[BRussell]

Why do people call alcoholism a disease? It doesn't seem like a disease to me. It's a behavior that's hard for some people to stop, but it's not a disease.

[Gametes]

Here you go

1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

It's a little counter-intuitive, I know, but it fits the bill to a T.

[surfacto]

Any form of addiction is a disease.

A lot of people don't think that addiction is a disease because the it is caused by one's voluntary actions, but many other undisputed diseases are also. Do you consider lung cancer a disease? Adult onset diabetes? AIDS?
All of these are physical disorders (usually) caused by voluntary actions. Addiction is no different.

[MikeM32]

I guess it depends on how you define a desease. I've been in some trouble for my drinking and yet I still do it. I'm just more cautious about when it gets out of control now. That said, I'm not sure if it "is" a desease in the traditional meaning of the word, since I consciencely decide to drink or not drink. I will not drink during the work week when I have to get up early and work the following day, but I do look forward to my Friday and Saturday beer binges. OTOH, before I was born, my father had something of a "problem", and as I grew-up he was in AA since I was born. I never saw him touch a drop. But my mother never ever let him forget his "drinking days" either. I hope I don't burn in hell for giving away his anonimity since he is no longer with us either.

Is it genetic? Maybe, but I still think I decide to drink or not to. I mean I didn't start until I was like 16 or 17. There's a whole good percentage of my life when I didn't drink.

I don't think it's a desease, I think it's a compulsion really. But maybe that's part of the desease, I.E. thinking I'm in "control" of it. There are likely effects on the mind and so forth that could be found somewhere.

And for the record I'm not looking for "help" here either, I'm just speaking from experience. My oldest brother also has had a few "problems" with drinking as-well.

And before you "judge" me. I'm a professional graphic artist and my oldest brother was a VP of a major kitchenware store conglomerate.

Mike

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Gametes:
<STRONG>Here you go

1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

It's a little counter-intuitive, I know, but it fits the bill to a T.</STRONG>

So by the first definition, it's the "system of an organism" that refers to the behavior? Sounds a little vague to me.

By the second definition, watching South Park is a disease.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by surfacto:
<STRONG>Any form of addiction is a disease.

A lot of people don't think that addiction is a disease because the it is caused by one's voluntary actions, but many other undisputed diseases are also. Do you consider lung cancer a disease? Adult onset diabetes? AIDS?
All of these are physical disorders (usually) caused by voluntary actions. Addiction is no different.</STRONG>

Lung cancer, type II diabetes, and AIDS are the result of a behavior. I consider them diseases, but not smoking, sex, or eating too much. Those are behaviors.

[TNproud2b]

I sorta see the point, tho.

Calling alcoholism a 'disease' is passing off the responsibility for one's actions.

"You can't blame me for drinking all the time...it's a disease."

Perhaps it's because most folks consider a 'disease' to be something caused by an unfortunate, unpreventable force.

I consider alcoholism, smoking, over-eating, biting your fingernails, working-out, and other so-called habits - to merely be character flaws or , at best, signs of laziness.

[surfacto]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Lung cancer, type II diabetes, and AIDS are the result of a behavior. I consider them diseases, but not smoking, sex, or eating too much. Those are behaviors.</STRONG>

Yes, drinking is a behavior, not a disease. But addiction to drinking (alcoholism) is a disease that can result from that behavior.

[Jim Paradise]

Alcoholism is a disease... unless you've witnessed it first hand, its effects, how destructive it is, and how hard it is to stop, then you really shouldn't be making assumptions about it...

[MikeM32]

Originally posted by BRussell:
By the second definition, watching South Park is a disease.

No I think the second definition is more closely related to what alcoholism and drug addiction are. Like I said I prefer to use the term "compulsion" over the term "disease" though. Lots of the reasons a person starts those things are social reasons as-well. "Oh I want to be cool so I'll shoot-up some heroine just like all my buddies do" etc., etc.

The same could arguably be said about people who smoke, eat red meat, love chocolate, whatever.

"If" it's a disease it's likely got it's roots through association. I actually do remember why I started smoking cigarettes and drinking beer, but I couldn't tell you why I still do so.

Mike

[driven]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Lung cancer, type II diabetes, and AIDS are the result of a behavior. I consider them diseases, but not smoking, sex, or eating too much. Those are behaviors.</STRONG>

So being drunk is the disease.

[The Dude]

Alcoholism is a type of disease which after a certain amount of time has passed, turns into yet another disease.

You want proof? Talk to my dad. Drank for about 35 years, got sober about 6 months ago (for the second time) because his doctor told him he was pre-diabetic.

[11011001]

I came to this forum, expecting to make a joke. But, I find the mood too serious here.

This is useless, but as you consume more alcohol, you endoplasmic reticulums get a lot better at breaking it down. So perhaps this explains why these people can drink so much. Question, is the behavior addictive in the same sense that the body becomes addicted to a drug, or is it purely pathological (wrong word probably, I mean thing of the mind), is it something that one has to do because they have come to associate it as an escape from things?

