I’m Sorry

Abstract

Addiction is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that has been described variously as a disease, disorder, syndrome, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, learned behaviour, or spiritual malady. Modern scientific understanding emphasises addiction as a chronic brain disorder shaped by neurobiological changes, learning, and social context. This article examines each conceptualisation and presents an integrated definition that aligns with current neuroscience, psychological, and public health evidence.

Conceptualising Addiction: Labels and Their Accuracy

No single label fully captures addiction’s complexity; each highlights certain truths while overlooking others.

Disease

From a medical perspective, disease is the closest match. Addiction involves persistent neurobiological changes in reward, stress, and self-control circuits, increases relapse risk over years, and shows substantial genetic vulnerability (~50–60%) (NIDA, 2018; Heilig et al., 2021). Treatments improve outcomes but rarely “cure” the condition. This framing is used by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), NIDA, WHO ICD-11, and DSM-5-TR (as “Substance Use Disorder”) (NIDA, 2018).

Disorder

Disorder is also scientifically accurate and slightly less medicalised. DSM-5’s “Substance Use Disorder” captures behavioural, psychological, and biological criteria and recognises functioning and harm rather than framing addiction strictly as a lifelong disease (Heather, n.d.; Heilig et al., 2021).

Syndrome

Addiction may be described as a syndrome because it is a cluster of symptoms with behavioural and physiological manifestations, without a single causative factor. However, the term is too generic for practical use outside clinical texts (Blithikioti et al., 2025).

Obsessive and Compulsive Learned Behaviour

Addiction involves learning, habit formation, and compulsion through reinforcement of rewarding behaviours (Hyman, 2005; Hausotter, 2013). Yet describing it solely as learned behaviour ignores genetic predisposition, neuroadaptation, withdrawal, and social factors.

Spiritual Malady

Some mutual-aid traditions characterise addiction as a spiritual malady. While this may be meaningful for individuals, it is not scientifically explanatory: addiction can be adequately explained via biological, psychological, and social mechanisms (Lewis, 2017).

Modern Integrative Definition

The most accurate contemporary description of addiction is:
“A chronic, relapsing disorder of brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control, shaped by learning, environment, and social context”.

This definition encompasses:

• Disease/disorder: medical accuracy
• Learned behaviour and compulsion: neuroscience and behavioural accuracy
• Social determinants: public health relevance
• Flexibility for personal or spiritual interpretations

In short, addiction is best understood as a bio-psycho-social condition that is treatable and sometimes reversible, rather than a deterministic, lifelong curse.

Neurobiology: Why Addiction Is Considered a Brain Disorder

Repeated substance use alters structural and functional brain circuits involved in reward, stress, motivation, memory, and self-control (Nwonu et al., 2022; NIDA, 2018). These changes can persist long after use stops, explaining why addiction is more than a matter of “bad habits” or weak will (NIDA, 2025).

Chronicity and Relapse

Addiction is often chronic and relapsing. Even after long periods of abstinence, cues and stressors can trigger relapse (Meurk et al., 2014; SAMHSA, 2023). Key regions implicated include the basal ganglia (habit formation), extended amygdala (stress), and prefrontal cortex (decision-making) (Kirby et al., 2024). Nevertheless, many individuals achieve stable remission, highlighting heterogeneity in clinical outcomes (Heilig et al., 2021).

Learning, Memory, and Habit Formation

Addiction exploits neural mechanisms of learning and memory: rewarding behaviours are repeated and consolidated into habits, with cues triggering compulsive responses even when the substance’s reward diminishes (Hausotter, 2013; Lewis, 2017). This intertwines biological disorder and learned behaviour.

Critiques and Limitations

Some scientists caution that framing addiction strictly as a brain disease is simplistic:

• Brain changes may resemble those from other motivated behaviours (Lewis, 2017).
• Many recover without formal treatment (Heilig et al., 2021).
• Social, environmental, and psychological factors are crucial to understanding addiction (Blithikioti et al., 2025).

Thus, while the disease model is powerful, it does not fully represent addiction’s heterogeneity or socio-psychological dimensions.

Implications for Treatment

Addiction is treatable, not simply curable. Interventions combining pharmacological and behavioural approaches, alongside social support, can foster long-term recovery (Liu & Li, 2018; Heilig et al., 2021). Like other chronic conditions, management — rather than elimination — is often the realistic goal (NIDA, 2018). Neural circuits can gradually readjust, particularly when environmental and personal factors support recovery.

