[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, 'alcoholism' is not equivalent to 'drinking'. I think pretty much everyone would agree that cessation of drinking for one week doesn't make you any less of an alcoholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree, it is sort of question-begging. Thats only true if there is some actual thing or disease which we can call alcoholism. If alcoholism ISNT a disease, but is simply a description of a behavior, then you aren't an alcoholic as soon as you stop drinking, getting fired from jobs, beating your wife, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this does need to be better defined, but a comparison to a cancer patient in remission seems apt here. (Not towards the severity of the disease, but the stages)

Like the cancer can return at anytime, so can the tendency to drink. That isn't to imply that alcoholism is as severe as cancer. Just that it may be a more complex disorder than it appears to be on the surface.

The million dollar analogy is very flawed, by the way. It'd certainly be enough of an inducement for the voluntary addictions. Especially for the fairly high subset among them that are manipulative and can easily rationalize giving up their favorite thing for a week, if it brings them a lifetime of indulgence in said addictions.

For those that are willing to equate reliance and dependency on seemingly voluntary substances, with the exception of food, whereas it's an overindulgence...

Can a diabetic or cancer patient be said to have been weak at some point in his or her life that they are culpable of their own diseases? While there is a higher degree of potential self-help in regards to addictions, it is also true that if a diabetic or cancer sufferer does not take the appropriate means to lessen the disease's impact on their physical and probably mental states, the diseases can have a worse effect.

Along these lines, the same is also true of addictions. There's a co-dependent effect on the body, mind, and substance that mirrors the parasitic effects of a disease. The emotional impacts can be the same. The disagreement follows mostly in the societal view that determines that some things are a weakness of the will, and some are unavoidable.

<shrugs> Or to simplify things, how would you immediately judge a diabetic that decided to suddenly slam down gallons of cola and eat chocolate bars?