Alcoholism - why believing it is a disease could be damaging

[pedro01]

We hear lots of talk of alcoholism being a disease as opposed to s self-inflicted problem.

Yet we never hear that people addicted to drugs, cigarettes, sex, coffee have a disease. We know full well that people are responsible for those addictions through poor life choices.

The pioneer of "Alcoholism is a disease" was Benjamin Rush, who in the 1800's, without any scientific backing proclaimed that

• Those who drank too much were diseased
• That this should be used as a reason to prohibit alcohol
• That dishonest and political dissention were also diseases
• That being of African-American descent were diseases

So a real stand-up guy, right?

This is the basis of alcoholism is a disease.

In addition many are told...

• The disease has no cure
• The disease can only be diagnosed by yourself
• Following a certain program is a remedy for an incurable disease

I think this is the only disease on planet earth that can not be diagnosed by a specialist. What a peculiar disease that only the sufferer can diagnose. How peculiar that this disease has no cure and can never have a cure, despite the world moving on, new medications and new approached to addiction treatment, alcoholism is immune to everything and is incurable.

So what is the damage done?

Well there's a few ways this hurts people

• When they relapse, or if they do not like certain treatment approaches, they can give up because they first learn they are incurable and if the cure doesn't work for them, they lose hope
• They are psychologically programmed to make alcohol
• The concept of having a disease, effectively strips the addict of their personal responsibility - it's not their fault, they have an ailment - which in turn absolves them of responsibility in a relapse and the recovery process itself - hence the "higher power"

In other words - the belief that alcohol is a disease can lead to worsening their habits because they are now no longer responsible or it's a hopeless task. They have been programmed to fail outside of the treatment program that taught them it was an incurable disease.

Alcoholism is not a disease scientifically speaking because it has no physically measurable symptoms. There is no way to diagnose an alcoholic or test for the signs of the disease in it's development. For instance, if you took a Muslim that had never had a drink, there would be no test that would identify that person as an alcoholic. The only way to tell is when they start drinking - because there is nothing there to see.

The dropout rate at AA us roughly 95%. That's 95% of people that make the first meeting are no longer going after 3 months. Many of these people leave with the belief that they have an incurable disease as opposed to the fact that they have a substance abuse issue. So whilst many people abstain through AA, it is by no means the "last resort" or the only means of treating the addiction.

For those that got to recovery through AA, I salute you.

For those that found it not for them, do not give up hope, you are in the vast majority of people that do not stick with that program. This does not mean you are stuck with something for life. You may well have to accept responsibility for where you are now, that you are not diseased but addicted.

[PokerFace]

I recommend 90 meetings in 90 days. It just might help you to get past your denial.

[hugocnx]

I say bull. No symptons but the day after and what about instant behaviour. Hah, alcohol is good for you; to a certain extent of course.

Kills the germs, kills your bad mood and then kills you too. Hahaha, this is bull too.

If it wouldn't give me gout. That hurts and then again that's a disease right?

Leaves me to proclaim that alcoholism is a voluntary disease. Might not be covered by Obama.

[pedro01]

I recommend 90 meetings in 90 days. It just might help you to get past your denial.

Last drink I had was New Years eve - and that was three beers and what felt like 3 kilos of food...

If I'd asked the guys at AA 10+ years ago if I was an alcoholic based on my consumption of 4.5 liters a day, they would have said "it's up to you to decide", I could have then self-diagnosed myself with an incurable disease.

If I asked them today if I was an alcoholic, telling them I had to go out of my way to find weak English bitter to drink on NYE because that's what I like, that I drank 3 of them and then stopped - whilst all around me were getting drunk - I think they'd tell me I wasn't an alcoholic. Or at least that i was driving.... It doesn't fit the narrative of the progressive incurable disease to have someone addicted to alcohol to go back to light social drinking.

So yes - I did definitely have a drinking issue, no different to anyone else's really. It was my fault, to be honest, I wasn't happy with where I was in life (read "wife") and I slipped into a habit that was hard to shake off. Even when life got better, the drinking was still with me. I'd screwed up big time. My fault entirely.

Trouble is like most people - I didn't have the tools to stop.

It was absolutely an addiction.It required a lot of pain and misery to stop, it took a number of wrong turns in the process of to giving it up and a longer time to get back my health. I completely went off the grid for 6 months and when I did venture into a pub again, drinking soft drinks, a couple of Landlords made a joke about profits dropping with me being dry.

It is absolutely horrible - like having an itch that can only be scratched if you drink a beer. But there are things you can do - AA does help a lot of people and I'm all for that - but I think they need to drop the pseudo-science because it does them no favors at all and causes harm to the drop outs.

So - your "90 day/denial" messages is very smart - but what you should do is back up your beliefs with some evidence. If you disagree with what I say (which I presume by the smartass comments), should you not be able to defend your position with facts?

[pedro01]

I say bull. No symptons but the day after and what about instant behaviour. Hah, alcohol is good for you; to a certain extent of course.

Kills the germs, kills your bad mood and then kills you too. Hahaha, this is bull too.

If it wouldn't give me gout. That hurts and then again that's a disease right?

Leaves me to proclaim that alcoholism is a voluntary disease. Might not be covered by Obama.

The 'symptoms' of alcoholism occur only when you stop drinking. But these are not symptoms of alcoholism, they are symptoms of excess or withdrawal from an addictive and harmful substance.

Alcoholism is unlike any other disease. It can only be detected once you drink. So you could be walking around with this disease but never know it because you were Mormon or Muslim.

Alcoholism is a disease with no known clinical test. You can't go for a blood test to detect alcoholism.

Alcoholism is a disease with no cure according to a book written in the 30's, yet medical science has moved in leaps and bounds in that time, yet AA will tell you quite firmly that there is no cure.

I don't know where to fall on the "a little booze is good for you" because we don't even know what foods are good for us. One year butter kills you, the next year it's good for you. Same with eggs - one year bad, next year good. So I tend to tune all that out because as you get older, you get sick of being told what was good is bad and what was bad is good.

Gout is not alcoholism, it is an excess of uric acid. That can be brought on by eating too much chicken but you don't get called a Pollo-holic for eating chicken and causing gout.

In the narrative, the 'disease' of alcoholism is said to be with you from birth. It is when you drink that you discover you have alcoholism but it was already there. Alcohol does not cause the disease, you already have it.

A disease is defined as

"a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury."

Yet alcoholism 'the disease' has no symptoms, it is a disease that causes you to not be able to control your drinking. The consequent drinking then causes health issues - but the drinking is not the disease. The incurable disease is one that causes you to not be able to control your drinking. A 10 year old could be an alcoholic and not know yet because they didn't try their first drink. So alcoholism has no symptoms at all.

It is quackery. It is not backed by science, people buy into it because they are at a low point and questioning the pseudo-science at that point is the last thing on their minds.

Like I say - if AA helps, that is great - but for the 95% drop-outs, it sure doesn't help for them to leave thinking they are incurable. Not in the slightest.

[thaiduncankk]

Wow, what an ideal thread for the 'reformed' brigade.

I can control it, they cannot.

I have no problem whatsoever, I can take it or leave it.

They HAVE to LEAVE it, then tell the whole world about the 'evils' of alcohol !

[norfolkandchance]

I need a beer

[norfolkandchance]

I recommend 90 meetings in 90 days. It just might help you to get past your denial.

Last drink I had was New Years eve - and that was three beers and what felt like 3 kilos of food...

If I'd asked the guys at AA 10+ years ago if I was an alcoholic based on my consumption of 4.5 liters a day, they would have said "it's up to you to decide", I could have then self-diagnosed myself with an incurable disease.

If I asked them today if I was an alcoholic, telling them I had to go out of my way to find weak English bitter to drink on NYE because that's what I like, that I drank 3 of them and then stopped - whilst all around me were getting drunk - I think they'd tell me I wasn't an alcoholic. Or at least that i was driving.... It doesn't fit the narrative of the progressive incurable disease to have someone addicted to alcohol to go back to light social drinking.

