cease to do it. Changing your perspective on it, i.e. what you see as the apparent good, can be done at will by choosing to think things through differently.
As far as the movie tickets example, that is covered in Gene Heyman’s book Addiction: A Disorder of Choice. It is just one of many contingency studies. I hope it isn’t taken as a claim that you could simply offer any heavy substance user tickets to the movies for not using drugs and they would jump at the chance. I certainly wouldn’t have. It is just one example that choice is involved, and that so-called addicts are choosing. There are many more examples in the research. Carl Hart’s work with meth and crack “addicts” is a recent example that I like, the success rate of “treatment” programs for pilots and doctors is another good example (when threatened to have their licenses taken away, their abstinence rates are higher than any known treatment). Nancy K Mello’s pioneering experiments are another great example.
Finally, I wanna hone in on the phrase “by simply choosing not to use” that you used. I don’t view at as a choice between Pepsi and Coke. I view it as a choice supported by many highly emotion-laden beliefs; as a choice based on a highly developed preference. It’s kind of like, as Stanton Peele said, being in love. Getting a divorce is a choice. We all recognize that. But mentally getting to a place where you’re confident that it’s the right choice requires some deep thinking.
I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for asking what I see as some productive/constructive questions.
Best,
Steven Slate
Steven,
I enjoyed reading your interesting reply to my questions. I believe in constructive, open dialogue that promotes or facilitates thought and examination of all views pertaining to the horrors of addiction. That said, I have a few more comments and questions.
1) In reference to your comment: “…because human behavior is freely chosen according to reasons…” But is it always “freely chosen?” For example, the three major stress hormones, Adrenaline, Cortisol, Norepinephrine, work on our sympathetic nervous system, the “fight or flight” system that takes over when we’re stressed, when you see your wife or children being assaulted, your body reacts like there’s a lion on the loose. In my opinion, our mind reacts instantly without any reasoning or time for the “mind [to] mediate.” So, in the “fight or flight” situation, it’s not a matter of choice – would you agree?
I live and work in Vancouver Canada’s notorious Downtown East Side – only a couple blocks from ‘Ground Zero’ where we have 3 -5 overdose deaths every day… in one day alone in December 2016 we had 9 deaths in a single day.
I think Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No To Drugs” reflects your opinion that using drugs is a choice. Both of these views have some merit… especially when one considers that Nancy was targeting mostly school children before they made any “choice” or decision to use drugs. But does this forward to the active, chronic drug user? In my opinion, it does not – in many cases.
In the following (please excuse this long review), most of these drug users preferred a “reserved choice” to use in the future, if the need or desire arose:
In early 2016, I asked a question to three groups of recovering addicts, and although I had already answered this question in my own mind, I was somewhat astounded by the other’s answers. It was amazing and had many in deep thought for hours or several days. I still ask this question today with similar, baffling replies.
The first group of recovering addicts who just began treatment in a rehab facility was asked: “If scientists discovered a cure-all vaccine for drug and alcohol addiction, would you agree to take the vaccine?” To qualify the question, they were told that if they agreed to take the cure, they would never remember any of the past effects from use, nor would they ever again feel the effects of drug or alcohol use. Eighty percent of the group immediately said no. Ten percent thought about it for a few seconds and said no. The remaining ten percent said yes they would.
The second group who were near the end of their six month addiction treatment were asked the same question. Seventy percent said no. The remaining thirty percent said yes they would, and qualified their answers with (paraphrased), “I’ve had enough misery, I like who I am now, and I like feeling clean and sober… I now have goals and love the life I’m living now.”
We discussed the questions and answers with amazement. Many were surprised that they would choose not to take the cure-all vaccine. “What a perplexing, baffling conundrum,” I thought. Why wouldn’t someone want to be forever cured from the chains of addiction? But the addiction wasn’t the issue – none of the group participants wanted to be living a life of addiction misery, feeling sick in withdrawals. They wanted a back-up plan just in case they were ever in physical or emotional trauma in the future… a quick fix to escape and numb the pain. Using drugs to relieve severe physical pain is easy for society to accept in most cases, but, unless one has experienced uncontrolled emotional and severe psychological pain, it’s difficult for society to comprehend why someone becomes a drug addict.
Now, back to my previous question and your reply, “Some of the things you brought up such as emotional pain and trauma were involved at times…” Without going into a science-based, technical explanation of memory and markers, quite simply, the brain is programmed to remember how to instantly relieve severe pain, both physical and mental pain and trauma. Although it still is a choice to use drugs to relieve this pain, is it still really a choice when one considers man’s intense “choice” or decision to survive… especially when the person doesn’t think or believe they can or will survive this pain without drugs?
In response to your comment, “But mentally getting to a place where you’re confident that it’s the right choice requires some deep thinking.” Is an active drug user capable of “deep thinking” and/or “getting to a place where you’re confident that it’s the right choice?” In many cases, I think not.
For example: In 2009, Dr. Gabor Maté published a book, ‘In the Realm of The Hungry Ghost: Close Encounters with Addiction’. He knew first-hand the complexities of addiction: “In my 12 years of work as a physician in the DTES, I never met a female patient who had not been sexually abused as a child or adolescent, nor a male who had not suffered some form of severe trauma… Addictions are attempts to escape pain.”
“What engenders such unbearable pain in human beings that they would knowingly risk their very lives to escape it?” ~Gabor Maté
I think the above is relevant when one considers trauma and severe emotional pain compelling a person to use drugs. Indeed, “compel” does infer being “forced” – however, what is the alternative for preventing this severe, chronic pain other than using addictive drugs? As with the majority of people in the aforementioned two groups who would choose not to be “cured” from ever using drugs again, it reflects that “survival” reins over “choice” – don’t you think?
Hi David,
There is a lot to reply to here, so I’ll take this on little by little as I have time. For now, I want to reply to this specifically because I do have a quick and definitive reply to it, whereas some of the other stuff is more complex:
That campaign was entirely about not even trying drugs at all. It was about resisting peer pressure. It used scare tactics about drugs. The only similarity is the acknowledgement of some choice being involved in initiation. However, I would venture to bet that the campaign probably pushed the idea that drugs can addict you, and that’s why you should never even try them once.
I am not telling anyone to “just say no to drugs.” I don’t think anyone becomes addicted. As I laid out in my last reply, I think that “addicts” develop a strong preference for heavy substance use, and that changing is a process of changing the beliefs behind this preference:
I’m curious what about that indicates to you that my message to those in the thick of heavy substance use is as simplistic as “just say no”?
Best,
Steven
Hi Steven,
Thank you for the reply – I do appreciate it as you are quite likely a busy man replying to many comments.
It was not my intent to infer your view that “just say no” means the same as Choice. I do believe that Nancy helped countless people avoid even having to make a choice.
I’m still not convinced that using drugs is simply a “choice” – rather, in many cases, an active addict reaches out for someone to “help” them make a better “choice” than continue to use drugs. Does that make sense?
Regards,
Hi David – When you say the phrase “simply a choice” that brings me back to my Coke vs Pepsi example. In other words, I’m not saying it’s a minor superficial matter on which a snap decision should/could be made. I have said it can be a complex choice – you know, unpacking the beliefs that make continued heavy substance use appear more attractive than less/no substance use, and all. Now maybe I’m misreading you, idk. If so, why don’t you elaborate a bit on what you mean by “simply a choice.”
As I said, getting a divorce is a choice. Do you seek out help in how to wrap your mind around making that choice? I’m sure most people who make it do – if not from a professional, then from a trusted friend or relative. Whether to buy a home or not; how to invest your money; what career path to take – these are all choices, and things for which people seek help in deciding on. Does seeking the help make these issues any less of a choice? If you seek help, and then act on the advice you received, does that mean you didn’t choose?
I don’t think that help-seeking somehow proves that the issue over which you sought help is not a choice. Yet that’s what you seem to imply when you say this:
If that’s not what you mean, then please, tell me what you’re trying to get at with this.
-Steven
Hi Steven,
What I’m suggesting reflects what I see, listen to, and observe here in Vancouver’s East Side each and every day from severely addicted addicts. I agree that, “If you seek help, and then act on the advice you received, does that mean you didn’t choose?” However, this action to “choose” is not making a choice to use or not to use, it is a “choice” to seek help from someone to help you make a choice due to the addict being irrational, perhaps paranoid or in psychosis – and not having the ‘mental capacity’ to form intend, and/or make a choice.
I’m not arguing that, as an addict, we don’t make choices – rather, I do believe we make choices almost every waking hour of our lives. If we say that choice revolves around making a choice to use drugs versus making a choice to have healthy relationships, going to movies with friends, or any other fun stuff (better things to do than drugs) that is enjoyable to most people, perhaps society and communities should provide the resources for active addicts to do so.
Although I have traveled to Europe, Latin America, and the United States on many occasions – witnessing first hand the horrors of addiction, these places don’t even come close to what we have in Vancouver’s East Side. Most of the active addicts here do not have a choice to live in housing, (they live in shelters or on the streets)… there is NO housing available for them to live in. We live in a temperate rain forest area where it rains many days. Addicts are huddled under raggedy umbrellas up against sidewalk walls, in cardboard boxes, or under bus benches. I’m not talking about just a few, there are hundreds or thousands in a ten block area.
It’s real ugly down here. The jails are full, the courts are full… not enough social workers to answer calls for help even though 360 million is spent each year. Bodies lay on cold tables, waiting for autopsies. Despite being mandated to monitor children who live in the East Side, some government social workers fear for their own safety, refusing to enter some areas. Mental illness is rampant. Here’s a quote from Larry Campbell, former Senator and mayor of Vancouver after two major mental institutions were closed:
“When we deinstitutionalized, we promised [mentally ill] people that we would put them into the community and give them the support they needed. But we lied. I think it’s one of the worst things we ever did.” – Senator Larry Campbell, former mayor of Vancouver.
According to the Vancouver Police Department in 2008, up to 500 of these individuals were “chronically mentally ill” with disabling addictions, extreme behaviours, and no permanent housing.
One 2013 study of ‘Single Room Occupancy’ tenants in the Vancouver’s East Side found that 95.2% had some form of substance dependence and 74.4% had a mental illness, including 47.4% with psychosis. Only one third of individuals with psychosis were receiving treatment, and among those with concurrent addiction, the proportion receiving treatment was even lower. Even more alarming is the rise in meth use, which often causes permanent psychosis in chronic users.
And this was in 2008, it is much, much worse today.
On Thursday, April 14, 2016, BC’s provincial health officer declared a public health emergency in response to the rising epidemic. This unprecedented declaration usually reserved for contagious disease outbreaks, was a first in Canada.
British Columbia has the highest rates of new HIV cases, with a whopping 80,000. In Vancouver’s East Side, over 70% of residents living in Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units were infested. Recent surveys report that 68-73% of street youth in Vancouver have used crystal methamphetamine at least once, many wandering around in toxic, drug-induced psychosis, including hallucinations, delusions and paranoia. In one study, 478 street youth in Vancouver were interviewed and 94% reported it was easy to find the meth on Vancouver streets. In an April 2004 report, 241 youth were enrolled in a study with 110 (46%) testing positive for baseline HCV. More alarming were the 25 (10%) who tested positive for the HIV virus.
Most of the people in the East Side don’t have a choice to live elsewhere, but I do agree with you, Steven, that many do have a choice whether to use or not to use drugs. This choice may be much easier to make IF our Premier get’s re-elected and comes through with her promises for more affordable housing and 500 more beds for detox and addiction treatment… whatever that “treatment” may be to help addicts get off the street and out of the toxic environment they live in every waking hour.
I try to help as many as I can on a daily basis, and it’s heartbreaking… sad, and disturbing to see, feel, and observe.
Have a good evening, Steven…
This is utter nonsense. What about the MRI that support this being a disease? Show a man 2 years sober an act of doing the consumption of drugs and the lite up like christmas trees, expecially in the mid brain. By that note, paws and other post acute symptoms does not exist. Sometimes even years after when a patient first enters sobriety, MRI is normal… but when you show an addict their drug of choice, there is a sudden burst of activity on the mid brain the the frontal cortex with sudden symptoms of withdrawal or even a rush of endorphins followed by a short period in which it turns into a current users brain physically. I believe that you can choose to stop, it’s presenting the right circumstances that do this for long term sobriety. In internal medicine, we test for and treat the affected organ, not the symptoms and that is how we make medicine for treatment. This practice has not been implemented for years and it doubled lifespan overnight.
