Is alcoholism a disease or something else?

[Aepervius]

Maybe but I think zerospeak has a predisposition to not udnerstand plain english, and to shift the blame on his "wife".

 

[23_Tauri]

I suspect a person is born with (or, even more likely, learns) a "predisposition" to be addicted to anything from drugs and alcohol to a girlfriend or chocolate and those who disply that weakness by drinking a lot we call alcoholics and we point out how alcoholism can fit the dictionary definition of disease, to make them feel better. Those addicted to food we call fat and those addicted to ex-girlfriends we call stalkers. I believe it's all no more than an inability to deny their own impulses.

I agree with this view, but I think it needs further explanation that simply saying that those with addictive behaviour patterns fail to deny their own impulses. Are these impulses stronger in the addictive personality? Perhaps those not prone to drug abuse, alcoholism, love addiction, eating disorders etc. don't relate to external stimuli in the same way. They have a different 'emotional environment', if you like.

 

[23_Tauri]

Very recent study on gender differences and alcohol's effects on dopamine release:

Why Are Men More Susceptible To Alcoholism?

Which begs the questions: is it atypical dopamine release that predisposes an individual towards pleasure-seeking behaviours? These pleasure-seeking behaviours could be high levels of alcohol consumption, but knowing that many substances affect dopamine levels, not least cocaine, this suggests that people don't have a predisposition specifically towards alcohol use, but towards any behaviour that affects levels of dopamine, which includes compulsive love addiction.

I appreciate I am over-generalising here, because compulsive behaviours affect multiple neuro-transmitters, but I use this as an example. There seem to be many here with professional experience in treating addiction who will have a much better understanding of this than I do.

So, I postulate that one isn't even born with a predisposition towards alcoholism per se, but to a range of behaviours. That alcoholism is so prevalent reflects alcohol's ubiquity in our culture, rather than a need for alcohol specifically over other substances.

 

[AlBell]

Very recent study on gender differences and alcohol's effects on dopamine release:

Why Are Men More Susceptible To Alcoholism?

Which begs the questions: is it atypical dopamine release that predisposes an individual towards pleasure-seeking behaviours? These pleasure-seeking behaviours could be high levels of alcohol consumption, but knowing that many substances affect dopamine levels, not least cocaine, this suggests that people don't have a predisposition specifically towards alcohol use, but towards any behaviour that affects levels of dopamine, which includes compulsive love addiction.

I appreciate I am over-generalising here, because compulsive behaviours affect multiple neuro-transmitters, but I use this as an example. There seem to be many here with professional experience in treating addiction who will have a much better understanding of this than I do.

So, I postulate that one isn't even born with a predisposition towards alcoholism per se, but to a range of behaviours. That alcoholism is so prevalent reflects alcohol's ubiquity in our culture, rather than a need for alcohol specifically over other substances.

Based on my interaction with addicts of various types, everyone seems to home in on a specific substance-of-choice. I agree it's likely a propensity towards addictive behavior is a result of brain chemistry differences, addict ve non-addict, at least for alcohol. Crack, heroin, meth, etc seem to catch more people who try it, but one wonders about socio-economic backgrounds in that addict class.

Prevalence of alcoholism increases in ethnic groups recently introduced to alcohol, Amerinds being one of those groups. Again socio-economics may play into that.

I recall comments that ethnic groups having the longest association with alcohol use have the least propensity towards alcoholism today. As a percentage of population, those groups with ancestors from mediterranean areas have fewer alcoholics today, those with northern euopean ancestors more.

 

[zerospeaks]

Guess what buddy, I am not a biological neuroscientist but I went to trainings about substance abuse and substance dependence twice a year, and you don't know squat about dependence or substance abuse. And guess who were the key speakers at those trainings, ‘experts’ in the field of substance dependence and abuse.

How long ago? If you say 10 years Imma gonna ROFL

Went to training seminars twice a year.... truly a knowledgeable person in this area.
A person who does research in this area in the lab.... everyday.... however..... she is the uninformed one..... ROFL

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm still waiting for zerospeaks to tell us how toddlers and young children with Alcoholism satisfy their craving for alcohol; or do they just suffer in silence until they are old enough to actually realize what alcohol is, and start experimenting?

