That strikes me as an extraordinarily untenable position. No teen is forced to take his first drink. It’s a choice. Perhaps an uninformed one, perhaps one greatly influenced by peer pressure, but a choice nonetheless.
There is undoubtedly a normative effect in drinking behavior, just as there’s a normative effect in going to college or using slang or whatever. Howver, I’m curious as to how you define “choosing” to take part in any behavior. Is choice characterized by a certain amount of consideration, or simply the decision between alternatives?
My time is limited today because I’m working on my master’s report, but if I had time I would dig out some cites from a substance abuse class I had about the role of genetics in alcoholism.
Yes, but the question is whether Clothahump <- made that choice, or submitted to peer pressure and whatnot.
Generally I would say “a certain amount of consideration”–as I would imagine this is how hump meant it–but in this case I would imagine either will work just because I doubt most kids even consider an alternative of such absoluteness as “I will never buy nor drink alcohol during my lifetime” and further follow through with that to the letter?
This isn’t none, nor even 0.0001% of the population as I have met some. But for most teens (based on my viewings of them), I doubt such even comes to mind as an alternative; most likely the alternatives become, “Should I just take a sip and smile?”, “Should I drink it all”, or “Should I pass this time?”
Peer pressure isn’t something that effects me any though, so I can only speak of impressions here.
I remember a PSA about smoking and peer pressure. It involved one kid offering another a cigarette and when it was declined he asked something like “why not, are you afraid?” In my experience a lot of peer pressure wasn’t direct it was more a desire on the part of an individual wanting to fit in. I knew kids who smoked and while once I declined their offers of tobacco once or twice they stopped asking. They didn’t even laugh or call me chicken.
I believe that submitting to peer pressure is just the same as making a choice. You don’t agree with me? What, are you chicken? 
Marc
You don’t make the choice to be genetically predisposed to alcohol addiction. Ta da.
Alcohol [sic] isn’t a disease unless you concede to the opinions of kooks such as the World Health Organization or the American Medical Association :rolleyes:
Why are those mutually exclusive?
You’re right. All this “reasonable debate” and “presenting various research and opinion” is just a crazy waste of time. Great Debates should be where we post a question and then decide on one view, backed by whatever one or two health organizations (or whatever) are most well-known and respected, and close the thread.
I guess the debate is over. Thanks for coming everyone, but especially quasixote for saving us all the time we might have spent thinking and discussing and learning things. Whew.
Actually, I don’t know any “former alcoholics who don’t drink.” I know a number of alcoholics who, with a rather thorough and sometimes complex set of treatments and support for other people refrain from drinking.
As I noted earlier, however, there is also the situation that AA has caused the discussion in the U.S. to become binary. Other nations have studied the whole set of people for whom alcohol (or other addicitions) interfere with their lives and note that there are people who can be taught to modify their behavior. Among consumers of alcohol, these people are referred to as problem drinkers rather than alcoholics. In these cases, it is possible that will power (or the reduction of stress or some other agent) could actually account for their putting aside or reducing their consumption. (One of the principal points of conflict between the European researchers and the AA backed Americans is that the Europeans have had some success getting people whom they have identified as “problem drinkers” to reduce consumption to the point where it no longer interferes with their lives while the AA supported folks insist that this cannot be done.)
However, if there is a class of people identified as problem drinkers who can be taught to control their drinking, this does not indicate that no one is actually alcoholic. You appear to buy into the binary arguments of AA and simply claim that anyone who used to have a drinking problem was alcoholic and since they quit, it was obviously not a disease. I am not going to simply ignore the research that has linked alcoholism (and other addictions) with various genetic codes simply so that I can pretend that the issue is mere will power.
In fact, according to most research, the most effective treatment for problems with alcohol in general is… no treatment at all. The majority of people that report having severe periods of drinking too much also report simply deciding not to do that anymore.
This is one of the most maddening things about trying to discuss this subject with an AA proponent. Everything makes sense under their model because anything that doesn’t make sense is simply tossed out of consideration.
The problem is whether it’s alcoholism in specific or simply genetic factors in general that lead to addiction, poor impulse control, and so on.
