Issue With The Definition

[The Coder]

Definition at the top of this forum: "Alcoholism is a powerful craving for alcohol which often..."

This strikes me as totally incorrect. I always heard the definition is one based on whether drinking is DESTRUCTIVE. Quantity? doesn't matter. Drinks with breakfast? doesn't matter. Can't go a day without? doesn't matter. Can't stop at one? doesn't matter. My understanding being an alcoholic means drinking is destructive to yourself and/or others and just craving and consuming any quantity of alcohol doesn't necessarily do that. I mean I crave orange juice on a daily basis and sometimes can't stop at one but don't think being a "oj-oholic" is a problem for me.

The most credible study I have seen (american heart association i believe) scored an own goal when trying to dispel the healthful aspects of alcohol only for its gigantic study to prove up to 6 drinks every single day is better for your heart than those that don't drink at all.

Should light/medium/heavy drinkers feel guilty? If it makes them happy and doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else then what's the problem? I am not saying alcoholism doesn't exist, that addiction can't be a powerful force, or there isn't bad things that happen to a huge amount of drinkers out there. I'm just saying the definition seems to miss the mark completely. Help me understand if I am off here.

[Mobi]

This is just semantics. Does it really matter?

Just for the record, and having nothing better to do in my alcohol free state, while awaiting the football at 9 pm., I have garnered a selection of definitions from a cross section of on-line dictionaries.

A disorder characterized by the excessive consumption of and dependence on alcoholic beverages, leading to physical and psychological harm and impaired social and vocational functioning. Also called alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence.

Function: noun

1 : continued excessive or compulsive use of alcoholic drinks

2 : poisoning by alcohol; especially : a complex chronic psychological and nutritional disorder associated with excessive and usually compulsive drinking

alcoholism

the condition of being an alcoholic:

alcoholic

a person who is unable to give up the habit of drinking alcohol very frequently and in large amounts

1. addiction to alcohol: dependence on alcohol consumption to an extent that adversely affects social and work-related functioning and produces withdrawal symptoms when intake is stopped or greatly reduced

• (n.) A diseased condition of the system, brought about by the continued use of alcoholic liquors.

• noun: Habitual intoxication; 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

• noun: an intense persistent desire to drink alcoholic beverages to excess

Do I really need to go on?

We all know what we are talking about here. You can call it a disease, a behaviour problem, an addiction, a craving, a bloody good way to forget all your troubles, or whatever.

For some of us it is, or could become, a major problem, both mental and physical, and I believe I'm correct in saying that this is what this sub forum is about.

Not about arguing over a definition.

[The Coder]

This is just semantics. Does it really matter?

Honestly, I am not trying to be overly pedantic here. So if someone says "you crave alcohol. therefore you are an alcoholic" you'd agree? We crave a hundred different things in a given day. Cravings for chocolate or sex doesn't put us in an "oholic" category by default even if it's often. To me the definition for an alcoholic being based on craving isn't even close to what I expected. If this is really the commonly accepted definition that makes me totally rethink who is and is not an alcoholic and what it means / doesn't mean.

[tuky]

I think that the only real definition is a personal acceptance.

You can argue about the existence of God too, but unless you are a believer then how can you believe?

Whether alcoholic or not, the fact is that many people have an "alcohol problem".

And that is what we are discussing here.

The Coder, most certainly not directed at you personally, but your arguement is perhaps what a lot of folks use when they are in Denial.

I always heard the definition is one based on whether drinking is DESTRUCTIVE.

In my case, I am quite good at hiding my problem, if I wasn't I would surely have been sacked by now, giving me a black mark in what is a very nepotistic field of work. The money is such that I have not had to worry about running out. However I do remember a 5 month period whilst working in SIngapore that I would have spent near on 100k US at Orchard Towers, that was all my savings plus what I was earning.

Drinking is not proving destructive to my marriage (yet) as my wifes old man is as bad as me, it is not proving destructive to my bank account niow that I am married (and earning more than I can spend), but it is destructive to me health both mental and physical, which both added up will end up being destructive to all other aspects of my life.

So, does this still leave you confused?

[Mobi]

This is just semantics. Does it really matter?

Honestly, I am not trying to be overly pedantic here. So if someone says "you crave alcohol. therefore you are an alcoholic" you'd agree? We crave a hundred different things in a given day. Cravings for chocolate or sex doesn't put us in an "oholic" category by default even if it's often. To me the definition for an alcoholic being based on craving isn't even close to what I expected. If this is really the commonly accepted definition that makes me totally rethink who is and is not an alcoholic and what it means / doesn't mean.

