Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

From the NIH... YAY!!!

2. Is alcoholism a disease?

Yes, alcoholism is a disease. The craving that an alcoholic feels for alcohol can be as strong as the need for food or water. An alcoholic will continue to drink despite serious family, health, or legal problems.

Like many other diseases, alcoholism is chronic, meaning that it lasts a person's lifetime; it usually follows a predictable course; and it has symptoms. The risk for developing alcoholism is influenced both by a person's genes and by his or her lifestyle. (See also "Publications," Alcohol Alert No. 30: Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence.)

3. Is alcoholism inherited?

Research shows that the risk for developing alcoholism does indeed run in families. The genes a person inherits partially explain this pattern, but lifestyle is also a factor. Currently, researchers are working to discover the actual genes that put people at risk for alcoholism. Your friends, the amount of stress in your life, and how readily available alcohol is also are factors that may increase your risk for alcoholism.

But remember: Risk is not destiny. Just because alcoholism tends to run in families doesn't mean that a child of an alcoholic parent will automatically become an alcoholic too. Some people develop alcoholism even though no one in their family has a drinking problem. By the same token, not all children of alcoholic families get into trouble with alcohol. Knowing you are at risk is important, though, because then you can take steps to protect yourself from developing problems with alcohol. (See also "Publications," A Family History of Alcoholism - Are You at Risk?; Alcohol Alert No. 18: The Genetics of Alcoholism.)
Click to expand...

LINKY

Theoretically there is so many orgs that consider it a disease I could just keep posting links and never engage in conversation again...
This is fun.
 
lionking said:
So you are still claiming that people can be born alcoholic? Even if they never have a drink? This is almost too silly for words.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he's saying. :boggled: According to zerospeaks' absurd logic, a devout Mormon person born with the "alcoholism gene" can live their entire life as an alcoholic even if they don't drink. They can have a little devout Mormon baby who they pass this gene on to, and this baby will also be an alcoholic. Even if the baby grows old and dies and never took a drink. zerospeaks got all this from an article that says that some people have dopamine receptor genes that prefer booze. But in an awe inspiring display of confirmation bias and data mining, zerospeaks ignored this sentence from his own link:

"The A1 allele has also been associated with other drug problems including cocaine, nicotine, and polysubstance abuse."
Click to expand...

The reason that was ignored was the reason like 80% of my posts have been ignored. Because it exposes the wild inconsistency of calling alcoholism a disease. If alcoholism is a disease, then that little quote up there ^^ says that doing coke, smoking cigarettes, and huffing paint are diseases. Not addictions. Not bad habits. Diseases.

Another thing zerospeaks ignored when posting all that crap (that didn't really say what he thought it did) was this very thread. He missed post #53 and the discussion about this link which basically says that we don't have enough research in to the subject to say one way or the other if someone is predisposed to alcoholism.

zerospeaks - you seem to be missing a lot when you read these posts and when you look up "evidence" to support your claims. You should read more carefully.
It's funny that you missed the part of this thread where I showed that FattyCatty's link didn't say what he thought it said, and then I got to do the same thing to you. :p
 
zerospeaks said:
Theoretically there is so many orgs that consider it a disease I could just keep posting links and never engage in conversation again...
Click to expand...

You missed ignored the posts in this thread that explain why it was important to classify it as a disease, and all of the businesses that depend on it being classified as such.

This is fun.
Click to expand...

Being redundant?
 
My non-expert definition of alcoholic is :someone who has a predisposition to become addicted to drinking and continue to drink against threat of harm...

YOU DONT NEED TO TAKE A DRINK TO HAVE THE PREDISPOSITION!
What is so absurd about this concept?

" But in an awe inspiring display of confirmation bias and data mining, zerospeaks ignored this sentence from his own link:
"The A1 allele has also been associated with other drug problems including cocaine, nicotine, and polysubstance abuse."
Click to expand...

Ha, it's hilarious because I already mentioned this before posting the study.
There is argument over whether or not it should be called addictionism....
and considered/treated as such.
Maybe if I repeat myself 300 times, someone will actual read what I am saying.
 
Last edited:
zerospeaks said:
There is argument over whether or not it should be called addictionism....
and considered/treated as such.
Click to expand...

Show me this argument. I want to see where you are getting this ^^ information.

Maybe if I repeat myself 300 times, someone will actual read what I am saying.
Click to expand...

You said people are born alcoholics. So you'd be wrong 300 times.
 
"Show me this argument. I want to see where you are getting this ^^ information."
Click to expand...

