The idea that alcoholism is a disease has always been a political and moral notion with no scientific basis. It was first promoted in the U.S. around 1785 as an erroneous physiological theory (Levine, 1978), and later became a theme of the temperance movement (Gusfield, 1963). It was revived by AA in the 1930s, which derived its views from an amalgam of religious ideas, personal experiences, anecdotal observations, and the unsubstantiated theories of a contemporary physician (Robinson, 1979)...
To me, it makes the most sense to say that an addiction is a rewiring of the brain. That a pathway(s) are created that compel someone to do something that to them, is as natural as seeking out food. The fact that you can go 20 years without drinking, drink 1 drink and be right back where you were kind of reinforces that idea, to me. Sort of like how you can remember a song that you have totally forgotten about after years of not hearing it, then hearing it 1 time and have it be back.
"To me, it makes the most sense to say that an addiction is a rewiring of the brain."
Then why is the experience of "alcoholism" as well as the mode of "alcoholism" so different from culture t culture ALL over the world?
Do different nationalities of people have their brains "rewired" in a different way - depending on the unique electrical system of their respective countries?
@Hammersley1967 The characteristics of addiction are the same all over the world across cultures. There may be different outcomes, but the characteristic loss of control and other features of addiction are the same anywhere.
@Hammersley1967 Your research is WRONG, I don't even need to look at that research, I have other research, not to mention the same exact treatments are available in every country including IRAN. Not to mention you are citing work from 1960. Think there might have been some progress since 1960?
OK then, lets see it... I've just cited TWO reference (of many)... You've cited nothing... So, what is your "different research pray tell?
I've researched this area of scholarly inquiry since 2006 (as a PhD candidate), and I can assure you that the canon of knowledge CLEARLY demonstrates that addiction is culturally variable...
"Not to mention you are citing work from 1960. Think there might have been some progress since 1960?"
Then it's obvious that you have no idea about scholarly research...
The longevity of the research has NO bearing on its voracity.
Research, if methodologically sound, will stand until it is debunked. Jelinek's CANONICAL 1960 work has NOT been debunked and has in fact been supported by the vast majority of the subsequent research conducted in the past 50 years...
@Hammersley1967 Iran is treating heroin addicts with Methadone. I read the wikipedia article on the cultural references and according to it, he was trying to label people who didn't have "loss of control" as alcoholics. Having worked at a methadone clinic, I have talked with addicts from the US, Russia, middle east and asia. It's the same story. It's been since the late 80's that I have studied, on the other hand, there has been almost no progress.
"I read the wikipedia article on the cultural references and according to it, he was trying to label people who didn't have "loss of control" as alcoholics."
Wikipedia? Are you serious?
And yes, "loss of control" is just ONE variable of the experience of addiction that differs across cultures...
And, in regards to heroin addiction, that (loss of control) even varies from subject to subject WITHIN THE SAME CULTURE...
For example, most (93%) of opiate addicted Vietnam Veterans ceased heroin use upon return to the US WITHOUT REPORTING THE EXPERIENCE OF CRAVING THE DRUG.
That is, unpleasant physiological "symptoms" were experienced, but NO psycho-emotional CRAVING for the drug (Jaffe and Harris 1973; Peele 1978).
Only 14% became readdicted over time in the US (Robins et al). Thus, foe the VAST MAJORITY of GI “heroin addicts”, heroin use was a psycho-emotional coping strategy whilst being exposed to a traumatic environment.
@Hammersley1967 Then they weren't addicts. Having a physical dependence doesn't make someone an addict. People who take prescription opiates can become dependent without becoming addicted. I guess if you characterize addiction as someone who uses a drug regularly, then it would be different across cultures.
“Then they weren't addicts. Having a physical dependence doesn't make someone an addict”
Ah! Now we’re getting somewhere! Good debate!
So, you are of the opinion that addiction is NOT a PHYSIOLOGICAL phenomenon? Well, there are literally HUNDREDS of AA/NA members on YT that would vehemently disagree with you. However, I personally AGREE with you 120%. Why? Because drug addicts and alcoholics relapse after 1, 5, 10, even 20 years of abstinence (AFTER physical dependency)...
So we have to cross physical dependency off the list as the causal basis of addiction, don’t we?
However, do you see how you’ve just contradicted yourself?
You claim that addiction exists as a constant, universal phenomenon across all human cultures because the exact same “treatment” (methadone maintenance - a purely PHYSIOLOGICAL “treatment”) is employed worldwide (BTW: which it’s not)...
In essence, that the “exact same treatment” is used to treat the “exact same problem” in all cultures. But all methadone treats is physical dependency – which you just said is NOT addiction. So, methadone isn’t really a treatment for addiction is it? Therefore, your argument that addiction is the same in all cultures because the “exact same treatment” (methadone maintenance) exists in all cultures, doesn’t really hold water...
@Hammersley1967 Methadone doesn't just treat the physical, it also treats the mental. People who obsess on heroin (or other opiods) morning noon and night stop after taking methadone.
"Methadone doesn't just treat the physical, it also treats the mental. People who obsess on heroin (or other opiods) morning noon and night stop after taking methadone."
That's the equivalent of saying that an 8 hourly shot of (government sanctioned) smack "treats" heroin addiction.
They no longer obsess about heroin or "other opioids" because they are saturated with their drug of addiction - heroin.
Are you starting to see the absurdity of your position?
@Hammersley1967 My position is that addiction is the same all over. I don't think that methadone treatment is absurd and neither does the treatment community.
@Hammersley1967 How can you possibly make such an absurd statement? The treatment community obviously believes in MMT or they wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people on it all over the world. The fact that MMT is considered legitimate is self evident. I can cherry pick research papers just as good as you can.
The VAST majority of those involved in the GREATER treatment industry (including psychosocial and other biomedical interventions - i.e. naltrexone) oppose MMPT.
"Cherry pick research papers"? How 'bout looking at the canon of knowledge? I wish you would at least have enough intellectual accountability to "cherry pick research papers"? All you do is say "this is what I have blind faith in and that's that..."
@Hammersley1967 You are doing the same exact thing. You blow off a huge section of the addiction treatment and just write it off as quickly and as blindly as any fundie ever wrote off evolution. I admit it's been a long time since I opened a book on the subject, but I have talked to many people who have gone through it and many people who treat the people who have gone through it. NOBODY who doesn't have the mental obsession goes on MMT. Most of them have detoxed 100 times!
"You are doing the same exact thing. You blow off a huge section of the addiction treatment and just write it off as quickly and as blindly as any fundie ever wrote off evolution."
How so? Not only do I have 5 years experience of personal experience (taking the shit NOT just talking about it) but I also 4 years of familiarity with the canon of knowledge on addiction research...
My opinion is founded on full consider4ation of the body of EVIDENCE not ANECDOTE and BLIND FAITH...
"NOBODY who doesn't have the mental obsession goes on MMT. Most of them have detoxed 100 times!"
And my answer to that is - so what?
Are you actually claiming that the treatment subjects are not addicted (both physically AND psycho-emotionally dependent) to this so called "treatment"?
Are you actually inferring that MMTP subjects are not addicted to methadone?
@Hammersley1967 You are doing the same exact thing. You blow off a huge section of the addiction treatment and just write it off as quickly and as blindly as any fundie ever wrote off evolution. I admit it's been a long time since I opened a book on the subject, but I have talked to many people who have gone through it and many people who treat the people who have gone through it. NOBODY who doesn't have the mental obsession goes on MMT. Most of them have detoxed 100 times!
However, I WILL provide you with this source (even though you definitely wont read it).
Throw three "w"s and a dot before: drugtext.org/library/articles/923206.htm
Or simple Google "METHADONE TREATMENT: THE THERAPEUTIC MIRAGE".
Happy "reading" - although I don't expect you to do any such thing as you seem to be quite attached to your own little bubble of evidence-free faith in MMTP and therefore any research that is contrary to your faith in MMTP is, a priori, "wrong"...
"My position is that addiction is the same all over"
Christo, I've provided you with 4 of the peak studies (repeatable, conclusive, and peer reviewed) that completely debunk your faith-based claim.
So far you've not provided ONE shred of evidence. Anyone can say anything about anything. How about providing some hard evidence to back up your claims?
Believe it or not, only 4 years ago I held opinions similar to yours.
What changed? 4 years of research into the canon of knowledge.
@Hammersley1967 You are taking the position that things that aren't addiction are, such as frequent drinking. If someone who can chose to stop with no problem, but chooses not to, isn't an alcoholic. Furthermore, the research sucks and it shows by their dismal treatment success. At best, they have a 10-15% success rate. All other areas of expertise is judged by the success of the field.
"You are taking the position that things that aren't addiction are, such as frequent drinking."
You couldn't be further from the truth. I view all forms of excessive appetite to the point of self defeat as "addiction".
However, unlike you, I have looked at the body of conclusive, peer reviewed research and come to the informed conclusion that "loss of control" is a myth. "Addiction" is a deliberate choice emanating from the "addict's" limited repertories in relating to the world.
@Hammersley1967 THere are all kinds of self defeating behavior that nobody calls a disorder or anything like that. What is so special about when it happens with a chemical substance?
"THere are all kinds of self defeating behavior that nobody calls a disorder or anything like that"
Nice strawman argument and side step of the comment.
I explicitly said "I view all forms of EXCESSIVE APPETITE to the point of self defeat as 'addiction' ".
That is, APPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR such as over-eating (food addiction), over-sexing (sex addiction), compulsive-gambling (gambling addiction). Make no mistake, they are seen as BEHAVIOURAL, DISORDERS by the psychiatric fraternity.
@Hammersley1967 I don't really see the point you are trying to make here. When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction.
"I don't really see the point you are trying to make here. When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction."
You have blind faith that being "unable to stop" is a VERY REAL THING.
