Is Alcoholism a disease?

herosa · 27-09-2011 1:57pm

Wattle wrote: »

If you truly are an addict self control will not work. You do not arrive at a situation where you become a moderate drinker. It just doesn't work that way.

Correct.Real alkies cannot cut back or cut down. If you can do that you were a heavy boozer not an alcoholic. Its amazing how many people mix the two up.

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 1:59pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

That's what I've heard.

Isn't the premise of AA that you have to stay in the programme?

Possibly so, but whatever works for the individual. Some can manage without AA and many cant. I am not trying to defend AA, to me its up to the individual, as realies posted earlier whatever works best.

username123 · 27-09-2011 2:01pm

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

The solution = learn some self control

It ain't rocket science imo

Yawn, read the thread. You either are not capable of or do not wish to understand the issue.

username123 · 27-09-2011 2:05pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

Isn't the premise of AA that you have to stay in the programme?

I think that stats on recovery rates for alcoholism would be very difficult to come up with - with or without AA. There are so many variables, some people are never diagnosed as alcoholic, some have an episode of life where they behave alcoholically but then turn out not to be an alcoholic, many people go to 1 AA meeting, then dont go again ever or for years, some use AA for a while and move on, some stay off drink for decades then relapse, some never relapse but die of something else and maybe they would have relapsed if they hadnt etc......

For those who never seek medical treatment or AA help - they wouldnt be getting recorded in the stats anywhere.

Wattle · 27-09-2011 2:32pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

That's what I've heard.

Isn't the premise of AA that you have to stay in the programme?

Some people give you dire warnings that if you dont stay with the programme and go to meetings you will inevitably drink. You do meet the attitude of 'our way is the only way'. They are guilty of slightly cultish behaviour at times.

Personally I've done it on my own for eight years. I did make adjustments to my social life, my hobbies and my thinking but I am not working any 12 step programme.

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 2:37pm

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Possibly so, but whatever works for the individual. Some can manage without AA and many cant. I am not trying to defend AA, to me its up to the individual, as realies posted earlier whatever works best.

But if the recovery rates are the same whether or not people use AA, as outside groups seem to find, then this would lead me to question if those who stay in AA just become dependent on it and would have remained sober without it.

If, hypothetically, 5% of people who start AA stay sober for x number of years and 5% of people who would display similar behaviour to them and admit to having a problem stay sober for x years without AA, then what's the difference?

username123 wrote: »

I think that stats on recovery rates for alcoholism would be very difficult to come up with - with or without AA. There are so many variables, some people are never diagnosed as alcoholic, some have an episode of life where they behave alcoholically but then turn out not to be an alcoholic, many people go to 1 AA meeting, then dont go again ever or for years, some use AA for a while and move on, some stay off drink for decades then relapse, some never relapse but die of something else and maybe they would have relapsed if they hadnt etc......

For those who never seek medical treatment or AA help - they wouldnt be getting recorded in the stats anywhere.

I'm not trying to account for people who never try to get help in comparison to those who do. And what is your understanding of the word "alcoholic"?

username123 · 27-09-2011 2:55pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

My understanding is that AA recovery rates aren't significantly higher than even no treatment.

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'm not trying to account for people who never try to get help in comparison to those who do. And what is your understanding of the word "alcoholic"?

Are you not comparing those who use AA compared to those who dont seek help? In the first quote above thats what you seemed to be comparing?

My understanding of the word alcoholic is someone who has a dependancy on alcohol.

woodoo · 27-09-2011 3:02pm

username123 wrote: »

Yawn, read the thread. You either are not capable of or do not wish to understand the issue.

And that is the guy who started the thread. I'd say he hasn't read it in days... off trolling elsewhere.

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 3:06pm

RT You asked

If, hypothetically, 5% of people who start AA stay sober for x number of years and 5% of people who would display similar behaviour to them and admit to having a problem stay sober for x years without AA, then what's the difference?