My wife was telling me about it. THAT IS WHAT HER NEXT CONFERENCE IS ABOUT.
She also told me that somebody was making a big stink about putting all addiction research/treatment TOGETHER because new data suggests it's all the same thing.
She is on her way home I don't remember the details I will ask her.
So wait about 20 mins and I will answer.....
 
zerospeaks said:
She also told me that somebody was making a big stink about putting all addiction research/treatment TOGETHER because new data suggests it's all the same thing.
Click to expand...

"She told me that somebody...." :D So that'll be what, third generation anecdotal evidence? This ought to be good. I'll check back later.

This guy I know was telling me about his friend's sister who said if you search google for "addictionism," you just get a bunch of screen names for video games and youtube.
 
Here ya go guys, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/467643a.html

thats what she was talkin bout, don't have time to read it at the moment bu feel free.
Gonna spend time with my wife.

oh...and she explained the conference thing....quoting her
"The society for Neuroscience at their annual conference holds a neurobiology of disease workshop. This years chosen topic is the Neurobiology of obesity."

This is apparently what she was talking about the other night, she was saying obesity IS a disease.

Later guys! ...and stop being so hostile, we are on the same side.... science, reason, logic, etc....
 
MikeSun5 said:
The reason that was ignored was the reason like 80% of my posts have been ignored. Because it exposes the wild inconsistency of calling alcoholism a disease. If alcoholism is a disease, then that little quote up there ^^ says that doing coke, smoking cigarettes, and huffing paint are diseases. Not addictions. Not bad habits. Diseases.
Click to expand...

IF I could reword the question in the OP, it would probably be "is addiction a disease?" or "if alcoholism is a disease, then how come nicotine addiction, and cocaine addiction are not diseases?"
 
Here is an interesting analogy between alcoholism and the disease called "scratchism":


"Alcohol is just a quick and easy way to change ordinary, everyday reality from unbearable to bearable. All it takes is a short trip to the liquor store and a few drinks. People who are dependent are merely using alcohol as a crutch to get through the day. Yet doctors and scientists are still treating "alcoholism" as if it were a problem, when it has nothing at all to do with the problem. They might as well be studying "scratchism" for people who have a chronic itch.
Suppose you had a chronic itch and scratched it regularly throughout the day. Would you have "scratchism"? Would you be a "scratchaholic"? Of course not. What if you had a constant headache, and to cope with it you took aspirin several times each day. Would you suffer from "aspirinism", and would you be called a "aspirinaholic"? More important, if you sought help for treatment of those ailments, would you be treated for "scratchism" or "aspirinism"? Of course not; you would be treated for the underlying conditions that led you to scratch or use aspirin - perhaps poison ivy or stress." - From the The Alcoholism and Addiction Cure by Chris Prentiss http://www.amazon.com/Alcoholism-Addiction-Cure-Holistic-Approach/dp/0943015448
 
...and there I was, believing that "diseases" were defined by experts in relevant fields of science instead of posts by sum d00d in some forum...
Imagine my surprise .. :eek:
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Only when you give me some effective medical treatments for alcoholism.
Click to expand...


While that doesn't answer my question (and there's probably a Latin term for what you just did there) I guess you do have me kind of stumped. Any time I've talked to a physician about alcoholism, it was rehab or nothing. I don't really know what kind of treatment you get at an evidence-based rehab clinic. I was thinking that CBT is supposed to work well for some people. I do know that the rate of relapse is pretty high no matter what.

Don't worry about the snark. I was probably being excessively cheeky, considering that I genuinely would like someone to pass along to me how to have more willpower. It seems inherent in the concept of willpower, though, that it's just something you have to do for yourself, so I'm not sure how to get much use out of that.


ETA Sorry, that's a bit snarky. What is pissing me off with this thread is that if I had described my drinking behaviour of a couple of months age to anyone the response would have been "you're an alcoholic". Certainly, that's been my doctor's opinion. But because I've been able to give up without a huge amount of trouble (apart from three or four days of withdrawal), I've magically never been an alcoholic. Sorry, I just don't buy the assertion that if you can give up alcohol without some sort of medical intervention you never had a real addiction problem to begin with.
Click to expand...


Someone could say to me, "I don't drink any more because I'm an alcoholic." Or they could say, "I used to be an alcoholic, but I don't drink any more." The difference doesn't seem that important to me, so long as either approach is working. I certainly don't agree with the "You were never an alcholic" stance, that just seems weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom