Why do people consider alcoholism a disease?

Sons of Obama wrote:

I seriously do NOT understand the logic/science behind this. Seems like it's just weakness or an excuse for people being weak- you can't choose to get cancer/HIV/AIDS/ebola- but you can choose not to drink alcohol.

Discus.

Choosing not to drink alcohol isn't choosing not to have alcoholism, it's choosing not to be symptomatic. An alcoholic would presumably still become addicted if they chose to drink again. Most people without alcoholism wouldn't.

I'm an alcoholic, but never felt I reached the disease stage. What I think of as the disease stage is when the body becomes dependent on it, and when the booze is withdrawn you experience some level of DT's (delerium tremens). I did reach mentally addicted level early on in college. I eventually gave it up with some help from AA, and haven't drank in 16 years. After delving into my own psyche, I realized booze was a self-medication I used to rid myself of the discomfort and separation I felt around people. After a few beers, I felt connected and my shyness disappeared. It felt like freedom. After giving up booze, I learned to accept myself and what I felt around people, accept being shy. There were also cultural beliefs that fed my addiction. Beliefs about what it meant to be a man, attractive, and one of the guys. You know you're addicted when the thought of not drinking or not having booze on hand causes you a bit of mild anxiety. Doesn't mean you're at the diseased stage, but you do have a bit of a problem and should consider quitting and doing some self-observation and study.

let me beef frank with you wrote:

Every disease has a genetic component and an environmental/behavioral component.

Um.....NO (at least not the way you mean it).

Many, many disease are fully the result of genetic defects. Or do you think people BORN with genetic diseases had some "behavioral" role in their disease. '

(look, when attempting to make a point, don't go overboard, it just makes you look bad. You could have easily said "MANY" instead of "EVERY")

let me beef frank with you wrote: You might not "choose to get cancer," but cancer is often a result of behaviors that an individual has willfully engaged in.

True, and some cancers are directly related to environment/behavior. But many are not, and may of the behavioral/environmental reasons for cancer are not fully understood. It's not like: 'when I drink, I ruin my life and health, therefore I should stop, but I don't.' That's a liiiiiiiitle more direct than: eating too much red meat *might*, *MIGHT* put me at a higher risk of cancer someday. Yes, a lot different.

Alcoholism is a mental illness. If you can't stop destroying your life when it is obvious that you are, yes, something is definitely wrong with you. You need help. If you don't accept it, then it's on you

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

let me beef frank with you wrote:

Every disease has a genetic component and an environmental/behavioral component.

Um.....NO (at least not the way you mean it).

Many, many disease are fully the result of genetic defects. Or do you think people BORN with genetic diseases had some "behavioral" role in their disease. '

(look, when attempting to make a point, don't go overboard, it just makes you look bad. You could have easily said "MANY" instead of "EVERY")

I didn't say that all diseases are the result of behavior or the environment. I said that all diseases have an environmental component. The progress, severity, and/or onset of genetic diseases are influenced by environment. Take Down Syndrome, for example. You are going to have the disease if you have the genetic defect, but environmental factors greatly influence the extent to which the patient is able to develop into an independently functioning adult.

I am supposed to hate alcoholics now? And maybe also people who want to help alcoholics?

Wow, LetsRun. I have trouble keeping track of all the people and things I am supposed to hate. Maybe there should be a handy guide right on the home page.

I don't go on this site often and after reading your post I realized I have stumbled upon the biggest douche bag on the internet! You are a BAD man BAD Wigins! What an A-hole.

30 years ago people thought folks afflicted with alzheimer's or dementia were just "getting old" or "going off their rocker". but now we know there is a pathology in the brain behind the disease, and that disruption of the normal biology in the brain drives that pathology and disease progression (and that both genetics and environment contribute to the disease state). still a lot to learn in neurobiology. 30 years from now we may know about biological pathways that get screwed up in brain regions important for addictive behaviors or decision making, and that disruption of the biology in theses areas by genetic or developmental factors may drive pathlogy/predisposition for diseases like alcoholism and other addictive behaviors (smoking, binge eating, etc.) i'm sure people with AD/dementia would love to just "choose" to remember the names of their loved ones or memories of their youth, but they don't have a choice.

