When Philip Seymour Hoffman died Huffington Post ran an article which quoted someone (I think Jamie Lee Curtis) talking about 'this terrible disease'. Now I know that modelling it as disease has been quite successful for the purposes of treatment however I absolutely think its wrong to call it a disease for a few reasons. But I absolutely do not believe that it is a disease and whats more I think its very harmful to call it one.
To my mind calling it a disease takes away people's control and makes them think they are going to be dogged by it for the rest of their lives. Cynical me thinks that addiction clinics like that situation just fine.
People give up their addictions by choice - usually after hitting rock bottom with some substances but it is still a choice they make which to my mind is the crucial factor in making it a behavioural issue rather than a disease. Whoever got rid of malaria, diabetes or shingles by choice?
I've had a couple of addictions in my time - I smoked 20/30 a day for about 25 years and gave up by choice about 8 years ago. I never even think about it now - even when people around me are smoking it doesn't worry me one bit. The same with other substances I have been addicted to - don't care, don't miss them, don't ever think about them.
Also contrary to AA doctrine there are many, many people who give up on their own without any help whatsoever - me being just one of them but also a couple of friends of mine too. I actually don't think it helps anyone to make them keep going to meetings and constantly reminding them of what they cant have.
Anyway - I voiced this opinion on HuffPo and apart from one or two voices of support most people have ranted and raged and I think would have had me executed if they could
So - what do you illustrious people think? Disease or not?