(Goes back to look, now that he has slept) Hm. Outside of the “99.999%”–which I considered as obvious hyperbole–everything looks factual to me. Alcohol does smell bad, is expensive, a large percent of accidents and crime do occur while in the influence of alcohol (though with crime, drugs may be in there a good bit as well), and it does water down the flavor of the components the drink is made of, and teens don’t often think ahead and will ignore what was obvious to them just a few years previous (like the former points) when it comes to peer pressure.
Auto Cite - Fatal auto accidents are caused by intoxication in 30% (weekday) to 53% (weekend) of all cases.
Crime Cite (PDF) - 36% of crimes leading to conviction are undertaken while under the influence of alcohol.
Can’t seem to find a good cite for the number of non-drinkers (dating profiles, autralian/new zealand/UK studies, blogs, etc.), but so far have been able to get the following two:
So perhaps 10% of the population are abstainers by middle age? And, of course, some percent of that will be ex-drinkers (e.g. gave up after college.) So among teens, 95% (?) might not be a bad guess for how many people drink.
Where the hell are you getting your info? Bill clearly wrote alcoholism is cunning and baffling. He never said anything about alcohol itself. You’ve taken a hit to your standing.
I drive my best friend to court mandated AA meetings. I go inside during open meetings which are usually big book readings or speakers. During the closed meetings, I sit in my car and listen to ball games on satellite radio.
While I may disagree with much of what AA has to say, I consider myself to be a guest. I act like I do when I go to Roman Catholic Mass. I’m a guest, so I behave myself like an adult. I may not agree with what they have to say, but people are there for a reason.
Diseases of the mind are nothing if not cunning, baffling, and powerful. I used to have a girlfriend that had OCD. I could not understand why she would persist in her behavior. She was fully aware of her disorder and the ways that it has decimated her, yet she still could not behave in the ways a ‘normal’ person could. Most situations cannot be understood in the second person as thoroughly as in the first person.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a second-person’s perspective on alcoholism. Maybe I could explain an aspect of it as it pertains to me. When I was in active addiction, the desire for alcohol was at least as strong my desire for food or water. When I am hungry or thirsty, it is pretty hard to do anything but think about or seek out food or water. So goes it with alcohol. You can’t argue or brush aside a physical craving any more than you can quench your thirst by imagination or rationalization.
Constant intoxication without a sufficent interruption will lead to a physical addiction. Once a person reaches this phase, the consequences are more than a mere hangover. The detoxification starts its course with violent and involuntary shaking, hallucinations, insomnia, grand mal seizures and delirium. On the other hand, if the physically addicted individual still persists in abstaining from drinking, there is a good chance of strokes or even heart failure. These side effects can be stopped at anytime by just satisfying the intense craving for alcohol, by the way.
So after a certain point, the consequences of drinking become less than stopping. This point may even be reached before the person understands their predicament. So now there are three options:
Stop drinking cold turkey and suffer the some or all of the aforementioned side effects.
Seek medical attention. (Still a dicey ride, I know)
Keep on drinking.
Option one is nearly impossible by volition.
Option three is the ‘natural’ choice, especially after trying option one. This one works until hastened death, btw.
Option two is the best option, but often declined for a spectrum of reasons (one being the denial of alcoholism, itself.)
If an alcoholic manages to stay the progression and detox, it will almost certainly resume once alcohol is reintroduced to the body. Notice how I chose the word ‘resume’ instead of ‘start over.’ AA is very helpful because it offers a defense against the first drink that is enjoyable to most, but a trigger for the afflicted. It is not a scientifically based or valid method of treatment. However, it is one of if not the most successful and comprehensive way YET to treat alcoholism successfully.
If you wonder if AA is bogus because it cures a bogus disease, then I shall offer a cite that should help you understand that it IS a bona fide Illness.
Dr. Jeffrey Schaler (numerous links on the web) argues that addiction (including alcoholism) is not a disease. That’s because it is a behavior and a behavior is – by definition – not a disease. There may be disease causes that contribute to it but the behavior is not a disease.