Sons of Obama wrote:

I seriously do NOT understand the logic/science behind this. Seems like it's just weakness or an excuse for people being weak- you can't choose to get cancer/HIV/AIDS/ebola- but you can choose not to drink alcohol.

Discus.

xenonscreams wrote:

Choosing not to drink alcohol isn't choosing not to have alcoholism, it's choosing not to be symptomatic. An alcoholic would presumably still become addicted if they chose to drink again. Most people without alcoholism wouldn't.

Well said.

I don't believe in the "Disease" medical defintion.

Perhaps there is a genetic component where alcohol affects some people more profoundly than other. Native Americans for example.

I don't buy that. People that are born into families where people drink a lot will follow suit. I can't imagine anyone is born with an inherited ability to handle alcohol in excess.

That's something that takes time and you have to keep up with.

The Native Americans and the Irish 100-30 years ago drank a lot because they were a defeated underclass and drinkling was the one thing they could do to have some happiness.

Its not a disease. Its a condition.

Sons of Obama wrote:

I seriously do NOT understand the logic/science behind this. Seems like it's just weakness or an excuse for people being weak- you can't choose to get cancer/HIV/AIDS/ebola- but you can choose not to drink alcohol.

Discus.

With a name as clever as "Sons of Obama", you probably don't understand a lot of things.

sjbeale wrote:

An recovering addict,

Amen!

+1

George Atlas wrote:

I don't believe in the "Disease" medical defintion.

Educated men don't give a sh*t about your pleb beliefs. Kindly go back to baking bread and stop interrupting civilized conversations with your delusions.

Impartial people don't care about your opinion either.

Fact: The "Recovery" industry is a massive industry. They will fight the fact that you can't EVER become "Recovered" with tooth and nail.

can't == can. Meaning, certain groups believe you can never ever be recovered. This is their basis of "dry drunk". "dry drunk" and disease are joined at the hip.

It is in their interests and the fundamental basis of the steppers to deny full recovery to anyone and promote the disease viewpoint. You must constantly attend meetings. You must follow their rules and donate at meetings.

Having said that, steppers have helped many people but it shouldn't scientifically be considered the only way. They won't even discuss it and you can see this in the dogmatic responses on this thread.

A lot of people get up in arms over the disease classification. I say, if it helps people get their lives in order and not put others at harm, go for it. It's like the AA mantra which gives over to the higher power of "GOD." You can think of god however you want, whether a spiritual entity or simply good, orderly direction. Again, if it helps people live better lives, I'm all for it.

Perhaps I am weaker than most people because I can't control my drinking once I start. I'm no doctor and I haven't looked at my neurotransmitters or anything, so I couldn't tell you if I'm chemically imbalanced or what. I do know that there is a lot of science, and no obvious consensus. If you really want to get into the behavior/genetics debate, you can talk about epigenetics and the like, but that's a little too deep for my thinking right now.

What I do know is that contrary to what I thought, some of my AA buddies are the sharpest, smartest suckers I've ever met--geniuses I'd wager. Are they weak? Perhaps. What matters to me is that they're clean, and if buying into the disease/allergy and spiritual 'cult' of AA is the answer, so be it. Where it gets dicey is if the disease classification ends up costing others $$ in the name of so-called social justice.

drunky wrote:

It's like the AA mantra which gives over to the higher power of "GOD." You can think of god however you want, whether a spiritual entity or simply good, orderly direction.

Not true. There is one thing that AA doesn't allow you to claim as your higher power.

jamin wrote:

drunky wrote:

It's like the AA mantra which gives over to the higher power of "GOD." You can think of god however you want, whether a spiritual entity or simply good, orderly direction.

Not true. There is one thing that AA doesn't allow you to claim as your higher power.

I don't follow

Lucifer?

Much of what you said is exactly how I feel. I consider myself a borderline alcoholic because I drink almost everyday, and if I take a couple days off, I start to crave it. It's not just about having fun. It's just something I do when I am going about my day.