Could you really be addicted to substances and behaviorsâ¢
John Luik, University of Oxford Rhodes Scholar and senior fellow at the Democracy Institute in Washington, D.C., says the definition of addiction has been manipulated to increase health-care profits by lowering personal responsibility. So, could dark chocolate from Belgium be addictiveâ¢
Fat chance, he says.
"When people hear the word 'addiction,' they imagine addiction means hopelessly and compulsively using against your will -- addicted to illegal drugs and smoking," says Mr. Luik, author of "Science Through the Looking-Glass: The Manipulation of 'Addiction' and Its Influence on Public Policy."
But now the word also is used by lawyers regarding certain foods, essentially saying people have no control over eating and drinking as well as other types of human behavior, Luik says.
Are humans simply victims of their needs, wants and, especially, their darkest desires?
"My central message is that when you look at the research, it's simply not true. People do have control over their behavior. They are not forced to do any of these things. When people say they have to eat hamburgers and milkshakes, there's no scientific evidence to suggest that is true," he says.
That could have profound implications regarding lawsuits alleging harm by the fast-food industry.
Your Honor, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury; every day Ronald McDonald ordered me to eat a dozen Big Macs and untold supersized fries. I am at his mercy. To be made whole, that clown must be made to pay.
"So the downside of this is that you have a whole group of people who've had the burden of responsibility removed. They are no longer responsible for their own behavior," Luik says.
Addiction labeling accelerated in the 1970s when the culprit -- the pubic health establishment -- said smokers were addicted and, therefore, it was supposedly harder for them to quit, he says.
The impact was horrible, Luik says, because it lessened the motivation to try changing their behavior. The alternative was to look for redress from the government or the evil industry. Picture Big Tobacco thugs ramming unfiltered cigarettes up people's noses.
Big Health Care may declare addictions to food and video games, he says. New ailments can mean new money from government and other entities for the health-care industry to deal with the so-called malady, Luik says.
Unlike cancer, heart disease or even an ingrown toenail, addiction cannot be proven, he says. There's no test, not even a way to prove that the so-called addict has not tried hard enough to stop.
There's also a nettlesome Catch-22.
"Once you say that any class of people can overcome an addiction, it removes the argument that it's a compulsive behavior," Luik says. "Even if you look at smoking, 50 million living Americans have quit." When that fact is juxtaposed with the claim that smoking is addictive, are there really any "victims"?
Willpower can stop the desire to smoke, drink alcohol or gamble, he says. But can willpower even cure a toenail, let alone cancer?
Rugged individualism and rational thought somehow have morphed into wretched victimhood and repulsive stupidity.
How do "victims" willingly degrade themselves -- demanding rewards for not resisting temptation -- without dying of shame?
