That article is mad to me. It seems like the author is taking absolutely no responsibility for her own actions, focusing instead on her disease and how she couldn't have predicted when she took her first drink, how life would end up.
I'm not sure of the disease model. I'm an addict myself, very very recently started on buprenorphine. I'm very new to all this. My main issue is my childhood, and the affect it has on my self esteem and confidence, loneliness, and these have contributed to my addiction
But if I'd not had an abusive childhood, would I still have ended up addicted? If I hadn't been bullied through school and university? Is it just something I was born with?
I don't think so. I think its a way of coping with the stuff I've been through. To say it's a disease conjures images of going to meetings forever (I'm not a group person anyway, therapy or counselling fine I'll do forever, but i dint want to be clinging on byba thread forever), on substitution drugs for years (determined for this not to happen, some people are on it for 11yrs plus, I don't want that) and basically have thus rule my life forever. I was happy before and I can be happy again. I accept I can't take opiates for pleasure ever again, and that will require some work, and that work will be forever.
But saying it's a disease makes it seem like it's going to rule my life forever, much in the way diabetes would. It would mean I couldn't do stressful or challenging jobs, or take leadership roles, or go to parties.etc. I'm not dim enough to think I won't need to do some work, and that work will be forever eg counselling. But it won't control me forever.
And sorry but someone telling me it's a disease would (has in past) made me absolve myself of responsibility. That's not right. There are causes to it yes. But it's up to me to manage and sort it out. Making out it's a disease I can't do anything about is unhelpful