Conclusion

Addiction is a learned, compulsive brain disorder with chronic potential, shaped by neurobiological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. Recognising addiction as both a disorder and a behavioural learning condition avoids extremes: it is neither an unchangeable fate nor merely a moral failing. This integrated perspective supports nuanced understanding, compassionate care, and effective treatment strategies.

References

Blithikioti, C., Fried, E. I., Albanese, E., Field, M., & Cristea, I. A. (2025). Reevaluating the brain disease model of addiction. The Lancet Psychiatry, 12(6), 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(25)00060-4

Hausotter, W. (2013). Neuroscience and understanding addiction. Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Network. https://attcnetwork.org/neuroscience-and-understanding-addiction

Heather, N. (n.d.). What’s wrong with the brain disease model of addiction (BDMA)? Addiction Theory Network. https://addictiontheorynetwork.org/brain-disease-model-of-addiction

Heilig, M., MacKillop, J., Martinez, D., Rehm, J., Leggio, L., & Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J. (2021). Addiction as a brain disease revised: Why it still matters, and the need for consilience. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(10), 1715–1723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00950-y

Hyman, S. E. (2005). Addiction: A disease of learning and memory. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(8), 1414–1422. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1414

Kirby, E. D., Glenn, M. J., Sandstrom, N. J., & Williams, C. L. (2024). Neurobiology of addiction (Section 14.5). In Introduction to Behavioral Neuroscience. OpenStax. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/…/14.05:_Neurobiology_of_Addiction

Leshner, A. I. (1997). Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science, 278(5335), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45

Lewis, M. (2017). Addiction and the brain: Development, not disease. Neuroethics, 10(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4

Liu, J. F., & Li, J. X. (2018). Drug addiction: A curable mental disorder? Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, 39(12), 1823–1829. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-018-0180-x

Meurk, C., Carter, A., Partridge, B., Lucke, J., & Hall, W. (2014). How is acceptance of the brain disease model of addiction related to Australians’ attitudes towards addicted individuals and treatments for addiction? BMC Psychiatry, 14, 373. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0373-x

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction (Rev. ed.). https://irp.nida.nih.gov/…/NIDA_DrugsBrainsAddiction

Nwonu, C. N. S., Nwonu, P. C., & Ude, R. A. (2022). Neurobiological underpinnings in drug addiction. West African Journal of Medicine, 39(6), 874–884. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36063103

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023). What is substance use disorder? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.samhsa.gov/substance-use/what-is-sud

Retrieved and edited 06/12/2021 from “Voice of Experience: Three rules for identifying abnormal child sexual behaviors” by Gregory K. Moffatt, a veteran counsellor with more than 30 years experience. If you are a survivor of sexual trauma at any age, I encourage you not to read this article.

From the perspective of Moffatt’s professional experience, childhood sexual behaviours can be grouped into three categories: 1. normal behaviours, 2. behaviours that are not normal but not unusual, and 3. behaviours that are abnormal or statistically rare. For the purpose of this post, I will be replacing the word “normal” with “natural” and/or “common” moving forward.

Rule No. 1: Natural or common sexual behaviours in children are never forced. The exploration is mutual. While one child likely had the idea first, both children must participate freely. This doesn’t mean that two children might willingly agree to engage in abnormal sexual behaviours, however, therefore read the next to rules for clarification.

Rule No. 2: Natural or common sexual behaviours in children are never painful. Children who behave within cultural and developmental norms will stop what they are doing when they realise they have caused pain.

Rule No. 3: Natural or common sexual behaviour in children is never invasive. Natural childhood curiosity does not include inserting objects or one’s own body parts into the cavities of others — anus, vagina, mouth, etc.

I’m unsure why Moffatt didn’t make this a 4th rule – he did add that most of the time, this type of childhood behaviour occurs between children of similar age. It is highly unusual for a young child to sexually engage with a teen without violating one of the three rules above. That behaviour definitely calls for further investigation. And, certainly, any sexual interaction between an adult and a child is cause for mandated reporting.

Psychological factors influencing drug use in Sydney’s gay community often stem from unique social and emotional challenges. Research highlights that stigma, discrimination, self-stigma, and internalised homophobia can lead to feelings of isolation, shame, and mental distress, which may increase vulnerability to substance use.

