Alcoholism is not a disease.

[CRXican]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Addiction is a qualitative difference between deciding to do something and not, where addiction removes any choice from the matter. I know that technically people like to refer to addiction as an uncontrollable compulsion, like urinating if you've just drank three gallons of water...you can't help it;urinating at that point is not a choice. You WILL lose control of your body. It's a total inevitability. People like to refer to something as addictive when really all it is is hard. So-called addictions to smoking have been terminated cold-turkey by people who'd finally had enough. Any of the mainstream "addictions" have been beaten by thousands/millions of people who one day said "Fvck this, I'm done." and that "addiction" was cut off at the knees. It's hardly an addiction in the true sense if somebody can just stop simply because their determination finally has enough weight.

There are few true addictions. I'd say breathing is an addiction, although there are some people probably who could voluntarily pass out without breathing. Going to the bathroom is a true addiction. Gagging could be a true addiction if something is stuck in your throat. Quiting booze, eating, smokes, heroin--these are hard, but they aren't addictions in my book. But then, I read from a different book than the one most people who have no real control over themselves read from.

"I can't stop" is analagous to "I don't want to stop enough"

I'm in late and I'll admit I didn't read the other arguments/flames/etc. Though i'd rather avoid it, I agree with Skoorb.

In my opinion it comes down to self control. The best choice is not to make alcohol a problem in the first place. I turned 21 a few months ago and it was exciting to think about my new ability to purchase as much alcohol as I could afford whenever I felt like it. If I make the choice, I can go out every night and get wasted. This would obviously effect my performance at work and personal relationships if it happened on a daily basis. Since I realize this, I avoid the activity all together.

If you don't want to get addicted don't start. Yet another example, I was at a BBQ with my friends this weekend. I was one of maybe two people out of at least 10 individuals that was not smoking cigarettes. I know it's a bad habit so I don't start, no matter how many friends of mine or people I meet might do it.

CHOICE

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: forrestroche

Originally posted by: Amused
All the various treatment programs have the same exact failure rate of people who quit on their own.

In fact, noone has yet conducted a rigorous study of the success and failure rates of various programs. The numbers floating around out there about "spontaneous" remissions are "believed to be" true. Your claim about failure rates has no grounding in hard empirical evidence. Nobody knows right now, and neither are any such studies being conducted currently. That is a sad state of affairs given the social costs of alcohol and substance abuse worldwide.

Google "failure rates" +"12 step"

There are tons of studies out there. None have found any treatment to be more effective than quiting on your own.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: shilala
Skoobie, that's the best argument I've seen in this thread.
The only thing I can add is, it's something you have to experience to understand. Alcoholism somewhere along the way takes over mind, body and soul. The insane thinking and physical addiction completely remove any mindful defense.
After a period of sobriety, the same mental condition and physical propensity exists unless it is treated, making it equally impossible to abstain. With help, the mental condition can be improved to a point where the mind can be of some help in maintaining sobriety. The physical propensity remains in full force, just waiting for a drink, and battling tooth and nail to have you back feeding it.
Once the alcohol is removed from the picture, I have the ability to do the things I have to do to maintain sobriety, but only if I want it bad enough, or want to stop enough.

I guess my impromtu definition of an addiction would be this:

If somebody is holding a gun to your head and literally telling you that you'll die, and then your family is next if you indulge in your "addiction", and you still do it, you're addicted. If however, regardless of source, there is something that can motivate you sufficiently to not engage in that behaviour, then on some level, no matter how slight, it's still a choice.

And not to say it's similar for all people. Some really like drinking, just as some really like food, but with the right motivation most people can stop these things.

Most of my opinions of this have been formed by a high-level and not particularly detailed glance at people in general and what makes them do the things they do. I have precious little hands on experience with much of the things I opine on, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If somebody is holding a gun to your head and literally telling you that you'll die, and then your family is next if you indulge in your "addiction", and you still do it, you're addicted. If however, regardless of source, there is something that can motivate you sufficiently to not engage in that behaviour, then on some level, no matter how slight, it's still a choice.

And not to say it's similar for all people. Some really like drinking, just as some really like food, but with the right motivation most people can stop these things.