So yes - I did definitely have a drinking issue, no different to anyone else's really. It was my fault, to be honest, I wasn't happy with where I was in life (read "wife") and I slipped into a habit that was hard to shake off. Even when life got better, the drinking was still with me. I'd screwed up big time. My fault entirely.

Trouble is like most people - I didn't have the tools to stop.

It was absolutely an addiction.It required a lot of pain and misery to stop, it took a number of wrong turns in the process of to giving it up and a longer time to get back my health. I completely went off the grid for 6 months and when I did venture into a pub again, drinking soft drinks, a couple of Landlords made a joke about profits dropping with me being dry.

It is absolutely horrible - like having an itch that can only be scratched if you drink a beer. But there are things you can do - AA does help a lot of people and I'm all for that - but I think they need to drop the pseudo-science because it does them no favors at all and causes harm to the drop outs.

So - your "90 day/denial" messages is very smart - but what you should do is back up your beliefs with some evidence. If you disagree with what I say (which I presume by the smartass comments), should you not be able to defend your position with facts?

[norfolkandchance]

AA.RAC is better

[pedro01]

Wow, what an ideal thread for the 'reformed' brigade.

I can control it, they cannot.

I have no problem whatsoever, I can take it or leave it.

They HAVE to LEAVE it, then tell the whole world about the 'evils' of alcohol !

Of course, I am sure there are people that are better off totally abstaining.

I am simply saying it is not a disease and that people should considered the idea that some people can never control it because that is what they have been programmed to think. That they have been mentally conditioned to believe that 1 drink will lead to a full on relapse.

That does not exclude people never drinking again, though.

I don't really see many valid arguments for the "disease for life" hypothesis.

Even for the total abstainer, it is rather odd for them to keep going to meetings 30 years after having their last drink. We know these people exist. There's nothing wrong with them going to meetings - but do they really believe the meetings are essential 30 years dry because they still have the disease?

[pedro01]

I need a beer

Come to my place - there's a Hoegaarden in the fridge that is going to go mouldy if someone doesn't come and visit.

[maybefitz]

As a long-term recovering alcoholic, I can tell you from the very start I drank for the effect. I liked the woozy switch off for my mind, and it seemed the panacea to all problems, just get drunk and the problems go away. Of course,I had to hit that rock-bottom, when the problems caused by my uncontrollable drinking caused living problems. Now, I would suggest, that 'normal' people don't drink this way. Additionally, 'normies' have something that tells them instinctively that they have absorbed too much alcohol and so stop, as they are poisoning their body. I believe the alcoholic doesn't have this warning system and just keeps drinking on the basis that if 1 or 2 drinks have a good effect - keep going, it must get better. Now, if this isn't an illness, I don't know what is.

The very basis of AA is step 1, powerless over alcohol, life becomes unmanageable. This reinforces the disease concept.If the OP can control drinking, all well and good. Just don't denigrate people like me who have the life answer in AA.

One of the biggest problems for the drinker seeking help is breaking through the denial element of what their drinking is doing, the 'reality' truth. So, what is the OP doing, reinforcing the rationalizations that avoid making the denial breakthrough? OK, go your own way, but don't push this kind of stuff that creates more harm than good.

[impulse]

It's not much different than a peanut allergy.

Some people can eat all the peanuts they want. For others, one peanut will kill them.

Same with alcoholism. It affects different people in different ways. Some people do well with alcohol, others- not so much.

And it's not about willpower, character, or morality- any more than a peanut allergy.

And just like a peanut allergy, there is one solution that works 100% of the time. Don't eat peanuts. Thank God it's that simple. (Not easy, mind you- but simple)

Referring to it as a disease also has a lot of legal and societal effects when it comes to insurance coverage, licensing requirements for people who get paid to treat alcoholism, and how it must be handled in the employment arena.

[BrainLife]

Did not read read the intro, just the headline, sorry OP, need to go to bed.

Had my 2 sometimes 3 monthly drinking evening/night/sometime a little morning like today.

Bottle is empty, I know what that means. Lovely bed 2 meters further from me.

To the point, I do this 2-3 times a month and I am considered an alcoholic. WHY?

Because I have no problem saying NO to the first one, but I will always say yes to the second one.