I think all the definitions which I have posted above suggest that alcololism is something a bit more serious (destructive?) than having a craving for chocolate, or orange juice.

I'm also sorry, but you are being pedantic. You either have a problem or you don't. If you have a craving which you can keep under control and it doesn't harm you or anyone else, then fine - you're not an alcoholic.

Who cares about definitions? They are only a bunch of words put togther by a lexicographist to explain something, and if you are not happy with the pinned defintion, then state one that you are happy with. I've given you a few to choose from, none of which uses the word 'craving'.

At the end of the day you either are an alkie or you aren't. You decide - Why do you have to argue the toss about definitions? - it's almost as though you are in denial.

[Ijustwannateach]

I think the condition is defined by the results. If alcohol interferes with other parts of your life, it's a problem. Same with overweight- if I exercise *and* overeat, it might not be so bad, but overeating and not exercising endangers my health.

I knew a guy in Japan who couldn't admit he had a problem even when he had a $1000 tab at a bar and the bartenders were hinting to him that he drank too much and he had lost his last two jobs because of chronic lateness (due to hangover) and his parents had been suggesting to him over the phone that he had a drinking problem and he couldn't figure out why it was only the scuzziest people in the bars showing any interest in him.... don't be that guy.

"Steven"

[Neeranam]

I think a good definition simply is that an alcoholic is someone who has lost the power of choice in taking a drink.

[ThaiPauly]

I think a good definition simply is that an alcoholic is someone who has lost the power of choice in taking a drink.

spot on mate

[tuky]

I think a good definition simply is that an alcoholic is someone who has lost the power of choice in taking a drink.

spot on mate

exactly...

A guy that works for me has been off the booze for a couple of months, so I told him about our plan, and that we have created a little room where we can support each other.

SOrry I ever opened my mouth. I nearly gave him the sack as he (unknowingly) insulted me by saying that a strong person doesn't need help etc etc etc...

needless to say it is the last time I treat him as a friend. The little wayne kerr.

[libya 115]

Alcoholism is basically a disease of individulism, it can afflict people who from an early age develop a strong sense of being psychologically alone and on their own in the world.

This solitary outlook prevents them from gaining emotional release through associations with other people, but they find they can get this emotional release by drinking (alcohol).

So after time (often many years) dependence develops upon alcohol just as in the same way other people are dependent on their social relationships with friends and relatives.

So, factors in infancy or early childhood lay the foundation for a personality vulnerable to alcoholism.

Of course there are many other factors; that is why it is so difficult to define; and some drinkers find it easier to quit than others.

So, really it is a kind of mental illness/personality disorder and requires specific treatment and lifelong support.

Two of my closest friends died of booze: both from the physical effects, even though they were fairly 'normal' and held down jobs and relationships.

It is only when you see close friends die, that you begin to question your own drinking and; perhaps many of us need to drink more sensibly even though we might not be obvious alcoholics.

[kat]

I think a good definition simply is that an alcoholic is someone who has lost the power of choice in taking a drink.

Yes. Quite simply, alcoholism - and every other adddiction - is about powerlessness and loss of control.

[Neeranam]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-06-23 19:30:33) *

I think a good definition simply is that an alcoholic is someone who has lost the power of choice in taking a drink.

Yes. Quite simply, alcoholism - and every other addiction - is about powerlessness and loss of control.

I've known lots of guys who hang on to the belief that they can do it themselves and it is about self-control, especially in Thailand, with the thing about self-will. Sadly, they all are still drinking, locked up, or dead. I only know two alcoholics who have managed to stay sober this way for more than 5 years - one is a religious nut(Catholisism) and the other is a monk(who wants/needs to come to AA meetings, but the monastery doesn't allow it).

There are a lot of alcoholics here now who have taken an oath to quit drinking for Lent - the ones I know are far from happy and can't live normal lives. Most do manage to stay off for the 3 months but then go straight back to alcoholic drinking.

[sabaijai]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-06-23 19:30:33) *

I think a good definition simply is that an alcoholic is someone who has lost the power of choice in taking a drink.

Yes. Quite simply, alcoholism - and every other addiction - is about powerlessness and loss of control.

I've known lots of guys who hang on to the belief that they can do it themselves and it is about self-control, especially in Thailand, with the thing about self-will. Sadly, they all are still drinking, locked up, or dead. I only know two alcoholics who have managed to stay sober this way for more than 5 years - one is a religious nut(Catholisism) and the other is a monk(who wants/needs to come to AA meetings, but the monastery doesn't allow it).

There are a lot of alcoholics here now who have taken an oath to quit drinking for Lent - the ones I know are far from happy and can't live normal lives. Most do manage to stay off for the 3 months but then go straight back to alcoholic drinking.

