Once an addict?

[LSN80]

I'll keep this one short and sweet.

http://www.passagesmalibu.com/addiction-treatment-philosophy/

I'm sure most, if not all of us, have been associated with a friend, co-worker, or family member who has had problems with drugs or alcohol. I'm sure most of you have seen the commercial for Passages Malibu. The one where co-founder Pax Prentiss proclaims, " This isn't a twelve step program. I was an addict for ten years, now I'm not."

Passages is in direct contrast to the ideas and methods of AA and NA. At each session, any member who wishes to share starts with "My name is " ", and I'm an addict/alcoholic." Yes, they discuss how long they've been sober for, and collect chips and sobriety pins for doing so. But the premise is, "Once an addict/alcoholic, always one."

Passages website is an interesting contrast. They discuss the diversity of the their program, an individual treatment for the "addict" based upon their needs. However, they come with the disclaimer that the California Association of Drug Abuse and Alcoholism does not support their beliefs, namely, that they have a cure for addiction.For me, it essentially comes down to whether or not alcoholism and addiction is a disease, or rather, a curable condition. Passages Malibu would tell you that it's not a disease, rather it's a chemical imbalance, the result of unresolved issues from your past, or an inability to cope with you life. AA/NA beliefs the opposite, that not only is it a disease, but one that sticks with you for the rest of your life, regardless of how long you've been clean.

Medical studies, while not a matter of fact, tend to side with the idea that addiction is a disease, and that there is no essential cure. Essentially, the(inconclusive) science seems to be on the side of what NA/AA teaches. But it's not definitive, and there are no "true" studies that confirm them as diseases. But throwing out the science and the claims of cures, I'm most interested in what you believe.

Once an addict, always an addict?

Is addiction a disease, a chemical imbalance, or a choice?

Other thoughts?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

If addiction is a disease then it most certainly has a cure and that cure is motivation for one person to overcome the addiction itself. From my personal experiences with friends and family this seems to a fairly accurate assumption. The ones who don't get better are the ones who honestly believe they don't have a problem or they make excuses for that problem, the ones who do get better are the ones who know they have a problem and genuinely want to get better.

For this reason its hard for me to call it a disease. From a technical standpoint it is but I don't call it that because its preventable. If you get something like the flu or a cold there's not much you can do about that unless you sanitize constantly and always wear a facemask, addiction is something with enough will power can be conquered, if you have cancer there really isn't anything that could have been done to prevent it (or at least knowingly).

I can't say for sure that addiction is 100% preventable but from what I've seen with my own eyes that's what I believe. If it was a disease then how could one stop without being cured? Did the addiction go into remission or did the person make a real effort to overcome it? If you have a cold you can take things to get rid of it, to rid addiction you don't take something to overcome it, you simply don't take whatever it is your addicted to.

 

[Loveless]

Once an addict, always an addict. Someone who is addicted to alcohol can never be a "normal" drinker, just like a heroin addict can never be a casual user. This idea of being an ex-addict is nothing but denial and goes against the very definition of addiction.

 

[The Butcher]

Addiction is all at once a product of genetic predisposition, environmental factors, psychological factors, and the substance being abused. It is much too simplistic to label it as simply a disease or a chemical imbalance or a choice, because it's all of those things. Simply put, addiction is addiction in same way that fire is fire. They display traits and contain elements of other things, but they are unique.

As far as the statement, "once an addict, always an addict," that's certainly not true for everyone, and personally I think that environment and the substance being abused play the largest role in a person's ability to cut back on or stop their habit. Take for example a college student who regularly drinks during their years at a university. This individual might display most or all of the signs and symptoms of alcohol addiction, however once they leave the college environment, he or she could become a social drinker or non-drinker due mainly to a change in setting. Of course this is a simple example, but I think it should get my point across.

There are infinite combinations of substance, environment, and individual that make each person's addiction unique. There's no one solution that'll work for everyone. Not all addictions or addicts are created equally, therefore it is an issue that must be tackled on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Loveless]

As far as the statement, "once an addict, always an addict," that's certainly not true for everyone, and personally I think that environment and the substance being abused play the largest role in a person's ability to cut back on or stop their habit. Take for example a college student who regularly drinks during their years at a university. This individual might display most or all of the signs and symptoms of alcohol addiction, however once they leave the college environment, he or she could become a social drinker or non-drinker due mainly to a change in setting. Of course this is a simple example, but I think it should get my point across.

