The "disease" of alcoholism.

[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.