Should addiction be seen as an illness?

[MuggedByReality]

   Do you agree with the following letter to a newspaper?

  "Tanya Gold perpetuates the self-serving myth that "addiction" is a "mental illness" or a "disease" (Amy is dead, a myth is born, 25 July). This is a gross insult to everyone afflicted by genuine illness or disease. People with the lifestyle problems of reckless or excessive drinking or drug-taking are the active agents in their own difficulties. Most serve long careers and spend vast amounts of money in cultivating the "addict" persona.

There is no mystery: people drink or take drugs because these substances, the accompanying rituals and culture somehow "work" for them. Some are seen as the villain of their story, only to become an overnight hero by kicking the habit. None are coerced into this lifestyle, nor can they be rescued from it, however much they might pay a Harley Street psychiatrist. While personal or social circumstances might be part of the story, the person is always the key agent. To suggest that they are not responsible is to diminish them as a person.

People who "recover" make a conscious decision to get over their problems and work hard at this – usually by spending a lot of time talking with a "therapist" or other "addicts". However important support and compassion may be, the key is the person's commitment to "self-help". If only people with genuine illness or disease could "decide to recover" or "talk their way to health"."
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jul/25/addiction-myth-amy-winehouse

[Eriny]

It is far more complicated than what the author is saying. In order to recover from addiction, one needs to decide to do so and have the willpower required to do so, at least when the addiction is being treated in a mainstream, biomedical fashion. However, this letter comes pretty close to saying that addicts want to be addicted, which is far from true. While medical problems may or may not cause addiction, it is very misleading and wrong to say that people are just simply a product of choice, they also usually have to deal with things like social exclusion, lack of opportunities and resources, unfortunate life events, and discrimination. In such circumstances and without a supportive group of friends and family, addiction (as well as mental illness) becomes incredibly common. This is before we even consider potential biological bases/predispositions for addiction, which do have some evidence behind them.

But even if addiction were a product of choice, I think we could be much more compassionate than what the letter is suggesting. While addiction, in my opinion, is no justification for committing crimes and hurting others, there is still grounds to help people who do want to tackle their addiction and also to fund preventative measures that aim towards having more social inclusion.