0, but there again its hypothetical.

arrianalexander · 27-09-2011 3:14pm

getting drunk and been a alco are two diiferent things....

its not to have a good time which is the majoirty of a saturday night out in ireland

they dont they can survive without having a drink...

its a mental health issue...

same as someone who stays in bed all day who can't face world..... sure let's just call them lazy...

i hate this country because society is so ignorant... when you or a family member suffer from it you'll soon learn things like alcoholism should be respected...

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 5:27pm

username123 wrote: »

Are you not comparing those who use AA compared to those who dont seek help? In the first quote above thats what you seemed to be comparing?

My understanding of the word alcoholic is someone who has a dependancy on alcohol.

No I am comparing them to people who admit they have a problem and seek help but do so through methods other than AA, but it seems that AA isn't even significantly better than spontaneous recovery. Seeking help doesn't necessarily mean AA. I think I'd agree with your definition.

It strikes me that if someone stays with AA their whole life and never relapses, they can easily be hailed as a success story, but if they relapse they would most likely stop attending and could then be considered to have failed to stick with the programme.

Long Term Louth wrote: »

RT You asked

If, hypothetically, 5% of people who start AA stay sober for x number of years and 5% of people who would display similar behaviour to them and admit to having a problem stay sober for x years without AA, then what's the difference?

0, but there again its hypothetical.

It is, but this would appear to be the case in practice. If you were certain there was no difference to recovery rates whether people used AA or spontaneously recovered, would you still think it was worthwhile?

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 6:06pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

No I am comparing them to people who admit they have a problem and seek help but do so through methods other than AA, but it seems that AA isn't even significantly better than spontaneous recovery. Seeking help doesn't necessarily mean AA. I think I'd agree with your definition.

It strikes me that if someone stays with AA their whole life and never relapses, they can easily be hailed as a success story, but if they relapse they would most likely stop attending and could then be considered to have failed to stick with the programme.

It is, but this would appear to be the case in practice. If you were certain there was no difference to recovery rates whether people used AA or spontaneously recovered, would you still think it was worthwhile?

While the recovery rates may not be different (I dont know), the people catergorised are. Again I repeat whatever works best for the indivisual.

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 6:17pm

Long Term Louth wrote: »

While the recovery rates may not be different (I dont know), the people catergorised are. Again I repeat whatever works best for the indivisual.

If they are only distinguished by whether or not they or not they join the programme, then the distinction has little meaning, surely? And should I take that to mean you would still be in favour of it?

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 6:29pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

If they are only distinguished by whether or not they or not they join the programme, then the distinction has little meaning, surely? And should I take that to mean you would still be in favour of it?

People have gone/go to AA and are still sober, people dont go to AA and are still sober. Therfore both have a succes rate, so therfore I would be in favour of both.

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 6:32pm

Long Term Louth wrote: »

People have gone/go to AA and are still sober, people dont go to AA and are still sober. Therfore both have a succes rate, so therfore I would be in favour of both.

Or AA makes no difference.

InTheTrees · 27-09-2011 6:35pm

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Personally speaking, I am "addicted" to chocolate.

Yes, but did you notice how you're using the word "addicted" in quotes?

Thats because you know you're using it incorrectly dont you?

You're not "addicted" to chocolate at all, you just really really like chocolate and are using a fashionable word to describe your preference. Nothing about your likeing of chocolate comforms to the definition of addiction, unless maybe you stretch it to include simple habits.

So you use the word addiction incorrectly and then go on to make judgements about people who have real addictions, based on the fact that you can stop eating chocolate anytime.

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 6:37pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

Or AA makes no difference.

They are different groups, I know many who tried it alone and have failed and found success with AA, therfore AA made a difference for them. Others have tried AA without success and succeded alone.

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 6:52pm

Long Term Louth wrote: »

They are different groups, I know many who tried it alone and have failed and found success with AA, therfore AA made a difference for them. Others have tried AA without success and succeded alone.

