Is alcoholism a Disease?

[blinc]

This topic was brought up in the homosexuality thread - and since it's an interesting topic in it's own right, thought I'd start a thread about it. Here's what's been said so far (and I do apologize if I've missed anyone's comments):

Nudnik
quote: The analogy is wrong. Alcoholics do not make a choice. They wish they could. Alcoholism is a inheritable) disease, it's not a moral flaw.

TTP
quote:
It is not a moral flaw, I'll agree there. A choice is made somewhere though for an alcoholic, and the choice has to be made to quit. I know far too well about the 'gene' for alcoholism, which I believe could exist. Heck I probably have it, just like my father and grandfather, who knows? I am making the choice to not drink though, and so is my father now.

TWTCommish
quote:
I'm sorry, but referring to is a disease is inaccurate. If I get a cold, it's from a virus I didn't know was there - I couldn't see it, and unless I was amazingly negliant, it isn't my fault in any way whatsoever - I had basically no say over whether or not I got it.

An alcoholic, while I do sympathize with them, made the chocie to drink every single bottle of beer. It is not a disease if you purposely do things which give you it!

Now, is it a moral flaw? No: it is a human flaw. I have different flaws - thankfully, one of them is not an intense desire for alcohol.

Moral flaw and "disease" are both very inaccurate.

I do not believe in necessarily a special gene - just a series of genes that lead to a bit of pre-disposition to addiction.

Hey: I am pre-disposed to lose my temper, but you'll never hear people defending me, saying that I have a disease. Here's a better example of a disease: a chemical imbalance that causes chronic depression.


keithster
quote:
It's true. An alcoholic does make a choice. Yes, there's the addictive nature which is extremely difficult to overcome. But if you ask any alcoholic who is dry, they'll tell you that there was a decision to straighten out. We aren't animals.

[blinc]

This is a subject that's also close to me... and you know, even after having went through a long battle with alcoholism myself, I couldn't tell you if it was or wasn't a "disease". I do know that for years I wanted to quit, but couldn't beat that addiction... but thankfully finally won out, years ago. Yes, I do believe it is an addiction - like any other drug. I do also believe there is some genetic predisposition, that makes one person more susceptible to becoming addicted to alcohol then other persons. I honestly don't know any more then that. If you type in "Is Alcoholism a disease"? in any search engine, you'll get page after page of conflicting views. However, I did find these two articles rather interesting:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.american-book.com/Articles/arpratt1.htm

Is Alcoholism a Disease?

Disease: 1. Morbus; illness; sickness; an interruption, cessation, or disorder of body functions, systems, or organs, 2. A disease entity characterized usually by at least two of these criteria: a recognized etiologic agent (or agents), an identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomical alterations.

From: Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 24th Edition. Pg. 403.

Is alcoholism a disease? With a specific set of symptoms, most notably an uncontrollable craving of alcohol whose exact etiology is unknown but is reproducible from one afflicted person to another, as well as the other symptoms and signs listed above; and with the definition of a disease is clearly spelled as having identifiable and consistent symptoms, it would appear that alcoholism is indeed a disease and needs to be treated as such. It is time to stop the prejudice that society directs at these people, and treat it for what it is, a disease rather than a spiritual deficiency.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.gmu.edu/facstaff/facultyfacts/1-1/alcohsm.html

"In 1956 the American Medical Association decided that alcoholism is a disease, however more than 30 years later this is still debated in certain circles."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This story then goes on to discuss genetic studies and biological marker studies that have been done. Interestingly enough, twins - seperated at birth, one placed in a home where alcohol abuse is evident and one not, the twins developed alcohol dependencies. Interesting, but definitely not conclusive proof.

I thought it fascinating that even after 30 years have gone by, since the AMA decided it was indeed a disease, even they are still having debates about it!

[TWTCommish]

I don't think the definitions there can truly hold water. The reason it's not an accurate way to describe it is because of the things it implies.

A disease implies no fault on the person who has it - people are usually fawned over when sick - it's not their fault, in almost every single case. A sickness has befallen them that they cannot really be held responsible for.

Obviously, it's not the same with drugs, alcohol, fattening foods, or a bad temper. I only hear this "disease" thing with the first two, though.

[blinc]

Interesting point TWT. It was not so long ago - before epilepsy was proven to be a disease - people thought the person afflicted with that disease, was actually posessed by an evil demon or spirit... they were shunned by society for being weak morally and spiritually. Now that it's been proven to be a disease, these people are no longer thought to be weak... much like alcoholics are thought to be weak nowdays. I'm not trying to debate one side or the other of the issue - because in all honesty I can't decide myself, which side of the fence I'm on, in regards to this issue. Just thought it a timely point to bring up.

[TWTCommish]

I understand - people used to use bloodletting to cure diseases.

I don't see the same potential for error here - it is obviously a fact that people choose to drink or not - no doubt about that. Some have a harder time than others, but it's all a choice.

That's one established fact. Another established fact is that disease, to most people, implies something involuntary that cannot be helped.

Between those two established facts, I think it's obvious. The potential for me to be mistaken 100 years from now exists, but in this case, what would it take?

It would likely take some sort of evidence that our pre-disposition to things makes it so that we can, realistically, NOT resist them for any extended period of time - which I don't think it anywhere near the case.

[Military Mom]

So far, everyone has had very strong, interesting points!

I think the thing that bothers people the most about Alcoholism being defined as a disease is the connotation that "disease" carries with it. Like TWT says, that implies a lack of responsibility on the part of the alcoholic - that their situation was thrust upon them from years of bad genes and a rough life and that to continue drinking past a point of reasonableness is not a personal choice.

Phew. There is so much I have to say about this whole subject. I, too have had close, personal involvement with the disorder (we can all agree it is a disorder, right?). It is easier to count the number of people in my family who are NOT alcoholics. I am lucky enough that my mom isn't, but my dad is, as is/were both my Grandfathers and one Grandma. I monitor myself very closely as well! My family has been swamped in pain and dysfunctionality (as have countless other families) because of the drinking. Even as a young child I can recall wondering why these people continued to drink when they knew what trouble it would make them cause.

I understand better now the call of a craving, being addicted to cigarettes. It becomes very difficult to master that craving when one is used to having indulged it repeatedly for so many years. It is also understandable that one gets to a point where the drinking becomes more important than anything else - that it is physically necessary to have the substance in the body or else withdrawl begins. But it's a long time getting there. And I still hold the people I know responsible for the pain that their habit has caused. I watch them bring the bottle to the mouth, even those who full well know what the consequence will be. They just don't care anymore, or never really did. They aren't stopping long enough to figure out what is going thru their minds at the time - all they seek is escape - escape being far easier than introspection - oh god the pain of THAT. I feel like saying GET A GRIP (yes I am shouting - you would too!) and control yourself! Put it down, walk away, get a life!

I also find it ironic that as part of our nation's most well known recovery group - AA - that part of the healing involves declaring "This addiction is not my fault." Maybe once that burden of personal responsibility is eased off their shoulders, then they can begin to focus on stopping - now that this thing isn't their fault. Hey, emphesema is a disease that is quite often caused by an addiction that we are finding out today (thanks to some lawsuits) isn't people's fault either.

It may be harsh, but I have very little or no sympathy for an alcoholic. I also don't feel sorry for drug addicts or somkers. We got ourselves here. And it's so like today's society to place the blame elsewhere.

This post is fraught with sarcasm and anger, something we are trying to avoid here at FD. Blinc, I feel for you in your struggle - please, please know that none of this is directed at you. I have years of pain that I have been carrying around becasue of this so-called disease that is no one's fault. I cannot accept that definition because I have seen different. Believe me, I have read the literature - the Big Book, the Twelve Steps etc. The only thing I have ever read that makes this disorder come into focus is the Rational Recovery book. It's been said that you have to BE alcoholic to truly understand his plight. Why? I've seen it in so many forms, I think I understand it well enough, thank you.

More to follow when I catch my breath.

Blinc, I may have a lot of anger, but you didn't cause it. :) I do appreciate the risk you have taken in this self-disclosure. I admire your strength and will in beating that craving day after day. I had no idea. I veiw you in a new light now, and with a deeper respect. I think you can handle what I have had to say here, and know I do not mean to be hurtful. "Good job" is too superficial for what I mean to say.

mm

[blinc]

I don't take it personally MM. If anything - there's a lot of what you said that I agree with. Boy, think we might both get in hot water with this one... but the reason AA didn't help me, is because there was too much self-sympathy there for me to stomach. As you said, blaming a "disease" instead of taking responsibility for your own actions... well, for me - it didn't sit right. I only went to a couple AA meetings and I just couldn't stomach it. I don't mean to insult the thousands of people that it has helped, it's, I guess, that on a personal level, I couldn't go that route. It also may be that for some people, as you said - being able to blame it on something else, other then themselves allows them to take the first step away from that bottle - if it works... great! I do know, that at some point through the AA plan, a person is asked to account for everything they've done wrong to others... which I think is a great healing step, in helping the pain inflicted on those who had to suffer while watching the alcoholic destroy themselves, and the hurt it caused those people who loved them.

