Alcoholism - why believing it is a disease could be damaging

[Sawan Chan 7]

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

They have - it's called Naltrexone. Alcoholics can take it and not get the physical symptoms of alcoholism.

What most people don't understand, however, is that alcoholism is a three-fold disease. Physical, mental and spiritual.

[pedro01]

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

They have - it's called Naltrexone. Alcoholics can take it and not get the physical symptoms of alcoholism.

What most people don't understand, however, is that alcoholism is a three-fold disease. Physical, mental and spiritual.

The Sinclair method, which uses Naltrexone is actually very succesful.

Do you have any evidence to suggest it isnt?

As for 'diseased spirit' - again, do you have any evidence other than hearsay that the 'spirit' exists and that it can be diseased?

[Sawan Chan 7]

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

They have - it's called Naltrexone. Alcoholics can take it and not get the physical symptoms of alcoholism.

What most people don't understand, however, is that alcoholism is a three-fold disease. Physical, mental and spiritual.

The Sinclair method, which uses Naltrexone is actually very succesful.

Do you have any evidence to suggest it isnt?

As for 'diseased spirit' - again, do you have any evidence other than hearsay that the 'spirit' exists and that it can be diseased?

Sorry I don't understand you - I said that they DO have a drug that cures the physical aspect of alcoholism.

AS for your second question - do I have any evidence that the spirit exists - well that is a whole new thread.

But for now, Dr. Carl G. Jung noted in a January, 1961 letter to Bill Wilson, one of the co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous, "You see, alcohol in Latin is spiritus and you use the same word for the highest religious experience as well as the most depraving poison. The helpful formula therefore is: spiritus contra spiritum." In other words, the highest form of religious experience counters the most depraving poison - high spirit against low spirit. Dr. Jung is noted in the annals of AA history as naming the solution of "a vital spiritual experience" for his alcoholic client Rowland Hazard, who sought and found it in the tenets of Oxford Groups. Rowland then helped Ebby Thacher find this spiritual experience in the same way and eventually Ebby carried that solution and the means of its acquisition to Wilson.

I think I'll go with Dr Carl Jung , The American Medical Association, The World Health Organization, American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American College of Physicians , Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine who say alcoholism is a disease.

Do you disagree with all of them and if so, what are your credentials?

[Rhys]

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

They have - it's called Naltrexone. Alcoholics can take it and not get the physical symptoms of alcoholism.

What most people don't understand, however, is that alcoholism is a three-fold disease. Physical, mental and spiritual.

The Sinclair method, which uses Naltrexone is actually very succesful.

Do you have any evidence to suggest it isnt?

As for 'diseased spirit' - again, do you have any evidence other than hearsay that the 'spirit' exists and that it can be diseased?

Sorry I don't understand you - I said that they DO have a drug that cures the physical aspect of alcoholism.

AS for your second question - do I have any evidence that the spirit exists - well that is a whole new thread.

But for now, Dr. Carl G. Jung noted in a January, 1961 letter to Bill Wilson, one of the co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous, "You see, alcohol in Latin is spiritus and you use the same word for the highest religious experience as well as the most depraving poison. The helpful formula therefore is: spiritus contra spiritum." In other words, the highest form of religious experience counters the most depraving poison - high spirit against low spirit. Dr. Jung is noted in the annals of AA history as naming the solution of "a vital spiritual experience" for his alcoholic client Rowland Hazard, who sought and found it in the tenets of Oxford Groups. Rowland then helped Ebby Thacher find this spiritual experience in the same way and eventually Ebby carried that solution and the means of its acquisition to Wilson.

I think I'll go with Dr Carl Jung , The American Medical Association, The World Health Organization, American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American College of Physicians , Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine who say alcoholism is a disease.

Do you disagree with all of them and if so, what are your credentials?

Since this a self control out out touch vs self responsibility thang... could the drinker in a bout of insight...just decide..hey.. I don't have to take the pill...

[gerryBScot]

But for now, Dr. Carl G. Jung noted in a January, 1961 letter to Bill Wilson, one of the co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous, "You see, alcohol in Latin is spiritus and you use the same word for the highest religious experience as well as the most depraving poison. The helpful formula therefore is: spiritus contra spiritum." In other words, the highest form of religious experience counters the most depraving poison - high spirit against low spirit. Dr. Jung is noted in the annals of AA history as naming the solution of "a vital spiritual experience" for his alcoholic client Rowland Hazard, who sought and found it in the tenets of Oxford Groups. Rowland then helped Ebby Thacher find this spiritual experience in the same way and eventually Ebby carried that solution and the means of its acquisition to Wilson.