Of course, an informed opinion from his wife would be welcome as well.

P.S.

And since this is a disease, you would think we would have as many alcoholic kids, with all the accompanying behavior, as we do in the adult population.

Surely your studies bear this out.

 

[zerospeaks]

I'm still waiting for zerospeaks to tell us how toddlers and young children with Alcoholism satisfy their craving for alcohol; or do they just suffer in silence until they are old enough to actually realize what alcohol is, and start experimenting?

Of course, an informed opinion from his wife would be welcome as well.

She never said a person was born with it. I did. Seems obvious to me that a person is born with the predisposition. If you introduce alcohol IT MANIFESTS ITSELF. Even the person doesn't give in and controls his drinking he still has a higher urge to go to the bottle then other people.

She however was saying yesterday that we were lost in a never ending battle of semantics.
The last thing said on the subject before we ate dinner and watched house, was I read the comment about " is nicotine addiction a disease, how bout cocaine" or whatever...
And she had a deer in the headlight look on her face for good 4 seconds or so and the said very slowly, "Addiction is a disease, it is treated as such, the research on it is modeled as such. What part of this don't they understand?"
I hope I got her quote right, bout 90% sure, may have missed a word or two.

I think we ARE in a semantics battle and it is silly.
I think an alcoholic is defined genetically from birth and probably alcoholism is the wrong term and we will discover it is really more like "addictionism" .
So there is my stance, I think the new research "from what I have heard"
points to a genetic predisposition that causes one to become addicted more easily then others, and STRONGER then others. Alcohol is readily available so we have a lot of alcoholics...

Just like my Doc told me, "you will always be an alcoholic, even if you stop drinking"
So I think the same logic applies to people who have YET to drink. They are an alcoholic, they just don't know it yet. Until they take that drink and begin to have problems...

 

[Dancing David]

How long ago? If you say 10 years Imma gonna ROFL

Went to training seminars twice a year.... truly a knowledgeable person in this area.
A person who does research in this area in the lab.... everyday.... however..... she is the uninformed one..... ROFL

That isn't what i said, I said that YOU don't know squat, I said I was at trainings by the alleged experts, none of them have ever stated that all alcoholics have a biological predisposition. You still have presented any data to show that all alcoholism is absed upon a biological predisposition, now have you. You haven't really done much except hide behind your wife and blame you poor arguments on her.

What research exactly does she do? How does it demonstrate that all alcoholics have a biological predisposition?

 

[AlBell]

"All" assertions are open to black swans, but what would make you happy to have alcoholism classified as a disease? 60%, 80%, 99.999%, or ?

 

[Dancing David]

She never said a person was born with it. I did. Seems obvious to me that a person is born with the predisposition. If you introduce alcohol IT MANIFESTS ITSELF.

So what percetage of alcoholics have the biological predisposition? You have just again seemed to confuse all alcoholics with those who have the predisposition.

And then those with the predisposition, like both my father and mother, who come from families with strong histories of alcohol addiction, have exposed themselves to alcohol. Yet They are not addicts.

You don't know squat about making careful statements either.

 

[Dancing David]

She never said a person was born with it. I did. Seems obvious to me that a person is born with the predisposition. If you introduce alcohol IT MANIFESTS ITSELF. Even the person doesn't give in and controls his drinking he still has a higher urge to go to the bottle then other people.

She however was saying yesterday that we were lost in a never ending battle of semantics.
The last thing said on the subject before we ate dinner and watched house, was I read the comment about " is nicotine addiction a disease, how bout cocaine" or whatever...
And she had a deer in the headlight look on her face for good 4 seconds or so and the said very slowly, "Addiction is a disease, it is treated as such, the research on it is modeled as such. What part of this don't they understand?"
I hope I got her quote right, bout 90% sure, may have missed a word or two.