When I say, I don't know if it's a disease or not... I really don't! Maybe there is a "disease" factor that makes it harder for some people to give it up then others... but as TWT so aptly put it - this disease has a choice. A choice in the fact that by stopping drinking, they can halt the "disease" in it's tracks. Not an easy choice by any means, because alcohol addiction is horribly hard to shake. But, in the end, only the person who is addicted to it, can make the decision of whether or not picking up that bottle, is worth the pain and damage it is doing to themselves... but even worse, to the people that love them. It does bother me when I hear people describe alcoholics as being weak people... if they only knew the struggles to stay away from the stuff, the self loathing that's involved when you find, once again you couldn't. That bothers me. For me, after being an alcoholic for too many years to even want to remember - the end came when I was so thoroughly sick of myself.. of what I was doing, of being hungover every morning and sick of the pain I was causing others, that death was almost preferable to picking up that bottle again.

As much as this may be hard for some to swallow... (no pun intended) I broke down and cried one night at the mess I had made of my life, at how sick of it all I was and asked for help... didn't really know who I was asking, but was aiming the general plea *up there*. God, if you will... Jesus... an angel... someone. Whether it was my own inner strength that came shining through or maybe even it was God - something happend. I got help from somewhere or something. For two solid weeks after that night - I didn't have the slightest craving for a drink. No withdrawals... a little miracle if you will, considering the number of years I was drunk. For those of you who might want to whap me upside the head because I still have doubts about God... well, just call me hard-headed, ok? {toothy} It was long enough for me to break my addiction and get my life back... and I'm so very thankful for that, because I know now, I know in my heart, I would either be dead or insane right now if I hadn't stopped.

*whew* Guess it's a night for jabbering huh? :) No worries MM - I'm not one to shy away from taking the responsibilities that my own actions caused. I'm just not also ready to discount the possiblity that someday this addiction may be labeled as a "disease". Whatever it is - I hope others find a way to get away from alcohol... it's a brand new world full of hope, once they do get away.

[jamesglewisf]

This is such a great discussion. Thanks everyone for posting.

[Mickyhoo]

I do not even think disorder is a good word to use.. I hate to say this... but I think addiction is a human weakness.

BUT (I was shouting to be heard over all the reactions that statement got).. humans have weaknesses.. I never said that a weakness is bad. Until we realize what our weaknesses are we cannot work on them.

If you are a basketball player and you weakness is rebounds, you work on that. Does that weakness make you less of a person? No

My two worst weaknesses are my temper, and putting my mouth in motion before my brain is even on.

My temper is tied into chronic depression, for which I take meds. But meds are not the whole answer. I have to work on it each and every day.

My mouth (and keyboard!!) I work on constantly. (with very little success, but hey, I keep trying)

I grew up with 2 alcholic parents, and could *very* easily cross the line. When I do have a drink, I want another. And then another and another. I have to catch myself. Now that may be fear of turning out just like my folks, but that fear stops me from crossing the line. (that is not to say I have never gotten drunk, just that they are few and far between.. and very far behind me now)

Now to another kind of alcholic, those who have other problems and "self-medicate". Many alcholics have major depression, and other illnesses that are there before they start abusing alchohol. They start drinking/drugging to hide the pain. Most of these people need to have underlieing cause treated, or they will almost never succeed in kicking thier addiction.
That is why so many rehabs have "dual-diagnosis" programs. (Dual diagnosis is the term for with addictions and mental illness.) Depending on what study you read, anywhere from 40 to 80% of alcholics have major depression or bipolar disorder.

I personally hate the stigma attached to mental illness. Most people would rather be an addict than to be considered mentally ill.

[keithster]

Originally posted by Military Mom
I also find it ironic that as part of our nation's most well known recovery group - AA - that part of the healing involves declaring "This addiction is not my fault." Maybe once that burden of personal responsibility is eased off their shoulders, then they can begin to focus on stopping - now that this thing isn't their fault. Hey, emphesema is a disease that is quite often caused by an addiction that we are finding out today (thanks to some lawsuits) isn't people's fault either.

I believe the first step is to admit powerlessness over the addition. That's a very different thing than saying "It's not my fault," which is a victim mentality. I think we've got too many victims in the country already.

One of the steps is making a decision to turn my life over to God, if I'm not mistaken. Again, a decision. No one heals without making a decision. You can be in therapy for your entire life without making progress. Only a decision to change and the willingness to do what's necessary will be the catalyst.

It could be someone's upbringing that got them to the point of an addiction, and there is some healing in recognizing that a person was raised by wolves, so to speak. But at some point, a person is an adult and is responsible for their life.

I know about this first hand. I went through a couple of years of blaming my parents for my problems, the "It's not my fault" defense. It wasn't productive at all. :)

[blinc]

and as requested, am copying them into here, from this thread: http://www.frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=1358&pagenumber=2


Some are born with the gene, others can enjoy drinking and are able to stop at will. See below.
THE DOPAMINE D2 RECEPTOR AS A CANDIDATE GENE FOR ALCOHOLISM
http://javelin.commed.unsw.edu.au/karen/thesis/
NEW YORK, Nov 25 (Reuters Health) -- Studies in mice suggest that a specific gene may influence an individual's susceptibility to alcoholism.

Recent research provides "very good evidence that alcohol consumption and resistance" are related to the genetically-directed production of a brain chemical called neuropeptide Y (NPY), according to study lead author, Dr. Todd Thiele of the University of Washington in Seattle.

Thiele cautioned, however, that alcoholism is likely to be caused by more than just simple genetics. "The bottom line is that alcoholism is going to be influenced by a variety of factors, and the more factors you have against you, the more likely you are to suffer from alcoholism," he said.

http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998112507.shtml

[Nudnik]

TWTC, you are right, one can COMPLETELY stop drinking. I’ve never heard of it, I mean I've never heard of anyone quitting on his own. Actually, medical definition of alcoholism includes “inability of quitting despite grave physical, physiological, psychological and social consequences”. People lose health, mental abilities, families, friends, work, become homeless, but continue to drink. An alcoholic cannot not to drink, by definition he cannot stop drinking until the alcohol is available or until he becomes drunk (unconscious), during one session or as a way of life. Alcohol becomes a necessary substance for his organism to function: without it an alcoholic becomes sick and might die. If this is not a disease, I do not know what is.

[keithster]

There is the physical addiction, the physical need for the substance. And, (please tell me if I'm wrong) I think there's also the psychological addiction, the deep, deep belief that one won't be able to cope with life and life may end without it.

An alcoholic friend has a daughter with a good head on her shoulders. She had a chat with her Mom a while back. "Let's see. You're an alcoholic. Dad's an alcoholic. I don't stand much of a chance, do I Mom? I don't think I'll be taking a drink." I pray to God that she can keep that promise.

[TWTCommish]

What needs to be remebered, however, is that these people were not born addicted - they took the first drink, and the second, and all the other dozens it took them to become addicted.

Alright, I'm going to stop dancing around the subject and simply get some straight answers. If you believe that alcoholism is a disease, answer these questions:

- Is losing your temper and yelling at everyone a disease?
- Is eating huge amounts of food and becoming over weight a disease?
- Is addiction to drugs a disease?
- If the person with a temper from the first question loses it and kills someone, is it STILL a disease?

As you can see, with alcoholism as a disease, the lines of responsibility are heavily blurred. Where is the line drawn?

You are not born with the addiction - you are born with a predisposition to become addicted. Everyone makes the choice to drink. Almost no one is actually forced. I'm sorry, but it is an exscuse.

The only way it can be called a disease is if it is proven to be impossible for the person to resist it at first, and impossible for them to stop - and no, it is not impossible.

You imply it's impossible for them to stop by definition - but people do it all the time, and one of the first things they do is realize that they have a problem that they need to fix, and not make exscuses for.

[Nudnik]

TWTC: What needs to be remebered, however, is that these people were not born addicted
Of course, by definition. But most people are born in such way that they can handle alcohol. i.e. they usually can stop during the drinking session or they can live for a long time without a drink. Some alcoholics’ children, like Keith’s friend’s daughter, know about the danger of that first drink, but most do not. Or they say: “I will be able to handle my drinks”.

I do not understand what your questions have to do with A., but I will abswer them, anyway:
Is losing your temper and yelling at everyone a disease?
Usually not. Sometimes it is.

Is eating huge amounts of food and becoming over weight a disease?
usually not. Sometimes it is.

Is addiction to drugs a disease?
Yes. According to current medical consensus, many substances, such as nicotine, morphine, caffeine, cocaine, barbiturates, make everyone addictive. Some are more addictive than others, but no special predisposition is required (unlike the discussed A.) Individual susceptibility also varies. E.g., some people can quit smoking on their own (still takes an effort, it’s never easy, for nobody), while others cannot for years (or never), despite of kind of help.

If the person with a temper from the first question loses it and kills someone, is it STILL a disease?
I do not get it. In common life, killing another person called homicide, not a disease. Please explain what you meant.

As you can see, with alcoholism as a disease, the lines of responsibility are heavily blurred. Where is the line drawn?
Again, I am not sure I know what “lines”. There is “acute alcoholism” or common drunkenness, when one occasionally is intoxicated. If police, etc. becomes involved, it means that repetition is unlikely. Most people drink alcohol, sometimes even on a daily basis, and never get in trouble. “Chronic alcoholism” involves continued excessive intake of A. leading to a number of physical, mental and social conditions. Despite everything, the person is unable to stop and actually cannot survive without alcohol.
I'm sorry, but it is an exscuse.
You meant “it is NOT an excuse”. Very few people see their alcoholic parents and decide “to never touch the stuff”. Most think that they will be able to handle it. Some are apparently born addicted (fetal alcohol syndrome). Some cases are spontaneous, i.e. people become chronic alcoholics when it’s too late; they have normal parents.

