The "disease" of alcoholism.

[Skoob]

Is alcoholism a "disease?"

The AMA, WHO, and many others agree that alcoholism is a disease and is treatable, though I've heard the treatment success rate isn't all that good. Somewhere around 1 in 10 who go through the 28 day treatment model are able to stay sober for 1 year or longer.

There are others who insist that it's a behavior or just a willpower issue.

What are your thoughts? Is alcoholism a disease or not?

[madnak]

Whatever you call it, 12-step programs have to go.

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you call it, 12-step programs have to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[Alex-db]

I had this discussion recently.

Explanations and discussions aside, I offered to make a significant bet at generous odds based on demographic statistics, that I would never become an alchoholic, drug addict or gambling addict.

I would not make that bet regarding an actual disease such as cancer.

Regarding the 12 step program used by all xya anonymous: its an intensive indoctrination into a religious cult, just read the steps (and 90 visits in 90 days programs)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you call it, 12-step programs have to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a lot like Christianity. First, recognize you're weak and hopeless. Then be thankful to God because he's going to grant you hope!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding the 12 step program used by all xya anonymous: its an intensive indoctrination into a religious cult, just read the steps (and 90 visits in 90 days programs)

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not accurate to describe AA as a cult from anything I've read or heard (and I have a couple friends who have been helped by it). It does have a broad theistic foundation, but one which doesn't promote a specific religion, just a belief and trust in God/higher power. You will not be able to find enough or any cultic practices such as shunning or illegal threats and intimidation, to properly label it a cult*. It would however be accurate to say that they "indoctrinate" members into theism, but without the tactics of social and physical intimidation and threats that true cults use.


*The term "cult" has various theological denotations which I am not addressing here, but rather its connotations in popular culture and media, and its wrongful use as a perjorative term in this situation.

[Skoob]

I would like to pull this back on-topic.

If you would like to discuss 12 step programs, please start another thread.

Is alcoholism a disease like cancer or not?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you call it, 12-step programs have to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a lot like Christianity. First, recognize you're weak and hopeless. Then be thankful to God because he's going to grant you hope!

[/ QUOTE ]

My step-dad is a recovering alcoholic and he is a big part of the AA community where I am from. They don't have a hierarchy, exactly, but he would be high-ranking if they did. I have used my influence over him to try and combat this very issue that you are talking about. He isn't Christian, exactly, and I have argued with him many, many times about the insidious nature of the program. He now refers to the 'higher power' as a Giant Goat-Head in the Sky when he gives talks, as a way of trying to explain that it doesn't have to be real, it certainly doesn't have to be God, it can be anything.

I have a lot of negative feelings towards AA. Its success rate is extremely unimpressive, and the majority of the groups ARE like Christian cults. I honestly can't tell which has impacted which more: my feelings about Christianity effecting my opinion on AA or the other way around. I've been to more meetings than most alcoholics, probably, and I see the same theme. People who are at absolute rock-bottom, who are in desperate need of something, being told repeatedly that only God can save their worthless asses. If I spent a lot of time around missionaries perhaps I'd see the same thing, but to me is extremely distasteful.

[BluffTHIS!]

The question is whether any very strong addiction, with both physical and psychological components, is a disease. And also at issue is whether to be a disease, something has to be able to be cured medically. However many adverse medical conditions can result from ingestion or exposure to toxins, and decrease or go away entirely when that consumption/exposure is stopped (though there might be permanent damage but which is limited by stopping), although that ususually presumes a will to stop, as in for example habitually eating from a contaminated source (like fish from the East River).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to pull this back on-topic.

If you would like to discuss 12 step programs, please start another thread.

Is alcoholism a disease like cancer or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I made my post before I read this, and I apologize for the hijack.

[Phil153]

Is it a disease? No more than the mental "disease" that causes someone to each too much and get fat - which isn't labelled as a disease, funnily enough.

There's definitely a biological component. Some people have brains with low stress tolerance and are more subject to addictions such as alcohol, drugs or gambling and problems such as depression. They don't have a robust system for making "happy" chemicals like most others do, so in that sense, it is a disease.

But we are more than our brain chemicals, and in my experience and opinion the vast majority of people who become alcoholics do so ultimately because of an emotional choice, and if they made the decision to stop, they could. So I don't think you could classify it with other true diseases like bipolar or schizophrenia or herpes or cancer or homosexuality.

[FortunaMaximus]

According to the etymology, it is.

If you can classify addictions as abnormalities of the organism.

Is it curable? Is there expectation of a cure for alcoholism? Sure. Would this be warmly embraced by alcoholics?

I don't think so, and I've got several family members who are alcoholics. AA has worked with varying degrees of success, but, yes, there's an inherent Christian element to it that's all too demanding of the individual to slough his problems off onto God.

That's uncool. While an addict may not be able to think rationally about his addiction and continue on his path without regards to the damage he is causing to himself or to others, it is a voluntary disease.

And I'm not talking about willpower necessarily. An addict knows when he is abusing the substance or the alcohol, he is making an incorrect choice.

So if it is a disease, it is one with a strong degree of culpability.

[arahant]

It shouldn't matter whether you call it a disease or not.
Medical groups recognize it as such because it encourages people to seek treatment and identifies it as a public health issue.

I would call it an addiction rather than a disease, myself. If there were something to call a disease, it would be the underlying propensity to become addicted. Alcoholism would then be a symptom of the disease, rather than the disease itself.

And 'cancer and homosexuality'? WTF?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever you call it, 12-step programs have to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a lot like Christianity. First, recognize you're weak and hopeless. Then be thankful to God because he's going to grant you hope!

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not actually what makes 12 step programs 'work'. What happens is that the members change roles in the social dynamic 'game' of alcoholism. They switch from the sick alcoholic to the role of 'rescuer'. They start 'saving' other newer members and this new role keeps them from drinking. They kind of become co-dependent on members who are more sick than themselves (sometimes doing a lot of good in helping others and sometimes not).

[m_the0ry]

Alcohol is the substance (illicit or otherwise) most seated in the foundation of our culture. Prohibition and incredibly strict enforcement would be the only way to remove alcoholism because it is flat out addictive and its use is strongly encouraged in our culture. Unfortunately prohibition is just impractical as history has shown us.


