Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[AlBell]

I'm sorry, but I still think classifying alcoholism as a disease (even if there is a technical reason for doing so), provides a cast-iron excuse for the behavior of at least some alcoholics. "It's not my fault. It's a disease. Hell it's even genetic". How can I say this? Because I've used exactly this excuse more than once.

Alcoholics don't need no stinkin 'excuses'. But we have a million of 'em.

Once cops, jails, hospitals, etc get involved after 'drinking a little too much' it's a no-brainer; yes, that's drinking alcoholically, whether a disease or not.

My last comment on this is that people who aren't alcoholics seldom worry they might be, at least in my experience.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'm sorry, but I still think classifying alcoholism as a disease (even if there is a technical reason for doing so), provides a cast-iron excuse for the behavior of at least some alcoholics. "It's not my fault. It's a disease. Hell it's even genetic". How can I say this? Because I've used exactly this excuse more than once.

If some forms of addiction are a Mental Disorder, then they are Physical Disorder and it's NOT the persons fault that they have the disorder. Why is someone with "Physical" Addiction problem any more responsible for their disorder than someone with a Bipolar Mood disorder, or Schizophrenia, all of which we now know to have a neurological basis?

If you've knowingly used "Addiction" as an "excuse", but were then able to quit using entirely as an act of Will, then I would suggest you weren't an "Addict" to begin with.

This is the main reason I can't stand the arbitrary use of the term "Addiction" or "alcoholic" to describe everyone with substance "abuse" issues. As far as I'm concerned, the term "Addict" is by definition someone who is unable to alter their behaviour patterns volitionally.

We really do need to start distinguishing between "habituation", situationally "addictive" behaviour, and ACTUAL Addiction (the former 2 tyoes subject to willfully changing behaviour patterns, and the latter NOT subject to any volitional acts of will).

GB

 

[zerospeaks]

lionking, you may NOT be an alcoholic which is why you can't relate.

 

[23_Tauri]

I'm sorry, but I still think classifying alcoholism as a disease (even if there is a technical reason for doing so), provides a cast-iron excuse for the behavior of at least some alcoholics. "It's not my fault. It's a disease. Hell it's even genetic". How can I say this? Because I've used exactly this excuse more than once.

This.

The same circumvention of personal responsibility is used by the obese ("it's not my fault, it's my genes"); by the anti-smoking lobby in order to paint smokers as hapless addicts with the disease of smoking rather than individuals who are making a conscious choice about their smoking behaviour; and by anyone else with an addiction who wants to blame anyone except themselves for their dependency.

Addiction is not a disease, it is a behavioural response by susceptible individuals to a set of circumstances, usually perceived by that individual to be ones where they feel out of control. Although counter-intuitive, I do not consider alcoholism or any other addiction to be a 'loss of control' as some here have suggested. On the contrary, it is a method, albeit a flawed one, to regain some control over elements of one's self and life over which one feels one has lost control. That might simply be the alleviation of physical or emotional distress. In the (very) short term it gives the addict a sense of regaining control. Therefore for the addict, it works.*

*ETA: the problem with this is that addictive behaviours exhibit the law of diminishing returns.

Telling addicts of any persuasion that they are suffering from a disease is yet another insidious consequence of a blame culture.

 

[lionking]

lionking, you may NOT be an alcoholic which is why you can't relate.

Well you tell me. Before I stopped, I was drinking the equivalent of three bottles of wine a day, every day. I was drunk every night. I never had a hangover and have been performing well in a highly paid job (which just demonstrates the high tolerance I had). I would have thought I was a textbook example.

Again I think the "you are always an alcoholic regardless of future behaviour" argument is rubbish.

 

[zerospeaks]

Telling addicts of any persuasion that they are suffering from a disease is yet another insidious consequence of a blame culture.

Once again I will say it, are you (or anyone else on this thread) suggesting that the animals in studies on alcoholism are prone to our culture? They choose to drink because someone gave them an excuse?

 

[lionking]

Once again I will say it, are you (or anyone else on this thread) suggesting that the animals in studies on alcoholism are prone to our culture? They choose to drink because someone gave them an excuse?

I don't think anyone is arguing that alcohol is not addictive.

 

[zerospeaks]

Well you tell me. Before I stopped, I was drinking the equivalent of three bottles of wine a day, every day. I was drunk every night. I never had a hangover and have been performing well in a highly paid job (which just demonstrates the high tolerance I had). I would have thought I was a textbook example.

This isn't a penis size contest, but talk to me after you have thrown up blood because the only thing you have consumed for a whole week is various alcoholic beverages.
Your doctor admits you NOT to sober you up, but to give you a couple of IV's so that you can continue drinking. Because your doctor is scared that withdrawal WILL kill you.