[gerryBScot]

Pedro I really don't know what this thread is about other than bashing AA. It reads like a troll. You've already had a go at AA and me in another thread telling me how I must feel because of my experience of AA which was so way off the mark as to be mildly entertaining. FYI I am still sober and still feeling good about myself and far away from the knife edge.

If you don't like AA, then move on. However I am concerned that you're not actually offering anyone an alternative beyond theories of disease and addiction. If you are rattling this morning, whether literally or metaphorically, what use is a debate about addiction or treatment? I am trying to conjure up a drunk waking up and thinking: Hey I have a big problem with booze, the problem is I don't know whether to go 12 step or controlled drinking model.

The notion of a desperate active drunk as someone with choices is absurd and is the exclusive construct of social scientists. I never met a drunk who ever did anything about their drinking unless there was some huge pressure on them equivalent to someone putting a sawn off shortgun in their mouth and saying: you better stop drinking. As a species we drunks only get it together when we absolutely need to : like when our liberty as at stake, or our spouses have walked out on us, or we are in the disciplinary process or a major health scare. True to form many of us revert to getting drunk the minute the danger has passed, regardless of the promises we made to bosses, judges and spouses.

So Pedro I have no problem with your views but I think as someone who purports to have turned the corner on their drinking, especially if you post here, bearing in mind that some fragile anxious folk might be reading this, you have a responsibility to provide them with some real alternatives and practical things they can do. In the alternative, i.e. you have nothing to offer in terms of what to do, I don't think you should bash any source of help because you might inadvertently drive people away from seeking help.

Whether you like it or not AA is probably the most accessible help for anyone who is rattling this morning wherever they may be in the world. People can make a phone call, send an email, and they will get some sort of response in the near future. You can attend an online meeting where someone will be happy to talk to you 121. Hell, you might get a car load of AAs arriving at your doorstep. There is no need to wait for an appointment or referral process.

While I am an AA myself I am not here to slag off any other service or approach. There are may ways to skin a cat. Good luck in your efforts.

[sawadee1947]

stupid thread. Never heard about Gamma GT test?

[sawadee1947]

I really don't know what this therad is all about. Written by an alcohol-addict?

All what you want to know is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

or find other websites as netdoctor. There are many.

If you need help see a doctor!

[FloydGlenn]

I was going to write a lengthy response to this post; however in all seriousness it only requires a three word response... Are you Crazy?

[FangFerang]

There are genetic differences between occasional users and addicts. One person is exposed and does not become addicted, another does. I also don't think it's a disease, but until we have gene therapy to fix it the best we can do is treat it as a disease, which means dis ease.....

[gerryBScot]

I really don't know what this therad is all about. Written by an alcohol-addict?

All what you want to know is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

or find other websites as netdoctor. There are many.

If you need help see a doctor!

If you insist on quoting me sawadee1947 please do so correctly. As you well know my question was: I really don't know what this thread is all about other than bashing AA? The underlining is the bit you left out and by editing it in this way and then closing it with a full stop you have completely altered my sentence and its meaning and have misrepresented me. But hey no problem, it happens all the time. As you might be cognitively challenged I am suggesting by my question that Pedro is trying to put forward a set of arguments to attack AA. That's fine in so far as it goes but in my view is a little irresponsible on his part. My point is he is not offering any alternatives. Thanks for the link.

[csabo]

Always thought this was a funny concept and still do.

At my old job if they caught you repeatedly having unfavorable incidents that the superiors could attribute to alcohol abuse you could be fired. BUT if you went to them and told them you had a drinking problem you were treated like someone afflicted with an illness including allowed absence from work etc etc. If it was truly a disease, the drunk not admitting he was a drunk should have been treated equally to the drunk who was. Next thing you know obesity will be a disease and there will clinics that distribute a regimen of donuts in ever decreasing sizes until the afflicted is cured and once again wear pants without elastic waists. Ooops...to late

http://www.prevention.com/health/health-concerns/debate-obesity-disease

Alcoholism and obesity are not diseases in themselves but may, in all likelihood, be attributed to mental illness (or in the case of obesity, other physiological disorders). While mental illness is of course "real" and certainly deserves treatment, it is still not classified as a disease.

