Alcoholism - why believing it is a disease could be damaging

[Jingthing]

That's ridiculous. Does having diabetes absolve the patient responsibility of following doctors orders. Seems you're bending over backwards to support an unsupportable POV.

[Sheryl]

Why would it being a disease in any way absolves the person from taking action? People with diseases are fully responsible for getting appropriate treatment. It is not, for example, somebody's "fault" if they have type I diabetes, but it is most certainly their fault if they die or develop kidney failure because they failed to take their insulin or follow the diet prescribed. It is not someone's fault if they have an infection, but it is certainly their fault if it spreads or kills them because they delayed seeking medical help or didn't take their antibiotics etc.

AA most definitely does not encourage alcoholics to dodge responsibility, quite the contrary. Alcoholics are often prone to blaming other people and outside events for their problems, AA emphasizes the need to take personal responsibility.

Physical addiction to alcohol is not caused by excessive drinking per se. It is quite possible to drink very excessively without ever developing a physical addiction, in fact a pretty high proportion of college kids/teenagers do exactly that.

It is not known why some people develop a physical addiction and others do not, but there appears to be a genetic predisposition and it may also relate to altered glucose metabolism.

[gerryBScot]

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.

Pedro I agree entirely with Sheryl's response to you about taking personal responsibility for your drinking and your life. I am a typical example of someone who blamed everybody for everything that was wrong with my life. It was in AA that I was first encouraged to take responsibility for my own drinking and that, for me, meant forgiving my father, who had been dead for 25+ years before I made it to AA. I held him responsible for everything that was wrong in my life including my drinking. He was my excuse. I was still brimming over with resentment towards the poor man 25 years later. Nobody told me what I had to do. I didn't get a sponsor immediately. I sat in meetings and hung out with AAs in between meetings and, as I was in London, I had an enormous choice of meetings. I went up to my home town in Scotland a few months into AA and one morning found myself with nothing to do as a friend cancelled at the last minute. I decided to go to the cemetery where my father's body was buried. I had never returned there since his burial and I was embarrassed to discover that a memorial stone hadn't been put on his grave. I spent half an hour there that morning and made my amends to him like a sort of jibbering idiot. That wasn't part of that day's plan, it wasn't part of a bigger plan, it just came to me as the next best thing I could. I walked out of that cemetery with the weight of the world lifted from my shoulders. For the first time in my life I recognised where my father had been with his drinking and the only regret I felt was that he and a few others had never made it into the rooms of AA.

What worked was not the direct approach that I had to take responsibility for my drinking: think, traditional teacher ranting at students à la Pink Floyd Another Brick in the Wall - 'you must take responsibility for your drinking, if you don't take responsibility for your own drinking then you will......' - but I heard many people talking about resentments and the AA dogma on this: resentment is the number one offender for alcoholics, it kills more alcoholics than any other reason. You see I didn't know whether I was an alcoholic at that stage, but I knew my default mental state was resentment, you could say 'locked on 24/7'. That really helped me progress especially when the wags started to expatiate: you know a resentment is taken, not given. ( I really didn't like that at the time because I couldn't exactly argue against it!) Then someone added that having a resentment is the same as allowing another person to live in your head rent-free. That's how it worked for me and to a large extent continues to work for me. One guy told me and I really respect him for it: Gerry, you need to understand you cannot be stupid enough for this programme. You can be way too smart but you can never be too stupid.

Take it easy.

[big carl]

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.

I have a disease which I am not responsible for.

What I am responsible for is controlling it.

That is only done by complete abstinence from alcohol. for myself

Try it you might come to like it.

The very idea you are fighting the disease idea tells me you have a problem.

Other wise why come to this forum?

We have given you a suggestion AA try it.

Or try will power if you are not an alcoholic that will be easy for you.

Not sure but I think it might be FDA approved. You like that.

[manarak]

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.

I got interested in the subject and already had a couple of peeks in the thread in the past days but I didn't really delve into it until this evening.

At first, I thought pedro was right - alcoolism didn't fit the understanding I had of the concept of "disease". I thought about something that is caught or somehow acquired, such as an infectious disease or a genetic disease. So I thought, no biggie, let's look up the definition of disease and put an end to any debate by posting it and an assessment whether alcoolism fits the definition or not.