My grandfather was an alcholic, I don't think I will be, beer is ok on saturday nights with all your friends, but doing it to get rid of lifes problems? There is better stuff for that Not that that is a real escape though, it is the illusion of escape, some people can settle for such an illusion, I think I would try to fix it.

Hmm, every post I make goes way off topic. Sorry, you should try talking to me in real life, now that is a difficult thing to follow.

[siegzdad]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>And before you "judge" me. I'm a professional graphic artist and my oldest brother was a VP of a major kitchenware store conglomerate.</STRONG>

And my father was a school bus driver. Alcoholism hits every where from the highest statesment to the "bum" on the street and everywhere in between.

Personally, I think it is a choice. My father went dry after my mom begged him to stop drinking, and he did. Twelve years later he finally admitted that he is an alcolholic for the first time. My mother started crying she was so happy.

By categorizing it as a disease it allows people to get help without the fear of loosing their job, and I think that is a good idea.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>I hope I don't burn in hell for giving away his anonimity since he is no longer with us either.</STRONG>

Considering your name is anonymous and you're merely referring to him as 'my father,' I'd say you're safe. Telling people that family members are alcoholics is generally acceptable, to an extent. However saying, "Oh yeah, I saw such and such at an AA meeting," is completely unacceptable.


Also, alcohol is physically addictive. That helps to qualify alcoholism as a disease.

[vmarks]

A relative once told me that he was "allergic" to alcohol.

After all, everytime he used to drink, something bad happened.

to answer the topic, I don't know. It doesn't seem contagious, but it does seem as though you contract it through faulty judgement.

[Gametes]

Not that being a contagion (or not) is related to something's status as a disease; after all, Cancer is hardly so.

People, while I don't believe that we ought to automatically accept the dictionary definition of a word (language is a dynamic collection, with relationships already complicated to the point of being difficult or impossible to explain, without even mentioning the fact that a dictionary is written by fallible and ignorant humans...), I must point out that this word is hardly in contention. Some diseases, such as alcoholism or stupidity, are on the fence, but our conception of what a disease is is pretty solid.

Think about the distinction between 'man' and 'woman'. Seems pretty clear -- and easy -- I know. But it isn't: what about transvestites, or transexuals? What happens when one has the body of a man and the mind of a woman? What happens when each of these attributes is a mixture of both extremes?
Don't worry; I'm not trying to destroy the hallowed tradition of distinguishing between these groups. I'm just saying that, just because there are examples that are hard to categorize, does not make the fundamental definition suddenly useless and wrong.

Anyway, carry on.

[TonyRado]

Who cares whether it's labeled a "disease" or not? It's just a label. Are you trying to imply that there is some kind of significance to the label. Example: whether there is a "genetic cause/predisposition", or whether it is an "acquired condition" that is brought about by a bad acts/judgment that are completely volitional?

I have a couple of friends who are friends of Bill (18th & 15th anniv. a few weeks ago), and I'm not sure whether they could answer that. Maybe I'll ask�

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Calling alcoholism a 'disease' is passing off the responsibility for one's actions.</STRONG>

No, it's a way of making someone see that they need to get themselves into treatment program. To treat the disease.

Plenty of diseases are a result of one's own actions. Alcoholism is one example. STDs are another. Diseases that result from unclean living conditions are another.

[deedar]

As a friend of Bill myself, I can't tell you whether or not it is a disease. The program says so, but I do not know that myself, and it really doesn't matter. What I do know is that when I drink, I can't stop and I cannot predict with any certainty what I may do or where I may end up. My only solution is to not drink. Period.

[SickofSomebody68]

Disease= you couldn't have prevented/avoided the condition.

If you get something because of your own personal desicsions, it should NOT be called a disease. By that rational if a girl gets pregnant she could call the kid a disease right? Pfft. Right.

- Ca$h

[The Dude]

Originally posted by SickofSomebody68:
<STRONG>Disease= you couldn't have prevented/avoided the condition.

If you get something because of your own personal desicsions, it should NOT be called a disease. By that rational if a girl gets pregnant she could call the kid a disease right? Pfft. Right.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

Technically, pregnancy is an STD...

[malvolio]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>I've been in some trouble for my drinking and yet I still do it. I'm just more cautious about when it gets out of control now. That said, I'm not sure if it "is" a desease in the traditional meaning of the word, since I consciencely decide to drink or not drink. I will not drink during the work week when I have to get up early and work the following day, but I do look forward to my Friday and Saturday beer binges.</STRONG>

Your ability to control your alcohol consumption means you are not an alcoholic (at least not yet).
My brother has been in AA for the past decade or so. I have had some definite problems with alcohol abuse myself, attended some AA meetings in the past, but continue to drink with no problems for several years. I would describe my condition as "having a tendency to abuse alcohol."
BTW, the folks at a highly respected area substance abuse facility agreed with me. After an in-depth analysis of damn near my whole life history, they decided that I'm not an alcoholic.
I'll drink to that!

