Thanks Lynn. Otherwise I would look really facetious and stupid. Oh, and I agree that Ethanol is physically addictive.
While I appreciate your faith in me, reports of my omniscience are somewhat overrated. 
I didn’t even think about the delerium tremens. If I had, I wouldn’t have shot my mouth off about this.
In any case, I’ll certainly admit I was wrong (spooge’s reference to delerium tremens had me wacking my head with my hand, thinking “Shit! I’m completely wrong.”), and the rest of the cites sealed the case (Thanks especially to Morrigoon . Cabbage and Mockingbird ).
Apologies to anyone who was hurt/upset/pissed-off by my misinformed statement.
Fenris
I believe physical addictions may be different from person to person which may explain why some people get hooked on drugs and others don’t.
I used to drink large amounts of coffee and several times I have quit suddenly. The second day I get nausea and headaches which slowly subside over the next few days but I have one or two days when I am miserable.
A friend of mine argued that it was all in my head just because it did not happen to him. Well, it happens to me. It is definitely physical and during the time I am suffering from withdrawal I do not crave coffee at all, I am just miserable.
I believe some people may become physically addicted to tobacco, alcohol and other substances while other may not. But if you are addicted I certainly believe it is a physical thing.
Why is it no one can spell my name right?
OK, what follows is purely my opinion, formed from a lifetime of drug addiction and recovery there from:
The disease has everything to do with the person who has it, and very little to do with the substance or substances involved. Those simply present the most obvious symptoms. The disease has 3 components. 1) Physical 2) Emotional 3)Spiritual The first is what everyone notices and focuses on. Once the withdrawl is over, the disease remains.
There is no such thing as someone who has multiple or dual addictions. They have the disease of addiction that manifests in different ways. It’s very common for someone to switch from one drug to another, hoping for a different result. It is very common for someone to get clean (through NA or AA) and start acting out with gambling, sex or food. But it’s not a new addiction. It’s the same addiction that has found a new expression.
This is why NA stresses complete abstinence from all drugs in order for recovery to begin. I hear the words all the time “But I never had a problem with booze, I had a problem with heroin. I can have a little drink.” Then they’re off to the races, chasing another high, sometimes being led back to the old one. It makes no difference. IMO, the disease is about self destruction. It will use whatever tools you give it.
Any individual at all will become physically addicted to alcohol if given it in sufficient quantities for sufficient time. What said quantities and time actually are will vary for each person. The same can be said of opiates and barbituates to name a few others.
The same cannot be said however for the psychological addiction to either substance. Or to other substances of abuse. Why some get the psychological addiction (chemical dependency) is really the big question.
QtM, MD
Someone might want to just take a second here to give Fenris his (her?) props for doing the right thing and acknowledging his (her?) mistake.
Oh, I guess I just did.
Alcoholism is a pretty sensitive issue with a lot of folks, it appears. I guess I didn’t realize just how sensitive until I read this thread. Another brick in the wall of ignorance crumbles.
Actually, the concept of “psychological addiction” is bunk. There are only physiological addictions.
ADMIT YOU’RE WRONG! AHAHAHAHHHHHH!!!
Um… oookay.
I think we’ve just seen evidence of a physiological addiction right there. Someone’s been sniffing the funny white powder again…
I have always heard that alcohol is one of the most addictive drugs there is.
Remember “hair of the dog?”
Supposedly, your body can become acclimated to alcohol intake so quickly that in less than 24 hours you may exhibit dependency traits (i.e., a morning-after shot will clear your head up).
Can you back that up with a reputable cite? I’ve studied Addiction medicine, and dealt with patients with a history of drug and alcohol abuse for decades, and have seen no credible info presented to rebut the data on the evidence for psychological addiction.
Remember, I want reputable cites. Not WebBlurbs. To me that means stuff out of places like NIH, NIMH, CDC, and that caliber of data.
QtM, MD
Well, if you phrase it that way you can’t be proven wrong because anyone who is not addicted has, by your definition, not being “given it in sufficient quantities for sufficient time”. It reminds me of the famous sketch about “excessive smoking”.
I guess the question is whether the amounts needed to get addicted vary greatly or not. I know tobacco is also highly addictive and I wonder if some people get hooked much sooner than others.
Undoubtably.
Hmmmm, as one that could be classified as an alcoholic, I wonder why, after years of consistant drinking (yeah, pretty much getting drunk every night) why I can stop suddenly and not have the symptoms that others seem to exhibit.
Same goes for caffiene and nicotene.
I am one that is psychologically addicted to substances but even after smoking two packs a day, I don’t feel the same as others do when I stop. Probably a little swimmy due to the increased amount of oxygen to my brain, that’s about it.
I drank coffee, approximately the equivalent to 12 cups a day for close to 17 years. Stopped in June of 2000 with not a side effect. I now drink tea but that just recent.
I must be one of the exceptions to the rule.
(went all of last week without alcohol and will do so again this week…had some wine Friday night and last night.)
The only real symptom I have is getting to sleep at night after years of going to sleep with alcohol in my system.
Go figure, I am weird.
Yup, I have seen people who quit smoking without any physical withdrawal and I have seen people quit coffee without problems and yet I have seen the opposite. I am waiting for research to show that we are individually susceptible to different addictions.
I know the coffee headaches are not unusual as there was some research linking them to migraines.
Fenris, being transexual, now should properly be referred to as “her”, or “Ms. Lupina Stevens” among friends.
I have not been keeping up with the correct threads, seemingly.
Excessive alcohol usage may have physical symptoms of withdrawl, but is this the same as it being physically addictive?
Also-- if doctors believe that addiction is, in part, a physical problem, why do they send people to a religious group to get better?
Can’t science offer a physical rather than a metaphysical solution?
(relying on a ‘higher’ power is NOT scientific-- it requires something ‘higher’ or outside of nature, [therefore supernatural or metaphysical.])
Psychological addictions DO EXIST. I have one for marijuana. I haven’t bought any in months, because of my financial condition, and have rarely smoked (a few friends have been kind enough to turn me on), but do I crave the weed.
OTHO, I never had any physical problems from quitting cold turkey.
I was also a heavy drinker for years, but had no physical problems when I greatly curtailed my use six years ago because of health problems.
The problem with discussing addiction is that we all have individual biochemistries. What addicts you is just fun to me. You can quit without any problems a substance that gives me severe withdrawal pains.
Yes it is.
**
Modern medicine can get a patient thru a physical addiction quite nicely, thank you. What the modern scientific community has failed at is an effective treatment for the “return to the drug” after the physical addiction is no longer present. Evidence-based medicine has shown that mutual-help groups (such as AA and other “12-step” groups to name only a few) do have better success in the long run than a number of other treatment models. Evidence-based medicine does not know why this is, but since data suggests it works better than other things, evidence-based medicine suggests we use that method until/unless something demonstrated to be as or more effective comes along.
Now that’s scientific, isn’t it?
QtM, MD