Most of my opinions of this have been formed by a high-level and not particularly detailed glance at people in general and what makes them do the things they do. I have precious little hands on experience with much of the things I opine on, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong

I think your definition of addiction is crap. You've grouped it with reflexes and instinct (gagging and breathing). Addictions are choices, some augmented by chemicals making them more severe than others. You've somehow attempted to prove that if something is a choice then it isn't an addiction, but that doesn't make sense.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: skyking

There are numerous studies showing differences in brain function, physiological response differences, metabolization rates between drinking alcoholics and non-alcoholics.
None of those things are a matter of choice.
Native Americans are a prime and extreme example.
I certainly choose not to drink. For me, drinking is a disaster.
Non-alcoholics, those without the physiological differences, are able to drink in moderation.
I agree that you can choose to not drink. That is what you are talking about.
You can't choose to "not be an alcoholic".

You can't choose your inability to moderate intake, agreed. But you CAN choose not to drink at all, and thus avoid the problem altogether.

If you do not drink, you are not an alcoholic. I do not use, or smoke, I am no longer an addict of drugs and tobacco.

So if you do not drink and are therefore no longer an alcoholic, then it is safe to go back to drinking again, right? Wrong! And this is why people relapse a lot of times. They think they got it under control but its just lying there silently just below the surface waiting to jump up and consume them again. You CANNOT CURE alcoholism. You can treat it. The 100% sure fire way to treat it is to never ever drink. Think of not drinking as the "drug" that suppresses the symptoms and arrests the disease. If you go off your drug, you will get sick again. Why? Because you have ALCOHOLISM. It is terminal if not treated.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: skyking

There are numerous studies showing differences in brain function, physiological response differences, metabolization rates between drinking alcoholics and non-alcoholics.
None of those things are a matter of choice.
Native Americans are a prime and extreme example.
I certainly choose not to drink. For me, drinking is a disaster.
Non-alcoholics, those without the physiological differences, are able to drink in moderation.
I agree that you can choose to not drink. That is what you are talking about.
You can't choose to "not be an alcoholic".

You can't choose your inability to moderate intake, agreed. But you CAN choose not to drink at all, and thus avoid the problem altogether.

If you do not drink, you are not an alcoholic. I do not use, or smoke, I am no longer an addict of drugs and tobacco.

So if you do not drink and are therefore no longer an alcoholic, then it is safe to go back to drinking again, right?

I never said, nor implied that. If you'd actually read my posts, you'd note that I said people with addiction problems must avoid the objects of their addictions altogether because they lack the ability to moderate in most cases.

Next time, try responding to something I actually said.

 

[AutumnRayne]

This subject really hits home for me. My grandfather passed away a year ago due to complications from alcoholism. When he came back from the war he started drinking and he continued drinking almost until the day he died. In the end he had liver and kidney failure, his immune system was so shot that he got severely infected and had to have one of his legs amputated, and a long list of other problems. He was in the hospital barely alive and all he wanted was a drink. While I do not think that his predetermination to alcoholism made him take his first drinks, he made that choice, once he became addicted it was out of his control. I am not saying that everyone that becomes addicted will be addicts for life, but it is just ignorance to say that everyone should be able to just up and say "hey I don't wanna do this anymore, I think I'll stop". Some people have easier times overcoming addiction, and that is great for them. However to just say that everyone should be able to make a simple decision and all their problems will go away is not accurate. Maybe you don't believe the science that says it is a disease, you don't have to. Witnessing first hand the effects it has on not just one person, but their loved ones as well, I would have to disagree.

My sincerest congratulations, to those that were able to overcome their addictions. I hope you all can continue on your road towards maintaining your sobriety.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: hammer01
A hangover is not withdrawls but DT's or Delerium Tremens are. As an alcoholic and drug addict that was an addict by the age of 14 I would say that the vast majority of you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I "enjoyed" my first drug and alcohol induced experience at the age of 12 and just kept going from there. If you are saying that I had a choice not to drink that first drink you are right but I would not have listened then probably even had I known what the next 10 years or so of my life would become. It is easy to say that what I did was my choice but until you have walked a mile in my moccasins don't tell me your pet theories on addiction.

