1.) I didn't give my opinion about addiction, I simply noted that predisposition is not a disease
2.) The government is not uniform about classifying addiction as a disease
3.) I was merely pointing out that the AMA claiming addiction is a disease does not somehow make it a universal holding in this country. The AMA has held the position that alcohol is a disease for only about 50 years, or less than 1/3 of its existence, despite the notion having been around since the 1700's, and AA had been lobbying for that classification well before the AMA classified it as such.
4.) An important reason behind the classification of addictions as a disease is the ability to get insurance to pay for the 'recovery' .
Dues, your trying to teach an expert on the subject. First off, the "government" holds little weight in the arena of classifying diseases compared to the AMA. How often do we go to the government to have our health diagnosed? Yes, the AMA has been in existence for 150 years so wouldn't you logically conclude that findings in the last 50 years are far more advanced than those of the first 100 years? The fact that alcoholism has been considered a disease for the last 50 years means exactly...nothing. The only thing that DOES matter is that it IS classified as a disease.
It is a fact that once you become an alcoholic, you're one for life. Even if you quit for 50 years, your disease progresses inside you as if you never stopped. So if you start drinking again, you'd be worse off than when you quit 50 years ago. This has been scientifically proven. So how can addiction/alcoholism progress inside someone who quit drinking & taking drugs unless it was a disease? The answer is, it progresses for one reason only...IT IS A DISEASE.
What is incredibly amazing to me is that the fact it is a disease actually bothers some people. Can anyone tell me why? My guess is because some people foolishly take pride in the fact that THEY can control their drinking and like to feel superior to those who can not. FYI...control and will power have NOTHING to do with addiction.
Predisposition is NOT a disease, you are correct. but it is certainly a factual physical condition. Just like other diseases that are hereditary. There is a distinct difference between people who are genetically predisposed and those who are not. What is your point?
It's difficult enought to trust our medical profession these days. But government? Forget about trust there brother.
Just read the information on the link YOU provided. You latest statements actually contradict the statements contained on that site. You can't provide a link to make your stated opinion and then actually contradict the information on that very site.
So which is it Deus? Do you believe all the information on the site you linked or just the parts that you agree with? Since you provided us with this wonderful website, you MUST agree with the following:
Conclusion
There is a general agreement—albeit slim—that at some point, an addict loses the ability to control his urge or desire to use drugs. What happens in the time leading up to this is the debate’s true battleground featuring a complex hive of factors, not all of them easily proven or disproved. The foundation of the medical community is on the scientific method, on research and clinical trials; it can’t rely on anecdotal evidence. br>
Thus if changing the names of government research institutes to reflect addiction as a disease means more resources will be applied towards finding effective treatment options for addicts, it seems like an unimpeachable step in the right direction.
Also from your link;
What is Addiction?
Addiction is not
-A moral issue
-A simple character defect, such as being weak, or selfish, or irresponsible
-A lack of will power
