Is alcoholism officially recognized as a disease?

Factual Questions
1

…

2

Short answer: Yes. The DSM-IV (diagnostic manual for mental health professionals) defines alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence as disorders to be treated. See here for details.

3

Ah, that’s just begging the question. The DSM does not recognize “diseases”. It recognizes “problems”, and its content if often heavily biased based on the opinions of the people who assembled it, because Psychology barely qualifies as a science*. The line between disorder, mental illness, improper brain function, and so forth is heavily blurred.

Calling alchoholism a disease is factually incorrect. It is not a disease. It is not any pathogenic attack (the normal definition of disease), nor is it a symptom of the body going wrong. You can argue that the side effects of heavy drinking are maybe a disease, since it can produce chemical dependence.

There are syndromes, specific biological issues which may make it easier to become addicted. However, these are so commonplace as to lie well within normal human variance and addiction is possible for any human being.

*This is not to say it is useless or even incorrect. It is nonetheless not a practical and repeatable science any more than economics or anthropology. There are scientific components to all three, but none of them can demonstrate factual truth 100% of the time. Likewise, some people argue that calling alchoholism a “disease” makes it less of a stigma and easier to overcome. This may be true. What is not true is the statement that it is a disease.

4

The DSM is assembled by psychiatrists, not psychologists. There’s certainly an above-average amount of woo-woo in both fields, but it’s a bit disingenuous to dismiss a mainstream medical specialty as barely qualifying as science.

5

I would say it’s the old “Disease versus condition” definition.

In the old, a disease requires some sort of "outside interference, usually by a bacteria or virus or other “germ.” A condition is an abnormality. Thus hyperthyroidism, an over active thyroid is not a disease but condition. At least that the old way of thinking.

But that is just semantics, whether a germ or gene or whatever, you’re still sick. A broken leg isn’t a disease but one is still not healthy with a broken leg.

A newer definition of “disease” is: “abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs”

This comes from the John Hopkins Medical site and seems to incorporate both outside invaders and inside things like genes and such.