Yes quitting or cutting down on your own is very difficult. The success rate is about the same as for AA.

Stats for medically qualified programmers are much higher than independent or 12-step programmes. Many hospitals in Thailand offer comprehensive rehab programmes.

[robitusson]

Lance M. Dodes a psychiatrist who did 25 years into addictions argues...

"that every true addiction represents an attempt on the part of the patient to regain lost control. The addictive process—substance use, gambling, shoplifting—is used as a substitute for mastery over the unsolvable problem. The problem might be rooted in the present—perhaps in an unhappy marriage or career—but most often has its roots in an unresolved childhood conflict. The approach proposed, and exemplified in a number of useful case vignettes, is to develop a therapeutic alliance, to explore conflicted areas in the patient's life, to find the source of the sense of helplessness that the addictive process solves for the moment, and to help the person move on. Would Freud argue with this formulation?

All "true addiction" is psychological; it is displaced helplessness and is separate from and independent of physical dependence. He sees physical dependence as more easily treated than psychological addiction. In pursuing this line of reasoning, Dodes minimizes the role of genetics and dependence. In reviewing the evidence for such a role, he concludes that such evidence is scant and finds the psychological dimension of helplessness to be controlling."

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/54/5/754

[ThaiPauly]

Definition at the top of this forum: "Alcoholism is a powerful craving for alcohol which often..."

This strikes me as totally incorrect. I always heard the definition is one based on whether drinking is DESTRUCTIVE. Quantity? doesn't matter. Drinks with breakfast? doesn't matter. Can't go a day without? doesn't matter. Can't stop at one? doesn't matter. My understanding being an alcoholic means drinking is destructive to yourself and/or others and just craving and consuming any quantity of alcohol doesn't necessarily do that. I mean I crave orange juice on a daily basis and sometimes can't stop at one but don't think being a "oj-oholic" is a problem for me.

The most credible study I have seen (american heart association i believe) scored an own goal when trying to dispel the healthful aspects of alcohol only for its gigantic study to prove up to 6 drinks every single day is better for your heart than those that don't drink at all.

Should light/medium/heavy drinkers feel guilty? If it makes them happy and doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else then what's the problem? I am not saying alcoholism doesn't exist, that addiction can't be a powerful force, or there isn't bad things that happen to a huge amount of drinkers out there. I'm just saying the definition seems to miss the mark completely. Help me understand if I am off here.

You are wrong. Period.

If you were to take blood from me (a seasoned boozer) you would find that my Liver has taken exception to the punishment it has been subjected to over the last 35 years, and it has told me that if I do not curtail my drinking it will go on strike permanatly....therefore leaving me liverless and DEAD.

On the other hand my heart is fine, so if these Doctor's are just looking at the effect that drinking has on the heart they could be a little bit right...but that study is comletley pointless unless they look at the body as a whole...Would you not agree

The Liver is always a good place to start when looking for the side effects of too much alcohol to make their mark.

[Neeranam]

Yes quitting or cutting down on your own is very difficult. The success rate is about the same as for AA.

.

I'm an alcoholic and would say that cutting down is impossible for me.

The success for quitting by yourself is not about the same as AA. I don't know who you are talking about here, but I'm talking about people who have entered the latter stages of alcoholism.

As we all know, this is a progressive disease, and I dare say that those who have only entered the beginning stages, may be able to quit alone.

If talking about the latter stages of alcoholism - NO alcoholic can quit alone. I have known many in AA who have. How then can the success rate be the same?

Stats for medically qualified programmers are much higher than independent or 12-step programmes. Many hospitals in Thailand offer comprehensive rehab programmes

Do you actually know these hospitals and seen the "success rate"?

I disagree with this. I've seen the recividism rate at treatment centres before and after 12 step programmes have been used, and it is lower with 12 step programmes.

These stats(which I don't believe) are wrong also due to the fact that Thai doctors put alcoholics on heavy doses of benzodiazepines and anti-depressants as their egos are WAY too big to admit they can't help the alcoholic with their traditional medicine.

I've met many who are now on ridiculous amounts of these drugs and their doctors will not allow them to come off. They would probably drink again.

Turning people into zombies who have no idea what is going on is not my conception of success!

Edited July 31, 2006 by Neeranam

[ThaiPauly]

I have to agree with everything you have said Mate...AA IS the only answer, I have yet to find a better substitute..although Im still searching..but I don't think I will find it.

The years I spent in AA were some of the happiest of my life

PLEASE BELIEVE ME...this is not Bullshit, but of course you can choose not to and go your own way..it's your lives

[kc_phil]

Should light/medium/heavy drinkers feel guilty? If it makes them happy and doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else then what's the problem?

I think it would be worthwhile to steer clear of any moral judgements on the issue...

[lometogo]

How right you are, my friend, especially the bit "Alcoholism is basically a disease of individulism, it can afflict people who from an early age develop a strong sense of being psychologically alone and on their own in the world."

I've been in AA for 20 years last May and that statement above resonated to the bone for me, and for many others' stories I hear in the rooms of AA.

One of the best definitions I've heard of alcoholism is "if alcohol is causing a problem in your life, you have a problem with alcohol". Does that mean you'e an alcoholic? Who gives a sot? You have a problem with alcohol and the solution (at least for me) is to abstain.

Like many others in AA, when I first came I couldn't dream of a life without alcohol. Today, I couldn't imagine a life with it. No more blackouts, no more senseless arguments, no more tirades. Ah, life is sweet!

Alcoholism is basically a disease of individulism, it can afflict people who from an early age develop a strong sense of being psychologically alone and on their own in the world.

This solitary outlook prevents them from gaining emotional release through associations with other people, but they find they can get this emotional release by drinking (alcohol).

So after time (often many years) dependence develops upon alcohol just as in the same way other people are dependent on their social relationships with friends and relatives.

So, factors in infancy or early childhood lay the foundation for a personality vulnerable to alcoholism.

Of course there are many other factors; that is why it is so difficult to define; and some drinkers find it easier to quit than others.

So, really it is a kind of mental illness/personality disorder and requires specific treatment and lifelong support.

Two of my closest friends died of booze: both from the physical effects, even though they were fairly 'normal' and held down jobs and relationships.

It is only when you see close friends die, that you begin to question your own drinking and; perhaps many of us need to drink more sensibly even though we might not be obvious alcoholics.

[robitusson]

The alcoholism as disease is a myth, outdated at best. The idea suits certain recovery industries that do not encourage new information and the latest scientific findings to be included in their programmes.

The truth of the matter is alcoholism and addiction is a a learned-behaviour for which the individual is responsible. It's a choice.

I can completely understand why someone would like to see themselves as under the influence of a disease and abdicate personal responsability for their actions but if we are interested in the truth then it's time to take note of what is glaringly obvious.

http://www.schaler.net/thinkdrink.html

Unfortunately, the more treatment programs convince

clients that this is true, the more likely the clients are to

prove them "correct." Teaching that addiction is a disease

creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: If people believe they

are powerless they are likely to act powerless

There is no

force alien to oneself that is responsible for one's

behavior. Believing a disease makes people drink is

illogical; it ignores empirical findings on self-efficacy.

It goes against common sense. It also individualizes and de-

politicizes the cultural context within which drug

consumption occurs.

1. The best way to overcome addiction is to rely on your own

willpower.

2. People can stop relying on drugs or alcohol as they

develop other ways to deal with life.

3. Addiction has more to do with the environments people

live in than with the drugs they are addicted to.

4. People often outgrow drug and alcohol addiction.

5. Alcoholics and drug addicts can learn to moderate their

drinking or cut down on their drug use.

6. People become addicted to drugs/alcohol when life is

going badly for them.

7. Drug addicts and alcoholics can find their own ways out

of addiction, without outside help, given the

opportunity.

8. Drug addiction is a way of life people rely on to cope

with the world.

................................................................................

........................................................

“Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by individual psychological and environmental factors, than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs.”

................................................................................

...........................................................

There are certain so-called biological markers associated with heavy drinking, but these have not been shown to cause it.

................................................................................

...........................................................

Responsible scientists who are familiar with the research but want to preserve the disease concept of alcoholism have had to redefine their terms. They define "disease" as whatever doctors choose to call a disease (Jellinek, 1960)! The point of using the word, they acknowledge, is "social" rather than medical. There is a lack of consistent self-control that leads to harmful consequences (Vaillant, 1990). Of course such sweeping uses of the term make almost every human and social problem into a "disease."

................................................................................

............................................................

http://www.peele.net/debate/choice.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90688&page=1

http://alcohol-drug-treatment.net/disease_concept.html

http://www.peele.net/lib/vision.html#intro

http://archive.salon.com/health/books/2000...tion/index.html

http://www.counselormagazine.com/pfv.asp?a...ept_alcohol.asp

http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/cbook/chap6.html

http://www.rational.org/html_public_area/evidence.html

[Neeranam]

1. The best way to overcome addiction is to rely on your own

willpower. It never worked for me.

2. People can stop relying on drugs or alcohol as they

develop other ways to deal with life.