A hangover IS a mild (relatively speaking) form of withdrawal. What I haven't seen anybody acknowledge so far (although I am only halfway through the thread) is that alcoholism, like any substance addiction, is a progressive disease/condition (whatever you choose to call it). You don't really see it coming until it has you and you wake up one day (if you're lucky) and something or someone makes you see the light. DT's and hallucinations usually occur in full blown stage III alcoholics who have developed physical dependence and try to quit. You don't know you have this physical dependence until for one reason or another you have to try to cope without your drug for a period of time and find that you cannot physically function without great pains. It is sadly, not until this point, that a lot of people see the light and decide to seek help. Sometimes it is too late by this point for some people. For those lucky ones among us, we come to our senses earlier and see where we are headed if we do not curb our habbits. Addiction is one of the most devious, cunning, deceiving sicknesses because you often don't know you have an addiction until you try to stop and find you can't. And it never goes away. The $hit is like herpes. You have to suppress it.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: hammer01
A hangover is not withdrawls but DT's or Delerium Tremens are. As an alcoholic and drug addict that was an addict by the age of 14 I would say that the vast majority of you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I "enjoyed" my first drug and alcohol induced experience at the age of 12 and just kept going from there. If you are saying that I had a choice not to drink that first drink you are right but I would not have listened then probably even had I known what the next 10 years or so of my life would become. It is easy to say that what I did was my choice but until you have walked a mile in my moccasins don't tell me your pet theories on addiction.

I walked many miles in your shoes, though my problem was not alcohol.

As a former addict, I can say without a doubt that addiction, ANY addiction is a choice.

Everything makes sense now. Glad to hear you are sober.

SO you don't consider yourself an addict anymore?

Nope. I consider myself a person genetically predisposed to become addicted. So I simply avoid any and all contact with the objects of my addictions.

Maybe I am confused (probably - lol)

Haven't you been arguing that it is a CHOICE - now you say "genetically predisposed"?

I agree 100% that there is a certain amount of choice involved here - we all have shortcomings in our personalities that we have to try and overcome. However, there is a physiologic difference between an addict and a non-addicts brain.

Like I said earlier, a schizophrenic can control themselves by willpower to a degree, but the can't just choose not to be ill - same with an addict.

It is a choice whether you use or not.

Some people, though, are unable to MODERATE their use of such substances. Therefore they MUST address the issue in an "all or none" fashion.

But it is still a choice. And only a choice they can make. No one, and no thing can make that choice for them.

In the end, it all boils down to choice.

Even though many people like to label it a disease, they will be the FIRST to tell you no one can help an addict who does not want to help themselves.

Quite a contradiction, no?

Schizophrenics do not have the ability to recognize they have a problem. These are two entirely different things.

My oldest brother suffers from Schizophrenia. He must be held against his will, and medicated. Only after the medication kicks in does he realize something was wrong.

Actually, most future alcoholics have the same exact problem. It's called denial. Only after the veil of denial is penetrated and the alcoholic is backed into a corner and forced to see the problem he has for what it is do they realize something is wrong. Different slightly from what you said about schizophrenics, but not "entirely" different. Think of intervention as the medication to cure denial.

 

[jjones]

I have yet to see one documented case where a person has one drink of alcohol and then has immediately become addicted. No, it doesn't work that way. Alcohol is an addictive substance where anyone can become an alcoholic if they drink enough, frequently enough. Where genetics comes into play is that some persons have less tolerance to resist the addictive qualities of alcohol than others. Their bodies will succumb more easily to the addiction than others, but everyone can potentially become an alcoholic.

So becoming an alcoholic is still reduced to choice. Proper education in place of peer pressure and alcohol-related advertising might reduce the number of alcoholics in our society. How many are taught and how often is it reinforced that alcohol is a destructive, addicting substance for anyone? No, we are taught that moderate use of this seductive substance in society is the normal behavior. And many, not just the genetically predisposed, become alcohol addicts because of turning that moderate use into abuse. Some just have a shorter road to travel to addiction.

And to call addiction itself a disease, well I guess that would have to depend upon your definition of disease. I don't classify addictions as diseases but others might and as this thread shows, it is up for debate. Still, I don't call addictions diseases.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Amused
PLEASE. Use your head. Alcoholism is a word. A word used to describe something. It can not be it's own root.

Without craving and loss of ability to moderate, alcoholism does not exist.

BUT, all the other symptoms CAN occur in non-alcoholics who do not crave, therefore are not addicted to the drug.

Alcoholism is a word. No argument there. It is also a disease. I listed all of its symptoms in my previous post. If by root, you mean its cause, then science really doesn't have an answer at this point in time. There are some clues and theories (genetics, environment, etc.) but a lot is still unknown.

I guess it's time you re-wrote all the previous years of medical research and knowledge about alcoholism. You have a lot of work ahead of you.