This may count as a spam reply but what you've just described isn't an addiction. There's a big difference between someone who drinks a lot as a choice and someone who is addicted. To be an addict is to be out of control and reliant on your drug of choice to the point where you can't function without it. There's no such think as an ex-addict, there is only an inactive addict.

 

[Sinister Shadows]

addiction is a choice, if you don't have the will power to stop doing it yourself, there are plenty of places that will help you to get off of drugs/alcohol. Doing drugs is a conscious choice that you can make everytime you do it (unless someone is literally forcing it into...)

 

[HBsam31]

I agree that there are a lot of factors that come into play. Environment is probably the easiest one to get over. In my mind you should just simply take yourself out of that environment. The fact is though I have never been addicted to a substance aside from nicotine. I smoked for a good many years. One day I came down with bronchitis so bad I could barely climb the stairs without being winded. I never smoked again. I thought shit, if this is what I am going to feel like all the time down the road I don't want it. I am not trying to compare that to hard drugs, but to me it is still the idea that if you really really WANT to stop doing something you can do it. It gets cloudy though because I feel if you do stop drinking and you do stop doing the drug that it would not allow you to go back to doing it socially. I, however don't like it being classified as a disease because it kind of gives the person an excuse. No one forced him to shoot up or to take that drink. It is something that to me is completely avoidable. Heroin is one I don't understand. We all know how bad it is yet people still get hooked on it. My fear of that drug would stop me from trying it even once ever. I have seen what that drug has done to my friends. I guess I am kind of in the middle where yes you can say enough is enough I don't want to be reliant on a substance anymore, but at the same time once you hit that addiction threshold it would be incredible hard if not impossible to ever go back to doing it socially.

 

[The Butcher]

This may count as a spam reply but what you've just described isn't an addiction. There's a big difference between someone who drinks a lot as a choice and someone who is addicted. To be an addict is to be out of control and reliant on your drug of choice to the point where you can't function without it. There's no such think as an ex-addict, there is only an inactive addict.

Perhaps it was too simplistic of an example. There are plenty of ex-addicts. Richard Simmons was addicted to food before he became a fitness guru. Samuel L. Jackson was addicted to heroin and crack cocaine. HBSam31 right above me used to be addicted to nicotine. So far as I know, they've all kicked the habit, thus they are ex-addicts.

I'll grant you that someone who drinks a lot as a choice isn't necessarily "addicted," but again, that's why I say that addiction is a beast all its own and not one we can nail down or shoehorn in somewhere. A person who drinks, smokes, eats, or does drugs a lot by choice can most certainly exhibit all the signs and symptoms of addictions, yet not experience a psychological or physical dependency. Other persons can do these things once or twice, and get lost in them.

It's a case-by-case issue. It's a compulsive behavior, a coping mechanism, a chemical dependence, so on and so on. It's too complicated for any of us here to solve, but have at it if you think you can. You'll be richer than you can ever imagine if you can solve addiction. "Once an addict, always an addict" is painting with far too broad a brush, and it's just plain not true. You can say, "well there are exceptions to every rule," but it's got to be a rule first. The statement in question is far from a rule.

 

[Mustang Sally]

There's a big difference between someone who drinks a lot as a choice and someone who is addicted.

In school, there were teachers who told us that once we take our first drink, we're pretty much on the way to alcoholism. I understand what they were trying to do, but especially when dealing with young people, I think telling them to positively avoid any contact with whatever they're preaching against is the fastest way to get the kid to try it.

At any rate, most of the people on the planet who drink, do so responsibly; the problem in society is that the statistics we read quote only the ones who don't. In your local newspapers, you read about the guy who drove drunk and was arrested for whatever trouble he caused, there are no articles about a guy who had a glass of wine with dinner and drove home without incident. The latter doesn't make interesting news, and after awhile you could start to believe that drunk driving is much more prevalent than it actually is.

Some people are more disposed (genetically) to become addicted to substances. A good friend of mine saw her life ruined (and eventually ended) by drugs. She was from a good family and had plenty going for her, but once she first tried drugs, her life was over, although it took 13 more years for her physical life to reach it's end at age 30. Some of her other buddies were using drugs too, but they could stop when they wanted, and Sarah couldn't. She was one of the unlucky people who couldn't handle it. Yes, if she had been able to stop, she still would have been an addict for the rest of her life, because as soon as she went back, she wouldn't be able to stop again. Obviously, there were turning points and relapses, soon to be followed by more turning points. But all that knew her agreed that her first sampling of the stuff was the beginning of her end.

Other folks might develop a liking for substances but be able to stop when they wish. After a few years of non-use, I don't see why they'd be labeled as addicts since they didn't need the drugs or alcohol.....they just liked them.