3. Addiction has more to do with the environments people

live in than with the drugs they are addicted to. Nonsense

4. People often outgrow drug and alcohol addiction.

5. Alcoholics and drug addicts can learn to moderate their

drinking or cut down on their drug use. Not the ones I know, or me!

6. People become addicted to drugs/alcohol when life is

going badly for them. Not always

7. Drug addicts and alcoholics can find their own ways out

of addiction, without outside help, given the

opportunity. Yeah, lets tell them all not to get help!

8. Drug addiction is a way of life people rely on to cope

with the world.

Where do you get this rubbish from?

Q. Is Alcoholism a Disease?

From National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

A. Yes. Alcoholism is a chronic, often progressive disease with symptoms that include a strong need to drink despite negative consequences, such as serious job or health problems. Like many other diseases, it has a generally predictable course, has recognized symptoms, and is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors that are being increasingly well defined. (See also Alcohol Alert No. 30: Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence.)

[Pattayatony]

Yes quitting or cutting down on your own is very difficult. The success rate is about the same as for AA.

.

I'm an alcoholic and would say that cutting down is impossible for me.

The success for quitting by yourself is not about the same as AA. I don't know who you are talking about here, but I'm talking about people who have entered the latter stages of alcoholism.

As we all know, this is a progressive disease, and I dare say that those who have only entered the beginning stages, may be able to quit alone.

If talking about the latter stages of alcoholism - NO alcoholic can quit alone. I have known many in AA who have. How then can the success rate be the same?

Stats for medically qualified programmers are much higher than independent or 12-step programmes. Many hospitals in Thailand offer comprehensive rehab programmes

Do you actually know these hospitals and seen the "success rate"?

I disagree with this. I've seen the recividism rate at treatment centres before and after 12 step programmes have been used, and it is lower with 12 step programmes.

These stats(which I don't believe) are wrong also due to the fact that Thai doctors put alcoholics on heavy doses of benzodiazepines and anti-depressants as their egos are WAY too big to admit they can't help the alcoholic with their traditional medicine.

I've met many who are now on ridiculous amounts of these drugs and their doctors will not allow them to come off. They would probably drink again.

Turning people into zombies who have no idea what is going on is not my conception of success!

Spot on Neeranam. The stats that are being quoted on this forum and the information by robitusson are bullshit. No one will ever know for sure just how successfull AA is. Certain people think up stats etc to try and discredit AA. The reason for this is because they cant make any money from it and they Cant understand " HOW IT WORKS"

**flaming and obscenities removed***

[Mobi]

Spot on Neeranam. The stats that are being quoted on this forum and the information by robitusson are bullshit. No one will ever know for sure just how successfull AA is. Certain people think up stats etc to try and discredit AA. The reason for this is because they cant make any money from it and they Cant understand " HOW IT WORKS"

**flaming and obscenities removed***

Amen to that, Tony.

I'm an alcoholic, and I personally feel that the AA would not work for me.

However, I have been aware of the good the AA do throughout my life, and have certainly learnt more about this since I've been in Thailand. The AA undoubtedly helps a lot of alcoholics, and for many its their only way to stay away from the booze. Even those who are still drinking ofen use the AA as the only true support and the means by which they don not sink even furher into the abyss and tolally destroy their lives.

You can throw spurious stats around and quote a million doctors, other experts and websites around until you're blue in the face, but is doesn't mean a thing.

You're not alcholics, and you don't understand the pain that alcoholics have to deal with in the daily lives, and to come on here and rubbish something that works for some, be it AA or whatever, is, in my opinion not only poisonous, but also irresponsible.

This forum was started to help people who have a drinking problem, not to argue to death the definition of an alcoholic (who cares?), or to scream that the most popular alcoholics' aid in the world is useless.

[Pattayatony]

This robitusson has been getting up my nose for the few weeks quoting this and that, not only is it wrong but very very dangerious advice for any Alcoholic who would not be aware. You must be an alcoholic to understand what an alcoholic goes through.

I have worked with sick alkies for the last 25 years and in my opinion the sucess rate for AA would be more like 95%.

I have also seen alkies that have been given the wrong info continue to drink and die or to finish up in the wet brain ward of some hospital.

My advice to robitusson is to get some REAL LIFE experience before putting this sh1t on a public forum.

Were not playing games here this is people lives at stake. I have had alkies die in front of me because they cant stop drinking.

Tony

[sabaijai]

This robitusson has been getting up my nose for the few weeks quoting this and that, not only is it wrong but very very dangerious advice for any Alcoholic who would not be aware. You must be an alcoholic to understand what an alcoholic goes through.

I have worked with sick alkies for the last 25 years and in my opinion the sucess rate for AA would be more like 95%.