In the example at my job I might note that one of my closest friends and notorious party animals was about to be fired for just the incidents I described. As he got wind of this prior to being notified he scrambled in to work one morning and declared he was diseased with alcoholism stopping the firing in it's tracks. The boss was not happy and made it known but stuck to the prescribed procedure of treating admitting drunks as diseased. It saved my friends career. What the boss likely did not know as only a very close circle of friends did is that my friend's father had violently murdered his mother and was serving a life sentence for it and my friend was raised by extended family. My friend eventually retired and received his benefits, quit drinking, got married to a lovely girl and had two children and when the kids were about 6 and 8, my friend died from an actual brain disease attributed to his years of alcohol abuse. I loved Mike, but he wasn't a alcoholic because he had a disease. His wife will receive a monthly benefit for life. I don't have a problem with that.

[bazza40]

One can Google alcoholism as a disease, and find 18 million articles on the subject. It's a theory, and theories have to be tested scientifically to establish them as fact. I think that's what the OP is arguing.

There is no question the symptoms of alcoholism are symptoms of a disease. Acute symptoms include withdrawal, dehydration etc. Chronic symptoms include increased risk of certain cancers, liver damage and deteriorating mental acuity.

Successful recoveries from any addiction depend on the individual. Some need group support, some don't. Even if the OP's data is true, that's no reason to decry AA because the recovery is only 5%. It's still better than nothing.

Desire to break an addiction has to come from within. I gave up my tobacco addiction in 1983 by isolating myself on a remote property in the middle of NSW, Australia. Once the cigarettes ran out, I would have to drive 150 km to buy more. Just too ridiculous.

I agree "normal" drinkers have some internal switch which tells them to stop. My limit is two glasses of wine, or 4 beers. I count myself lucky, because my mother was a full-blown alcoholic.

[Krataiboy]

Diseased (dis-eased) means literally that a person is no longer at ease, for whatever reason. Clearly someone who is addicted to alcohol, or any other potentially harmful substance, is dis-eased.

From what I gather, individuals with an addictive personality have a deficiency of the area of the brain which governs behavior. This can be caused by a number of different factors, frequently related to the inadequate growth of a particular area of the brain and/or a chemical imbalance. Whatever the root of the problem, the result is less control over desire and a propensity for addiction.

Similar brain disorders to those commonly detected in drug addicts and alcoholics are also found, apparently, in other groups whose behavior is particularly obnoxious - such as psychopaths and pedophiles.

Scientific research has that a surprisingly large minority of us have the brain abnormalities which can lead to violent and deviant behavior. Iit is less clear why some psychopaths - and pedophiles - are more able than others to keep their dark instincts under control (The answer may lie in nurture - their upbringing and childhood experiences - rather than Nature).

One of the toughest issues we face is in deciding to what degree an individual with this kind of brain dysfunction should be held responsible for their anti-social actions. All too often, in the absence of firm evidence, emotion overcomes reason and the desire for vengeance and retribution trumps all other considerations.

Not so very long ago supposedly developed and enlightened societies locked "crazy" people up for life, treated homosexuals as criminals and slapped the label "monster" on psychopaths and pedophiles. Mercifully, attitudes are changing. Rather than relying on vengeance and punishment as a "cure" violent criminals and sexual misfits (which it never was), science is increasingly enabling us to understand and better treat their self-destructive basic instincts.

With the emergence of embryonic stem cell research, there is even the prospect of one day being able to treat babies with potential addictive tendencies while still in the womb.

The road to Man becoming truly civilised is long and hard but well worth treading.

[Enoon]

As a long-term recovering alcoholic, I can tell you from the very start I drank for the effect. I liked the woozy switch off for my mind, and it seemed the panacea to all problems, just get drunk and the problems go away. Of course,I had to hit that rock-bottom, when the problems caused by my uncontrollable drinking caused living problems. Now, I would suggest, that 'normal' people don't drink this way. Additionally, 'normies' have something that tells them instinctively that they have absorbed too much alcohol and so stop, as they are poisoning their body. I believe the alcoholic doesn't have this warning system and just keeps drinking on the basis that if 1 or 2 drinks have a good effect - keep going, it must get better. Now, if this isn't an illness, I don't know what is.