Alcoholism is a perfect example of social darwinism. Alcoholism isn't a disease because there isn't even a theoretical global cure. It's a social disease, and therefore an agent of social darwinism.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to pull this back on-topic.

If you would like to discuss 12 step programs, please start another thread.

Is alcoholism a disease like cancer or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question is wholly semantic and meaningless.

Alcoholism isn't analogous to cancer. It may or may not be analogous to depression. You can call it a "disease" if you want, it doesn't matter. The question is relevant not to doctors but to politicians, who are the ones who care about whether a particularly charged word is associated with a given subject or not. In psychiatric terms, it is certainly useful to label it as an illness, and that is the only thing that matters.

[flipdeadshot22]

Over the last 4 years of being in a college environment (a "party school" environment at that), i've seen my drinking increase pretty much exponentially to the point where I have a rediculous tolerance for alcohol that worries many of the people around me. I come from an alcholic, yet financially successful family (pretty much every male member of the family have drug/alchohol issues,) which makes me all the more dumb for getting involved with it, but for me it's seemed like such a natural part of growing up to become an alcoholic (seems sick doesn't it?) Luckily for me (if you call it lucky) i've managed to maintain my functionality despite my alcoholism, and have accomplished all of my academic goals thus far. On the surface this is all well, but beneath this, I feel my life spiralling out of control, and my dependece growing stronger to the point where I need to have a drink first thing in the morning, at lunchtime and a binge drinking session at night. I used to make fun of people who drank alone and labeled them addicts, but now it seems i'm the addict. I'm not sure the technical definition of "disease" (i'll do some research), but the best way I could classify my situation is as a mental disease, which gets worse without treatement (and i've had to attend AA more times than I want to remember for multiple alchol related incidents, have been through the 12 step program and inhouse treatment, and nothing has worked.) Sorry for the tl;dr, it's just that this is an issue that I feel pretty hopeless about, despite everything else I have going for me.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to pull this back on-topic.

If you would like to discuss 12 step programs, please start another thread.

Is alcoholism a disease like cancer or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
In my experience alcoholics are born not made. That's only based on my experience in several groups of heavy drinkers where 1) it seems clear that no amount of heavy drinking makes most people alcoholics and 2) The alcoholics have a completely different relationship with drinking than the rest of us.

chez

[ChrisV]

Whether or not it's a "disease" is semantics, it depends how you define disease.

I have mild tendencies towards alcoholism myself. If it wasn't going to do me any damage, I'd probably drink a bottle of wine every night. When I start drinking I find it difficult to stop, so I tend not to start most days.

If I felt I had a problem bad enough to require more serious action, I'd go with the Rational Recovery (http://www.rational.org/) approach rather than AA. As they say there:

[ QUOTE ]
• Addiction recovery is not a group project; it is an individual responsibility. You are ultimately on your own.

• There are no Rational Recovery groups anywhere in the world! Your desire for “support” is nothing more, and nothing less, than a plan to get loaded in the absence of support.

• Stay away from recovery groups of all kinds; you can’t possibly recover there. They’ll never let you go, and you’ll be “in recovery” forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul Phillips talks about it here (http://extempore.livejournal.com/168975.html). The way he describes his drinking sounds similar to me.

[Kimbell175113]

No one's taken Phil's bait wtf?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
No one's taken Phil's bait wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]
we recognise Phil's condition as a disease.

chez

[ChrisV]

bait?

[ChrisV]

oh that phil. never mind.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a disease? No more than the mental "disease" that causes someone to each too much and get fat - which isn't labelled as a disease, funnily enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Obesity is a Chronic Disease
The American Obesity Association (AOA) believes that obesity is a disease. We want obesity understood by the health care community and patients as a serious disease of epidemic portions.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.obesity.org/treatment/obesity.shtml

I agree btw, I don't think any form of addiction is a disease exactly. That said, forms of addiction which cause serious physiological suffering to anyone who tries to quit (heroin, crystal meth, etc) should be recognised as being in a different class to, say, shopping or sex "addictions".

[Phil153]

ChrisV - With obesity, the overabundance of fat on your body is the disease, not the mental weakness/addiction that causes you to shovel food into your mouth until you turn into an unhealthy blob.

[ChrisV]

Well, OK, but when people talk about an "obesity epidemic" in the Western world, what they mean is people eating too much and not exercising enough. Of course you can be obese without that, but any classification of obesity as a disease would effectively classify being a lazy overeater as a disease.

The difference between that and, say, cirrhosis of the liver, another disease secondary to an addiction, is that you can't cure cirrhosis of the liver by not drinking anymore, whereas you can (in many cases) cure obesity by eating a good diet and getting your fat ass off the couch.

[tomdemaine]

How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, 'alcoholism' is not equivalent to 'drinking'. I think pretty much everyone would agree that cessation of drinking for one week doesn't make you any less of an alcoholic.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, 'alcoholism' is not equivalent to 'drinking'. I think pretty much everyone would agree that cessation of drinking for one week doesn't make you any less of an alcoholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree, it is sort of question-begging. Thats only true if there is some actual thing or disease which we can call alcoholism. If alcoholism ISNT a disease, but is simply a description of a behavior, then you aren't an alcoholic as soon as you stop drinking, getting fired from jobs, beating your wife, or whatever.

[Anzat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an alcoholic, and I have to say that I don't think it is a disease, and for $1,000,000,000 I would immediately quit drinking for life.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, 'alcoholism' is not equivalent to 'drinking'. I think pretty much everyone would agree that cessation of drinking for one week doesn't make you any less of an alcoholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree, it is sort of question-begging. Thats only true if there is some actual thing or disease which we can call alcoholism. If alcoholism ISNT a disease, but is simply a description of a behavior, then you aren't an alcoholic as soon as you stop drinking, getting fired from jobs, beating your wife, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this does need to be better defined, but a comparison to a cancer patient in remission seems apt here. (Not towards the severity of the disease, but the stages)

Like the cancer can return at anytime, so can the tendency to drink. That isn't to imply that alcoholism is as severe as cancer. Just that it may be a more complex disorder than it appears to be on the surface.

The million dollar analogy is very flawed, by the way. It'd certainly be enough of an inducement for the voluntary addictions. Especially for the fairly high subset among them that are manipulative and can easily rationalize giving up their favorite thing for a week, if it brings them a lifetime of indulgence in said addictions.