You imply it's impossible for them to stop by definition - but people do it all the time,…
You mean people like president Bush? He said that he made conscious decision to never drink. And apparently have had no trouble staying sober. He is not an alcoholic. We are talking about alcoholics here. Do not confuse them with us.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by Nudnik

Of course, by definition. But most people are born in such way that they can handle alcohol. i.e. they usually can stop during the drinking session or they can live for a long time without a drink. Some alcoholics’ children, like Keith’s friend’s daughter, know about the danger of that first drink, but most do not. Or they say: “I will be able to handle my drinks”.


Everyone knows you can become an alcoholic if you drink too much - if the person is capable of preventing it, but takes the risk of doing so anyway, they are responsible for the outcome.

Originally posted by Nudnik

Is losing your temper and yelling at everyone a disease?
Usually not. Sometimes it is.

Is eating huge amounts of food and becoming over weight a disease?
usually not. Sometimes it is.

Is addiction to drugs a disease?
Yes. According to current medical consensus, many substances, such as nicotine, morphine, caffeine, cocaine, barbiturates, make everyone addictive. Some are more addictive than others, but no special predisposition is required (unlike the discussed A.) Individual susceptibility also varies. E.g., some people can quit smoking on their own (still takes an effort, it’s never easy, for nobody), while others cannot for years (or never), despite of kind of help.

If the person with a temper from the first question loses it and kills someone, is it STILL a disease?
I do not get it. In common life, killing another person called homicide, not a disease. Please explain what you meant.


Here's what I meant: is his anger a "disease" that he can't help if the anger is so intense that it leads him to kill?

Oh, and by the way: there absolutely is a predisposition to nicotine addiction that some people have and others do not. I recommend reading part of a book called "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell - it cites several studies and their results...

...in short, it shows that there is likely an actual AMOUNT of nicotine a person can consume in a day that indicates they are likely addicted, and that even mice have a similar structure of pre-disposition: some get hooked, others do not.

Now, regarding your first two answers, I obviously have to ask this: why are being hooked on fatty foods and excessive anger usually not a disease, but alcoholism is? Obviously we are born with predispositions to things like that as well - I was born with both, in fact.

Originally posted by Nudnik

Again, I am not sure I know what “lines”. There is “acute alcoholism” or common drunkenness, when one occasionally is intoxicated. If police, etc. becomes involved, it means that repetition is unlikely. Most people drink alcohol, sometimes even on a daily basis, and never get in trouble. “Chronic alcoholism” involves continued excessive intake of A. leading to a number of physical, mental and social conditions. Despite everything, the person is unable to stop and actually cannot survive without alcohol.


What I was referring to is related to my earlier questions: if alcoholism is a disease, then how do we determine what and what is not a disease?

If a disease is something like alcoholism, where you are born with a tendency to indulge in it, then next think you know every flaw a person has can be called a disease - a line must be drawn somewhere.

I think an obvious (and accurate) place for this line would be that anything that you have a choice over is not a disease: you choose to eat fattening foods, you choose to lose your temper, you choose to have another drink, and you choose to use drugs.

Originally posted by Nudnik

You meant “it is NOT an excuse”. Very few people see their alcoholic parents and decide “to never touch the stuff”. Most think that they will be able to handle it. Some are apparently born addicted (fetal alcohol syndrome). Some cases are spontaneous, i.e. people become chronic alcoholics when it’s too late; they have normal parents.


Actually, it is an exscuse - being an exscuse doesn't make it a viable exscuse.

Originally posted by Nudnik

You mean people like president Bush? He said that he made conscious decision to never drink. And apparently have had no trouble staying sober. He is not an alcoholic. We are talking about alcoholics here. Do not confuse them with us.


Uh, I dunno where the President Bush thing came from - but no, that's not what I mean. Millions of people have given up alcoholism. It is a choice. People cannot "give up" the flu, or cancer.

In some ways, it's mildly insulting to those with real diseases that they did not choose to have.

[Mickyhoo]

Originally posted by TWTCommish

Uh, I dunno where the President Bush thing came from - but no, that's not what I mean. Millions of people have given up alcoholism. It is a choice. People cannot "give up" the flu, or cancer.

In some ways, it's mildly insulting to those with real diseases that they did not choose to have.

I do not consider it wholly a disease... and if it is... it is a preventable disease... But I have to disagree with part of this...

No one in any field that treats alcholics, will ever tell you some one is "cured" or has given up alcoholism. There is no such thing... no matter whether you consider it a physical illness, mental illness, or any other name. Once you are an addict, to any substance.. you are ALWAYS an addict. You may be an addict who is "clean" or "sober".. but you are always an addict.

And second, saying it is mildly insulting to those who have real illness they did not "choose" to have is a little unfair. There are many illnesses that are wholly preventable, that are still illnesses.

The point I think I did not make clear, is that in most cases, the mental addiction to mind altering substances is more of a syptom than a disease. But that is just my opinion.

And the physical addiction part is definantly a physical "illness".

But such a high percentage of addicts have underlying mental illnesses, that in my (completely) uneducated opinion, the addiction is a symptom. For most of them it is a form of "self treating" the other problems.

And again I have to ask.. why is it most people would rather be an addict than to have a mental illness???

[TWTCommish]

Why would they rather be an addict? I cannot say, I am not one of them.

I should not have said "given up alcoholism", but rather, "given up alcohol", although both are correct. Millions have given up alcohol, and as a result, have stoped being alcoholics.

Illnesses are not wholly preventable - even by shutting yourself off from most of the world, you'll still get sick now and then, barring some kind of airtight chamber, which is obviously ridiculous.

Sorry, but when I get a flu, it's not my fault - I don't usually know where I got it, and once I have it, I can only try to get rid of it.

However, not only do people willing drink alcohol, but they purposely go out of their way to get it, and spend large amounts of money on it! Not only is it voluntary, but you have to really, actively want it and be willing to go out and "work" for it.

[Mickyhoo]

Many cases of Diabetes, emphyzema(sp), cancers, allergy reactions, broken bones, can be prevented. There are many illnesses that are spread through unsafe behavior, which I will not name here. Those are preventable.

I may never make up my mind of it being an illness, but will call it a disorder. For many it is a symptom and can be treated by taking care of the underlying problem.

How do I know this??? I have been a patient for mental illness in the past. For the first few years I was misdiagnosed with a much more serious mental disease than what I have (chronic depression due to a chemical imbalance). While I was misdiagnosed I spent time in hospitals, most of which had dual-diagnosis tracks also. Very few patients would say they had a mental illness, due to the social stigma attached. Some people, after reading this post, will attribute anything I say that they disagree with as the ramblings of a "nutcase" (among worse names).

But there was a lot less stigma attached to addiction. I do not understand why. But I know for a fact that it exists that way.

I have been turned down for jobs for filling out the med list for pre hire drug testing. Many employers do not want an employee on antidepressants. Funny thing is, ever since they found out what was really wrong, you would never know that I have said illness. I have not missed maybe 3 days of meds in 5 years, except for when the docs tried to discontinue my meds once. (baaaaaaad idea!!)

I saw so many people who turned to drugs/alcohol to stop the pain. It did not work really, but for a little while it did. So this is one subject that I *am* an authority on.

There is much less social stigma to alcoholism, especially "functional" alcoholics, which account for the greater part of the group, than there is for mental illness.

Take it from someone who has dealt with the fallout of "mental" illness. Alcoholics are treated better.

[Atomic Dog]

I personally don't believe that alcholism is an inherited disease. People are not BORN dispositioned to things. Any swayings we have towards one thing or another is a result of environmentally-learned things.

Supposedly I'm an alcoholic, based on what little scientific knowledge we have on it. Previous generations on both sides of my family have histories of "alcoholism", and yes, as a high school senior, college freshman and sophomore, I drank a lot. I got smashed every frickin' day if I could...

So I found out about this little "disease" I'm supposed to have, and out of idle curiousity, I gave up drinking. Completely. I haven't had a drop since last Thanksgiving. And I don't feel any different. I don't crave for it. I don't see someone drinking beer and start drooling. I don't have any necessity for it whatsoever.

People drink because they choose too. Yes, you can become psychologically dependant on it, but to say that you were BORN hooked on the bottle, it's a copout. The only people who say that are people who are too pathetic and too weak to take control of their lives. A little discipline and self control is the only cure you need for your addiction.

[Mickyhoo]

There are scientific studies showing a predispostion for Addiction...

But there are also studies showing predisposition for cancer.

I think whatever addiction is.. the genetic AND enviornmental both are contributing factors. Add in any underlying problems, and you have a recipe for destruction.

I do believe it is a disorder. That does not mean that it cannot be prevented, but who doesn't have 20-20 hindsight?
Alcoholics do not wake up one day and start getting snockered every day.. It is a gradual buildup.

There are many disorders that are either self-inflicted or a quirk of medical fate.. the term would seem to satisfy both sides.

[Atomic Dog]

Predispositions are something that can be controlled. Put a rubberband around your wrist if you have to.

Saying that your genetic makeup is to blame for your irresponsibility and inability to maintain self control is a copout, and we all know it.