The very basis of AA is step 1, powerless over alcohol, life becomes unmanageable. This reinforces the disease concept.If the OP can control drinking, all well and good. Just don't denigrate people like me who have the life answer in AA.

One of the biggest problems for the drinker seeking help is breaking through the denial element of what their drinking is doing, the 'reality' truth. So, what is the OP doing, reinforcing the rationalizations that avoid making the denial breakthrough? OK, go your own way, but don't push this kind of stuff that creates more harm than good.

"panacea to all problems"

Self medication for problems/issues is rarely a good idea, as it frequently leads to dependency on the medication, which can lead to much greater problems.

You, like my brother, chose alcohol.

The rest, for you, your family, my brother and my family, and for those families of the all too many alcoholics that I have known, is history.

My brother is 67. It is only in the last 5 years that I have begun to hear and discover the origins of his problems (his anxieties and self doubt). They stretch back into his childhood (no abuse involved). A lot to do with being first born and perceived parental expectation.

Had they been discussed, understood and resolved earlier, as they could have been, things might have been different.

But there was, or he felt there was, no one with whom he could, or would, do that. Except his "brotherhood at the bar" who just reinforced the condition.

And that is something that lies at the heart of many peoples burden (problems), not just alcoholics.

[Doc46]

It's not much different than a peanut allergy.

Some people can eat all the peanuts they want. For others, one peanut will kill them.

Same with alcoholism. It affects different people in different ways. Some people do well with alcohol, others- not so much.

And it's not about willpower, character, or morality- any more than a peanut allergy.

And just like a peanut allergy, there is one solution that works 100% of the time. Don't eat peanuts. Thank God it's that simple. (Not easy, mind you- but simple)

Referring to it as a disease also has a lot of legal and societal effects when it comes to insurance coverage, licensing requirements for people who get paid to treat alcoholism, and how it must be handled in the employment arena.

It's All mind over Matter,,,,,I Don't mind either way Sometimes I drink Sometimes I Won't (not often doh) It has also something to do with Won't Power,,,,I Won't drink this Year,,,,Yea right Up yours,,,,

[Emster23]

Here is a terrific article on alcoholism. A bit long, but spot on imo. Everyone in my family is or has been alcoholic. Why not me? I think that perhaps smoking some weed got me through that vulnerable age (haven't had any of that for at least 30 years, btw).

To me alcoholism is a behavior: you have to get that drink and bend your wrist. Not true for cancer, Parkinson's etc. AA rankles me because it is religion pretending to be something else. Same "you are hopeless sinner BUT we can fix that"... actually not fix as implore you going to meetings forever so don't "relapse". "Being willful" seems to equal "thinking and questioning for yourself", which is not allowed in most religions...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/

[Bill Miller]

Sorry, but most medical professionals concur that alcohol addiction is a disease.
I find the "95% dropout rate" seems to come primarily from a competing, for profit organization.
There are also those who drop out but return for subsequent efforts and are successful whether it be their second, third, fourth, etc., attempt.
AA is only for those who have a problem with alcohol and want to stop having a problem. Even if it really only worked for five percent it would be a worthy and laudable program.
Then there are people like my great uncle who could function well in business and social milieus despite a slight muddling of his speech most every day by 17:00, when perhaps most people have their first cocktail.
Then there is the "Alcohol problem? I don't have a problem! I drink, I get drunk, I fall down. No problem!" crowd.
"Up to you", as my Thai girlfriend says about many things. If you think you have a problem AA people will help.... no charge, and by the few rules no judgement.
AA helped several close family members obtain and maintain sobriety for decades.

[bkkrooftop]

Did not read read the intro, just the headline, sorry OP, need to go to bed.

Had my 2 sometimes 3 monthly drinking evening/night/sometime a little morning like today.

Bottle is empty, I know what that means. Lovely bed 2 meters further from me.