So, how does ant addict recover to full abstinence? How do they stop?
"When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction."
So how do YOU empirically KNOW the difference between "doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate" and "not being able to stop"?
"When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction."
So, following THAT line of reasoning, every sober alcoholic and clean addict isn't and was never an alcoholic or addict...
I remember, many comments ago, you claimed that "addiction is the same the world over because the treatments are the same the world over"...
Then you use the example of the "universal treatments", AA/NA and MMT.
Well, those two treatment approaches view addiction in VASTLY different ways. One sees it as a purely physiological disorder whilst the other sees it as a "spiritual" (psycho-emotional) disorder...
So, if "addiction is the same the world over" - which is it? "Spiritual" or physical?
@Hammersley1967 No, I said addiction and the behavior is the same all over. AA as a treatment, is a joke, but it is found all over the world. Maybe not in every single country, but still a great deal of the world. The same thing can be said about methadone.
"Furthermore, the research sucks and it shows by their dismal treatment success. At best, they have a 10-15% success rate. All other areas of expertise is judged by the success of the field."
The research sucks because "it shows by their dismal treatment success"?
What has research got to do with treatment?
How can RESEARCH "suck" because TREATMENT success is lacking?
Research is research. It is good or bad depending on its methodology and accuracy...
@Hammersley1967 Research in every other area is measured by the fruits of it's success. The success rate in this area is dismal. If they had a better understanding in how addiction worked, they would have better treatments.
"Research in every other area is measured by the fruits of it's success."
Rubbish!
RESEARCH is "measured" (assessed) by the validity and accuracy of the methodology, data collection, and conclusions that it derives.RESEARCH has NOTHING to do with treatment.
RESEARCH can be used to ASSESS the EFFICACY of treatment (like the paper "METHADONE: THE THERAPEUTIC MIRAGE") but has NOTHING to do with treatment invention and initiative.
@Hammersley1967 I don't agree with that statement. What good is research if it can't develop an effective treatment. It would be like doing work on engineering of bridges, but you still can't build a bridge. Why is research accepted as being valid? Why does anyone believe the PN junction theory? Because we can make diodes and transistors. So far, the fruits of addiction research have been few and far between. Naltrexone is hardly a treatment.
"What good is research if it can't develop an effective treatment."
That's a fine personal opinion regarding what YOU think research should or should not be used for...
However, someone else may be of the opinion that research should be used to ASSESS treatment...
But, at the end of the day, research is simply research - an investigative process that can be used to assess or discover or used for ANYTHING ELSE that the research initiators deem befitting for their purposes...
Via peer review... If the fraternity of researchers find that the methodology, data collection, and conclusions derived are sound, then the research is deemed valid. This sometimes takes time. For example, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption now seems to be based on a common research (sample) error.
And yet most of western society has been "moderately" drinking under the erroneous idea that alcohol is beneficial to health.
"Why is research accepted as being valid? Why does anyone believe the PN junction theory? Because we can make diodes and transistors."
Another error of category...
You are confusing TECHNOLOGY (know how) with RESEARCH...
Just because the technological artifact is found to be useful and/or reliable, that doesn't automatically mean that the research that led to the technological innovation is sound.
For example, let's look at subatomic and electromagnetic research and theory.
There is evidence now that electrons (the ENTIRE basis of electromagnetic theory) don't actually exist. Subatomic theory was based on an ontologically assumed model of the solar system. No one has actually seen the INSIDE of an atom – but a “working model” of subatomic reality was assumed and all subsequent research was based on this model. Now a number of anomalies have been found in this old paradigm of research and theory...
Consequently, a new emergent theory is now hypothesising that what we previously thought to be electrons are actually negatively charged spheres of energy with no actual particle in existence. However, all our industrial and domestic electrical technology is built and reliably operate on this erroneous ontic assumption and research error.
So, research that is in fundamental error can derive good reliable technology.
RESEARCH IS NOT VALID BY THE MERIT OF RECEIVED TECHNOLOGY...
"If they had a better understanding in how addiction worked, they would have better treatments"
How addiction works? Isn't that self evident?
A powerful desire to become involved in a powerful experience...
Nothing more...
First you claim that treatment dictates what addiction is (categorical and logical error). Now you claim that research dictates what treatment is (categorical and logical error).
I fail to see how these primary premises follow on to the secondary premises...
@Hammersley1967 That isn't exactly what I said. What I said was that if addiction was so much different from society to society, you wouldn't see the same treatments being used in different societies. That is a far cry from defining addiction by treatment. People addicted in NYC have many of the same problems and same behaviors as someone addicted in Tehran, Iran. That was my point.
"That isn't exactly what I said. What I said was that if addiction was so much different from society to society, you wouldn't see the same treatments being used in different societies."
For a start, the psychosocial treatments for addiction vary radically from society to society. So that statement is wrong from the outset...
Secondly, so what? Mental insanity was once conceived and treated as demonic possession...
So how does treatment have any bearing on objective reality?
"Methadone doesn't just treat the physical, it also treats the mental. People who obsess on heroin (or other opiods) morning noon and night stop after taking methadone."
You think keeping an opiate addict numbed out on a synthetic opioid is "treating the mental"?
Have you every seen the psychic and existential damage done to someone after 15 - 20 years of methadone addiction?
My older sister died on done. She drank, used benzos, and took glug.
Fluid retention, weight gain, bone decalcification, tooth rot, constipation, menstrual irregularity, sexual dysfunction, nausea, and mental disturbance, etc, etc...
I've watched people physically and mentally deteriorate and die on it...
It's a "we don't know what to do" surrender to the problem...
@Hammersley1967 GI problems go away after a few months, the jury is out on bone loss, but I agree with the tooth loss although they say it doesn't, sexual dysfunction is true too, but I don't buy the mental disturbance thing. In the end, I don't think methadone is an ideal treatment, but it's the best thing we have right now. If you want to avoid being arrested, unknown purity,. unknown cut, assaulted or robbed while copping etc., and you can't stay sober, it's the best we have.
@Hammersley1967 If you think I am going to pay for a research paper to argue in a youtube comments section, you're nuts. Loss of control is what makes someone an addict/alcoholic. It might vary in minor details, but the overall behavior is the same. A really poor person might turn to street crime as to where a wealthy person destroys their personal wealth, but it's the same loss of control and doing things they wouldn't otherwise do to obtain more of the drug/alcohol.
"Loss of control is what makes someone an addict/alcoholic."
The stock-standard yet antiquated and debunked "disease / illness" conception of addiction...
As early as the mid 1960s various experimental programs were initiated to test the "loss of control" hypothesis.
Unfortunately, the “loss of control” criteria for alcoholism and addiction was resoundingly discredited, and to date there is NOT A SHRED of empirical support for it.
@Hammersley1967 Someone who can chose not to drink, but chose to drink anyway without any loss of control or compulsive drinking isn't an alcoholic, they are someone who makes bad decisions. This is like saying you can have cancer without a tumor.
"Someone who can chose not to drink, but chose to drink anyway without any loss of control or compulsive drinking isn't an alcoholic, they are someone who makes bad decisions."
And that is exactly what was discovered in these experiments. There was NO evidence of “loss of control”.
And to date there is still NO research that empirically supports the contention that alcoholics are devoid of control over alcohol once they have taken the first drink...
@Hammersley1967 Just like cancer, just like heart disease, just like the flu. If addiction is different with every person, why is the treatment the same? That is why I ask. Methadone doesn't just avoid withdrawal, it also takes away the compulsion, the mental torture to take more heroin/opiates. This is very well documented.
“Methadone doesn't just avoid withdrawal, it also takes away the compulsion, the mental torture to take more heroin/opiates. This is very well documented.”
Trying to slip that piece of garbage past an old ex Done Head? Now really!
I was on that terrible shit for the last 5 years of my using...
Methadone is simply an OPIOID that is used to replace heroin. “Treatment for addiction" is it? It’s like treating an alcoholic by substituting his tequila with long-acting bourbon...
@Hammersley1967 You weren't using heroin or other opiates, that's for sure. If you could take long acting Bourbon without getting drunk, then yes. It's not the perfect solution, but it beats the alternative and if you stay clean you get take home doses.
@Hammersley1967 In the US doses are too high for a junkie to feel anything and they know it. Nobody with any sense is going to try to shoot a bag a dope on 110mgs of methadone. They take benzo's, smoke crack, take blood pressure medicine (clonodine), drink etc, but not dope. The only opiate I have ever heard 'done patients take is darvacett because it can add to the methadone.
"For every person who says what you say, there are many that say it saved their lives"
In my 5 years in the 'done program and the 15 years since (working in the addiction rehab industry), I've never met ONE ex-Doner that sings the praises for the methadone program like you do.
Only methadone clinic staff worship the shit...
Looking at methadone through a pay check always makes it look a bit rose-colored...
Seeing it at the bottom of a dispensary cup is a bit more realistic...
@Hammersley1967 I am not singing the praises of methadone, I am just not demonizing it. There are a lot of downsides to methadone, but for many, it's a life saver. It is a harm reduction treatment modality. You are stuck on the abstinence only idea and for some people. it's unrealistic.
“Takes away the compulsion and the mental torture” does it?
Being addicted to methadone is as obsessive and compulsive as any other opiate. Takes away the compulsion? I was as compelled to go to the chemist every, single, worthless day of my God-forsaken life to get my done as I ever was for smack...
GREAT “TREATMENT”!!!
When you’ve got 100% of your clientele addicted to your “treatment”, you’ve got a pretty captive audience wouldn’t you say?
It took me 6 months to reduce from 100 mg to 15mg, and when I jumped off, I had to withdraw for another 3 long, hard months. A 9 month detox as opposed to a 7–10 day hang-out off hammer? Or even a 12 hour naltrexone-induced rapid detox? It’s a no-brainer... In fact, I would go so far as to say that methadone delayed my recovery by 5 years. Done did far more physical damage to me in that 5 years than smack ever did in the previous 10.