I think I'll go with Dr Carl Jung , The American Medical Association, The World Health Organization, American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American College of Physicians , Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine who say alcoholism is a disease.

Do you disagree with all of them and if so, what are your credentials?

Thanks for this Sawan Chan 7, good to be reminded of Jung's extraordinarily insightful formula: spiritus contra spiritum and of his peripheral role in the background. I also think your three dimensional definition of the problem is really helpful: physical, mental and spiritual. And it is what happens to alcoholics after the physical withdrawal symptoms have been addressed that is the $64,000 question. It is comparatively simple to detox a drunk but it is what happens afterwards that is critical. I'm personally glad I made it through the doors of AA. Sadly I've known a fair few who paid the ultimate price. But I would never have met Irish Tom who told of attending his first meeting in Ballybog and being greeted by the chair: Hello Tom so you've finally made it. He asked: What you knew I was an alcoholic? The chair replied: Tom the dogs in the street knew you were an alcoholic. Have a good one!

[impulse]

But I would never have met Irish Tom who told of attending his first meeting in Ballybog and being greeted by the chair: Hello Tom so you've finally made it. He asked: What you knew I was an alcoholic? The chair replied: Tom the dogs in the street knew you were an alcoholic. Have a good one!

Reminds me of the story I heard from a fellow oilfield guy in Texas. His story happened when he was new in AA and not quite accustomed to speaking at meetings.

One day, he had to make a presentation to the Executive Committee of his company and accidentally started out with "My name is Bob and I'm an alcoholic". He thought he was screwed, and his career with the company would end that day.

Until 3 of the top executives responded with "Hi Bob".

He claimed it was a true story, and I believe him. I'm always astounded at the people I meet.

[Johnniey]

Pedro the OP is what is called an 'alcohol abuser'. Alcoholics are called 'alcohol dependents'. According to the DSM IV

Simple - there is huge difference in diagnosing and recovering.

[Johnniey]

Ah, there has been an update

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/dsmfactsheet/dsmfact.pdf

[norfolkandchance]

After all this I need another beer

[Johnniey]

After all this I need another beer

Is that a problem for you?

[pedro01]

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.

He is not preaching to you, one of the 5% AA successes. He is trying to give the 95% of AA failures a reason to carry on and try and control their lives not encourage them to give up because they have an incurable disease and AA, the only possible solution, failed and therefore they are doomed by their disease!!!

AA is a religion of specific life self disciplines to help people replace alcohol. It is not for everyone because we are all different. Like all religions, it sells itself as the only solution a cluster of our self-perceived weaknesses.

It must be an psychological addiction, a symptom of an addictive personality similar to religion, addiction to sex, gambling, smoking and many of the other substance addictions, not a separate disease. If it was a disease, then gambling, golf, membership of a lodge, special interest club, smoking, religion, marijuana and heroin etc are all separate diseases as well. But they are not. No more than alcohol is. Alcohol is only a disease because it helps some people to control it to think it is one. But this self deception does not work for most.

The people who go from one religion to another must have a disease. They need a code of hierarchically imposed self discipline but can never decide which one to stick with. Or the unlucky ones find one that turns them into a mysoginist, a suicide bomber or an idiot who gives all his money to an invisible friend. Is that a disease? Is religion a disease? Many people with addictive personalities experience in their lives, together or serially, several or all of these "diseases", of which alcohol is only one.

It is caused by behaviour, and a desire to escape from unwelcome reality. The actions that AA bring about are not a drug to cure your disease. They are life changes you need to cure one of a number of similar addictions caused by actions. Ergo, AA is a specific religion. It gives some people a usefully addictive belief system to help control another less desirable behaviour.

AA is a religion of life disciplines to help you control your alcohol addiction but many people do not like religion. They prefer other psychological; addictions. That is why it fails for so many and that was his point, (not his pint.) . People who like alcohol too much seem not to like religion so religion, (AA) fails them.

Absolutely spot on - it is those that lose hope because of the disease teachings that concern me.

[pedro01]

Pedro the OP is what is called an 'alcohol abuser'. Alcoholics are called 'alcohol dependents'. According to the DSM IV

Simple - there is huge difference in diagnosing and recovering.

Sorry - but you are simply not qualified to diagnose me. Not only do you not know me well enough but AA says that only the sufferer can diagnose themselves as an alcoholic.

