Alcoholics Anonymous and the like

[Aractus]

Did you even read your link? It does not say that it's been proven - it says that the question is not settled.

And my point was and is that it is not a moral issue.

It is a moral issue - from the link I posted:

• The disease theory of alcoholism is just that... an unproven theory.
  
  Dr. Herbert Fingarette has observed that the disease theory of alcoholism is embodied in four propositions:
  
  1. Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.
     
  2. The condition once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.
     
  3. Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition ('cure the disease') or at least ameliorate its symptoms.
     
  4. Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures."

So I'm already correct in my assessment that IF it is a real disease THEN it requires treatment by a qualified practitioner. (point 3. above). Point 4. "Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally ..." is the part that deals with the moral issue which you refuse to accept.

Next:

• The second proposition, that drinking necessarily becomes uncontrollable once it has begun, had been disproved over a quarter century ago by more than 100 research studies reporting that a significant proportion of alcoholics return to moderate or controlled drinking without problems. Since then, the number of such studies has more than doubled.
  
  The proposition has also been disproved by a nation-wide survey of alcoholics conducted by the United States government. It found that 17.7% of alcoholics are now drinking in moderation. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has discovered that
  
  • Twenty years after onset of alcohol dependence, about three-fourths of individuals are in full recovery; more than half of those who have fully recovered drink at low-risk levels without symptoms of alcohol dependence.
    
    About 75 percent of persons who recover from alcohol dependence do so without seeking any kind of help, including specialty alcohol (rehab) programs and AA. Only 13 percent of people with alcohol dependence ever receive specialty alcohol treatment.

Disproving the dependence aspect of alcoholism as "involuntary" and "uncontrollable craving" disproves the entire disease theory of alcoholism. That's what I meant when I said that it's been disproved - it has been disproved!

The moral issue AND it's impact:

• The fourth proposition, that alcoholics aren't responsible for their behavior, is certainly not true. In 1988, the United States Supreme Court found that alcoholism is always the result of the alcoholics "own willful misconduct." It reaffirmed the lower court's finding that there exists "a substantial body of medical literature that even contests the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, much less that it is a disease for which the victim bears no responsibility." It also noted that "Indeed, even among many who consider alcoholism a 'disease' to which its victims are genetically predisposed, the consumption of alcohol is not regarded as wholly involuntary."
  
  ...
  
  The disease concept of alcoholism removes the responsibility of alcoholics for their own behaviors. Dr. Peele asserts that "Perhaps the most dire consequence of the disease model of addiction is that it has encouraged the abdication of individual responsibility for outrageous conduct" and he suggests that "Creating a world of addictive diseases may mean creating a world in which anything is excusable."
  
  ...
  
  The belief that consuming any alcohol triggers an uncontrollable urge to continue drinking and to do so in excess becomes a dangerous self-fulfilling prophesy. Research has demonstrated that alcoholics who reject the belief are much more likely to drink without problems after ending treatment than are those who believe it.
  
  ...
  
  Those studies in which alcoholics are randomly assigned to AA, to other forms of treatment, or to no treatment report that alcoholics assigned to AA either do no better or actually suffer more relapses than do those assigned to other treatment or to no treatment at all.
  
  Unfortunately, attending AA or other disease theory programs may be worse than doing nothing because members (or patients) are taught that they cannot succeed on their own because they suffer from a chronic disease that can't be cured.

They are saying, exactly what I am saying but in a different way. The AA program is not a wholesome complete way to tackle alcoholism because it narrowly looks upon it as a "disease".

It is listed in the DSM as a recognized disorder.

Well what's a "disorder" then, is it a disease?

Maybe if you're talking about a bacterial infection with some obvious associated symptom, maybe both terms can mean the same thing. Obesity is a disorder too isn't it? But it's not a disease - eating disorders however are. So don't go trying to confuse people by blurring the line between disease and disorder.

[Angrboda]

Did you even read your link? It does not say that it's been proven - it says that the question is not settled.

And my point was and is that it is not a moral issue.

It is a moral issue - from the link I posted:

• The disease theory of alcoholism is just that... an unproven theory.
  
  Dr. Herbert Fingarette has observed that the disease theory of alcoholism is embodied in four propositions:
  
  1. Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.
     
  2. The condition once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.
     
  3. Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition ('cure the disease') or at least ameliorate its symptoms.
     
  4. Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures."

Really, you're getting your definition of the disease model of alcoholism [indirectly] from an article titled, "Why We Should Reject the Disease Concept of Alcoholism," posted in an article written by a sociology professor who "is a critic of many groups that advocate the reduction of alcohol use" and describes such groups as "neo-prohibitionist”? (Wikipedia: Professor David J. Hanson)

Okie dokie. Nothing biased there!