For those that are willing to equate reliance and dependency on seemingly voluntary substances, with the exception of food, whereas it's an overindulgence...

Can a diabetic or cancer patient be said to have been weak at some point in his or her life that they are culpable of their own diseases? While there is a higher degree of potential self-help in regards to addictions, it is also true that if a diabetic or cancer sufferer does not take the appropriate means to lessen the disease's impact on their physical and probably mental states, the diseases can have a worse effect.

Along these lines, the same is also true of addictions. There's a co-dependent effect on the body, mind, and substance that mirrors the parasitic effects of a disease. The emotional impacts can be the same. The disagreement follows mostly in the societal view that determines that some things are a weakness of the will, and some are unavoidable.

<shrugs> Or to simplify things, how would you immediately judge a diabetic that decided to suddenly slam down gallons of cola and eat chocolate bars?

[WordWhiz]

This far, and no mention of Thomas Szasz? It's extremely difficult to define addictions as diseases without conjuring up moral judgments. Analogize it to homosexuality. Used to be a disease; now it isn't. What's the difference? Society stopped condemning it, so it was removed from the DSM. Both alcoholics and homosexuals engage in lifestyles that others condemn. Presumably they do so because such a lifestyle is still superior to the alternatives. The homosexual lives openly and has homosexual relationships--even if this distresses his religiously conservative family, and perhaps even causes him to get shunned--because the alternatives (celibacy; faked heterosexuality, etc.) are even worse. The alcoholic drinks away his paycheck, even if it distresses his family, causes him to lose his family, lose his job, become homeless, get cirrhosis, etc. because the alternative (sobering up) is even worse.

Without invoking the judgmental term "addiction," it's literally impossible to distinguish the choice to consume large quantities of alcohol with the choice to have intercourse with members of the same sex, to have no sex at all, to live as a hippie in a commune, to work 80 hours a week, to own 100 cats, to trek across Antarctica, or a million other lifestyle choices that we consider unusual, but not insane.

Before anyone invokes brain chemistry, there is also evidence that certain groups--such as homosexuals, or risk takers--have different brain chemistry than "normal" people. Are they diseased? Why or why not? What we end up with is finding that alcoholism or any other "addiction" is a disease largely because people morally condemn the choices such individuals make, not because there is any sort of scientific shibboleth which separates such behavior from other unpopular behavior.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, 'alcoholism' is not equivalent to 'drinking'. I think pretty much everyone would agree that cessation of drinking for one week doesn't make you any less of an alcoholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree, it is sort of question-begging. Thats only true if there is some actual thing or disease which we can call alcoholism. If alcoholism ISNT a disease, but is simply a description of a behavior, then you aren't an alcoholic as soon as you stop drinking, getting fired from jobs, beating your wife, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think a certain % would drink some time after getting the million, even if they knew if caught they would have to give it back?

I get the point your trying to make but I don't think it's so cut and dry. I think some would drink after collecting the million, albeit maybe in 'secret' risking loosing it all. If I am correct, that is a strong case for alcoholism not being such a simple matter of choice.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]

If they accept or if they carry out the deal? Obviously everyone would accept. The question is, would they be able to deliver?

This is a good point. What do you think the alcoholic would do if offered this deal? He would probably spend every dime he had on every possible treatment plan, take it incredibly seriously, pay someone huge amounts to follow him around all day and prevent him from drinking, etc. He could probably win this bet. But aren't the previously listed things, then, just the 'cure?'

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, 'alcoholism' is not equivalent to 'drinking'. I think pretty much everyone would agree that cessation of drinking for one week doesn't make you any less of an alcoholic.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree, it is sort of question-begging. Thats only true if there is some actual thing or disease which we can call alcoholism. If alcoholism ISNT a disease, but is simply a description of a behavior, then you aren't an alcoholic as soon as you stop drinking, getting fired from jobs, beating your wife, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think a certain % would drink some time after getting the million, even if they knew if caught they would have to give it back?

I get the point your trying to make but I don't think it's so cut and dry. I think some would drink after collecting the million, albeit maybe in 'secret' risking loosing it all. If I am correct, that is a strong case for alcoholism not being such a simple matter of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some probably would, but even if they didn't, it doesn't mean they didn't have a disease. It just meant that a whole truckload of money was the cure for the disease.

My point was really just that the previous posters metric for determining what is a disease and what isn't is ineffective.

[MaxWeiss]

Disease and addiction and behavior and willpower and all that jazz are all related. It's just the extent that they are related which we use to call a disease.

Some people have more willpower than others; some people have more addictive personalities than others; some drugs and actions have in them or create higher chemical levels than others..... all these interact. Usually addicted people are addicted to something because of an emotional problem... i.e. family or personal issues, but then the drug/act takes over.

Things like cocaine and heroin are much more addictive than other things like pot and alcohol--that is, the number of people who cannot handle them in a responsible way is far greater (in proportion) than those that cannot handle alcohol or pot in a responsible way.

This is how I base my beliefs on what should be legal and what shouldn't---how destructive the thing is or can be, and how many people cannot handle it. The proportion of addicted gamblers is far less than the proportion of crack addicts, when you compare the total number of people who have to those that now cannot handle themselves with it.

Hence, for some people alcoholism really is a disease, out of their control, for some people it isn't. There are probably many alcoholics who it is NOT a disease for, and of course many that it is.

There is not either/or for stuff like this. All those components mix and are different for everybody.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

Without invoking the judgmental term "addiction," it's literally impossible to distinguish the choice to consume large quantities of alcohol with the choice to have intercourse with members of the same sex, to have no sex at all, to live as a hippie in a commune, to work 80 hours a week, to own 100 cats, to trek across Antarctica, or a million other lifestyle choices that we consider unusual, but not insane.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmhmmm. How many of these activities can result in seizures if you stop them?

You DO realize that 'addiction' is not just a judgemental term, and that some substances result in withdrawal symptoms, while others do not, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Without invoking the judgmental term "addiction," it's literally impossible to distinguish the choice to consume large quantities of alcohol with the choice to have intercourse with members of the same sex, to have no sex at all, to live as a hippie in a commune, to work 80 hours a week, to own 100 cats, to trek across Antarctica, or a million other lifestyle choices that we consider unusual, but not insane.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmhmmm. How many of these activities can result in seizures if you stop them?