[Kaglan]

What is and is not a disease has always been debated, particularly when the behavior in question overlaps with psychology. I don't know about any physiological addictive effects of alcohol consumption -- but if I remember my psych classes accurately, the rule of thumb is something like this:
1. Is your life being negatively affected? (i.e., are you unhappy, or doing things you regret later, or losing jobs, etc.)
2. Are the people around you being negatively affected? (overlaps with the first -- but is conceivable to be happy as a clam but ruining your family's life etc.)
3. Is it persistent? (has to be enduring)
4. Social acceptability. By far the most controversial (and alternately ignored and applied) of the criteria, but intended to account for cultural differences (beating oneself is normal in some culture, I don't remember where) and situational differences (eg., it is not illness to think that God or gods have spoken to you in a dream, but believing that God is sending you messages through the static on your TV usually is considered a symptom of a problem.)

I've never been a fan of the subjectiveness of clinical psychology, nor its sensitivity to political pressure -- but these are not always clear cut issues, especially if you are trying to create a system which works regardless of philosophical background.

----------- my own thoughts follow ---------
As far as addiction goes... I think alcoholism is considered a disease by the medical world, but some other behaviors (so called "sexual addiction", for example) are not. How I try to look at my life is:
1. If it is interfering with my life
2. and i can't give it up

it is both a problem and a disease (compulsive behavior). (Usually there is some issue which the behavior is trying, unsuccessfully to resolve, in my experience).

I think it is a healthy practice, periodically, to try giving things up which are hard to give up -- say, internet surfing, or TV, or porn if that is your struggle. It keeps you aware of what is in charge of your life.

[Kaglan]

Oh... on responsibility. I didn't address that.

I am a big advocate of personal responsibility. Having something called a disease, especially something like alcoholism, doesn't lesson your responsibility to deal with it -- it is just pointing out that you need help. Like unambiguously physical diseases like asthma or diabetes, you may need regular help from other people, and you may not be able to handle it without medical attention, but there is a life-long obligation to deal with and work around what ever ails you, perhaps on a daily basis.

My own, more controversial struggle, is with pornography viewing and masturbation. (ignoring any moral issues, which I think is a good idea in this discussion, these were problems because they a. made me unhappy b. interfered with my life & relationships and c. were nearly impossible to stop.) Now, whether this is a bonafide "addiction or not," I know I cannot control what I _want_ to do -- that will always be with me. Whether it is a disease or not does not change that. I still have an obligation to control my desires the best I am able. But calling it a disease means I can make myself consult other human beings, and lets me off the hook for desires, and leaves me only to deal with behavior.

[BRussell]

The thing about alcoholism is that there is no known single factor that causes it, biological or otherwise.

It can be addictive, but so can lots of things. Is internet addiction a disease? Sex addiction?

I guess what I'm asking is - what's the difference between addiction and abuse?

Lots of people do really stupid things that hurt them, like drive to fast or have unsafe sex. But we usually don't call the behaviors themselves "diseases."

I love Doritos. I mean really, really love 'em. Am I addicted to them? Is it a disease? How is alcohol different?

And one of the problems I have is how AA treats it. You have to admit your helplessness over alcoholism, submit to a higher power, etc. Basically, say you have no control over it. Is that really the best way to handle a behavioral problem?

[TonyRado]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>And one of the problems I have is how AA treats it. You have to admit your helplessness over alcoholism, submit to a higher power, etc. Basically, say you have no control over it. Is that really the best way to handle a behavioral problem?</STRONG>

You're right, AA should definitely allow you have a drink if you want it. In fact it is such a good idea that another organization tried something precisely along those lines. I think it was a couple of years ago down in D.C. when one of that group's female members killed someone in an auto accident (she was drunk). Great system indeed.

How about this � maybe we can start a help organization that will provide Snickers� Bars to diabetics? If nothing else, the potential downside with my idea would be less than a "drinking AA group," since its members are less likely to put others at risk.

FWIW, I sense that your problems with AA are a rooted in your problems with sustained sobriety. It seems to me that if you can't "completely stop" binge drinking, then in fact you "don't have complete control" over it. The sooner that this is acknowledged the better.

[deedar]

AA allows you to do anything you want. You can drink and come to meetings if you care to. The point is, if you are truly alcoholic, you will never be able to eliminate the negative effects of alcohol on your life until you stop drinking completely.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by TonyRado:
<STRONG>You're right, AA should definitely allow you have a drink if you want it. In fact it is such a good idea that another organization tried something precisely along those lines. I think it was a couple of years ago down in D.C. when one of that group's female members killed someone in an auto accident (she was drunk). Great system indeed.</STRONG>

Yeah, that got a lot of news coverage. Do you know how many AA-type alcoholics - which are virtually all alcoholics who have undergone treatment - have relapsed? Almost all of them have.

How about this � maybe we can start a help organization that will provide Snickers� Bars to diabetics? If nothing else, the potential downside with my idea would be less than a "drinking AA group," since its members are less likely to put others at risk.