I was rather surprised to discover that there is no clear-cut medical definition of disease. WHO has a definition of "health", but it doesn't allow to say disease is the opposite of health.

I also read medical literature, most of which defined disease very broadly.

In summary, a disease is any corporal or psychological deviance from the norm that either makes the subject feel bad or hurts his corporal/mental health or life expectancy or corporal integrity...

Going by this very broad definition, yes, alcoolism is a disease, but so is also the affliction of having a big nose or having lost a limb or being color blind. Personally, my asperger's would also fit the definition.

Calling alcoolism a disease is therefore totally insignificant from a medical point of view, but maybe it has some effect on the uneducated masses (which I belonged to before I looked up the definition of disease).

I can't help but to feel that the process was a somewhat dishonest - riding the wave of a widespread misconception to improve the image and acceptance of alcoolics.

So I can understand where pedro is coming from.

But from a semantic perspective, there is no escape: alcoolism is a disease in the proper medical sense.

That the proper medical sense means little more than "something bad" is of little importance in the debate if we want to continue speaking the same language where the same words mean the same things.

What's interesting here is that this issue is logically exactly symmetric to the pedophile issue.

For the latter, we also have medically uneducated forum members reserving the right to call anyone indulging in sex with any underage partners a pedophile, while the proper medical definition restricts the definition of pedophile to the preference for pre-puberian partners.

A while ago, we also had a forum member who considers himself very versed in the ways of IT trying to explain to IT professionals that his definition of what a "hard disk drive" is correct and not theirs...

I think we witness what we can call an "education gap".

The problem and danger today with internet and social media is that the riff-raff takes over the meaning of things.

When the general public considers their approximative knowledge to be correct and superior over specialists' knowledge, we witness the victory of the stupid or the victory of the social media generation, where "consensus" is more important than "fact".

very worrying.

[pedro01]

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.

I have a disease which I am not responsible for.

What I am responsible for is controlling it.

That is only done by complete abstinence from alcohol. for myself

Try it you might come to like it.

The very idea you are fighting the disease idea tells me you have a problem.

Other wise why come to this forum?

We have given you a suggestion AA try it.

Or try will power if you are not an alcoholic that will be easy for you.

Not sure but I think it might be FDA approved. You like that.

I am not going to try AA - that boat has long passed. My issues with booze are a decade behind us.

I just want to give people that didn't stick with AA the hope that they are not suffering from an incurable ailment, that they are not different from anyone else and that they simply became addicted to an addictive drug.

What amazes me - is that people in AA do not want to give that group of people hope too. It's not a competition you know - different approaches work for different people - and NOT because they don't have the same problem.

Why are you so against this NOT being a disease by the specific definition defined by your founders in the 1930's? That it is an addiction and that there is no 'type' that can get addicted - that it happens solely because you make a habit of it? Of course, it will take a different amount of booze and different time period for any addict to become addicted, but that does not mean they are of a type.

- They will lose hope because they have been told it is incurable, that it is progressive. If they don't get on with AA, they may see this as the end and give up trying to stop.

- They may use it as an excuse for them selves - "It's not me, it's the disease"

I don't see any upside in this narrative. It puts people in a very negative place if they do not stick with the AA program.

[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.

I got interested in the subject and already had a couple of peeks in the thread in the past days but I didn't really delve into it until this evening.

At first, I thought pedro was right - alcoolism didn't fit the understanding I had of the concept of "disease". I thought about something that is caught or somehow acquired, such as an infectious disease or a genetic disease. So I thought, no biggie, let's look up the definition of disease and put an end to any debate by posting it and an assessment whether alcoolism fiots the definition or not.

I was rather surprised to discover that there is no clear-cut medical definition of disease. WHO has a definition of "health", but it doesn't allow to say disease is the opposite of health.

I also read medical literature, most of which defined disease very broadly.

In summary, a disease is any corporal or psychological deviance from the norm that either makes the subject feel bad or hurts his corporal/mental health or life expectancy or corporal integrity...