I DO think there is a danger to many models of treatment, like AA, that de-emphasize willpower in combatting compulsions. It can very easily be a self-fulfilling phrophecy that leads people to give themselves excuses to relapse.
Because if you only drank because everyone else drinks and then 15 years later yell at alcoholics for starting drinking becaue everyone else drinks–seems a tad hypocritical to me.
Most people assume that drinking must be okay, that they can handle it, etc. etc.–and most people are right. But you will never know whether you were actually safe to begin drinking until you’ve drunk for many years without having become an alcoholic; until that point it’s all just a gamble. If you chose to enter the gamble as well, it strikes me as particularly uncool to pick on others just because they lost while you won.
I’m probably just really short on sleep, but I’m not following that at all.
Hrm, well a trial rewrite:
- No one knows when they begin drinking whether they will become an alcoholic or not.
- By the time people have become alcoholics they have already been drinking a long time and for most of that seemed okay.
- Once one is already an alcoholic drinking is not a “choice”–through hard work and carefullness you might be able to force yourself to stop, but that’s a lot different from “choosing.”
- As such, for an alcoholic the place where he actually did have a choice was way back when he was a teenager and chose not to abstain from alcohol. And as stated in point #1, he had no way of knowing he would become an alcoholic–and really probably put very little thought into the decision beyond “everyone else is doing it.”
- So, until such a time as we can tell the future–anyone who starts drinking without giving a hard look at his genetic makeup and the number of alcoholics in his family when he is a teenager is running a gamble. And even without genetic predisposition, you still might become an alcoholic–so again, anyone choosing to drink alcohol is running a gamble–even if only a very slight one.
- Anyone who does run that gamble (i.e. not abstaining from alcohol)–from the vantage point of one who does not–is hypocritical to denounce someone for “choosing poorly”* when he made the same choice as a teen and did not abstain.
- “Poor choice” according to hump, not myself. (Though obviously I do think alcohol is inherently silly–but that is tangental to this post.)
It’s not really a tangent to anything you’ve written. Your biases have been clear from the start.
Ok, I’m with you Sage Rat. For my part, I’m not arguing that the first drink necessarily constitutes a poor choice, merely that it constitutes a choice. And that, later, drinking to excess is also a choice. I would not say that becoming an alcoholic is a choice, but we certainly choose to lay the groundwork for it–however uninformed or naive thoce decisions might be.
I am a smoker. I have had the bitch on my back for 18 years. I chose to start. I chose to continue. At some point, I stopped choosing and started needing. I knew that cigarettes were addictive . . .
What that says to the question posed in the OP, I don’t know.
Would have to go back and reread–but so far as I can tell, nothing I wrote should be particularly objectionable.
-Teens often don’t think ahead and will ignore the opinion of just a few years previous when it comes to peer pressure
-Alcoholism is probably linked to genetic factors
-Alcoholism occurs in people unexpectedly not out of choice (except by carrying that “choice” back several years where it is silly to really mark that up as a choice)
Certainly something seems to have confused you all about my posts, but I can swear that the only thing I ever said is that Clothahump was probably not in a position to be making a judgment call.
So, not certain what you believed I said–but apologies anyhow.
No need to apologize. Biases are fine-we all got 'em-but I felt a “Let’s look at the facts” post that didn’t actually contain any facts deserved some probing.
Well, as a matter of fact, it IS a disease. The question is as silly as:
Is Epilepsy a disease?
Is Schizophrenia a disease?
Is Leprosy a disease?
Epilepsy, Schizophrenia, and Leprosy were all at one time thought to be caused by weak moral character. Many presently view alcoholism in this puerile and misguided light, even though it is a medically recognized disease with an etiology reproducable throughout those so afflicted. This question belongs in GQ. It is a non-debate.
I apologize. Puerile isn’t a proper word to describe the point of view that alcoholism is a moral weakness, not a disease. I just wonder if those who doubt it is a disease also feel type II diabetes isn’t a disease. Type II diabetes is caused mainly by one’s dietary intake and therefore is a consequence of the person’s choices. Is type II diabetes a moral weakness?