I have also seen alkies that have been given the wrong info continue to drink and die or to finish up in the wet brain ward of some hospital.

My advice to robitusson is to get some REAL LIFE experience before putting this sh1t on a public forum.

Were not playing games here this is people lives at stake. I have had alkies die in front of me because they cant stop drinking.

Tony

Right robitusson, don't confuse the missionaries by quoting facts or statistics.

Relevant quotes from Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches, which studies 45+ programmes and ranks them according to pulbished success rates (among other things):

"Although Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is widely recommended by U.S. treatment programs, its efficacy has rarely been studied [….] Only two controlled trials were found in which AA was studied as a distinct alternative, both with offender populations required to attend AA or other conditions, and both finding no beneficial effect." (p. 31).

"The negative correlation between scientific evidence and application in standard practice could hardly be larger if one intentionally constructed treatment programs from those approaches with the least evidence of efficacy." (p. 33)

What works? A summary of alcohol treatment research

One thing clear from the research is that no single treatment strategy works for everyone with a drinking problem. But the studies do have a predictive edge over what is solely anecdotal evidence, that is they note which therapies have the most chance of success over a cross section of patients. If AA/12-step programmes work for you, that's wonderful, but prescribing such programmes for everyone with a drinking problem is irresponsible in the light of the best medical research available. If I had a drinking problem I would like to know what therapies were available and which ranked highest in the eyes of addiction experts.

[robitusson]

'Neeranam'

Where do you get this rubbish from?

From peer reviewed scientific and medical studies. You?

'Neeranam'

Q. Is Alcoholism a Disease?

From National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

A. Yes. Alcoholism is a chronic, often progressive disease with symptoms that include a strong need to drink despite negative consequences, such as serious job or health problems. Like many other diseases, it has a generally predictable course, has recognized symptoms, and is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors that are being increasingly well defined. (See also Alcohol Alert No. 30: Diagnostic Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence.)

See below.

"Responsible scientists who are familiar with the research but want to preserve the disease concept of alcoholism have had to redefine their terms. They define "disease" as whatever doctors choose to call a disease (Jellinek, 1960)! The point of using the word, they acknowledge, is "social" rather than medical. There is a lack of consistent self-control that leads to harmful consequences (Vaillant, 1990). Of course such sweeping uses of the term make almost every human and social problem into a "disease.""

http://conceptalive.com/?p=31

"Despite this alarming failure rate, Alcoholics Anonymous claims to be the only path to salvation. Alcoholics Anonymous tells its members that they must accept it’s doctrine despite its discrepancies. The twelve step program provides no methods of quitting, simply to just quit drinking. How many people do you know that can simply quit an addiction? One would think that they would revise there methods to get better results. Instead AA just says their program requires an unquestioning belief in obedience. When the program doesn’t work they just blame the person for failing, it is never AA’s fault."

"The original founders tended to classify alcoholism as a “sin disease”. This is not possible. For one the philosophy of a “sin disease” is not possible in a free society. This is not a country run on religion. Therefore again proving AA to be religious. By slapping the idea of alcoholism being a sin on it’s members it again gains the upper hand and has the ability to control its members by saying anything they want as long as it’s in the name of God. As soon as you go to AA it is very hard to get away. Remember, it is a cult. AA is very possessive. They go to great lengths to bring you back. There are documentations of intimidation tactics being used, continuous phone calls, members often telling you that you will be damned if you do not return. They take growing there ranks very seriously."

'Pattayatony'

Spot on Neeranam. The stats that are being quoted on this forum and the information by robitusson are bullshit. No one will ever know for sure just how successfull AA is. Certain people think up stats etc to try and discredit AA. The reason for this is because they cant make any money from it and they Cant understand " HOW IT WORKS"

**flaming and obscenities removed***

Why would anyone make up statistics about AA? Quite a bizarre accusation! You're just "in denial" about the truth of the disease-model myth. The first step to overcoming the myth is admitting it is a problem. You do have control over it though.

"Dr. Peele’s view that alcoholism is a personal conduct problem, rather than a disease, seems to be more prevalent among medical practitioners than among the public. A recent Gallop poll found that almost 90 percent of Americans believe that alcoholism is a disease. In contrast, physicians’ views of alcoholism were reviewed at an August 1997 conference held by the International Doctors of Alcoholics Anonymous (IDAA). A survey of physicians reported at that conference found that 80 percent of responding doctors perceived alcoholism as simply bad behavior."

................................................................................