Going by this very broad definition, yes, alcoolism is a disease, but so is also the affliction of having a big nose or having lost a limb or being color blind. Personally, my asperger's would also fit the definition.

Calling alcoolism a disease is therefore totally insignificant from a medical point of view, but maybe it has some effect on the uneducated masses (which I belonged to before I looked up the definition of disease).

I can't help but to feel that the process was a somewhat dishonest - riding the wave of a widespread misconception to improve the image and acceptance of alcoolics.

So I can understand where pedro is coming from.

But from a semantic perspective, there is no escape: alcoolism is a disease in the proper medical sense.

That the proper medical sense means little more than "something bad" is of little importance in the debate if we want to continue speaking the same language where the same words mean the same things.

What's interesting here is that this issue is logically exactly symmetric to the pedophile issue.

For the latter, we also have medically uneducated forum members reserving the right to call anyone indulging in sex with any underage partners a pedophile, while the proper medical definition restricts the definition of pedophile to the preference for pre-puberian partners.

A while ago, we also had a forum member who considers himself very versed in the ways of IT trying to explain to IT professionals that his definition of what a "hard disk drive" is correct and not theirs...

I think we witness what we can call an "education gap".

The problem and danger today with internet and social media is that the riff-raff takes over the meaning of things.

When the general public considers their approximative knowledge to be correct and superior over specialists' knowledge, we witness the victory of the stupid or the victory of the social media generation, where "consensus" is more important than "fact".

very worrying.

The AA doctrine of alcohol as a disease goes like this

- Alcholism is a disease to which some people are vulnerable. They will develop that disease if they take up drinking. The disease progresses uncontrollably until death, unless the person abstains completely.

- Abstinence is the only hope as the disease has no cure

- At best, someone with this disease can only learn to abstain from that first drink which will lead to oblivion.

So the disease causes them to lose control when drinking. When told he had a disease that causes his problem, a heavy drinker may be discouraged from trying to stop as they have effectively been told it's hopeless.

Also - some drinkers will not seek help if giving up completely is the answer.

It is this theory of the disease that is unproven. That basically - there is a "type", that type gets addicted if they drink and anyone not that type cannot.

[manarak]

The AA doctrine of alcohol as a disease goes like this

- Alcholism is a disease to which some people are vulnerable. They will develop that disease if they take up drinking. The disease progresses uncontrollably until death, unless the person abstains completely.

- Abstinence is the only hope as the disease has no cure

- At best, someone with this disease can only learn to abstain from that first drink which will lead to oblivion.

So the disease causes them to lose control when drinking. When told he had a disease that causes his problem, a heavy drinker may be discouraged from trying to stop as they have effectively been told it's hopeless.

Also - some drinkers will not seek help if giving up completely is the answer.

It is this theory of the disease that is unproven. That basically - there is a "type", that type gets addicted if they drink and anyone not that type cannot.

Maybe it helps the AA members to believe this?

They also believe in God and they believe God (the power of) helps them...

If they have the right to believe in God, they also have the right to believe what they want about alcoolism - personally, I don't think it matters, not to me at least - why does it matter to you?

But for what it's worth, I can add that I do hold the belief that some persons are much more affected by addictive substances than others.

Another fact is that mind-altering substances including alcool have wildly different effects on different persons.

[smotherb]

It appears you have all forgotten the laws of chemistry, alcohol is a solution.

[manarak]

It appears you have all forgotten the laws of chemistry, alcohol is a solution.

alcohol isn't, but drinks containing alcohol indeed are solutions.

[impulse]

It appears you have all forgotten the laws of chemistry, alcohol is a solution.

Until it becomes the problem instead of the solution.

[smotherb]

It appears you have all forgotten the laws of chemistry, alcohol is a solution.

Until it becomes the problem instead of the solution.

Did you duck?

[smotherb]

It appears you have all forgotten the laws of chemistry, alcohol is a solution.

alcohol isn't, but drinks containing alcohol indeed are solutions.

ah yes, thank you for keeping me honest; Spirits, Beer and Wine are solutions

[impulse]

It appears you have all forgotten the laws of chemistry, alcohol is a solution.

Until it becomes the problem instead of the solution.

Did you duck?