@Hammersley1967 You detoxed too fast. You can take big drops when you are still relatively high, but once you get pretty low you have to drop to 1 a week or so. You said you just got clean, I hope you stay that way, good luck.
"You detoxed too fast. You can take big drops when you are still relatively high, but once you get pretty low you have to drop to 1 a week or so. You said you just got clean, I hope you stay that way, good luck."
I dropped 1mg every 2 days... I didn't detox fast enough... Life is short...
"Just like cancer, just like heart disease, just like the flu."
That's the point christo...
Addiction isn't "just like cancer, just like heart disease, just like the flu..."
It's not a disease. After 225 years of intensive biomedical research since the inception of the disease theory, NO physiological causal basis for addictive behaviour has been found...
None, zip, zilch, nada, nuttin'...
All that we can conclude is that addiction is a BEHAVIOURAL PATTERN.
Thus, all the canon of research tells us is that “alcoholics” are people who make bad decisions” in regards to alcohol. And the research subjects weren't "mild problem drinkers" - they were diagnosed gamma alcoholics...
Now I have posted FOUR of the main studies. Do you know of any empirical research that supports the “loss of control” hypothesis?
No? Didn’t think so...
So what are we to believe? The repeated, conclusive, peer reviewed body of research – or your anecdote?
"If addiction is different with every person, why is the treatment the same? That is why I ask."
Because, as I said, the treatment that you speak of (methadone) IS NOT a "treatment for addiction".
All it is is a substitute for heroin. The addict is as addicted as he/she ever was on their original drug of choice. Actually, in my experience, I was even MORE physically dependent.
So, if the addict is as addicted as he/she ever was, then how is methadone a "treatment for addiction"?
@Hammersley1967 Only Newton's law is WRONG, we know it's wrong and we only use it where it applies. I didn't say the work would be overturned, it would be expanded on. Charles Darwin discovered evolution, do you think some progress was made on it since then? Take heroin... The same treatment is available every where, methadone maintenance. Even IRAN is using it. AA is in over 100 countries.
Schmidt, L. , Room, R., et al. (1999). Cross-cultural applicability in international classifications and research in alcohol dependence,. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol 60, pp. 448-462.
I have never heard of a brain disease that compelled a person against their will to get into their car, drive to the liquor store, buy a bottle of wine, drive home, pop the cork, pour the wine into a glass and bend their elbow to pour the wine down their throat. That is a very complicated and tricky set of maneuvers. But I do know that a person can have an obsession with alcohol and compulsion to drink because of their alcoholic cravings. However, one still has the choice to resist.
@prschuster You don't take into account how much we are slaves to our brains. There are other brain disorders that cause people to do things they wouldn't do, terretts for example, schizophrenia is another example. OTOH, if you put a schizophrenic on an island, they would still be schizophrenic, while an alcoholic couldn't drink. But it is a complicated thing. I've been through it, trust me, I know.
@christo930 I've been caught up with alcoholic drinking too and I would never equate my obsession & craving for alcohol with the involuntary tics of Tourettes or auditory.visual hallucinations of schizophrenics. It's one thing to exhibit involuntary behavior and it's quite another to have a compulsion that's difficult to manage.
When you see how readily the addiction recovery professionals want to call womanizing a disease, it becomes even more obvious what's wrong with the disease model. Changes in brain chemistry & function may actually occur with addiction but this physical disease state does not cause a person to drink against their will. The behavior itself is not a disease. That's where the disease model crosses the line.
@quickcap I believe that one ought to take responsibility for their actions whether or not they have a weakness for alcohol. I can't handle alcohol when I drink but I sure as hell can choose whether or not to take that first drink, and bending one's elbow with a drink in hand is not a disease.
"It is very clear from your comment that you know nothing about alcoholism or the concept of powerlessness"
You mean the culturally determined IDEA of "powerlessness" and the culturally determined EXPERIENCE of "powerlessness"...
The thing with you quick is that you've never ONCE stopped to reflect on to what degree your culture determines your experience of alcohol and "alcoholism" - or anything else for that matter...
You think that human experience is independent of culture?
Anecdotal evidence from doctors on the front line is hardly good science. This disease is rooted in and requires the sucessful functioning of most of the client's higher abilities. It is mystifying to anyone observing as the alcoholic can adapt to most situations as they have had to innumerable times to facilitate their next drinking cycle (ie. job, family and social responsibility.) Additionally, MD's will likely only run into alcoholics who are dry for a bit and not in the compulsive phase.
There is new evidence to suggest that long term behavioural conformity leads to changes to brain structure (see Norman Doidge.) Conformity to the dictates of a habit (whether psychological or physiologically induced) can lead to highly persistent involuntary thought patterns that are physiologically engrained. I think this would constitute a disease. Additionally, the manifestation of alcoholism in family trees seems to emulate all other genetic models with regard to parent carriers, etc.
I thought at a party every one had 50 beers By age23 I was drinking constantly. By 26,I was having ill effects. Not physical but as a worker husband and father. At 32, two week before I sobered up ; not drinking was the last thing on earth I desired.
I read a book called Under the Influence. In that book I saw myself. I saw that I had been sick.
The disease model opened my mind to my alcoholism!
I most certainly do literally mean Alcoholism is a disease, Illness, disorder, and medical condition!
Look at diabetes there is no debate weather it is a disease. Most cases the people who have it; their behavior had a lot to do with having gotten diabetes!
And in most cases of diabetes the management involves cultivating healthy new modifications of diet and exercise habits.
There is still so much misunderstanding! I am so lucky how simply my illness can be arrested!
I am in remission or recovery By not taking that first drink of alcohol I avoid the reaction. Buy not taking the first one it is the same as being cured!
"Look at diabetes there is no debate weather it is a disease. Most cases the people who have it; their behavior had a lot to do with having gotten diabetes! And in most cases of diabetes the management involves cultivating healthy new modifications of diet and exercise habits."
"Disease" is a very specific medical term.
The diagnostic criteria of disease have NOTHING to do with prior behaviour or consequent treatment. The medical definition of disease is as follows:
"1) An interruption, cessation, or disorder of a body, system, or organ structure or function.
2) A morbid entity ordinarily characterized by two or more of the following criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations..."
In short, for a disease to be diagnosed, it is a medical requirement that there is:
[a] A disease entity. (Can you do an autopsy on an alcoholic and find "alcoholism"?)
[b] A physical causal mechanism.
Chronic habitual drunkenness does not fulfill ANY of these internationally consensual medical diagnostic criteria.
Thus, to assert that the BEHAVIOURAL aberration of alcoholism is a disease via an analogy with a real somatic disease such as diabetes, based on "treatment", is absurd.
Its really not a fact Jack! There is no documented proof anywhere that it is a disease ! AA creates alcoholics
the minute someone steps in their door and if they don't fully admit there a drunk, they are sneered at and told they are in total denial of their disease, which is quite honestly total crap for the unsuspecting young or old person who can easily be confused and convinced they have a major problem equal to every real drunk in the room!!!
If one really believes it's a disease they have more than likely been washed at this point, and are not worth debating with as it only takes COMMON SENSE to know that it is a choice to drink, not some hypothetical disease thats making one pick up the bottle. The disease concept is the most ridiculously absurd thing I have ever heard of! If your an expensive treatment center or drug counselor(AA based),that is a beautiful work of art to keep that cash flow river flowing---ya baby!!Your diseased!!
Here is a fact - Only a coward would attempt to post here pretending to be me. You are a moron, I know what you are up to.
I also know you have sent out emails to my subs and friends attempting to present yourself as me. I have had all of these emails forwarded to me and thus forwarded to You Tube.
Professionalism? All he/she has been doing is copying and pasting concepts from 12 step groups. I don't see any original thoughts or opinions represented. Whether or not one chooses to label drug hyper-use issues as a disease or not...the fact remains that 12 step groups present themselves as the only path to healthy living, and the statistics do not back up these claims.
The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (formerly The National Council on the Education of Alcoholism) was founded by Mrs Marty Mann (the first female member of Alcoholics Anonymous) in 1944. The organization is set up to fight "the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions" by aggressively promoting the UNSCIENTIFICALLY verifiable contention that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease. Please check YOUR facts before responding.
"Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial."
"Disease" means an involuntary disability. It represents the sum of the abnormal phenomena displayed by a group of individuals. These phenomena are associated with a specified common set of characteristics by which these individuals differ from the norm, and which places them at a disadvantage.
"Denial" is used here not only in the psychoanalytic sense of a single psychological defense mechanism disavowing the significance of events, but more broadly to include a range of psychological maneuvers designed to reduce awareness of the fact that alcohol use is the cause of an individual's problems rather than a solution to those problems. Denial becomes an integral part of the disease and a major obstacle to recovery.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Often progressive and fatal" means that the disease persists over time and that physical, emotional, and social changes are often cumulative and may progress as drinking continues. Alcoholism causes premature death through overdose, organic complications involving the brain, liver, heart and many other organs, and by contributing to suicide, homicide, motor vehicle crashes, and other traumatic events.
Nice verbose rhetoric that is obviously intended to obfuscate and intimidate anyone that differs from your point of view. What you are describing here is a set of SYMPTOMS. (And I do not use the term "symptom" in the sense of "an indication of disease" but rather in the sense of "indication of a phenomenon" - period.) Actually all you have described here is a "set of characteristics" and NOT a DISEASE.
Where is the disease entity? Answer the question; don't refer me back to this "definition".
