[Godstud]

Yes.

Disease
a particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.

Mind you, it's not caused by a particular bacteria or virus...

I was tempted say "other" but it is viewed as a disease. It's a big problem, for some people.

[Suntzu]

So smoking is a disease?

[Godstud]

If you go by the definition, it can be considered one.

Smoking certainly involves increasing the risk of disease.

[Drlee]

So smoking is a disease?

This line of reasoning is not helpful. It is just semantics after all. Smoking makes people sick, it requires treatment and it causes physical changes in the body. One of these changes is that is manifests physical symptoms when one attempts to stop. So while someone is not sick after the first cigarette, they most certainly are after the 2,000th.

It is tempting for some people to try and find fault or weakness in the misfortune of others. So.

There are some people for whom drinking is not a problem. I am one of those people. I do not do it to excess (anymore). I can and do stop for varying periods of time. I do not endanger others with my drinking and I can afford to do it.

Some people have problems with one or more of the above. Who cares why? We should, as caring individuals, be prepared to help them with their issues and that would include health care if necessary.

One thing IS clear from often repeated research. Some people are more inclined to become addicted to alcohol. This inclination has a genetic component for many. It transcends economic and social lines. My suspicion is that alcoholism qualifies as a disease in many people. Some people, like Rancid, are just carriers. It may be because he is Latin. Or perhaps because he is well to do. Don't ask me.

[Godstud]

There are some people for whom drinking is not a problem. I am one of those people. I do not do it to excess (anymore). I can and do stop for varying periods of time. I do not endanger others with my drinking and I can afford to do it.

QFT. For the vast number of drinkers, this is the case.

Some people have problems with one or more of the above. Who cares why? We should, as caring individuals, be prepared to help them with their issues and that would include health care if necessary.

Yes. Just as we'd help someone who did something silly and got injured, so do we also help those who make mistakes and do things that harm themselves, like smoking, alcoholism, etc.

Genetics of Alcohol Use Disorder
How do genes influence alcohol use disorder?

Alcoholism often seems to run in families, and we may hear about scientific studies of an “alcoholism gene.” Genetics certainly influence our likelihood of developing alcoholism, but the story isn’t so simple.

Research shows that genes are responsible for about half of the risk for alcohol use disorder. Therefore, genes alone do not determine whether someone will become an alcoholic. Environmental factors, as well as gene and environment interactions account for the remainder of the risk.*

Multiple genes play a role in a person’s risk for developing alcohol use disorder. There are genes that increase a person’s risk, as well as those that may decrease that risk, directly or indirectly. For instance, some people of Asian descent carry a gene variant that alters their rate of alcohol metabolism, causing them to have symptoms like flushing, nausea, and rapid heartbeat when they drink. Many people who experience these effects avoid alcohol, which helps protect them from developing alcohol use disorder.**

As we have learned more about the role genes play in our health, researchers have discovered that different factors can alter the expression of our genes. This field is called epigenetics. Scientists are learning more and more about how epigenetics can affect our risk for developing alcohol use disorder.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-healt ... -disorders

[MistyTiger]

No. My answer is other.

I think alcoholism, as someone put it, is a symptom of a mental problem. I think people can be more susceptible to alcoholism if they have depression, they have a lot of mental anguish and they want to feel better. Like some people think that if they eat more, they will feel better. Last I checked, experts say that binge eating is an eating disorder, not a disease.

Someone mentioned addiction. Addiction is intense fascination with something because it stimulates or excites a person. I thought of how Duchovny was treated for his sex addiction years ago. Would you call sex addiction a disease? I would not. I call it a problem. Some people treat sex as a way to escape from thinking about how much they hate their life. At least once in our lives, we do wish we could escape off to a fantasy world where everything is easier or nicer than what we have, call it "the grass is greener" mindset or whatever you like. Any addiction exists to make us believe that we need something more to feel better inside, to feel that "high".

[Socialcynic]

Some qualified medical experts have said that alcoholism is a disease. But others contend that it is a behavioral problem rooted in choice.