Sadly, no. It usually smacked me upside the head. Would you believe I actually chose to give it up? Who'd have thought...

[big carl]

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.

I got interested in the subject and already had a couple of peeks in the thread in the past days but I didn't really delve into it until this evening.

At first, I thought pedro was right - alcoolism didn't fit the understanding I had of the concept of "disease". I thought about something that is caught or somehow acquired, such as an infectious disease or a genetic disease. So I thought, no biggie, let's look up the definition of disease and put an end to any debate by posting it and an assessment whether alcoolism fits the definition or not.

I was rather surprised to discover that there is no clear-cut medical definition of disease. WHO has a definition of "health", but it doesn't allow to say disease is the opposite of health.

I also read medical literature, most of which defined disease very broadly.

In summary, a disease is any corporal or psychological deviance from the norm that either makes the subject feel bad or hurts his corporal/mental health or life expectancy or corporal integrity...

Going by this very broad definition, yes, alcoolism is a disease, but so is also the affliction of having a big nose or having lost a limb or being color blind. Personally, my asperger's would also fit the definition.

Calling alcoolism a disease is therefore totally insignificant from a medical point of view, but maybe it has some effect on the uneducated masses (which I belonged to before I looked up the definition of disease).

I can't help but to feel that the process was a somewhat dishonest - riding the wave of a widespread misconception to improve the image and acceptance of alcoolics.

So I can understand where pedro is coming from.

But from a semantic perspective, there is no escape: alcoolism is a disease in the proper medical sense.

That the proper medical sense means little more than "something bad" is of little importance in the debate if we want to continue speaking the same language where the same words mean the same things.

What's interesting here is that this issue is logically exactly symmetric to the pedophile issue.

For the latter, we also have medically uneducated forum members reserving the right to call anyone indulging in sex with any underage partners a pedophile, while the proper medical definition restricts the definition of pedophile to the preference for pre-puberian partners.

A while ago, we also had a forum member who considers himself very versed in the ways of IT trying to explain to IT professionals that his definition of what a "hard disk drive" is correct and not theirs...

I think we witness what we can call an "education gap".

The problem and danger today with internet and social media is that the riff-raff takes over the meaning of things.

When the general public considers their approximative knowledge to be correct and superior over specialists' knowledge, we witness the victory of the stupid or the victory of the social media generation, where "consensus" is more important than "fact".

very worrying.

Alcoholism is also a disease of denial. Now that may not fit any particular medical or legal definition but ask most any real Alcoholic if he or she didn't deny it for various periods of time before they gave in and said help I have had enough.

[pedro01]

Alcoholism is also a disease of denial. Now that may not fit any particular medical or legal definition but ask most any real Alcoholic if he or she didn't deny it for various periods of time before they gave in and said help I have had enough.

All addicts are in denial. Denial is not a disease, it is merely part of the process.

With very few exceptions, anyone that becomes physically addicted to a substance does so unintentionally. For example, someone may think heroin is hip, see their peers do it or just try it out of curiosity. On that first try - there is no intent to become an addict and there is an absolute conviction that this is not going to become a habit. The user likes it and continues to use it with greater frequency until they are physically addicted.

During this process, there is an absolute conviction in most users that they could stop at any time, that this is merely recreational use and that they can stop any time. Next thing you know, they are out of work, stealing to pay for the habit and unable to function without heroin.

Absolutely no different to alcohol. The substance is addictive we know this because the rule of thumb for an addictive substance is that lab rats (ans humans) will work to get it. This is true of alcohol.

The alcohol dependent is not "different from other drinkers" other than the fact they got to the point of physical dependence through heavy and repeated use. It can happen to anyone.

There is no upside in telling people "it's not your fault, you are an alcoholic, we are different from other drinkers, there is no cure, the best you can hope for is to go day to day living with your addiction". If someone believes the AA view of the problem but not the spiritual AA view of the cure, that puts them in a desperate place. They have been told the problem is permanent but as this great cure didn't work, then there is no hope.

In fact, in the big book, look at the description of those that fail in AA

"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves 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. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest."