The globally consensual medical definition of the term "disease" is:
"An interruption, cessation, or disorder of body function, system, or organ characterised by at least two of these criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations." [Stedman's Medical Dictionary 2008]
(Nothing to do with any "group of individuals" or "common characteristics")
Alcoholism does NOT fulfill this diagnostic criteria.
So where is the disease entity? All you have delineated is a series of amorphous BEHAVIOURAL and ATTITUDINAL traits. How is this a disease? Where is the empirically proven and somatically located ORGANIC manifestation of the disease entity?
Please read and re-read the definition set forth by Medical Professionals. If this is over your head, please ask someone with greater than a sixth grade education.
Way to go clarifying and defending your embarrassingly silly definition. C'mon, answer the question; don't refer me back to this "definition" with is in actual fact describes a cluster of symptoms, which in the case of "alcoholism" and/or "addiction" are entirely behavioural. This is a SYNDROME or at very best and ILLNESS - NOT A DISEASE.
Me thinks that you've bullshitted yourself into a corner.
Can't handle disagreement without getting abusive? That aside, I'm sorry, but YOU are WRONG. The definition you proffered delineates a behavioural, attitudinal and possibly physical SYNDROME - not "disease" per se. "Disease" is a specific medical term which refers to a MATERIAL, SOMATIC entity that can be sensorily verified. "Involuntary disability" is too broad a concept to fit the specific definition of a disease entity. (Is that over your head? If so, ask a first year medical student.)
"It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial."
Where is the morbid somatic entity that qualifies alcoholism as a disease?
Please don't keep embarrassing yourself with those inept and tiresome responses that parrot AA front group rhetoric...
You've gotta do better than "these doctors said it's a disease so it MUST be a disease".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
----------------------------------
Approved by the Boards of Directors of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (February 3, 1990) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (February 25, 1990).
"Approved by the Boards of Directors of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (February 3, 1990) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (February 25, 1990)."
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence = AA FRONT GROUP
American Society of Addiction Medicine = AA FRONT GROUP
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This definition was prepared by the Joint Committee to Study the Definition and Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alcoholism of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine:
Convenors: Robert M. Morse, MD, Joint Committee Chairman; Daniel K. Flavin, MD, NCADD Medical/Scientific Director
"This definition was prepared by the Joint Committee to Study the Definition and Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alcoholism of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine:"
Cite as many MDs and PhDs as you like. This is merely reverse ad hom argumentation - not science.
Where is the empirical evidence that supports the claim that alcoholism is a biogenetic, metabolic, or otherwise PHYSIOLOGICAL DISEASE? How is the "definition" qualified?
So Ur agenda is to discredit Peele by the backdoor? By being a major whacker and Legion 12 Network ( "oh Evet it's just a joke!"} member, I finally get it. U are jamming up all the sites do no one can take this guy or U seriously! And, a fine job Ur doing Ollie!
U protest too ,much! LOL, Oh, and since S Peele says U can drink moderately, and Ur a fan of S Peele , I even am beginning to doubt Ur sincerity regarding abstinence, U say Ur sober 4 14 yrs, so what does Harm Reduction and drink moderately mean to U?
"so what does Harm Reduction and drink moderately mean to U?"
For those that can achieve and maintain it, it means just that - drinking moderately thereby reducing (eliminating) harm.
For those who cant (if you want to call them "REAL alcoholics" or "people with the disease" - then knock yourself out) it's not a viable option.
Despite all my bitching and moaning about the lack of scientific validity to the disease concept, most AAers dont really give a shit about it. They just get on with it.
Because, Dear Ham, S Peele is like Dr Murray to Michael Jackson, touting "addiction's a choice" etc, and it's dangerous mantra for someone who can't drink moderately, and unless U know of anyone like that I guess U will never understand, How many people have U seen with DT's? Unless U understand neurotransmitters, the role of Vit B12 and thiamine, U will never understand,
The idea that alcoholism is a disease has always been a political and moral notion with no scientific basis. It was first promoted in the U.S. around 1785 as an erroneous physiological theory (Levine, 1978), and later became a theme of the temperance movement (Gusfield, 1963). It was revived by AA in the 1930s, which derived its views from an amalgam of religious ideas, personal experiences, anecdotal observations, and the unsubstantiated theories of a contemporary physician (Robinson, 1979)...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
To me, it makes the most sense to say that an addiction is a rewiring of the brain. That a pathway(s) are created that compel someone to do something that to them, is as natural as seeking out food. The fact that you can go 20 years without drinking, drink 1 drink and be right back where you were kind of reinforces that idea, to me. Sort of like how you can remember a song that you have totally forgotten about after years of not hearing it, then hearing it 1 time and have it be back.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"To me, it makes the most sense to say that an addiction is a rewiring of the brain."
Then why is the experience of "alcoholism" as well as the mode of "alcoholism" so different from culture t culture ALL over the world?
Do different nationalities of people have their brains "rewired" in a different way - depending on the unique electrical system of their respective countries?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 The characteristics of addiction are the same all over the world across cultures. There may be different outcomes, but the characteristic loss of control and other features of addiction are the same anywhere.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"The characteristics of addiction are the same all over the world across cultures"
Nope, you are wrong - dead wrong.
"Addiction" is one of the most variable and culturally fluid human experiences.
Check the research.
In particular, Dr E.M. Jellinek's canonical work "The Disease Concept of Alcoholism" (1960).
Tolerance, Physical dependency and Withdrawal are ALL construed and experienced differently across different cultures.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but take another look.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Your research is WRONG, I don't even need to look at that research, I have other research, not to mention the same exact treatments are available in every country including IRAN. Not to mention you are citing work from 1960. Think there might have been some progress since 1960?
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
It's not MY research - it's THE body of research.
Repeated, conclusive and peer reviewed...
"I have other research"
OK then, lets see it... I've just cited TWO reference (of many)... You've cited nothing... So, what is your "different research pray tell?
I've researched this area of scholarly inquiry since 2006 (as a PhD candidate), and I can assure you that the canon of knowledge CLEARLY demonstrates that addiction is culturally variable...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"Not to mention you are citing work from 1960. Think there might have been some progress since 1960?"
Then it's obvious that you have no idea about scholarly research...
The longevity of the research has NO bearing on its voracity.
Research, if methodologically sound, will stand until it is debunked. Jelinek's CANONICAL 1960 work has NOT been debunked and has in fact been supported by the vast majority of the subsequent research conducted in the past 50 years...
PROVE ME WRONG
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"the same exact treatments are available in every country including IRAN"
I have to call you on this - that is an utterly ignorant statement or a complete lie.
Treatment is culturally variable both in service delivery and typology.
For example, in Australia we have a Theravada tripartite mindfulness treatment methodology. Ever heard of it? Didn't think so.
How about social/economic capital recovery theory? No? Mustn't have that one in the US.
Exactly the same? Me thinks not...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Iran is treating heroin addicts with Methadone. I read the wikipedia article on the cultural references and according to it, he was trying to label people who didn't have "loss of control" as alcoholics. Having worked at a methadone clinic, I have talked with addicts from the US, Russia, middle east and asia. It's the same story. It's been since the late 80's that I have studied, on the other hand, there has been almost no progress.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
[1]
"I read the wikipedia article on the cultural references and according to it, he was trying to label people who didn't have "loss of control" as alcoholics."
Wikipedia? Are you serious?
And yes, "loss of control" is just ONE variable of the experience of addiction that differs across cultures...
And, in regards to heroin addiction, that (loss of control) even varies from subject to subject WITHIN THE SAME CULTURE...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[2]
For example, most (93%) of opiate addicted Vietnam Veterans ceased heroin use upon return to the US WITHOUT REPORTING THE EXPERIENCE OF CRAVING THE DRUG.
That is, unpleasant physiological "symptoms" were experienced, but NO psycho-emotional CRAVING for the drug (Jaffe and Harris 1973; Peele 1978).
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[3]
Only 14% became readdicted over time in the US (Robins et al). Thus, foe the VAST MAJORITY of GI “heroin addicts”, heroin use was a psycho-emotional coping strategy whilst being exposed to a traumatic environment.
Meaning, Interpretation, and Cultural Variance...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Then they weren't addicts. Having a physical dependence doesn't make someone an addict. People who take prescription opiates can become dependent without becoming addicted. I guess if you characterize addiction as someone who uses a drug regularly, then it would be different across cultures.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
[a]
“Then they weren't addicts. Having a physical dependence doesn't make someone an addict”
Ah! Now we’re getting somewhere! Good debate!
So, you are of the opinion that addiction is NOT a PHYSIOLOGICAL phenomenon? Well, there are literally HUNDREDS of AA/NA members on YT that would vehemently disagree with you. However, I personally AGREE with you 120%. Why? Because drug addicts and alcoholics relapse after 1, 5, 10, even 20 years of abstinence (AFTER physical dependency)...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[b]
So we have to cross physical dependency off the list as the causal basis of addiction, don’t we?
However, do you see how you’ve just contradicted yourself?
You claim that addiction exists as a constant, universal phenomenon across all human cultures because the exact same “treatment” (methadone maintenance - a purely PHYSIOLOGICAL “treatment”) is employed worldwide (BTW: which it’s not)...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[c]
In essence, that the “exact same treatment” is used to treat the “exact same problem” in all cultures. But all methadone treats is physical dependency – which you just said is NOT addiction. So, methadone isn’t really a treatment for addiction is it? Therefore, your argument that addiction is the same in all cultures because the “exact same treatment” (methadone maintenance) exists in all cultures, doesn’t really hold water...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Methadone doesn't just treat the physical, it also treats the mental. People who obsess on heroin (or other opiods) morning noon and night stop after taking methadone.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"Methadone doesn't just treat the physical, it also treats the mental. People who obsess on heroin (or other opiods) morning noon and night stop after taking methadone."
That's the equivalent of saying that an 8 hourly shot of (government sanctioned) smack "treats" heroin addiction.