Addiction and alcoholism are convenient layman’s terms to describe a condition of drug abuse but there is no clear diagnosis that can tell you when one person with three drinks a day is a recreational drinker while the one with four drinks a day (or whatever line you choose) is an “alcoholic”. It isn’t like you have x-rays or other definitive proof as you do with cancer, broken legs, and stuff.
Well let’s see if alcoholism, a disease recognized by the Oxford journal of medicine, World health organization, and American Medical association fits any of the common DEFINITIONS of disease http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:disease
So does this mean schizophrenia is not a disease, just a behavior? Did you know that alcoholism is MORE than a behavior? The whole spectrum of chemical dependancies are more than behavior. Does type II diabetes exist because it has no clear onset? If you are citing Dr. Jeffrey Schaler in context, then he is grossly underqualified in his own profession.
here are the first few definitions found by google:
an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1
> Check, alcoholism does affect the health and function of an individual
A disease is any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.
>Check
Any malfunctioning of host cells and tissues that results from continuous irritation by a pathogenic agent or environmental factor and leads to development of symptoms.
www.ento.okstate.edu/Pddl/glossary.htm
Check, alcoholism fits that definition to the letter.
Saying alcoholism doesn’t exist because it is impossible to clearly deliniate the onset is silly. That argument is tantamount to declaring daytime doesn’t exist because it is indistinguishable from night time at twilight. Adversus solem ne loquitor.
First, let’s note that I am not particularly advocating Schaler’s message. I have discussed the subject with lots of experts in the field and, while Schaler makes some convincing arguments, there are others who have a different point of view.
Without getting into a longer-winded discussion, I have spoken to more than a few doctors who take issue with these definitions – pointing out that they are often more socially useful (e.g., they give the doctor a medical billing code to put on the bill) than scientific. Having been in the medical billing industry, I see some merit to this argument.
No, schizophrenia has physical causes and results in a behavior.
Aside from the point where they have had so much of it that they get DTs or withdrawals, how is it more than a behavior?
No, there are clear tests that can be run to determine the presence or absence of diabetes. There is no such clear test for alcoholism.
Well, I admit that I am not as well-educated as he is so my phrasing may not be what he might have chosen. But there are plenty of references to him and his ideas on the web, so you can look him up if you like. As for “underqualified”, you are the first person to allege that. Your credentials for saying so are . . . .?
I think that first one points up some of the problems with the definitions you found. Under that definition a broken leg would be a “disease”.
So does a broken leg, or taking too many drinks and throwing up. I wouldn’t call them “diseases”.
Once again, a broken leg would be a “disease” under that definition.
That’s better, but what is the “pathogenic agent” in alcoholism?
Once again, a broken leg qualifies as a “disease”.
No, it is more like saying that there isn’t any clear indicator at all – other than someone’s opinion – that alcoholism is even present. Can we do a blood test or brain scan that will conclusively prove the presence of alcoholism?
Schizophrenia has physical causes and results in a behavior? How does alcoholism NOT fit that definition? Thank you for supporting my argument, in that reguard.
“Any malfunctioning of host cells and tissues that results from continuous irritation by a pathogenic agent or environmental factor and leads to development of symptoms.”
Are you familiar with the subtle definition differences between ‘and’ and ‘or’? Alcohol would be the environmental factor in question. The broken leg analogy is just plain silly. A broken leg would definitely be an acute medical condition as opposed to a chronic medical condition.
Aside from DT’s or withdrawals? Aside from being insulin resistant, how is type II diabetes more than a behavior?Those things are SYMPTOMS of the disease after physical addiction is present…and I am going around in circles, I have answered this question before. ( The detoxification starts its course with violent and involuntary shaking, hallucinations, insomnia, grand mal seizures and delirium. There is a good chance of strokes or even heart failure.)
The chronic alcoholic could DIE from ceasing to drink. Let me repeat that so you don’t have to ask again: The chronic alcoholic could DIE from ceasing to drink. An alcoholic becomes PHYSICALLY dependant on a substance that requires medical intervention to break. I have seen more than a few individuals who suffer repeated Grand mal seizures in the first week after detoxing with medical supervision. Do you need a brain scan to see a person have a Grand mal seizure? I sure don’t!
You most certainly can screen for alcoholism. Ever visit a detox clinic?