Next time you “read” something, you might want to pay attention to the words that are written, like these:
I too would like to know where the gap in his logic is.
I see a gap in yours, though…yes, sometimes “diabetes or cancer can develop as a result of one’s unhealthy choices” but can never be cured through will-power, or simply changing your thinking and daily behaviors like addiction can. Disease is a physiological thing in itself whereas addiction is a psychological thing which can sometimes have physiological effects. Put an addict on an island, far away from their drug and with time, the addiction will probably diminish. Put a cancer patient on an island far away from the toxins which caused their cancer and they will still have cancer, and in time, they will probably die.
Micaella has hit the nail on the head. Admittedly some addicts have damaged their brains so badly that their decision making is diminished so far beyond many others, but addiction is in no way, shape, form or size a brain disease. It’s just simply untrue, unscientific and it offers addicts an excuse to keep doing what they are doing because addicts are largely selfish.
Sure…..a super unpopular belief for some, but we are seeing more and more as we advance scientifically that this is the case. I actually feel like those who choose to drink against their better judgement insult people who have genuine diseases when they make such idiotic claims to be powerless and diseased beyond their control. This whole disease or “alcohol gene” bollox has been bred into people’s unconscious from such an early age that those who subscribe to it genuine believe it’s true. That’s the problem! I don’t think people who subscribe to it are trying to be arseholes. They absolutely, 100% believe in something completely flawed and dangerous as the brain disease model.
And here is the bottom line; the reason it is so hard for addicts or those effected by addicts to accept that an addict can choose not to put a substance into their bodies (as hard a decision as that might be) is because it opens up a massive can of worms with major questions that have potentially hurtful answers. If after 20 years of being abused by an alcoholic Father or Mother I finally accept that they chose alcohol knowing full well that my life was being ruined as a result, I then have to face asking the question “Why?!” “Was I not worth shit to them?” “Was alcohol more attractive to them than me?” “Was being my Father or Mother a less attractive choice than alcohol”? These are really fucked up questions folks and they are bloody hard to have to deal with.
It’s immeasurably easier to just put it down to a powerless disease that they were totally out of control as a result of. It gets them off the hook and I don’t have the start asking any more tender questions about my value as a human being.
Your right .. it just floors me to see generational abuse of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs … but generational curses can be broken .. they can also be abandonememt, sexual promiscuity, infidelity ..liars, homos, crossdressers, beastiality and pediofila and the list goes on .. so when ever something is not meeting expectation it is a disease .. people make choices and they do not want to be accountable for them so to label it a disease it shows them helpless ..we are all diseased then just like the Bible says we all need the redeemer .. God is in control and can teach us to live and be reborn and free from much of the problems people suffer from 🙀
Wonderful thoughts Micaella!
I especially love this: Disease is a physiological thing in itself whereas addiction is a psychological thing which can sometimes have physiological effects.
That’s so clear and concise.
Best,
Steven
I stumbled upon this site after a simple google search. Steven, you have fantastic info. IrishAido, you are so right-on. I was searching for support/evidence of my long-held beliefs in response to a friend’s about the drug death today of their friend’s son. My friend posted about ‘the disease,’ etc etc, You have written really important stuff, and I believe we all need to empower addicts, to believe in them by not adhering to the ‘forever-diseased’ model of addiction. Thank you for all you are doing.
Addicts are also never cured. They will always be addicts. They will either be in active addiction or in recovery. Recovery is not cured. Addiction is a brain disease. If you smoke you may get Cancer. If you don’t eat right and exercise you may get diabetes. If you take opiate pain pills because of an injury you may become an addict. There is no difference between any of these. In truth, it should not matter how or why someone is suffering. What should matter is, they are human and they deserve the same help. It sickens me to think that anyone would judge someone and make them feel like they were not worthy of help because of a choice they made. When you don’t know all the circumstances as to how a person got where they are today. Instead of pretending to be knowledgable about what is a disease and what is not, educate youself on being kind. Educate yourself of finding a solution. Educate yourself on how to help people’s children outlive their parents. Educate yourself on how to help parents of small children live a sober life so they can raise happy healthy children so their parents don’t have to. Educated yourself on how to spread the word to 5th graders before they go into middle school that experimenting with drugs or alcohol could be deadly like cancer. Educate yourself on how sometimes just being kind to someone with a brain disease could change the way they view themselves. Being kind is free. Holding the door for an addict hurts no less the holding the door for a person with cancer.
Remember Michael writes: “Addicts are also never cured. They will always be addicts. They will either be in active addiction or in recovery.”
Sheesh, it doesn’t get any more ignorant than this ridiculous [childish] statement from Remember Michael!
Addicts are not powerless. Addicts do not have a brain disease. Addicts are not condemned to use by their genetic makeup. Addicts are not spiritually deficient. The sooner you juvenile 12 steppers realize this, the sooner you’ll be able to give real help to those who suffer from addiction.
your way of thinking that an addict can be totally cured is how someone who was clean 5 years uses and dies. really smart to tell someone with a substance abuse issue that they can be FULLY cured. they always will be addicts and will always fight the urge telling them otherwise could kill them. So congrats I wonder how many peoples lives are on your hands you scumbag
Addiction is a disease! People compare it to cancer alot of times but heart disease is the better comparison. Ok first of all lets look at heart disease. Heart disease is caused by poor choices ( bad diets, lack of excercising, etc.) and people who have heart disease are alot of times predisposed to it, which means it runs in their family. Now lets look at addiction. Yes poor choices play a role in addiction just like they do with heart disease, but genetics plays a much larger role then people think when it comes to addiction. People who have a relative that suffers from a substance use disorder are 4 TIMES more likely to suffer from the disease then the general population. So if you dont want to call addiction a disease maybe we should stop calling heart disease a disease. The fact is people dont want to call addiction a disease because of the stigma it has. Fortunately science tells us something different
Addiction is a disease! People compare it to cancer alot of times but heart disease is the better comparison. Ok first of all lets look at heart disease. Heart disease is caused by poor choices ( bad diets, lack of excercising, etc.) and people who have heart disease are alot of times predisposed to it, which means it runs in their family. Now lets look at addiction. Yes poor choices play a role in addiction just like they do with heart disease, but genetics plays a much larger role then people think when it comes to addiction. People who have a relative that suffers from a substance use disorder are 4 TIMES more likely to suffer from the disease then the general population. So if you dont want to call addiction a disease maybe we should stop calling heart disease a disease. The fact is people dont want to call addiction a disease because of the stigma it has. Fortunately science tells us something different. Putting an addict 9n an island wont cure the disease, there is no cure, its a chronic disease. The symptoms might go away, but without treatment that person will relapse as soon as they are put around a substance.
Prove it Derek. Prove that a person who is RECOVERED from use of an addictive substance MUST “relapse” because they get “put around it”, or the substance (which has no damned choice in who it gets ingested into, or HOW!) gets put around a person! When a person gets to CHOOSE a substance, and its method of ingestion, and the quantity they ingest to get a SPECIFIC DESIRED EFFECT, please tell me HOW ANY DRUG has a choice in the matter. Please cite an example of HOW a drug FORCED ITS WAY into a human being, or a human being was FORCED to ingest a drug. Compare that to REAL MEDICAL DISEASES that human beings DO. NOT. GET. TO. PICK! Ask someone with cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, Parkinson’s, or any medical condition an MD diagnoses, if the INDIVIDUAL gets to PICK. THAT. CONDITION. After the sufferers of that slap you silly, you might get it. Addiction is a CHOICE! Hence the term, “drug of CHOICE”! Individuals CHOOSE THE DRUG, not the other way around.
You are indeed correct. Some people think they can read some books and use a couple of studies conducted with the sole purpose of disclaiming addiction and conclude that they know everything there is to know..Too many losers out there like this. The reason addiction isn’t treated like the other conditions you mentioned is because stuff like this guy would have to admit they were wrong and society in general likes using the bad stigma of drug addiction as justification to be assholes to addicts.
Copying and pasting this comment to reply to you yet again, because really, you aren’t worth much more time than that, but you need to be put in your place:
Honestly – did you read anything on this page other than the title before you decided to chime in with an ignorant comment? I mean did you read anything???
I really don’t welcome comments from people who haven’t read what’s here or made any attempt to understand it. If you want to have random arguments about addiction and angrily spout off, do it elsewhere please.
-Steven Slate, the author of this article, and FORMER “ADDICT”
Kicking the 12-Step Habit
It is common for people who have remained sober for a year or two, to begin to wonder why they are continuing to attend various groups and meetings. It’s a good question. While some people may need, or prefer, to continue their participation, others can safely occupy themselves with other activities. The question is, which are you?
The answer is easy, though the change process may not be. Generally, those who can kick the 12 Step Habit are those who have something other than alcohol to build their lives around. As obvious as that may sound to many of you, it isn’t a given.
There are good reasons why 12 Step programs work for a small minority of alcohol abusers. The primary one is that they insist that you maintain your alcohol focused life. This allows you to continue drinking, for example, while pleading that you are “powerless” over your “disease.” That’s probably the primary attraction to these programs – you’re excused from either changing or assuming responsibility for your behavior.
Even if you do stop drinking you do so without upsetting the balance in your life. Roles may shift – bartenders become transformed into sponsors, for example, and drinking buddies into AA pals – but you, and alcohol, remain the focal point of your life and you can continue to escape other problems through your continuing focus on “working your program.”
Family members and employers may no longer complain about your absences and you, along with the rest of us, are safer on the roads and highways, but little else has changed in any meaningful way.
That brings us back to the question of you giving up your 12 Step affiliation. Is it possible? Is it desirable? Is it smart?
You will, of course, have to make that decision for yourself. The risks of giving up your routine are that you will slip back into your old drinking habits. The problem with any change is that we tend to create vacuums when we fail to replace old habits with better ones. Your 12 Step habit is less destructive than your drinking behaviors and the key to ending your 12 Step dependence is to replace it with productive and rewarding activities. If you do that then there is little risk of you relapsing to either drinking or endless recovery.
****Successful =>CHANGE<= is a product of consideration, research, planning, and action.**** You probably found that moving from a “drinking focused life” to a “talking about drinking focused life” was not as big a change as you expected. But removing the alcohol entirely as your central focus will be a considerably bigger adjustment. This shift will create a major void which you would be well advised to fill gradually as you wean yourself away from the routines which have gotten you through the past months or years. This is not a time for abrupt departures from current habits.
As you begin to move towards other activities you can expect to encounter opposition. Family members who had an investment in your drinking and later in your recovery may resist yet another change – especially one that threatens the status quo that 12 Step “recovery” generally supports. Your meeting buddies will, if they notice at all, feel threatened by a possibility – that you needn’t be recovering forever – they have been comfortable ignoring or rejecting.
You can minimize these reactions by moving gradually. Instead of going to three meetings a week, try substituting a visit to the gym for one. You’re easing out, not dropping out, and you are substituting one healthy activity for an unhealthy. As you become more comfortable with your new involvements so will those around you. This is real change, not merely the substitution of one alcohol based activity for another.
Real recovery means extinguishing a set of behaviors and developing a more rewarding life. It’s the best insurance you can get against a return to the bad old days. Yes, you will be tempted occasionally, but having a life which has no room for alcohol is the best way to keep it locked out.
God’s word says after you clean the house make sure your not off guard because the demons will return with many of their friends ..keeping the house clean is not easy we must fill the house with worthy things to replace the evil hurtful ones. Your right .. it just floors me to see generational abuse of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs … but generational curses can be broken .. they can also be abandonememt, sexual promiscuity, infidelity ..liars, homos, crossdressers, beastiality and pediofila and the list goes on .. so when ever something is not meeting expectation it is a disease .. people make choices and they do not want to be accountable for them so to label it a disease it shows them helpless ..we are all diseased then just like the Bible says we all need the redeemer .. God is in control and can teach us to live and be reborn and free from much of the problems people suffer from 🙀
@BB
Ah come off it….some of these comments have descended into totally unrelated post-bashing. The last thing we need is an opinion not only unrelated to the blog, but about God, demons, curses and ghouls. Let’s keep things scientific hey?