They no longer obsess about heroin or "other opioids" because they are saturated with their drug of addiction - heroin.
Are you starting to see the absurdity of your position?
Absolutely ridiculous!
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 My position is that addiction is the same all over. I don't think that methadone treatment is absurd and neither does the treatment community.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
(i)
"I don't think that methadone treatment is absurd and neither does the treatment community"
I know your views on this addiction substitute (that's all it is) - but to speak on behalf of the treatment industry is just plain ABSURD.
In Australia and Europe, the MAJORITY of the population of AOD treatment professionals are vocal antagonists of the MMTP.
I wont bother to provide you with multiple research sources as empirical evidence (the truth) doesn't seem to be your thing.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 How can you possibly make such an absurd statement? The treatment community obviously believes in MMT or they wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people on it all over the world. The fact that MMT is considered legitimate is self evident. I can cherry pick research papers just as good as you can.
christo930 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
[A]
"The treatment community obviously believes in MMT or they wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people on it all over the world."
Of course the MMTP exponents are in favour of MMTP. There livelihoods depend on it...
But you pretend to speak on behalf of the ENTIRE international AOD treatment industry - of which the MMTP proponents are merely a tiny fraction.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[B]
The VAST majority of those involved in the GREATER treatment industry (including psychosocial and other biomedical interventions - i.e. naltrexone) oppose MMPT.
"Cherry pick research papers"? How 'bout looking at the canon of knowledge? I wish you would at least have enough intellectual accountability to "cherry pick research papers"? All you do is say "this is what I have blind faith in and that's that..."
Just like a fundamentalist Christian...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 You are doing the same exact thing. You blow off a huge section of the addiction treatment and just write it off as quickly and as blindly as any fundie ever wrote off evolution. I admit it's been a long time since I opened a book on the subject, but I have talked to many people who have gone through it and many people who treat the people who have gone through it. NOBODY who doesn't have the mental obsession goes on MMT. Most of them have detoxed 100 times!
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"You are doing the same exact thing. You blow off a huge section of the addiction treatment and just write it off as quickly and as blindly as any fundie ever wrote off evolution."
How so? Not only do I have 5 years experience of personal experience (taking the shit NOT just talking about it) but I also 4 years of familiarity with the canon of knowledge on addiction research...
My opinion is founded on full consider4ation of the body of EVIDENCE not ANECDOTE and BLIND FAITH...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"NOBODY who doesn't have the mental obsession goes on MMT. Most of them have detoxed 100 times!"
And my answer to that is - so what?
Are you actually claiming that the treatment subjects are not addicted (both physically AND psycho-emotionally dependent) to this so called "treatment"?
Are you actually inferring that MMTP subjects are not addicted to methadone?
I hope not, because THAT is ABSURD...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 You are doing the same exact thing. You blow off a huge section of the addiction treatment and just write it off as quickly and as blindly as any fundie ever wrote off evolution. I admit it's been a long time since I opened a book on the subject, but I have talked to many people who have gone through it and many people who treat the people who have gone through it. NOBODY who doesn't have the mental obsession goes on MMT. Most of them have detoxed 100 times!
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
(ii)
However, I WILL provide you with this source (even though you definitely wont read it).
Throw three "w"s and a dot before: drugtext.org/library/articles/923206.htm
Or simple Google "METHADONE TREATMENT: THE THERAPEUTIC MIRAGE".
Happy "reading" - although I don't expect you to do any such thing as you seem to be quite attached to your own little bubble of evidence-free faith in MMTP and therefore any research that is contrary to your faith in MMTP is, a priori, "wrong"...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"My position is that addiction is the same all over"
Christo, I've provided you with 4 of the peak studies (repeatable, conclusive, and peer reviewed) that completely debunk your faith-based claim.
So far you've not provided ONE shred of evidence. Anyone can say anything about anything. How about providing some hard evidence to back up your claims?
Believe it or not, only 4 years ago I held opinions similar to yours.
What changed? 4 years of research into the canon of knowledge.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 You are taking the position that things that aren't addiction are, such as frequent drinking. If someone who can chose to stop with no problem, but chooses not to, isn't an alcoholic. Furthermore, the research sucks and it shows by their dismal treatment success. At best, they have a 10-15% success rate. All other areas of expertise is judged by the success of the field.
christo930 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"If someone who can chose to stop with no problem, but chooses not to, isn't an alcoholic."
You seem stuck on this idea or "loss of control"...
Where is your evidence that "loss of control" actually exists (as opposed to so called "addicts" and "alcoholics" simply "choosing not to stop")?
226 years ago there was no such notion of "loss of control".
"Loss of control" is a sociocultural construct that has been debunked. Like the most fervent god-believer, you have blind faith it.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"You are taking the position that things that aren't addiction are, such as frequent drinking."
You couldn't be further from the truth. I view all forms of excessive appetite to the point of self defeat as "addiction".
However, unlike you, I have looked at the body of conclusive, peer reviewed research and come to the informed conclusion that "loss of control" is a myth. "Addiction" is a deliberate choice emanating from the "addict's" limited repertories in relating to the world.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 THere are all kinds of self defeating behavior that nobody calls a disorder or anything like that. What is so special about when it happens with a chemical substance?
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"THere are all kinds of self defeating behavior that nobody calls a disorder or anything like that"
Nice strawman argument and side step of the comment.
I explicitly said "I view all forms of EXCESSIVE APPETITE to the point of self defeat as 'addiction' ".
That is, APPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR such as over-eating (food addiction), over-sexing (sex addiction), compulsive-gambling (gambling addiction). Make no mistake, they are seen as BEHAVIOURAL, DISORDERS by the psychiatric fraternity.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 I don't really see the point you are trying to make here. When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"I don't really see the point you are trying to make here. When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction."
You have blind faith that being "unable to stop" is a VERY REAL THING.
So, how does ant addict recover to full abstinence? How do they stop?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction."
So how do YOU empirically KNOW the difference between "doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate" and "not being able to stop"?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"When someone loses control of their behavior and has an obsession to do things they repeatedly fail at trying to stop or moderate (like food and sex), this is addiction. Doing something you know is bad for you and you could stop or moderate but don't want to, that isn't addiction."
So, following THAT line of reasoning, every sober alcoholic and clean addict isn't and was never an alcoholic or addict...
Why? Because they stopped...
Do you see the circularity of your argument?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"What is so special about when it happens with a chemical substance?"
Within the context of other self defeating appetitive behaviours - nothing at all...
Just another powerful desire to be involved (indeed over-involved) in a powerful experience...
A powerful experience that temporarily alters one's reality WHILST one is engaged with that experience...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
I remember, many comments ago, you claimed that "addiction is the same the world over because the treatments are the same the world over"...
Then you use the example of the "universal treatments", AA/NA and MMT.
Well, those two treatment approaches view addiction in VASTLY different ways. One sees it as a purely physiological disorder whilst the other sees it as a "spiritual" (psycho-emotional) disorder...
So, if "addiction is the same the world over" - which is it? "Spiritual" or physical?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 No, I said addiction and the behavior is the same all over. AA as a treatment, is a joke, but it is found all over the world. Maybe not in every single country, but still a great deal of the world. The same thing can be said about methadone.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"No, I said addiction and the behavior is the same all over."
So you are saying that the anomaly is the same but the interpretation is not?
Still doesn't justify the statement that "because the treatment is the same, the problem is the same"...
Your line of argument is that the treatment reflects the nature of the problem.
So when treatments change does the problem also change?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"Furthermore, the research sucks and it shows by their dismal treatment success. At best, they have a 10-15% success rate. All other areas of expertise is judged by the success of the field."
The research sucks because "it shows by their dismal treatment success"?
What has research got to do with treatment?
How can RESEARCH "suck" because TREATMENT success is lacking?
Research is research. It is good or bad depending on its methodology and accuracy...
Categorical error...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Research in every other area is measured by the fruits of it's success. The success rate in this area is dismal. If they had a better understanding in how addiction worked, they would have better treatments.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"Research in every other area is measured by the fruits of it's success."
Rubbish!
RESEARCH is "measured" (assessed) by the validity and accuracy of the methodology, data collection, and conclusions that it derives.RESEARCH has NOTHING to do with treatment.
RESEARCH can be used to ASSESS the EFFICACY of treatment (like the paper "METHADONE: THE THERAPEUTIC MIRAGE") but has NOTHING to do with treatment invention and initiative.
You are making a GROSS error of category...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 I don't agree with that statement. What good is research if it can't develop an effective treatment. It would be like doing work on engineering of bridges, but you still can't build a bridge. Why is research accepted as being valid? Why does anyone believe the PN junction theory? Because we can make diodes and transistors. So far, the fruits of addiction research have been few and far between. Naltrexone is hardly a treatment.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"What good is research if it can't develop an effective treatment."
That's a fine personal opinion regarding what YOU think research should or should not be used for...
However, someone else may be of the opinion that research should be used to ASSESS treatment...
But, at the end of the day, research is simply research - an investigative process that can be used to assess or discover or used for ANYTHING ELSE that the research initiators deem befitting for their purposes...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"Why is research accepted as being valid?"
Via peer review... If the fraternity of researchers find that the methodology, data collection, and conclusions derived are sound, then the research is deemed valid. This sometimes takes time. For example, the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption now seems to be based on a common research (sample) error.
And yet most of western society has been "moderately" drinking under the erroneous idea that alcohol is beneficial to health.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
(a)
"Why is research accepted as being valid? Why does anyone believe the PN junction theory? Because we can make diodes and transistors."
Another error of category...
You are confusing TECHNOLOGY (know how) with RESEARCH...
Just because the technological artifact is found to be useful and/or reliable, that doesn't automatically mean that the research that led to the technological innovation is sound.