[Mickyhoo]

I said it played a factor.. not that it was wholly to blame.

That is why I used the cancer example.. some people have the predispotion. not all get it.. some of it is (in cancers case) the enviornment they live in, the things they do, and some of it is dumb luck (again in cancers case).

[Atomic Dog]

Yes, I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is that it's STILL under our control. If you discover that you're predisposed to cancer, than you had better CHANGE your lifestyle to prevent it from setting it. For example, studies in UK are finding links between abortion and breast cancer. If you suspect a predisposition to breast cancer in your life, then for god's sake, don't have that abortion!

The same goes alcoholism. Except I believe that this is one "predisposition" that we have a whole lot more control over.

[Mickyhoo]

I have trouble believing those results about the cancer.. I am pro-life bigtime..but physically, an abortion has the same effect on the body as a miscarriage.

In fact the medical term for a miscarriage is abortion. I have had 5 live births and 3 miscarriages.. and I always ask them to add "spontanous(sp)" to it.. for my peace of mind.

(I mean I doubt the studies findings, not that you read it )

[Atomic Dog]

I bet that I'm more pro-life than you are. :)

And I'm going to my parents house this weekend. That article about the breast cancer/abortion is over there. I'll try to remember to get it for you.

[Mickyhoo]

would argue that with you, but this is not the thread for it.

But email me sometime and I will win that bet!!

[keithster]

Jay Stephen Gould, a prominant evolutionist, writes an interesting column in the NY Times. You have to register, but it's free.

Basically, the "fix the gene, eliminate the defect" is all wrong.

Humbled by the Genome's Mysteries
By STEPHEN JAY GOULD

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/opinion/19GOUL.html?searchpv=site10

An interesting paragraph from the article:
The implications of this finding cascade across several realms. The commercial effects will be obvious, as so much biotechnology, including the rush to patent genes, has assumed the old view that "fixing" an aberrant gene would cure a specific human ailment. The social meaning may finally liberate us from the simplistic and harmful idea, false for many other reasons as well, that each aspect of our being, either physical or behavioral, may be ascribed to the action of a particular gene "for" the trait in question.

[Nudnik]

Micky: I do not consider it wholly a disease... and if it is... it is a preventable disease...
How can it be prevented? Especially if it is usually diagnosed in advanced stages?
TWTC: ...in short, it shows that there is likely an actual AMOUNT of nicotine a person can consume in a day that indicates they are likely addicted, and that even mice have a similar structure of pre-disposition: some get hooked, others do not.
I am ready to concede this point to you, if you are ready to concede this: I understand that mice and humans are different. Nicotine and alcohol are foreign to them both. You believe that some mice become addicted to nicotine, and some do not. What makes you think that a similar mechanism could not be true for humans? In other words, some may drink a lot, and stop at any time, others cannot even after a short time or a small amount?

Now, regarding your first two answers, I obviously have to ask this: why are being hooked on fatty foods and excessive anger usually not a disease, but alcoholism is? Obviously we are born with predisposition’s to things like that as well - I was born with both, in fact.
The main difference is that fat and anger are natural. We all use them in small (“normal”) doses. Actually, some amounts of both are necessary.
Nothing (apart from “craving”, minimal irritation) will happen to you if you do not have your fats. An alcoholic becomes sick and might die if alcohol is withdrawn.
What I was referring to is related to my earlier questions: if alcoholism is a disease, then how do we determine what and what is not a disease?
You are not alcoholic. What will happen to you if alcohol is withdrawn from you completely tomorrow? An alcoholic keeps drinking, day in and day out, no matter what. An alcoholic cannot not to drink. No matter what.

If a disease is something like alcoholism, where you are born with a tendency to indulge in it, then next think you know every flaw a person has can be called a disease - a line must be drawn somewhere.
No. Most people are born with the defect. Some apparently develop it. A thief (not a kleptomaniac) does time for his theft and usually does not steal after he serves the term. Some steal again, but he stops, sooner or later.

Millions of people have given up alcoholism.
By definition, an alcoholic cannot “give up”. Years of treatment, visits to AA and COMPLETE abstinence work in ~50% of alcoholics. No alcoholic may have one drink/day. If a person can drink without getting drunk, he is not an alcoholic.

Micky: Once you are an addict, to any substance.. you are ALWAYS an addict. You may be an addict who is "clean" or "sober".. but you are always an addict.
In this sense it is correct. Many years ago I quit smoking, and after some time (I do not remember exactly) I said to myself: “well, now I do not want to smoke any more, I can have one cigarette”. I smoked one, and then I smoked for ten more years. I will never repeat this mistake again (I do not smoke now).

There are many illnesses that are wholly preventable
I am not sure what you mean. Give me an example.
…is more of a syptom than a disease. But that is just my opinion.
Again, I do not understand. Give another example.

Why would they rather be an addict?
For the same reason you would rather have cancer. And didn’t you just say that you are addicted to fat and temper tantrums?

However, not only do people willing drink alcohol, but they purposely go out of their way to get it, and spend large amounts of money on it! Not only is it voluntary, but you have to really, actively want it and be willing to go out and "work" for it.
Correct. That’s why it is a disease. As is probably your fat addiction. If you know everything, why cannot you lose weight? Yet, if I deprived you of fat, you would not go into delirium tremens ;).


AD: Ipersonally don't believe that alcholism is an inherited disease. People are not BORN dispositioned to things.
You are free to believe whatever. Read.
I am glad that giving up drinking was easy for you. Part of it is your age.

People drink because they choose too.
Most people do. When you drank, you thought[b/] that you drank because you wanted too. It was an illusion. You went to see a movie because you wanted to, you drank because you had too. Otherwise, why did not you drink in moderation, without getting plastered? Because [you could NOT.

Micky: There are scientific studies showing a predispostion for Addiction...
But there are also studies showing predisposition for cancer.
Exactly. And both are diseases.

[Mickyhoo]

<There are many illnesses that are wholly preventable
I am not sure what you mean. Give me an example.
…is more of a syptom than a disease. But that is just my opinion.
Again, I do not understand. Give another example. >

STD's are diseases that are wholly preventable. There are others.. type 2 diabetes is overwhelmingly preventable, but not all to be honest.

For a good majority of addicts, they started drinking/drugging to selfmedicate underlying depression, manic depression, PTSD, and many others.

Many of the patients in mental hospitals are dual diagnosed with addiction/mental probs. In study after study, the evidence of the mental prob PRECEEDED the addiction. In that case, the addiction was a symptom.

And about the smoking.. Did you know that Zyban, which is used to help stop smoking.. is the antidepressant Wellbutrin?

The doc noticed that the patients in the hospitals that were on Wellbutrin (and other antidepressants) started breaking free of addictions at a much higher rate than those who were not.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by Nudnik

I am ready to concede this point to you, if you are ready to concede this: I understand that mice and humans are different. Nicotine and alcohol are foreign to them both. You believe that some mice become addicted to nicotine, and some do not. What makes you think that a similar mechanism could not be true for humans? In other words, some may drink a lot, and stop at any time, others cannot even after a short time or a small amount?


Of course it could be true - but they take the first smoke themselves, everytime.

Originally posted by Nudnik

The main difference is that fat and anger are natural. We all use them in small (“normal”) doses. Actually, some amounts of both are necessary.
Nothing (apart from “craving”, minimal irritation) will happen to you if you do not have your fats. An alcoholic becomes sick and might die if alcohol is withdrawn.
What I was referring to is related to my earlier questions: if alcoholism is a disease, then how do we determine what and what is not a disease?
You are not alcoholic. What will happen to you if alcohol is withdrawn from you completely tomorrow? An alcoholic keeps drinking, day in and day out, no matter what. An alcoholic cannot not to drink. No matter what.


WHAT? There are no recovering alcoholics? There have been millions upon millions of people addicted to alcohol who have stopped drinking.

The fact that fat and anger are natural make my point even stronger! I *have* to eat food, so it's easier to eat, say, a bit more food than I should. With alcohol, you do not need to take the first drink, and you *can* stop drinking it - millions have.

Originally posted by Nudnik

If a disease is something like alcoholism, where you are born with a tendency to indulge in it, then next think you know every flaw a person has can be called a disease - a line must be drawn somewhere.

No. Most people are born with the defect. Some apparently develop it. A thief (not a kleptomaniac) does time for his theft and usually does not steal after he serves the term. Some steal again, but he stops, sooner or later.


I don't understand your point. People addicted to alcoholism have stopped, millions of times - obviously it can be done.

Millions of people have given up alcoholism.

Originally posted by Nudnik

By definition, an alcoholic cannot “give up”. Years of treatment, visits to AA and COMPLETE abstinence work in ~50% of alcoholics. No alcoholic may have one drink/day. If a person can drink without getting drunk, he is not an alcoholic.


I still don't see what you're saying.

Originally posted by Nudnik
However, not only do people willing drink alcohol, but they purposely go out of their way to get it, and spend large amounts of money on it! Not only is it voluntary, but you have to really, actively want it and be willing to go out and "work" for it.
Correct. That’s why it is a disease. As is probably your fat addiction. If you know everything, why cannot you lose weight? Yet, if I deprived you of fat, you would not go into delirium tremens ;).


Actually, it's not at all ridiculous to say that people can become depressed without food - some people become hermits due to weight gain.