So if only I can diagnose myself as an alcoholic, how can you diagnose that I am not?

Also - it has to be said that being dependent on an addictive substance makes you an addict, not a person suffering from a disease. DSM IV has similar descriptions for dependence on all addictive drugs including nicotine. Is a smoker a nicotinaholic or someone that has a physical addiction to nicotine?

[pedro01]

Ah, there has been an update

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/dsmfactsheet/dsmfact.pdf

It is ridiculous isn't it?

So - you have alcohol use disorder if you:

1 Had times when you ended up drinking more, or longer than you intended

2 Found that when the effects of alcohol were wearing off, you had withdrawal symproms such as trouble sleeping....

OK - so number 1 - drinking more than you intended includes going out for 1 pint and having 3. Check for almost all drinkers on the planet

number 2 - trouble sleeping? Alcohol lowers glutamine (keeps you awake) levels and raises the efficiency of GABA (makes you tired) - that's what relaxes you and helps you sleep after drinks. The problem is your brain realizes it is low on glutamine as the booze is wearing off, in turn it initiates the production of more glutamine which is why you wake up in the middle of the night and can't sleep.

The interesting thing about the gaba rebound, is that most people have an amount they can drink without impacting sleep - for me I could drink 2 pints of lager and sleep fine. Then you go over the threshold and the rebound will kick in. So for me - if I had 3 pints of lager, I would absolutely be awake at 3am and not be able to get back to sleep. If you have much more booze - you won't wake up at all as it will still be suppressing glutamine.

So the impact on sleep when you stop drinking is more prevalent after moderate drinking than heavy drinking.

So pretty much everyone that drinks will suffer 1 & 2 in a year and therefore have mild Alcohol Use Disorder.

[mcfish]

It's good to be alive this Sunday morning and to be able to function without a drink or the prospect of getting drunk today. I spent yesterday afternoon in the rice paddies to the north of Phetchburi with my six year old son looking at eagles, harriers and other birds. I had a relaxed Saturday night with my wife and our kids before an early sleep. My son is playing in a football tournament later today so we'll head for that.I've got some reading to do for some personal study (non-recovery related) I'm doing so I'll spend a couple of hours on that this morning. Work tomorrow. Life is good.

I did a lot of that stuff as a functioning drunk but a happy one, raised a family and all that . Actually my biggest success in business was inspired by alcohol infused ideas. Alcohol can effect some terribly whilst others on the same dose cruise through life

Not saying it's a good idea.. Just sayin

Sent from my SC-01D using Tapatalk

Edited January 10, 2016 by mcfish

[thaiduncankk]

It's good to be alive this Sunday morning and to be able to function without a drink or the prospect of getting drunk today. I spent yesterday afternoon in the rice paddies to the north of Phetchburi with my six year old son looking at eagles, harriers and other birds. I had a relaxed Saturday night with my wife and our kids before an early sleep. My son is playing in a football tournament later today so we'll head for that.I've got some reading to do for some personal study (non-recovery related) I'm doing so I'll spend a couple of hours on that this morning. Work tomorrow. Life is good.

Fair play to you all for packing in drinking, it cannot have been easy.

One thing I do not understand, is coming on here telling everyone your daily activities in sobriety. As far as I can see, all you are doing is trying to convince YOURSELF you made the right decision.

If I posted my about my night out drinking with friends last Friday, I am sure I would get so many replies saying, 'so what, who's interested ?'.

Ian am sure the same applies here.

[perdido]

..yes, 'bad habits are not diseases' (Thomas Szasz'...give this a google....your post is excellent

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]

After all this I need another beer

Is that a problem for you?

[norfolkandchance]

You need a couple then

[Sheryl]

Actually drug addiction is considered a disease.

And both alcoholism and drug addicition are classified by medical authorities as disease entities.

I believe the origin for calling it a disease was in efforts to de-stigmatize it, as it was previously thought to just be a character weakness/ immoral choice. The point was to make clear that alcoholics are not choosing to be such, they have a real compulsion not felt by the average person and it is not a simple matter of just shaping up and deciding to be less self-indulgent. (There are people for whom that is the case, but by definition they are not alcoholics.)

[pedro01]

Actually drug addiction is considered a disease.

And both alcoholism and drug addicition are classified by medical authorities as disease entities.

I believe the origin for calling it a disease was in efforts to de-stigmatize it, as it was previously thought to just be a character weakness/ immoral choice. The point was to make clear that alcoholics are not choosing to be such, they have a real compulsion not felt by the average person and it is not a simple matter of just shaping up and deciding to be less self-indulgent. (There are people for whom that is the case, but by definition they are not alcoholics.)