Given that AA doesn't actually seem to increase the likelihood of recovery, it seems plausible that the people who relapsed the first time either with or without AA's help, just weren't ready at that time. If you want to argue that AA made a difference to those who had failed before, why not likewise argue that it harmed those who turned away and later succeeded without it?

Sunnyisland · 27-09-2011 6:54pm

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Totally agree, and think those who dont suffer directly, should dismiss ANY form of potential recovery available be it AA, higher power, medication etc.

Sorry Long term Louth i dont reall undertand that post.

Chuck Stone · 27-09-2011 7:00pm

herosa wrote: »

Correct.Real alkies cannot cut back or cut down. If you can do that you were a heavy boozer not an alcoholic. Its amazing how many people mix the two up.

These terms/words 'heavy drinker' and 'alcoholic' are folk idioms and pretty meaningless.

The idea that there is some clearly delineated tipping point between the two is total nonsense.

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 7:02pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

Given that AA doesn't actually seem to increase the likelihood of recovery, it seems plausible that the people who relapsed the first time either with or without AA's help, just weren't ready at that time. If you want to argue that AA made a difference to those who had failed before, why not likewise argue that it harmed those who turned away and later succeeded without it?

It has done for those who have found it successful.

Didnt attempt to argue this point.

I dont understand what you mean by harmed?

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 7:05pm

realies wrote: »

Sorry Long term Louth i dont reall undertand that post.

Mostly they are full of very lovely people but so much of the programme is nonsensical and is the total opposite to much that is recommended by up to date medicine and psychology. The whole idea of powerlessness is one of the most dangerous things you can teach to an addict, feeling strong and hopeful is a very powerful tool in addiction recovery and taking that away in order to give your will too a god/higher power is dangerous and I don't doubt

Referring to this post by Iguana.

Sunnyisland · 27-09-2011 7:52pm

Re AA In all groups of people, there are those whom we don't like, or whose approach we don't like - we are humans. And some groups are friendlier than others, some people are blunter with people and others are softer. In my experience thankfully the vast majority of people in the meetings are kind and gentle, especially to newcomers. This is why every time anyone asks about going to AA for the first time, I would always recommend phoning the helpline and having an AA member meet you before or at the meeting, as this kind of handholding made it all so much better. I would never have walked back through the doors without it.

Yes part of the literature reads as a bit dogmatic - but then it was also written at a time when it referred mostly to the reader as a man and had a separate section directed towards the wives on how to deal with their alcoholic husband! I do not find this problematic at all, as most members THEMSELVES are NOT rigid about the literature, sensibly take the attitude "Take what you can and leave the rest" - I hear this common sense attitude tempering the actual literature all the time.

Same with the god thing (see, not even writing it with a capital letter) and yet no-one has threatened to fling me out of AA - in fact I have had a lot of AA 'buddies', some of whom have multiple years sober and have no formal belief in god.

In my experience, people who relapse are welcomed warmly back into AA - I have never seen anyone treated otherwise. Relapse is sadly a massive part of almost every addict's story. I have never personally met a single person in recovery who has NOT relapsed at some point. Not one. Whatever type of treatment they have undergone. I have met people who have been sober ever since they started AA but had relapsed trying to control it on their own, or those who have stayed long-term sober with therapy but had relapsed on meds alone. But relapse is in the story of 95% or thereabouts of true alcoholics. I guess the 5% are those who found the right combination of tools first time around - lucky them I say, whatever those tools are available use them

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 7:54pm

Long Term Louth wrote: »

It has done for those who have found it successful.

That's a tautology: you just said that it's worked for those people for whom it's worked. It's not of any relevance if they are only as likely to quit with AA as they are without help.

Didnt attempt to argue this point.

No you didn't but if you don't believe this then why bring them up and why believe AA is of any use?

I dont understand what you mean by harmed?