You DO realize that 'addiction' is not just a judgemental term, and that some substances result in withdrawal symptoms, while others do not, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats more 'physical dependence' than addiction. Physical dependance is usually a part of an addiction, but you can be addicted without it. The definition of an addiction is the continued use of a substance in the face of adverse consequences. What this means is that I can drink 12 beers every single night, and as long as I show up for work every morning, have good personal relationships, and don't have any adverse health effects, I'm not an alcoholic. But if my boss tells me he's getting tired of me being groggy in the morning and I keep drinking anyway, I am an addict.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Without invoking the judgmental term "addiction," it's literally impossible to distinguish the choice to consume large quantities of alcohol with the choice to have intercourse with members of the same sex, to have no sex at all, to live as a hippie in a commune, to work 80 hours a week, to own 100 cats, to trek across Antarctica, or a million other lifestyle choices that we consider unusual, but not insane.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmhmmm. How many of these activities can result in seizures if you stop them?

You DO realize that 'addiction' is not just a judgemental term, and that some substances result in withdrawal symptoms, while others do not, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats more 'physical dependence' than addiction. Physical dependance is usually a part of an addiction, but you can be addicted without it. The definition of an addiction is the continued use of a substance in the face of adverse consequences. What this means is that I can drink 12 beers every single night, and as long as I show up for work every morning, have good personal relationships, and don't have any adverse health effects, I'm not an alcoholic. But if my boss tells me he's getting tired of me being groggy in the morning and I keep drinking anyway, I am an addict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be that as it may, I had no trouble distinguishing alcoholism from 'hippieism'...

As someone above said, we are indeed talking semantics. But to equate alcoholism and chastity is a bit of a stretch no matter how you define things.

[jalapenoguy]

instead of quitting drinking see if an alcholic could have three beers and stop. that would be a much truer test and a much harder one.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
instead of quitting drinking see if an alcholic could have three beers and stop. that would be a much truer test and a much harder one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not much harder and not a test at all. I have known many alcoholics that could have three beers, stop, and then have another three, and so on!

With apologies to my friends who have admitted they having the disease.

[housenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
How to test if something is a disease.

1. Offer sufferer $1,000,000,000 to stop smoking, drinking, having cancer, eating to much, having diabetes etc for one week

2. If they accept it's not a disease!

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm an alcoholic, and I have to say that I don't think it is a disease, and for $1,000,000,000 I would immediately quit drinking for life.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know if i could. if it meant having no drinks ever, i don't even know if i'd do that deal. but if i could still have a couple drinks well obviously i'd try to do the deal, but after a couple it's hard to stop...and i can always tell myself i'm still in control and can stop, but then it gets to the point where i'm completely blackout and i wake up somewhere and my wallet is many dollars lighter, if my wallet is even still with me and i have no idea what happened after a certain point in the night.
in a couple days i'm going away for 6 months soon. i will have no access to alcohol. it should be interesting.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Be that as it may, I had no trouble distinguishing alcoholism from 'hippieism'...

As someone above said, we are indeed talking semantics. But to equate alcoholism and chastity is a bit of a stretch no matter how you define things.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it really isn't. None of the working definitions or contexts really work when directly applied (maybe biosocial theory, but none of these absurd perspectives related to some kind of fundamental "responsibility" or "will").

A good example to illustrate the point is anorexia. Many people kill themselves every year as a result of eating disorders, and yet such behavior is, apparently, 100% psychological. I suppose that means it's nothing to worry about?

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]
What are your thoughts? Is alcoholism a disease or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alcoholism is a symptom of a disease. The actual disease is "a chronic, unbearable state of conciousness". When alcohol is used (destructively) as the medication, it gets labeled as the disease of "alcoholism".

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to pull this back on-topic.

If you would like to discuss 12 step programs, please start another thread.

Is alcoholism a disease like cancer or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like cancer?

If a person is diagnosed with cancer; they'll be directed to chemotherapy, surgery, radiation therapy, amputation, etc.

If a person is diagnosed with alcoholism, they'll be directed to some sort of meeting.

So, alcoholism is not like cancer at all.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to pull this back on-topic.

If you would like to discuss 12 step programs, please start another thread.

Is alcoholism a disease like cancer or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like cancer?

If a person is diagnosed with cancer; they'll be directed to chemotherapy, surgery, radiation therapy, amputation, etc.

If a person is diagnosed with alcoholism, they'll be directed to some sort of meeting.

So, alcoholism is not like cancer at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not like there aren't medications and treatment plans for alcoholism.

To fix your analogy: If someone is diagnosed with cancer they will be sent to someone who will lay on hands and light some incense.

[Sharkey]

Alcoholism has a biological component. In that way it is a disease. Though it is one you can self-cure using will power, unlike diabetes for instance.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Alcoholism has a biological component. In that way it is a disease. Though it is one you can self-cure using will power, unlike diabetes for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of diabetes? I was actually going to use diabetes as my counter-example, in case anyone disagreed with my previous point.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alcoholism has a biological component. In that way it is a disease. Though it is one you can self-cure using will power, unlike diabetes for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of diabetes? I was actually going to use diabetes as my counter-example, in case anyone disagreed with my previous point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The kind where nothing you do will make it go away. That is what I meant.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alcoholism has a biological component. In that way it is a disease. Though it is one you can self-cure using will power, unlike diabetes for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of diabetes? I was actually going to use diabetes as my counter-example, in case anyone disagreed with my previous point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The kind where nothing you do will make it go away. That is what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you could certainly argue that a drastically modified lifestyle (including regularly checking your blood sugar and maintaining healthy insulin and glucose levels) would 'make the disease go away' for all intents and purposes. You could eliminate all elevated risk of long-term complications. Of course, you would still 'have the disease,' meaning your pancreatic islet cells would still not be producing their own insulin, but in that sense only.