...........................................................

http://www.morerevealed.com/mr/newmr_34.jsp

"The idea that habitually drinking to excess is a disease originated with a Dr. Benjamin Rush in the early 1800s.71 Rush considered intemperance, as well as lying, murder and political dissent, to all be diseases.72 and being a black person a disease symptom.73 He believed that in habitual drunkards “desire overpowered the will” meaning, in twentieth century terms, that they “lost control.” His cure was temperance, meaning no hard liquor and only beer and wine in moderation."

"The most important “medical” reason for considering alcoholism a disease is that people do sicken and die from habitual over-consumption of alcohol. When it is pointed out to believers in “the disease” that patterns of alcoholism much more closely resemble habits and compulsions such as nail biting and compulsive gambling, the invariable response is that it is a disease because it is fatal. Of course, car accidents, war and the failure of parachutes to open during free-fall are all fatal too. Are they diseases because they are fatal? Calling something a disease implies a medical remedy. Of course, medicine does have a proper role in all these things. After a car accident, during a war and, in rare instances, after hitting the ground, medical experts are the ones to call upon to take x-rays, give transfusions, set broken bones and carry out other tasks for which they have special training. The same applies to people who have poisoned themselves with alcohol. The results of their behavior may well call for medical assistance. But there is no more medical treatment for the behavior of excessive drinking than there is medical treatment for careless driving, overambitious world leaders or improperly folded parachutes."

"Many studies have tested this. One particularly simple study done in London83 had married male alcoholics assigned to one of two groups. One group received the full gamut of medical treatment; psychiatric care, doctors, hospitalization, whatever seemed appropriate during the one year course of the study. The medical services offered were comparable to those available in America. The other group received one hour of common sense advice on how to deal with everyday problems. They were told they were alcoholic, needed to quit drinking and that it was up to them to do so. Both groups had equal AA involvement.* At the end of the year, there was no significant difference between the two groups."

"Also misleading is that those who drop out are not included and a short-term follow-up is used. A three-, six- or twelve-month follow-up may look remarkable but, when all factors are accounted for, the amazing 80 or 90 percent becomes equal to every other commonly used treatment and no treatment at all."

"One of the first studies to report a return to social drinking by alcoholics was published in 1961.87 The researcher used extremely stringent requirements in order to avoid error and criticism. The 93 alcoholics in the study had to meet the World Health Organization's criteria for alcoholism. To qualify as having become a moderate drinker, the subject must have never been drunk in the years after hospital release. The shortest time period allowed was seven years. He found that seven of the 93 who qualified as alcoholics had returned to moderate drinking."

"Refusing to turn oneself over to the treatment authorities is denial. One cannot abstain on one's own, they say, so anyone who believes they can is suffering the symptom of denial. Anyone caught in the webs of the treatment/AA system who believes they can moderate their drinking is guilty of denial. Failure to take the full first step of Alcoholics Anonymous, addmitting that one is “powerless” and can't manage one's own life, is denial. Either you begin accepting their doctrine or you are suffering a symptom of alcoholism. Stopping drinking is insufficient. One still must accept having the disease and submit to the treatment authorities."

"Prior to alcoholism as defined by AA, the only other “social ill” for which denial was considered a symptom was in the Middle Ages. In the “diagnosis” of witches, a sure sign of a woman being a witch was that she denied it."

"By defining alcoholism as a disease and attaching each of the elements of the disease theory to that definition, it proves itself. Just like the basic assumptions about witchcraft proved to almost everyone's satisfaction the existence of witchcraft in the Middle Ages.93

Imagine, for instance, the flu redefined as an always fatal disease. If it isn't fatal, it isn't the flu. Now imagine a doctor with a patient who is running a fever, coughing and headachy. If the patient should die, he can be held up as an example of the inevitable fatality of the flu. But what if the patient lives, as is to be expected? He didn't have the flu. How could he have? The flu, by definition, is always fatal. Using such a definition makes it impossible to prove that the flu isn't always fatal. The presence of the same virus and symptoms in those who live and those who die is irrelevant. If it isn't fatal, it isn't the flu.

The definition of alcoholism as believed by AA members and presented to the public operates in the same way. It doesn't matter how many alcoholics have moderated drinking behavior. Using the disease definition, it can't be proved that alcoholism isn't irreversible and progressive. If it is reversed and doesn't progress, it isn't alcoholism."

................................................................................

........................................................

http://society.guardian.co.uk/interview/st...1751588,00.html

"The AA 12-step treatment approach (which has become the template for treating other addictions) is, he says, based largely on folk wisdom drawn from American spiritual Protestantism traditions and the Temperance movement. "[With AA] you go to God, you recognise you have sinned, that you are powerless, and throw yourself over to him," says Peele.

Treating the compulsions of modern life as "disease events" is actually a way of avoiding dealing with a uncomfortable truths."

"RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are those who cannot or will not give themselves completely to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way.