Ouch, bad example, given your argument. You do realize that it's perfectly OK for diabetics to have sugar, don't you? They just have to watch how much they have so that their blood-sugar level doesn't get too high. They have to eat carbohydrates in moderation. Sound familiar?

FWIW, I sense that your problems with AA are a rooted in your problems with sustained sobriety. It seems to me that if you can't "completely stop" binge drinking, then in fact you "don't have complete control" over it. The sooner that this is acknowledged the better.

Yeah, you got me.
Sheesh, the AA police are after me.

Look:

AA is not science-based.

All research, every single bit, shows that a significant proportion of alcoholics drink some after they have stopped abusing alcohol, and that a relatively small proportion of alcoholics achieve abstinence.

There is no evidence that abstinence is a more effective path for alcoholics to take than moderate drinking. There is failure in both methods.

People who advocate controlled drinking don't advocate it for all alcoholics, just some. AA and the disease-model crowd advocate abstinence for all alcoholics. It's possible, just possible, that that approach does more harm than good for some people.

[TonyRado]

Actually, I am NOT an AA cop. Quite the contrary, I have a couple of friends (as mentioned above) that have been in for a long time. If I have one problem with AA (or at least one particular member) it is that this person keep "projecting" herself and/or her additction upon me. Are "all" members like that? I hope not.

It's difficult b/c I really like this person her but her quips about "I'll save you seat" are starting to wear thin. I don't need to be lectured after a night of having dinner and a some drinks with my girlfriend, by a woman who was a single mother and gave birth to two children with FAS.

FWIW, the example above does kinda suck, but it's not totally invalid. Alcoholics "can" also have alcohol certain say foods (chicken marsielle[sp?], crabs, desserts, etc.) just the same way that diabetics can have sugar in certain foods. I was just trying to make the point that the "pure" form of the vice must be avoided by each (Snickers� to a diabetic = "drinking" alcohol to a drunk).

Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't think anyone can merely "limit" the number of drinks being consumed as a cure for alcoholism. The difference between it, and other addictions (sex, smoking, etc.) is that alcohol effects judgment, perception, mood, etc. Plain and simple. Hence after only a couple of drinks, what used to be a "limit" when sober, now becomes negotiable. "Well, I'm not too drunk so maybe I'll have one more, one more, one more�" etc., and before you know it you're into a binge again.

Sure many people in AA relapse, but why are you blaming AA? Is pressuring people NOT to drink so stressful that it causes people to to do it again? Of course not.

One statistic is irrefutable: All one-hundred percent (100%) of the people who continually abstain never relapse.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by TonyRado:
<STRONG>Actually, I am NOT an AA cop. Quite the contrary, I have a couple of friends (as mentioned above) that have been in for a long time. If I have one problem with AA (or at least one particular member) it is that this person keep "projecting" herself and/or her additction upon me.</STRONG>

OK, but now I'm wondering why you were doing that to me.

FWIW, the example above does kinda suck, but it's not totally invalid. Alcoholics "can" also have alcohol certain say foods (chicken marsielle[sp?], crabs, desserts, etc.) just the same way that diabetics can have sugar in certain foods. I was just trying to make the point that the "pure" form of the vice must be avoided by each (Snickers� to a diabetic = "drinking" alcohol to a drunk).

Well, this analogy is getting a little old, but I just have to say that diabetics don't have to avoid candy. They can have just as much sugar as anyone else - they just need insulin to process the sugar properly. In fact, usually hypoglycemia is a bigger problem, and they'll need lots of quick sugar to prevent insulin shock, so they often do carry around Snicker's bars.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't think anyone can merely "limit" the number of drinks being consumed as a cure for alcoholism.

Well, that's really the question. And many people do exactly that - maybe even more than achieve success with AA and total abstinence. But no one really knows because AA doesn't allow research on them.

Sure many people in AA relapse, but why are you blaming AA? Is pressuring people NOT to drink so stressful that it causes people to to do it again? Of course not.

I wouldn't be so sure. Not stress, but think of it like this - You are told by AA that drinking is out of your control, and that total abstinence is necessary. You have a drink with a friend, and what happens? You're told that you're out of control and so you just go out of control and get plastered every night for the next three weeks.

If you're told that you can handle a drink or two, and that you do have control, then having that drink won't push you over the edge.

I'm not saying that it's going to work for everyone. But encouraging total abstinence definitely doesn't work for everyone either, and it probably doesn't work for most people.

[MikeM32]

My mother was born in a Farming family in Kansas and moved to NYC to study nursing. I believe she and my dad met while they were both in NYC at some point or another.

My father was born in Newcastle England in 1921. He and his parents moved to Brooklyn NYC where he grew-up, he studied Art and Graphic Design at Cooper Union, volunteered for WW2, worked as a Graphic Artist for TOPPS chewing gum in Brooklyn (the baseball card TOPPS) etc., etc.

Like I said earlier, my Father was in AA almost all my life until he passed away. He never touched a drop, but (as I understand it from stories from my older siblings) he did have a very real problem. No, there was nothing really bad, (abuse, or cheating on my mother or whatever) it was just his drinking in general.