And I think the same can be said of alcoholism. By making lifestyle changes (i.e. not drinking, 'exerting your will power,' or going to meetings) you can eliminate any increased risk of long-term health consequences. Of course, you still 'have the disease,' in that if you have a few drinks 5 years later you will almost certainly relapse.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alcoholism has a biological component. In that way it is a disease. Though it is one you can self-cure using will power, unlike diabetes for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of diabetes? I was actually going to use diabetes as my counter-example, in case anyone disagreed with my previous point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The kind where nothing you do will make it go away. That is what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you could certainly argue that a drastically modified lifestyle (including regularly checking your blood sugar and maintaining healthy insulin and glucose levels) would 'make the disease go away' for all intents and purposes. You could eliminate all elevated risk of long-term complications. Of course, you would still 'have the disease,' meaning your pancreatic islet cells would still not be producing their own insulin, but in that sense only.

And I think the same can be said of alcoholism. By making lifestyle changes (i.e. not drinking, 'exerting your will power,' or going to meetings) you can eliminate any increased risk of long-term health consequences. Of course, you still 'have the disease,' in that if you have a few drinks 5 years later you will almost certainly relapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diabetes was not the best example I could have used, anyway.

With diabetes, the patient has to take extraordinary measures outside the course of normal human behaviour. The alcoholic only has to not drink.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alcoholism has a biological component. In that way it is a disease. Though it is one you can self-cure using will power, unlike diabetes for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of diabetes? I was actually going to use diabetes as my counter-example, in case anyone disagreed with my previous point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The kind where nothing you do will make it go away. That is what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you could certainly argue that a drastically modified lifestyle (including regularly checking your blood sugar and maintaining healthy insulin and glucose levels) would 'make the disease go away' for all intents and purposes. You could eliminate all elevated risk of long-term complications. Of course, you would still 'have the disease,' meaning your pancreatic islet cells would still not be producing their own insulin, but in that sense only.

And I think the same can be said of alcoholism. By making lifestyle changes (i.e. not drinking, 'exerting your will power,' or going to meetings) you can eliminate any increased risk of long-term health consequences. Of course, you still 'have the disease,' in that if you have a few drinks 5 years later you will almost certainly relapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diabetes was not the best example I could have used, anyway.

With diabetes, the patient has to take extraordinary measures outside the course of normal human behaviour. The alcoholic only has to not drink.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, it wasn't the best disease to illustrate your point, but it was a fantastic one to illustrate mine. No one would ever hesitate to consider type I diabetes a disease. And yet I've just shown you how, to your criteria at least, it is very similar to alcoholism. You could have chosen a disease that is less like alcoholism, but why?

As to your second point, I would bet that the lifetime diabetic finds their routine far less extraordinarily strenuous than the alcoholic finds 'simply not drinking.'

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
You could have chosen a disease that is less like alcoholism, but why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I'll have to think about that.

[ QUOTE ]
As to your second point, I would bet that the lifetime diabetic finds their routine far less extraordinarily strenuous than the alcoholic finds 'simply not drinking.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I still maintain there is an essential difference between a disease that interferes with critical functions like food intake and one that only involves voluntary activities like drinking.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could have chosen a disease that is less like alcoholism, but why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I'll have to think about that.

[ QUOTE ]
As to your second point, I would bet that the lifetime diabetic finds their routine far less extraordinarily strenuous than the alcoholic finds 'simply not drinking.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I still maintain there is an essential difference between a disease that interferes with critical functions like food intake and one that only involves voluntary activities like drinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of differences. If you want to consider them critical, thats your prerogative, but I think you'll have to make a better case than you have here. And can I ask why it is important that there be a critical difference?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of differences. If you want to consider them critical, thats your prerogative, but I think you'll have to make a better case than you have here. And can I ask why it is important that there be a critical difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The following seems reasonable:

Impairment of a vital function is required for a condition to be a disease. Drinking is not a vital function. Therefore, alcoholism is not a disease.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of differences. If you want to consider them critical, thats your prerogative, but I think you'll have to make a better case than you have here. And can I ask why it is important that there be a critical difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The following seems reasonable:

Impairment of a vital function is required for a condition to be a disease. Drinking is not a vital function. Therefore, alcoholism is not a disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not the vital function that alcoholism impairs. Alcoholism is defined as the continuation of drinking in the face of adverse consequences. The vital function that alcoholism impairs is having personal and professional relationships.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of differences. If you want to consider them critical, thats your prerogative, but I think you'll have to make a better case than you have here. And can I ask why it is important that there be a critical difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The following seems reasonable:

Impairment of a vital function is required for a condition to be a disease. Drinking is not a vital function. Therefore, alcoholism is not a disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not the vital function that alcoholism impairs. Alcoholism is defined as the continuation of drinking in the face of adverse consequences. The vital function that alcoholism impairs is having personal and professional relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how alcoholism is defined.

If it is totally behavioral, then its manifestation is a matter of choice.

If it has a biological basis and all that it effects is drinking, then no vital function is involved, and therefore it is not a disease.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]

Thats not the vital function that alcoholism impairs. Alcoholism is defined as the continuation of drinking in the face of adverse consequences. The vital function that alcoholism impairs is having personal and professional relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, alcoholism is a "disease" because people like drinking so much that they'd rather do it than have a good marriage or hold down a job. Societal judgment that this is an improper choice is what makes people condemn alcoholism as a disease, but not hippie-ism, which also might lead to various job/ relationship problems.

An article I meant to link to in my earlier post: Bryan Caplan, one of my favorite economists, analyzes mental illness using a Szaszian/ microeconomics model. The key conclusion:

In contrast, most mental diseases amount to nothing more than unusual preferences; they do not affect what a person can do, only what he wants to do.

I don't fully agree with the conclusions, especially with regards to certain mental disorders like schizophrenia, but it's good reading for a totally different outlook on mental illness.

Full article:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/szaszrev.doc (Word doc).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thats not the vital function that alcoholism impairs. Alcoholism is defined as the continuation of drinking in the face of adverse consequences. The vital function that alcoholism impairs is having personal and professional relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, alcoholism is a "disease" because people like drinking so much that they'd rather do it than have a good marriage or hold down a job. Societal judgment that this is an improper choice is what makes people condemn alcoholism as a disease, but not hippie-ism, which also might lead to various job/ relationship problems.

An article I meant to link to in my earlier post: Bryan Caplan, one of my favorite economists, analyzes mental illness using a Szaszian/ microeconomics model. The key conclusion:

In contrast, most mental diseases amount to nothing more than unusual preferences; they do not affect what a person can do, only what he wants to do.

