Alcoholism is not a disease.

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Amused
Alcoholism and cancer are in no way similar.

I didn't say they were. I said it is possible to beat both diseases on your own. However, that doesn't make it the smartest choice.

You cannot choose to stop having cancer. You can, however, choose to stop drinking.

Sure, but you can't choose to not go through physical withdrawal. That makes you an alcoholic.

No one can do that for you. You can go to all the rehabs and touchy feely meetings you want, but in the end, unless YOU choose to stop (or someone locks you up forever), you will not.

Exactly. Alcoholism is still a disease.

Folks, ending addiction can only be done by one person: The addict. No one else can do it for them and there is NO "cure."

Many drugs cause physical dependency. And still, in the end, no one can help you, but you. And the physical withdrawals are the LEAST of the problem. They pass in days.

The control must last a lifetime.

I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes it is. Already accepted fact wheter one wants to believe it or not.

fact. undisputed. published. researched. tested. proven. fact.

Phrenology was undisputed for a great long time. So was the 'fact' that the earth is round. It's blind followers such as yourself that make the world what it is; a sh!thole.

 

[Brutuskend]

If Alcoholism is a disease, then ANY drug addiction is a disease.

It's lack of will power up to a point, then after that it's dependency, either physical, mental, or both.

IMO

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes it is. Already accepted fact wheter one wants to believe it or not.

fact. undisputed. published. researched. tested. proven. fact.

Ah, science by consensus.

And it is hardly undisputed.

So, a schizophrenic should be able to "control" themselves?

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes it is. Already accepted fact wheter one wants to believe it or not.

fact. undisputed. published. researched. tested. proven. fact.

Ah, science by consensus.

And it is hardly undisputed.

Amused: I have a dick.
Shilala: You call that a dick?
Amused: Ah, a dispute. I mustn't have a dick.
Shilala: I told you so.
Amused: But all these people can see I have a dick.
Shilala: Ah, Science by concensus.
Amused. Hmmmmm.

 

[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".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DBL


I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

Wait right there.

ANYONE who drinks regularly enough, and in sufficient quantities will suffer the physical withdrawals. The reason it is associated with alcoholism is because only alcoholics will drink that much, and that regularly.

Physical withdrawals have very little to do with addiction. They can affect anyone who uses enough. It is the urges and inability to moderate that defines the addict, not the physical part.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes it is. Already accepted fact wheter one wants to believe it or not.

fact. undisputed. published. researched. tested. proven. fact.

Ah, science by consensus.

And it is hardly undisputed.

Amused: I have a dick.
Shilala: You call that a dick?
Amused: Ah, a dispute. I mustn't have a dick.
Shilala: I told you so.
Amused: But all these people can see I have a dick.
Shilala: Ah, Science by concensus.
Amused. Hmmmmm.

UM, OK...

 

[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.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DBL


I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

Wait right there.

ANYONE who drinks regularly enough, and in sufficient quantities will suffer the physical withdrawals. The reason it is associated with alcoholism is because only alcoholics will drink that much, and that regularly.

Physical withdrawals have very little to do with addiction. They can affect anyone who uses enough. It is the urges and inability to moderate that defines the addict, not the physical part.

Actually, part of being an "alcoholic" is they rarely suffer from withdrwal like normal people. I had a friend that was an extreme alcoholic - if they were still hungover after 9am they would be pissed. If I drank the same amount, I would be hungover for DAYS.

 

[Brutuskend]

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".

Exactly. Some people have a pre disposition for substance abuse. They usually KNOW this too. If their parents had problems with a drug, and BOOZE is a drug, then THEY have a very good chance of having problems with drugs as well. Thats where will power and self constraint come into play. If you think you may not be able to control yourself with a substance, then STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM IT!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DBL


I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

Wait right there.

ANYONE who drinks regularly enough, and in sufficient quantities will suffer the physical withdrawals. The reason it is associated with alcoholism is because only alcoholics will drink that much, and that regularly.

Physical withdrawals have very little to do with addiction. They can affect anyone who uses enough. It is the urges and inability to moderate that defines the addict, not the physical part.

Actually, part of being an "alcoholic" is they rarely suffer from withdrwal like normal people. I had a friend that was an extreme alcoholic - if they were still hungover after 9pm they would be pissed. If I drank the same amount, I would be hungover for DAYS.

A hangover is not withdrawals.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DBL


I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

Wait right there.

ANYONE who drinks regularly enough, and in sufficient quantities will suffer the physical withdrawals. The reason it is associated with alcoholism is because only alcoholics will drink that much, and that regularly.

Physical withdrawals have very little to do with addiction. They can affect anyone who uses enough. It is the urges and inability to moderate that defines the addict, not the physical part.

Actually, part of being an "alcoholic" is they rarely suffer from withdrwal like normal people. I had a friend that was an extreme alcoholic - if they were still hungover after 9pm they would be pissed. If I drank the same amount, I would be hungover for DAYS.

A hangover is not withdrawals.

Actually, yes it is.


You know how to cure a hangover? Have a drink. Hangover gone.

 

[skyking]

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.

Wrong. I am surely an alcoholic, albeit a recovering one.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
It's not a disease just because it stays with you. Ignorance can be cured; stupidity is forever. yet stupidity is not a disease.

The ability to cure alcoholism has very little to do with its classification as a disease. Some diseases can be cured while others can not. So your analogy is meaningless.

BTW, stupidity can absolutely be caused by a disease. Down Syndrome for instance..