That’s why you have problems to recognize good from evil one must take a spiritual stance ……but not all spirits are good that’s why those that Trust and believe God have confidence to pick right from wrong ……if you don’t know God you can’t serve HIM, YOU DONT KNOW HOW to identity the hokuspokus from the real HOLY SPIRIT … as far as academia the biggest mistake made WAS that they veered from GOD’S INSTRUCTIONS ……all the addiction crap is nothing new under the sun
papamick1956 you still didn’t read the report. You make a lot of comments and dance around the subject. As I stated before, I have never claimed addiction was a brain disease. I wrote That if I treat it as a disease I get better. I am responsible, and I was not coddled by anyone in my 12 step program which is not AA. The fact that it is or is not a brain disease is an outside issue in the fellowship and with me. I didn’t write that I was right and Steven and his blog are wrong nor do I have the credentials to say whether he is right or wrong. But then again, either do you or Steven for that matter have the credentials to disprove anything on either end of the spectrum. You being hell bent to be right and malicious attacks on others tells me that you are miserable, first with AA and possibly what alcohol took from your life. I looked at your tweeter account and you’re pissed off at everything and everybody. There is no reasoning with someone like yourself. I happen to have been a member of my fellowship probably longer than you’ve quit drinking. I have many men that I help guide through the 12 steps and many are still clean and for many years. So save your ranting and your windbag responses for someone else. You do not intimidate may nor impress me. Save all your ranting for your tweeter account. Stop being such an angry little man and grow up.
Malachi
My intention was neither to impress nor to intimidate but rather to repudiate childish and destructive nonsense that’s detrimental to folks who suffer from substance abuse. For you to use the term “terrorist cohort” means that you A R E intimidated, impressed and terribly misguided.
But really, nobody cares whether you’re impressed or not. It’s not about YOU. You are only a legend in your own mind and perhaps in the minds of the poor vulnerable youngsters and new comers that you browbeat and bully as you “guide them through the 12 steps.”
Just wondering, is your group their god or are YOU their higher power? [LOL] Your self-aggrandizing bombastic rants are typical of a fearful, deceitful narcissistic 12 step cry baby.
You contradict yourself repeatedly and disprove your own proposition all while foolishly claiming that you have no real convictions. In post after post you vehemently defend the conclusion of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s report that Addiction Is a Chronic Brain Disease and you castigate readers who do not agree with that conclusion.
Malachi says
April 3, 2017 at 1:32 AM
The news is in folks! It’s to bad that you won’t read it.
https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/surgeon-generals-report.pdf
Then you moronically refute the report’s conclusion and contradict yourself by writing:
“As I stated before, I have never claimed addiction was a brain disease. The concept that it is a disease is an outside issue in my book. If I treat addiction as a disease I get better and so do many others.”
Sheesh, Malachi: Did Y O U even read that report. It doesn’t seem like you did. Does the report indicate that you can …. kinda-like, maybe, sorta-like pretend addiction is a disease?
Nevertheless, you are practicing deception, Malachi. You’re telling new comers that they have a brain disease when [according to you] you don’t really believe it. That’s far from the “RIGOROUS HONESTY” demanded of you by your 12 step occult religious doctrines. Perhaps you are indeed “ naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty.”
Unbeknownst to your small mind, you’re actually making Steven’s point for him. According to your comments, you and your 12 step bunny rabbit sponsorees CHOOSE to “PRETEND” that addiction is a disease because it helps you to get better. So why the adamant insistence that readers use the Surgeon General’s report as Gospel? As long as you’re “pretending” you might as well ask the March Hare and the Mad Hatter to weigh in on the issue too.
P.S. Thanks for the advertisement regarding my Twitter page. Come one, come all!
Interesting. I provided someone else’s document and asked for CURRENT EVENTS To uphold your view. Nothing more nothing less. What I chose to do with my recovery is my business and what you chose to do with your’s is your business. You continuously claim you don’t believe it’s a disease, yet identify as an alcoholic or ex alcoholic. You can’t identify with that title, because you do not agree with the brain disease concept. I believe that’s contradiction. As far as bullying and brow beating? That would be what you do. Anyone that doesn’t agree with you is attacked by you. Hence the terrorist title. For someone that despises AA you sure do quote and refer to their literature quite a bit. And the fact that this blog is a .org site means it takes contributions. Possibly to pay board members. Possibly you might be one. At any rate, I am done here. Make all the remarks you wish. I don’t want to be right, I want to be happy. January 1 1979 is my clean date thanks to the 12 step concept, which by the way was written from the spiritual principles of the bible. I’m sure you’ll have a mouthful about that as well. Haha. Happy, Joyous and Free is where I am today.
P.S. You have yet to provide credentials that will make your comments credible. That’s between you and your God.
Malachi
It’s exhausting to contend with your arrogant, sophomoric stupidity. Recklessly throwing around the word “terrorist” without knowing the wider significance of doing so is just one example of your juvenile mentality and myopic perspective.
Here’s another example:
“You can’t identify with that title(ex-alcoholic), because you do not agree with the brain disease concept. I believe that’s contradiction.
Now that, Malachi, is what one calls circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. It’s flawed logic.
I will, however, offer these words of encouragement to all who suffer from addiction-including the family and friends of the troubled individual. People who are temporarily addicted to substances are not predestined to a lifetime of struggle with those substances. They are not “addicts from birth to death.” They ARE NOT powerless. They DO NOT have a brain disease. They ARE NOT spiritually deficient. They ARE self-empowered, capable human beings. And they don’t need 12 steps to realize this.
People are freely choosing to use substances because they prefer it. They can and will change their substance use when they come to prefer it less.
All people have the natural right, the ability, and the inherent tools to think freely and to exercise those thoughts through free will and free choice, from birth to death and that at any and every given instant in time a single drive motivates every human being: the pursuit of happiness.
It is vital to understand this fundamental and unchangeable law of human motivation if you are to learn how to effectively change your life for the better.
I am not attempting to jump into this conversation between you and another poster in an effort to “take sides” or say that “he’s right/he’s wrong” simply I have a bone to pick with the particular quote related to the topic at hand and since I haven’t received a rebuttal or reply from the content creator as of yet (I suspect he is quite busy), I would like to also get your thoughts on this perspective:
“People are freely choosing to use substances because they prefer it. They can and will change their substance use when they come to prefer it less.”
While generally true, certainly addicts exist that have, through their addictive behaviors, changed their brain structure/brain chemistry and/or operating state of consciousness to a point where the ability to make conscious, objective decisions towards “preference” is practically diminished to the point of nonexistence – as such, as such cases exist, your quote certainly ceases to be absolutely true (yet could be said to be true generally.) In other words, “choosing to quit” is simply not a “concept” that “exists” in their objective reality.
There may be other cases where the “preference” to quit is not so “black and white” which I am sure you may have the capacity to imagine. (David Love also writes beautifully about this in the comment section)
Would this be considered to be a “disease” or does the semantics not really matter a whole lot at this point? These people, in my mind, need help from someone outside themselves – no process or procedure inherent to the individual at that point will be sufficient to halt inevitable permanent damage rendering themselves incapable of being contributing members of society, re-gaining that ability to “prefer it less,” or indeed preventing probable death as a result of their “affliction.” What say you?
Evan
Are we quibbling over mere word choice, though — synaptic semantics?
No, because how we see addiction is critical to how we treat it. I’m not suggesting telling addicts, “It’s all in your head. Get over it.” But I view the mushrooming of rehab centers with unease: If these businesses actually succeeded in “curing” everybody, they’d have to shut down.
Calling addiction a disease is meant in part to emphasize the seriousness of being in thrall to drugs or alcohol, to elevate it to the level of a noble battle with cancer.
To reject the disease label is not to demote addiction, nor is it to diminish sympathy for the addict’s plight.
The severe consequences of addiction don’t make it a disease, any more than the severe consequences of violence make violence a disease, or the severe consequences of racism make racism a disease, or the folly of loving thy neighbor’s wife makes infidelity a disease. What they make it is a very bad habit.
The disease nomenclature, partially absorbed into the 12 step mainstream, has alienated more members than it’s helped.
Well, it would appear that we do not necessarily try to “rehabilitate” those who repeatedly perpetrate acts of violence (institutionally anyway), and therefore it would appear our prison population continues to grow and grow and grow, and seems to lead inmates not on the road to reintegration into society but to become repeat offenders. So in that way it it appears to me that we have had much more success than not in semantically branding addiction “disease” and therefore bringing forward into the realm of possibility that “treatment” is not only possible but desirable by a society. After all, we could go back to 1933 where the only place to get “help” with such a thing (addiction) would be an insane asylum. It appears to me various [treatment] programs borne out of the idea that we can “treat” a “disease” have definitely been progress. Now if only we could “treat” our inmates instead of merely locking them away…
Steve, what are your scientific credentials? How much neuroscience have you studied exactly?
If this is true, then why is it that so many recovered Addicts and alcoholics, who have years of sobriety, changed behaviour, emotional growth decide they can have one drink, then they are right back in the thick of it, not long after?
I mean, if it’s just choice, and we choose to only have a beer, why are we affected by immense cravings, obsessions and compulsions far more quickly and strongly than one who isn’t an addict?
Hahaha …… read the scripture of the Hebrew bible and you will find your answers
Probably because the “relapsing addict” in question, has gone to 12 Step meetings, and been TOLD that they will “be right back to where they were when they quit” (the pre-planted seed of failure!). There is no law that a person MUST return to a level of “pre-relapsing” use, regardless of the drug. Nor is there any “requirement” that that use level must be “exceeded”. The fact that a user of a drug can CHOOSE to re-ingest, proves THEY MADE THE DECISION TO. They also get to decide WHAT LEVEL they decide to return to. Just as they can CHOOSE a different drug, they can CHOOSE the level of ingestion of whatever drug they DECIDE to lapse/relapse on. Drugs DO. NOT. MAKE CHOICES! Ingestors of them do!
My question was not included, and I don’t see why.
Again, if addiction is a freely chosen behaviour/condition, which is the result of prolonged choices until your brain chemistry and behaviour changes and adapts, then why do so many addicts who have recovered, have years of clean time, emotional growth and completely new behaviour and brain chemistry, choose to have just a drink, and almost instantaneously have cravings, compulsion, and obsession for more? By your logic, wouldn’t they have to make a series of prolonged choices, until the brain and behaviour readapts to form addiction, for this to happen?
Why does this compulsion and craving happen instantaneously, or long before the required time for brain chemistry and behaviour to change? Why, when so many only chose to have one drink, with no intention for more?
I believe your theory that it is freely chosen behaviour is an extremely simplistic view. I agree, that addiction could be induced, and that if somebody used for long enough for the brain to adapt and behaviour to change, of course addiction can result.
But, there are those who have no intention of forming addiction, who have not used anything in their past, and no learnt addictive behaviour. However, these people develop almost instant obsession, craving and compulsion for more, long before the required time for brain chemistry and behaviour to adapt.
They already have a pre-disposed tendency for such obsession, compulsion and craving long before they have chosen to bring this on.
So, while it may not show up as a typical brain disease, some have addiction long before it was choice, or a series of choices. These people respond to drugs physiologically and psychologicaly far differently to ‘normal’ people. There behaviour and thought patterns change almost instantly, long before it was choice.
So yes, for most of the population, addiction will be choice. But there are a select group for which it is not choice at all, for which they are predisposed and have the physiological and psychological reaction, well before the required time that behaviour and brain chemistry takes to change.
James wrote “So yes, for most of the population, addiction will be choice. But there are a select group for which it is not choice at all, for which they are predisposed and have the physiological and psychological reaction, well before the required time that behaviour and brain chemistry takes to change.”
You will need to really support this with scientific evidence and controlled studies or it’s just your own observation that a “select” group of people have no choice. How somebody reacts to a drugs and their liking for it is related more to their own tastes, opinions, circumstances, social driving factors etc. I don’t really think that’s what this blog is about. The blog is basically about addiction and brain disease and that there is absolutely no scientific research to support that addiction is a brain disease.
Of course, there will be people with a greater chance of developing stronger addictions. This could be as a result of mental health, social circumstances, nurturing and what have you. The list is very long and they all contribute. We have lots of statistics to support that there are varying factors that increase people’s risk of addiction. That’s the sad part of life because some people are given really shit hands and have a lot of grit to work through. It might be extremely appealing for somebody to choose to get wasted because they are in so much mental / physical pain for example, and the immediate upshot is extremely pleasing to the user. To what degree one feels the pleasure or reward system will vary. It’s why some people love to drink, others prefer cocaine.