Why can I not lose weight? I CAN. I am having trouble, but I am capable of it, and I make a choice every single time to eat the right food, or eat the wrong food. I'm responsible for my weight, plain and simple.

[keithster]

I would venture to guess (from my years of observation) that most people have some sort of predisposition with which they will spend most of their life struggling.

For some, it's sweets. I'll raise my hand. For some it's alcohol. Drugs. Overeating. Shopping. Sex. Gambling. Anger. Whatever. Some are horrible. Some are not so bad.

But the bottom line is choice and self responsibility. If I know I have that predisposition, be it congenital or psychological, it's still my tar baby. (And that's not a racist term if you are wondering.) I am responsible for takng care of it.

[Nudnik]

Sorry, TWTC: WHAT? There are no recovering alcoholics? There have been millions upon millions of people addicted to alcohol who have stopped drinking.
I was not clear. What I meant was this: when an alcoholic drinks, he cannot stop. He drinks till he is unconscious. He will drink next day. Some can skip a few days, but these periods do not last long. A “recovering” alcoholic (and a “recovered” one) do not drink at all. All treatment will end with one drink: they are unable to limit themselves to one drink.

With alcohol, you do not need to take the first drink, and you *can* stop drinking it - millions have.
Yes and yes and yes. But: I already said that here lies the difference: a normal person eats lunch, has a drink with it (or 2 or 3) and goes back to work. An alcoholic cannot stop. Millions of alcoholics start to drink, like anyone else. But very soon they realize, that they drink too much too often. Some can stop while they are young, as our friend AD. For most it’s too late. Why do you think there are so many people whose driver’s licenses are suspended? And we have lenient laws. There are countries with zero or very low tolerance, and the license is suspended on the first (!) violation. People need to drive, but they cannot resist their drinking.

I don't understand your point. People addicted to alcoholism have stopped, millions of times - obviously it can be done.
Biology (medicine, humans) is not mechanics. It can be done in ~50% of cases. An analogy (not good ;)): some cancers (and other diseases) can be cured in some people, cannot in others.

If a person can drink without getting drunk, he is not an alcoholic.


I still don't see what you're saying.[/b]

There is a definition(s) of alcoholism, you can find one on the web. Not everyone who drinks, even every day, is an alcoholic. I used to work with a fellow who did not eat lunch. I asked him why? He said that he liked to sleep in the morning and had no time to prepare lunch. Go out? If he would go out, he would have a drink, and he could not stop after one; he would not return to work. He would drink at night at home, almost every night. He explained to me that every night he’d buy a pint bottle of vodka: it would be enough for him. If he had bought a quart, he’d drank it all and would have missed work next day.

Why can I not lose weight? I CAN. I am having trouble, but I am capable of it,…
You think that you can. You think that you are strong willed person who makes a decision. Actually you cannot. If you could, you would have lost all these pounds. My guess is that you can’t. You only think that you can. If you could lose extra pounds, you would have lost them many years ago. Look at Oprah Winfrey. She is a good example. She did it many times, only to get them back. And she ia a performing artist. It is more important for her than for you. But she cannot do it.
I'm responsible for my weight, plain and simple.
I am not so sure. As I am not so sure that the mechanisms are identical, although they are probably similar.

[TWTCommish]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I'm furious. I typed up a long reply, and lost it. I swore like a sailor. This reply will now be a bit shorter than before.

Originally posted by Nudnik

I was not clear. What I meant was this: when an alcoholic drinks, he cannot stop. He drinks till he is unconscious. He will drink next day. Some can skip a few days, but these periods do not last long. A “recovering” alcoholic (and a “recovered” one) do not drink at all. All treatment will end with one drink: they are unable to limit themselves to one drink.


So it's 100% impossible to stop after one drink? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

And besides, let's assume for a second that they cannot pick up a drink without going through addiction again. That's still a choice: don't drink at all, or be an alcoholic. It's a choice.


Originally posted by Nudnik

Biology (medicine, humans) is not mechanics. It can be done in ~50% of cases. An analogy (not good ;)): some cancers (and other diseases) can be cured in some people, cannot in others.


I agree, the analogy doesn't quite work. This is about responsibility, and "disease" implies basically no responsibility on the person who has it, with maybe one exception: smokers with cancer. Most people who get a disease (cancer, malaria, a flu, or even a tiny cold) are rarely aware of how or why they got it - it's usually beyond their control.


Originally posted by Nudnik

You think that you can. You think that you are strong willed person who makes a decision. Actually you cannot. If you could, you would have lost all these pounds. My guess is that you can’t. You only think that you can. If you could lose extra pounds, you would have lost them many years ago. Look at Oprah Winfrey. She is a good example. She did it many times, only to get them back. And she ia a performing artist. It is more important for her than for you. But she cannot do it.


There's a flaw in that logic. Here's an analogy:

A person is afraid of roller coasters. He or she has never been on one. Now, according to you, this person cannot go on a roller coaster. So, what happens if that person does ride a roller coaster, say, a year later? Does that mean they really could all along?

If that's the case, than that means that we won't know whether or not I am capable of losing weight until I die, because I'll always have a chance to do it later. Do you see my point?

Just because you tried something and havn't done it, it doesn't mean you cannot.

[Nudnik]

TWTC: So it's 100% impossible to stop after one drink? Of course not, that's ridiculous.
I guess now I understand: you believe that we are the same. That it, if you, TWTC, can always resist that extra serving (and you can, can’t you?), so everyone can. As I said, after long combined treatment ~50% of alcoholics recover, if they remain 100% dry. Usually, [one[/b] drink will send them back. To you, it may sound ridiculous. Ask Blinc.

This is about responsibility, and "disease" implies basically no responsibility…
Correct. But ~50% of alcoholics can’t resist. Consider them as weak as you are when you can’t resist that serving of ice cream. Ice cream is food, but anyone can survive without it. Why do you have different standards for yourself and for others? All this extra food you gulp in is nor necessary for you; moreover, you are perfectly aware that it is harmful. And still gulp it. Because it elevates your mood? Alcoholics drink because alcohol elevates their mood even better. They, like you, know about the negative effects but prefer to deal with them later.


If that's the case, than that means that we won't know whether or not I am capable of losing weight until I die, because I'll always have a chance to do it later. Do you see my point?
Perfectly. Let’s apply the same logic to them. You are still fat. They are still drunk. All are still alive. All have time to do it later.

[blinc]

Originally posted by Nudnik
As I said, after long combined treatment ~50% of alcoholics recover, if they remain 100% dry. Usually, one drink will send them back. To you, it may sound ridiculous. Ask Blinc.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread - but to respond to Nudnik's post: The sad truth is, yes... as little as one drink can send a recovered alcoholic back into a drinking binge. For some, after having been away from alcohol for years, they think they can handle it socially and may start trying to drink again socially. They fool themselves into thinking it's something they can "handle". The truth is - for an alcoholic - there is no such thing as "social" drinking, because sooner or later, they will find themselves back on the booze full time.

There is no such thing as one drink being harmless to an alcoholic - one drink can undo years of effort. I know that from experience. We have alcohol in our house, but for years - I wouldn't even allow myself to have it anywhere even near me. We have it now, because sometimes it's to make drinks for friends - some of it, like beer or wine, we use in cooking. The thing is... I know from experience, if I ever pick up a beer, or a drink... I'll be down that road again. So I just don't even try to fool myself anymore, into thinking I can pick one up without paying a heavy price.

It's a choice I make, because after many, many failed attempts at "social" drinking, I had to face the fact (like millions of other recovered alcholics did) that we just can not handle alcohol in any quantity. It's something I think that is almost unexplainable, and almost certainly incomprehensible, to a person who has never had an alcohol addiction.

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by Nudnik

I guess now I understand: you believe that we are the same. That it, if you, TWTC, can always resist that extra serving (and you can, can’t you?), so everyone can. As I said, after long combined treatment ~50% of alcoholics recover, if they remain 100% dry. Usually, one drink will send them back. To you, it may sound ridiculous. Ask Blinc.


Yes, it can. I didn't mean that all. I do not believe all are the same, I just don't believe that it is absolutely 100% impossible to have on drink and stop - just difficult.

Originally posted by Nudnik

Correct. But ~50% of alcoholics can’t resist. Consider them as weak as you are when you can’t resist that serving of ice cream. Ice cream is food, but anyone can survive without it. Why do you have different standards for yourself and for others? All this extra food you gulp in is nor necessary for you; moreover, you are perfectly aware that it is harmful. And still gulp it. Because it elevates your mood? Alcoholics drink because alcohol elevates their mood even better. They, like you, know about the negative effects but prefer to deal with them later.


Different standards? When did I elevate myself at all? If anything, I've put myself down and readily admitted that I have made the choice to eat bad foods and that I am responsible for them.

Originally posted by Nudnik

Perfectly. Let’s apply the same logic to them. You are still fat. They are still drunk. All are still alive. All have time to do it later.


I do not see your point at all. My point illustrates this: you simply cannot say that I cannot lose weight, and that if I could, I would have already, and that if an alcoholic would stop, they would have already. My point was used to show that that statement was very much incorrect.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not fat in the least. I am not obese - I weigh more than I should, but most people who meet me have really no idea that I'm overweight.