A.A. Big Book, 3rd & 4th Editions, William G. Wilson, page 58.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.

A 5% success rate is nothing more than the rate of spontaneous remission in alcoholics and drug addicts. That is, out of any given group of alcoholics or drug addicts, approximately 5% per year will just wise up, and quit killing themselves.6 They just get sick and tired of being sick and tired, and of watching their friends die. (And something between 1% and 3% of their friends do die annually, so that is a big incentive.) They often quit with little or no official treatment or help. Some actually detox themselves on their own couches, or in their own beds, or locked in their own closets. Often, they don't go to a lot of meetings. They just quit, all on their own, or with the help of a couple of good friends who keep them locked up for a few days while they go through withdrawal. A.A. and N.A. true believers insist that addicts can't successfully quit that way, but they do, every day."

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

................................................................................

.......................................................

Plenty more evidence where this came from.

As I've said before, good luck and best wishes to the 5% of people who AA works for. For the rest of us who are interested in the findings of the last 60 years in the study of addiction and alcoholism we can continue to stay informed and remain open-minded to new possiblities as well as past and current errors.

Anyway sorry to interrupt the evangelising, please continue.

Edited August 5, 2006 by robitusson

[robitusson]

Right robitusson, don't confuse the missionaries by quoting facts or statistics.

Relevant quotes from Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches, which studies 45+ programmes and ranks them according to pulbished success rates (among other things):

"Although Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is widely recommended by U.S. treatment programs, its efficacy has rarely been studied [….] Only two controlled trials were found in which AA was studied as a distinct alternative, both with offender populations required to attend AA or other conditions, and both finding no beneficial effect." (p. 31).

"The negative correlation between scientific evidence and application in standard practice could hardly be larger if one intentionally constructed treatment programs from those approaches with the least evidence of efficacy." (p. 33)

What works? A summary of alcohol treatment research

One thing clear from the research is that no single treatment strategy works for everyone with a drinking problem. But the studies do have a predictive edge over what is solely anecdotal evidence, that is they note which therapies have the most chance of success over a cross section of patients. If AA/12-step programmes work for you, that's wonderful, but prescribing such programmes for everyone with a drinking problem is irresponsible in the light of the best medical research available. If I had a drinking problem I would like to know what therapies were available and which ranked highest in the eyes of addiction experts.

Exactly sabaijai. The point is that the availability, effectiveness, history and medical basis of all treatment programmes should be made known.

This is the best way to offer genuine help to problem drinkers, addicts and alcoholics.

[robitusson]

This robitusson has been getting up my nose for the few weeks quoting this and that, not only is it wrong but very very dangerious advice for any Alcoholic who would not be aware. You must be an alcoholic to understand what an alcoholic goes through.

I have worked with sick alkies for the last 25 years and in my opinion the sucess rate for AA would be more like 95%.

Evidence please.

I have also seen alkies that have been given the wrong info continue to drink and die or to finish up in the wet brain ward of some hospital.

Wrong info? Has AA updated it's scientific information in the last 60 -70 years? Well?

My advice to robitusson is to get some REAL LIFE experience before putting this sh1t on a public forum.

You don't know anything about my level of experience. All I've seen about your experience is you calling detailed, factual and verifiable opposing views to yours as bullsh*t.

Were not playing games here this is people lives at stake. I have had alkies die in front of me because they cant stop drinking.

Tony

You're right. It's extremely serious. The most well-known, most influential and biggest alcohol recovery programme has a dismal rate of success, extremely shaky medical grounding and religious cult-like tendencies.

Edited August 5, 2006 by robitusson

[Mobi]

Ok Robitsun,

As a confessed non alcoholic, are you all finished?

Because you really are getting quite boorish - it's enough to drive one to drink!

You'll probably end up arguing with yourself and not even know it

Why don't you debate the questionable success rate of toads trying to jump out of my fish pond?

Edited August 6, 2006 by Mobi D'Ark

[robitusson]

Ok Robitsun,

As a confessed non alcoholic,

Really? How interesting. Any other facts about me you'd care to impart?

I've been off the booze for over 6 years now. I've posted before about my history here before. Never confessed anything about non alcoholic anything.

are you all finished?

If the pseudo-Christian evangelising and medical misinformation has stopped, then consider me well and truly stopped too.

Because you really are getting quite boorish - it's enough to drive one to drink!

I accept the style might be a little coarse but the facts remain.

You'll probably end up arguing with yourself and not even know it

Why don't you debate the questionable success rate of toads trying to jump out of my fish pond?

I couldn't do that. Don't know anything about it. You?

On the other hand, I know exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to the subject matter being discussed here.