 

[Mucho]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: BriGy86
if anything its only a condition, a self indused condition

diseases are cause by viruses

Self induced? Do you know anything about alcoholism? Alcoholism has been shown to be highly hereditary. People become addicted to alcohol just like any other drug, mentally and physically addicted. It is not all self induced. People that are actual alcoholics started out as innocently as you, but their body, due to heredity, demanded more of it. Its like heroin to them.

Self induced is not the right choice of words.

You sir, are an idiot.

God you are a Self-Righteous moron

 

[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.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DBL


I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

Wait right there.

ANYONE who drinks regularly enough, and in sufficient quantities will suffer the physical withdrawals. The reason it is associated with alcoholism is because only alcoholics will drink that much, and that regularly.

Physical withdrawals have very little to do with addiction. They can affect anyone who uses enough. It is the urges and inability to moderate that defines the addict, not the physical part.

Actually, part of being an "alcoholic" is they rarely suffer from withdrwal like normal people. I had a friend that was an extreme alcoholic - if they were still hungover after 9pm they would be pissed. If I drank the same amount, I would be hungover for DAYS.

A hangover is not withdrawals.

Actually, yes it is.


You know how to cure a hangover? Have a drink. Hangover gone.

Um, no. Yes, having a drink will make a hangover feel slightly better, but a hangover is NOT withdrawals.

Google the issue, please.

http://www.stopaddiction.com/narconon_alcohol_withdrawal.html

Note NONE of those have anything to do with a hangover?

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

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".

Exactly. Some people have a pre disposition for substance abuse. They usually KNOW this too. If their parents had problems with a drug, and BOOZE is a drug, then THEY have a very good chance of having problems with drugs as well. Thats where will power and self constraint come into play. If you think you may not be able to control yourself with a substance, then STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM IT!

Stay away from drinking? Let's not make this personal too much, but do tell me about your youth. When did you have your first drink? I know you are even older than me, so our experiences are bound to be similar.
Drinking was the thing to do, along with smoking. I avoided the latter, but was in serious trouble after my first drink at 14. I did not drink much for a few years, but I was out of control that first time. At 16, it started causing real problems.
It was a disease for me, pure and simple. I was certainly not adult enough at 14 or 16 to rationalize that I could not go to parties ever again, or have a drink like the vast majority of guys 16 and older were doing.
Kids can choose not to smoke pot or do drugs, but alcohol is widely accepted and legal in our country and culture. Even the straightest kid out there has been up against alcohol, and had the opportunity. Throw in peer pressure, and it is almost a lock. They will try it, and a certain percentage will respond as I did. I had never had a drink until 14, and that first session was classical "binge till you pass out".
it still scares the He!! outta me!

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DBL


I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

Wait right there.

ANYONE who drinks regularly enough, and in sufficient quantities will suffer the physical withdrawals. The reason it is associated with alcoholism is because only alcoholics will drink that much, and that regularly.

Physical withdrawals have very little to do with addiction. They can affect anyone who uses enough. It is the urges and inability to moderate that defines the addict, not the physical part.

Nope. Physical addiction is one of the symptoms of alcoholism. The others are craving, loss of control and dependence. If you exhibit all of these symptoms, you are an alcoholic. The physical addiction is a very important part of defining an alcoholic. A healthy person will not experience withdrawal after a night of heavy drinking.

...and a hangover is not alcohol withdrawal.

 

[skyking]

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.

QFT

Glad you made it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DBL


I don't think our opinions are much different. I am simply saying that after drinking, an Alcoholic will experience withdrawal while a non-alcoholic will not. That is what makes alcoholism (and other forms of drug addiction) a disease.

Wait right there.

ANYONE who drinks regularly enough, and in sufficient quantities will suffer the physical withdrawals. The reason it is associated with alcoholism is because only alcoholics will drink that much, and that regularly.

Physical withdrawals have very little to do with addiction. They can affect anyone who uses enough. It is the urges and inability to moderate that defines the addict, not the physical part.

Nope. Physical addiction is one of the symptoms of alcoholism. The others are craving, loss of control and dependence. If you exhibit all of these symptoms, you are an alcoholic. The physical addiction is a very important part of defining an alcoholic. A healthy person will not experience withdrawal after a night of heavy drinking.

...and a hangover is not alcohol withdrawal.

You mistake one night with constant, regular use.

Normal people do not constantly, and regularly use alcohol as an alcoholic will. If they were forced to, and suddenly stopped, they would feel the physical symptoms, even though they are not suffering from the compulsion the alcoholic suffers from.

 

[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.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
i'm waiting for the lawsuit that comes from an Alcoholic who is suing alcohol companies for making the alcohol for him to consume ... kind of like the fatties who sue the food companies because they are obese ...

Kind of like those ridiculous lawsuits against tobacco companies.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Amused
You mistake one night with constant, regular use.

Normal people do not constantly, and regularly use alcohol as an alcoholic will. If they were forced to, and suddenly stopped, they would feel the physical symptoms, even though they are not suffering from the compulsion the alcoholic suffers from.

I'd like to see your data to back this up.

It doesn't matter anyway. A normal person has the ability to stop drinking after one or two drinks. An alcoholic does not. Perhaps it is possible to trigger alcohol withdrawal in a healthy person by forcing them to drink? However, alcoholism is defined by more than one symptom. An alcoholic displays all of these while a non-alcoholic does not.

Also, you would have a good chance at killing a non-alcoholic by forcing them to drink the sufficient quantities of alcohol necessary in order to induce withdrawal. Alcoholics tend to have a high tolerance compared to a non-alcoholic.