[Nudnik]

TWTC: I just don't believe that it is absolutely 100% impossible to have on drink and stop - just difficult.
I can’t believe you posted that after you read what Blinc said. She explained it very well. Every instruction – medical, psychological, or for social workers – starts: “ the success of this program may vary… but one condition is mandatory: absolute abstinence is a must. Attempts at “gradual” weaning are not tried anymore (I said “every instruction …” – I did nor read “every” instruction, of course, but I read some. I also had a few friends-psychiatrists. If a person can drink socially, he is not an alcoholic, by definition).


Different standards? When did I elevate myself at all? If anything, I've put myself down and readily admitted that I have made the choice to eat bad foods and that I am responsible for them.
You say that you are “responsible”. Do not fool yourself. If you could make a decision to eat responsibly and stick to it, you’d lost weight years ago. But you are unable to do it.
I do not blame you for your weight, whatever it is. Besides, it’s only your problem (if it is a problem in the first place). But I had a feeling that you are (slightly) overweight, you know that it is not good and would not mind to loose it. I used it only as an exemple.
Both I and Blinc enjoy a good drink now and then. I’ve never actually practiced it but I think that I can drink a glass or two of wine every day. I think that I drink once a week to perhaps once a month or so. Blinc cannot do that – read her post again.

Most people can handle their drinks, but some cannot. Life sucks. Some “hard” drugs are even more addictive: everyone, who tries them for a while, gets hooked.

Some say that they are “addicted” to the Internet. Are you? ;)

[TWTCommish]

Originally posted by Nudnik

I can’t believe you posted that after you read what Blinc said. She explained it very well. Every instruction – medical, psychological, or for social workers – starts: “ the success of this program may vary… but one condition is mandatory: absolute abstinence is a must. Attempts at “gradual” weaning are not tried anymore (I said “every instruction …” – I did nor read “every” instruction, of course, but I read some. I also had a few friends-psychiatrists. If a person can drink socially, he is not an alcoholic, by definition).


You're really not understanding me. To say that it is ABSOLUTELY and POSITIVELY 100% no way impossible is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Nudnik

You say that you are “responsible”. Do not fool yourself. If you could make a decision to eat responsibly and stick to it, you’d lost weight years ago. But you are unable to do it.
I do not blame you for your weight, whatever it is. Besides, it’s only your problem (if it is a problem in the first place). But I had a feeling that you are (slightly) overweight, you know that it is not good and would not mind to loose it. I used it only as an exemple.
Both I and Blinc enjoy a good drink now and then. I’ve never actually practiced it but I think that I can drink a glass or two of wine every day. I think that I drink once a week to perhaps once a month or so. Blinc cannot do that – read her post again.


I already used an analogy to debunk these claims - I don't see how you're still using them. It is totally inaccurate to say that because I have not lost weight, I am incapable of it. What it means is that I have not been able to yet.

I'm getting a little frustrated here. My point was very clear, but obviously it has been misunderstood. The argument that "If you could make a decision to eat responsibly and stick to it, you’d lost weight years ago." is unlogical, as I've shown you.

Originally posted by Nudnik

Some say that they are “addicted” to the Internet. Are you? ;)

Nope - most of my time online is work-related.

[RoadRunner]

Hey guys. You have been arguing about this for days now, and you aren't really getting anywhere.

Eventually, you will run out of ways to restate your arguments, and it will start turning personal.

Why don't you just agree to disagree and call it quits?

[Mickyhoo]

Hey RR.. you read my mind!! Let's get some new info going instead of bringing up the same arguements!! I would like to know what they both think of the fact that up to 80% of the addicts in one hospital also had probs with depression, and bipolar disorder!

[Grimey]

This was an active thread. I don't think it is a disease. I think we are too quick to call bad behavior a disease. It seems like no one is responsible for their behavior anymore. You either have a disease, a syndrome, an addiction, etc.

It's like we are afraid to say anyone is bad anymore.

[jamesglewisf]

Boy, I miss these people. Anyone know how to get in contact with Mickyhoo or nudnik? Their emails don't work anymore.

[Alec]

An obolete definition of disease is "lack of ease; trouble." Most people would argue that being a drunk causes you trouble, therefore it is a disease; but a lot of drunks drink to forget their troubles, so maybe it is the cure for a disease.

[theyeti]

That's a very good point. What actually constitutes a disease? In the case of other mental diseases, people feel like they can toss around "depressed" or "insane" or "mentally absent..." etc, as if it is an objective thing.

Take a physical disease, such as the flu. Not only does everyone around the person know the person is sick, but the person herself also realizes she is snuffy, phlegmy, and feverish, and has the flu. Or, suppose a person has colon cancer. He goes in to get a colonoscopy and the doctor says, "you have colon cancer." You can look at the results of the tests and see that, yes, indeed you have colon cancer.

Now take someone in a mental hospital. The people around them think they're, say "insane" - he doesn't act like or normal person, or maybe the chemicals in his brain are aligned a different way. The patient himself thinks he's just fine. He may realize that he's different from other people, or he may not, but all he knows is that people don't seem to get along with him for some reason. He's different, and society doesn't understand him or isn't able to adapt itself to allow him to live like a normal person.

And the latest in thing is for politicians to cry out that we need to cover mental diseases like we cover and treat physical diseases. But they aren't the same thing! Besides, who is to say that having a different state of mind is any more a disease, as, say, being born with only one arm?

[Alec]

The real problem with covering mental illness is how do you prove that it is cured? The definition for most mental hospitals now is you are cured when your insurance quits paying. I've had friends in for drug and alcohol rehab, and that is really how it works. It's unbelievable. I think most mental hospitals are run by crooks.

[theyeti]

I agree! The biggest reason you can't prove it is cured is that you can't prove it existed in the first place. It's all about how the doctor's mind perceives the patient's mind. There is no accurate test, and if there were, it would all be in the opinion of the designer of the test.

As for drug and alcohol rehab, as examples... there is still no perfect way. If the person doesn't want to get over it, they won't. But if they do, hospitals and rehab centers need to try harder to push them along that road. Continuing the analogy, the hospitals need to keep following the patient's route instead of the one that leads to the pot of gold at the end.

Ok, mixed metaphors but you get the point...

[tedw]

Why Alcoholism and Addiction are not diseases
"Is the disease model of alcoholism scientific? No. Simply calling behavior a disease process does not make it one, even if doing so assists in creating sobriety. Is the treatment policy based on bad science? Yes. Is there any chance that this attitude will change in the near future? Bloody unlikely". JEFFREY A. SCHALER-Silver Spring-The writer was chairman of the Montgomery County Drug Abuse Advisory Council.


“The debate over the disease concept of addiction is not a meaningless intellectual exercise, for any framework for understanding AOD problems exerts a profound influence on the lives of individuals, families, social institutions and communities”- By William L. White,M.A. , Counselor: The magazine for Addiction Professionals.


When AA co-founder Bill Wilson was asked in 1960 about AA's position on the disease concept, he offered the following response:"We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease. Instead, there are many separate heart ailments, or combinations of them. It is something like that with alcoholism. Therefore, we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore, we always called it an illness, or a malady - a far safer term for us to use."

************************************************************************************

Why Alcoholism and Addiction are not diseases I am a long time member (20+ years of sobriety) of Alcoholics Anonymous And Narcotics Anonymous. I have read all the AA and NA approved literature regarding these addictions being a disease. Most members of Anonymous programs are indoctrinated with the idea they have a disease almost from the start. Considering the lost confused state they are in ,it is no wonder most accept the idea uncritically. It is also true that most drinkers and drug addicts do not believe they have a disease when they are using. But is this idea true? And is it helpful or harmful. Their have been books wriiten on this subject , most notably "The Useful Lie" by William Playfair which is worth reading. The truth of the matter is that there is no scientific proof that addictions are a disease, although many assert that there is. Stanton Peel (author of Diseasing of America ) has reviewed most of the scientific evidence and it is clear to the objective observer there is no scientific proof that addictions are diseases. The purpose of this short essay is not to argue the point and it is recommended the sincere seeker read Peeles work if he wants to review the so-called evidence. Belief in a lie can effect behavior. If a person truly believes he has a disease which triggers an allergy then he may indeed not drink or use drugs. It is also true if a person is hypnotized into believing he is a Rooster, he will crow like a Rooster. Why is this idea so appealing? First of all, the alcoholic/addict does not know what is wrong with him and this is an explanation. It is alsoappealing to the Alcoholic because most alcoholics/and addicts have done terrible things. The idea of having a disease is appealing. I have on occasion heard people in meetings say they were relieved to "find out"they had a disease and that they were "sick" people not bad people. It is easier for a proud, wrong person to admit there is something wrong with his body than admit there is something wrong with his soul. And that is what is wrong with the disease concept. The alcoholic/addict is a sinner in need of repentance. He needs to see his prideful, resentful,angry, disobedient sinful nature, and feel the attendent pain. This Godly pain is what the scripture refers to in the beatitudes "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted".Belief in a lie does not save,Belief in the tuth does. Think of it, the entire "treatment"industry in the United States is based on a lie.


Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free-Jesus Christ.

Copyright-http://Christianrecovery.blogspot.com

[DataJack]

I am a long time member (20+ years of sobriety) of Alcoholics Anonymous And Narcotics Anonymous.

I too am a long time member of A.A. 23 years plus but only the last 13 sober.
I do not question how it works or why it works...as one of the steps says ... became willing to turn our lives over to a higher power...that higher power is of course god...A.A. has always stateted that this is a spiritual program but not a religion.

