brighid

Except that your claims is that alcoholism has not victims, but thank you for clarifying your position.

No, no one holds a gun to anyone's head but that does not make addiction 100% avoidable. Why can some people drink and not become addicted - pure will power, or something more including environmental upbringing, a strong internal locus of control, perhaps a good gene, or a combination of many things?

Some people can smoke pot and not be addicted. Some people can regularly indulge in a few glasses of wine, a few beer with their buddies and it's never a problem. Some people become addicted immediately. There is no simply answer, but there is evidence that the over flooding of dopamine in the brain due to the "high" causes the brain to produce less natural dopamine, thereby causing the "craving". It is not simply a matter of will.

Do I think people should ever do drugs? No. But I am also very biased having experienced what I have experienced with the devastation of drugs and alcohol. I wouldn't wish an addiction upon my worst enemy.

Unless you tell me what you have actually witnessed I cannot know what you have witnessed. However I can make some educated conclusions about your "victimless" statements. I can't imagine someone who has experienced half of what I have would make the bold assertation that alcoholism has no victims and therefore I felt it necessary to counter your assertation with my own experiences. I felt your comments were insensitive to the many people who have been a victim of a parent, lover, sibling, friend or simply a neighbor who drove drunk one night and killed their husband or child, or who, because of their meth addiction robbed your house, etc.



Then debate it here with actual evidence.

Brighid

greyline

This is highly disingenuous of you. The context of my comment was clearly in terms of alcoholism as a disease. A cancer patient is a victim of cancer because cancer is a disease. An alcoholic is not a victim of alcoholism because alcoholism is not a disease.



It is a combination of many things, yes. Just like any behaviour is a combination of many things. And that's what alcoholism is: a behaviour.


Raising a glass to your mouth, or a needle to your arm, is absolutely a matter of will. I'm not denying the concept of addiction, but it's not some incurable "disease". It is a behaviour. A change in attitude alters the behaviour. This takes will power and sometimes it's damn hard. This is in fact how most people give up drugs and drinking - they simply decide to stop. Often it's because they decide they have something to live for - eg. their circumstances change. Or they just get fed up. Curing alcoholism is a decision.

You can't cure cancer with a decision. You can't cure chicken pox by deciding not to have it.

You cure alcoholism by deciding to stop drinking. Alcoholism is not a disease.

greyline

This page contains not one piece of empirical evidence, nor even a citation to empirical evidence.


No, it was not. Medical insurance began covering it in the 50s-60s when it became a "disease". Before then, alcoholism was regarded as essentially a moral failing. No doubt that's why the founders of AA recommended Jesus Christ as the solution.



What I think it heartless is to brainwash addicts into thinking they have an incurable disease, that they are powerless to combat. I find this a pathetic attitude.

What is the evidence that alcoholics have a damaged brain with respect to will power? And I don't mean from the effects of alcohol - obviously excessive alcohol damages lots of organs. I mean what evidence is there that they had a disease that removed their will power regarding alcohol and turned them into alcoholics?


What have you said that is any different?


My point was that AA's failure rates don't reflect well on AA's philosophy, ie. the disease concept of alcoholism. Which is, incidentally, an American concept and not widely held outside the country.

How do 20-30% of alcoholics cure themselves with no treatment if they have an "incurable disease"? What does behavioual-type therapy with a 70% success rate of *curing* this non-disease tell us about the validity of the disease concept of alcoholism?


As per my original post, it's because alcoholics can be forced into these ineffective treatment programs by a court of law. And since AA fulfils the requirements of a religion, that's a violation of the separation of church and state.

Almost all treatment programs in America are 12-step programs, so I guess the judge has little choice. AA is pervasive because it removes personal responsibility, and everyone likes to find something else to blame for their problems. Yet AA rarely works. There are far more effective treatment programs out there, but as long as alcoholism is an "incurable disease", AA has its lifelong congregation spreading the word.

brighid

It certainly is not. I interpreted your post in plain terms. You stated alcoholism "has no victims" and if you meant it ONLY within the context of a disease process it was not clear to me. I responded genuinely as to my best estimation of what "no victims" meant within the context of that post. As you do not know my what motivates me, or whether I am genuine or otherwise it is rather rude of you to attribute "highly disingenuous" motives to my post. Until you can read my mind I would suggest stearing away from comments that attribute motives to anyone.

