• The Dark Side 💕 Welcome Guest 💕
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads Urgent Hotlines
    Bereavement Mindfulness
    Suicide Support Anger Management
  • TDS Moderators: AlphaMethylPhenyl | paranoid android

Alcoholism is not a disease

its not a disease as in bacterial disease, its a mental defect, a phychological condition. dont demean ppl who have actually had it by your arrogance
 
it's equally heartless to tell someone they are incapable of overcoming a destructive habit.. how incredibly soul-destroying and disempowering..

ever seen the movie "a beautiful mind" or read the book its based upon? he overcame schizophrenia, not by denying the truth of the mental illness, but by learning coping mechanisms..

anyways, as for mental illness, i had chronic, sub-clinical depression for years.. a lot of depressed people, including myself, have/had suicidal ideation.. however, you'll note i'm still alive.. as are many depressed people.. even though they seem absolutely imperative, you don't always have to act on the impulses a mental illness creates.. take a breath and count to 10.. obviously that's incredibly simplified, but you get the idea.. or maybe you don't, since you'd rather make excuses for your behaviour than get better.. that's not a flame.. you're simply repeating the overwhelming message that the 12 steps, society, psychiatry and the medical community tells you.. but just like everybody treated freud as gospel for 50 years before realizing a lot of it was junk, i think the understanding of addiction will evolve and change eventually too..

the greatest benefit of the disease model is that it removes the stigma of being a user and by doing so makes it easier for them seek help.. that's a positive thing.. but for me, it was actually being stigmatized by my friends for my use that helped me get things under control.. and while i didn't have a support group, i did use theories from rational recovery, so it's not i like i had no help whatsoever..
 
OK, I see what you are saying and I apologize for being too harsh in my criticism of your original point.

I still think it is rather naive for you to assume the world could just pull itself together on the basis of the fact that you personally have succeeded in doing OK so far...

I realize it doesn't help anyone to give up - but it doesn't exactly help people to BLAME them for their own misery, either!

You do realize the implications - and the fact that alcoholics and the mentally ill constantly get told they are not good enough by society and have their self-image broken down because everyone around them tells them they are just WEAK...

--- G.
 
Morrison's Lament said:
You do realize the implications - and the fact that alcoholics and the mentally ill constantly get told they are not good enough by society and have their self-image broken down because everyone around them tells them they are just WEAK...

--- G.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to add something to this from my perspective. Now that I have quit using and am trying day by day to stay on the road to recovery (or whatever you want to call it). I've noticed something. People all around me, even those that really sincerely care expect me and everyone like me to fail. People say things like well when you do drink/use again then we'll do this and that and I think when I drink again??? Hell no, how can they say that? Even the damn doctors think we're going to fail and expect what they call a relapse and WHEN this happens (notice it's not IF this happens) you do this and this and this...

So yes your right. Society, those that care about us, etc are telling us we are weak. Guess we'll have to show them otherwise!
 
Alcoholism is a disease. All you have to do is a little research and you'd find that this has been proven. It is possible for a person to abuse alcohol and not be an alcoholic, just the same as it's possible for a person to be an alcoholic without ever having a drink.
 
good for you goose! i know you can do it. don't listen to the people who tell you you can't.. having a healthy disdain for that message really does help keep you sober.

remember that the recovery movement is actually an industry that makes millions of dollars every year for psychiatrists, thereapists and support groups.. clearly they don't want their market dwindling so it makes fiscal sense to tell them they will never be cured. they want you to fail!

rational recovery was very useful for me.. it includes as one of its central techniques AVRT (addictive voice recognition technique).. because your brain has confused alcohol (or other drugs) with a basic human need like sleep and breathing, the addictive voice will use all the mental resources at your disposal to convince you to use again.. the trick is not to engage it or let it sway you because it will think of diabolically cunning reasons to use.. and one of the most effective of the reasons it can present is: "you are diseased and have no control".. it's practically a "get out of jail free" card..

and when (not if) you succeed at overcoming this, you're going to have to get used to people telling you all the time that you never really had a problem.. that's the last desperate resort. they hope that if they convince you you weren't an alcoholic in the first place, that you'll go back to drinking, get out of control and hit rock bottom. then they can say "ah hah! see, we were right! you really were diseased! you were just in denial".. just ignore it. they have a lot invested in the disease model and of course they're going to go on the defensive when they see anything that contradicts this model. it calls into question all the soothing lullabies they've heard that absolve them of their own personal responsibility.. when they tell you "you can't understand what it's really like to be an alcoholic because you never were one" you need only reply that "you can't understand what it's like to recover, because you've never done it."

letting someone know they can quit without underestimating how hard it is is not telling them they're weak, it's telling them they have strength and abilities they just haven't used yet.

you've got the right attitude, goose. just remember everything you're gaining from being straight. remember what hell it was to quit. remember that there will never be any reason good enough to tempt you back down that slope. i won't wish you luck since you don't need it. instead i'll wish you unwavering commitment to your goals. it really is the right choice.
 
Agreed, alchoholism has _no_ established proof of its supposed status as a disease. Most modern research accepts that the biggest biological bullet they are likely to find is perhaps a few genes giving a predisposition to seek or need more pleasure. Nobody with scientific cred really tries to defend this disease crap, because almost every1 in psychology etc knows its a bad philosophy that removes personal responsibility and creates self forfilling prophecies, so not only is in baseless in fact, but its quite harmful to any1 who might actually somehow benefit from it.

And thats without getting into anything about the AA, which is a whole other story.

(PS proof of something is just that, if you have it, post it)
 
It seems to me that what some of you are describing is alcohol abuse, which is not the same thing as alcoholism.

Maybe disorder would be a better word to describe alcoholism, but by definition, it is a disease.

Saying it is nothing but a choice is oversimplifying it a bit, IMHO. This would be the same as saying (forgive me for using the same example) that a kleptomaniac chooses to steal. There are overriding psychological forces that make people do these things.

I agree that AA is bullshit, but that's not the point. I also agree that admitting you're powerless is not the way to go, you do have to take control.

There have been genetic links found, but I don't think that is really the point either.

disease n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
3. An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning.
Click to expand...

alcoholism n.
1. A diseased condition of the system, brought about by the continued use of alcoholic liquors.
2. Prolonged and excessive intake of alcoholic drinks leading to a breakdown in health and an addiction to alcohol such that abrupt deprivation leads to severe withdrawal symptoms.
3. An intense persistent desire to drink alcoholic beverages to excess.
Click to expand...
and from an online medical dictionary ...
<disease> A disorder characterised by pathological pattern of alcohol use that causes a serious impairment in social or occupational functioning. In DSN III R this is termed alcohol abuse or, if tolerance or withdrawal is present, alcohol dependence.
Click to expand...
Alcoholism is specifically listed under diseases.
 
i'm not an alcoholic so im only guessing at this. but, an alcoholic has a very strong desire/compulsion to drink. yes, it was there choice to drink excessivley in the first place, but once they are addicted, the desire to drink does not go away easily. they have the choice of whether or not to act on this desire but whether or not they act on it, it will be there. thus this desire can be considered a disorder. at times the desire may become so great that the individual gives in to it.
 
Psychology does not deal in genes and biological silver bullets and smoking guns, so I don't see the relevance..
Click to expand...

I take it youve never taken psychology! lol.

Yes psychology does deal with genes. They are trying to find biological basis for behaviour such as drug-taking/seeking. The novelty gene theory and its supported research is the perfect example, as it relates directly to drug taking behaviour. Check you any article on say giving up smoking, or the effects of taking different amounts of drug on your congition, youll prolly find psychologists doing the research. (Psychology is the primary feild concerned with drug addiction and its mechanisms).