But once again, that’s not what this blog is about and I feel that people are straying off the topic because rather than spending the time to actually read the blog, they are scan-reading with a sense of anger, whilst formulating their response.
Sorry James
You’re just a juvenile nitwit. You don’t make any sense at all. It’s time for you to relinquish your security blanket and teddy bear.
Best Regards, [LOL]
Papamick
Steven? This is why you have so many negative comments on your blog. This man has no respect for any one. Self righteous, self centered and self seeking with a blatant disregard for others. Name calling and belittling others. You complain about people not reading your post, yet allow people like this to post? There’s something going on between you two that you allow someone to speak to others in this fashion, Best regards? Who are you trying to impress Steven? Papamick? For Christ sake!
I agree with you. I have lived with addiction yet I have none. I see the pattern. Yes we are pre disposed. Period. Some of can prevent the addiction some of us cannot and it over takes the mind. It would be nice to think it is a choice. Ues it is a disease. Some addictions are food some are alcohol some are drugs every person varies. If you have a choice of a disease now wouldn’t we just all make them disappear. While lots of wordage and medical terms. I do not buy it. Sorry. I have a daughter waiting for a liver transplant. I live it. I raised it I see how it works. Hate it loath it even felt the same way it is a choice not a disease. Well guess what it is. Period…..
I agree 100 percent with you.
Again re read your words and you are so right. I agree with you. Making a point is one thing having a perspective on something you feel is another but name calling like the two people on here is immature and unnecessary. I have 0 tolerance.
The Science is in on this now, guys – even the mental health profession has stated that the ‘Chemical Unbalance Theory’ is disproved.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/12/psychiatrists-under-fire-mental-health?CMP=share_btn_fb
It may be hard for some to hear, but it should only be hopeful. It is within control.
2013? You’re a bit behind Lol
https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/surgeon-generals-report.pdf
November 2016.
There’s nothing new there. If there is something in there that disproves the arguments in this article, please point me to it. It is 400 pages of recycled crap after all, so just posting the link again isn’t good enough, and doesn’t prove anything.
NA in 135 countries. Helping millions of addicts across the globe. I don’t see how the decision to whether it’s a brain disorder or disease is helping people in active addiction. The 12 steps help millions without arguing over disease or not. I’ve been coming back trying to make a point and it falls on deaf ears. Most of my posts are not even posted any longer. That’s okay. But, Papamick continually bad mouths and bullies anybody that has an opinion. Steven, you put up these site and that’s good for those who believe in what you’re saying. I get it. But to allow comments against people with negative, spiteful, and hurtful comments? That’s on you. Your information is not current. Post things that are current and meaningful. Not to say that your information isn’t meaningful. Just update your site. I have never claimed addiction to be un-treatable, I have said it is a disease. When obsession and compulsion show up in all areas of my life, what would you call? A choice? A way to have meds to take to get better? Having gone through psychiatry, churches, MD’s to find help there was not any. I tried stopping over the course of 46 yrs unsuccessfully. You might be right. Show me in updated material on your site and updated links, because I want to help as many addicts as I can to find a way out. Speaking from a podium doesn’t save lives. I found a way through 12 step programs. I thought you were here to help not judge? What ever works for one may not work for others. Let’s see if you post this. Because if you don’t and continue allowing papamick to name call and pass judgement and behave as if holier than thou? There’s a problem with this site and the message of recovery. And you don’t belong in the therapeutic community. Especially condoning self righteous people like papamick. One ugly, angry man.
Howard – grow up. I told you before there are multiple pages of comments on this page, and so your older comments are on other pages that you can click to at the bottom of the comments. I haven’t erased any of your comments, even though I probably should. So stop accusing me of that.
Also, I don’t approve every comment right away. I have a life, and can’t tend to this site 24/7. If you comment again from the same device, ip address, and email address, your comments won’t need to await my approval once I’ve approved one. But as soon as you comment from different devices, ip addresses, and emails from which I haven’t already approved comments, then those comments will be held automatically awaiting approval from me. This is a spam protection measure.
If you don’t care to argue about the brain disease model of addiction, then frankly – why the hell are you here? Seriously? Go away if you don’t care about the brain disease debate BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THIS PAGE AND MUCH OF THIS SITE IS ABOUT.
Post things that are current and meaningful? HOW ABOUT YOU DO THAT. You haven’t once lodged any substantial counterargument to the actual content of this article that you continuously comment on, and yet you have the nuts to tell me to update it? How about you tell me what needs updating? Obviously, you are well aware of everything that is wrong and out of date here??? SO TELL ME – stop making vague criticisms and lodge a meaningful response or just shut up. You’re just spouting nonsense.
Wow! That is very professional. I just semi agreed to review your concept and ask for updated material and you freak out? Cool. I have supplied current material and supplied the link to it. I never saw the post? Nor did you or Mr. Charming once comment on it. So, I will supply the same document, which is peer reviewed and done so by credible sources Steven. I asked nicely for current material that supports your point. If they make sense and are peer reviewed then I can change my mind. I just won’t do it with material that’s 10 years old or even 5 years old. That’s all. If the truth hurts then I apologize. My intentions are to find a way to help addicts. By simply saying “I quit!” isn’t a professional or even logical answer. i’m sure PapaMick will comment on this post, but won’t read the material on the link I provide. I thought there were people who are open minded to change on this Blog. Maybe, I shouldn’t continue to research your theory if hostilities are your way of dealing with Bloggers on your site? By the way I email from the same computer every time,so IP address has never changed nor has my email. The document was published in 2016. Read it and then show me scientific facts that are just as current disputing this report, who by the way are a majority oh psychiatrists and scientists, not MD’s
https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/surgeon-generals-report.pdf
Hey Howard, how does one ” semi agree ” either you agree or you don’t . Maybe you’re semi addicted ? How about this method……sticks and stones will break my bones….Oh, that’s more than 5 years old. Get over it …
Thank you
Those are some serious words Steven. I noticed that this person did post some credible and current material that you never responded to? Is there a reason why? Let me be of service. Here is the document. Maybe, there is a lesson to be learned here? I think your material is great! Five years ago. Is it Dr. Slate? I just want to make sure I address you by a title if you worked very hard for it.
https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/surgeon-generals-report.pdf
I’m familiar with the Surgeon General’s report. Please point me to some new experimental data within it that establishes a causal link between neural adaptations and further substance use. That is, show me where it proves that “addicts” aren’t choosing.
Or, are you just holding it up as an appeal to authority? Because these sorts of things keep coming out literally every year from different organizations, and they’ve never done anything more than assert that addiction is a disease with neural innuendo.
Howard wrote: “papamick. One ugly, angry man” ….. Oh my goodness, Howard. I understand. Your sanctimonious 12 step feelings are hurt. Poor baby. The truth hurts sometimes though. But, contrary to your characterization, I am told I am charming and debonair, happy–go–lucky and light-hearted. Not to mention elegant and good looking.
Let me remind you what your Gospel says about the unbridled emotions you just dispalyed:
“Instincts on rampage balk at investigation.” 12&12 Step Four, p.44
If have all these great principles? Why do you verbally attack everyone that does not agree with you? You have passed judgement called me names and mocked me since I first posted here. I have yet to read that you are open minded to anyway to keep people from dying. Just by saying “I Quit” isn’t a logical answer. What ever worked for you might not work for someone else. Your constant verbal abuse just shows how ignorant you truley are to addiction. That’s all. I’m sure you’ll have something really nice to reply with Lol.
https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/surgeon-generals-report.pdf
quit your rambling and read.
That’s your truth PapaMick. You have no idea who I am. Keep your trash talking to yourself and read the document provided.
AA is far removed from the true scriptures they started with which is too bad . Deep study into God’s ways really should help many .. as far as my little recollection is more people who devoted their lives totally to GOD, the one christians and Jews know the God of Israel, those people learn the consequences of choices .. I read the RAT PARK ARTICLE and must say those that can’t find bliss are lost … GOD can help them find bliss and joy in the Lord .. he too seems to want to blame someone for the addicts lack of bliss ……therefore they want to get artificially by drugs ……well bliss is a gift of God devote, humble yourself and repent and the joy will flow the choices will be better .. sobermindedness will prevail ……they will hunger for more just like kids hunger for instructions. God’s children that accept truth will be provided more of it ……
Have you ever thought that it just might be this god’s “will” that drug and alcohol addicts SHOULD BE SUCH? So that us sober folk have someone to laugh at, look down upon, and judge harshly? How do you know that this “god” thing you speak of, believe in, worship, and otherwise “acknowledge” does not want you to be sober? The flip side to this, is you could GROW THE FUCK UP, take responsibility for YOUR. OWN. ACTIONS, and live like a rational person, as use sober people do.
@Howard
Honestly Howard, you are just as bad as the people you are bashing. You can’t get on PapaMick’s case when you’re doing precisely the same thing, but merely putting a different spin on it. Sure….he’s running his mouth off, but having been following this blog since last year I can clearly see just how utterly frustrating it is to try and explain reason into those who have been part of 12 step programs for decades. It inevitably leads to frustration. A.A are not only responsible for prolonging an abysmal cult-like system of recovery that is statistically ineffective, but by their very existence they are solely responsible for the pigeon holing and labelling that comes with being someone who “used to” use something too much. Alcohol must be one of the only drugs in the world where you are given the label “diseased” once you stop taking it, and it all comes from A.A defining and prolonging the term ‘alcoholic’. Somebody who used to be 350 lbs who is now down to an healthy weight and BMI doesn’t introduce themselves as an ex-fatty, or a recovery fat-bastard do they? Not at all. Why would they? They’ve made changes to their choices and they have embraced an entirely new life, but you lot just won’t allow people to do that. It’s like your riddled with a loathing, seething contempt for anybody who once upon a time drank who can now, self sufficiently not drink and not need to go to meetings and talk about their alcohol fantasies.
Anyways, I’m going way off the point here. Admittedly I’ve been lured into this circular bullshit. What’s the deal with everyone here? Why does it have to be ‘My Dad’s bigger than your Dad?’ It’s like you lot have replaced one addiction with another. It’s either A.A meetings or the need to always be right. Here’s the newsflash: none of you have it fully right because we are still learning which is why the blog talks about the scientific relationship between “brain” and “disease” with a view to learning.
IrishAido writes: ” I can clearly see just how utterly frustrating it is to try and explain reason into those who have been part of 12 step programs for decades. It inevitably leads to frustration. ”
Indeed it does !
Bottom Line: Addiction is NOT a Brain Disease, It is a Choice
Recovering addicts/alcoholics are taught by senior 12 step group members that they are powerless to make their own [CHOICES] and to give all credit for their sobriety to God and the 12 step group. They generally oblige, regardless of any other external or internal factors that tend to keep them sober, such as an honest desire and [CHOICE] to be healthy again or the love and support of their families.
12 step groups deny these influences [these CHOICES], and The Big Book even admonishes 12 step devotees to [choose] to put family third after God and the group and to put everything else in life last.
So I ask these questions:
Why would anyone want to [choose] to constantly focus on the misery of a dreary and blighted drug addled past when they have the [CHOICE] to focus on a healthy and positive future? Why would anyone want to [CHOOSE] to spend so much time confessing [sharing] character defects, personality flaws, failures and mistakes and then pretend that they are ‘Portals’ to discovery that lead to spiritual progress?
To an addict’s detriment, [Fake] Brain Disease 12 step programs insist that you maintain your alcohol and/or drug focused life so that you can continue drinking or drugging while pleading that you are “powerless” over your “disease.”
Those who can kick the [fake] brain disease 12 step habit, are those who [CHOOSE] something other than alcohol and/or drugs to build their lives around.
Convincing people that they are lifelong “addicts” without free will [choice] is the best way to PREVENT their recovery. This is what 12 step groups do: convince people that they are powerless, diseased and spiritually deficient.
I agree competely with Steven Slate :
“If you are struggling with a substance use habit, I want you to know that:
1) You are in control and can change (you don’t have a disease or underlying condition that uncontrollably causes you to use substances).
2) You are simply doing what you think you need to do to be happy. Whether you want to portray that as running from pain, or towards pleasure, it still amounts to a pursuit of happiness.