It sounds like you enjoyed drinking, a LOT.
Talk to me when you actually look at a bottle of beer and your wife which is standing at the front door saying "I am going to leave you if you choose the alcohol over me" and you say "Fine! The alcohol treats me better anyway!"

My brother gave up his job, home, family, friends, child, to INTENTIONALLY live in a homeless shelter because he can score booze there.

I will say that again.

My brother gave up his job, home, family, friends, child, to INTENTIONALLY live in a homeless shelter because he can score booze there.

 

[zerospeaks]

I don't think anyone is arguing that alcohol is not addictive.

The point is, some animals choose to drink despite being punished for it and MOST DID NOT. If I understand the studies correctly.
My wife is the expert.

 

[AlBell]

Well you tell me. Before I stopped, I was drinking the equivalent of three bottles of wine a day, every day. I was drunk every night. I never had a hangover and have been performing well in a highly paid job (which just demonstrates the high tolerance I had). I would have thought I was a textbook example.

Again I think the "you are always an alcoholic regardless of future behaviour" argument is rubbish.

I will say that few 'social drinkers' could manage that intake and still function. One reason many social drinkers are just that is that the hangovers they get after having a few too many is not pleasant.

The trick will be can you have just one glass of wine? The answer is yes, today. After a glass each day (which will almost certainly over time become 2, then 3) the unknown is how long before you're back to 3 bottles a night.

I hope I am wrong.

The good news is if you never have that single glass, you'll never find out.

 

[lionking]

This isn't a penis size contest, but talk to me after you have thrown up blood because the only thing you have consumed for a whole week is various alcoholic beverages.
Your doctor admits you NOT to sober you up, but to give you a couple of IV's so that you can continue drinking. Because your doctor is scared that withdrawal WILL kill you.

It sounds like you enjoyed drinking, a LOT.
Talk to me when you actually look at a bottle of beer and your wife which is standing at the front door saying "I am going to leave you if you choose the alcohol over me" and you say "Fine! The alcohol treats me better anyway!"

My brother gave up his job, home, family, friends, child, to INTENTIONALLY live in a homeless shelter because he can score booze there.

I will say that again.

My brother gave up his job, home, family, friends, child, to INTENTIONALLY live in a homeless shelter because he can score booze there.

This is by far the most extreme definition of "alcoholic" I've ever seen. You have to be throwing up and virtually homeless to be an alcoholic? Have you ever heard of the term "functioning alcoholic"?

 

[lionking]

The trick will be can you have just one glass of wine? .

I don't think I can get to that stage. Certainly it has not worked in the past when I have stopped drinking for months and tried to just drink at moderate levels -I was soon back to where I was.

 

[zerospeaks]

This is by far the most extreme definition of "alcoholic" I've ever seen. You have to be throwing up and virtually homeless to be an alcoholic? Have you ever heard of the term "functioning alcoholic"?

My point was, you MAY not be an alcoholic. You could have been a social drinker with a very high tolerance. Who enjoyed drinking.. but could drop it when he wanted.
And alcoholic can not...

Oh nevermind.
I will just get my wife to give me 20 studies that prove you wrong after the football game.

 

[lionking]

My point was, you MAY not be an alcoholic. You could have been a social drinker with a very high tolerance. Who enjoyed drinking.. but could drop it when he wanted.
And alcoholic can not...

Oh nevermind.
I will just get my wife to give me 20 studies that prove you wrong after the football game.

Prove me wrong about what exactly?

 

[Brattus]

This.

The same circumvention of personal responsibility is used by the obese ("it's not my fault, it's my genes"); by the anti-smoking lobby in order to paint smokers as hapless addicts with the disease of smoking rather than individuals who are making a conscious choice about their smoking behaviour; and by anyone else with an addiction who wants to blame anyone except themselves for their dependency.

Addiction is not a disease, it is a behavioural response by susceptible individuals to a set of circumstances, usually perceived by that individual to be ones where they feel out of control. Although counter-intuitive, I do not consider alcoholism or any other addiction to be a 'loss of control' as some here have suggested. On the contrary, it is a method, albeit a flawed one, to regain some control over elements of one's self and life over which one feels one has lost control. That might simply be the alleviation of physical or emotional distress. In the (very) short term it gives the addict a sense of regaining control. Therefore for the addict, it works.*

*ETA: the problem with this is that addictive behaviours exhibit the law of diminishing returns.

Telling addicts of any persuasion that they are suffering from a disease is yet another insidious consequence of a blame culture.