BTW that was a mighty defensive answer from some1 who clearly doesnt know enough to say as much.

-------------------------------------

PS Re: the other posters: genetic basis for behaviour and "urges" or tendancies to do things are not considered pathologies if they require proper functioning from naturally important systems. For example, the pleasure reward system is vital to the successful function of any animal. Even the novelty seeking gene, if it predisposes us to seek more pleasure, serves a natural function in promoting adventerous behaviour.

The same thing thats make you do drugs, it what makes you eat. You simply cant call that a disease, or at least in the medical or physical sense. (unless your talking about withdrawal)

Im kind of wary of using the word disease for any mental situation anyway. After all, whats the difference between some1 whos brain tells them to do something(Say murder) in a complex way(Say because of childhood trauma), but the have no choice and some1 whos brain tells them to do something in a more simple way (such as genetic sociopathy) to do something - They both do the thing, they both had no real "choice". The difference perhaps only lies in the strength of the compulsion.

Okay, lets use another example. What about the sex addict or overeater?
Sure they have some kind of psychological maladaption, perhaps this could be refered to as a "cognitive" distortion or even "temporary mental illness" but even so its still a product of natural brain function - its how we are meant to work according to nature. In fact, its prolly merely a byproduct of less advanced intelligence systems being in charge of pleasure. Is your wisdom teeth a disease? Well they are evolutionary hang-overs too, and they can cause pain and are maladaptive. But like the potential for addiction, they are MEANT to be there.

Part of the problem is there is little difference between physical and mental in actual practice. The thing that makes you choose an apple for lunch is a concrete and inevitable as the muscle movement in your arm. That makes it pretty hard to divide "mental disease" from "not mental disease". Really in all honesty, all maladaptive behaviours, thoughts and actions should prolly be considered diseases - or none of them.
 
I'm going into my third year of Social Science / Psychology - so I most definitely do know what I am talking about - no need to be snide and patronizing about it ;)

I do know that genetic tendancies and even neurochemistry are increasingly coming into play in the dynamic between biology and psychology - but that does not mean psychologists are dealing in biologically proven absolutes. That would be the EXCEPTION - in general almost all of the psychological disorders I have come across have not in any way been shown to have the classical characteristics of a biological disease.

We do NOT - in most cases - have the benefit of genetically or even biologically identifiable causes or symptoms on which to base a diagnosis of a particular disorder.

Neurobiology and Neuropsychology and many related fields obviously are more concerned with the biological aspects of things - that is not in dispute.

When you say that "They are trying to find biological basis for behaviour such as drug-taking/seeking" - these are most likely the people you are refering to.

--- G.
 
Last edited:
as a psyche graduate i can attest that genetics plays a role in psychology to an extent as it overlaps into biological, neuro disciplines. the study of behaviour must include biological factors. its like studying paintings without a canvass.

The fluctuations of neurotransmitters IMO is one of the main factors in altering behaviours. Addictions may be at the route of this, in that if a person has lowered dopamine, serotonin, norapinepherine, for example, then it would stand to reason that they would try to self medicate to increase these levels to feel ok.

What are the most addictive drugs? Ones that affect dopamine. The research into Reward Defecit Syndrome certainly makes a lot of sense IMO. I think this underpins addictions, then, learned behaviour takes over in the persons search to adjust their levels of neurotransmitters to a level that makes them feel ok. So then their behaviour becomes a type of operant conditioning.

Like all other human biochemical reactions, no 2 ppls are the same: eg some of us may have naturally higher levels, resulting in more happier appearing person and some may have lower levels, predisposing them to depression. I dont discount external factors may play a part, but it would stand to reason that these would make huge differences in underlying behaviours.
 
ebeneezer_geeza said:
as a psyche graduate i can attest that genetics plays a role in psychology to an extent as it overlaps into biological, neuro disciplines. the study of behaviour must include biological factors. its like studying paintings without a canvass.