3) You don’t have to be ashamed. More people than you could ever imagine struggle with being fixated on something which they have mixed feelings about. You’re not bad for pursuing happiness, it is natural, and it’s your life, so you need to do what you think you need to do by your own judgment. Shame won’t make you feel better, and it will only block you from finding your happiest options, whatever they are.”
Well, clean the house is a great thing but if the clean house is not filled with good clean things and it is kept empty .. GOD’S WORDS warns us that the demons you kicked out will return and bring 7 or more of their friends .. I stand by this to be true .. you can apply it to all addictions .. change the lifestyle and the GODFIDENCE people get by being devoted has worked for more than any other program ……I have researched the statistics there is no denying the truth about it .. bless u because you agree that it’s all about choice ..
IrishAido I don’t agree with me being as bad as PapaMick. I have tried to explain my position and they refuse to listen. I ask for current scientific material and now I’m not worth the time? It’s because the science they are using is old. Read the Surgeon Generals report. The link is on my comment. Everybody wants to be right and I can only speak of my experience. Just saying I quit doesn’t work for everyone. Provide me with scientific facts and I’ll read them and write reports at the University I attend. But, to get into a pissing match isn’t my intention. Steven has yet to provide current material. I provided one. And now I’m not worth his time and am continuously asked if I read the blog? I did a Masters Thesis and used his blog as one of my sources.Ego is huge on this site. The humility is gone. They know all there is to know and have a closed mind. That’s their choice. But, don’t ask me see your point and then dismiss mine. If your point can be medically and scientifically supported with current material? Then I am open to change. Anything that will help those stuck in addiction. Just because a 12 step program works for me doesn’t mean it works for everybody.
You seem like a fair and open minded individual, Have I ever discounted your posts? Do I call you a juvenile nit wit? Steven gets upset because I have supplied this same report to him before. The post disappeared. I returned to check comments and the post vanished. I have once again furnished the same report and instead of reading it and then making comments Steven makes comments about how it’s not worth his time? Then this blog isn’t here to have discussion, it’s here to either make money or points made by individuals 10 years ago. SHOW ME CURRENT! Have a good day IrishAido
Howard lies and writes: “I did a Masters Thesis and used his blog as one of my sources.”
You have to be at least semi-literate to get into college as a freshman, Howard. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you are doing post graduate work? Your thought processes are sophomoric and incoherent and your writing skills are deplorable. No university would even allow you to attend freshman year without forcing you to take a remedial English class. Doesn’t your NA program say something about “rigorous honesty?”
Sheesh …
Just to prove a point :
November 29, 2016 at 8:21 PM Howard writes:
But that is where you are twisted Mickey. If I go to jail because of my addiction is that not accountability? …….
I have made changes and am now in college. Do you think I would have been able to go to school during active addiction?
I am currently 76% done with an Associates degree thanks to NA
http://www.thecleanslate.org/myths/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease-it-is-a-choice/comment-page-8/#comment-503085
———————————————————————-
March 22, 2017 at 11:02 AM Howard writes:
Steven has yet to provide current material. I provided one. And now I’m not worth his time and am continuously asked if I read the blog?
I did a Masters Thesis and used his blog as one of my sources.
http://www.thecleanslate.org/myths/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease-it-is-a-choice/comment-page-11/#comment-507322
So Howard miraculously [in just under 4 MONTHS ] completed the remaining 24% of his Associate degree, somehow magically received a Bachelor’s degree from a mystical “UNIVERSITY” and has now written a “Masters Degree Thesis.” REMARKABLE–7 years worth of difficult college work completed in just under 4 months. He felt the need to lie and cheat in order to create fake credentials regarding addiction. He did this to fraudulently exagerate his [non-existent] expertise and inflate the importance of his [adolescent] comments by claiming judgement and competance that he doesn’t possess. Pathetic but humorous at the same time.
tee hee hee
Owned
IrishAido
Rigorous Honesty … Hmm….. LOL ….even their slogans directly contradict each other — which furthers the contradictory, paradoxical, and dishonest tendencies of 12-Step culture.
Fun Example : Addiction is The Only Disease That Tells Me That I Don’t Have a Disease …sheesh now THAT is what I call “circular bullshit”
Irish .. You can always message me at https://twitter.com/PapaMick56
Howard? Do yourself a favor and quit. These guys are not going to listen to you, especially after the lies. They are not interested in the truth. While you have provided some facts you have discredited yourself. Be kind to yourself brother. These people can’t make you or break you.
Cathy wrote: “AA and the truth .. has worked for millions upon Millions….”
We often hear this from brainwashed 12 step acolytes. It’s pure nonsense. It’s interesting how Cathy links AA and Truth. LOL. The ‘truth’ definitely helps addicts to recover. 12 step programs rarely do. The truth is that the available evidence strongly suggests that 12 step treatment provides very little or no long-term help for active addicts/alcoholics. Further, there is ample evidence that long-term repeated exposure to these programs is actually dangerous to many addicts/alcoholics who would fare better if left on their own.
There is ZERO scientific evidence that suggests 12 step programs have helped ‘MILLIONS’ of addicts to recover. No published statistics and no studies to corroborate this childish MYTH. But there is a plethora of published scientific evidence in the form of statistics and studies that proves the opposite. 12 step programs do more harm than good. Dystopian 12 step programs are Faith-Based, Not Evidence-Based.
Neither A.A./N.A. etc nor many other SATs [Substance Abuse Treatments] are based on science, nor do they seem interested in doing any scientific studies which might test whether the treatment they give is effective.
Surely we can do better than juvenile 12 step programs. If three-quarters of alcoholics/addicts can stop drinking/drugging on their own with no treatment, we should be looking for ways to help them succeed rather than imposing a treatment that has not been proven effective and that may actually make things worse.
Do some research PapaMick. It’s all over the internet? Go to Google and ask that question. Ask how many countries have NA and where they execute people for going to NA? There is AA and vice versa. Get out of your study and go visit a meeting. lol. You could use one.
Steven,
You are quite rude to others saying they are not worth your comment, why because they don’t agree with you. I have read everything you wrote and the fact is you can’t prove scientifically either that addiction is Not a disease. If it were that easy than I am sure there wouldn’t be many addicts. I am not one, but I sure don’t pass my opinion as facts.
Give me a break with the tone policing. I am responding to those commenters with the same level of courtesy they gave me. It’s not because they disagree, it’s because they haven’t read the article but proceed to express outrage at it. That is completely rude. Not only that, but they directly put me down, order me around as to what I can and cannot say, and generally express non stop rudeness.
As far as “proving” addiction is not disease – the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim. That is how logic works. What if somebody said to you “prove to me you’re not a murderer.” You’d rightly say “prove to me that I am, or screw off.”
The disease model hasn’t been proven. I have shown how the arguments used to support it are faulty.
Good to see the replies .. I must say we make choices all day long from very simple to complex. Do I chose to hang out with folks who are heavy drinkers or users ? Do I read pornagrphy or the bible there is a good one .. Do I chose to read there is no God or God is good look what He has done for me . Do I hide in a corner and cry because u hurt me or do I ho outside and garden ? Do I chose to accept the truth about drugs and alcohol or do I join the crowd that surely denies it ? We have to keep it simple .. Common sense is taught or learned ..the stove is hot the water is cold and so on ., some learn the hard way others never want to learn ..pray for them
By the way, I’m not an addict or a former addict. I am a survivor of being around people who are or were addicts .. I have seen the destruction of addicts. I have come to dislike what causes the addictions due to what I have seen. Even though I could partake in things that take away soberness I chose not to. Can a rat recover if removed from the environment of addictions I would say yes. Is that rat going to always be tempted if back in the old box ……again I would say yes….but that’s were choice comes in … would you go to hell and think you can hang out there without being burned .. no there we go when we are sober we can make good choices and if we have God on our side He will assist us that us what the instruction of God are all about. He uses stories and history at times but other times they are very clear
The news is in folks! It’s to bad that you won’t read it.
https://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/surgeon-generals-report.pdf
There’s nothing new there. If there is something in there that disproves the arguments in this article, please point me to it. It is 400 pages of recycled crap after all, so just posting the link again isn’t good enough, and doesn’t prove anything.
I have never implied that your view was not right Steven. I asked for new studies on your part. Now you flip the script? 400 pages of recycled crap is from doctors and Psychiatrist who have been doing studies for many years. And what have you managed to prove with this blog? That you are right and they are wrong? You have zero credibility. You were an addict? That doesn’t make you the know all of addiction. You make many good points in your blog. It is a choice. I chose to stay clean today. It has been my choice for awhile now. There has been many studies done on both sides and I have no credentials to confirm or dismiss any of them and either do you. I respect your opinion and your appeal to logic. But to refer to a document that has credible people standing behind what they have experimented with for years has to carry some weight. Possibly not with you or your terrorist cohort papamick1956. The concept that it is a disease is an outside issue in my book. If I treat addiction as a disease I get better and so do many others. You had help to break your addiction. You did not do it on your own. Just like those that chose not to use you too chose not to use or drink. When I chose to put mood altering chemicals into my body I can’t seem to stop. It was my initial choice to put those chemicals into my body and if and when the time presents itself I will have to chose to not do that again. When it comes to addiction as a brain disease I personally do not know that answer and neither does anyone posting on this blog. You analysis is just as much crap as the surgeon generals report with all the material you have then if that’s the case. Whether the document is recycled or not it is up to date. You have proven nothing either my friend.
I found this blog because I have been searching to find if anyone could agree with me on the fact that drug addiction is NOT a disease…it is a choice. It is important to detach the word ..disease…from addicts minds…so they can become keenly aware that they in fact have a choice. To say addiction is a disease is the perfect excuse and crutch that addicts use to not make the choice.They have to know they have a choice.
Stephanie – the way you worded your comment was very frightening.
You didn’t say that you wanted to see what the truth was. You didn’t say that you wanted to see what scientists and people much smarter than you have found. You don’t care whether or not your belief is true. You just want to know that you’re not alone in your delusion.
You came up with your conclusion, and then you wanted to find someone that agreed with you. If that person wasn’t a scientist at all, and had no research to back up their claims, that wasn’t a problem. If they shared the same view as you, which is basically “Fuck science, I’m going to believe what I want to believe”, then you feel validated that you’re not the only anti-truth person out there.
It’s really frightening that there are people like you in this world.
Gabriel – it’s frightening how you feel comfortable claiming the mantle of science for your view as if no other scientific opinions exist on this topic. If you’re a dolt who can only respond to appeals to authority then please check the opinions of the many credentialed experts I’ve listed on this page: Addiction is not a disease – Quotes from the experts
You might also like to check this recent commentary from neuroscientist and drug researcher Carl Hart in Nature, where he says, among other things:
Stephanie
You are exactly correct! Addiction is a choice-to say addiction is a disease is the perfect crutch for an addict to avoid accountability for their actions and a convenient excuse for an addict to continue drinking/drugging while pleading [whining] they are powerless over their [fake] disease.
Plainly speaking – the ridiculous proposition that addiction is a brain disease is B U L L S H I T. It’s childish nonsense.
Oh, and Gabriel, come back when you’ve pulled your head out of your ass.
Excellent answer! Now get ready to be attacked by emotionally driven, weak- minded, reality escaping, social fuck ups full of non-accountability……because you know those pesky syringes just attack and inject themselves. My whole argument is just don’t use the word to “disease” to describe an addiction…….. a disease is something you have zero control over. if you get thrown in jail for a couple of years and you have no access to any type of drug, you will be cured while you are in jail. Once you get released, it is YOUR CHOICE, again it is YOUR CHOICE/DECISION/ACTION to pick up the addiction once again. Cancer patients are not given this choice. Do you get it now? Call it weakness- do not call it a disease.
Have You Ever Been Addicted To Drugs or Alcohol? It’s really not nonsense speaking first hand about being physically and mentally addicted to something I know its not as easy as saying “I’m never going to use again”. It gets to a point where your brain physically needs the artificial chemicals you put in your body. Have you ever tried to ride a bike backwards, like where if you turn right it goes left? Well this is a good example of how the brain works and why people can’t get off drugs.. It’s called the “Backwards Bicycle” you tube it.
Once you become addicted to something you have to unlearn a habitat then relearn the normal way of living. Just saying it’s not as easy as your making it sound. If it’s not a disease then why do people drink themselves to death? Why don’t they just stop when they lose there family, money and their souls? Clearly something isn’t right in the head of something like that, so best case scenario its mental health and that can be considered a diseases. There are medications that help with urges and to drink and use.