Agreed - addiction is a medical condition. Although like obesity, it is not a disease.

One of the reason things like obesity get labelled as diseases is that according to the FDA, only a drug can cure a disease. In other words - if a cure is not registered with the FDA (which means many millions of dollars spent in testing), it cannot claim to cure a disease. That means that natural cures cannot be sold in the US as natural cures. Only drug companies with the money to go through the approval process can sell cures. So drug company lobbyists spend a lot of time trying to get ailments labelled as diseases, so they can corner the market on cures and freeze out any naturally occurring remedies from being sold as such.

The thing is - the AA version of alcoholism says that they are different, that there is something about them that means they cannot drink socially. That they have a disease that causes them to not be able to control their drink like normal people. So these people have the disease from birth and there is no cure for it. That they are only ever 1 drink away from full the gutter.

In the addiction model - ANYBODY can get addicted because the substance is addictive.

In the 'Alcoholism is a disease' model put forward by AA, only an alcoholic can become addicted. So in turn, it would be possible, if you did not have the disease of alcoholism, to drink as much as you want, as often as you want and never become addicted because it is something about you that causes the issue and not the addictive nature of the substance. I dispute that, I don't think there are normal people that can control any amount of alcohol. I think there is a threshold (different for each person) at which we are going to become addicted.

An AA member here even states that at no point was I ever an alcoholic - because in their narrative, anyone that is an alchoholic, can never go back to social drinking. So if you drank a bottle of scotch a day for 10 years, lost your wife and family etc - you would have them accept you had the disease of alcoholism. If then, after 5 years sober, you had a beer a week, they would have to tell you that your 'self-diagnosis' was in fact incorrect and despite your gargantuan consumption - you were merely a drunk, not an alcoholic.

[Sheryl]

Thete are plenty of diseases without a cure. That has nothing to do with the definition of disease.

[pedro01]

Thete are plenty of diseases without a cure. That has nothing to do with the definition of disease.

How many other diseases can only be diagnosed by the person suffering the disease and not a doctor?

[Jingthing]

Thete are plenty of diseases without a cure. That has nothing to do with the definition of disease.

How many other diseases can only be diagnosed by the person suffering the disease and not a doctor?

I think many or most of them.

Especially in the internet age.

Which drives doctors nuts.

I've had this experience a few times myself.

Go to a doctor with a medical condition that I've researched myself.

Mention what I think it probably is.

Usually, but not always, I've been right.

So there goes your theory.

As far as diagnosing alcoholism, I suppose often it's totally obvious.

I had a roommate years ago, both parents alcoholics, he drank a bottle of vodka at lunch every day holding a job as a bank teller (for awhile anyway). Which I found amazing ... but knowing those two things, who WOULDN'T know he was an alcoholic?

Edited January 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[impulse]

Thete are plenty of diseases without a cure. That has nothing to do with the definition of disease.

How many other diseases can only be diagnosed by the person suffering the disease and not a doctor?

My dog knew I was an alkie before I did.

And my ex. And my folks. And my brothers and sisters. And my neighbors. And most of my friends. And my bartenders.

I'm not sure about my doctor. I was pretty careful to never go to an appointment drunk.

And none of that mattered until I acknowledged it.

Edited January 11, 2016 by impulse

[Johnniey]

Actually drug addiction is considered a disease.

And both alcoholism and drug addicition are classified by medical authorities as disease entities.

I believe the origin for calling it a disease was in efforts to de-stigmatize it, as it was previously thought to just be a character weakness/ immoral choice. The point was to make clear that alcoholics are not choosing to be such, they have a real compulsion not felt by the average person and it is not a simple matter of just shaping up and deciding to be less self-indulgent. (There are people for whom that is the case, but by definition they are not alcoholics.)

Agreed - addiction is a medical condition. Although like obesity, it is not a disease.

One of the reason things like obesity get labelled as diseases is that according to the FDA, only a drug can cure a disease. In other words - if a cure is not registered with the FDA (which means many millions of dollars spent in testing), it cannot claim to cure a disease. That means that natural cures cannot be sold in the US as natural cures. Only drug companies with the money to go through the approval process can sell cures. So drug company lobbyists spend a lot of time trying to get ailments labelled as diseases, so they can corner the market on cures and freeze out any naturally occurring remedies from being sold as such.