The problem here does not lie with me, but with you.

You are reading a list of symptoms and side effects, and not understanding that not all of them singularly mean the person is an alcoholic. You are being simplistic.

Let's address them one by one, shall we? We'll start with one that should be rather easy to agree on.

Tolerance.

Do you believe that only alcoholics can build a tolerance to alcohol, and have to drink more to gain the same high? Or can anyone, even those not addicted, gain tolerance to alcohol?

I know from personal experience that ANYONE can gain a tolerance to alcohol.

What say you?

Here's what I say. It's the same thing they say in AA. Wanna know if you're an alcoholic? Try to quit driking.

Why would anyone who did not display alcoholic tendencies have gained a tolerance for alcohol? You have to drink pretty often and more than just a little bit to get a tolerance. Just like lifting weights, you have to do it often and with more weight to get bigger muscles.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: skace
I think your definition of addiction is crap. You've grouped it with reflexes and instinct (gagging and breathing). Addictions are choices, some augmented by chemicals making them more severe than others. You've somehow attempted to prove that if something is a choice then it isn't an addiction, but that doesn't make sense.

It depends how one defines it. dictionary.com says that it can be The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something. Indeed, with this alcohol would definitely be an addiction for a lot of people. THey can stop, but they're always thinking about it. However, another definition at dictionary.com is Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.Notice this does not address being "occupied", as somebody who loves booze will be occupied with it/think about it, but this infers that the person is totally unable to voluntarily deny themselves the substance, and with this definition alcoholism is not an addiction.

The fact is that arguing semantics isn't really important. We have nothing better to do, so we argue it, but if you've lived with the problem then it doesn't matter whether it's an addiction or not, you simply have to try harder.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: skyking

There are numerous studies showing differences in brain function, physiological response differences, metabolization rates between drinking alcoholics and non-alcoholics.
None of those things are a matter of choice.
Native Americans are a prime and extreme example.
I certainly choose not to drink. For me, drinking is a disaster.
Non-alcoholics, those without the physiological differences, are able to drink in moderation.
I agree that you can choose to not drink. That is what you are talking about.
You can't choose to "not be an alcoholic".

You can't choose your inability to moderate intake, agreed. But you CAN choose not to drink at all, and thus avoid the problem altogether.

If you do not drink, you are not an alcoholic. I do not use, or smoke, I am no longer an addict of drugs and tobacco.

So if you do not drink and are therefore no longer an alcoholic, then it is safe to go back to drinking again, right?

I never said, nor implied that. If you'd actually read my posts, you'd note that I said people with addiction problems must avoid the objects of their addictions altogether because they lack the ability to moderate in most cases.

Next time, try responding to something I actually said.

I think I quoted what you said. . .how was I not responding to something you said? You said, "If you do not drink, you are not an alcoholic." Maybe my bad cuz I added more to my original reply while you were posting yours. My point is, quitting drinking does not make one (assuming that person at some point decided they were an alcoholic) stop being an alcoholic. Quitting drinking doesn't make an alcoholic any less of an alcoholic any more than being abstinent means a homosexual is not homosexual.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
alcoholoics go to meetings

since I don't go I must not be one

Only the lucky alcoholics go to meetings. All AA members are alcoholics but not all alcoholics are AA members. Get it?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: jjones
I have yet to see one documented case where a person has one drink of alcohol and then has immediately become addicted. No, it doesn't work that way. Alcohol is an addictive substance where anyone can become an alcoholic if they drink enough, frequently enough. Where genetics comes into play is that some persons have less tolerance to resist the addictive qualities of alcohol than others. Their bodies will succumb more easily to the addiction than others, but everyone can potentially become an alcoholic.

So becoming an alcoholic is still reduced to choice. Proper education in place of peer pressure and alcohol-related advertising might reduce the number of alcoholics in our society. How many are taught and how often is it reinforced that alcohol is a destructive, addicting substance for anyone? No, we are taught that moderate use of this seductive substance in society is the normal behavior. And many, not just the genetically predisposed, become alcohol addicts because of turning that moderate use into abuse. Some just have a shorter road to travel to addiction.

And to call addiction itself a disease, well I guess that would have to depend upon your definition of disease. I don't classify addictions as diseases but others might and as this thread shows, it is up for debate. Still, I don't call addictions diseases.