[Aractus]

I already defined it myself, independantly, earlier in the thread. A disease is something that you a. have no control over and b. require (medical) treatment for.

[Ksa]

Alcoholism is an addiction, it is not simply 'drinking too much'. I suggest you learn about that.

I don't think you understood what I meant about intervention. it is in contrast to no treatment.

And who said drinking is wrong?

Yes but, If I am addicted to drinking 1mL of ethanol per day, am I an alcoholic?

[Angrboda]

I already defined it myself, independantly, earlier in the thread. A disease is something that you a. have no control over and b. require (medical) treatment for.

Remind me not to go to you for medical advice.

[Chas]

Did you even read your link? It does not say that it's been proven - it says that the question is not settled.

And my point was and is that it is not a moral issue.

It is a moral issue - from the link I posted:

• The disease theory of alcoholism is just that... an unproven theory.
  
  Dr. Herbert Fingarette has observed that the disease theory of alcoholism is embodied in four propositions:
  
  1. Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.
     
  2. The condition once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.
     
  3. Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition ('cure the disease') or at least ameliorate its symptoms.
     
  4. Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures."

So I'm already correct in my assessment that IF it is a real disease THEN it requires treatment by a qualified practitioner. (point 3. above). Point 4. "Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally ..." is the part that deals with the moral issue which you refuse to accept.

Next:

• The second proposition, that drinking necessarily becomes uncontrollable once it has begun, had been disproved over a quarter century ago by more than 100 research studies reporting that a significant proportion of alcoholics return to moderate or controlled drinking without problems. Since then, the number of such studies has more than doubled.
  
  The proposition has also been disproved by a nation-wide survey of alcoholics conducted by the United States government. It found that 17.7% of alcoholics are now drinking in moderation. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has discovered that
  
  • Twenty years after onset of alcohol dependence, about three-fourths of individuals are in full recovery; more than half of those who have fully recovered drink at low-risk levels without symptoms of alcohol dependence.
    
    About 75 percent of persons who recover from alcohol dependence do so without seeking any kind of help, including specialty alcohol (rehab) programs and AA. Only 13 percent of people with alcohol dependence ever receive specialty alcohol treatment.

Disproving the dependence aspect of alcoholism as "involuntary" and "uncontrollable craving" disproves the entire disease theory of alcoholism. That's what I meant when I said that it's been disproved - it has been disproved!

The moral issue AND it's impact:

• The fourth proposition, that alcoholics aren't responsible for their behavior, is certainly not true. In 1988, the United States Supreme Court found that alcoholism is always the result of the alcoholics "own willful misconduct." It reaffirmed the lower court's finding that there exists "a substantial body of medical literature that even contests the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, much less that it is a disease for which the victim bears no responsibility." It also noted that "Indeed, even among many who consider alcoholism a 'disease' to which its victims are genetically predisposed, the consumption of alcohol is not regarded as wholly involuntary."
  
  ...
  
  The disease concept of alcoholism removes the responsibility of alcoholics for their own behaviors. Dr. Peele asserts that "Perhaps the most dire consequence of the disease model of addiction is that it has encouraged the abdication of individual responsibility for outrageous conduct" and he suggests that "Creating a world of addictive diseases may mean creating a world in which anything is excusable."
  
  ...
  
  The belief that consuming any alcohol triggers an uncontrollable urge to continue drinking and to do so in excess becomes a dangerous self-fulfilling prophesy. Research has demonstrated that alcoholics who reject the belief are much more likely to drink without problems after ending treatment than are those who believe it.
  
  ...
  
  Those studies in which alcoholics are randomly assigned to AA, to other forms of treatment, or to no treatment report that alcoholics assigned to AA either do no better or actually suffer more relapses than do those assigned to other treatment or to no treatment at all.
  
  Unfortunately, attending AA or other disease theory programs may be worse than doing nothing because members (or patients) are taught that they cannot succeed on their own because they suffer from a chronic disease that can't be cured.

They are saying, exactly what I am saying but in a different way. The AA program is not a wholesome complete way to tackle alcoholism because it narrowly looks upon it as a "disease".

It is listed in the DSM as a recognized disorder.

Well what's a "disorder" then, is it a disease?

Maybe if you're talking about a bacterial infection with some obvious associated symptom, maybe both terms can mean the same thing. Obesity is a disorder too isn't it? But it's not a disease - eating disorders however are. So don't go trying to confuse people by blurring the line between disease and disorder.

It is in the DSM. It is a physical and psychological disorder that is amenable to treatment. It is not a moral issue.