It's both a disease and a behavioral problem. When people get drunk they do reckelsee things that can be a danger to their safety or others. That's a behavior problem in itself.

It is not abnormal behavior to want more and more of something that gives you a lot of joy and pleasure. It is perfectly normal to desire alcohol. What would be abnormal would be to desire something that you didn't enjoy. It is not the alcoholic who has an ill mind. It is the nature of the substance that causes people to crave it.

It might not be abnormal to want more of something you are addicticted to, but if that addiction is effecting your behavior and the consequences of your actions due to being under the influence some type of sickness exists within the abuser. Plus alcoholism impairs your judgement and fucks with your liver. Therefore if you chronically use it for a long time you're bound to come to ruin.

[stephen50right]

To be perfectly blunt...the key to keeping any addiction at bay, is never fool yourself into thinking you can control it...because you can't. AA and other addiction recovery methods have it right when they say abstinence is the only solution.

An alcoholic may think they can drink in moderation, and they may for many years, but sure as God made green apples, something will happen to cause the addiction to flare up again. Could be anything.

So whether it's addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc, the discipline must happen BEFORE the act occurs, because discipline during the act will sooner or later break down. For example an alcoholic may go to a party and tell themselves they will limit their drinking to say 2 drinks and that's it. And they may go to a number of parties and successfully do just that. But sooner or later, and it's usually sooner, the addict will have the 2, and then think "i'll have 3, i'm okay with that", then it's 4 and more and more and more. Only abstinence can truly result in a successful recovery.

Perhaps the toughest addiction of them all is overeating, because you cannot abstain from eating. Probably why the diet industry is a multi-billion dollar industry with all their weight loss gimmicks, most of which is bullchips. Here is where discipline comes into play to follow a strict diet and stick to it. Group support is superior to all the diet gimmicks put together. I would advise to join a support group, rather than waste money on costly diet gimmicks which rarely if ever work.

It's important to remember that all addictions are symptoms of emotional problems, of which all of us have emotional problems from time to time. How we deal with these problems determines our future, and helps us to keep any negative addictive behavior at bay or from ever happening.

[Decky]

It is more of a hobby in my opinion. Extreme sports can kill you but nobody would call them diseases.

[AJS]

Whether alcoholism is a disease or not, it's helpful for people like my friend to think of it as such as he can get control of his life back.

This is the bit I'm not so sure of, based on personal experience.

For some people I think that believing alcoholism is a disease enables them to justify to themselves their failure to reign in their drinking as it is something that is beyond their control.

I can see some merit in saying that it is a choice the alcoholic makes every time they open a bottle or go into a pub and drink until they become abusive or incapable of reason, and that only they can make the choice to control their drinking.

[stephen50right]

This is the bit I'm not so sure of, based on personal experience.

For some people I think that believing alcoholism is a disease enables them to justify to themselves their failure to reign in their drinking as it is something that is beyond their control.

I can see some merit in saying that it is a choice the alcoholic makes every time they open a bottle or go into a pub and drink until they become abusive or incapable of reason, and that only they can make the choice to control their drinking.

As mentioned earlier...only hitting rock bottom will give some addicts the incentive to get into recovery. Doesn't matter what truth they are told about the addiction. Doesn't even matter if they believe the truth or not, they continue with the addiction anyway for a multitude of reasons.

That being said, once an addict admits to the addiction and that they need help, I totally agree with other good posts in this thread that we as a society should do everything we can to help them.

Addiction problems are never something that can't be changed. Some of our US presidents were recovering alcoholics, George Bush 2 being one of them. Every addict can become an ex-addict if they truly desire to do so, and put in the necessary work to achieve a successful recovery.