I’m a addict in recovery and i’ll stick up for any alcoholic or addict. It is a disease and you don’t have to be ashamed you can overcome addiction.
Stephanie, I totally agree with you addiction is a choice. like I said below while the addictc is locked away in jail for several years(and assuming they have no access to any type of drug) they will be cured. Once they get released, it is their choice their decision they’re action whether they want to become an addict again or stay clean. The syringe or pill doesn’t attack the person all by itself. cancer patients do not have a choice on whether they would like to pick up cancer again or get rid of cancer. my whole argument is with the use of the word disease. call it a mental weakness.
so you think even though that person comes out of prison knowing the choice to use will almost certainly be disasterous to them and those around them the fact they still do it isn’t a brain disorder??? you think that’s a healthy brain making that decision??? jail does not cure addiction it just gets an addict past the immediate withdrawals.
I didn’t choose to be an addict but I do have 18 years clean & sober. My boyfriend just died from a heroin overdose. His addiction and my crack addiction were completely different as I am sure alcohol is different type of addiction as well. He tried hard but the craving in his mind would not stop. Its signals a type of desperation in the mind. When your mind says EAT you get hungry and you will stay that way until you eat something. Same with drugs. You have to feed the demon to get it to shut up. It was not anybody’s choice to loose their family or their job or their life. Something happens in us addicts brain. Maybe its not a disease but it acts like one. Cause for some of us we can’t stop when you are able to. Something is different.
We are not “powerless.” In truth, we have power beyond measure…. It is the pleasure of the weak-minded and brainwashed to try to take our power from us. Don’t allow this!
Will power is a term used by the weak minded to pat themselves on the back for quitting something they never should have done in the first place.
William writes: “Will power is a term used by the weak minded to pat themselves on the back for quitting something they never should have done in the first place.”
http://www.thecleanslate.org/myths/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease-it-is-a-choice/comment-page-11/#comment-507937
These are the thoughts and words of a childish, pusillanimous fool. They are senseless. The commenter is obviously a brainwashed [braindead] 12 step acolyte.
To deny that will power exists is to deny that virtue exists. To deny that virtue exists is to deny one’s own humanity.
Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, and habitual perfections of intellect and ‘WILL’ that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason.They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life.
“Will Power” is a human virtue. It’s called fortitude. Fortitude is the ability to persevere in times of trial and tribulation — the ability to hang in there when the going gets tough. It’s courage to do the right thing no matter what the cost. Fortitude [will power] ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life. So of course, WILL POWER is a CRUCIAL ingredient in one’s recovery from substance abuse.
“The achievements of willpower are almost beyond computation.
Scarcely anything seems impossible to the man who can will strongly enough
and long enough.”– Orison Swett Marden
P.S. – IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MAN, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN BRAINWASHED AND REALIZED, OR BELIEVED, THAT HE HAD BEEN BRAINWASHED. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have simply been “shown the light” … or have been transformed in miraculous ways.
I don’t mind being called names. Link as many like minded articles as you wish. I don’t agree with you. And it wouldn’t be such an interesting debate of ‘opinions’ if their weren’t a few ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ thrown in for laughs.
I will simply ask you this in all earnest.. Why does it matter if it is or isn’t actually a disease? Just my humble opinion but in my life experience, the ones who scream the loudest that it’s a choice,, are the ones who need to assign blame, and as you have said,, be held accountable.
Ask yourself this;
instead of worrying why it is or isn’t considered a disease,
ask yourself,,, why do you Need it to be a disease?
An important study led by University of New Mexico psychologist William Miller found that two critical factors predicted relapse for those treated for alcohol/drug problems: “lack of coping skills and belief in the disease model of addiction.”
University of New Mexico Study = http://bit.ly/2dhSLD7
The primary attraction of 12 step programs is that an addict is excused from either changing or assuming responsibility for their behavior. Consequently, they can keep drinking/drugging while pleading ‘powerlessness’ over their fake brain disease. This approach is destructive to progress in REAL recovery and disastrous to the desire to lead a healthy and balanced life.
Addicts are not powerless. Addicts do not have a brain disease. Addicts are not spiritually deficient. Addicts are not condemned to abuse substances by their genetic makeup. The sooner you juvenile 12 steppers realize this, the sooner you’ll be able to [be helped] and to give real help to those who suffer from addiction
well said kat
It’s a disease. This dude is a quack.
The one who wrote this article is a certified idiot. Sorry but you are a complete nimrod.
Nonsense roc and quite disrespectful might I add given the amount of time and effort put into the blog in stark contrast to your wonder-one-liner of insult. I can vouch for it’s truth and I am a recovered (past tense) addict who was caught in a horrible cycle of drinking that went on for so very long.
I can see why people might think that addiction is a disease; I totally can. I’m not posting on here to try and upset readers, or to be unfair. I “get” the confusion between addiction and disease, because cravings that come from moving away from a repeated cycle of addiction can be relentless. It doesn’t surprise me that many throw their hands up in desperation wondering what the heck is wrong with them. It doesn’t surprise me that addicts cannot wrap their minds around how so many other people are not living in this cycle, and so the rational conclusion is that the addict must be somewhat different.
But that does not mean for a second that addiction is a brain disease. The journey out of addiction is one of the toughest things you will do, but that still does not mean it is a brain disease. I can put my hand on my heart and say without the slightest doubt in my mind and getting to a recovered state where drinking alcohol is about as lightly as eating a brick is ALL about choices.
I agree. He’s just angry looking for a fix. Lol
Yeah, his brain isn’t hijacked AT ALL. Lol
Written by someone who has no concept of “the disease of choice.”
This article is dead news. Old and outdated.
I have followed this blog for some time and am surprised not to have come across any mention of “The Sinclair Method” as a clinically proven therapeutic alternative to the various addiction strategies discussed here. The argument whether alcohol/opiate dependency is a choice, a brain-disease, a moral or religious failing or simply a conditioned behavior that some people (and lab rats) appear more adept at learning is quite unproductive. What CLINICALLY works to help those who wish break their dependency is all that matters. For those not familiar with “The Sinclair Method”, I’d recommend either Claudia Christian’s presentation on TED Talks (15 minutes) or Dr. Ray Eskapa’s book, “The Cure For Alcoholism”. Both are excellent. Science is your friend.
A sobering reminder:
The 13th Step is available streaming on AMAZON and VIMEO.
https://youtu.be/jYqFHNfLbm8
“Choice in Recovery is an organization that unites the many pathways to recovery in order to educate professionals in the field, and the public, about the existing options; empowering people to CHOOSE the recovery pathway that works for them.
We are now hosting events in Colorado for professionals in the field. Educating counselors, therapists, probation officers, and students about the many pathways to recovery; empowering professionals, and those entering the field, to run a client-centered practice.”
http://choiceinrecovery.net/
What about the chronic alcoholic who quits and dies from withdrawal? Not saying this proves disease, but ignoring the severe physiological impacts of addiction and just saying “it’s a (by implication, purely mental) choice to quit” seems simplistic. The endless appeals to a mind/brain (body) dichotomy is a dead end. Addiction is a structurally complex, systemic dysfunction involving all kinds of human dimensions inc. mind, body, environment, sociality etc. Just reducing to one factor like “brain disease” or “choice” is missing the target.
Hi Daniel. I read your comment and felt I should give my two-pence on it. I totally agree, there are severe psychological impacts of addition, and of course one’s ability to choose will vary depending on the severity. If you have somebody suffering intense psychosis as a result of coming off alcohol, it’s irrefutable that that person’s ability to make choices will be significantly more difficult than somebody who is a weekend binge drinker and wants to quit because their life is beginning to head into a downward spiral. Perhaps a good idea would be for Stephen to write additional pieces on this that are available within this blog via links? Given the complexities of addiction, it difficult to put every aspect into one single blog which is obviously why the discussion is only about addiction either being, or not being a brain disease.
But you are quite correct; there is way more to this, and I’m pretty sure Stephen has said this on numerous occasions in responses.
50,000 DEAD addicts IN 2015 while 12Steppers enjoyed a $36 Billion Bonanza as they cashed in on families in crisis. Shameful!
https://youtu.be/pmtYHvTgPYs
PLEASE PUT THIS ARTICLE ON “THEFIX.COM” (if they are intelligent enough to allow it!), 12 Step CENSORSHIP is RAMPANT on that site! It needs some balance!
What would also SOLIDIFY the argument of addiction NOT being a “disease” is to state WHAT A “DISEASE” actually is, as defined by MEDICAL SCHOOL COURSES ON “DISEASE”, that gets taught to MEDICAL STUDENTS, wanting to become MEDICAL DOCTORS! Government agency definitions DO. NOT. COUNT. They are too self-centered to use an OBJECTIVE definition that the agency did not come up with to justify its own existence, or “research” using FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS! This “disease” debate can be easily settled-just state the ACTUAL MEDICAL DEFINTION of “disease” that gets taught in ANY accredited medical school in the U.S. Then PROVE how this “addiction” thing MEETS THE CRITERIA for “disease”. Problem solved. Debate over. Somehow the “disease” advocates are unable to do this. I wonder why.
atheisticallyyours88 wow you must know all there is to know about addiction. so what about a person thats makes the choice to smoke and then gets lung cancer is lung cancer not a disease???? just because someone makes a mistake doesnt mean they are a bad person or continue to use because they want to. Id love to see you addicted to heroin and just make the choice to stop! you would have a completely different mindset about it. you cant just stop god you people think you know everything and think your better than.
John
You sound like an elementary school child. Perhaps when you grow up, you’ll understand the science of the brain, the facts about addiction and ….. that facts don’t care about your emotions or feelings. Your comments are really quite ridiculous.
John-you give the example of “Choosing to smoke” (a CHOICE!), and that a person getting lung cancer then has a disease. Now, WHICH of these did the person NOT CHOOSE TO DO (hint: it has to do with the type of cancer the person’s body was afflicted with!). BREAKING NEWS: CANCER VICTIMS DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE THE TYPE OF CANCER THEY GET AFFLICTED WITH! They can CHOOSE to engage in a cancer-causing lifestyle like smoking, and NOT get cancer, or NEVER SMOKE AT ALL, and get cancer. Ask a cancer victim if they CHOOSE that type of cancer. After they smack the crap out of you, maybe you will have a clearer understanding between A CHOICE of an activity, and a DISEASE that a person DOES. NOT. GET. TO. CHOOSE! People that have terminal cases of cancer get the TYPE OF CANCER that KILLS THEM on their death certificates! NOT THE LIFESTYLE CHOICE THAT THEY ENGAGED IN WHICH RESULTED IN THE ACTUAL, MEDICAL DISEASE INVADING THEIR BODY! Learn the difference!
Ok i have but one question for you. An overweight man has a heart attack after eating McDonalds and is rushed to the hospital. You as a doctor save his life and warn him to eat healthier. a week later he orders a large number 3 and ends up back in the hospital. ARE YOU GOING TO REFUSE HIM TREATMENT?
If i were an MD, I would probably 5150 (72 hour involuntary psychiatric hold!) the idiot, since he is clearly making SELF-DESTRUCTIVE CHOICES, indicating a SUICIDAL DESIRE! If he persists in his lifestyle choice, and he has been give appropriate medical counsel, then I very well MIGHT refuse to continue to treat the fool! If a person wants to destroy themselves, then they have the right to (hell, now here in CA, MD Assisted Suicide is LEGAL, for those with TERMINAL ILLNESSES!). When someone continues to CHOOSE to engage in self-destructive behavior, then its indicative of some kind of mental illness (yes-an actual fucking DISEASE!), or sociopathy. It takes a specialist in MENTAL HEALTH, as opposed to medicine to diagnose that one!
you realize you just called addiction an actual fucking disease with this statement right? lol wow just wow.
When someone continues to CHOOSE to engage in self-destructive behavior, then its indicative of some kind of mental illness (yes-an actual fucking DISEASE!