I think we ARE in a semantics battle and it is silly.
I think an alcoholic is defined genetically from birth and probably alcoholism is the wrong term and we will discover it is really more like "addictionism" .
So there is my stance, I think the new research "from what I have heard"
points to a genetic predisposition that causes one to become addicted more easily then others, and STRONGER then others. Alcohol is readily available so we have a lot of alcoholics...

Just like my Doc told me, "you will always be an alcoholic, even if you stop drinking"
So I think the same logic applies to people who have YET to drink. They are an alcoholic, they just don't know it yet. Until they take that drink and begin to have problems...

And again you just don't understand set theory, there is a set called 'alcoholics', within that are subsets, there are various kinds of biological predispositions, there are co morbid factors and there are environmental factors, yet you continue to talk about ALL alcoholics as though they are one unitary set.

So let’s see, If not all people who provide treatment for alcoholics provide it under the medical disease model, then that means that not all alcohol dependence treatment is provided as though it is a disease.

Solar system size fail, on your part.

 

[zerospeaks]

So what percetage of alcoholics have the biological predisposition? You have just again seemed to confuse all alcoholics with those who have the predisposition.

I don't see how it matters.
Some ARE alcoholics genetically, and some aren't..... therefore...
What is you argument exactly besides criticizing mine?

"What research exactly does she do? How does it demonstrate that all alcoholics have a biological predisposition?

She is a director of behavioral Neuroscience research, she over sees a lot of research.
She does a lot of research herself INCLUDING addiction research.

I'll ask her again next time I talk to her.... I will ask her, ...WAIT...
What exactly do you want me to ask her?
Perhaps I have been a bad middle man and have been asking the wrong questions.

I await your question and I will give it to her word for word.

 

[brenn]

"Addiction is a disease, it is treated as such, the research on it is modeled as such. What part of this don't they understand?"
I hope I got her quote right, bout 90% sure, may have missed a word or two.

I think we ARE in a semantics battle and it is silly.

Seems like a semantics issue. In common usage, disease and addiction are 2 different things, distingushed largely by the responsibility the person who has them is perceived as having for the condition. Addiction generally meaning inability to cease voluntary activity the addict enjoys, while common folks take disease to mean some involuntary impairment of health. So to fix that, we just make the technical definition of disease broad enough to include addiction, or else we describe addiction so it fits the definition of disease.

In short, addiction "is a disease" but "is a disease" doesn't necessarily mean anything useful. I guess it makes addicts feel better.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess it makes addicts feel better.

This..
And as mentioned earlier, there is more money in it..

 

[AlBell]

This..
And as mentioned earlier, there is more money in it..

Especially to be taken from alcoholic atheists who can't find a higher power to use in free AA meetings.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't see how it matters.
Some ARE alcoholics genetically, and some aren't..... therefore...

The statement you made originally were not very well bounded and they were very broad as to the nature of alcohol addiction.

What is you argument exactly besides criticizing mine?

Welcome to the JREF, you made overbroad statements, they were not containing any conditions or parameters, so they were overgeneralizations.
therefore I criticized them, what is this forum for?

She is a director of behavioral Neuroscience research, she over sees a lot of research.
She does a lot of research herself INCLUDING addiction research.

I'll ask her again next time I talk to her.... I will ask her, ...WAIT...
What exactly do you want me to ask her?
Perhaps I have been a bad middle man and have been asking the wrong questions.

I await your question and I will give it to her word for word.

No need to, you need to stop hiding behind her and bringing her into this. You need to be coherent in your arguments. You have not even gotten to the "term disease as I use it' stahe and jumped right in waving your wife around and making overgeneralizations.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6449795&postcount=133

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.

BUT IS IT A DISEASE? That is the debate.
Animal Research points to yes... according to pretty much every research institution.

What FattyCatty and my wife (the expert on this subject) is TRYING to tell you is that there is NO argument on this subject.
Not in science.

I wonder, do you also think there is an argument over creationism? Flat-earthism?

What FattyCatty and my wife (the expert on this subject) is TRYING to tell you is that there is NO argument on this subject.
Not in science.

I wonder, do you also think there is an argument over creationism? Flat-earthism?

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

OP you have been answered.

So start by even pretending to show this alleged consensus.