Well written and I agree!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[godofpie]

If some forms of addiction are a Mental Disorder, then they are Physical Disorder and it's NOT the persons fault that they have the disorder. Why is someone with "Physical" Addiction problem any more responsible for their disorder than someone with a Bipolar Mood disorder, or Schizophrenia, all of which we now know to have a neurological basis?

If you've knowingly used "Addiction" as an "excuse", but were then able to quit using entirely as an act of Will, then I would suggest you weren't an "Addict" to begin with.

This is the main reason I can't stand the arbitrary use of the term "Addiction" or "alcoholic" to describe everyone with substance "abuse" issues. As far as I'm concerned, the term "Addict" is by definition someone who is unable to alter their behaviour patterns volitionally.

We really do need to start distinguishing between "habituation", situationally "addictive" behaviour, and ACTUAL Addiction (the former 2 tyoes subject to willfully changing behaviour patterns, and the latter NOT subject to any volitional acts of will).

GB

One of the seven signs of the apocalypse. I agree with Gandolfs Beard.

 

[porch]

I feel like arguing that it is or isn't a disease is irrelevant to the problem itself; it's semantics, and in some cases can be harmful to look at as a disease(people use it for justification), OR not a disease(people think it is a lack of character/morals/intellect).

Wow, that's so reasonable that it almost seems out of place. If I identify a problem that I want to solve, I'm okay with using multiple models.

I can see why people get their backs up over the medicalisation of addiction, depression or obesity. Yet, I also note that the medical models can actually offer some kind of program that can be tested against, while Team Willpower doesn't give much more than Nike's "Just Do It" sloganeering. I could be wrong. Can anyone give me a step by step instruction on how to have more willpower?

 

[lionking]

I can see why people get their backs up over the medicalisation of addiction, depression or obesity. Yet, I also note that the medical models can actually offer some kind of program that can be tested against, while Team Willpower doesn't give much more than Nike's "Just Do It" sloganeering. I could be wrong. Can anyone give me a step by step instruction on how to have more willpower?

Only when you give me some effective medical treatments for alcoholism.

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.

 

[FattyCatty]

How do you define an alcoholic?

ETA I was dependent on alcohol. I'm not now because I'm not drinking and am not missing it. I was once dependent on my mother. I'm not now. Know what the "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" advocates sound like? Catholics.
If you were raised a Catholic, been baptized and confirmed, then dogma holds that you are always a Catholic, you have merely "lapsed". How many ex-Catholic atheists here would like to be told they are "really" still Catholic?

<snip>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.

I'm confused. Are you saying your drinking problem only lasted a couple months? Or did you mean to say "ago" instead of "age?" Did your doctor say you had an alcohol problem or that you were an alcoholic? Are you saying you don't consider yourself an alcoholic (1st post) or that you do (2nd post)?

Perhaps alcohol dependency is a better term, to differentiate from alcohol abuse helpguide.org/mental/alcohol_abuse_alcoholism_signs_effects_treatment.htm:

Substance abuse experts make a distinction between alcohol abuse and alcoholism (also called alcohol dependence). Unlike alcoholics, alcohol abusers still have at least some ability to set limits on their drinking. However, their alcohol use is still self-destructive and dangerous to themselves or others.

As for "magically never been an alcoholic," alcohol dependency is a chronic, life-long disease. I compare it to Type II diabetes in that even though you're successfully managing the disease (not drinking or regulating your blood glucose), you still have the disease. Managing the disease is not curing the disease. If you stop the "management," you go right back into a symptomatic condition and continue the damage to your body.

 

[lionking]

I'm confused. Are you saying your drinking problem only lasted a couple months? Or did you mean to say "ago" instead of "age?" Did your doctor say you had an alcohol problem or that you were an alcoholic? Are you saying you don't consider yourself an alcoholic (1st post) or that you do (2nd post)?

Perhaps alcohol dependency is a better term, to differentiate from alcohol abuse helpguide.org/mental/alcohol_abuse_alcoholism_signs_effects_treatment.htm:
As for "magically never been an alcoholic," alcohol dependency is a chronic, life-long disease. I compare it to Type II diabetes in that even though you're successfully managing the disease (not drinking or regulating your blood glucose), you still have the disease. Managing the disease is not curing the disease. If you stop the "management," you go right back into a symptomatic condition and continue the damage to your body.

It should have been "ago", a typo.

The circularity of the argument is a problem to me. Alcoholism cannot be cured, so if you have been dependent on alcohol, but have been able to give up you were not, by definition, an alcoholic.

I am not an alcoholic now as I don't drink. I don't consider it a disease. You call it "managing a disease" I call it "not drinking".