The thing is - the AA version of alcoholism says that they are different, that there is something about them that means they cannot drink socially. That they have a disease that causes them to not be able to control their drink like normal people. So these people have the disease from birth and there is no cure for it. That they are only ever 1 drink away from full the gutter.

In the addiction model - ANYBODY can get addicted because the substance is addictive.

In the 'Alcoholism is a disease' model put forward by AA, only an alcoholic can become addicted. So in turn, it would be possible, if you did not have the disease of alcoholism, to drink as much as you want, as often as you want and never become addicted because it is something about you that causes the issue and not the addictive nature of the substance. I dispute that, I don't think there are normal people that can control any amount of alcohol. I think there is a threshold (different for each person) at which we are going to become addicted.

An AA member here even states that at no point was I ever an alcoholic - because in their narrative, anyone that is an alchoholic, can never go back to social drinking. So if you drank a bottle of scotch a day for 10 years, lost your wife and family etc - you would have them accept you had the disease of alcoholism. If then, after 5 years sober, you had a beer a week, they would have to tell you that your 'self-diagnosis' was in fact incorrect and despite your gargantuan consumption - you were merely a drunk, not an alcoholic.

Alcoholics can NEVER drink normally - nothing to do with AA. AA doesn't say people have a disease from birth - get your facts right.

Anyone can get addicted to alcohol but not always an alcoholic. You are blinkered somehow to this fact.

[thaiduncankk]

I have met a few pissheads in my time, binge drinkers too, and both types were better than alcoholics.

It is ALL in the mind.

[Sheryl]

Thete are plenty of diseases without a cure. That has nothing to do with the definition of disease.

How many other diseases can only be diagnosed by the person suffering the disease and not a doctor?

Alcoholism can most certainly be diagnosed by a doctor, or by a counselor. Based of course on information supplied by the patients. There are many diseases where this is likewise the case i.e. no objective physical findings, diagnosis is based on criteria which have to be elicited from the patient. In fact pretty much all psychological diseases, as well as some physical ones (e.g. CFS) fall under this category.

I really don't understand why the fixation on the "disease" aspect. Your real issue seems to be with whether or not an alcoholic can ever manage to drink in moderation, which has nothing to do with whether or not alcoholism is a disease.

The introduction of the concept of alcoholism as a disease replaced a prior view that is a moral failing - it was previously assumed that it was just as easy for an alcoholic to not drink, or stop after just one drink, as it is for anyone else and that these people were simply being "bad" out of sheer badness. It was a big positive step forward in outlook and certainly nothing to get upset over.

[big carl]

Actually drug addiction is considered a disease.

And both alcoholism and drug addicition are classified by medical authorities as disease entities.

I believe the origin for calling it a disease was in efforts to de-stigmatize it, as it was previously thought to just be a character weakness/ immoral choice. The point was to make clear that alcoholics are not choosing to be such, they have a real compulsion not felt by the average person and it is not a simple matter of just shaping up and deciding to be less self-indulgent. (There are people for whom that is the case, but by definition they are not alcoholics.)

Agreed - addiction is a medical condition. Although like obesity, it is not a disease.

One of the reason things like obesity get labelled as diseases is that according to the FDA, only a drug can cure a disease. In other words - if a cure is not registered with the FDA (which means many millions of dollars spent in testing), it cannot claim to cure a disease. That means that natural cures cannot be sold in the US as natural cures. Only drug companies with the money to go through the approval process can sell cures. So drug company lobbyists spend a lot of time trying to get ailments labelled as diseases, so they can corner the market on cures and freeze out any naturally occurring remedies from being sold as such.

The thing is - the AA version of alcoholism says that they are different, that there is something about them that means they cannot drink socially. That they have a disease that causes them to not be able to control their drink like normal people. So these people have the disease from birth and there is no cure for it. That they are only ever 1 drink away from full the gutter.

In the addiction model - ANYBODY can get addicted because the substance is addictive.

In the 'Alcoholism is a disease' model put forward by AA, only an alcoholic can become addicted. So in turn, it would be possible, if you did not have the disease of alcoholism, to drink as much as you want, as often as you want and never become addicted because it is something about you that causes the issue and not the addictive nature of the substance. I dispute that, I don't think there are normal people that can control any amount of alcohol. I think there is a threshold (different for each person) at which we are going to become addicted.