The thing is that I think my old man made the program work for him. He got involved, he even did some graphic design work for world services (which was at one time or another a sort of "marketting agency" for AA). He made some great friendships in AA and I think it was through the support of his "AA buddies" that he was able to stay sober. I even went to a few meetings with him when I was a kid. It's no big deal, people get to get up and talk to a group about this or that, but others can "relate" to your experiences too. But to be honest they did some fun stuff too, picnics and outings and so forth.

FWIW I think he had some real solid friendships with the people in AA, and he was very involved. Sometimes you also have to "sponsor" someone who wants to recover, and he did so with many people.

Being exposed to the whole AA thing growing-up, I took it as sort of a joke as did my older siblings. We didn't really see it as seriously as he did. That's why we used to call his friends from AA , "his friends from AA" or his "AA buddies", etc., etc. It was like some bizarre cult to us "normal" ones.

Another non-supportive factor was my mother. She never let it go, any time something went wrong and they'd have a squabble she'd always attack him with "oh this is just like when you used to drink". That would usually hit a nerve with him.

My older siblings still agree that mom never let it "die" where my fathers drinking days were concerned (even though he hadn't touched a drop in like 20 yrs or more of my growing up since birth). Don't get me wrong, my mother was a very good person. Maybe there's some things I don't know either (I keep prying my older siblings for info, since they're the only ones that were actually exposed to my fathers drinking days, but I get nothing).

While I grew-up I saw some pretty rediculous arguments between them. They'd fight like crazy, they even slept in separate rooms when I got older, but I believe they still loved each other.

I think the thing about AA is it's a group effort and it requires the willpower to at least want to stop drinking. Having been exposed to a bit of AA myself, I do see that it only really works well when you can really participate and make friendships in the AA community.

But hey here I am on a Thursday night (don't have to work tommorrow) drinking and enjoying it too

Mike

[TonyRado]

One thing that I've always wondered (increasingly lately) is what prompts a person to go to meetings (the "first" meeting). I'm not asking for purely voyeuristic reasons, nor to pass judgment on anyone here.

Because of things that have happened in my life, I can say that I have definitely been consuming larger quantities of alcohol on a "regular" basis than I have in the past. It's not that I feel it has effected my job, personal affairs, etc., but I just seem to enjoy it more lately. But as I said, it is probably not a coincidence that it started when it did.

Like MikeM32, I almost went to a meeting (and probably would have if I remembered) about a year ago when my secretary was "speaking" (not the one from the other thread ). But, she apparently has alot of history and I wanted to go to find out "who she is," as opposed for my own belief that I could get someting out of the meeting. I'm not really asking about those types of visits.

Instead, I am asking what makes one say: o.k. I need to cut back; or o.k. I need to quit. Is it an acute event like really bad night, is a bad night after a history of overindulgence, or is it just a period of heavy drinking of a long duration, etc�?

[malvolio]

For me, attending my first AA meeting was the result of a prolonged period of very heavy drinking. I'd been laid off, was having all kinds of issues with my sense of self-worth and so on, and had unemployment insurance providing me with enough money to get plastered every day. Got to the point where I had the shakes, the sweats, all that sh*t.
I attended meetings for a couple of months before the general air of self-righteousness got too much for me. And once the general circumstances of my life got straightened out, I was able to handle alcohol in moderation again.

[TonyRado]

ARRRGGGGHHHH!!! She just did it again!!!

The ALANON secretary just walked by my office and asked for "Mr. Charming" (she actually wasn't looking for me this time, but I answered "right here" anyway). She said "what's wrong my baby," to which I responded "I'm miserable" (to me, this is normal). So she picks my steel 'LOVE' statute up off my desk (2 cabbages to anyone that guesses its significance) and holds it to her lips [mouth] and says "all we need is love baby." I retort "that is yet more proof that I am completely bankrupt."

SO OF COURSE, her response is "you have all the makings of an alcoholic." Fvck that cvnt!!! On her best day she couldn't drink what I spill, and even then she couldn't hold 1/10th of it. Seriously, it's times like this that she makes me want to have an affair with her just to push her far enough over the edge to drive her back to drinking again, DAMMIT I HATE THAT KIND OF SH!T TALKING IN THE OFFICE!

[spb]

the most destructive addiction is breathing...

man , everyone should try & kick it but its just sooo good...

wasting all that precious ozone , i don't know .. kids today,honestly..!

[Timo]

::Timo looks around his office, and considers watering the plants. They look a little droopy::

[macaddled]

Oh, man, I wanted to stay out of this thread, I really did. But I just couldn't help myself...

First, to those who are overly concerned with the behavior/disease difference, I would respectfully suggest that a little more age or experience might help you understand the lack of real value that question holds. It just doesn't matter. I knew lots of people that I thought drank more than me, or would get wasted while I could hold my liquour, etc, but in the end as we got older they slowed down and I sped up.

