addiction is a choice

Originally posted by apathist
tw declines to engage further.

tw is more than ready to engage further. tw is not interested in wading through posts and posts of non-answers by someone who is refusing to read his posts because he thinks they are not worth taking seriously. If apathist refuses to take objections seriously and rather than responding clearly resorts to sarcasm, then no sensible discussion can be had and one must leave apathist in his apathy.

originally posted by twhitehead
tw is more than ready to engage further.
Okay. Here are two key issues and my responses that you haven't addressed.

A disease is a set of symptoms.
We've been through this. Clearly when people claim addiction is not a disease they are NOT depending on such a broad and useless definition. Falling in love has a set of symptoms!

Addiction is the urge to repeat a given behaviour.
We've been through this. Addiction has three components.
Your definition is useless. Wanting to finish your dinner becomes an addiction!

___

Your first definition is out of context. Your second definition is incomplete.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why are you suddenly posting and using the third person tense, like duchess64. Are you actually duchess64 and just slipped up here?

Because I was talking to you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, not in support of your claim. I want an actual reference that says that the cdc agrees that addiction is not a disease.

[b]From nih
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/5-17.htm
DSM–IV and ICD–10 define two alcohol use disorders—dependence and abuse.
So, contradicting your claim.[/b]

Yes in support of my claim. They list the diseases and addiction is not on it. I want an actual reference that says that the cdc agrees that addiction is a disease.

Your link confirms alcoholism is a disorder, as I've said. That does not contradict my claim.

Originally posted by apathist
A disease is a set of symptoms.
We've been through this. Clearly when people claim addiction is not a disease they are NOT depending on such a broad and useless definition. Falling in love has a set of symptoms!

Correct. I did not want to type out the whole of the dictionary and of course there is a bit more to it.
But the point is that a disease is about the symptoms, not the causative agent.
Addiction does meet the definition of a disease.

Addiction is the urge to repeat a given behaviour.
We've been through this. Addiction has three components.
Your definition is useless. Wanting to finish your dinner becomes an addiction!
Again, of course there is more to it. But by dismissing my definition without thinking about it, you are missing the point.

Your first definition is out of context. Your second definition is incomplete
And you are deliberately missing the point because you do not want a serious discussion.

In this thread there have been claims that addiction is the behaviour of abusing a substance. It is not. Your OP makes that error. For addiction to be a choice, addiction must be something you can chose. That means it must be the behaviour of abuse. That is not what addiction is. One can be addicted without abuse. One remains addicted after abuse ceases. Choosing to stop abuse does not 'cure' the addiction.

Addiction is about the urge to abuse. That urge is a physical fact and is a direct result of actual physical changes contrary to your claims thus far. It is also a fact that the tendency to become addicted it genetically determined as well as being caused by environmental factors such as abuse.

There are many ways to deal with addiction, not all of them include medical intervention, but addiction is hardly the only disease for which this is the case. The claim that labelling addiction a disease implies medical intervention is necessary is simply false.

As long as you refuse to agree to reasonable definitions, discussion breaks down as you mean one thing when you say a sentence and everyone else means another. It would appear that miscommunication is your intention.

Originally posted by apathist
Yes in support of my claim. They list the diseases and addiction is not on it. I want an actual reference that says that the cdc agrees that addiction is a disease.

And I want an actual reference that says it does not. You made the claim. I have not made a counter claim.

Your link confirms alcoholism is a disorder, as I've said.
That was your link not mine. A disorder is a symptom. Diseases are sets of symptoms.

originally posted by twhitehead
Addiction does meet the definition of a disease.
Every time you use the word 'disease', I realize you are using that overbroad definition which is not in context here. I have agreed that using your chosen definition then addiction is a disease.

Addiction is about the urge to abuse.
Yes it is about an urge. It is also about a behavior, and it is about the negative consequeses. All three aspects are involved. If any aspect is not present then there is no addiction.

That urge is a physical fact and is a direct result of actual physical changes contrary to your claims thus far. It is also a fact that the tendency to become addicted it genetically determined as well as being caused by environmental factors such as abuse.
The urge is a mental fact. The physical changes are brain changes - and the brain changes when you drive a taxi! Or ride a bike or play piano or eat a meal. In this case, the brain changes are due to a behavior - abusively consuming drugs or alcohol. The changes are due to a behavior, which lead to the urges and the negative consequences.

There are many ways to deal with addiction, not all of them include medical intervention, but addiction is hardly the only disease for which this is the case. The claim that labelling addiction a disease implies medical intervention is necessary is simply false.

That's true, if we use the out-of-context definition for the word 'disease'. You're aware that is not the context being used by the op, right?

Can you demonstrate that brain changes due to behavior (as opposed to physical injury or infection etc) should be considered physiological as opposed to psychological? If you can't, then you haven't shown that addiction meets the provided in-context meaning for the word 'disease'.

It is also a fact that the tendency to become addicted it genetically determined as well as being caused by environmental factors such as abuse.
Genetic and environmental factors contribute to our behaviors, yes.

Choosing to stop abuse does not 'cure' the addiction.
That's true also. Stopping the abuse, however, would stop the addiction. We have to follow through with our choices for them to have effect.

Originally posted by apathist
Every time you use the word 'disease', I realize you are using that overbroad definition which is not in context here. I have agreed that using your chosen definition then addiction is a disease.

Why is it not in context and what do you even mean by not in context?

Yes it is about an urge. It is also about a behavior, and it is about the negative consequeses. All three aspects are involved. If any aspect is not present then there is no addiction.
General usage of the word typically includes the post abuse state in which behaviour no-longer occurs. But even if we grant you all three aspects and call someone who has successfully stopped abusing a 'former addict', this still doesn't make addiction any less of a disease nor does it make addiction a choice. Addiction is the aspects and not a decision to be made.

