NOWrecovery.com

Let us note first of all that there exist many definitions of addiction. Now, we won’t waste our time by analyzing each and every one of them. We will, however, examine some of the more relevant ones – how they fit your lifestyle, as well as the impact they may have upon you and your recovery.

It is also important to note here that any description or definition depends upon the perception and the philosophy of the one doing the defining. In reality, there exist two differing viewpoints when it comes to describing a problem situation: the first is from those who observe the situation; the second is from those who are in that situation.

As you read these pages, keep in mind that every definition of addiction used in any field of intervention comes from those who intervene and who thus observe the problem – clinicians, therapists, medical associations, etc. The viewpoint of any observer or interventionist will necessarily be influenced by that person’s field of interest, expertise and experience. Thus, the definition of the problem situation can sometimes fall short of the mark for those living the problem.

Moreover, once we commit to resolving a problem situation, the actions we undertake will evidently be dictated by the perception we ourselves have of the problem. If we allow ourselves to simply adopt the viewpoint of another as a framework for our action plan, without understanding the origins and the potential impact of that viewpoint, we run the very high risk of our efforts being fruitless.

Stanton Peele – the developer of Harm Reduction ideology – has written an excellent article on the subject of self-cure: Out of the Habit Trap; Five Stages to Freedom.

We will begin by examining, and refuting, the most popular – yet by far the most inaccurate – definition of addiction. As this first example is both inaccurate and popular, adopting it as a foundation upon which to build and execute your recovery program can potentially create as much harm as your addiction.

In many fields of intervention and popular support groups, we still find the following definition of addiction (or something very similar):

Although this type of definition is accurate in the mention of “neurochemical and molecular changes in the brain” (those changes can occur with any compulsive or obsessive behavior), it is highly inadequate as a global definition of addiction. I would even go so far as to say it is quite simply wrong. Why? Simple: addiction is not a disease.

“Say what? But, my doctor / psychiatrist / therapist / counselor / group says…” Stop. It’s not. If you have allowed yourself to be convinced that addiction is a disease, allow me to repeat that bold and bald statement here: whoever told you that addiction is a disease is WRONG.

Think about it for a moment. Every time you take a drink, or a snort, or whatever, you choose to do so. Every time you get up and walk away from that bar, or put away your little baggie, you choose to do so. Whatever you do, you exercise your power to choose, and then act on that choice.

If we adopt the definition of addiction is a disease, we must also accept that we have little to no control over its development, and that we are powerless to effect change without some kind of external intervention. (This view just happens to be the initial claim of the 12-step approach, the heart of its attraction, and its trap.)

Read the next article in this series to take a closer look at the inaccuracy and potential damage that can be wrought by claiming powerlessness to effect change.

Next: Why the disease model is inaccurate