This is why alcohol is so dangerous. Many people make the choice without knowing they are doing it. They drink as much as they want as often as they want with relatively few or no negative consequences. Everybody accepts alcohol in our society. This is why its so cunning and devious. Sometimes it is more like a trap that people fall into than a concious choice. I don't know of anybody who ever consciously chose to become an alcoholic and set off determined down that path. It just sneaks up on you and you don't see it coming. . .and it slowly wraps its tendrils around you while you are anesthetized to its evil by its very nature. EVIL EVIL EVIL! Watch OUT!

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: skace
I think your definition of addiction is crap. You've grouped it with reflexes and instinct (gagging and breathing). Addictions are choices, some augmented by chemicals making them more severe than others. You've somehow attempted to prove that if something is a choice then it isn't an addiction, but that doesn't make sense.

It depends how one defines it. dictionary.com says that it can be The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something. Indeed, with this alcohol would definitely be an addiction for a lot of people. THey can stop, but they're always thinking about it. However, another definition at dictionary.com is Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.Notice this does not address being "occupied", as somebody who loves booze will be occupied with it/think about it, but this infers that the person is totally unable to voluntarily deny themselves the substance, and with this definition alcoholism is not an addiction.

The fact is that arguing semantics isn't really important. We have nothing better to do, so we argue it, but if you've lived with the problem then it doesn't matter whether it's an addiction or not, you simply have to try harder.

I only argued semantics because your posts made it sound like the only addiction is something a person could not avoid doing with a gun pointed at their head. There a very few things a sober individual can't avoid doing in the face of death, breathing, hiccups, gagging, bending when kicked in the knees, etc. None of these would be addictions. I believe the "beyond one's voluntary control" aspect of the definition refers to chemical addictions, such as addictions to nicotine. This would be argued as beyond one's control because the chemicals affect your body.

And yea, I guess we are arguing semantics, but that appears to be the entire thread. Because I'm sure everyone can agree alcoholism is bad.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: skace
I think your definition of addiction is crap. You've grouped it with reflexes and instinct (gagging and breathing). Addictions are choices, some augmented by chemicals making them more severe than others. You've somehow attempted to prove that if something is a choice then it isn't an addiction, but that doesn't make sense.

It depends how one defines it. dictionary.com says that it can be The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something. Indeed, with this alcohol would definitely be an addiction for a lot of people. THey can stop, but they're always thinking about it. However, another definition at dictionary.com is Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.Notice this does not address being "occupied", as somebody who loves booze will be occupied with it/think about it, but this infers that the person is totally unable to voluntarily deny themselves the substance, and with this definition alcoholism is not an addiction.

The fact is that arguing semantics isn't really important. We have nothing better to do, so we argue it, but if you've lived with the problem then it doesn't matter whether it's an addiction or not, you simply have to try harder.

I think the problem with quoting definitions is that we assume they are all-inclusive or all-exclusive.
From my very first drink at 8 years old, I was overcome. When that first buzz rolled in, I immediately wanted more. Hell, I didn't even know if that buzz would ever go away, but I already wanted more.
From that time on I was continually preoccupied with getting high in one fashion or another. That satisfies definition one.
Somewhere along the way I found out that I simply could not quit. It did not matter how much I tried, the consequences, the physical harm it would bring me, nothing mattered but the drink.
That satisfies definition number two.
At the end of my career, both definitions collided.
The inability to control the cumpulsion coupled with the incessant preoccupation to quit (or at least moderate) made the drinking a sheer hell.
Along with that, the years of self-medicating every emotion I ever had left me completely unable to function socially or emotionally.

The hell of it is that when someone is in the midst of alcoholism, he/she generally has no idea what is going on, and has no idea how to address it.
I had never thought for a minute about rehab, a psychologist, AA, or that any organization/institution may be of use to me.
Only when I realized I was emotionally bankrupt, depressed beyond savior, suffering anxiety attacks, certifiably nuts, hopelessly addicted, heavily medicated by my doctor, and unable to stop did I look for a help.

 

[rhino56]

if you cant control what your hands put in your mouth than someone or something else must be doing it.
let me be the one to guide you. heh

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: skace
I think your definition of addiction is crap. You've grouped it with reflexes and instinct (gagging and breathing). Addictions are choices, some augmented by chemicals making them more severe than others. You've somehow attempted to prove that if something is a choice then it isn't an addiction, but that doesn't make sense.