[The Sabbaticus]

Alcoholism is a self-inflicted condition, wherein the subject has flooded his system with alcohol for such a sustained period of time, that the brain is effectively rewired to expect a certain amount of alcohol molecules to be present in the body. This leads to neuro-behavioural problems, dependency issues and an inability to deal with alcohol on a rational basis, as it also rewires the pleasure centres of the brain, and what have you. This is further complicated with the underlying affective problems and emotive issues for drinking so much in the first place, and the dysfunctional psychosocial elements of being considered a drunkard.

Anyway, that's my understanding. It's the same with certain narcotics.

[quetzalcoatl]

Yes, everything is a disease. Life itself is a disease. There is no free-will homunculus in your head. You are a physical system obeying physical laws. There are no bad choices, because there are no choices at all. Everything that you are and that you will be was determined at the beginning of the universe, including your illusion of choice. Call it a disease, call it bad character, it doesn't matter. It is what it is.

[stephen50right]

Alcoholism is a self-inflicted condition, wherein the subject has flooded his system with alcohol for such a sustained period of time, that the brain is effectively rewired to expect a certain amount of alcohol molecules to be present in the body. This leads to neuro-behavioural problems, dependency issues and an inability to deal with alcohol on a rational basis, as it also rewires the pleasure centres of the brain, and what have you. This is further complicated with the underlying affective problems and emotive issues for drinking so much in the first place, and the dysfunctional psychosocial elements of being considered a drunkard.

Anyway, that's my understanding. It's the same with certain narcotics.

Same way with marijuana, although cannabis addicts will howl to the moon that THC is not addictive, harmful or deadly. Reputable medical websites clearly state otherwise.

[stephen50right]

-

[Brother of Karl]

Alcoholism is a self-inflicted condition, wherein the subject has flooded his system with alcohol for such a sustained period of time, that the brain is effectively rewired to expect a certain amount of alcohol molecules to be present in the body. This leads to neuro-behavioural problems, dependency issues and an inability to deal with alcohol on a rational basis, as it also rewires the pleasure centres of the brain, and what have you. This is further complicated with the underlying affective problems and emotive issues for drinking so much in the first place, and the dysfunctional psychosocial elements of being considered a drunkard.

Anyway, that's my understanding. It's the same with certain narcotics.

That's not really how alcohol dependence works. Some drugs have a very specific effect on certain parts of the brain and leave the rest of your body alone. Alcohol has complex effects all over your body and on many different parts of the brain. Some people get a really powerful euphoria from being drunk, and some people less so. But that's not something that really changes as you start to drink more habitually, it's something you're pretty much born with. Also, the mechanism where alcohol causes euphoria isn't the same mechanism that causes physical dependence. That mechanism is where alcohol acts as a GABA receptor agonist. If you are constantly drunk, then your body's production and sensitivity to the neurotransmitter GABA changes (I'm not sure whether it becomes hypersensitive or unsensitive) in order to keep you at equilibrium. This is how people who drink a lot develop a tolerance and can handle more alcohol than non-drinkers. If you quit drinking cold turkey, then your GABA production will be all out of whack and this can lead to symptoms like the shakes or seizures.

The effects on the GABA receptor is specifically what makes alcohol a physical dependence. It's also the same way that sedative dependence works, like xanax or valium. For people who are so dependent on alcohol that going cold turkey is dangerous, they are given sedatives which prevents withdrawal symptoms, and then their dose is tapered down until they can get off it.

Same way with marijuana, although cannabis addicts will howl to the moon that THC is not addictive, harmful or deadly. Reputable medical websites clearly state otherwise.

I'm not sure what sources you've looked at, but the physical withdrawal symptoms associated with cannabis are child's play compared to hard drugs like alcohol (which can be deadly) or opiates (which put you through a week or more of physical hell) or even cigarettes. Most cannabis users who quit experience no symptoms, and of the ones that do, it's pretty much just a week of difficulty sleeping, and lack of appetite.

You also can't overdose from it. The lethal dose of THC is so high that no one has ever hit it. It's not deadly unless you get high and then get behind the wheel. And even then, cannabis is far less likely to cause deadly crashes than alcohol.