As far as Dr. Jeffery Schaler is concerned, my qualifications have no bearings on his. I could be a chimp at the zoo with a 28k modem and that still wouldn’t make him any more or less qualified. What would make him grossly underqualified would be his unfamiliarity with research done by the WHO, AMA, and OJM over the 20th century. Sorry, but I trust the OJM, AMA, and the WHO a tad more than the dubious Dr. Schaler and you, quite frankly. As a member of the medical profession, you might become familiar with these organizations some day. Adversus solem ne loquitor…but keep on trying.
So what’s the physical cause for drinking too much booze?
I would guess that I am about as familiar with it as the average clod on the street might be. I have to deal with it just about daily in my work, in one manner or another.
The person was somehow totally unable to avoid drinking alcohol? How is that?
Read your own definitions you posted. A broken leg fits those definitions, and one even says “injury”.
Actually, the broken leg is a good comparison. It comes from an environmental condition that the person probably couldn’t avoid – as opposed to alcohol, which they most certainly could avoid.
OK, so assuming all that is true, how is it that even one drop of alcohol got drunk without active and deliberate behavior before any alcoholism was present?
Yeah, I knew they could die, thanks. That’s a point I have made myself in other places. But that doesn’t explain the behavior that got them to that point. Are you saying that your definition of alcoholism only kicks in when they have gone so far that they will die if they quit?
I would agree that is physical dependence, but most people would say that alcoholism is far broader than that – you don’'t have to be ready to die if you quit to be an alcoholic.
But how did they get to that point? Someone tied them down and force fed them Miller beer until they became physically addicted?
Yeah. I am not aware of any clear clinical diagnosis that is not largely based on the judgment of the person doing it – as opposed to something concrete like x-rays for broken legs. Unless they are already so bad off that they are in DTs or something.
No, but they would certainly say something about the value of your opinion of his credentials, wouldn’t they?
I have lots of things online myself by them and related organizations, thanks. And I have discussed it with some of the leading researchers. I can assure you that Dr. Schaler has read the research by those organizations. But it is quite clear that there is a respectable body of thought by qualified people that he is right. Here is some of it. Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.
The physical cause for drinking too much booze is pouring it down one’s gullet. Alcoholism is more than just drinking too much booze. It’s becoming DEPENDANT on booze; psychologically and physically.
It seems that the point you are trying to make is that there is no disease because the cause is voluntary? That arguement could be used to discredit type II diabetes. Nobody is FORCED to be sedantary and obese. Not everyone who imbibes alcohol becomes alcoholics, but all alcoholics started by imbibing alcohol. There isn’t a clear cut moment from when a person becomes an alcoholic. This can also be said of people who have heart disease, emphysema, type II diabetes, schizophrenia, OCD, alzheimers, and many other diseases.
Exactly. The key word you used was UNLESS. The question is if the disease of alcoholism exists, not when does a person become an alcoholic.
No, it wouldn’t. That is a logical fallacy.
I visited that link and it is irrelavant to the argument of alcoholism’s existance. No one argues the fact that the alcoholic’s disease is the alcoholic’s responsibility. This applies to many diseases. The question asked was if alcoholism exists, not if an alcoholic is ultimately responsible for their actions.
I am done going in circles over this. Here is my final words on the subject.
Yes, alcoholism is a disease that exists because there are people out there who are both psychologically and medically dependant on alcohol.
No, there is not a clear moment in time that a problem drinker becomes alcoholic.
No, not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.
Even if the person who is afflicted with alcoholism is ultimately responsible for the problem, this doesn’t negate its existence as a disease.
5)Even if the person who is afflicted with alcoholism is ultimately responsible for the problem, this doesn’t negate the need for medical and/or psychological assistance.
I realize that the whole tangent on the validity of my snark was, indeed, entirely tangental to the debate at hand, but could someone tell me whether or not they can access this site? I am still getting a hostname-lookup error.
Nope. Though it gives an instant error instead of waiting a minute.
Anyways, 35-70%.
Well, I’m still voting that peer pressure gets more people started than the learned result of research and lengthy introspection. (Now I have to wonder what’s up with High Functioning Middle Aged Men.)
Anyhoo, please ignore me and return to the debate at hand.
- 3.3% non-drinkers