For example, let's look at subatomic and electromagnetic research and theory.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
(b)
There is evidence now that electrons (the ENTIRE basis of electromagnetic theory) don't actually exist. Subatomic theory was based on an ontologically assumed model of the solar system. No one has actually seen the INSIDE of an atom – but a “working model” of subatomic reality was assumed and all subsequent research was based on this model. Now a number of anomalies have been found in this old paradigm of research and theory...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
(c)
Consequently, a new emergent theory is now hypothesising that what we previously thought to be electrons are actually negatively charged spheres of energy with no actual particle in existence. However, all our industrial and domestic electrical technology is built and reliably operate on this erroneous ontic assumption and research error.
So, research that is in fundamental error can derive good reliable technology.
RESEARCH IS NOT VALID BY THE MERIT OF RECEIVED TECHNOLOGY...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"Naltrexone is hardly a treatment."
Naltrexone is "hardly a treatment" whilst Methadone is?
How in the hell do you justify THAT statement?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"If they had a better understanding in how addiction worked, they would have better treatments"
How addiction works? Isn't that self evident?
A powerful desire to become involved in a powerful experience...
Nothing more...
First you claim that treatment dictates what addiction is (categorical and logical error). Now you claim that research dictates what treatment is (categorical and logical error).
I fail to see how these primary premises follow on to the secondary premises...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 That isn't exactly what I said. What I said was that if addiction was so much different from society to society, you wouldn't see the same treatments being used in different societies. That is a far cry from defining addiction by treatment. People addicted in NYC have many of the same problems and same behaviors as someone addicted in Tehran, Iran. That was my point.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"That isn't exactly what I said. What I said was that if addiction was so much different from society to society, you wouldn't see the same treatments being used in different societies."
For a start, the psychosocial treatments for addiction vary radically from society to society. So that statement is wrong from the outset...
Secondly, so what? Mental insanity was once conceived and treated as demonic possession...
So how does treatment have any bearing on objective reality?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"People addicted in NYC have many of the same problems and same behaviors as someone addicted in Tehran Iran. That was my point"
True. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
What I was saying is that the EXPERIENCE (interpretation) of these problems is different from culture to culture.
That is, an anomaly is happening but it is construed (both by the individual and by the greater society) differently.
Just as OUR culture interpreted chronic habitual drunkenness differently 250 years ago.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"Methadone doesn't just treat the physical, it also treats the mental. People who obsess on heroin (or other opiods) morning noon and night stop after taking methadone."
You think keeping an opiate addict numbed out on a synthetic opioid is "treating the mental"?
Have you every seen the psychic and existential damage done to someone after 15 - 20 years of methadone addiction?
My older sister died on done. She drank, used benzos, and took glug.
"Treatment"? It treats nothing...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"Methadone doesn't just treat the physical"
Treats the physical? Do me a favour...
It DAMAGES the physical.
Fluid retention, weight gain, bone decalcification, tooth rot, constipation, menstrual irregularity, sexual dysfunction, nausea, and mental disturbance, etc, etc...
I've watched people physically and mentally deteriorate and die on it...
It's a "we don't know what to do" surrender to the problem...
Governmental cowardice and ignorance...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 GI problems go away after a few months, the jury is out on bone loss, but I agree with the tooth loss although they say it doesn't, sexual dysfunction is true too, but I don't buy the mental disturbance thing. In the end, I don't think methadone is an ideal treatment, but it's the best thing we have right now. If you want to avoid being arrested, unknown purity,. unknown cut, assaulted or robbed while copping etc., and you can't stay sober, it's the best we have.
christo930 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 If you think I am going to pay for a research paper to argue in a youtube comments section, you're nuts. Loss of control is what makes someone an addict/alcoholic. It might vary in minor details, but the overall behavior is the same. A really poor person might turn to street crime as to where a wealthy person destroys their personal wealth, but it's the same loss of control and doing things they wouldn't otherwise do to obtain more of the drug/alcohol.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
Pay for a research paper? Library shelves are FULL of research data to the contrary of your argument....
No need to pay, it's free!
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[i]
"Loss of control is what makes someone an addict/alcoholic."
The stock-standard yet antiquated and debunked "disease / illness" conception of addiction...
As early as the mid 1960s various experimental programs were initiated to test the "loss of control" hypothesis.
Unfortunately, the “loss of control” criteria for alcoholism and addiction was resoundingly discredited, and to date there is NOT A SHRED of empirical support for it.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[ii]
The main groundbreaking studies are:
Mello and Mendelson (1972) “Drinking Patterns During Work-contingent and Non-contingent Alcohol Acquisition”.
Mendelson (1964) “Experimentally Induced Chronic Intoxication and Withdrawal in Alcoholics”.
Gottheil et al (1972) “Fixed-Interval Drinking Decisions”.
Donovan and Marlatt (1980) “Assessment of Expectancies and Behaviour Associated with Alcohol Consumption”.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Someone who can chose not to drink, but chose to drink anyway without any loss of control or compulsive drinking isn't an alcoholic, they are someone who makes bad decisions. This is like saying you can have cancer without a tumor.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
(A)
"Someone who can chose not to drink, but chose to drink anyway without any loss of control or compulsive drinking isn't an alcoholic, they are someone who makes bad decisions."
And that is exactly what was discovered in these experiments. There was NO evidence of “loss of control”.
And to date there is still NO research that empirically supports the contention that alcoholics are devoid of control over alcohol once they have taken the first drink...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"This is like saying you can have cancer without a tumor."
Your analogy, no matter how many times you repeat it, and how hard you try, still doesn't stand up...
All we can say about alcoholism is that the "alcoholic" has a dysfunctional, self harming pattern of alcohol drinking behaviour...
Nothing more... Nothing less...
You can't do an autopsy on an alcoholic or drug addict and find "alcoholism" or "addiction"...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Yes you can. Ever heard of THIQ?
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"Iran is treating heroin addicts with Methadone"
Methadone is a physiological stop gap measure to allay the unpleasant PHYSICAL sensations experience during physiological detoxification...
What's that got to do with the psycho-emotional experience of "addiction" (obsession, "compulsion" and "craving")?
You are maintaining that addiction is EXPERIENCED EXACTLY THE SAME BY ALL HUMAN BEINGS ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLANET.
What has "treatment" got to do with the experience of addiction?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Just like cancer, just like heart disease, just like the flu. If addiction is different with every person, why is the treatment the same? That is why I ask. Methadone doesn't just avoid withdrawal, it also takes away the compulsion, the mental torture to take more heroin/opiates. This is very well documented.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
[I]
“Methadone doesn't just avoid withdrawal, it also takes away the compulsion, the mental torture to take more heroin/opiates. This is very well documented.”
Trying to slip that piece of garbage past an old ex Done Head? Now really!
I was on that terrible shit for the last 5 years of my using...
Methadone is simply an OPIOID that is used to replace heroin. “Treatment for addiction" is it? It’s like treating an alcoholic by substituting his tequila with long-acting bourbon...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 You weren't using heroin or other opiates, that's for sure. If you could take long acting Bourbon without getting drunk, then yes. It's not the perfect solution, but it beats the alternative and if you stay clean you get take home doses.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"You weren't using heroin or other opiates, that's for sure."
Yes I was... I was using a synthetic opioid called "methadone" every single day for 5 wasted years...
And I was severely psychologically and physically addicted to that synthetic opioid...
And actually, like all the other 'done heads down the clinic and pharmacy, I still had the odd shot of smack and glug of codeine linctus...
Of course I did - I was in the grip of addiction... Why wouldn't I?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Because you don't feel it. I know done heads sometimes use benzos, but never opiates.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"I know done heads sometimes use benzos, but never opiates."
Spoken like a true done clinic "do-gooder" that doesn't have a clue about junkie mentality...
I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that just about every Doner (even those on blockade doses) tries to have a shot from time to time.
Do you think that they'd be silly enough to tell their dispensers and risk getting kicked off the program?
Sure, they are inevitably disappointed, but that's the nature of addiction.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 In the US doses are too high for a junkie to feel anything and they know it. Nobody with any sense is going to try to shoot a bag a dope on 110mgs of methadone. They take benzo's, smoke crack, take blood pressure medicine (clonodine), drink etc, but not dope. The only opiate I have ever heard 'done patients take is darvacett because it can add to the methadone.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
"It's not the perfect solution"
It's not a solution at all... Indeed, it is a state sanctioned exacerbation of the problem...
"but it beats the alternative"
Actually, no, it doesn't "beat the alternative"... It prolongs the problem exponentially... It robbed me of being forced to get clean...
"if you stay clean you get take home doses"
"Clean"? Swallowing 'done day in, day out? That's a contradiction in terms.
Having a methadone-soaked body is about as "dirty" as it gets...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 For every person who says what you say, there are many that say it saved their lives and allowed them to function normally.
christo930 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"For every person who says what you say, there are many that say it saved their lives"
In my 5 years in the 'done program and the 15 years since (working in the addiction rehab industry), I've never met ONE ex-Doner that sings the praises for the methadone program like you do.
Only methadone clinic staff worship the shit...
Looking at methadone through a pay check always makes it look a bit rose-colored...
Seeing it at the bottom of a dispensary cup is a bit more realistic...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 I am not singing the praises of methadone, I am just not demonizing it. There are a lot of downsides to methadone, but for many, it's a life saver. It is a harm reduction treatment modality. You are stuck on the abstinence only idea and for some people. it's unrealistic.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930
[II]
“Takes away the compulsion and the mental torture” does it?
Being addicted to methadone is as obsessive and compulsive as any other opiate. Takes away the compulsion? I was as compelled to go to the chemist every, single, worthless day of my God-forsaken life to get my done as I ever was for smack...
GREAT “TREATMENT”!!!
When you’ve got 100% of your clientele addicted to your “treatment”, you’ve got a pretty captive audience wouldn’t you say?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
[III]
It took me 6 months to reduce from 100 mg to 15mg, and when I jumped off, I had to withdraw for another 3 long, hard months. A 9 month detox as opposed to a 7–10 day hang-out off hammer? Or even a 12 hour naltrexone-induced rapid detox? It’s a no-brainer... In fact, I would go so far as to say that methadone delayed my recovery by 5 years. Done did far more physical damage to me in that 5 years than smack ever did in the previous 10.
“TREATMENT”? Gimme a break...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 You detoxed too fast. You can take big drops when you are still relatively high, but once you get pretty low you have to drop to 1 a week or so. You said you just got clean, I hope you stay that way, good luck.
christo930 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"You detoxed too fast. You can take big drops when you are still relatively high, but once you get pretty low you have to drop to 1 a week or so. You said you just got clean, I hope you stay that way, good luck."
I dropped 1mg every 2 days... I didn't detox fast enough... Life is short...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"Just like cancer, just like heart disease, just like the flu."
That's the point christo...
Addiction isn't "just like cancer, just like heart disease, just like the flu..."
It's not a disease. After 225 years of intensive biomedical research since the inception of the disease theory, NO physiological causal basis for addictive behaviour has been found...
None, zip, zilch, nada, nuttin'...
All that we can conclude is that addiction is a BEHAVIOURAL PATTERN.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 I never said it was a disease.
christo930 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"I never said it was a disease."
Sorry...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
(B)
Thus, all the canon of research tells us is that “alcoholics” are people who make bad decisions” in regards to alcohol. And the research subjects weren't "mild problem drinkers" - they were diagnosed gamma alcoholics...
Now I have posted FOUR of the main studies. Do you know of any empirical research that supports the “loss of control” hypothesis?
No? Didn’t think so...
So what are we to believe? The repeated, conclusive, peer reviewed body of research – or your anecdote?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"If addiction is different with every person, why is the treatment the same? That is why I ask."
Because, as I said, the treatment that you speak of (methadone) IS NOT a "treatment for addiction".
All it is is a substitute for heroin. The addict is as addicted as he/she ever was on their original drug of choice. Actually, in my experience, I was even MORE physically dependent.
So, if the addict is as addicted as he/she ever was, then how is methadone a "treatment for addiction"?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
By the way...
When I say "more physically dependent", this is not to say that addiction is a function of physical dependency...
And when I say "the addict is as addicted as he/she ever was" I mean addicted in the psycho-emotional sense...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
"he was trying to label people who didn't have "loss of control" as alcoholics"
There ya go! Now ya gettin' it!
So... there are some people in the world that are physically dependent on alcohol but do not experience "loss of control" are there?
That must mean.... A DOCUMENTED CULTURAL VARIATION IN THE EXPERIENCE OF ADDICTION!!!
The MEANING of addiction and the INTERPRETATION of addiction... Both culturally dependent...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"I don't even need to look at that research"
Ah! The catch-cry of the genuinely ignorant...
Try opening your mind and doing some reading...
It's called "education"...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"you are citing work from 1960. Think there might have been some progress since 1960?"
Sorry, but I REALLY can't believe that you actually said that...
Newton's law of universal gravitation was first published on 5 July 1687...
323 years old... Yep, that's some REALLY out of date research aint it?
Don't you think that there "might have been some progress" since 1687?
The truth is the truth regardless of when it's discovered...
You think "progress" changes truth? WOW!!!
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967 Only Newton's law is WRONG, we know it's wrong and we only use it where it applies. I didn't say the work would be overturned, it would be expanded on. Charles Darwin discovered evolution, do you think some progress was made on it since then? Take heroin... The same treatment is available every where, methadone maintenance. Even IRAN is using it. AA is in over 100 countries.
christo930 1 year ago
"The same treatment is available every where, methadone maintenance. Even IRAN is using it. AA is in over 100 countries"
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are 203 sovereign states in the world and AA aint in all of 'em. In fact, barely half of 'em...
Moreover, methadone is either prohibited or not available in scores of nations world wide...
EG: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, Maldives, Laos, Western Samoa, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cameroon, etc...
See "Methadone: Worldwide Travel Guide".
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
"The same treatment is available every where"
No it's not... In fact it's either prohibited or not available in most nations...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@christo930
@Hammersley1967
Also see:
Schmidt, L. , Room, R., et al. (1999). Cross-cultural applicability in international classifications and research in alcohol dependence,. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol 60, pp. 448-462.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
I have never heard of a brain disease that compelled a person against their will to get into their car, drive to the liquor store, buy a bottle of wine, drive home, pop the cork, pour the wine into a glass and bend their elbow to pour the wine down their throat. That is a very complicated and tricky set of maneuvers. But I do know that a person can have an obsession with alcohol and compulsion to drink because of their alcoholic cravings. However, one still has the choice to resist.
prschuster 1 year ago
@prschuster You don't take into account how much we are slaves to our brains. There are other brain disorders that cause people to do things they wouldn't do, terretts for example, schizophrenia is another example. OTOH, if you put a schizophrenic on an island, they would still be schizophrenic, while an alcoholic couldn't drink. But it is a complicated thing. I've been through it, trust me, I know.
christo930 1 year ago
@christo930 I've been caught up with alcoholic drinking too and I would never equate my obsession & craving for alcohol with the involuntary tics of Tourettes or auditory.visual hallucinations of schizophrenics. It's one thing to exhibit involuntary behavior and it's quite another to have a compulsion that's difficult to manage.
prschuster 1 year ago
When you see how readily the addiction recovery professionals want to call womanizing a disease, it becomes even more obvious what's wrong with the disease model. Changes in brain chemistry & function may actually occur with addiction but this physical disease state does not cause a person to drink against their will. The behavior itself is not a disease. That's where the disease model crosses the line.
prschuster 1 year ago
@prschuster It is very clear from your comment that you know nothing about alcoholism or the concept of powerlessness
Go to:.......................XA Speakers, the lights are on Listen to parts 5, 6, and 7
quickcap 1 year ago
@quickcap I believe that one ought to take responsibility for their actions whether or not they have a weakness for alcohol. I can't handle alcohol when I drink but I sure as hell can choose whether or not to take that first drink, and bending one's elbow with a drink in hand is not a disease.
prschuster 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quickcap
"It is very clear from your comment that you know nothing about alcoholism or the concept of powerlessness"
You mean the culturally determined IDEA of "powerlessness" and the culturally determined EXPERIENCE of "powerlessness"...
The thing with you quick is that you've never ONCE stopped to reflect on to what degree your culture determines your experience of alcohol and "alcoholism" - or anything else for that matter...
You think that human experience is independent of culture?
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
Anecdotal evidence from doctors on the front line is hardly good science. This disease is rooted in and requires the sucessful functioning of most of the client's higher abilities. It is mystifying to anyone observing as the alcoholic can adapt to most situations as they have had to innumerable times to facilitate their next drinking cycle (ie. job, family and social responsibility.) Additionally, MD's will likely only run into alcoholics who are dry for a bit and not in the compulsive phase.
stockybob 1 year ago
There is new evidence to suggest that long term behavioural conformity leads to changes to brain structure (see Norman Doidge.) Conformity to the dictates of a habit (whether psychological or physiologically induced) can lead to highly persistent involuntary thought patterns that are physiologically engrained. I think this would constitute a disease. Additionally, the manifestation of alcoholism in family trees seems to emulate all other genetic models with regard to parent carriers, etc.
stockybob 1 year ago
addiction is penis.
CampsSuck 2 years ago
ALL AUSSIE ARE PENIS!!!
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
The first time I got myself a drink of alcohol I was in 1sst or 2nd grade.
My choice was kool aid or juice, we had none but we did have 1 gallon of Boons Farm Wine.
My choice was to have a glass I drank the whole gallon!
In my case-my first drink put me out of control.
I weighed like 60 lb I had no ill effects !
mls71492 2 years ago
I always drank alcohol like that!
I thought at a party every one had 50 beers By age23 I was drinking constantly. By 26,I was having ill effects. Not physical but as a worker husband and father. At 32, two week before I sobered up ; not drinking was the last thing on earth I desired.
I read a book called Under the Influence. In that book I saw myself. I saw that I had been sick.
The disease model opened my mind to my alcoholism!
mls71492 2 years ago
"The disease model opened my mind to my alcoholism!"
Fair enough...
As long as you don't advocate the disease model literally...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
I most certainly do literally mean Alcoholism is a disease, Illness, disorder, and medical condition!
Look at diabetes there is no debate weather it is a disease. Most cases the people who have it; their behavior had a lot to do with having gotten diabetes!
And in most cases of diabetes the management involves cultivating healthy new modifications of diet and exercise habits.
mls71492 2 years ago
There is still so much misunderstanding! I am so lucky how simply my illness can be arrested!
I am in remission or recovery By not taking that first drink of alcohol I avoid the reaction. Buy not taking the first one it is the same as being cured!
mls71492 2 years ago
[1]
First of all:
"I most certainly do literally mean Alcoholism is a disease, Illness, disorder, and medical condition!"
"Disease", "Illness", "Disorder", and "Medical Condition" are all VERY different phenomena...
What do you mean?
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[2]
"Look at diabetes there is no debate weather it is a disease. Most cases the people who have it; their behavior had a lot to do with having gotten diabetes! And in most cases of diabetes the management involves cultivating healthy new modifications of diet and exercise habits."
"Disease" is a very specific medical term.
The diagnostic criteria of disease have NOTHING to do with prior behaviour or consequent treatment. The medical definition of disease is as follows:
(Continued in [3])
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[3]
"1) An interruption, cessation, or disorder of a body, system, or organ structure or function.
2) A morbid entity ordinarily characterized by two or more of the following criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations..."
Stedmans Medical Dictionary (2008)
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[4]
In short, for a disease to be diagnosed, it is a medical requirement that there is:
[a] A disease entity. (Can you do an autopsy on an alcoholic and find "alcoholism"?)
[b] A physical causal mechanism.
Chronic habitual drunkenness does not fulfill ANY of these internationally consensual medical diagnostic criteria.
Thus, to assert that the BEHAVIOURAL aberration of alcoholism is a disease via an analogy with a real somatic disease such as diabetes, based on "treatment", is absurd.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Addiction was only termed as a "disease" just so people could get the health insurance for it.
jessicarabbit14 3 years ago 4
Its really not a fact Jack! There is no documented proof anywhere that it is a disease ! AA creates alcoholics
the minute someone steps in their door and if they don't fully admit there a drunk, they are sneered at and told they are in total denial of their disease, which is quite honestly total crap for the unsuspecting young or old person who can easily be confused and convinced they have a major problem equal to every real drunk in the room!!!
Sober 18 years with out AA Yea Ha!!!
baneberry7 3 years ago 12
"AA creates alcoholics the minute someone steps in their door"
That's the problem in a nutshell!
Ditto the Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Industry...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
If one really believes it's a disease they have more than likely been washed at this point, and are not worth debating with as it only takes COMMON SENSE to know that it is a choice to drink, not some hypothetical disease thats making one pick up the bottle. The disease concept is the most ridiculously absurd thing I have ever heard of! If your an expensive treatment center or drug counselor(AA based),that is a beautiful work of art to keep that cash flow river flowing---ya baby!!Your diseased!!
baneberry7 3 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's a fact Jack. When an alcoholic stops drinking, his alcoholism gets worse.
lsegoria 3 years ago
SORDIDTRUTH, quickcap, rimshot2008, tumescent 345, etc, etc...
IT IS YOU!!!
Hammersley1967 3 years ago 8
Here is a fact - Only a coward would attempt to post here pretending to be me. You are a moron, I know what you are up to.
I also know you have sent out emails to my subs and friends attempting to present yourself as me. I have had all of these emails forwarded to me and thus forwarded to You Tube.
isegoria1 3 years ago 4
Comment removed
andreasheinz 3 years ago
Wow. This guy needs to think twice, and say nothing!
jtmn1975 3 years ago
Professionalism? All he/she has been doing is copying and pasting concepts from 12 step groups. I don't see any original thoughts or opinions represented. Whether or not one chooses to label drug hyper-use issues as a disease or not...the fact remains that 12 step groups present themselves as the only path to healthy living, and the statistics do not back up these claims.
spiraldarkseraphim 3 years ago 3
The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependance is part of the National Institute of Health. Please check your facts before responding.
TedUlinski 3 years ago
The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (formerly The National Council on the Education of Alcoholism) was founded by Mrs Marty Mann (the first female member of Alcoholics Anonymous) in 1944. The organization is set up to fight "the stigma and the disease of alcoholism and other drug addictions" by aggressively promoting the UNSCIENTIFICALLY verifiable contention that alcoholism and drug dependence is a disease. Please check YOUR facts before responding.
Hammersley1967 3 years ago
Thank you TedinCorrales. It's refreshing to hear some professionalism on this site.
quickcap 4 years ago
Fuck! You're easily impressed...
Professionalism? The guy hasn't given two minutes thought to the matter...
Hammersley1967 3 years ago
Definition of Alcoholism
"Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial."
TedinCorrales 4 years ago
"Disease" means an involuntary disability. It represents the sum of the abnormal phenomena displayed by a group of individuals. These phenomena are associated with a specified common set of characteristics by which these individuals differ from the norm, and which places them at a disadvantage.
TedinCorrales 4 years ago
"Denial" is used here not only in the psychoanalytic sense of a single psychological defense mechanism disavowing the significance of events, but more broadly to include a range of psychological maneuvers designed to reduce awareness of the fact that alcohol use is the cause of an individual's problems rather than a solution to those problems. Denial becomes an integral part of the disease and a major obstacle to recovery.
TedinCorrales 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Often progressive and fatal" means that the disease persists over time and that physical, emotional, and social changes are often cumulative and may progress as drinking continues. Alcoholism causes premature death through overdose, organic complications involving the brain, liver, heart and many other organs, and by contributing to suicide, homicide, motor vehicle crashes, and other traumatic events.
TedinCorrales 4 years ago
Nice verbose rhetoric that is obviously intended to obfuscate and intimidate anyone that differs from your point of view. What you are describing here is a set of SYMPTOMS. (And I do not use the term "symptom" in the sense of "an indication of disease" but rather in the sense of "indication of a phenomenon" - period.) Actually all you have described here is a "set of characteristics" and NOT a DISEASE.
Where is the disease entity? Answer the question; don't refer me back to this "definition".
Hammersley1967 3 years ago
Nope - you are wrong!
The globally consensual medical definition of the term "disease" is:
"An interruption, cessation, or disorder of body function, system, or organ characterised by at least two of these criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations." [Stedman's Medical Dictionary 2008]
(Nothing to do with any "group of individuals" or "common characteristics")
Alcoholism does NOT fulfill this diagnostic criteria.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
So where is the disease entity? All you have delineated is a series of amorphous BEHAVIOURAL and ATTITUDINAL traits. How is this a disease? Where is the empirically proven and somatically located ORGANIC manifestation of the disease entity?
Hammersley1967 3 years ago
Please read and re-read the definition set forth by Medical Professionals. If this is over your head, please ask someone with greater than a sixth grade education.
TedUlinski 3 years ago
And ask a semi-literate person for help
TedUlinski 3 years ago
"ask a semi-literate person for help"
Way to go clarifying and defending your embarrassingly silly definition. C'mon, answer the question; don't refer me back to this "definition" with is in actual fact describes a cluster of symptoms, which in the case of "alcoholism" and/or "addiction" are entirely behavioural. This is a SYNDROME or at very best and ILLNESS - NOT A DISEASE.
Me thinks that you've bullshitted yourself into a corner.
Hammersley1967 3 years ago
Can't handle disagreement without getting abusive? That aside, I'm sorry, but YOU are WRONG. The definition you proffered delineates a behavioural, attitudinal and possibly physical SYNDROME - not "disease" per se. "Disease" is a specific medical term which refers to a MATERIAL, SOMATIC entity that can be sensorily verified. "Involuntary disability" is too broad a concept to fit the specific definition of a disease entity. (Is that over your head? If so, ask a first year medical student.)
Hammersley1967 3 years ago
Medical Professionals...
Pffft!
Why don't you think for yourself?
Hammersley1967 3 years ago
"It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial."
Where is the morbid somatic entity that qualifies alcoholism as a disease?
Please don't keep embarrassing yourself with those inept and tiresome responses that parrot AA front group rhetoric...
You've gotta do better than "these doctors said it's a disease so it MUST be a disease".
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
----------------------------------
Approved by the Boards of Directors of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (February 3, 1990) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (February 25, 1990).
TedinCorrales 4 years ago
"Approved by the Boards of Directors of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (February 3, 1990) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (February 25, 1990)."
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence = AA FRONT GROUP
American Society of Addiction Medicine = AA FRONT GROUP
LIAR!!!
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This definition was prepared by the Joint Committee to Study the Definition and Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alcoholism of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine:
Convenors: Robert M. Morse, MD, Joint Committee Chairman; Daniel K. Flavin, MD, NCADD Medical/Scientific Director
TedinCorrales 4 years ago
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence = AA Front Group
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
"This definition was prepared by the Joint Committee to Study the Definition and Criteria for the Diagnosis of Alcoholism of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine:"
Cite as many MDs and PhDs as you like. This is merely reverse ad hom argumentation - not science.
Where is the empirical evidence that supports the claim that alcoholism is a biogenetic, metabolic, or otherwise PHYSIOLOGICAL DISEASE? How is the "definition" qualified?
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
And, the more you defend S Peele, the more no one will take i him serious, is that Ur agenda oh King of the Legion12 network!
evet45 2 years ago
You've got serious issues evey...
After "years" of sobriety (?), you're STILL a gibbering mess that can't string two words, let alone two concepts together...
Go back to elementary school.
Your program lacks intellectual recovery.
As Bill W said, "being in recovery is not a license to be a mental loafer..."
evet45 = Major League Mental Loafer
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
So Ur agenda is to discredit Peele by the backdoor? By being a major whacker and Legion 12 Network ( "oh Evet it's just a joke!"} member, I finally get it. U are jamming up all the sites do no one can take this guy or U seriously! And, a fine job Ur doing Ollie!
evet45 2 years ago
?????
Another incomprehensible dribble by our "friendly" neighborhood wack-job - evey...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
U protest too ,much! LOL, Oh, and since S Peele says U can drink moderately, and Ur a fan of S Peele , I even am beginning to doubt Ur sincerity regarding abstinence, U say Ur sober 4 14 yrs, so what does Harm Reduction and drink moderately mean to U?
evet45 2 years ago
"so what does Harm Reduction and drink moderately mean to U?"
For those that can achieve and maintain it, it means just that - drinking moderately thereby reducing (eliminating) harm.
For those who cant (if you want to call them "REAL alcoholics" or "people with the disease" - then knock yourself out) it's not a viable option.
Despite all my bitching and moaning about the lack of scientific validity to the disease concept, most AAers dont really give a shit about it. They just get on with it.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Because, Dear Ham, S Peele is like Dr Murray to Michael Jackson, touting "addiction's a choice" etc, and it's dangerous mantra for someone who can't drink moderately, and unless U know of anyone like that I guess U will never understand, How many people have U seen with DT's? Unless U understand neurotransmitters, the role of Vit B12 and thiamine, U will never understand,
evet45 2 years ago