Originally Posted by wpainterw
I agree that it really doesn't matter what you call it. Or even what "causes" it, except as the answer to that might reflect on the major concern, namely, "now that you have it, whatever it is, what are you going to do about it?"
I wholeheartedly agree with you and also share the OP's sentiments about this.
Originally Posted by
wpainterw 
Finally, I don't have any problem with doctors classifying this so that it is covered by insurance.
I don't necessarily have a problem with insurance paying for treatment or even spending more tax payer's money on it by diverting away resources from the failed War on Drugs, non-violent drug criminals in our overcrowded prisons, and treating the consequences of addiction and moving them to treating the problem.
Smithers was a great man and great philanthropist and Marty Mann had good intentions to get alcoholism labeled as a "disease" because she wanted to reduce the stigma associated with it. I have nothing against these two. Jellinek, though, was shady.
Good intentions do not make something true. Most of the funding and lobbying, particularly during the Kennedy and Nixon administrations of the medical disease concept of addiction came from Smithers. Over the years, the medical community has failed to significantly reduce the number of "diseased" addicts, despite blossoming into a multi-billion dollar a year industry.
As some critics point out, the "diseasing" of addiction may have backfired. Good intentions can have negative consequences. However, I don't expect a reversal of the "disease" concept anytime soon.