Some even believe in the cooked-up notion of a ‘chronic and relapsing; DISEASE of drug addiction.
But where did this ‘chronic and relapsing’ notion come from?
Apparently from observations of addiction researchers and support practitioners that their respondents’ and clients’ drug addiction is in many cases, indeed ‘chronic and relapsing’…but…providing little clarification as to why this might be so.
‘Chronic and relapsing’ disease?
Proponents of the addiction-as-disease notion are quick to bring up dubious ‘evidence’ such as images of parts of the brain ‘lighting up’ when drugs are ingested—apparently ignoring the argument that such correlations might also occur when the individual is doing something else, if this was tested for, thereby somewhat annulling the addiction-as-disease argument using such correlated brain images.
Confusion…confusion… .
I also think that there is a certain amount of confusing disease FROM addiction with disease AS addiction; the former being a well-evidenced phenomenon while the latter is fervently contested.
‘Chronic and relapsing’ condition?
Or, many commentators point to drug addiction as a consequence of impoverished environments (and not just financial). But why should this be so? Sometimes, it seems to me that commentators of this stripe are assuming that it is obvious why this should be so, therefore, going no further than pointing to overview impoverished environments.
Seems to me that the only way that this explanation can ‘work’ is with an intervening variable between impoverished environments and drug addiction which not only accounts for the addiction but also for it potentially being ‘chronic and relapsing’.
Equation.
E. g. impoverished environments>>>???>>>drug addiction such that the former leads to the latter which for some, can be ‘chronic and relapsing’.
Well, how about this? Hiding in plain sight is the individual’s cognition or mental processes; the individual’s perspective on or about impoverished environments.
What are they going to do about being in an impoverished environment?
Some might seek to ‘battle’ their way out towards improved circumstances.
While for others, their impoverished environments might seem inescapable—even overwhelming to the point of them thinking that almost any immediately achievable escape will do—like dabbling in drug use which could, and in many cases does, lead to eventual addiction which in many cases becomes ‘chronic and relapsing’.
So what about ‘treatment’?
Actually,’treating’ someone’s drug addiction is a ‘doing to’ waste of everybody’s time. Giving a drug addict from an impoverished environment ‘treatment’—like methadone—while both client and ‘treatment’ provider ignore the client’s impoverished environment, is a good recipe for ‘chronic and relapsing’.
Two-way contract.
Rather, the ‘doing with’ way to go in order to plausibly achieve a brighter client future, is an active collaboration between client and support services that addresses both the client’s addiction AND her or his impoverished environment.
But still, the outcome depends largely on the client’s perspective.
Do they believe that they can eventually attain that brighter future?
Do they believe that they have the limiting ‘disease’ of addiction?
Or do they believe that their addiction is the consequence of social circumstances which can be overcome?
Are they open to changing their minds?
Catch a Grip: the outcome of your addiction depends on what you believe.
Catch a Grip 