I don't fully agree with the conclusions, especially with regards to certain mental disorders like schizophrenia, but it's good reading for a totally different outlook on mental illness.

Full article:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/szaszrev.doc (Word doc).

[/ QUOTE ]

This all seems reasonable to me. I could honestly care less what we call it, whether we call it a disease or a condition or a syndrome or just some bad choices. I'm going into medicine to help people, and I am entirely convinced that doctors can help alcoholics. To me, a disease is only a useful classification insofar as it implies that the situation is under my jurisdiction.

[Phil153]

The difference between alcoholism and hippie-ism is that alcoholism involves the excessive, compulsive, and uncontrolled ingestion of mind and personality altering substances that are toxic to the brain and body.

To see this as equivalent to lifestyle choices such as celibacy or hippie-ism is ridiculous.

[PairTheBoard]

What about OCD, Obsesive Compulsive Disorder, where the person finds himself compelled to check whether he locked the door before going to sleep - 1000 times every night. Is this a disease? All he has to do is make up his mind not to check the door anymore. Isn't alchoholism somewhat similiar?

PairTheBoard

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Drinking is not a vital function.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get crazy here!

[madnak]

Oh, you logged into the wrong account, bud.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
What about OCD, Obsesive Compulsive Disorder, where the person finds himself compelled to check whether he locked the door before going to sleep - 1000 times every night. Is this a disease? All he has to do is make up his mind not to check the door anymore. Isn't alchoholism somewhat similiar?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go ahead and bring up anorexia nervosa again, because it's highly analogous and people actually die from it. OCD might be better in that there's stronger evidence that it's neurological (that is, physical, that is, "real").

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
What about OCD, Obsesive Compulsive Disorder, where the person finds himself compelled to check whether he locked the door before going to sleep - 1000 times every night. Is this a disease? All he has to do is make up his mind not to check the door anymore. Isn't alchoholism somewhat similiar?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Very different kind of compulsion. With alcohol you're seeking out a substance to satisfy internal cravings or dull feelings - it becomes a behavior of habit and eventually your brain starts needing it to function properly. If you take away the substance, eventually the patient will improve and the addiction/compulsion will lessen. None of this is true of OCD.

Regarding anorexia - that is actually a disease, because an anorexic's self image becomes so distorted that they lose touch with reality. Alcoholism is different. Alcoholics make a choice to drink - they're actively seeking out moods and feelings, and alcohol helps them get to that state. They crave the alcohol state and will do almost anything to stay there. Is that crazy? Kind of. But underlying it all is an emotional choice to wallow in self loathing or self pity or cowardice, to take the easy way out.

None of the other disorders, once they're sufficiently advanced, have this trait.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Drinking is not a vital function.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not get crazy here!

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't easy to say, either.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Very different kind of compulsion. With alcohol you're seeking out a substance to satisfy internal cravings or dull feelings - it becomes a behavior of habit and eventually your brain starts needing it to function properly. If you take away the substance, eventually the patient will improve and the addiction/compulsion will lessen. None of this is true of OCD.

Regarding anorexia - that is actually a disease, because an anorexic's self image becomes so distorted that they lose touch with reality. Alcoholism is different. Alcoholics make a choice to drink - they're actively seeking out moods and feelings, and alcohol helps them get to that state. They crave the alcohol state and will do almost anything to stay there. Is that crazy? Kind of. But underlying it all is an emotional choice to wallow in self loathing or self pity or cowardice, to take the easy way out.

None of the other disorders, once they're sufficiently advanced, have this trait.

[/ QUOTE ]

There it is.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If you take away the substance, eventually the patient will improve and the addiction/compulsion will lessen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? This is factually false. Especially if taken literally - alcohol withdrawal is deadly.

The rest is not factually supported. It's hard to refute because it's so subjective. But based on your tone I doubt you've ever experienced anything as difficult as the alcoholic's "easy way out."

Care to explain where and how you draw the distinction? If you're doing it arbitrarily then it certainly won't be productive to suggest other analogous disorders.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about OCD, Obsesive Compulsive Disorder, where the person finds himself compelled to check whether he locked the door before going to sleep - 1000 times every night. Is this a disease? All he has to do is make up his mind not to check the door anymore. Isn't alchoholism somewhat similiar?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Very different kind of compulsion. With alcohol you're seeking out a substance to satisfy internal cravings or dull feelings - it becomes a behavior of habit and eventually your brain starts needing it to function properly. If you take away the substance, eventually the patient will improve and the addiction/compulsion will lessen. None of this is true of OCD.

Regarding anorexia - that is actually a disease, because an anorexic's self image becomes so distorted that they lose touch with reality. Alcoholism is different. Alcoholics make a choice to drink - they're actively seeking out moods and feelings, and alcohol helps them get to that state. They crave the alcohol state and will do almost anything to stay there. Is that crazy? Kind of. But underlying it all is an emotional choice to wallow in self loathing or self pity or cowardice, to take the easy way out.

None of the other disorders, once they're sufficiently advanced, have this trait.

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of the others have the trait of consuming enough alcohol to lead to detrimental consequences. So what? Don't you think you are working really hard to find some specific trait that alcoholism doesn't share with other diseases, and then trumping that trait up as if it is the key, defining characteristic of a 'disease?'

[dvsfun1]

I am a recovering alcoholic, have been clean for 25yrs.

I read somewhere that alcoholism progresses in the body even after one has quit drinking. It went on to explain that if you drank for 15 years, quit for 10, and had a drink, that drink would affect your mind and body as if you had been drinking steady for 25 years. If that is true, that would lend credence to the disease theory, I would think.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a recovering alcoholic, have been clean for 25yrs.

I read somewhere that alcoholism progresses in the body even after one has quit drinking. It went on to explain that if you drank for 15 years, quit for 10, and had a drink, that drink would affect your mind and body as if you had been drinking steady for 25 years. If that is true, that would lend credence to the disease theory, I would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably overstated. I suspect someone in AA came up with it decades ago and it keeps getting repeated as fact even though there are no studies to support it.

However, I believe most Alchoholics who relapse after a number of years of abstinence say that although they may have a brief period of somewhat controled drinking they relatively quickly decline to conditions similiar to the bottom they reached when they quit previously and then progress to even worse experiences. The fact that they are dealing with the drug with older bodies and minds probably plays a role in making things worse than ever as well.