An AA member here even states that at no point was I ever an alcoholic - because in their narrative, anyone that is an alchoholic, can never go back to social drinking. So if you drank a bottle of scotch a day for 10 years, lost your wife and family etc - you would have them accept you had the disease of alcoholism. If then, after 5 years sober, you had a beer a week, they would have to tell you that your 'self-diagnosis' was in fact incorrect and despite your gargantuan consumption - you were merely a drunk, not an alcoholic.

if a cure is not registered with the FDA (which means many millions of dollars spent in testing)

Well two points here.

Are you saying that only the United States can say what is a cure and what is not?

Do y0ou believe every thing they say?

Just as a point of interest why are you trying to deny it is a disease? Makes no difference to me what you and your FDA say. I am an alcoholic end of discussion.

An AA member here even states that at no point was I ever an alcoholic - because in their narrative, anyone that is an alchoholic, can never go back to social drinking. So if you drank a bottle of scotch a day for 10 years, lost your wife and family etc - you would have them accept you had the disease of alcoholism. If then, after 5 years sober, you had a beer a week, they would have to tell you that your 'self-diagnosis' was in fact incorrect and despite your gargantuan consumption - you were merely a drunk, not an alcoholic.

I am sure many of are members have tried to go with out for a period of time only to wind up picking up one drink and going back to where we were. The best I could ever manage was four months and then it was on a rocket to hell. Your example could well be. It is not the quantity or the reason that matters. It is the inability to control it that makes one an alcoholic.

[gerryBScot]

As an AA member I have never really considered that I have a disease. What I believe is I suffered from a mental illness, a problem of perception and major issues in dealing with reality. I have self-diagnosed in this respect. I have never had any form of psychiatric care or assessment. I can only describe this mental illness retrospectively in the sense of understanding and accepting the choices I made in my life and which facilitated me into almost drinking myself to death. I expect my death cert would have said 'cardiac arrest' or its medical equivalent and made no mention of alcohol or alcoholism. When I was ready, and I got ready very suddenly and unexpectedly, a spur of the moment decision as I was on my way out for a drink after a short period of abstention (3-4 weeks0 , I phoned AA and was directed to a nearby meeting and the rest, so to speak, is history. Like others assert here, I am not in a debating society. This has worked for me. I accept that I cannot safely drink again and more's the point, I don't want to drink again today. If the head alcoholic or the committee said to me: Gerry it's a mistake, you're not an alcoholic, you can drink safely.....etc. well I think I would chose abstention as in my own mind today I associate not-drinking with happiness, contentment and fulfilment. As I look back on my life I am clear I was absolutely nuts to have persevered with alcohol for so long, given I had the perfect introduction to it by virtue of growing up in a very alcoholic home. I set out intent that I could do it myself and do it better than my poor old parents. So I am comfortable saying I was completely insane and I mean mentally ill.

[pedro01]

Thete are plenty of diseases without a cure. That has nothing to do with the definition of disease.

How many other diseases can only be diagnosed by the person suffering the disease and not a doctor?

Alcoholism can most certainly be diagnosed by a doctor, or by a counselor. Based of course on information supplied by the patients. There are many diseases where this is likewise the case i.e. no objective physical findings, diagnosis is based on criteria which have to be elicited from the patient. In fact pretty much all psychological diseases, as well as some physical ones (e.g. CFS) fall under this category.

I really don't understand why the fixation on the "disease" aspect. Your real issue seems to be with whether or not an alcoholic can ever manage to drink in moderation, which has nothing to do with whether or not alcoholism is a disease.

The introduction of the concept of alcoholism as a disease replaced a prior view that is a moral failing - it was previously assumed that it was just as easy for an alcoholic to not drink, or stop after just one drink, as it is for anyone else and that these people were simply being "bad" out of sheer badness. It was a big positive step forward in outlook and certainly nothing to get upset over.

On the contrary - I think most addicts should stay away from whatever their 'poison' was - cigarettes, cocaine, heroin, crack or booze.

As has been stated many times, the issue with calling it a disease is that it absolves the addict of responsibility - both in terms of having the addiction - but MOST importantly - in terms of their recovery.

Once armed with the belief it's not your fault and that there is something wrong with you that isn't wrong with 'normal drinkers', then you are absolved to continue the habit as it's not your fault.

The disease concept that AA teaches is not that of a physical addiction but is "limited to a class (of people) and never occurs in the average temperate drinker" - so that booze is not a problem for normal people.

The primary issue with Alcohol is that it is an addictive drug. Alcoholics are in no way different from other drinkers in any other respect than they took it to the extremes necessary to foster a physical addiction to the drug.