Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[zerospeaks]

Obviously a lot of you on this thread has not been informed on scientific misconduct and how it is guarded against through peer review.

And this is a forum which prides itself on critical thinking and science based information.

NOT HAPPENING on this thread. Except FattyCatty, thank you for at least bringing up some peer reviewed papers earlier which INCLUDED THE DEFINITION OF DISEASE and then went on to say WHY THEY CLASSIFIED ALCOHOLISM AS A DISEASE, through EMPIRICAL TESTING METHODS.

Of course, people just ignored that because it didn't say what they wanted it to say.
I ate crow on this thread because I am not scared to say " I am totally wrong!"

"I agree with this. Especially about the waste of time. Also, whether you like it or not disease is the definition in use by most involved medical groups in the United States and also by the World Health Organization. So write to them with your objections.

Thank you, My wife works 14 hours a day 7 days a week over seeing hundreds of experiments. She is an expert on behavioral Neuroscience including risk/reward, anxiety, ADDICTION, and learning.
Her dissertation was on the effects anxiety has on learned behaviors.
SHE KNOWS THIS SUBJECT, and soundly handed me my hat on this subject.
I was wrong, alcoholism is a disease.

You know appeals to authority on their own are not going to get you
anywhere.

Consider it deferring to experts instead of appealing to authority.

You become an alcoholic by drinking alcohol. This is the one and only cause

Nope. You are born one.

"If you stop the behavior which causes alcoholism, you are still an alcoholic, according to the "experts". Further if you stop the behavior through pure will power, you weren't really an alcoholic to begin with, also according to "experts".

Yes. and Nope.

" Alcoholism is a disease, but if an alcoholic gives up alcohol he or she still has the disease, or never had it in the first place

The problem I do believe is that many a "drinker" is diagnosed "alcoholic" wrongly. This is my un-expert opinion, but I think I gathered that from my wife.
Some people are just straight up PRONE TO DRINK and lose self control. They are born that way.

"Experiments with animals have some bearing on the matter."

bearing on the matter? The experiments with animals can change it?
No. I think you misspoke. Or I did not understand "bearing on the matter:

"I do not accept the "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" and "alcoholism is a lifetime disease" mantras.

Yeah.... that was the very LAST ONE that I finally had to admit to myself which I was in denial of. And you guys witnessed me coming to terms with it on this thread.
I didn't like the idea of it, because I wanted to be able to drink socially.
I didn't want to be labelled as "that guy" the guy who "should watch his drinking".
I just wanted to be normal, and despite my ability to quit so many many times of my own free will, here I am drinking a case a night again.

"Scientists are good at science, and "experts"...well...they're good at being "experts" I suppose. But none of them are immune from defining things based on cultural prejudice, and political/economic expediency.

If you are claiming scientific misconduct has happened (a VERY serious offense) then please say so and point us to who. Under fear of being sued for defamation or libel.

 

[zerospeaks]

I wish pax would hit on this thread, haven't seen him in months.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You people have gone to crazy town.

" Hey lets ignore the science and experts behind this and make up our own definitions!"

Whatever floats your boats.

I thought you were done here ?

Some people are born alcoholics ?

Care to speculate about how humans ( and rats too, I guess.. ) evolved to be born with this disease ?

 

[zerospeaks]

Care to speculate about how humans ( and rats too, I guess.. ) evolved to be born with this disease ?

Care to speculate how humans ( and rats too ) evolved to be born with sickle-cell?

It defies all logic!
I mean.. a bad trait being passed on.... No way!

Especially considering the large amount of conceptions happening in humans during intoxication..

 

[lionking]

Some people are born alcoholics?

I'd like evidence of that too. I don't think that even babies born with foetal alcohol syndrome are destined to alcoholism. If zerospeaks expects his posts to be accepted as the last word in the science of alcoholism, he must support this contention.

ETA I have found many sources refuting this myth. I can't link properly from my iPad. I look forward to zerospeaks citing evidence that people are born with alcoholism.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

If you are claiming scientific misconduct has happened (a VERY serious offense) then please say so and point us to who. Under fear of being sued for defamation or libel.

Now when did I claim "scientific misconduct"?

Scientists like everyone else are influenced by cultural background assumptions, by the political environment, and by economic incentives ranging from connections to, and/or promotions by, the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. None of this is un-factual. And unfortunately the connections to Pharma and Insurance are not illegal, therefore not "misconduct."

Fortunately, science IS self-correcting, and eventually empiricism wins the day. But sometimes decades or centuries can go by before old assumptions are swept away by new data and new interpretations.

Again, NIDA, despite adhering to the current socio-political consensus of addiction as "disease", doesn't necessarily adhere to the "Disease Model" in terms of treatment in all cases. Their website discusses a range of options in terms of treatment, and that all of the current options are limited in effectiveness due to the disparate nature and incomplete understanding of the range of disorders that fall under the rubric of "addiction."

GB

 

[zerospeaks]

I'd like evidence of that too. I don't think that even babies born with foetal alcohol syndrome are destined to alcoholism. If zerospeaks expects his posts to be accepted as the last word in the science of alcoholism, he must support this contention.