Your claim that alcoholism is not a disease is one you will have to support with empirical data. There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement within the medical and scientific communities as to your specific claim.

Present your empirical evidence and let the group have it.

Brighid

RED DAVE

From greyline:Before you make a statement like that, you better learn what goes on in AA. AAs rather 1930ish principles are "updated" constantly. When AA began, it was made up mostly of middle-class White, Christian males. This is no longer the case, and it's working ideology is now quite different from those of the founders.

As a 14-year member, I think I know better than you. AA does not and never has removed personal responsibility from the alcoholic for his or her drinking. Quite the contrary. No one takes a drink but me. No one is responsible but me.

What AA, essentially, teaches is that alcoholism is a complex condtion (prefer that word?) that requires a multitude of treatments, the primary one of which is personal abstinence.

Like I said, I ought to know. I've been there, and I am there.

RED DAVE

Aquila ka Hecate

Red Dave,

I may have to gently disagree with you here.

I've been in AA since 1989, and I do find something of the relief from personal responsibility to which greyline is referring.

Perhaps it's only my take, and perhaps I was an unsuitable candidate for AA, but I did find a pervasive environment of 'We have a disease' leading almost subconciously to 'We are not reponsible for being in this condition'

The other major point where I agree with greyline is in the potential for the AA alchoholic to consider themselves, not just a victim, but a powerless victim, who, without the aid of that greater power, can't do a damn thing for herself.

I've taken a completely opposite tack, and have turned my brain around to such an extent that to me, now, AA seems like a defeat.

I'm in charge of my life-what I did I did all by myself, and I don't blame my genetic makeup for it.
The price I have paid, and continue to pay, for what I did to myself and my loved ones is the highest I can conceive of with respect to my own life, and I'm not bitching.

The point being that I have refused the genetic victim role as well as the turn-my-will-and-my-life-over role, and have cleared the biggest hurdle of my life by means of my own will and intelligence.

No higher powers required.

Terri

greyline

Five of the first seven steps give one's will, and the responsibility for change, to the Higher Power.



Yes.

greyline

And I replied:

Brighid, I'm afraid I don't understand how you can interpret this use of �victim� as encompassing family members and anyone else touched by alcoholism. I was clearly referring back to Oxymoron�s use of the word � �the victim as an individual�, ie. the alcoholic.

Perhaps, then, you could steer away from comments that imply I�m stupid. And I would have to be stupid if I believed that children of alcoholics can�t be victims.


Yes, there is plenty of controversy. The simple fact that alcoholism acquired the �disease� label for essentially political reasons should ring alarm bells.

brighid

I implied no such thing. I directly stated that I found your statements wrong. If you read "stupid" into my statements I am afraid that is something you must own yourself. I am not responsible for your interpretations. Realize that attacking the argument of the individual is not the same things as attacking the person, and as ad hominem attacks are expressly against the rules of all forums here there won't be any time soon I will be calling your stupid, or even implying such a thing. Now, your argument, may in my best estimation be unsound or even stupid .. but hopefully you get the point.

I am sorry you fail to understand how I was able to interpret "alcoholism has no victims" to mean an all encompassing "no victims" interpretation. But it seems I missed something in your explanation. So let's not beat a dead horse anymore. I accept your clarification that you didn't mean to present an argument in that fashion. Let's be done with it.

Brighid

kaelcarp

I work in medical research specializing in substance abuse. Not very long ago, a doctor who is an expert on alcoholism gave a talk on AA here. He said that a lot of people get tripped up by the pseudo-religious nature of the program. However, he said that at the time the book (which is the central piece of AA) was written, it was viewed as very non-religious because it does not specifically endorse a Christian god. It seems religious to us now because our society is much more secular than when it was written. At the time, it did not at all.

He also said that it has been one of the most successful programs for overcoming alcoholism.