Spirituality
27 Sep 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI refer you back to the views I expressed in posts addressed to you earlier on this thread.
According to your view what is the main difference between someone that is an addict and someone that is not an addict?
In my view an addict can't stop using a drug whereas someone that is not addicted can stop.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAn urge to do their job? Of course they do. You should read the article. From that article:
Do they experience cravings to drive taxis? If not, your analogy is not very well thought out.
http://www.thecleanslate.org/myths/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease-it-is-a-choice/#selfchange
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…
14 Oct 16
Originally posted by apathistDoes the article discuss taxi driver urges?
An urge to do their job? Of course they do. You should read the article.
Are the taxi driver urges to do their job just a simple sense of responsibility, or a desire to make money or what? If the urge is strong enough to have a negative effect on their lives, then yes, they are addicted.
I agree with the last sentence. But it's subjective - doesn't having to deal with our jobs often have negative effects on our lives?
You're fussing against a strawman, though. The claim isn't that taxi drivers are addicted to taxi driving; the claim is that reason we claim that addiction is a disease does not stand up to scrutiny. Why won't you read the article? You know, with an open and questioning mind.
Originally posted by apathistYes, having to deal with our jobs may have negative effects on our lives. But does dealing with our jobs meet the definition of addiction?
I agree with the last sentence. But it's subjective - doesn't having to deal with our jobs often have negative effects on our lives?
You're fussing against a strawman, though.
No, I am fussing against your taxi driver analogy.
The claim isn't that taxi drivers are addicted to taxi driving; the claim is that reason we claim that addiction is a disease does not stand up to scrutiny.
What doesn't stand up to scrutiny is your taxi driver analogy.
Why won't you read the article? You know, with an open and questioning mind.
And after reading it? Will the taxi drivers have become addicts then?
The writer of the article appears to be as confused as you are about how language works an what the words 'addiction' and 'disease' mean.
Also the first sentence of the article is a blatant lie.
Should I take the article apart piece by piece for you? Will you even read my post if you do? Do you have an opening and questioning mind, or did you ignore just about everyone's point of view since the beginning of the thread and stubbornly keep repeating your claim like a broken record?
16 Oct 16
originally posted by twhitehead
The writer of the article appears to be as confused as you are about how language works an what the words 'addiction' and 'disease' mean.
Disease. Using the link you provided,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease
In humans, disease is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories. Diseases can affect people not only physically, but also emotionally, as contracting and living with a disease can alter the affected person's perspective on life.
In that broader sense, addiction is a 'disease'. So is a stubbed toe. That is not the context being used when people claim addiction is not a disease.
The correct context, from your site:
There are four main types of disease: infectious diseases, deficiency diseases, genetic diseases both (hereditary and non-hereditary), and physiological diseases.
Addiction is not an infectious disease (caused by infectious agents).
Addiction is not a deficiency disease (caused by the lack of some essential element in the diet).
Addiction is not a genetic disease (caused by one or more abnormalities in the genome).
Addiction is not a physiological disease (caused by a physical change to some tissue or organ of the body).
That is the context being used when people claim addiction is not a disease. Btw the cdc and the nih agree that addiction is not a disease.
16 Oct 16
originally posted by twhitehead
The writer of the article appears to be as confused as you are about how language works an what the words 'addiction' and 'disease' mean.
Addiction. Using the link you provided,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/addiction
Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (e.g., gambling, sex, shopping) that can be pleasurable but the continued use/act of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health.
This establishes the context for the word 'addiction' when we read the rest of the article.
According to the link you provided, there are three components to an 'addiction': a specific activity, a strong urge or craving, and an interference with one's ordinary life.
It follows that if the activity stops, or the urge stops, or the interference stops, then there is no longer an addiction. According to the link you provided.