Is Alcoholism a disease?

woodoo

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Again i have touched a nerve. Do you find my honesty upsetting?

No i just find it wrong. Startlingly so.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Alcoholism a disease.... not a chance, that is an utter cop out. As ive said earlier try telling someone who has had cancer or someone who has lost someone to the illness that alcoholism is a disease. Get a grip. Is being overweight a disease? What about being overly talkative? Is that another 'disease'?:rolleyes:

The expression drinking problem is much more appropriate. I find that acceptable.

I've said a few times in this thread now i prefer the term addiction. However i don't rule out the disease theory. I don't have the necessary info to make a call on what.

But to say its all down to greed? You need to see an alcoholic at close quarters to see that greed doesn't come even close to explaining that they go through.

don ramo

its not a disease its an addiction that forms through the years, people get addicted to drink and drugs all the time, and people break there addiction all the time to,

every case is unique, but under the right circumstances anyone who wants to can break there addicition,

Jumpy

don ramo wrote: »

its not a disease its an addiction that forms through the years, people get addicted to drink and drugs all the time, and people break there addiction all the time to,

every case is unique, but under the right circumstances anyone who wants to can break there addicition,

They stop taking it. The addiction stays.

herosa

Ah but then you would be a mile away. With their shoes.

How would that help? by funny Jumpy


LOL!

fonecrusher1

Jumpy wrote: »

You will probably find more people who have recovered from cancer than have recovered from addiction.

I wont call you stupid or belittle your way of thinking because I was like you until I saw it in someone close to me.

You may change your mind fairly sharpish if you saw true addiction in action.

So my way of thinking is simply wrong & your way of thinking is right? Nah i disagree. Please don't try to clobber me with tales about someone close to you....thats very much an irrelevant piece of information & not really fair as you probably have an emotional attachment to the subject & so of course automatically you think you have a higher level of knowledge on the matter & makes you more 'right' than me. Which is absurd of course. I don't need to have first hand experience of something to have an opinion on it.

Ive seen what having a drinking problem can do to people also. I still stand by my view that alcoholism is not a disease.

I won't call you stupid either because doing so on an internet forum is a bit sad.

Theres an awful lot of people in here who want everyone to say yes yes why of course its an illness. Well....no i don't think it is actually. Thats my opinion. I will not apologise for having an opinion.

herosa

They reckon only 6%-10% of alcoholics ever fully recover so disease or not you are in big trouble if you get it. So I would say the idea that more people with cancer recover is very true. No one knows what causes it so having an opinion on it is a bit like having an opinion on whether there is a god or whether ghosts exist. The answer is no one knows. The evidence that is emerging from the scientists is that it would appear to have a biological and in particular genetic basis but if they dont know how can us mere mortals be so sure and confident in our opinion?Our children/grandchildren might know but we dont.

fonecrusher1

woodoo wrote: »

No i just find it wrong. Startlingly so.



I've said a few times in this thread now i prefer the term addiction. However i don't rule out the disease theory. I don't have the necessary info to make a call on what.

But to say its all down to greed? You need to see an alcoholic at close quarters to see that greed doesn't come even close to explaining that they go through.

I accept that having a drinking problem is a very serious life issue & im sure it has wrecked manys a life but i still think its also strongly linked with a complete & utter lack of self moderation. If you can't self moderate you always pay the price one way or the other.

You eat too much you become overweight.
You smoke too much you could get a respiratory illness
You drink too much you then have a disease.???????

The word addiction i have no problem with although you can associate the same term to an awful lot of things, food, cigarettes, sex, internet surfing & on & on...

herosa

An alcoholic cant moderate. One drink sets off an overwhelming craving for more. Thats why they are told that moderation is a no no and that they must abstain. People who eat food can moderate and some smokers can but no real alcoholic can.So there must be something different about it. One last thing.The graveyards are full of alcoholics but I have never read one death cert that says internet/chocolate as cause of death. Addiction is an overused word in my opinion. Death by chocolate is a well known dessert found in restaurants. Death by alcoholism is horrendous.

username123

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

....but i still think its also strongly linked with a complete & utter lack of self moderation.