What I'm sayin is, I was drinking in a perfectly socially acceptable way, and I wake up later and I'm drinking too much. So I try to stop. And I can't. Now, I consider myself an intelligent, self-aware person. I'm a professional. I went to an Ivy League school. None of which means jack when I can't keep my drinking under a twelve-pack + other stuff, every night, for years. So, I know some people who drank as much or more than me (at one point), and they're fine, and I'm fsckin suicidal. Sure at some point, I made the "decision" to drink but how many people in this culture "decide" not to do that?

2nd of all, Mr. Rado. Would you please do me a favor and tell that secretary that a friend of Bill sent you, and asked you to remind her of this:

"Tradition 11: Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion..." and then tell her to shut it.

Finally, personally I'm always dubious when somebody jumps up and down about the 'disease' label or the abstinence thing, or points out that people relapse a lot. NEWSFLASH: Once you are addicted to something it is really, awfully, totally, mind-bendingly, soul-crushingly, hair-tearingly impossible to stop. Let me draw you a picture: a valiant macaddled who had managed to stay clean ONE WHOLE DAY, in pjs, but now getting dressed, crying and telling myself "stop! stop! stop!" over and over again, but still going out to get drunk and buy cocaine. This happened many times. After I "decided" to get sober.

So yeah, people relapse. It happens all the time. And you know what? The people in AA understand that. You go out, you come back, welcome home, we love you. No judgement. That is why AA is the way it is; absolutely everyone has been there before.

The moderation lady, that thing happened about 8 or 9 months ago, totally sad. She had actually given up on that group and gotten back with AA because she had relapsed so badly.

Regarding those studies about the success rate of AA, I would be careful about those. Not because they're absolutely wrong; AA can't keep statistics and for all I know they may be right. What I do know is that the one is most often quoted was a study of legal defendants who were remanded to AA as a judicial measure. Which leads to another newsflash: if you are forced to get clean, you will not stay clean. It has to come from you, from your own desperation.

I also know that rather than trolling bars at 4am trying to get married bartenders to come home with me, I'm spending my time in the company of thousands of happy, witty, successful people, for whom AA seems to have been working for many years. I know anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, but just on my street-level view it's a much better situation.

Wow, look at how I went on. Typical alcoholic.

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: macaddled ]

Man, I wish we had this feature in meetings.

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: macaddled ]

[macaddled]

PS

If you are curious, many AA meetings are labelled "Open Discussion" and are open to the public. These do tend to be a little less, ahem, open than the closed ones, but you can get a sense of what goes on and how people help each other. You can call your local AA Intergroup and they can set you up.

You don't have to say, believe, profess, or admit anything. You're just there to see what's up. I am still shocked at how flexible and relaxed the whole thing is.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by macaddled:
<STRONG>First, to those who are overly concerned with the behavior/disease difference, I would respectfully suggest that a little more age or experience might help you understand the lack of real value that question holds. It just doesn't matter.</STRONG>

You always know you're about to be slammed if someone starts out saying "respectfully."


Although I know there are lots of 13-year-old boys on these boards, there are also others with a little age and experience, including yourself. So let's just get away from that type of argument, please.

There are lots of very serious people, with plenty of age and experience, asking questions about alcohol's addictiveness and how it works. More is understood about most other legal and illegal drugs of abuse than about alcohol. If we don't even really know how it works, how can we call it a disease?

Finally, personally I'm always dubious when somebody jumps up and down about the 'disease' label or the abstinence thing, or points out that people relapse a lot. NEWSFLASH: Once you are addicted to something it is really, awfully, totally, mind-bendingly, soul-crushingly, hair-tearingly impossible to stop. Let me draw you a picture: a valiant macaddled who had managed to stay clean ONE WHOLE DAY, in pjs, but now getting dressed, crying and telling myself "stop! stop! stop!" over and over again, but still going out to get drunk and buy cocaine. This happened many times. After I "decided" to get sober.

I know people can become addicted/dependent - I'm just wondering if that means it's a disease. People have the exact same kinds of experiences as yours trying not to eat too much, or download porn, etc. Are those diseases?

I've never had alcohol problems, but I smoked cigs for 5 years and quit. I was dependent on cigs, I had tried to quit a few times and failed, I experienced tolerance, withdrawal, impulsivity, blah blah. But I still wouldn't call it a disease.

About whether it's an important question: Many people thought that calling alcoholism a disease was extremely important. It was central in bringing it to the attention of medical professionals, as opposed to just considering it a spiritual or self-control problem that health care pros shouldn't meddle in.

By the same reasoning, if calling it a disease can have benefits, calling it a disease may have some drawbacks, as well. I think one drawback is the lack of control that it suggests we have over drinking. And is it not one of the central tenets of AA that you are helpless and powerless over alcohol, and so you need "divine intervention."

That doesn't exactly fit with lots of other psychological approaches that say we need to have control and responsibility for our actions in order to change them.

[macaddled]

Yes, I was referring to the 13 year old element there, sorry about that. No offense meant.

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>I know people can become addicted/dependent - I'm just wondering if that means it's a disease. People have the exact same kinds of experiences as yours trying not to eat too much, or download porn, etc. Are those diseases?