I do agree with you about it not being a disease, and most of the recovered members of A.A. i know agree with you too. myself and my A.A. friends call it like it is...we were morally, socially, emotionally and physicly bankrupt. we were also sick of being " sick ", but not in the way you mean it. A.A. teaches us how to come back into the main stream of society and live lives that are socially acceptable.

do i have an excuse for being a low down scum sucking peice of humanity before i sobered up?...yes i do...and its a valid one...and it applies to most alcoholics.we did not know how to act proper and when we did know we did not act proper anyways because we were after the instant fix that booze could give us. its an addiction...plain and simple...

also about the alergic reaction...in an alcoholic booze does set up a reaction that makes us want more. i had 2 yrs sobriety and was in a bar with the wife...she went to the bar and ordered a beer for her and an orange juice for me...for some reason the bartender put rye in the orange juice....even in my wildest binges i do not think i would have drank that mixture. when she put my " juice " down i grabbed it and drank 3 or 4 mouth fulls...that booze running down my throat, the smell in my nose...the feeling of oh yeah this is good....

it was all i could do to put that glass down and say......this has booze in it...i left, the wife went nuts on the bartender in a verbal manner...believe you me i had an allergic reaction to the booze that made me want more...not made me sick...all i could think of was even if i had just broke my sobriety, i was still further ahead... i could start my sobriety over buy not my life...and A.A. and its teachings had given me back both my physical life and my spiritual one...

" He needs to see his prideful, resentful,angry, disobedient sinful nature, and feel the attendent pain"...of course he does..at this point the alcoholic will admitt to being powerless over his affliction and seek help...

i wish you continued happy sobriety...myself...i don't care what terms are used..it worked for me and i am happy....if what you are doing and saying works for you then thats all that counts

[Justawoman]

Why would you even want to go in a bar? Isn't that setting yourself up for temptation? Isn't that like walking up to a mad dog and slapping him in the face? He is going to bite you. Considering the human mistake factor I am not surprised that your drink ended up with booze in it. It was a bar after all and human mistakes happen. Not to knock you on your 13 years of sobriety, that is outstanding, but why would you want to put yourself in a position that could ultimately be your downfall? Just makes no sense to me why you went there and why your wife would even want booze around you. I would give up drinking right along with my spouse for moral support if he had this problem. Sorry if I come across cynical but that is like handing a pyromaniac a box of matches and saying," don't play with them."

[Alec]

Yeah, I don't see why a person who struggles with alcohol would go to a bar.

What is all of this allergy talk? The usual responses to allergies are swelling, sneezing, itching, rashes, etc. An allergy is a response by your immune system.

http://www.answers.com/allergy&r=67
A misguided reaction to foreign substances by the immune system, the body system of defense against foreign invaders, particularly pathogens (the agents of infection). The allergic reaction is misguided in that these foreign substances are usually harmless. The substances that trigger allergy are called allergen. Examples include pollens, dust mite, molds, danders, and certain foods. People prone to allergies are said to be allergic or atopic.

It seems that calling it an allergy is as mis-guided as calling it a disease.

[DataJack]

i will first address what justawomen said.
one of the things we learn if we are serious about getting sober is to pray and ask for the COMPULSION to drink alcohol be removed from us. I was lucky in the fact that my prayers were answered fairly quickly after i had turned my will and my life over to a greater power. it took 10 years of going to A.A. for a bit then leaving before i was ready to do that...the smell of booze does not make me want to drink anymore, where as before it did. to get to where i am today has been a journey of 23 years with the last 13 being dry if not sober.
also we learn that we ARE responsable for our drinking and the steps needed to insure that we never drink again. one of the steps is like you said about going to a bar is nuts. i would agree with that if it was somebody just new to A.A. but if a person takes the teachings of A.A. to heart and does what is suggested, by the time two years is up not drinking has become a way of life. we all progress in A.A. at different speeds and some will never be able to go into a bar. but most of the people i know in A.A. have very solid sobriety and know they can not drink. step one of A.A. is actually a 2 part step...you have to do both or you will fail...the 4th paragraph,1st sentence..." Little good can come to any alcoholic.....unless they have first accepted their devestating weakness AND al its consequences. the first and most important consequence is that they can NEVER willingly drink alcohol again.

now for alec
he says " I don't see why a person who struggles with alcohol would go to a bar."

alec, i have not had a struggle with alcohol since that time in the bar. i truely believe that god does direct those in A.A. provided they are sincere in their request. i remember saying to myself..boy...i can't wait to go to an open meeting and be a speaker...i can tell these A.A. people a thing or two...i got up to speak..told them my name and was struck dumb...all i could think was...i don't have anything to say...and after 5 minutes of going um um um...i asked if some one else could speak because..i had nothing to say...stage fright?...not on your life...at the time i was a well know local D.J. and had no problem at all speaking not only to people one on one but 30,000 at a time did not scare me...what i NOW believe is that god struck me speechless for a reason.....about 10 years later i had the bar incident...and up till that time i was laffing at all the old timers that kept saying alcohol sets up an alergic reaction in an ALCOHOLICS system that makes him CRAVE more alcohol...as i said in my post...even in my wildest drinking days i would not have drank rye and orange juice...i firmly believe it was the guiding hand of god the directed that bartender to do as he did...he even said he did not know why he did that and was thinking ...wow...what a weird drink this is...so for lack of a better word i will call it what the old timers in A.A. call it...and thats an alergic reaction.

the bottom line here is that the only person that can understand the pain some one is going through and have true emathy for them is some one who has gone through the same pain themselves...i have seen it time and time again in A.A. where the councilour with a school diploma can not get through to an alcoholic where as another one with NO DIPLOMA gets through because they too have felt the pain.

i also said in my post that if what some one is doing works for them then so be it...thats all that counts is that its working...

read the big book, read the 12 and 12 and go to two meetings a week for 10 years and you may see where i am coming from...
in the mean time all who are fighting this affliction, just go to meetings, even if you don't understand or get it...one day you will...and then you will be on the road to recovery...took me ten years before i got 1 month of sobriety...and believe me when i say...the whole world lights up and you can see a light at the end of the tunnel. after a year.......wow...life will real good
at least that was my experiance

[Justawoman]

I just don't get the whole bar thing. If you walk away from drinking alcohol then don't you walk away from the whole lifestyle? A bar is there for those who drink. That is where they make their money. I have been to enough to know that is a fact. I have been enough to know that it is rare to see a person in a bar who is not drinking. If you can frequent a bar and not drink then more power to you Jack. I just don't see where the appeal is in a bar when you give up drinking. I haven't been in a bar in over 5 years. I just decided I was getting to old for the whole bar scene thing and I don't drink anymore by my own choice. So the bar scene has no appeal to me, looks like it would be the same for a recovering AA person.

[raybeck]

I agree with JAW! Detest bars and all they stand for. My Mom was an alcoholic...she was able to overcome her addiction to some degree the last 7 or 8 years of her life, but it was enough for me to know it's not something I even wanted to tempt myself with. Of course when younger I thought it was cool to drink, etc. but it didn't take me long to grow up and see that wasn't what I wanted for myself (alcoholism runs on in both sides of my family). I probably have a margarita once a year and that's it. Life is too good to mess it up with alcohol and all that goes with it and I do believe the bars go with it, and I do believe it can become an addiction and is an illness, no doubt!

[Justawoman]

You know if you use the arguement that you go in a bar because their food is good then there are plenty of eateries out there that can match, if not do better, than bar food. I know most places offer alcoholic drinks on their menus but a bar atmosphere is just different than a restaurant's atmosphere. Plus if they mess up your drink in a restaurant they are more likely to catch it, and so are you, before you down a whole drink loaded with booze. Too busy and noisy in a bar, usually, for such a mistake to be caught quickly and to easy to assume someone meant they wanted a spiked drink versus a virgin drink.

[DataJack]

my wife likes to go to a bar maybe 3 times a year....with me so she can have a drink or two and play 8 ball. she bought a 12 pack of beer last august and just finished the case about a month back. so we sometimes go to a bar to have a bit of fun...as i said......the COMPULSION to drink has been lifted from me...i have absolutly no desire to drink. she has 3 or 4 beers at the bar and we go home.if i have no compulsion to drink whats wrong with us going to a bar?.....well......i may slip...i know that...but the chances of me slipping in a bar quickly approach the probablity of zero with each dry day that goes by...A.A. taught me that if a person gets the first 3 steps down properly he/she will never drink again...when i sobered up that was all i studied for the first 3 years was the first 3 steps...read the 12 steps and see what i mean...bottom line is that without gods help i would not have got sober. and A.A. taught me that..A.A. is a spirtual program but not a relgion.

i also keep going back to what they call the beginners table...its where all the newcomers come in to A.A. and some of them have only a few hours of sobriety. when i see the pain and hurt on all the newcommers faces because they are confused and just don't know what to do...i remember me being like that...and there is no way on this green acre i live on that i want to go through that pain again...so its quite easy for me NOT to drink...but i have gods help in that and i WILL NOT fail for he is with me.

[Noseypoo]

Keep up the good work, Data! {thumbsu}

[raybeck]

Good for you, Jack, my Mom was never able to completely beat the disease, but bless her heart, she sure tried. She did give up smoking 3 years before she passed away, so I was proud of her for that accomplishment!!!