WRONG! Clearly you are not familiar with a book called the DSM-5 (last updated in 2013!). You might look for this thing called “addiction” in it. IT. IS. NOT. THERE! Schizophrenia (and all its forms is!). Depression is. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is. Bi-Polar Disorder is. And so are these things called “Substance Use DISORDERS” (with sub-types designated: alcohol, opiate, stimulant, inhalant, cannabis, etc). Note the word: “DISORDERS” (NOT “DISEASE”!). Read the criteria for EACH of these “disorders” and you will see BEHAVIORAL CRITERIA have to be met (not INVOLUNTARILY ACQUIRED MEDICAL CONDITIONS THAT MAKE PARTS OF THE BODY GO ROGUE, ROT, etc.). People who are addicts become such to either: a.) anesthetize a mental illness (that they were born with, and DID NOT VOLUNTARILY ACQUIRE!), b.) anesthetize PTSD of traumatizing childhood or adult experience(s)-again, that the victim had NO SAY-SO IN, or c.) avoid growing the fuck up (people who begin using substances at 12 (or younger!) never mature beyond the age the heavy substance use starts. So, where is this “disease” connection again? And what SCIENCE do you have to prove it?
ohn
You sound like an elementary school child. Perhaps when you grow up, you’ll understand the science of the brain, the facts about addiction and ….. that facts don’t care about your emotions or feelings. Your comments are really quite ridiculous.
I’m actually almost half way through getting my bachelors in addiction psychology and I was a heroin addict for a long time and I know more addicts than most. You can say I sound like a child but the truth is this article looks like it was was written by a child. It has nothing solid its just the opinion of a close minded person that doesn’t think things can change. Like I said before seing how syphilis changes the brain but it can be cured and the brain restored do you think syphilis is not a disease???? Yup addicts can just up and quit if they really want to lol what bullshit. The fact people can die from benzo and alcohol withdrawal and even opiate withdrawal in extreme cases means nothing right? Its not hard just decide not to use anymore you wont go through weeks of pure agony where a gram of a substance that could make you feel better in an instant isn’t hard to ignore whatsoever right? Everyone has their opinion I’m obviously not going to change yours but that doesn’t mean your right. 90% of the doctors just getting into addiction and looking at it in new ways say its a disease.
Congratulations on your addiction! You must be VERY PROUD! Maybe when you stop, you will begin taking responsibility for your own actions, and recognize that it was YOU THAT CAUSED YOUR OWN ADDICTION! YOU! YOUR FAULT! YOURS! Not the drug’s! Not some “spiritual malady”! YOURS! On the other side of the equation, YOU also made a decision to stop (assuming you have!). Just as you made the DECISION to USE, you also made the DECISION TO STOP! YOU DID! NOT THE DRUG! NOT SOME, “god” thing! YOU DID! You can make the decision TO RESUME USE, or MAINTAIN BEING SOBER AS YOU CHOOSE! Just as you CHOOSE to stay addicted, you can CHOOSE to stay sober. I dare you to! As for MD’s that claim that “addiction is a disease”, are you familiar that FEDERALLY-FUNDED AGENCIES SAY THE SAME DAMNED THING? For some strange reason, people in certain professions will make interesting “observations” and “diagnoses” to get you to spend your money for their “counsel”, be they lawyers, doctors, or government agencies! And to conclude: WHERE is the OBJECTIVE, NON-GOVERNMENT FUNDED DEFINITION OF “DISEASE” that all MD’s can agree on, that gets taught in accredited medical schools, and that any aspiring medical student MUST LEARN to get licensed as an MD in any American state. I am still waiting for it. If an MD can declare something to be a “disease”, just because they are an MD, then that is the most pathetic, self-serving, non-scientific standard imaginable! And yet HMO’s are stupid enough to pay for it! You’d think they would have been smart enough to catch on by now!
i have quit but im on methadone 2 years now and probably the rest of my life. the world has been treating addiction like a choice for 100 years and where have we gotten? finally things are starting to change and people are getting help. i guess if it was up to you youd leave addicts with no help to fend for themselves.typical jerk that has no clue what hes talking about.
by the way i really do hate blaming others for my problems but after falling from a helicopter and hurting my back the army put me on oxy and i didnt know what opiates did to you so actually it wasnt my choice to become addicted jerk. i fought for this country to keep jerks like you safe i come back with ptsd and addiction and you think you have the right to talk down to me? shame on you sir!
Who put the gun to your head to keep you on the oxy? The fact that you are now “trying” methadone indincates that maybe you just might have had enough. (WOW! ANOTHER PROOF OF CHOICE!). You will NOT be on methadone for the rest of your life, anymore then you will be on ANY narcotic “for the rest of your life” IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO BE! You need medical consult on the matter? GET IT! You want to engage in “titrating off” opiates? YOU CAN! The drugs DO NOT, CAN NOT, WILL NOT make the decision for you. YOU DO! YOU get to determine YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE. YOU! Not your MD, not your methadone clinic, not some god-damned, avoidance of responsibility of a 12 Step group! Surely being on the military taught you how to deal with your own issues. I can believe they would make a complete pathetic basket case of a veteran of you, or anyone coming out of the military. They are better then that!
i stayed on oxy because i blew out the bottom 4 discs in my spine and by the time i tried tapering off i was dependent. i didnt even know what withdrawal was until i felt it because i ran out of meds. ya it is a choice to stop but what im saying is you can not just say im quitting and quit cold turkey. not long term users anyway. and it does change your brain chemistry for life thats a proven fact.
Show me the MRI’s on this “brain chemistry change” forever “fact”. This article showed some very interesting MRI pictures. I did not see one that in any way VALIDATED this “brain chemistry is irreversibly altered due to opiate dependance”. The fact that you can and DID STOP, proves that addiction to a substance, opiate or otherwise, IS, and REMAINS. A CHOICE!
I didn’t stop I just substituted for methadone technically I’m still using but I’m using legally and safely
Addiction is not a disease like cancer or HIV, but it’s not a lifestyle choice either. The whole insistence on dualities like mind/body, choice/disease is totally un helpful. The truth is addiction is much more complex than that. And Western medicine is pretty crap at treating addiction because it doesn’t understand it. We just don’t have a very good science of a ddiction yet. What we do know is that there’s no magic pill that treats or cures addiction and blaming the addict and telling them it’s their choice to just quit is a totally useless approach. Addiction may not have a physiological cause like a virus or bacterium, but it definitely has manifild physiological consequences. Death being one of them. Personally I feel there’s not much difference between seeing a doctor or a priest when it comes to addiction. Both will probably fail. The sad fact is, we don’t understand addiction and until we do most true addicts will just live miserable lives. (One more thing that needs to be clarified: the regular user who just turns around one day and says “this is ruining me” and just quits is by definition not a real addict.)
How is addiction somehow “not a lifestyle choice” when addicts pursue with EVERY FIBER OF THEIR BEING, the hourly, daily, endless pursuit of acquiring and ingesting their DRUG. OF. CHOICE? Hang out with an addict of ANY DRUG (alcohol, crack, heroin, inhalants, etc.) and WATCH the process IN ACTION. It is MOST DEFINITELY A “LIFESTYLE”! Listen to the “war stories” in any bullshit 12 Step meeting, and you will hear of people who made their addictions their CAREERS, and would put Nobel Laureates, PhD earners, and Olympic Gold Medal winners TO SHAME, in how they MAINTAINED an addictive lifestyle. The reason we don’t have any “science” of addiction yet, is because: ADDICTION IS BEHAVIORAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL! NOT SCIENTIFIC! ADDICTS MAKE CHOICES (see above reference location for further research!).
If telling the addict to “quit” is somehow not an option, then WHY CAN THEY? WHY HAVE MANY SUCCEEDED IN DOING JUST THAT? People end addictions just as they begin to-with a DECISION regarding the substance. The poor inanimate substance has NO. CHOICE. IN. WHO. INGESTS. IT. OR. HOW!
@Atheistically Yours88: You apparently didn’t read my comment very carefully. I’m not saying the addict has no choices. The addict is not some kind of robot governed by his addiction. But the addict is evidently not in anything like control of his behaviour. It’s not like choice is a monolithic concept that can be applied uncritically across the board either. An advanced alcoholic choosing whether or not to drink today is nothing like me choosing whether to take the bus or the train to work today. To the extent it is a lifestyle it is very rarely chosen. The vast majority of addicts lead miserable, pathetic lifestyles and they would choose to leave their lifestyles at the drop of a hat. Although addiction may not have a phsyiological cause as such, the consequences of choosing to quit are profound and extremely physiologically painful. That’s why quitting is so damn hard. The whole choice argument ignores asking why the addict so often relapses. Where is the rationale in an addict choosing to take more drugs in the full knowledge of the misery this will continue to cause them unless some kind of intense physiological pain were not being immediately relieved by taking more drugs. Sure you can say, “Well it’s ALL YOUR FAULT for choosing to take drugs in the first place, so now YOU get to PAY THE PRICE. Suck it up loser!” But that doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t help addicts who stay stuck in their misery, and it doesn’t help society which gets to pick up the pieces and pay the economic cost. So unless you have an actual answer to the crisis than simply shouting your own point of view at everyone, I suggest you go away and think about it. I’m not saying there is an answer. I’m saying the whole problem is a whole lot more complex than just reducing everything to a choice/disease duality.
do you consider std’s to not be diseases? lots of people make the choice to have sex with strangers knowing they can get an std thats a choice but the disease itself isnt. just like drug USE is a choice but addiction is not. long term users struggle with addiction for life its a proven fact. but look im not gonna change your views and your not gonna change mine so lets just call a truce eh?
Plenty of people have sex with strangers, and DO. NOT. GET. STD’s. Or do people get to PICK THEIR STD? If people got to PICK their STD, I would say that “acquiring” an STD is a CHOICE, but people don’t get to PICK whether to get an STD or not. Addicts CHOOSE to stay addicted because they MUST-erbate in their use. They think they “must” have a substance! That they “must” feel or not feel a certain way. Again, people with REAL. MEDICAL. DISEASES. DO. NOT. CHOOSE. THE. DISEASE. THAT INVOLUNTARILY INVADES THEM! You really need to get into the 21st Century on this issue, or you will be a COMPLETE FAILURE as any type of “addiction treatment” professional (degreed, certified, etc.). Teaching people attempting to recover from a condition that they WILLINGLY, KNOWINGLY, AND VOLUNTARILY gave themselves, and MAINTAINED THEMSELVES, that they are somehow “diseased” does not do them, or you any favors in advancing a recovering person’s “recovery”. It breeds this bullshit called “learned helplessness” (a foundation of 12 Steppism!). It has ZERO SCIENCE behind it. And it is somewhere between disingenuous, and FRUADULENT! Were you in my state preaching that crap, I would file an ethics complaint against you, and insure your certification, license, etc. was REVOKED!
you sir need to chill out. the majority of professionals in addiction today consider it a disease. you yourself in another comment called it a disease you said when someone participates in self harm they have a mental illness which is a disease. your words not mine. what is drug addiction if not self harm? just admit your wrong and give up
Please don’t let me find out what state you are attempting to be “schooled” in. I will hunt that “school” down, and get it SHUT DOWN! Just because you THINK a “majority of professionals in addiction (care to cite a number or source to PROVE THAT STATISTIC?) consider something a “disease” DOES. NOT. MAKE. IT. SUCH! Too many people have been running around screaming about some “deity” existing for several THOUSAND YEARS NOW, and it DOES. NOT. PROVE. ONE. EXISTS! Drug addiction is indeed self-harm. VOLUNTARY SELF-HARM! CHOSEN SELF-HARM! INVOLUNTARILY ACQUIRED? NOT EVEN! You are the one that needs to GIVE UP. And please relapse while you are at it. If what you have posted is the best intelligence you can demonstrate “sober”, then please do this world a favor, and RELAPSE! I am sure you will be well within your Ph.D. level of dissertation then!
man your getting really pissed off aren’t you? my school is Cornell University in NY I’m thinking you’ve probably heard of it so ya lets see you get it shut down good luck!!!!
15% of 42 thousand applicants got in the year I started so ya….
holy shit Cornell U was just shut down by some loser nobody! oh never mind false alarm
if someone was suicidal and gave themselves ebola on purpose do they have a disease????? or in that case is ebola not a disease???
this just in self inflicted diseases are NOT diseases at all!
I’m guessing you think suicide isn’t a disease either right? its proven some people are genetically predisposed to addiction so besides the first use which is a simple mistake addiction is a disease.
Plenty of people try drugs and or alcohol with friends , and DO. NOT. become addicts . Or do people get to PICK THEIR addiction ? If people got to PICK their addiction , I would say that “acquiring” an addiction is a CHOICE, but people don’t get to PICK whether to get an addiction or not.