Cannabis is far less addictive than those other drugs, but it can be addictive. I've met people who claimed to be unable to function without it. That's because when you're high all the time, you re-learn how to do all your daily activities under the influence, and so the prospect of having to do all your daily activities without it can seem scary.

[stephen50right]

That's not really how alcohol dependence works. Some drugs have a very specific effect on certain parts of the brain and leave the rest of your body alone. Alcohol has complex effects all over your body and on many different parts of the brain. Some people get a really powerful euphoria from being drunk, and some people less so. But that's not something that really changes as you start to drink more habitually, it's something you're pretty much born with. Also, the mechanism where alcohol causes euphoria isn't the same mechanism that causes physical dependence. That mechanism is where alcohol acts as a GABA receptor agonist. If you are constantly drunk, then your body's production and sensitivity to the neurotransmitter GABA changes (I'm not sure whether it becomes hypersensitive or unsensitive) in order to keep you at equilibrium. This is how people who drink a lot develop a tolerance and can handle more alcohol than non-drinkers. If you quit drinking cold turkey, then your GABA production will be all out of whack and this can lead to symptoms like the shakes or seizures.

The effects on the GABA receptor is specifically what makes alcohol a physical dependence. It's also the same way that sedative dependence works, like xanax or valium. For people who are so dependent on alcohol that going cold turkey is dangerous, they are given sedatives which prevents withdrawal symptoms, and then their dose is tapered down until they can get off it.



I'm not sure what sources you've looked at, but the physical withdrawal symptoms associated with cannabis are child's play compared to hard drugs like alcohol (which can be deadly) or opiates (which put you through a week or more of physical hell) or even cigarettes. Most cannabis users who quit experience no symptoms, and of the ones that do, it's pretty much just a week of difficulty sleeping, and lack of appetite.

You also can't overdose from it. The lethal dose of THC is so high that no one has ever hit it. It's not deadly unless you get high and then get behind the wheel. And even then, cannabis is far less likely to cause deadly crashes than alcohol.

Cannabis is far less addictive than those other drugs, but it can be addictive. I've met people who claimed to be unable to function without it. That's because when you're high all the time, you re-learn how to do all your daily activities under the influence, and so the prospect of having to do all your daily activities without it can seem scary.

<<< I'm not sure what sources you've looked at >>>

Every major medical website that has studied marijuana.

Frankly, anyone who has used both alcohol and marijuana, knows that it takes a lot more alcohol to get the same type of high as just a few quick tokes of high potency marijuana. Even without any major medical website info, of which that is numerous, nobody is going to convince me that a drug that has such an effect on one's brain, is a safe drug.

THC, it's not like it's a substance naturally found in our bodies. The internal organs must work hard to try to get rid of it, and without a doubt prolific marijuana use will prematurely rot out and cause disease to our internal organs. Steve Jobs from Apple, one of the richest people in the world with access to the finest doctors, was a prolific marijuana user who died at age 56 from pancreatic cancer. In my opinion, that cancer was brought on by prolific marijuana use. Of course the cause of death wouldn't be "marijuana" on the autopsy report, but marijuana is a dangerous and deadly drug as stated on the medical websites, and if someone wishes to foolishly risk their life, just to get some sort of THC "high", then in my view that is a very bad idea.

If the choice, depending on one's viewpoint, is between alcohol and marijuana because one or the other is considered safer...I say choose neither.

All that being said, I am not against medical marijuana with the THC removed, when that can be used as a doctor prescribed, pain killer treatment versus more dangerous opiate based narcotics.

[Brother of Karl]

Frankly, anyone who has used both alcohol and marijuana, knows that it takes a lot more alcohol to get the same type of high as just a few quick tokes of high potency marijuana. Even without any major medical website info, of which that is numerous, nobody is going to convince me that a drug that has such an effect on one's brain, is a safe drug.