My point was that you seemed to me to believe that the small number of people who try AA and don't relapse are proof of it's success but cases of those who succeed without it's help, having tried it, aren't taken as failures of the system.

minnieq · 27-09-2011 8:07pm

I have seen a family member going through Alcoholism, would i say its a disease? Well i dont know. We have tried for years and years (over 20yrs) to help this family member and the sad fact is that she still thinks there is no problem!! At this stage i really beleive that if she stopped she would be very ill from it. He body is so relient on alcohol at this point. I seen her have seizures in the past because she had no alcohol, so in her case i would see Alcoholism as a disease.

Long Term Louth · 27-09-2011 8:46pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

That's a tautology: you just said that it's worked for those people for whom it's worked. It's not of any relevance if they are only as likely to quit with AA as they are without help.

No you didn't but if you don't believe this then why bring them up and why believe AA is of any use?

My point was that you seemed to me to believe that the small number of people who try AA and don't relapse are proof of it's success but cases of those who succeed without it's help, having tried it, aren't taken as failures of the system.

I accept that they are failures of AA and its system, its not for them.

Contrary to what you percieve to be my beliefs, I reiterate, what works best for people be it AA, Higher power, Darwin, Dawkins or whatever, then that is the road to go.

what do you believe?

woodoo · 27-09-2011 10:36pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

These terms/words 'heavy drinker' and 'alcoholic' are folk idioms and pretty meaningless.

The idea that there is some clearly delineated tipping point between the two is total nonsense.

Control or lack of it is the difference. A heavy drinker is likely not drinking to deal with withdrawal symptoms.

RussellTuring · 29-09-2011 10:50am

Long Term Louth wrote: »

I accept that they are failures of AA and its system, its not for them.

So if people fail at the same rate using AA as they do if not using it, where is the success? I've asked this several times in several ways without an answer better than "it works for some people". No it doesn't. If I tell a group of people that they will become rich once they read my book and this happens at the same rate as people who don't, then my book clearly has no affect and it's a scam. Do you get this?

Contrary to what you percieve to be my beliefs, I reiterate, what works best for people be it AA, Higher power, Darwin, Dawkins or whatever, then that is the road to go.

I'm not arguing with this but should people still use something that doesn't actually work just because it makes them feel better?

what do you believe?

That it doesn't work, quite clearly.

herosa · 29-09-2011 11:16am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

These terms/words 'heavy drinker' and 'alcoholic' are folk idioms and pretty meaningless.

The idea that there is some clearly delineated tipping point between the two is total nonsense.

I wasnt going to do this again but..there is every difference in the world!!!

You could have eg a student who is out getting pissed 6 nights a week. He is a heavy drinker but maybe when he graduates he cuts back and you meet him years later and he is a 4 pints on a Saturday night man.

You could meet a guy who hasnt touched a drink in 5 years. One night he falls off the wagon and all hell breaks loose. One single pint and suddenly he cant stop.He will do anything he can to get his hands on a drink and will drink until he passes out.His entire personality will probably disintegrate before your very eyes.

The second one is the alcoholic even though he has consumed less than 0.0005% of what the student has over the last few years.

Alcoholism is NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW OFTEN YOU DRINK.
Also it is NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW MUCH YOU DRINK
It is about WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DRINK.

Think of Peter Barlow in coronation street(for those who watch it) He is the one in the pub always drinking orange juice. It doesnt matter. He is the alcoholic in the programme.

Do you remember up to a few years ago we all used to use the word depressed to mean fed up until we were educated to know better?

Well its the same with the alcoholic word.

A lot of people out there drinking sparkling water are alcoholics(in remission)
A lot of people who are sh*t faced 3 nights a week are not.

jonnyrudyard · 29-09-2011 4:12pm

RussellTuring wrote: »

Or AA makes no difference.

....or you're making a severe oversimplification. That's like saying "if people who eat a lot of spinach live on average as long as people who don't, spinach has no health value."

PS I have no opinion on AA's effectiveness one way or the other. Just an observation on your line of reasoning.

Is Alcoholism a disease?

Comments