How damaging it is to put that belief into somebody that doesn't fit a specific program. This is literally saying that there is no hope for some people outside of this program, that they are dishonest and have mental disorders? The only mental disorder I see is the person the wrote that disgusting passage,

Since this 'opinion' of alcoholism was formed, science has moved forward and now offers us many options for curing the addiction. The Sinclair method of using Naltrexone has been proven in double blind studies and the World Health Organization call it a ‘safe and effective treatment for alcohol dependence'.(http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/1/2)

Look - the Big Book is not the Koran. The world has moved forward. There is now more hope and more options for alcoholics than ever before.

[taiwanatoa]

This "Pedro01" moron is just another know-nothing fool posting nonsense on a forum.

It happens everyday.

[Johnniey]

This "Pedro01" moron is just another know-nothing fool posting nonsense on a forum.

It happens everyday.

I agree. The google is dangerous for people like him.

[big carl]

This "Pedro01" moron is just another know-nothing fool posting nonsense on a forum.

It happens everyday.

This "Pedro01" moron is just another know-nothing fool posting nonsense on a forum.

It happens everyday.

I agree. The google is dangerous for people like him.

I get the feeling that talking to him is like the old saying goes lights on no body home. Come to close to the truth and he gets it removed.

[MrY]

Demonization is what causes more harm than good. In no country is the view on alcohol use [and abuse] as distorted as in the U.S. of As.

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.

[ding]

People are free to believe what they wish.

I believe that I do not know for certain...

YMMV

[Dagnabbit]

This "Pedro01" moron is just another know-nothing fool posting nonsense on a forum.

It happens everyday.

I agree. The google is dangerous for people like him.

Insulting someone with a different opinion is basically admitting you cannot counter their points like a mature adult.

[Johnniey]

Hey Pedro1,

 

How's it going with the booze?

 

I would be nice to hear if you are still off it or not.

 

Cheers

 

Johnniey

[473geo]

I don't care if Alcoholism is termed a disease or not. There are those that will suffer, and or cause suffering to loved ones, by the overuse, and abuse of alcohol. Been there done that.

 

I found the solution in myself, the strength in myself, and a new pride in myself. I identified a reason to change.

 

I believe there are those who may not know how to tap into this inner strength, they may need an alternative solution, guidance, support. But I firmly believe the answer comes from within. Those that fail have the ability to justify failure, those that succeed have the ability to acknowledge their very own capability to implement change.

 

Your life in your hands, you can strive to implement change, or accept there is no change.

 

I understand where Pedro is coming from.

[thai3]

Pretending it is a disease was always nonsense and taking responsibility for their own actions away from addicts. 

[Johnniey]

On 8/21/2016 at 6:48 AM, thai3 said:

Pretending it is a disease was always nonsense and taking responsibility for their own actions away from addicts. 

Alcoholism is a disease. Are you someone who knows more than the expert doctors?

I'm sure there are some real doctors in the following organizations who say alcoholism is a disease. I'll listen to them thanks.

The American Medical Association, The World Health Organization, American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association, theAmerican 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

[thai3]

Not all Doctors say it is a disease, it's pretty idiotic to think it is any more than heroin addiction or gambling, there is of course no proof what so ever that is is an organic 'disease'.

[slipperylobster]

How many of us drink to loosen up?  I am a quiet guy, and my wife likes to dance, but not drink.   I can't bring myself to dance (I am quite clumsy) until I get 4 or 5 beers down.  Then I lose count.  This happens 3 or 4 times a month, when we go out to party.  27 days a month...I don't even touch alcohol.  It has no appeal or benefit unless I am using it to become a dancing fool.  lol    

 

 

 

[thai3]

 

[Sheryl]

3 hours ago, thai3 said:

Not all Doctors say it is a disease, it's pretty idiotic to think it is any more than heroin addiction or gambling, there is of course no proof what so ever that is is an organic 'disease'.

 

Psychological conditions are considered diseases, too. it sounds like you are unclear on what the medical meaning of the term "disease" is.

 

The official medical position is that addiction disorders - alcoholism, drugs, gambling etc - are diseases. They are included in the DSM. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

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

 

I fail to see why considering something a disease "takes away responsibility". Obviously, people with a disease are responsible for seeking appropriate treatment/taking appropriate measures to cure or manage their disease.