The most potent modern buds have a higher active chemical content than they had in the past. That's mostly a result of prohibition, where producing a more potent-by weight product is a huge advantage for black market smugglers who have limited space in their hiding places. It's like how during prohibition, most liquor smugglers produced hard moonshine. By the way, if you're comparing hits to shots (of hard alcohol), it takes a similar amount to get a person a little bit high. The difference is that overdosing on alcohol is incredibly dangerous, but THC has a ceiling effect and an overdose doesn't pose any serious risks. In places with no prohibition, people prefer weaker varieties and are more likely to consume pot only to the point of a slight buzz.

Also you keep mentioning these great sources you have, why not actually link to them?

THC, it's not like it's a substance naturally found in our bodies. The internal organs must work hard to try to get rid of it, and without a doubt prolific marijuana use will prematurely rot out and cause disease to our internal organs. Steve Jobs from Apple, one of the richest people in the world with access to the finest doctors, was a prolific marijuana user who died at age 56 from pancreatic cancer. In my opinion, that cancer was brought on by prolific marijuana use. Of course the cause of death wouldn't be "marijuana" on the autopsy report, but marijuana is a dangerous and deadly drug as stated on the medical websites, and if someone wishes to foolishly risk their life, just to get some sort of THC "high", then in my view that is a very bad idea.

Ok, how to tackle this hot mess of a paragraph. First of all, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system
THC mimics a class of natural hormones that are found in the body. It's no more foreign to the body than any other drug, and has not been shown to be toxic to any human tissue.

Claiming that Steve Jobs acquired pancreatic cancer due to marijuana use is the most blatant speculation I've ever heard. It's not worthy of a response. Radical claims require radical support, so let's see some, or I'll assume you're full of shit. There's no evidence to believe that he even smoked pot beyond his 20s. Pancreatic cancer has no known causes currently. Steve Jobs died because he had irrational beliefs against modern medicine and tried to cure his cancer with an organic diet instead of surgery and chemotherapy, and by the time he changed his mind it was too late.

All that being said, I am not against medical marijuana with the THC removed, when that can be used as a doctor prescribed, pain killer treatment versus more dangerous opiate based narcotics.

That's pointless. Why would you sell a medication with the active ingredient removed? The THC is the thing that treats neuropathic pain.

[stephen50right]

The most potent modern buds have a higher active chemical content than they had in the past. That's mostly a result of prohibition, where producing a more potent-by weight product is a huge advantage for black market smugglers who have limited space in their hiding places. It's like how during prohibition, most liquor smugglers produced hard moonshine. By the way, if you're comparing hits to shots (of hard alcohol), it takes a similar amount to get a person a little bit high. The difference is that overdosing on alcohol is incredibly dangerous, but THC has a ceiling effect and an overdose doesn't pose any serious risks. In places with no prohibition, people prefer weaker varieties and are more likely to consume pot only to the point of a slight buzz.

Also you keep mentioning these great sources you have, why not actually link to them?




Ok, how to tackle this hot mess of a paragraph. First of all, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system
THC mimics a class of natural hormones that are found in the body. It's no more foreign to the body than any other drug, and has not been shown to be toxic to any human tissue.

Claiming that Steve Jobs acquired pancreatic cancer due to marijuana use is the most blatant speculation I've ever heard. It's not worthy of a response. Radical claims require radical support, so let's see some, or I'll assume you're full of shit. There's no evidence to believe that he even smoked pot beyond his 20s. Pancreatic cancer has no known causes currently. Steve Jobs died because he had irrational beliefs against modern medicine and tried to cure his cancer with an organic diet instead of surgery and chemotherapy, and by the time he changed his mind it was too late.




That's pointless. Why would you sell a medication with the active ingredient removed? The THC is the thing that treats neuropathic pain.

Jobs wasn't going to publicly admit that he was using an illegal substance. Especially being a leader of a huge corporation.

One thing I'll give cannabis addicts credit where credit is due. They will cleverly delude themselves and argue falsehoods like crazy about marijuana being safe to justify their addiction...which by the way is a disease.

[Suntzu]

Marijuana is not addictive. It is also pretty harmless and no one has ever died from an overdose.