I believe the better model is that abstinence arrests the progression of the disease but does not reverse it. Also, an older body and mind is even less capable of handling the destructive effects of the drug.

PairTheBoard

[madnak]

I don't know about that stuff, but there are indications that some of the problem is neurological, and strong indications that it's largely biological (twin studies, etc). It seems to me that it's useful on many levels to classify alcoholism as a disease.

[bkholdem]

I used to have a major drinking problem (like massive binge drinking). I have been in treatment and went to AA for streaches of time too. I have had serious problems as a result of drinking and through most of my drinking life could not control it once i started drinking.

After several years of abstinance (as well as 'treatment' and personal growth) I am now able to drink socially. I have alcohol in my house and drink occasionally, usually no more than 1 drink and occasionally 2-3 if I will not be driving. The last time I drank I think was new years where i had about 1 and 1/2 glasses of wine reluctantly. I have no problems having 1 beer or 1/2 of a beer or not having any while everyone else is drinking.

3-4 years ago I drank maybe 5-6 drinks about 1x/week out clubbing before I was married. Several years before that no drinking.

In my late teens and early 20's major problems with out of control drinking, like 20-30 drinks every other night with blackouts and related problems with police and acting out of control. If I had 1 I would have 24 and be a wild man. During the worst phase I could only drink every other day due to the severity of my hang overs I would be sick the next day and evening. lol

If I did not undergo significant psychological and emotional changes I do not think I would be able to drink without serious problems.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that stuff, but there are indications that some of the problem is neurological, and strong indications that it's largely biological (twin studies, etc). It seems to me that it's useful on many levels to classify alcoholism as a disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think it is a subset of the general malady of Addiction with special characteristics distinct to the specific drug alchohol. I think Phil's post here was interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
Regarding anorexia - that is actually a disease, because an anorexic's self image becomes so distorted that they lose touch with reality. Alcoholism is different. Alcoholics make a choice to drink - they're actively seeking out moods and feelings, and alcohol helps them get to that state. They crave the alcohol state and will do almost anything to stay there. Is that crazy? Kind of. But underlying it all is an emotional choice to wallow in self loathing or self pity or cowardice, to take the easy way out.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Phil's argument is much good because I think an alcholic in the grips of the disease - either just before or after he takes a drink - is just as disconnected from reality as Phil claims is the anorexic. However, I think Phil gives some very accurate descriptions of some things that go on with the alchoholic. And I think they illustrate why AA takes the position that alchoholism has the distinct characteristics of being a 3-fold disease of the body,mind, and spirit and thus in need of a treatment that includes a spiritual remedy.

PairTheBoard

[CORed]

"Cult" is probably too strong a term. Twelve step programs seem to be effective for some people, and as such should be given credit, but AA people tend to be annoyingly dogmatic, and many seem to believe that their way of dealing with alcoholism and other addictions is the only way, which is certainly not true.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to have a major drinking problem (like massive binge drinking). I have been in treatment and went to AA for streaches of time too. I have had serious problems as a result of drinking and through most of my drinking life could not control it once i started drinking.

After several years of abstinance (as well as 'treatment' and personal growth) I am now able to drink socially. I have alcohol in my house and drink occasionally, usually no more than 1 drink and occasionally 2-3 if I will not be driving. The last time I drank I think was new years where i had about 1 and 1/2 glasses of wine reluctantly. I have no problems having 1 beer or 1/2 of a beer or not having any while everyone else is drinking.

3-4 years ago I drank maybe 5-6 drinks about 1x/week out clubbing before I was married. Several years before that no drinking.

In my late teens and early 20's major problems with out of control drinking, like 20-30 drinks every other night with blackouts and related problems with police and acting out of control. If I had 1 I would have 24 and be a wild man. During the worst phase I could only drink every other day due to the severity of my hang overs I would be sick the next day and evening. lol

If I did not undergo significant psychological and emotional changes I do not think I would be able to drink without serious problems.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yea, you know it's not a simple thing with cut and dried diagnosis using blood tests, biopsies, and MRI's. It's been 70 years since AA first started. In the beginning it was only the most down and out rock bottom drunks who got involved with it. These were people who had already tried every conceivable way to either control their drinking or abstain completely and nothing had worked for them. Many found long term recovery in AA.

However since then the spectrum of people with alchohol problems going to AA has broadened to include many borderline types and many with only minor alchohol problems. This has been especially true in the last 25-30 years or so, since Betty Ford, Liz Taylor, and every other hollywood star that seems to end up in AA sooner or later. There's a joke about the Hollywood agent who tells his friend he's going to an AA meeting. The friend says, I didn't know you had a drinking problem. The Agent says, I don't. That's just where all the deals are being done these days.

I think it's pretty common for a lot of young people to get caught up in the heavy drinking of youth and then learn to moderate as they mature. Some of these types have worse problems than others and some have more trouble with their "moderate" drinking than others. Where do they fit in the "disease" model? Who knows for sure. It's a complicated thing and I don't think it's all that well understood. Even the people who should have the most collective experience with the problem in AA say they "know only a little".

Then there are those at the other end of the spectrum. Let me relate the story of my best friend who died just about this time 2 years ago. He was only 43 and I had known him for about 20 years. He was about the worst alchoholic I've ever seen. He went to AA and was able to say sober for several months at a time. But over the 20 year period he never stayed sober for more than a year at a stretch. When he drank he drank almost exclusively for oblivion. He went through the DT's something like a dozen times over the years. His brother died of organ failure from years of drinking.

Around 4 years ago he attempted suicide while on a binge. He was unsuccessful, went through withdrawls and stayed sober for several months. He then went on another binge and toward the end of it after getting half sober attempted suicide again by driving a car 90 mph into an overpass support column. Miraculously he survived with minor injuries. He got sober again. I spent many days talking to him about how his disease had progressed and how it looked very unlikely he would survive another relapse. He went to meetings every day for several months. Then stopped going to meetings and in a few months relapsed again.

Within 3 days of drinking we had him in the emergency room with a blood alchohol content of 0.54 . Enough to kill most people with alchohol poisoning. He refused hospital treatment, went home and coninued to drink. Friends from the meetings called and visited him but he would not or could not quit. His roomates would block him from leaving the house and he would jump from the second story to go get more alchohol. He would go missing for days and had more trips to emergency rooms. It only took about 2-3 weeks of this for him to reach his end. After getting out of the hospital for the last time with a prescription for Librium to help him with withdrawls I talked to him on the phone that evening encouraging him to use the Librium to get off the booze. The next morning he walked down the street to a freeway overpass and dived off head first onto the freeway. He died instantly.