To the point, I do this 2-3 times a month and I am considered an alcoholic. WHY?

Because I have no problem saying NO to the first one, but I will always say yes to the second one.

To the point, I do this 2-3 times a month and I am considered an alcoholic. WHY?

Because I have no problem saying NO to the first one, but I will always say yes to the second one.

aint this the truth

[humqdpf]

This has to be the worst Troll topic that one could imagine. Have it your way - alcoholism is not a disease. Feel better now? But alcoholism is an addiction. Does having an addiction mean that it absolves alcoholics of their actions under alcohol? No. But neither does calling it a disease absolve alcoholics of their actions under alcohol.

And then your point is . . .?

[gemguy]

One day they will have a pill to take with your alcohol and you will be just fine and never be an alcoholic...lol

Meantime, alcohol being so wide spread and readily available near everywhere you go then alcohol consumption and alcoholism will continue to be an ever growing, all the more contentious, social dilemma that society has to tolerate and stuck with forever.

As long proven...when you try to take peoples alcohol away and or cut them off from their source of alcohol the results are disastrous, as proven by prohibition, so there seems to be no alternative other than regulate the substance, in its many forms, and let the people have legal access to the substances they seemingly love to death.

I do not think that many people buy into the rhetoric that says it is a disease while the overwhelming majority of people and the alcoholics themselves know it is not a disease rather a self inflicted affair that usually takes several years to several decades before a person, man or woman, is a complete alcoholic and recognized as so.

Statistically most of them are more or less harmless and happy go lucky types that just like to be feeling the effects of the juice while the buzz they get is more or less a big part of their lifestyle circumstances while they have never gone without any booze during their long drinking career.

It all starts off innocently enough and it really is all about the extra fun one has while drunk and socially acceptable to be drunk as long as you do not cause any trouble or problems for others.

That is the case for the overwhelming majority of habitual drinkers while they are enjoying themselves far more so than when sober.

Unfortunately all too many habitual drinkers evolve into heavy habitual drinkers and sooner or later the excess alcohol and their continuous drunken state of affairs can and does catch up to them and they become hopelessly addicted to a substance that is very difficult to stop consuming.

In part because of the withdraw symptoms and in part because of the lose of a large part of their drinking and partying lifestyle that they also have become addicted to.

If they can stop the consumption it also means removing themselves from their alcohol consuming lifestyle and all that is entailed ( no more fun and excitement to be had is the way they see or imagine a life without alcohol ) while that aspect of their life is also very uncomfortable for an alcoholic to come to terms with.

Unfortunately for all too many the alcohol begins to interfere with many aspects of their life while it begins to effect others in their social circle of friends and employment matters or business matters and family matters and loved ones as they grow more and more dysfunctional and incapable of leading a somewhat normal life while they attempt to continue to support themselves independently.

Most alcoholics never even try to stop drinking as they believe they are doing just fine as a functional alcoholic as long as they continue accomplishing important tasks such as working and holding down a job ( having the income ) or generating income of some sort to support themselves and or their family and the money for their alcohol.

However, for many of them, eventually, they turn sick from the excess alcohol consumption and that is when they are truly tested as to their ability to stop the alcohol consumption and remove themselves from their alcoholic lifestyle and all that is entailed.

Until then, seldom do they see any valid reason to stop their alcohol consumption while they are very content and comfortable to be slightly intoxicated to thoroughly intoxicated all the time while they refuse to recognize the self inflicted dangers relative to just how much alcohol they are consuming on a continuous basis while commonly bragging about all the alcohol they consume and the party hardy, fun filled, alcohol fueled adventures they are experiencing.

Giving up the alcohol would curb their fun and excitement and their alcohol fueled adventures as the fun and excitement they seek is just as addicting as the alcohol in some respects.

Even if they stay at home most of the time while consuming alcohol everyday in the privacy of their own home, going without the alcohol would be just plain boring with nothing to stimulate themselves while living a otherwise mundane and routine lifestyle.

For many heavy drinkers, Life without the booze and all the perceived fun and excitement to be had would be similar to a death sentence for the majority of habitual drinkers, long before they become acknowledged alcoholics.

Cheers