I will admit that I certainly have never worked with addicts, nor am I an addict myself. But surely, if this were indeed a disease as people have said, did Scott have it all his life, or did it become a disease after he started using? I'm just not able to see how picking up a needle, sticking it in your arm, and injecting the liquid are not all conscious decisions. Unless someone forced him to do heroin at gunpoint, I see his use as a choice. I see drinking and driving as a choice too. If someone accidentally takes someone's life while drunk driving, we don't excuse the behavior and say they have a disease of alcohol and that's because the death could have been avoided if the person had not been so selfish. If someone accidentally killed a family member we would want them in jail for reckless behavior and I highly doubt we would say that someone else's disease was the culprit.
To say it's a disease is to victimize the user, and I will almost completely guarantee Scott had some knowledge that heroin was not in his best interest but did it anyways. Something has to be said for someone like Scott who stuck needles in his arms versus a person who goes for an MRI and finds out they have a brain tumor. They are not the same thing at all. How about people who once did drugs, but chose to stop doing them? These people's brains magically ignored the "genetic component" of addiction as well as the "biological, environmental, and psychological element" all of a sudden? I doubt it. They chose to wake up, and to stop hurting themselves and their families.
I was reading some comments from users at this article. The very first comment is from a user who does not see themselves as having a disease:
http://www.thecleanslate.org/myths/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease-it-is-a-choice/
In terms of accepting addiction as a disease, it's completely irrelevant that one user chooses to view it differently. Some cancer sufferers believe Vitamin C can cure them, but that doesn't make it a fact. You have to follow the science, which offers ample proof that addiction is a disease. The brain of an addict is wired differently. Their dopamine receptors don't work like non-addicts.
Of course addicts know drugs aren't in their best interest. Do you really think Scott Weiland was happy with his addictions? The guy spent millions on rehab and tried to get clean over and over again. That's the whole point. It's not a choice. Believe me, almost all addicts desperately want to get clean. Sure, the first time someone uses a drug they later become addicted to, it's a choice. It's also a choice when someone smokes their first cigarette. But that doesn't make the cancer they may then develop a 'choice', or any less of a disease, does it? Addiction is the same. A disease that is triggered by initial use, and exacerbated by the underlying genetic, biological etc conditions I mentioned earlier. It's still a disease. Do you understand that?
Regarding the argument you're trying to make re former users that have successfully stopped using, it's as simple as this - they don't have those same underlying genetic predispositions, and for them it's a simpler case of detoxification and behavioural therap. Also, like in cancer, sometimes chemo successfully treats cancer, sometimes it doesn't.
With regards to your drunk driving comments, I don't see how that's relevant at all to the discussion at hand, which is whether or not addiction is a medical disease. As I mentioned earlier, there is plentiful real research available online for you to read and educate yourself. I suggest you start with real science sites and organizations. The WHO, AMA, NHS etc. Don't just search and cherry pick from some pseudo-science piece and random comments section that you think will support your argument.