The urge is a mental fact.
A physical mental fact?

The physical changes are brain changes - and the brain changes when you drive a taxi! Or ride a bike or play piano or eat a meal. In this case, the brain changes are due to a behavior - abusively consuming drugs or alcohol. The changes are due to a behavior, which lead to the urges and the negative consequences.
And?
Nothing I have said disagrees with that.

That's true, if we use the out-of-context definition for the word 'disease'. You're aware that is not the context being used by the op, right?
Apparently not. Perhaps you could explain?

Can you demonstrate that brain changes due to behavior (as opposed to physical injury or infection etc) should be considered physiological as opposed to psychological?
They are both physiological and psychological. I do not think I need to provide any evidence as it shouldn't be something under dispute.

If you can't, then you haven't shown that addiction meets the provided in-context meaning for the word 'disease'.
What is this 'in context' meaning?

That's true also. Stopping the abuse, however, would stop the addiction. We have to follow through with our choices for them to have effect.
So given that you refuse to accept the word 'addiction' for 'urges', what would you call someone who has stopped abusing but still feels urges to abuse?
Do you accept that such urges exist?

In the thread that triggered this one, there is a poster who is not currently abusing, but who says that if he takes one drink he then cannot stop. Is he an addict? Is he alcoholic? Are we not discussing people like him but only people who are currently abusing?
Is the AAA for 'post alcoholics'?

And who are you even arguing with anyway, as nobody actually disputes your core claims other than the fact that your use of certain words is non-standard.

originally posted by twhitehead
Why is it not in context and what do you even mean by not in context?
The writer determines or establishes the context. Since you are using a context different from the writer's intention, you've spent 24 pages arguing against a strawman you've built.

If we don't know the meaning for a word, we start by looking it up in a dictionary. I would answer your second question by cut-and-paste from a dictionary entry. Many words have multiple entries. The correct entry is determined by the context in the material from which we found the unknown word.

Here's a little tutorial to help you learn this new skill:
http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/ela4/g/dictionarywordmeaningl.cfm

Here's a little test to help you practice this new skill you are learning:
https://www.superteacherworksheets.com/dictionary-skills/dictionary-skills-multiple-definitions.pdf

General usage of the word typically includes the post abuse state in which behaviour no-longer occurs. But even if we grant you all three aspects and call someone who has successfully stopped abusing a 'former addict', ...
If an addict stops using, she's a former addict now, that is correct.

...this still doesn't make addiction any less of a disease ...
That's true too. What makes an addiction not a disease is that addiction is not a disease according to the definition found in a site you linked to!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease

There are four main types of disease: infectious diseases, deficiency diseases, genetic diseases both (hereditary and non-hereditary), and physiological diseases.

That definition agrees with the context of the op.

Addiction is a psychological disorder as opposed to being a physiological disease.

I've shown you that addiction is not on the list of diseases according to the cdc. Here you can see that addiction is on the list of psychological disorders (aka mental disorders):

https://www.verywell.com/a-list-of-psychological-disorders-
2794776?utm_term=treatment+for+psychological+disorders&utm_content=p1-main-2-
title&utm_medium=sem&utm_source=msn_s&utm_campaign=adid-4d2fee40-9f45-4d73-
b1bb-f62625ff2f19-0-ab_msb_ocode-34458&ad=semD&an=msn_s&am=broad&
q=treatment+for+psychological+disorders&o=34458&qsrc=999&l=sem&
askid=4d2fee40-9f45-4d73-b1bb-f62625ff2f19-0-ab_msb

Mental disorders are not medical diseases:
http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/real-disease-vs-mental-disorder.html

...nor does it make addiction a choice
Using is a choice. Abusing is a choice. Make the right choice and there is no addiction. I agree no one says hey I choose to be addicted. But the addiction is a result of our choices as opposed to being the result of a medical disease.

They are both physiological and psychological.
There are both physiological and psychological changes associated with taxi-driving too. That's not enough to elevate it to the level of 'physiological disease'. The category of 'phsiological disease' excludes mental disorders.

So given that you refuse to accept the word 'addiction' for 'urges', what would you call someone who has stopped abusing but still feels urges to abuse?
Do you accept that such urges exist?
Actually, I refuse to accept the word 'compulsion' ( not 'addiction' ) for 'urges'. Of course such urges exist. But if a person isn't using, then they are not addicted.

There is a difference, btw, between using, abusing, and addiction. Some abusers are not addicted for example.

originally posted by twhitehead
In the thread that triggered this one, there is a poster who is not currently abusing, but who says that if he takes one drink he then cannot stop. Is he an addict? Is he alcoholic?
He's made the decision to keep drinking if he has one drink. I've met many like him. They believe in the disease model and are convinced they have no other choice.

Are we not discussing people like him but only people who are currently abusing?

We're discussing the disease model of addiction and why it is inaccurate and unhealthy.

Is the AAA for 'post alcoholics'?
You mean the AA? The AAA is for vehicle drivers. The AA is a huge cause of the harmful 'i have no self control over my addiction' meme. They call themselves 'alcoholics'.

And who are you even arguing with anyway, nobody actually disputes your core claims other than the fact that your use of certain words is non-standard.
All my usage is quite standard. Lots of people dispute the core claim. The meme is prevalent so I feel an urge to oppose it. What are you doing here? Besides (hopefully) learning about the importance of determining context. Man, your lack of that basic skill explains a lot.