I've never had alcohol problems, but I smoked cigs for 5 years and quit. I was dependent on cigs, I had tried to quit a few times and failed, I experienced tolerance, withdrawal, impulsivity, blah blah. But I still wouldn't call it a disease.</STRONG>

Well, there are lots of different possible definitions or maybe more properly, uses of the term "disease". Maybe mental illness? Maybe physical dependency? I think the mental logic of addiction is intertwined with but different from the physical need.

Or you could think of it as a chronic medical condition, hopefully in remission. But it is important because of the following...

<STRONG>By the same reasoning, if calling it a disease can have benefits, calling it a disease may have some drawbacks, as well. I think one drawback is the lack of control that it suggests we have over drinking. And is it not one of the central tenets of AA that you are helpless and powerless over alcohol, and so you need "divine intervention."</STRONG>

This is why I played the "experience" card. I can think of many disadvantages of the disease model of addiction, but this is definitely not one of them. Because it's not so much a tenet as simply the lived experience of all AA members. If you can control your drinking then you are not an alcoholic. If you cannot, then it is patently self-obvious to you that you are powerless over the stuff.

We're talking about people whose self-esteem is probably lower than a normal person can imagine. Suicide is common. Overdosing is common. We have tried everything we can think of to stop and could not. If it's just a matter of self-control and willpower, etc, well, I have a decade of failure at that so clearly I'm worthless and might as well off myself. But if it's a disease, and there's a cure, and I see it working in other people, then maybe I'll stick around? Only later I find out that it was a trick and the cure turns out to be becoming a responsible human being among other human beings.

By the way, there is a statement repeated at the beginning of almost every AA meeting: "The only requirement for membership in AA is a desire to stop drinking." Period. You don't have to believe in God. You don't even have to stop drinking. You just have to think it's a problem and want to do something about it. My sponsor doesn't believe in God. Another guy's higher power is his "gut" (he certainly treats it well enough ) and somebody else's is nature. I was raised Buddhist/Star Wars the Force type stuff. A lot of people call AA itself their higher power. The higher power thing is just a shorthand for acknowledging that one has to ask for help when it is needed. If that's God, more power to ya.

[finboy]

No.

There may be mental illnesses or chemical deficiencies that make one susceptible to it, but it ain't a disease. It is, however, and example of how changing the standards is done over time.

Behaviours aren't diseases.

[chris v]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>I know people can become addicted/dependent - I'm just wondering if that means it's a disease. People have the exact same kinds of experiences as yours trying not to eat too much, or download porn, etc. Are those diseases?

I've never had alcohol problems, but I smoked cigs for 5 years and quit. I was dependent on cigs, I had tried to quit a few times and failed, I experienced tolerance, withdrawal, impulsivity, blah blah. But I still wouldn't call it a disease.

About whether it's an important question: Many people thought that calling alcoholism a disease was extremely important. It was central in bringing it to the attention of medical professionals, as opposed to just considering it a spiritual or self-control problem that health care pros shouldn't meddle in.

By the same reasoning, if calling it a disease can have benefits, calling it a disease may have some drawbacks, as well. I think one drawback is the lack of control that it suggests we have over drinking. And is it not one of the central tenets of AA that you are helpless and powerless over alcohol, and so you need "divine intervention."

That doesn't exactly fit with lots of other psychological approaches that say we need to have control and responsibility for our actions in order to change them.</STRONG>

Consider yourself lucky, and have a drink for me. A double margarita, if you please-- it's been four years. If someone could figure out the physical cause of alcoholism, then maybe they could make a pill. Until then, the mutual support of others who suffer as I do is about all I've got; but thankfully, today, that's enough.

Alcohol can become a physical addiction. I quit cocaine after five long years of doing it every day. Just came to my senses one day, and quit. I go on and off cigarettes overy couple years. I tried and tried to stop drinking for another 6 years, after I gave up the demon dust, and nothing worked. I'm not gonna go into a long spiel about why AA worked for me, but that was all there was. There wasn't a pill I could take to stop the craving, and the self loathing that came with the utter inability to stop. There was only a room full of people saying "There's a better way to live." Saved my friggin' life.

End of story.

CV

[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: chris v ]

[macaddled]

Originally posted by finboy:
<STRONG>Behaviours aren't diseases.</STRONG>

If you are a normal drinker, drinking is something you do, for fun, occasionally. If you are a real addict (to anything), your addiction is something you are. I don't want to assume anything about you, because you are wonderfully elliptical and concise, but trust me, you simply cannot compare the act of normal drinking with the suicidal obsession of addiction.

[macvillage.net]

Ok, got to comment on this:

Alcoholism is bascially a disease, since in almost every case, there is a parent or grandparent that was an alcoholic, or they just don't know. Most research shows that "addiction" is hereditary... meaning that the ability/or flaw, whatever you want to call it, to easily become dependant on a substance runs along genetic lines. That doesn't mean it will always effect you if a parent was an abuser, but it would make you more likely. And vice versa.