Additionally, the normalisation of partying in certain social settings, such as bars and clubs, has historically been a way for subcultural populations of LGBTQ+ individuals to connect and find community. However, this environment can also contribute to higher rates of drug use. Emotional coping mechanisms, such as using substances to manage stress or trauma, are also significant factors.

The biopsychosocial model provides a comprehensive framework for understanding alcohol and other drug dependency in the LGBTIA+ community. Here’s a breakdown of the factors:

1. Biological Factors:
   • Genetic predisposition plays a role, with some individuals being more vulnerable to chemical dependency due to inherited traits.
   • Neurobiological changes caused by substance use can alter brain function, making it very challenging to reduce or stop using substances despite the negative consequences occurring in the individual’s life.
2. Psychological Factors:
   • Trauma, such as adverse childhood experiences, peer bullying, neglect, authoritarian child rearing, seemingly innocuous societal messages, and/or discrimination, can lead to emotional distress and substance use as a coping mechanism.
   • Internalised stigma, homophobia, or transphobia can exacerbate mental health issues like anxiety and depression, increasing the risk of substance use and potential physical and psychological dependency.
3. Social Factors:
   • Experiences of ostracism, violence, or lack of acceptance and belonging can lead to isolation and substance use.
   • Social norms in certain LGBTQ+ spaces, such as bars or clubs, may normalise or encourage substance use.

This model underscores the importance of addressing all these interconnected factors in prevention and treatment efforts.

The Flux Study, also known as “Following Lives Undergoing Change,” is a longitudinal research project focusing on the lives of gay and bisexual men in Australia. Conducted by the Kirby Institute at UNSW Sydney, it examines various aspects of health, behaviour, and social factors, including drug use, sexual health, and the adoption of HIV prevention strategies like PrEP.

Key findings from the study include:

• Recreational drug use is common among gay and bisexual men, with substances like marijuana, amyl nitrite (“poppers”), and party drugs being frequently used. However, dependency rates are relatively low.
• Drug use is often linked to enhancing pleasurable experiences, including sexual enjoyment.
• The study has provided insights into how men mitigate risks, such as using biomedical HIV prevention methods alongside drug use.

The Flux Study is a collaborative effort involving organisations like the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, ACON, and the Victorian AIDS Council. It aims to inform health interventions and support services tailored to the needs of this community.

The Flux Study has provided valuable insights into the health and behaviours of gay and bisexual men in Australia. Here are some key findings:

• Drug Use: While recreational drug use is common, most participants reported infrequent use. Harm reduction strategies, such as not sharing injecting equipment, were widely practiced.
• HIV Prevention: There was a significant increase in the uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), with usage rising from less than 1% in 2014 to about one-third of participants by 2017.
• COVID-19 Impact: During the pandemic, participants reduced sexual contacts and adapted strategies to minimize risks in sexual contexts. Many also paused PrEP usage due to reduced sexual activity.
• Mental Health: A notable proportion of participants reported mental health challenges, highlighting the need for targeted support services.

There are several support services available for addressing mental health challenges, particularly for the LGBTIA+ community in Australia. Here are some key options:

1. QLife: A free, anonymous peer support and referral service for LGBTQ+ individuals. It operates via phone and webchat from 3 PM to midnight, 7 days a week. Phone: 1800 184 527. Their website provides a webchat service: QLife – Support and Referrals
2. Beyond Blue: Offers 24/7 mental health support, including phone and online counselling. They also provide resources tailored to the LGBTQ+ community. Phone: 1300 22 4636. Click the following link to Beyond Blue’s Wellbeing Action Tool: beyond-blue-wellbeing-action-tool_dec_2024_updated.pdf
3. Lifeline: A leading crisis support service available 24/7 for anyone in distress. They offer phone, text, and online counselling. Phone: 13 11 14
4. Head to Health: Connects individuals to mental health resources, including helplines, apps, and digital programs. Medicare Mental Health is a free service that connects you with the mental health support that is right for you. Phone: 1800 595 212 or visit their website: Home | Medicare Mental Health
5. WayAhead Directory: An online database to find local mental health services and resources. Phone: 1300 794 991
6. NSW Mental Health Line: A 24/7 telephone service providing advice and recommendations for appropriate care. Phone: 1800 011 511

These services are designed to provide immediate support and guide individuals toward long-term mental health care.