Some people are more disposed to mental illness, eating disorders, and a thousand other maladies with which we can mess ourselves up. There are psychological and/or physiological reasons for all of them.

Still, you'll never know if you're genetically disposed toward something until you try it.....and it might already be too late by then.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If someone has had problems with drugs or alcohol, then it will always be a part of their life. That doesn't mean that "once an addict, always an addict, however. There are millions of people throughout the world each year who stop taking drugs and/or alcohol who never touch them again. That in and of itself nullifies the "once an addict" belief.

At the end of the day, like everything else, it's all about personal choice & will power. If someone truly wants to get back on the stuff, they're ultimately going to. It might sound like a cliché, but it's true that the only one who can get you off stuff is you. All the good intentions of everyone else in the world can't do it for you. It's wonderful to have people that want to support & help you through it but family & friends can't bear the burden of going through detox for you.

Some people do fall off the wagon. Doesn't mean that they're a bad person or that they've ultimately changed their minds. They had a moment of weakness and gave into the temptation. That happens everyday in the world whether it's sex addiction, keeping a promise to their spouse, gambling, dieting, etc.

As far as what addiction is, I certainly can't say it's a choice. I've never personally heard of anyone whose been on drugs or been an alcoholic say that they started using them with the intention of becoming dependent on them. Most of the time, in the experience I've had, it comes down to people simply wanting to try it and liking how it made them feel. They liked it so they kept doing it, but only saying that it'd be once in a while. Some people can genuinely just do stuff "once in a while" without becoming addicted to it. For instance, I have a cousin who smokes weed four times a year: New Year's Eve, his anniversary, his daughter's birthday & Christmas. He doesn't touch it the entire rest of the year.

There's all sorts of hard evidence showing that addiction is often hereditary. If one or both of your parents were alcoholics, then the likelihood of you being one is well above normal. Doesn't automatically mean you will, but your risk is higher than that of people who don't have a familial history of addiction. In which case, I personally think it might be best if you avoided the stuff altogether. If you come from a family of alcoholics and don't want to be one yourself, don't drink. Why tempt fate if you don't have to?

I don't have the exact figures with me, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of the inmates housed in the facility I work are in there because of drug related offenses. Most of them are also nonviolent drug offenses. Some were dealers/users. Some are manufacturers. Some of them are addicts who committed crimes to feed their habits. I don't know if it's completely accurate to label it a disease, but I do know that our current federal & state drug policies are completely inadequate. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet since the early 80s with Regan's "war on drugs" and we're no closer to winning this "war" with current policies now than we were then. In 2010, the government spent more than $50 billion on the drug war. I'm not saying that I have a solution or that we should just open the flood gates to legalize everything. I just know that what we're doing right now, and have been doing for decades, simply does not work.

 

[Loveless]

Perhaps it was too simplistic of an example. There are plenty of ex-addicts. Richard Simmons was addicted to food before he became a fitness guru. Samuel L. Jackson was addicted to heroin and crack cocaine. HBSam31 right above me used to be addicted to nicotine. So far as I know, they've all kicked the habit, thus they are ex-addicts.

I'm ignoring Simmons because that's not a real addiction.
You think Jackson can be a casual heroin user or Sam could be an occasional smoker without getting deeper into it? How many times have you heard an ex-smoker say "I'd love a cigarette right now"?
They are not ex-addicts, addiction doesn't go away, they are simply inactive addicts. Saying otherwise is denial and dangerous because it suggest to drinkers that "Hey, you're over that now. Sure you can have a little drink" and any recovering addict will tell you that is absolutely not the case. The very definition of an addict is someone who can't maintain that normality and "everything in moderation" attitude.

I'm speaking from experience. I had an issue with morphine a while back after an operation and I dealt with that over time, but that desire doesn't go away. Infact I'm sitting here now thinking "I'd fucking love some morphine" but I know it wouldn't be a 1-off thing. It's addictive and overpowering, so I take a zero tolerance approach and won't allow it in the house for anyone that lives here, else I tend to start thinking "Hmm morphine is in the medicine cabinet, wonder if they'd miss 1 tab". That is addiction, 8 years later on & it doesn't go away.

 

[LSN80]

I think one of the things we need to be careful of is differentiating between abuse and addiction. Not all people who abuse alcohol or drugs are addicts, however, the prolonged abuse of the drug can lead to addiction.

