It was with interest that I read thefix.com’s version of the new definition of addiction by the ASAM (see previous blog post).  They titled their article with an alarming twist: “New View of Addiction Stirs Up a Scientific Storm,” and if you read further, they talk in more depth about the repercussions of this new definition stating that: “A group of leading American addiction experts recently released a sweeping new definition of addiction, sending the the powerful psychiatric lobby into a tail-spin.”

This is more or less true, but any new definitions coming out of the medical or psychological academic worlds tend to cause questioning — it’s a good thing.

The new definition comes as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is undertaking a highly publicized, decade-in-the-making revision of its own definition of addiction in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—the bible of the mental health profession. The APA’s DSM will have a larger effect on public health policies that guide addiction treatment, largely because insurance companies are mandated by law to use the DSM diagnostic categories and criteria to decide which treatments they will pay for.

So at the end of the day, it might still be one drunk talking to another drunk (or one addict talking to another addict) without needing to be defined and without a rehab facility to get sober!