No it actually isn't, and what you actually are parroting is the modern psuedo scientific cult of irresponsiblity.That way of thinking is outdated and incorrect. Science literally disagrees with what you are saying:
How addiction hijacks the brain - Harvard Health
But, hey, if you're smarter than the scientists who actually study this for a living, then okay
check out other scientific studies.
Addiction is not a disease
Addiction is not a disease
Tim Holden, MMed (Psych), Psychiatrist and assistant professor
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
The statement, in a CMAJ editorial, 1 that addiction is a disease is not supported by the evidence and reads more like a political policy statement than a reasoned intellectual argument.
There has been a steady erosion of individual responsibility and loss of any concept of personal blame for bad choices. To quote comedian Flip Wilson, “It’s not my fault — the devil made me do it.” Calls to destigmatize addiction remove any sense of personal responsibility.
Addiction does not meet the criteria specified for a core disease entity, namely the presence of a primary measurable deviation from physiologic or anatomical norm.2 Addiction is self-acquired and is not transmissible, contagious, autoimmune, hereditary, degenerative or traumatic. Treatment consists of little more than stopping a given behaviour. True diseases worsen if left untreated. A patient with cancer is not cured if locked in a cell, whereas an alcoholic is automatically cured. No access to alcohol means no alcoholism. A person with schizophrenia will not remit if secluded. Sepsis will spread and Parkinson disease will worsen if left untreated. Criminal courts do not hand down verdicts of “not guilty by virtue of mental illness” to drunk drivers who kill pedestrians.
At best, addiction is a maladaptive response to an underlying condition, such as depression or a nonspecific inability to cope with the world.
The study on the neurobiology of addiction3 referred to in the CMAJ editorial1 looked at the brains of people with addiction after they had damaged them by their behaviour — brains were not examined in their premorbid state. This is analogous to saying that the sequelae of a traumatic brain injury were themselves the cause of said brain injury. Ironically, the title of the referenced article uses the term “disorders” not “diseases.”
Medicalizing addiction has not led to any management advances at the individual level. The need for helping or treating people with addictions is not in doubt, but a social problem requires social interventions.
Tim Holden, MMed (Psych), Psychiatrist and assistant professor
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
The statement, in a CMAJ editorial, 1 that addiction is a disease is not supported by the evidence and reads more like a political policy statement than a reasoned intellectual argument.
There has been a steady erosion of individual responsibility and loss of any concept of personal blame for bad choices. To quote comedian Flip Wilson, “It’s not my fault — the devil made me do it.” Calls to destigmatize addiction remove any sense of personal responsibility.
Addiction does not meet the criteria specified for a core disease entity, namely the presence of a primary measurable deviation from physiologic or anatomical norm.2 Addiction is self-acquired and is not transmissible, contagious, autoimmune, hereditary, degenerative or traumatic. Treatment consists of little more than stopping a given behaviour. True diseases worsen if left untreated. A patient with cancer is not cured if locked in a cell, whereas an alcoholic is automatically cured. No access to alcohol means no alcoholism. A person with schizophrenia will not remit if secluded. Sepsis will spread and Parkinson disease will worsen if left untreated. Criminal courts do not hand down verdicts of “not guilty by virtue of mental illness” to drunk drivers who kill pedestrians.
At best, addiction is a maladaptive response to an underlying condition, such as depression or a nonspecific inability to cope with the world.
The study on the neurobiology of addiction3 referred to in the CMAJ editorial1 looked at the brains of people with addiction after they had damaged them by their behaviour — brains were not examined in their premorbid state. This is analogous to saying that the sequelae of a traumatic brain injury were themselves the cause of said brain injury. Ironically, the title of the referenced article uses the term “disorders” not “diseases.”
Medicalizing addiction has not led to any management advances at the individual level. The need for helping or treating people with addictions is not in doubt, but a social problem requires social interventions.
Drug Addiction Is a Matter of Difficult Choices - NYTimes.com
science also shows addiction doesn't eliminate choice
The most common correlates of quitting were financial pressures, the threat of legal sanctions and the obligations of family life, particularly the expectations and needs of children and parents. Just as this pattern of correlates does not fit any plausible understanding of disease, it also fails to support conventional understandings of will power. A toxic mix of immediate pleasure and delayed penalties motivate excessive drug use, and the eventual use-dependent increases in costs and decreases in benefits bring addiction to a halt.
That most addicts end up quitting does not preclude the need for interventions. Most addicts keep using until the penalties of excessive use become overwhelming. The signs are the staggering monetary costs addiction exacts on society and the tragic personal costs for those closest to drug users, particularly children. Successful anti-addiction interventions emphasize that addicts can stop using drugs, encourage activities that can compete with drug use, promote fellowship, provide positive role models (addicts who have quit), offer opportunities for service to others and arrange immediate consequences for sobriety and relapse. These are common sense solutions to problems in living.
What research shows is that those we label addicts have the capacity to take control of their lives. It is time to reformulate drug policy and addiction interventions on the basis of this well-established finding.
That most addicts end up quitting does not preclude the need for interventions. Most addicts keep using until the penalties of excessive use become overwhelming. The signs are the staggering monetary costs addiction exacts on society and the tragic personal costs for those closest to drug users, particularly children. Successful anti-addiction interventions emphasize that addicts can stop using drugs, encourage activities that can compete with drug use, promote fellowship, provide positive role models (addicts who have quit), offer opportunities for service to others and arrange immediate consequences for sobriety and relapse. These are common sense solutions to problems in living.
What research shows is that those we label addicts have the capacity to take control of their lives. It is time to reformulate drug policy and addiction interventions on the basis of this well-established finding.
Things won't get better if we as a community , keep believing in the non-sense determinism, psuedo science of addiction put out by big pharma
