4 ms·
I believe the reporter is still trying to place blame. This is both counter-productive from a treatment standpoint, and also probably in direct conflict with w
by mjevans 10y ago
I believe the reporter is still trying to place blame. This is both counter-productive from a treatment standpoint, and also probably in direct conflict with what the /lead/ for experts in the US has stated is the case.
That once addiction has set in, it is every bit as much a disease that requires external intervention and treatment to correct the imbalance as the other conditions.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y agountil we realize that addiction to living is the only thing keeping us going. you're all idiots.
- twblalock 10y agoThe author is arguing that the reduction of addiction to a neurological concept ignores a long list of other components to addiction, some of which are moral, some of which are environmental, and others. The author further argues that people make this reduction because they think it prevents addicts from being blamed for their addiction, and that doesn't make sense because when you talk about what is going on in someone's brain, you are talking about most of what you consider to be the person, including that person's personality, beliefs, thoughts, feelings, etc. So, it's not an attempt to blame anyone. It's an argument that the mechanisms people use to deflect blame don't make sense. In other words, people who blame addicts for their addiction have no reason to stop blaming them if addiction is reduced to a neurological pathology, and people who don't blame addicts have no reason to start blaming them if addiction is reduced to a neurological pathology. The neurological pathology thing doesn't make a difference.