It depends how one defines it. dictionary.com says that it can be The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something. Indeed, with this alcohol would definitely be an addiction for a lot of people. THey can stop, but they're always thinking about it. However, another definition at dictionary.com is Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one's voluntary control.Notice this does not address being "occupied", as somebody who loves booze will be occupied with it/think about it, but this infers that the person is totally unable to voluntarily deny themselves the substance, and with this definition alcoholism is not an addiction.

The fact is that arguing semantics isn't really important. We have nothing better to do, so we argue it, but if you've lived with the problem then it doesn't matter whether it's an addiction or not, you simply have to try harder.

By that definition NOTHING is an addiction, because no addictive substance forces you to consume it involuntarily.

 

[frx218]

mmmm beer

 

[forrestroche]

Originally posted by: Amused
Google "failure rates" +"12 step"
There are tons of studies out there. None have found any treatment to be more effective than quiting on your own.

There are tons of papers, books, and opinions out there. However, you can not name one long-term controlled study on the efficacy of substance abuse treatments published in a major peer-reviewed journal because none exists. There are plenty of "estimates" which are extrapolated from case studies or "studies" based on small populations at treatment centers or wards. There are also those that purport to hold statistics on AA failure rates which can never be verified as AA does not allow researchers into its meetings. These are worthless in statistical terms and tell us nothing about actual failure rates.

Google Roswell or JFK/CIA and see what you get. That doesn't make it so. Now do a search of JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association), NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine), and BMJ (British Medical Journal). Then try the journals Nature, Science, the American Journal of Psychiatry, and all of the journals published by the APA. These are the important ones. If you actually spend the time you will find a lot of liturature (articles), but no controlled studies.

I have spent a lot of my spare time over the past 12 years studying the subject. What you are quoting are claims from sites that have an agenda or are merely passing along information from articles with small and unrepresentative sample groups. You've got to separate the wheat from the chaf. For example, the National Institute of Mental Health did a study back in the nineties that is widely quoted, but it was not a) controlled, b) peer-reviewed, c) used inpatients from a public hospital alcohol ward for data on recidivism. John Helzer who did the study has never published data in any major journal (though he has written many articles). And these articles are cited in articles that are using other articles as sources. Check out the bibliographies on most of the liturature and you will see how incestous the whole psych field is. A whole lot of conclusions built on theories built on suppositions based on who knows what. AA also quotes numbers that I have never been able to verify (I am a member and would love to be able to say that I can). If you scratch beneath the surfact Amused, you will find that the numbers are not reliable.

I believe that I would not have gotten sober without some form of treatment, but my belief DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. The FACT is that neither of us can make generalized statements about whether treatment helps until someone does a true scientific study at a national level over a period of MANY years.

If you follow advancements in medical treatments you will remember a few of years ago a major decade-long study on the efficacy of progesterone treatment in women was stopped because it (the treatment) was actually INCREASING the risk of breast cancer and coronary heart disease (which it was intended to protect against). Up until then most of the "experts" recommended hormones as a prophylactic for those at high risk of heart disease and bone loss and to relieve menopause symptoms. Up until then everyone had "studies" that showed how safe and effective progesterone hormone replacement was. That study involved over 15,000 patients and control subjects. You can look up the study easily - it was funded by the National Institutes of Health. My point should be clear enough.

Again, I lament the fact that this thread so rapidly deteriorated into a silly semantic debate about "disease" and "choice." I would have been a great opportunity for people here to learn something about each other and about an affliction that causes a tremendous amount of pain and suffering. I am checking out of this thread now, it really doesn't do much for my peace of mind. If you want to talk further Amused, please respond privately. Otherwise, good luck, and I will see you around the forums.

Forrest

 

[2cpuminimum]

1. Cancer CAN be caused by viruses, that's why there is such a high level of hypocrisy regarding pap smears as a prerequisite for birth control. Papilloma virus---->cancer
Pap smears have pretty much nothing to do with how safe it is to use birth control, in fact contraceptives have been shown to help prevent some cancers.

2. Alcoholism is a disease. To drink or not to drink is a choice. These are completely different things. George bush has the disease of alcoholism, and will always have it. Dubya will always be an alcoholic, there is no cure. However he may still choose not to drink, despite this disease. Or he may be choosing to drink a lot.

3. Conditioning effects are very powerful on most humans, and part of addiction is a high level of susceptibility to chemical positive reinforcement, for which there is a high degree of genetic variability.