See how I did that? Used your own words against you to show you how ignorant and pathetic your childish argument is. You sir, need mental help
People make a choice to use a drug, and re-use it, and re-use it, and re-use it. The drug has NO. SAY-SO. IN. THE. INGESTION. OF. IT. The investor of a drug CHOOSES: the method of ingestion, the quantity of the substance that gets ingested, the physical location the ingestion takes place at, and how “high” the ingestor will get to feel. Name ONE damned medical disease where a person get to CHOOSE ANY of these parameters. ONE! Drugs of CHOICE are called that because the human being CHOOSES THE DRUG (and the addictive BEHAVIOR related to the acquisition and ingestion of it!). ADDICTION IS A CHOICE, as long as the INGESTOR CONTINUES TO CHOOSE TO ACQUIRE AND INGEST THE DRUG! PERIOD!
Perhaps starting with the definition of disease might be useful: “A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.”
There is nothing that addresses the issue of choice because choice has nothing to do with it disease.
Addiction is a disease. Sorry, be a good sport and get over it.
Please cite your SOURCE in this so-called “definition” of “disease” you cite, and also let me know if it is taught in ANY ACCREDITED MEDICAL SCHOOL in the U.S. And considering that REAL MEDICAL DISEASE DO NOT GET CHOSEN by the people that are afflicted WITH THEM, I would say that a disease is NOT A CHOICE (since a medical condition’s INVOLUNTARY AFFLICTION INTO A HUMAN BEING, makes it a “disease” and NOT a “choice”!).
Atheistically Yours88 — hell yes, my friend — you are correct in everything you’ve written.
Derek, John, William, Daniel are all examples of kids whose thought processes have been bastardized by bankrupt educational system[s] that fail to teach kids how to think ‘critically.’ They don’t teach these young people ‘how to think,’ they TELL them ‘WHAT TO THINK.’ That’s [one reason] as to how and why these gullible youngsters are so easily fooled by the absurd drivel promoted in 12 step programs and why they so readily accept a sense of their own predestined, diseased, powerlessness and lifelong victimhood. They are basically vacuous minds full of emotional mush.
The brain disease theory and 12 step mythology are inextricably linked. 12 step meetings, 12-step treatment and their concomitant ‘brain disease” babble, do little systematically to train people to cope with themselves, their urges, and their environments. The juvenile new age rituals in which a group of laypeople – many with obvious and persistent emotional and mental problems themselves – repeat the steps and tell their personal stories offers members little psychological basis for achieving sobriety.
[Brain Disease]12 step groups are intellectually and spiritually impoverished and, at worst, are intellectually and spiritually corrupt, deceptive and non-virtuous. In addition, 12 step programs create an emotionally and mentally unhealthy environment. What does it benefit a person to hold onto -and embrace- the belief that they’re diseased, sick, insane, not wired right, unable to think straight and powerless to have any control over their own lives? It doesn’t benefit them- it destroys them. The 12 step habit is what has kept millions of people enslaved to addiction. Treatment based on 12 step nonsense and 12 step groups like AA, NA, and CA don’t “cure” addicts. They C R E A T E addicts.
Why would anyone want to constantly focus on the misery of a dreary and blighted past – falsely believing it was caused by a fake brain disease? Why would anyone want to spend so much time confessing [sharing] character defects, personality flaws, failures and mistakes and then pretend that they are ‘Portals’ to discovery that lead to spiritual progress? It’s very odd to do that. It’s dystopian in nature.
For me, the portals of discovery are reality, truth, reason, logic, success, soundness and virtue. I look not to the past but rather to the future because that’s where I’m going to spend the rest of my life. The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
Finally, in the last 25 years [brain disease] 12 step treatment facilities in the US has tripled to over 14,000 and the annual revenue generated by these deplorable charnel houses has also tripled to over 36 billion dollars. Yet drug overdose death rates continue to rise in a nationwide epidemic. This is proof enough that foolish ‘barin disease’ 12 step gibberish has NEVER worked to help people recover from excessive substance use. Something has to change in the way we “treat” addiction in this country. [As Steven is pointing out]
Real people are dying every day, while greedy predators profit on the pain, bleeding and deaths of loved ones and family members. The addiction recovery industry and its 12 step offspring, make billions of dollars each year while death tolls continue to climb. In communities all across the nation, rehab facilities, sober living homes, safe houses and other addiction-related businesses are capitalizing on the lack of regulation and destroying neighborhoods, communities, families and lives.
The arrogantly bombastic views and comments of people like Derek, John, William, and Daniel are a big part of the problem.
PS to Atheistically Yours88
One of my favorite excerpts from your comments:
“You really need to get into the 21st Century on this issue, or you will be a COMPLETE FAILURE as any type of “addiction treatment” professional (degreed, certified, etc.). Teaching people attempting to recover from a condition that they WILLINGLY, KNOWINGLY, AND VOLUNTARILY gave themselves, and MAINTAINED THEMSELVES, that they are somehow “diseased” does not do them, or you any favors in advancing a recovering person’s “recovery”. It breeds this bullshit called “learned helplessness” (a foundation of 12 Steppism!). It has ZERO SCIENCE behind it. And it is somewhere between disingenuous, and FRUADULENT!
Were you in my state preaching that crap, I would file an ethics complaint against you, and insure your certification, license, etc. was REVOKED!”
Bravo Zulu (outstanding) !!!!!!!!!
kid? did you seriously call me a kid? I fought for my country I’m no kid and haven’t been for decades. also I am not brainwashed I think freely I don’t not believe in 12 step meetings and do not attend them. my brain is not full of emotional mush either.you don’t even know me. I’m attending one of the top schools in the states for addiction psychology and you have the nerve to say my brain is full of mush? I have no doubt you truly believe the hogwash your writing down and so do many other naive ppl in this world. you have a right to your opinion but you have no right coming on here and telling me I’m brainwashed and my brain is nothing but emotional mush. you sir need help. and as DEP says
June 6, 2017 at 12:01 AM Perhaps starting with the definition of disease might be useful: “A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.”
now if you think addiction doesn’t fit in that category id really like a sound explanation as to why. the fact the addict chooses to use has nothing to do with it. people choose to kill themselves do you think suicidal tendencies and/or depression is not a disease? I had trouble since kindergarten trying to fit in and be normal. when I was about 7 I used to sneak beers from my grandpas fridge. I had a wonderful childhood but something was always off about me. my father was an addict and recent studies have been going more towards addiction passing down through genes. there is solid research backing this up. I’m not going to go into my life story but when the army put me on oxy I knew nothing of the drug but I also knew for the first time in my life I felt normal. I’m guessing I was born with some sort of dopamine reuptake issue or a similar problem causing my brain to not get enough dopamine which is why I was depressed at times in life. when I was discharged and my civilian doc cut of my meds I found out what withdrawal was and I became suicidal and was in extreme pain. anyway long story short addiction is a disorder of the brain which is…wait for it…… A DISEASE!!!!!
Ok-so you weren’t “wired right” as a kid, and self-medicated yourself INTO ADDICTION, ON YOUR OWN, BY YOUR OWN HAND! Have you ever thought of getting an appropriate MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS? The number of people with drug/alcohol addictions having mental illnesses is only around 75-90%! Remember, YOU were there when YOU USED the substance! YOU did it to YOU! The substance had NO CHOICE in the matter. No one put a gun to your head to FORCE THE INGESTION! Not even the army! YOU MADE A CHOICE TO “medicate” and STAY MEDICATED (even when the injury probably no longer required the “opiate” medication!). The fact that you are now on methadone PROVES that you want to get off of opiates. Again, a CHOICE! You made the choice to get on, stay on, and now are getting off. YOU CHOOSE THEN! You are CHOOSING NOW! There is ZERO “involuntary acquisition” of the drugs YOU willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily ingested!
Your funny. Not to bright.. But funny.
Calling people In their 50’s kids.
For the record, not that you will listen, but I’m not a 12 stepper,, nor have I ever been. But I don’t bash a program that some need or use for help.
Saying that 12 Step groups are a “help” is like saying acts of terrorism are a form of “population control”! 12 Step groups don’t give a good, god-damned about “helping” anyone (which one of those past-tense, pluralized written 12 Steps even HAS the word “help” in it?). 12 Step groups are only concerned with THEIR. OWN. EXISTENCE! They engage in psychological terrorism, and need to be eradicated off this planet as much as ISLAM DOES! Show me ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE (that’s evidence from OUTSIDE the group!) that shows the 12 Step method is valid, or in any way “as effective” or more, then any other mutual support group modality. Hint: THERE ARE NONE! Just because it has been around for 80 odd uses does not prove its a valid source of “support” anymore then the Democrats and Republicans being in existence for over 150-180 years each, and being the only two choices that have elected our last 160 years worth of Presidents!
This site, kind sir, has just become my NEW “favorite website to cite”, considering “Orange-Papers.org” is now only accessible in “archived” form. These “full-frontal attacks” (as this site demonstrates!) against the ’12 Step “Addicition-is-a-disease monster” MUST CONTINUE!
Here is another favorite of mine:
Atheistically Yours88 writes to [Juvenile] John
Comment:
Please don’t let me find out what state you are attempting to be “schooled” in. I will hunt that “school” down, and get it SHUT DOWN! Just because you THINK a “majority of professionals in addiction (care to cite a number or source to PROVE THAT STATISTIC?) consider something a “disease” DOES. NOT. MAKE. IT. SUCH!
You are the one that needs to GIVE UP. And please relapse while you are at it. If what you have posted is the best intelligence you can demonstrate “sober”, then please do this world a favor, and RELAPSE! I am sure you will be well within your Ph.D. level of dissertation then!”
Hoo ah !!! Most excellent !!
Wow one of your favorite comments by him is where he tells me to please relapse! that’s really adult like of both of you! I don’t think it gets much lower than that you two are disgusting and a disgrace of humanity. You don’t hope for someone to go back to using that’s the worst thing you could say to someone. So congrats at sitting behind the safety of your keyboard and acting like complete pieces of trash!
*As for my college like I said Cornell University one of the top colleges in the US and I would fucking love to see any one retard such as you or atheistically yours shut it down because you thing they have the wrong idea of addiction good luck!!!
you guys are just here to treat addicts like shit with your narrow minded views you hardly if at all respond to the proof in my responses you just attack with verbal abuse which shows me neither of you have any common sense compassion or knowledge of addiction and how it works. But go ahead keep posting nonsense because its your right to do so. I hope your proud of yourselves for telling me a recovering addict currently in college with his life finally after 10 years turned around for the better that you hope I relapse and go back to using. And because I would be smarter was that your theory? man you two are low.
Atheistically and papa are disgusting human beings. Trying to reason, debate or have any type of rational discussion with either of them is useless. I for one, like all of your points. They are said with experience and thoughtfulness that neither of them can grasp.
Intelligent people question everything,
while stupid people have all the answers.
Simple advice? don’t pay any attention to either. It’s OK for people to have different opinions, but they don’t have the ability to pose an opposite opinion without name calling and a need to degrade others.
Atheistically yours, you gonna give yourself a disease with your own choice of vitriole and hate ya’ll spewing. Zen out man, its a disease and its okay! We can’t always be right, its okay, its okay! You are still okay! Breathe in, breathe out, let the addict get the understanding and treatment that works for them, whatever type that is…ohhmmmmm…..ohhhmmmmm…. It will be okay, and a much better world with less afflicted with addiction, and that’s a good thing… breathe….
Grow the fuck up DEP, Addiction is not, never has been, and NEVER. WILL. BE. A. “DISEASE”! Aside from the 100% COMPLETE LACK OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE PROVING SUCH, this “theory” is also dangerous because it promotes addicts and alcoholics (who are also addicts!) to foster and maintain a COMPLETE LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN PATHETIC ACTIONS! There is ZERO involuntary acquisition of ANY addiction! Compared to REAL medical diseases that invade innocent human beings, who DO. NOT. ASK. FOR THEM? No. I will not take bullshit “knowledge” like that laying down. Addicts, alcoholics, and 12 Steppers are DEPLOREABLE ENOUGH without having this ‘escape” provision for them. That is all this “disease theory” is. A worthless escape provision, allows any drug user to NOT. TAKE. RESPONSIBILITY. for what they did to themselves. Willingly, Knowingly. Voluntarily. Each and every time, with each and every use, for every damned day the use continued.