You seem to be missing the point that someone in the grips of alcoholism is unable to self moderate. That particular mental ability becomes impossible for them. And Im not talking about when they are drunk, Im talking about when they wake up, sober. They are compelled in a way that you dont seem to understand or accept is possible. Just because you dont like the idea or wish to accept it doesnt mean it isnt true. Thats called denial. Alcoholics suffer from it too.

don ramo

Jumpy wrote: »

They stop taking it. The addiction stays.

well i did say break not remove

Long Term Louth

The craving for cigarettes is very similar to the craving from alcohol when one tries to cease, therfore both are a form of addiction. The damage that both can do on a personal basis lead to the "illness", those predisposed to addiction are more vulnerable to all addictions. Those lucky enough not to be predisposed to addiction, regardless of the knowledge which literature presents, will never understand, I suppose.

fonecrusher1

username123 wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that someone in the grips of alcoholism is unable to self moderate. That particular mental ability becomes impossible for them. And Im not talking about when they are drunk, Im talking about when they wake up, sober. They are compelled in a way that you dont seem to understand or accept is possible. Just because you dont like the idea or wish to accept it doesnt mean it isnt true. Thats called denial. Alcoholics suffer from it too.

And so just like that they are absolved of any responsibility? So at the start of their drinking problem someone forced the person to drink lots & lots of alcohol to deliberately induce a state of addiction?

So lets make this clear. You think a person with a drink problem has absolutely no responsibility for their condition? At no stage did they contribute to or aggravate the situation.

herosa

Good reply username123

herosa

fonecrusher. Alcoholics do not always become that way after a background of heavy drinking. Many become one as soon as they start drinking,others after a few years of moderate drinking.Its not a form of carelessness like letting your hair get too long!! I think you are mixing up who gives a damn heavy drinking with real alcoholism. An alcoholic may only drink once a year or relapse once every 5 years but they wont be able to stop when they start. A heavy drinker can drink 3/4 nights a week but can stop at closing time. Alcoholism is not about how often you drink it is about what happens to you when you drink. You cant give yourself alcoholism!! You can come to rely on it but thats not the same thing.Look at George bests mother. Teetotal all her life then started drinking and was an immediate alcoholic. It really is nothing to do with heavy drinking.

Long Term Louth

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

And so just like that they are absolved of any responsibility? So at the start of their drinking problem someone forced the person to drink lots & lots of alcohol to deliberately induce a state of addiction?

So lets make this clear. You think a person with a drink problem has absolutely no responsibility for their condition? At no stage did they contribute to or aggravate the situation.

The responsibility for the alcoholics behaviour is the alcoholic. The addiction however, is not recognisible after a few sessions but rather a gradual process. I am sure that most of those honest enough to recognise that they have a problem, would never have had that first drink, arm twisted or otherwise.

woodoo

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

And so just like that they are absolved of any responsibility?

How do you jump to that conclusion. It is still the alcoholics responsibility to deal with it. We are talking about the forces that drive an alcoholic to continue drinking. They can't decide to moderate, they must stop.

fonecrusher1

woodoo wrote: »

How do you jump to that conclusion. It is still the alcoholics responsibility to deal with it. We are talking about the forces that drive an alcoholic to continue drinking. They can't decide to moderate, they must stop.

I hate to go back to this but i feel the subject has drifted away from the OP's thread title.

Alcoholism > A disease. This doesn't sit well with me because it implies that the person has an alcohol problem through no fault on their part. They are a helpless & unwilling victim of this alcohol disease entity.

And im sorry but that is absolute rubbish. Thats why words like 'cop out' are popping up here & there.

Alcohol problem - A more ambigous description but more apt because of its open-ended nature.

Seachmall

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

So lets make this clear. You think a person with a drink problem has absolutely no responsibility for their condition? At no stage did they contribute to or aggravate the situation.

That hasn't been stated once in the entire thread. A lot of people have insinuated it's been said but no one is absolving anyone of responsibility, merely trying to understand the factors at play.

Alcoholism > A disease. This doesn't sit well with me because it implies that the person has an alcohol problem through no fault on their part.

Plenty of people have diseases that are entirely their fault. Smokers get cancer, obese people get diabetes.

Stating someone has a disease doesn't exempt them from personal responsibility in any way.

username123

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

And so just like that they are absolved of any responsibility? So at the start of their drinking problem someone forced the person to drink lots & lots of alcohol to deliberately induce a state of addiction?

So lets make this clear. You think a person with a drink problem has absolutely no responsibility for their condition? At no stage did they contribute to or aggravate the situation.

Youre missing the point again. There is no such thing as 'at the start of their drinking problem' - no one can deduce at what point someone with alcoholism became an alcoholic. Sometime people develop alcoholism within weeks of their first drink, sometimes it takes years, sometimes decades, sometimes alcoholics dont drink from months on end then binge drink for weeks or months etc.. There are a whole range of variables at play.

Just to illustrate the point - start with 2 people with a completely clean slate, 2 young men who never had a drink before. They become friends and like to go for a drink at the weekends. They attend the same social club during the week and drink there together too. The first guy becomes an alcoholic, the second doesnt.