The more experience you have with alchoholism the more reasonable the term "insanity" becomes in relation to it.

I hope you have seen the last of your problem drinking. Be aware though that there are also people who match your description and who eventually find their moderate drinking escalating once again to a problem. Be aware that alchohol may still have the potential of being a very dangerous drug for you.

The subject of alchoholism is far from simple and it is far from being completely understood. imo, the main thing is that if you have a problem with alchohol find something, anything that helps you with your problem.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"Cult" is probably too strong a term. Twelve step programs seem to be effective for some people, and as such should be given credit, but AA people tend to be annoyingly dogmatic, and many seem to believe that their way of dealing with alcoholism and other addictions is the only way, which is certainly not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effective for some people, but grossly ineffective in general. Its not like there are significantly better alternatives, but AA has a dismal success rate.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Cult" is probably too strong a term. Twelve step programs seem to be effective for some people, and as such should be given credit, but AA people tend to be annoyingly dogmatic, and many seem to believe that their way of dealing with alcoholism and other addictions is the only way, which is certainly not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effective for some people, but grossly ineffective in general. Its not like there are significantly better alternatives, but AA has a dismal success rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

if there are not any signficantly better alternatives maybe it is best to not berate the lack of success of AA. I used to go to AA and agree it is cultish, I never bought into that mindset and it scared the hell out of me the first few times I was sent there (like the first 4-5 years off and on). Eventually I learned to view the cult mindset for what it was and not be bothered by it rather than being repelled by it, so was able to find the program very useful.

The cultish vibe did scare the hell out of me but there is no reason to think you have to be assimilated to the cult borg mindset there in order to find a few useful friends there for support or to find it useful to be reminded that there are others in the world who have problems like yours who are now much better off.

I have not been to an AA meeting in years. I used to have a major drinking problem, like major. I now drink on occasion, like an average of probably 1 drink every month or 2. When I was in my late teens and early 20's I could not stop drinking, I drank twice as much as the next heaviest drinker out of all my friends and was probably the drunkest person whereever I was at.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Cult" is probably too strong a term. Twelve step programs seem to be effective for some people, and as such should be given credit, but AA people tend to be annoyingly dogmatic, and many seem to believe that their way of dealing with alcoholism and other addictions is the only way, which is certainly not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effective for some people, but grossly ineffective in general. Its not like there are significantly better alternatives, but AA has a dismal success rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what success rate it does have isn't attributable to the elements that get harped on (ie religion). In fact, it's very possible that simple fellowship, support, and communication are the only effective elements of such treatments. The fact that learned helplessness and magical thinking are foisted onto group members along with the support is very disturbing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Cult" is probably too strong a term. Twelve step programs seem to be effective for some people, and as such should be given credit, but AA people tend to be annoyingly dogmatic, and many seem to believe that their way of dealing with alcoholism and other addictions is the only way, which is certainly not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effective for some people, but grossly ineffective in general. Its not like there are significantly better alternatives, but AA has a dismal success rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

if there are not any signficantly better alternatives maybe it is best to not berate the lack of success of AA. I used to go to AA and agree it is cultish, I never bought into that mindset and it scared the hell out of me the first few times I was sent there (like the first 4-5 years off and on). Eventually I learned to view the cult mindset for what it was and not be bothered by it rather than being repelled by it, so was able to find the program very useful.

The cultish vibe did scare the hell out of me but there is no reason to think you have to be assimilated to the cult borg mindset there in order to find a few useful friends there for support or to find it useful to be reminded that there are others in the world who have problems like yours who are now much better off.

I have not been to an AA meeting in years. I used to have a major drinking problem, like major. I now drink on occasion, like an average of probably 1 drink every month or 2. When I was in my late teens and early 20's I could not stop drinking, I drank twice as much as the next heaviest drinker out of all my friends and was probably the drunkest person whereever I was at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post basically just confirms all of my views on AA. You managed to take some things (friends, etc) from the meetings, but in general the concept of AA is disturbing and ineffective. You managed to overcome your drinking more IN SPITE OF AA than because of it, and I think that is the case with a lot of alcoholics. Since every alcoholic ends up going to AA at some point or other, on their way to recovery, there are bound to be a certain number of successes. But would you consider yourself an example of a success for AA? I won't speak for you, since I have no idea what your situation really is, but from your posts so far in this thread, I would say definitely not.

[Morbo]

http://videoblog.dk/2006/01/southpark914bloodymary.gif

[justscott]

I hope so that way its not my fault.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope so that way its not my fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was what I was wondering a few posts ago. Is this the idea that is driving the agenda to not consider alcoholism a disease? If so, you don't need to worry. A large percentage of diseases could have been prevented.

[Utah]

Up until a couple of weeks ago I would have told you the idea is silly. I hated the idea that alcoholism is a disease and I thought the whole debate was silly either way - you either drink or don't drink. That is the reality. Who cares how you classify it.

I have not had a drink in 16 years and I would not call myself an alcoholic in the least. I simply made a choice to stop and I never looked back and it has never really been difficult for me (other than the huge early social adjustments).

But, 2 weeks ago I had a non-alcoholic beer just for a chance of pace of drinking diet colas all the time. I would maybe have 1-2 non-acoholic beers every year but no more because there is a tiny amount of alcohol in the beer that used to make me a touch uncomfortable. I noticed 2 weeks ago that the near beer had a wonderful calming effect on me. My body reacted to even the tiniest amount of alcohol in the bottle. I really didnt feel any different mentally. Just a bit calmer. I am someone who bounces of the walls all day long and that bit of calming is very nice. In fact, I have had a bottle almost every day since. There is simply something chemical going on that is very advantagous to me that has absolutely zero to do with the things associated with drinking or weakness or messed up lives or whatever. I can now easily see alcohol serving a profound chemical need in someone that has little to do with drunkness - ie, they will still drink it if it did not make them drunk in the least.

This is all conjecture on my part and it is only personal experience. But, it shocked me a couple of weeks ago.