I personally don't drink or touch any intoxicating substance because I know my family has had members who have had trouble with it (and came clean thankfully). Why would I do it if I am almost positive that I will be an addict (both sides of the family, one for sure, the other side I am almost certain of)... That is a decision I made based on the facts. I know it runs in my family, and I know I can prevent it IF I WANT.

Because you conciously take your first sip, or puff, or shot, or hit or whatever you want to call it, for whatever you do, I personally disagree with any tax money being used for treatment of addicts. I do believe in prevention (ads, school material, whatever is effective) but if you chose to become an alcholic, which essentially is what you are doing, since you can't say you didn't know it could happen, I think you are on your own. I would much rather have money spent on welfare for those who don't abuse, medicare, Social security. I just can't justify the expense of treating someone who choose to be an addict. Every crack head made the choice and said "yes I want to do this" every addict knew it could happen to them. And in most cases where people turn to drugs or booze, there are members of the family serving as an example of what they can do to a person.

my belief: Forget about those who want to be lost, lets save the future.


Studies have shown that someone who really wants to shake an addiction, and isn't just being presured, will shake the addiction regardless of assistance. You know the saying "the first step is to admit you have a problem." People who admit to a problem and want to stop will find it hard, but do succeed. People who don't want to stop, won't stop regardless of what is done (Daryl Strawberry).

There are also plenty of non profit organizations such as AA which help cope, and are extremely effective for those who want to be saved.


I think that is something people forget, there are those who want help, and those who don't. Unless they want it, you should just give them the money so that they can smoke it... at least then the money goes to some use.

I know it does sound a bit cold, but it's a hard fact. A person does choose to take the chance, a person does know the odds. A person can choose to get help if they ant it. That is what is important.


The nations goal with this illness should be to teach the youth of tomorrow about responcibility and making this choice.

That's not to say there should be no drinking, but that you should understand when it is a problem, how to prevent it from being one (ie. not drinking all night every night), and how to do so responcibly (designated driver, designated drinker etc.)

It's the few who don't know how to make a decision that ruin everything for everyone else. They waste our money, our time, and give what can be an OK thing a real bad wrap. There is nothing wrong with a drink or two, provided it stops at that, and is done in a safe manner.


And not at my expense!!!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
<STRONG>Alcoholism is bascially a disease, since in almost every case, there is a parent or grandparent that was an alcoholic, or they just don't know. Most research shows that "addiction" is hereditary... meaning that the ability/or flaw, whatever you want to call it, to easily become dependant on a substance runs along genetic lines. That doesn't mean it will always effect you if a parent was an abuser, but it would make you more likely.</STRONG>

Yes, it is partially inherited.

But just because something is inherited does not make it a disease. I inherited my attached ear lobes, my ability to curl my tongue, and my devastating good looks from my parents, but those aren't diseases.

[The Mouth Of William Burroughs]

The idea that addiction is somehow a psychological illness is, I think, totally ridiculous. It's as psychological as malaria. It's a matter of exposure. People, generally speaking, will take any intoxicant or any drug that gives them a pleasant effect if it is available to them.

[chris v]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Yes, it is partially inherited.

But just because something is inherited does not make it a disease. I inherited my attached ear lobes, my ability to curl my tongue, and my devastating good looks from my parents, but those aren't diseases.</STRONG>

Maybe it's not a physical pathological infection, like a virus, or bacteria. It is pathological behavior, though, like mental illnesses that are considered diseases, and there's some evidence that some alcoholics are actually allergic, like you're allergic to cats, or pollen. The allergy induces a craving that's pathological.

What type of label other than disease would you give to the affilction that causes a wino to lie in the gutter, unable to think of anything but the next drink?

All labels like disease (think about the root words "dis-ease" sort of like unease) are euphemisms, anyway, like "detainees." I hate euphemisms, but I'm a serious alcoholic.

Congrats on those devastating good looks, by the way.

CV

[edit: how many ways are there to spell allergy?]

[ 04-04-2002: Message edited by: chris v ]

[TonyRado]

The major issue that all you "drown the drunks" advocates out there are missing is the simple, but important, fact that many people turn to these things as an alternative to completely f*ing whacking out and taking out themselves or others. Not eveyone turns to substance abuse just to get high.

For example, I am presently trying to poison myself with booze+ in an effort to avoid going and killing my f*ing cvnt girlfriend. If psychological counseling were free and readily available to everyone, then I could see a little better how you could go and turn your nose up at the substance abusers. However, for many people alcohol and drugs turn out to be a cheap, or not so cheap, form of therapy that they can't otherwise obtain.

FWIW, I don't think that choosing to live in Jersey should qualify as a disease, but I think that the state iteself is very diseased. Personally, I am probably more against govermnent funding for that shite hole, than macvillage.net is against government funding for substance abusers. At least alcoholics and drug addicts stand some chance of rehabilitation, and may offer something valuable to society at large in the future.

[Ilene Hoffman]

As an alcoholic, coming from a family of alcoholics, all I can tell you from my experiences is that YES, it is a disease.