 

[zerospeaks]

Me: One guy claims they classify it as a disease because there is more money in it that way.
Wife: So once again you found people who think scientists are liars, cheats, who make things up for personal gain? I thought the JREF was supposed to be better then creationist forums. I don't understand how they can tolerate someone saying something like that.
Me: I think this dancing david guy wants me to show that there is a consensus in science that says alcoholism is a disease.
Wife: Did you send him the link about the NIH I gave you?
Me: Yeah
Wife: Then nothing you send him will satisfy him, I don't see how you have patience to talk to those people. They are idiots and I don't want anything more to do with it. Don't ask me anymore questions, I no longer want to hear anything about that thread.

Well, there went the one leg I had to stand on.
Now I'm just a normal everyday non-expert.
It's been fun guys.
I'm gonna try to find a thread on creationism or something.

 

[Dancing David]

Me: One guy claims they classify it as a disease because there is more money in it that way.
Wife: So once again you found people who think scientists are liars, cheats, who make things up for personal gain? I thought the JREF was supposed to be better then creationist forums.

Hey, it is not out fault you can’t express critical thinking.

I don't understand how they can tolerate someone saying something like that.
Me: I think this dancing david guy wants me to show that there is a consensus in science that says alcoholism is a disease.

An FAQ is not a consensus, and you are still hiding behind your wife?

You haven't even defined disease as you understand it, I at least did that. So one person you know says that there is a consensus and that means what. That is the NIH FAQ says it is a disease?

If you read anything anybody else posted then you will note I said that it is a disease that it is a focus of treatment fro doctors. Well guess what not all SA/SD treatment is medical.

Wife: Did you send him the link about the NIH I gave you?
Me: Yeah
Wife: Then nothing you send him will satisfy him,

Keep hiding behind your wifey's skirts of authority.

I don't see how you have patience to talk to those people. They are idiots and I don't want anything more to do with it. Don't ask me anymore questions, I no longer want to hear anything about that thread.

Well, there went the one leg I had to stand on.
Now I'm just a normal everyday non-expert.
It's been fun guys.
I'm gonna try to find a thread on creationism or something.

Still unable to think critically as well.
No defense of your fallacious statements or nothing. Can’t even answer direct questions, I see?

 

[zerospeaks]

Still unable to think critically as well.
No defense of your fallacious statements or nothing. Can’t even answer direct questions, I see?

Im trying to leave a discussion on which I am not an expert and my opinion was found to be wrong.
No shame in that.
You should try it sometime.

 

[MikeSun5]

Me: One guy claims they classify it as a disease because there is more money in it that way.
Wife: So once again you found people who think scientists are liars, cheats, who make things up for personal gain? I thought the JREF was supposed to be better then creationist forums. I don't understand how they can tolerate someone saying something like that.
Me: I think this dancing david guy wants me to show that there is a consensus in science that says alcoholism is a disease.
Wife: Did you send him the link about the NIH I gave you?
Me: Yeah
Wife: Then nothing you send him will satisfy him, I don't see how you have patience to talk to those people. They are idiots and I don't want anything more to do with it. Don't ask me anymore questions, I no longer want to hear anything about that thread.

THAT LINK YOU SENT PROVED YOU WRONG AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!! I complain about you not reading what you post and you do it once again. How am I not surprised? And how are you so oblivious to the crap that you post? You literally posted something and said, "I don't have time to read this right now," and the whole link you posted was about..... (wait for it......) Money!!! The alcohol people don't want the drug guys to step in and snatch their grant money, and the drug people are claiming that alcohol and drugs are the same thing so they can share the budget! (I can't believe I'm explaining the man's link to him.)

If you are for real, and your wife isn't just a clever way for you to simultaneously play two sides at once, you may seriously be the worst debater ever. You post links that don't say anything about what you're claiming, and you stand by statments like, "People are born alcoholics" even when the links you post yourself prove you wrong!!! I'm astounded. Really. Get your head out of the sand, man. Read something.

It's been fun guys.
I'm gonna try to find a thread on creationism or something.

We'll see how long this lasts....