What level of responsibility would you like me to assign to the first guy? He behaved the same as the second guy. Why should the second guy get off scot free? They both (to use your words) 'contributed to or aggravated the situation' - because they both drank the same amount, together each week. But one guy developed alcoholism and the other didnt. Neither of them CHOSE anything.

Guy 1 is now responsible for dealing with his problem, but that is vastly removed from being responsible for causing his problem.

You seem to think that there is a rational personal choice involved. There isnt. And usually by the time it becomes visible that there is a problem you are dealing with secondary stages of the problem, like physical changes in the brain, where the compulsion has become all consuming.

fonecrusher1 - Id be interested to know how much exposure you have genuinely had to alcoholism. Besides growing up with it I have been actively involved in therapy groups and spoken at many events concerning the assistance of those affected by alcoholism. Ive heard the histories of dozens of individuals, both those affected and alcoholics themselves. Im not saying that all this direct experience makes my opinion more valid than yours - but I would question how valid an opinion is without any exposure to the subject at hand. Your posts come across as though you really dont know what alcoholism is in any practical sense.

herosa

Yes. Sorry I edited my comment a bit late and we are on to a new page but I said look at George Bests mother. Teetotal all her life then started drinking and became an immediate overnight alcoholic. If you think that you only get alcoholism from heavy boozing then I could understand the lack of sympathy but you dont. You can go from moderate drinking to alcoholism overnight. Some people get it right away.

Long Term Louth

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I hate to go back to this but i feel the subject has drifted away from the OP's thread title.

Alcoholism > A disease. This doesn't sit well with me because it implies that the person has an alcohol problem through no fault on their part. They are a helpless & unwilling victim of this alcohol disease entity.

And im sorry but that is absolute rubbish. Thats why words like 'cop out' are popping up here & there.

Alcohol problem - A more ambigous description but more apt because of its open-ended nature.

As stated earlier: Those lucky enough not to be predisposed to addiction, regardless of the knowledge which literature presents, will never understand, I suppose. Fonecrusher, You seem to be one of those.

fonecrusher1

username123 wrote: »

Youre missing the point again. There is no such thing as 'at the start of their drinking problem' - no one can deduce at what point someone with alcoholism became an alcoholic. Sometime people develop alcoholism within weeks of their first drink, sometimes it takes years, sometimes decades, sometimes alcoholics dont drink from months on end then binge drink for weeks or months etc.. There are a whole range of variables at play.

Just to illustrate the point - start with 2 people with a completely clean slate, 2 young men who never had a drink before. They become friends and like to go for a drink at the weekends. They attend the same social club during the week and drink there together too. The first guy becomes an alcoholic, the second doesnt.

What level of responsibility would you like me to assign to the first guy? He behaved the same as the second guy. Why should the second guy get off scot free? They both (to use your words) 'contributed to or aggravated the situation' - because they both drank the same amount, together each week. But one guy developed alcoholism and the other didnt. Neither of them CHOSE anything.

You seem to think that there is a rational personal choice involved. There isnt. And usually by the time it becomes visible that there is a problem you are dealing with secondary stages of the problem, like physical changes in the brain, where the compulsion has become all consuming.

Do you think a person with a drink problem has any responsibility for their condition?

Long Term Louth

They bear the responsibility for controlling it, not for having it.

username123

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Do you think a person with a drink problem has any responsibility for their condition?

I dont think they are responsible for causing it. No more than someone born with Tourettes is responsible for causing that.

username123

Long Term Louth wrote: »

They bear the responsibility for controlling it, not for having it.

+1.

Unfortunately by the time it has taken good hold, controlling it may be a physical impossibility.

fonecrusher1

Long Term Louth wrote: »

As stated earlier: Those lucky enough not to be predisposed to addiction, regardless of the knowledge which literature presents, will never understand, I suppose. Fonecrusher, You seem to be one of those.

Predisposed to addiction.

So this literature supports the theory that a person is essentially born with an addictive nature?

Aren't we all born with this really?

Long Term Louth

username123 wrote: »

+1.

Unfortunately by the time it has taken good hold, controlling it may be a physical impossibility.

Not so, total abstinance.

herosa

A drink problem-maybe. Cant pay their rent etc because they are living it up too large then maybe. Alcoholism REAL REAL alcoholism no. Its so important to differentiate and not enough people do hence the confusion. Its not an alcoholics fault that they got it but it IS their responsibility to try and tackle it. The success rates are terrible but people have to try. Just dont hold your breath but thank God a lot do make it.

username123

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Aren't we all born with this really?

No.

Long Term Louth

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Predisposed to addiction.

So this literature supports the theory that a person is essentially born with an addictive nature?

Aren't we all born with this really?

No,