Every culture has beliefs based on definitions so ingrained that they go mostly unnoticed. The concept of “addiction” in the collective American mind is one such definition.

Ailment was once defined on theological terms. Death was a result of the sin inherent in humankind, while sickness was the scourge of God exacted on a sinful individual. This view of illness was helpful—the people had constructed a way to explain an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon.

As modern science emerged, theoretical conceptions—like germ theory—took the place of theology. Recently, theories on genetic predisposition and addiction have taken on the task of explaining human vice. To a great degree, they have been helpful. They became so helpful that, like the theological ones before them, scientific definitions of addiction became ingrained in the public consciousness.

Yet our current definition of addiction has a negative effect. Addiction is, in most scientific circles, classified as a disease. I contend that it most certainly is not.

A disease is an effect caused by sources upon which the victim can exercise no control. When I catch influenza, I cannot be blamed for my actions; the ailment is caused by a small organism whose temporary residence in my body could not have been prevented by any conscious action of my own. Similarly, a child cannot be blamed for its hereditary cystic fibrosis. The factors of a disease are altogether unpreventable by acts of personal will.

Addiction certainly involves factors over which the addict has no control. The genetic predispositions related to addiction are well-known and documented. Additionally, the average person entirely consumed by addiction cannot expect to fight the chemical dependency that has been ingrained in their body’s chemistry over long periods of use. Where, then, does willpower come into the equation?

Individuals do not immediately become addicted. First choices become habits, which eventually develop into addictions. It is at these two stages, first choice and habit, that the individual can consciously choose his or her path.

The first choice is characterized by the first several times an individual chooses to partake of a substance, where the length of the stage is dependent on the addictive strength of the substance. During the first, say for example, 10 cigarettes you smoke in your life, you have the opportunity to stop before progressing to habitual use. As this stage requires the least personal willpower, it would be advisable to stop here.

Habit results from a pattern of usage, making escape more difficult. At this point, the psychological effects of substance use have set in, but the chemical dependency that characterizes addiction is still developing. While it is considerably more difficult to stop, those with a decent amount of personal strength can still choose their course of action. The weak will progress to addiction.

Addiction is the most intense and inescapable stage of substance abuse. In the grip of chemical dependency, only the strongest willed individuals can hope to overcome their miserable state. An alternative route, as has been used in programs like Alcoholics Anonymous, is to rely on an individual stronger than oneself—in short, God.

The point is that addiction, although often inescapable in itself, has its roots in personal choice, and as such cannot be classified as a disease. Recognizing addiction’s choice-based component has serious ethical implications.

If we admit that addiction is primarily the result of personal choice, then the moral imperative to accommodate addicts falls away. When an obese man complains that an airline company has failed to take his needs into account, the airliner has no moral obligation to accommodate him. He consented to any and all effects of obesity, including social stigmas, when he made the personal choices that set him on the road to obesity.

The same is true for smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts. The most important moral imperative to ignore is a medical one. When the smoker chose to smoke for the first several times—and later chose to maintain his or her habit—he or she consciously consented to a less-healthy-than-average lifestyle. As this was a personal choice, society has no moral obligation to treat the side effects. Similarly, liver donations are not given to alcoholics, and heart transplants are not given to cocaine addicts.

People should be entirely free to choose a lifestyle marked by use or abuse of the substance. Yet they should realize that when one chooses a lifestyle involving use or abuse of a substance, he or she is consciously consenting to several risks. Personal choices absolve society of any and all moral obligations to accommodate addiction.

 

[email protected]

VIEWPOINTS