In the same vein, someone can drink alcohol in moderation, or take drugs as prescribed, and very much be an addict. The thing I've seen this most common with isn't heroin, cocaine, vicodin, or morphine, it's with benzodiazapines. Benzos such as Klonopin, Xanax, and Ativan are prescribed to millions of Americans every single day. I have patients who have been on them for 10 years and more, and though they take them as prescribed, their body chemistry has changed to the point where they need the medication. Going off of it could have disastrous consequences, such as severe withdrawal, seizures, and even death.

I don't believe addiction is necessarily a choice, nor do I believe that once someone is an addict, they always are. I believe it's up to the individual, once clean, to decide. To live with the mindset that they were once an addict so they always are is one of defeat. Is it necessary? For some people, yes. It's a reminder to stay away from the object of their addiction. But for others, I believe they can take prescription medications with addictive qualities for short times, such as following a surgery, and not relapse. They can enjoy a drink without getting drunk, or starting to drink every day. They can take an anxiety medication for a short time during a stressful life event, such as a death in the family. And they can then stop just as easily as they started.

And I'd be the last to label that person an addict.

 

[HBsam31]

I'm ignoring Simmons because that's not a real addiction.
You think Jackson can be a casual heroin user or Sam could be an occasional smoker without getting deeper into it? How many times have you heard an ex-smoker say "I'd love a cigarette right now"?
They are not ex-addicts, addiction doesn't go away, they are simply inactive addicts. Saying otherwise is denial and dangerous because it suggest to drinkers that "Hey, you're over that now. Sure you can have a little drink" and any recovering addict will tell you that is absolutely not the case. The very definition of an addict is someone who can't maintain that normality and "everything in moderation" attitude.

I'm speaking from experience. I had an issue with morphine a while back after an operation and I dealt with that over time, but that desire doesn't go away. Infact I'm sitting here now thinking "I'd fucking love some morphine" but I know it wouldn't be a 1-off thing. It's addictive and overpowering, so I take a zero tolerance approach and won't allow it in the house for anyone that lives here, else I tend to start thinking "Hmm morphine is in the medicine cabinet, wonder if they'd miss 1 tab". That is addiction, 8 years later on & it doesn't go away.

I am not sure where nicotine falls into this drug category, but my case is unique in the way that I got really sick, and didn't like the feeling of not being able to breathe. I dropped smoking immediately after smoking for about 6 years. Now it repulses me because I still remember what it felt like not being able to even really walk without getting winded. That was 10 years ago. I have not or would not ever smoke a cigarette again. I have no desire at all. I imagine though if I did smoke I would probably pick right back up again. Again it's a unique situation though because I got really scared really fast, and I never looked back after stopping.

 

[Septumus]

Dealing with addiction is like losing weight. You can't just ignore it and do a bit. It requires a lifestyle change. You eat healthier foods, you exercise, you avoided the junk foods. With addiction you stop/limit the use, you seek help from others, and you cut tie from people who feed your addiction.

Whether addiction can be cured I believe depends on the addiction and the person. Some can smoke for 6 years then quit and never look back(poster above). My mother smoked for 25 years(never while pregnant or breastfeeding though, and never in the house) and she tells me she occasionally gets the urge when seeing other people smoke. But then she remembers why she quit and how disgusting a habit it is.

The reason AA says it can't be cured is that for some it is an on-going battle, day to day, constantly fighting urges. Above all though, the person has to admit it's a problem, and, most importantly, want to stop.

 

[Chardee Macdennis]

Addiction is a life long disease. There is certainly conscious choices (at least in the beginning) that lead to addiction and though it is a disease an addict must take responsibility for those choices. Addiction can not be cured, however it can be arrested. It is incredibly dangerous for an addict to forget that. It is certainly very possible for an addict to never use again, however that doesn't mean the addiction won't pick right back up if you choose to use again or substitute one drug for another. Medical use can work however you need to take precautions such as letting a non addict hold your prescriptions.

 

[Slice]

I believe the word addict itself is kind of misleading. I guess the general idea is that, if there is something that you really want to the point that it interferes with your life, then you're addicted to that something. Personally I think a person is only an addict if they identify themselves as one. Let's say there's a dude who does heroine constantly. Most people would call him an addict. But unless he DOESN'T want to be doing that, he really isn't. He just prefers doing that over anything else he could be doing. Now if he DOESN'T want to be using, but does so anyway, then yeah I guess he's an addict; he's decided for himself that he is doing something he doesn't want to do.

On a related note; I think the "Just Say No!" idea is simply ridiculous.

"Why shouldn't I use drugs?"

"JUST SAY NO!"

"But what if I-"

"JUST SAY NO!"