The historical trajectory of addiction treatment reveals a persistent tension, oscillating between viewing addiction as a moral failing and recognizing it as a legitimate medical condition that holds true to science? What if the law had to follow the science? Disease, choice, or both?

Early responses often involved punishment (parental or societal), but the 19th century marked a pivotal shift as the concept of addiction as a medical condition began to gain traction. The modern addiction medicine movement formally commenced in the 1950s with the recognition of alcoholism as a “disease”. However, this nascent medicalization was not uniformly applied; early organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) specifically excluded other drug addictions from their scope, leading to the formation of separate groups such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA) in the 1950s. This initial fragmentation, driven by differing perceptions of substance use, reflects an underlying moral judgment, where various substances were viewed with distinct levels of stigma, consequently receiving disparate treatment approaches and professional development.

The illegality of treating addicts in outpatient medical settings at the time further catalyzed the formation of specialized societies dedicated to addiction “treatment” as a “disease”. This historical context explains why addiction treatment often remains siloed from mainstream healthcare and why stigma persists OR it makes them an easy scapegoat for the sick family system that produces addictive options. Addressing this requires not only policy changes but also a profound cultural shift within the medical community and society at large to fully embrace addiction as a dissociative choice made in the unconscious as the result of unresolved traumatic material that may express itself like a disease, analogous to conditions like diabetes, but really is an another inconvenient truth for those who go to medical science like prescription medication and psychology for cures or to fix their emotional problems.  

This historical fragmentation has contributed to significant systemic disparities in both access to and quality of addiction care. Racial disparities are particularly pronounced: Black individuals are less likely to receive treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), experience shorter treatment durations, and are disproportionately prescribed methadone—a more restrictive treatment—compared to buprenorphine, which is more accessible, for OUD. These disparities are exacerbated by issues related to insurance reimbursement, with lower rates for Medicaid and Medicare patients compared to those with private insurance, and a persistent lack of culturally competent providers. Furthermore, older Black Americans are significantly more likely to have their treatment terminated prematurely compared to their white counterparts.

The “separate but not equal” nature of addiction professions is deeply intertwined with broader systemic inequities, including racial discrimination and the lingering effects of historical events such as the crack cocaine epidemic. The scarcity of culturally competent care and disparities in insurance reimbursement mean that marginalized communities, which frequently experience higher rates of trauma, face substantial barriers to accessing effective, trauma-informed treatment. This creates a feedback loop where systemic barriers perpetuate the cycle of addiction and unresolved trauma within these communities.

Achieving equitable addiction treatment, therefore, necessitates not only professional integration and training, but also comprehensive educational efforts to address the social determinants of health education (e.g., D.A.R.E.), ensure parity in insurance reimbursement, and actively recruit and support diverse clinicians capable of providing culturally attuned care.  

Table 1 provides a chronological overview of key historical milestones and the fragmentation that has characterized the development of addiction treatment professions.

Table 1: Historical Milestones and Fragmentation in Addiction Treatment Professions

Period	Key Developments and Fragmentation
Medieval Times	Addiction viewed primarily as a moral problem, often met with punishment. Early institutions like the Hospice of St. Mary of Bethlehem used physical and spiritual treatments, including isolation and prayer.
19th Century	Emergence of the concept of addiction as a medical condition. Benjamin Rush advocated for ethical treatment. “Inebriate homes” and asylums provided refuge. Dr. Magnum Huss coined “alcoholism.”.
1930s-1950s	Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) established (1935), focusing on alcoholism. Narcotics Anonymous (NA) began in the 1950s, specifically because AA excluded other drug addictions, marking an initial separation in recovery movements.
1960s-1970s	The “drug revolution” spurred the opening of clinics like the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic (1967), advocating for addiction as a disease and a right to treatment. The Nixon administration established federal agencies (SAODAP, NIDA, NIAAA) to fund drug treatment. State societies for addiction treatment began to form (e.g., California Society, 1972), partly due to the illegality of outpatient treatment for addicts.
1980s-1990s	The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) was admitted to the AMA House of Delegates (1988), and the “ADM” code was approved (1990), formally recognizing addiction medicine as a specialty. The DSM also included dissociative disorders in 1980.
2000s-Present	Passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (2008) and ABAM board certification (2009) marked further professional maturation. However, significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in access and quality of addiction treatment persist.

For those who know what is currently happening in the recovery movement, it is stalled. It needs Healers to ignite it again against complacey, normality, and the notion that autopilots do not know what they are doing.

For more on our work and cause, consider following or signing up for newsletter or our work at woundedhealersinstitute.org or donating to our cause: HERE.

References

O’Brien, A. (2023a). Addiction as Trauma-Related Dissociation: A Phenomenological Investigation of the Addictive State. International University of Graduate Studies. (Dissertation). Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/

O’Brien, A. (2023b). Memory Reconsolidation in Psychedelics Therapy. In Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/

O’Brien, A. (2023c). Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/

O’Brien, A. (2024a). Healer and Healing: The re-education of the healer and healing professions as an advocation. Re-educational and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/

O’Brien, A. (2024e). Path of the Wounded Healers for Thrivers: Perfectionism, Altruism, and Ambition Addictions; Re-education and training manual for Abusers, Activists, Batterers, Bullies, Enablers, Killers, Narcissists, Offenders, Parents, Perpetrators, and Warriors. Re-Education and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/

O’Brien, A. (2025). American Made Addiction Recovery: a healer’s journey through professional recovery. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/

*This is for informational and educational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional.