Not to closed minds which abound at the SDMB…
Yep.
Look at that! Why the hell can’t other people who say stupid things and get pitted show this kind of open admission of wrong doing?
Without going into the psychological addictiveness of alcohol, your claim that the effectiveness of the “hair of the dog” hangover cure is an indicator of “dependency traits” appears to be false.
In fact, the introduction of fresh ethanol in the form of a morning-after drink interrupts the breakdown of methanol (from the night-before) into formic acid and formaldehyde, which cause hangover symptoms. (Alternatively, it is suggested that fresh ethanol will ease hangover symptoms by blocking the formation of congeners caused by the breakdown of the previous night’s ethanol.)
Nothing to do with “dependency traits” of alcohol per se, or becoming “acclimated to alcohol intake”. 
(Although it may be said that the ability to make oneself feel better by drinking in the morning may in the long-run contribute to the development of an addiction to alcohol.)
Oh, and kudos to Fenris for graciously apologising his error. That’s all too rare around here.
That’s because Fenris is a class act.
I’m no mod (obviously) but I’m just curious why we keep posting arguments to this thread when the objective has clearly been attained?
(and Fenris: it takes a real man to stand up and say he’s wrong. You rule.)
Morrigoon, you can ask that a thread you opened be closed by clicking on the line Report this post to a moderator at the bottom of the screen. I’ve already done this for you, but please feel free to back me up, if you like. The mods, I’m told, do have lives of their own, and they can’t be everywhere at once, so they may not know when a thread has reached its natural end.
Before it does, though, I’d also like to thank Fenris for being a class act and a true gentleman.
CJ
My sister-in-law was an alcoholic. The last two times she went in to the hospital, they told her to keep drinking until she got to the hospital. The DTs are not pretty.
Unfortunately, she died three months ago. From alcoholism. And only 42 years old. It’s a hideous disease.
Some people are not monkey-friendly, it seems. My mom, for example, smoked from the age of eight and quit cold-turkey when she got pregnant with me. I’ve never done anything other than caffenine recreationally, but I still have never experienced any withdrawl symptoms after ending a binge. I can eat caffienated mints and drink strong coffee and colas until I’m sprinting up and down the roads during a high and feeling thoughroughly burned out afterwards and still not feel any kind of physical craving for caffeine, neither withdrawl symptoms when my supply runs out and I cold-turkey.
Neurochemically lucky, I suppose.
Wow… Fenris rules.
I’ve no argument that alchol is physically as well as psychologically addictive, but I take issue with alcoholism being termed a disease.
By its true definition (disease: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning, or: a harmful development (as in a social institution), it is a disease, but so too would be breaking a leg or having one’s eyes sewn shut.
And what of those that grow so accustomed to functioning (relatively) normally under the influence of alcohol that quit? Wouldn’t their sudden necessity to adapt to a life without being continually intoxicated constitute a disease by that definition?
An addiction, yes; a disease, no.
Is there someone that could perhaps explain to me where my logic is flawed? I can’t find the error and must therefore believe that I am correct.
Soulmark, I hear what you’re saying. I used the word disease because most people call it one. I’m not sure I believe it is a disease, but the way it was described to me, it also has to be progressive, which alcoholism is. As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out on that.