"But I think their point is that in the above scenario, the cancer patient would still die from cancer whereas the addict wouldn't have the negative effects of their addiction (beyond an initial withdrawal) without access to their addictive substance."
- hilarious. Just goes to show how little ppl know about the "ism"
"No negative effects?" Really? Have you ever been around a dry drunk? Or an addict of any kind? Or better yet someone who's been in an institution and gets dry? only to be off to the races once released because they're convinced they are like others? A miserable manipulative family crushing dis-ease of life is addiction. Addiction is the most patient disease in existence
. This is what makes it so powerful. If you don't think there's any negative effects of addiction other than "initial withdraw"- which an addict can die of btw - then you havent stuck around a real addict long enough to witness the havoc their addiction plays on all aspects of their life. It is a disease of mind body and soul. Which is why it is so continually baffling to people. That person with cancer btw can get the cancer remove, ask tig. The person with addiction will never win that battle. This is why surrender to the disease is so crucial and why stigma and ignorance against it being a disease in the first place is so very dangerous. Also addiction can be the cause of something like cancer. I'd say that's a pretty negative shitty effect.