[Lino]

I personally think is like any other pleasure toxic products, You got to able to control them instead of letting them control you. I not affraid to confess this since we are supposed to be a group of friends. I'm a person who has used a lot of heavy drugs in the past ( extasy, lsd, coke, wizz, speed, MDMA, Katemine, and god knows what else) and every single one of them I've tried it with the same purpose: kwoing what effect it would cause me, the ones I've enjoyed I've carried on using them for longer, the others I just didn't bother to use them anymore, but I was still using a considerable amount of the others and letting them control my life, mind you that I'm 6.2ft(1.90m) tall and when I've arrived to the UK my weight was 162.8 pounds(74Kg). I was slowly vanishing from the face of the Earth. Until one day without any fancy treatments or psicologists whatsoever I just looked at my self in the mirrorand remember about the boy that once was an olimpic wrestler, a saxophone player, 5 a side soccer player, that loved his family and used to chace girls and said its enough I ain't goin nowhere but 6ft underground if carrie on like this and gradually I've stopped using the bloody things. Today I'm proud to say that the only drugs that flow trough by body are the nicotine from my Marlboro's, the cafeine from my coffee and an odd drink at weekends with the Missus.

[DataJack]

Lino...its awesome that you just woke up and said enough is enough and quit.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people that can't do that. those people are addicts of some sort, whether it be alcohol or drugs, it doesn't matter. when it came to drugs i too just said...enough is enough and quit...just like that...i was 17 at the time a speed freak and jamming a needle into my arm to get high. with booze it was entirely different. i could not stay away from booze for more than a yr at a time...and when i drank...i drank and drank and drank the fish water too if i thought it would get me drunk. heh...it cost me a marriage and my family. even though i knew i was loosing them due to my drinking i would not..COULD NOT stop drinking...if a person can't stop coughing it means he is ill....i could not stop drinking...to this day i think i was ill...A.A. over the course of many years taught me how to stop drinking and lead a normal life...like i said..i was in and out for 10 years before i even had three months of no drinking at all.that has now become 13 yrs...and if i can keep sober by calling it a disease or a demon or a virus or just my plain old attitude was the problem i will...i will call it whatever it takes to stay sober... the man i am now is a lot nicer than the one i was 13 yrs ago...my wife whom i met 11 years ago and we have been together as a couple for 10 has never seen me drunk...or drink...she used to say that she had more man in her baby finger than most men had in their body...she says i was the first man she met that had more man in his baby finger than what she had in her whole body.....lol...i give the credit for this to A.A....and i also still go to meetings....meetings to an alcoholic are like treatment that an out patient has to get on a weekly bassis...if the out patient stops going he will get sick or sicker and may die....if an alcoholic stops going he/she will eventually drink again and may die...going to meetings is my out patient treatment...i kind of ranted and wandered here on this post but i did want to get my point across and that was......some of us need more help.. thats all

[Noseypoo]

Sounds like you went through some hard times :(

I agree, you can call it a disease or whatever you want to call it, as long as it helps you to stay away from it.

I'm glad to hear you're still sober, keep it up ... you're doing great. {thumbsu} {hug}

[raybeck]

Kudo's to both of you for what you have accomplished!!! Have you ever thought there was a reason you might have experienced what you went through? Either of you could prove to be valuable to a person going through some of the same lifestyles. I think that by the fact you actually experienced it, you could relate to others in the same boat, in a way that those of us who have not been there, never could!!! I'm impressed too, that you both shared your stories and they will probably reach out and touch someone that comes across this thread!!!

[Lino]

Lino...its awesome that you just woke up and said enough is enough and quit.
Thank you Jack, I can tell that your words come from a great example of a man, a man that has learn value of life and all its good things the hard way, compared to you I'm still a Kid who has just managed to get out of trouble, like you I today can say that I've managed to stay out of the wrong path and hope to carrie on all the way until my departure time arrives. I also have a great wife who I've met 3 years ago and been married for 1.5 years and she's the 1 who been giving the extra strengh and support that we know we need to keep us mentally strong. Carry with with the good work my dear friend as will I do in this side of the world, please feel welcome to contact me any time any time you would like or need to talk about this or any other matter as I hope you will let do the same.

All the Best,

[DataJack]

Thank you Jack, I can tell that your words come from a....man that has learn value of life...and all its good things the hard way...I also have a great wife....she's the 1 who been giving the extra strength and support....please feel welcome to contact me any time All the Best,

Thank you Lino
It sure is nice to meet another man who freely admits that his wife makes him a better person...not because she beats him or yells at him...but because she loves him...beats me why she loves me but she does...and i am always in awe of that love...she constantly gives me good counsel on what to do and say and because of that i am a better man...actually i run things around here but always check with the boss of this household to make sure i am right...if she says i am wrong i don't do it...i learned that the hard way too...lol....just had to do things that she said i should not...and wow..i got into trouble...so now if she says its a bad idea i say...ok honey....and move on to the next idea and hope it passes her inspection.....lol..anyways....thanks to all the people who have said congrats to us...believe you me...it was not easy...for every success story there are about one thousand who fail...and that i think is a true statistic...as far as being "valuable to a person going through some of the same" and being able to "relate to others in the same boat" as raybeck put it i think that myself as an individual may not be that important but as a part of a group i help make the group important...there is a saying that it takes a whole village to raise a child...i think that it takes a whole group of sober alcoholics to help one get sober...for when we first sober up thats exactly what we are...children....and as much as i joke around here at home i would not want to go through those alcoholic getting sober growing pains again...not for all the money in the world...thanks for reading my rant...lol

[raybeck]

But, Jack, one person can certainly plant a seed!!! Give yourself more credit, you deserve it and you could very easily touch someone that might be turned off to "a group" of folks...you definately can make a difference and I'm sure you already have...just by being you!!!

[jamesglewisf]

I think this thread has run its course at 5 pages.

[cfgardengirl]

I have been reading about this on going debate and have personal experience in what I believe to be the disease of alcoholism. I hope that those who read this will try to keep an open-mind and do their own research. Webster's definition of Disease: 1. Trouble 2. a) an impairmentof the normal state of the living animal or plant body that affects the performance of the vital functions b) a particular instance or kind of such impairment: malady.
By these 3 definitions, alcoholism can and should be considered a "disease" and treated as such. Aids is considered a "disease" yet contracting it is a matter of "choice" but does that make it any less of a disease? Not at all!!! Aids kills and is incurable just as alcoholism kills and is also incurable.
What about will-power? or choice to drink or not to drink? and the biggy responsibility? I know from experience that willpower, choice and responsibility go out the window when an alcoholic is active.
Behavoir plays a role but it does with many diseases. I feel I am resposible for my health and well-being yet I do not always make the right choices. Research shows that eating foods that are shot up with steroids, antibiotics, sprayed with pesticides and herbicides cause many maladies in our bodies from cancers to early physical development in children especially girls. But "we" eat them anyway; a choice.
Abstinence from alcohol is the only way to arrest this disease just as the diabetic needs to stay away from sugar.
Active alcoholics Do Not want to live this way. Who on earth would choose to live a life of hopelessness and misery? Drinking is acceptable as a solution to "unwinding", "relaxing", etc., but when an alcoholic drinks it is poison, a poison that the body "craves". And a diabetic craves sugar which is poison to their bodies. So we blame the alcoholic for their disease and have no compasssion for their illness. ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE and SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH!!! Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic! There is no cure!

[Radu]

I'm reluctant to vote for one of the choices, because I don't feel either is entirely accurate. If I say that it's not a disease, then it sounds like it's not a real problem. If I say that it is a disease, then it portrays alcoholics as helpless victims who may need financial support for their alcoholism.

I agree with everything you've posted, except that alcoholism is "incurable". I have known many people who have stopped drinking. Alcoholics Anonymous has survived for such a long time, because of the success of it's members. Their craving never goes away, however, which is why they always consider themselves "recovering alcoholics", as opposed to "former alcoholics". Still, just like any addiction, the harmful effects can be stopped.

If you consider alcoholism a disease, then you would also need to consider all addictions as diseases. I don't know, yet, if that would be a good thing or a bad thing. They can certainly use the help, but I don't want to give justification to those who can control their habits.

[cfgardengirl]

The harmful effects can be put into remission but not cured. If a recovering alcoholic picks up a drink after any amount of time in recovery he/she will find themselves deeper into the disease of alcoholism than before they seeked help. Alcoholism is incurable but there are solutions to keep it in remission.
Radu, are you implying that by calling cancer a disease that people don't look at it as a "real" problem? And that cancer victims are helpless victims who need financial support for their disease? Is that why we are afraid to call alcoholism a disease? Is it really fear?
As for control, that is a part of the problem, an alcoholic can not "control" his/her drinking without help. The alcoholic's body craves it.
Is there anything you do not have control over no matter how hard you try to control it?

[Radu]

I'm not trying to generalize any group of people. What I'm "affraid" of is that by calling it a disease, some people who can control their habits will convince themselves that their just victims of a disease, and that control is out of their hands.

However, I do realize that the fear of the minority should not determine whether or not we classify it as a disease. I am clearly not an expert on this topic, which is why I'm slow to make up my mind. I think it would be more accurate to classify alcoholism as a mental disorder, as opposed to a purely biological disease.