I suppose you tell people with depression to just cheer up? Or just get over it? To stop wallowing? Do you tell them they lack the will power to be happy?

---

Alcoholism is an addiction, it is not simply 'drinking too much'. I suggest you learn about that.

I don't think you understood what I meant about intervention. it is in contrast to no treatment.

And who said drinking is wrong?

Yes but, If I am addicted to drinking 1mL of ethanol per day, am I an alcoholic?

No, you're just an asshole. I doubt you, or anyone, is addicted to drinking 1mL of alcohol per day. How about educating yourself on what addiction actually is and contributing something useful?

[Polaris]

Less. Sorry, but I had to be the one to state the obvious this time around.

You are entitled to your (incorrect) opinion.

Speaking from a secular perspective, I'd much rather have someone devote their life to some faith than destroy it through alcoholism.

If you let your preconceived conceptions stand in the way of someone getting the treatment they need (this also applies to Christians who deny medical treatment), then you've already lost.

[Ksa]

No, you're just an asshole. I doubt you, or anyone, is addicted to drinking 1mL of alcohol per day. How about educating yourself on what addiction actually is and contributing something useful?

An insult is not an argument. So it is a matter of quantity after-all. It's about uncontrollably drinking unhealthy amounts that place your health at risk unless you seek help. Very good. It's not between you and me, it's all about what everyone is reading, and so, making a fool out of yourself clearly places your credibility at a disadvantage.

You clearly cannot tell between someone being addicted to a substance and someone needing help with their addiction. Some may say that, someone injecting speed-balls needs help. If you do not know what that is, it is injecting a deadly dose of Heroin combined with cocaine, and relying on the stimulant effects of cocaine to overcome the opioid overdose, and since cocaine exits the system faster, it must be continuously administered over a period of 2 hours.

And I do agree that MOST people doing that dangerous practice need help. But naturally, I have met some very smart individuals who have been doing that for 40 years without issues and who don't need your help. You imagine, going to that person and saying that he's killing himself, and he's doing the wrong thing, you imagine how hard he would laugh at you.

So what is required for an addiction to be deemed of an intervention? Several criteria:

- addict becomes physically violent towards others
- addict overdoses requiring constant resuscitation
- addict is no longer functional and able to support himself financially

If either one of those elements is not present, an intervention is only justified for law enforcement purposes. If you try to intervene, you will look like an idiot and people will think you're jealous on the addict for experiencing what you experience not. Why do you drop by, like a fly in the milk in other people's business, when they have asked nothing of you?

Do you get it?

[Chas]

No, you're just an asshole. I doubt you, or anyone, is addicted to drinking 1mL of alcohol per day. How about educating yourself on what addiction actually is and contributing something useful?

An insult is not an argument. So it is a matter of quantity after-all. It's about uncontrollably drinking unhealthy amounts that place your health at risk unless you seek help. Very good. It's not between you and me, it's all about what everyone is reading, and so, making a fool out of yourself clearly places your credibility at a disadvantage.

You clearly cannot tell between someone being addicted to a substance and someone needing help with their addiction. Some may say that, someone injecting speed-balls needs help. If you do not know what that is, it is injecting a deadly dose of Heroin combined with cocaine, and relying on the stimulant effects of cocaine to overcome the opioid overdose, and since cocaine exits the system faster, it must be continuously administered over a period of 2 hours.

And I do agree that MOST people doing that dangerous practice need help. But naturally, I have met some very smart individuals who have been doing that for 40 years without issues and who don't need your help. You imagine, going to that person and saying that he's killing himself, and he's doing the wrong thing, you imagine how hard he would laugh at you.

So what is required for an addiction to be deemed of an intervention? Several criteria:

- addict becomes physically violent towards others
- addict overdoses requiring constant resuscitation
- addict is no longer functional and able to support himself financially

If either one of those elements is not present, an intervention is only justified for law enforcement purposes. If you try to intervene, you will look like an idiot and people will think you're jealous on the addict for experiencing what you experience not. Why do you drop by, like a fly in the milk in other people's business, when they have asked nothing of you?

Do you get it?

You have gone completely off the track here. No one has said anything about determining if someone is an addict or forcing treatment on him.

You are simply misinterpreting my use of the word 'intervention'. I'm not talking about 'doing an intervention'.

The point was contrasting no help (non-intervention) with getting help (intervention). Another poster was going on about 'will power'.

[k2490]

Well as an update I can't get a hold of anyone for the meeting and it's a little more than an hour away from where I am. I don't even know if it's still active.

I have a therapist,so I'll just go that route for the time being