I think you guys are using the terms "alcoholic" and "drunkard" interchangeably which is undermining the research on this subject and causing an IMPASSE.

 

[zerospeaks]

"Fortunately, science IS self-correcting, and eventually empiricism wins the day.

thank you, now can we close this tread and agree that CURRENTLY science views alcoholism as a disease?

OP you have been answered.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I think you guys are using the terms "alcoholic" and "drunkard" interchangeably which is undermining the research on this subject and causing an IMPASSE.

I think it would be more effective if we started making a distinctions between physiological addiction, psychological addiction, inherently addictive substances, genetic predisposition to addictive tendencies, destructive behaviour patterns, personal and social excessive use, habitual use, and self-medication for any number of reasons; and studying the variety of relationships between any number of these issues.

GB

 

[lionking]

thank you, now can we close this tread and agree that CURRENTLY science views alcoholism as a disease?

OP you have been answered.

Textbook appeal to authority. "Science says so, that's it".

As others have pointed out here, science considered homosexuality to be a disease not too long ago.

 

[23_Tauri]

I'd like someone to classify me please. I was drinking excessive, damaging amounts of alcohol. I don't now, and feel great. Do I have a disease or not?

Adding my weight to the body of posters here who share our PoV, LionKing, I say of course you didn't have a disease. You engaged in a repetitive behaviour that could have led to disease had you kept drinking. Chronic liver disease is a disease. That is why it is called Chronic Liver Disease. Cirrhosis is a disease. Lung cancer is a disease.

Even using the basic Wiki definition of disease, helpfully posted by godofpie, it is clear that alcoholism isn't a disease but that disease is the consequence of the behaviour, if taken to extremes.

I don't know why some people are finding this such a hard concept to understand.

 

[zerospeaks]

I think it would be more effective if we started making a distinctions between physiological addiction, psychological addiction, inherently addictive substances, genetic predisposition to addictive tendencies, destructive behaviour patterns, personal and social excessive use, habitual use, and self-medication for any number of reasons; and studying the variety of relationships between any number of these issues.

already being done by scientists. FattyCatty and I have tried to explain this.

Textbook appeal to authority. "Science says so, that's it"

This is the JREF. Perhaps tomorrow someone will run an experiment showing evidence that alcoholism does NOT qualify as a disease..... but welcome to science.
AS IT STANDS SCIENCE HAS DECIDED ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE.

If you have new data, or if you disagree with current data, LETS HERE IT.

 

[23_Tauri]

Textbook appeal to authority. "Science says so, that's it".

As others have pointed out here, science considered homosexuality to be a disease not too long ago.

So was female hysteria , but thankfully science doesn't consider that a disease caused by sexual deprivation any more.

 

[lionking]

This is the JREF. Perhaps tomorrow someone will run an experiment showing evidence that alcoholism does NOT qualify as a disease..... but welcome to science.
AS IT STANDS SCIENCE HAS DECIDED ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE.

If you have new data, or if you disagree with current data, LETS HERE IT.

Talking about evidence, how are you going on your "alcoholics are born" claim?

 

[zerospeaks]

Talking about evidence, how are you going on your "alcoholics are born" claim?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10893740
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8095994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8512526

Oh man, don't it just suck for you when science discovers things can be passed on genetically.
I bet you think homosexuals "just decide to be gay"

 

[lionking]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10893740
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8095994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8512526

Oh man, don't it just suck for you when science discovers things can be passed on genetically.
I bet you think homosexuals "just decide to be gay"

Please think before you post. Nobody denies that there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. You made the blanket statement that people are born as alcoholics. This is wrong in every possible way. You might want to check this one with your wife.

 

[zerospeaks]

Please think before you post. Nobody denies that there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.

You mean they are born alcoholics? Ya... me too.

This is wrong in every possible way. You might want to check this one with your wife.

I will. Although this thread has infuriated her and I must admit the anger is contagious.

How many times will you people just deny the science?
How many times will you deny the scientific acceptance?

We might as well be denying global warming.

 

[lionking]

You mean they are born alcoholics? Ya... me too.

NO THEY'RE NOT!

For someone who bangs on about (capital S) science, your comprehension skills are quite lacking.

 

[Aepervius]

So i guess that would make *all* addiction a disease.
I am fine with that, but this then dilute the word disease to meaninglessness.

 

[Aepervius]

You mean they are born alcoholics? Ya... me too.



I will. Although this thread has infuriated her and I must admit the anger is contagious.

How many times will you people just deny the science?
How many times will you deny the scientific acceptance?

We might as well be denying global warming.

a PREdisposition, does not mean you will GET it "100% sure" , it only means you have a higher than the normal population average probability to get it.

For example if a human female population get a 1/40 chane to get a breast cancer, having the bad gene could make you predisposited and make you a 1/25 chance of getting breast cancer.

Furthermore , as with all addiction , there is an oportunity window. It does not matter if you are extremly weak to alcohol addiction, if you never drink a bit. And in such a case you are *NOT* an alcoholic. As far as I remember the DSM IV alcoholism is the combination of abuse and dependence, aka, addiction. You cannot be an alcoholic if you never drank a bit of alcohol.

That is what lionking was telling you.

So your statement "one is born with alcoholism" is wrong.