The fluctuations of neurotransmitters IMO is one of the main factors in altering behaviours.
Click to expand...

Oh, I definitely agree on that - all I am saying in most cases that we don't have any kind of rock hard data saying: "this person lacks so-and-so receptors and has so-and-so genestructure and thus is obviously an alcoholic" - the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness is still very much up to the individual psychologist/psychiatrist rather than involving any kind of genetic or even biological testing.

Even when prescribing hardcore anti-depressants and other pharmaceuticals, most psychiatrists are doing so based on their experience and expertise and not a factsheet of verified tests indicating what the biological problem is.

--- G.
 
For diagnosis would the gene be that important? IMO what would be of extreme value to clinicians would be a simple, cheap and effective way of detecting the amount of neurotransmitters above/below certain baselines. I think this will be the way forward in treating addictions/depression and a plethora of other mental illneses. Then, when this area of science has advanced enough - appropriate amino acids and precursors could be integrated to correct the imbalances.
 
Agreed, I just think we are a long way off from that day - and that most psychologists today have little or no practical knowledge of neruology. Psychiatrists of course are another matter...

--- G.
 
I am a strong believer in medication assisted therapy, especially for opiate addiction. I think it will just be a matter of time before they develop drugs compareable to methadone and buprenorphine for cocaine and alcohol addiction, possibly for all the drugs of abuse out there. T^hey cant cure diabetes yet they have insulin, they cant cure opiate addiction yet they have methadone, the substitution arguement is just bullshit as far as Im concerned, if it works, it works, stupid.
I strongly believe that N/A and A/A et el. are nothing more than thinly disguised cults. They may not have started out that way, but they are now. Just look at all of the mindless repetition, repeating the
steps and traditions over and over and over and over again. Mind control, plain and simple. In 50 years from now we will have chemical solutions to all of these problems, making all of these programs, clinics, nurses, councellors, and phsycologists completely obsolete. I would love to be alive to see that great day, alas, I am 52 now, I dont think I have another 50 in me. However, some of you younger folks may live to see it. Lucky you.

kennyseven
 
Agreed that much of the research on genes and behaviour is early, and not yet conclusive. But the picture about the genetic factors in addiction for various substances is starting to build a certain weight behind it - sure we dont know what the gene is, but there certainly _seems_ to be a heritable quality that lowers the pleasure threshold in play. Ive seen a lot of studies that point in this direction, and more work is done all the time on this area of research.
If only the treatment industry could give this idea of low pleasurew threshold more thought....

My interest in psychology is primarily neuropsych and cognitive behaviour science, thus the slight initial difference in our perspectives on what is "psychology" :)
 
My father is an alcoholic. I have gone to Alateen and my mom has gone to Alnon. We stopped going because we didn't believe in their philosophy that alcoholism is a disease. Yes, you may have strong cravings but people don't consider smoking a diease. YOU make the choices in your life, not your genes. That may play a factor if you do decide to drink (having a history of alcoholism in the family) but you ultimately decide what you are going to put into your body. People call alcoholism a disease but if it were, it would be the only one not caused by germs and viruses. This is your decision to drink or not to. When your world falls apart, your family leaves you, you get DUI, you kill someone when you were driving drunk, or you hurt family members and friends, you should be held accountable for it, it was your choice to intoxicate yourself wasn't it. If you do have such a strong urge to drink why not have one drink and call it quits. When society says you are powerless to alcohol you believe it. The thing is you do have a choice, it was your choice to take that first drink, wasn't it? One thing I do agree with is putting your faith in a higher power...God. If you ask for help from Him, he won't deny you but it will take some effort on your part. You wouldn't just ask to get straight A's but then never do your homework. Alcoholism can be dealt with in the same way, by asking God for help and resisting temptation. If alcoholics put their faith in God things might start looking better for them. It comes up to them, and what choices they make, not what genes they have or what people did in their family-its their choice.

~from a 14 year old girl~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top