That’s the thing. What’s the definition of an addict? What defines an “alkie?” Problem drinkers =/= alcoholic… because they didn’t go to AA? Surely, that shouldn’t define someone as an addict or not. I mean not all people with alcohol dependence disorders seek treatment. But then again looking in the literature today, I found a few articles that grouped people who seek treatment vs. those that don’t, and there’s actually differences in their long term prognosis–here’s one of them–
So it seems logically (to me anyway) not really a useful definition of alcoholic… but apparently it might correlate with some interesting factors. And it does sort of make sense when you think about it, that people seeking treatment might be differently susceptible to the effects of alcohol than those that aren’t. Whether that is sufficient to classify them as an addict… I don’t think so.
For what it’s worth, the DSM-IV doesn’t use the word “disease” (although it does use “disorder”) and it lists substance “dependence” and substance “abuse” disorders, (as well as substance “withdrawl” syndromes) but not substance “addiction” (at least not in my copy )
If someone still has to work “so hard” to stay sober after __number of years what does that say?
My addiction to alcohol will always be there,even if the alcohol isn’t. Are you speaking from personal experience here?Are you an addict?
There’s no physical or chemical addiction there.Not a valid analogy
Not analogous
The alcoholism part of me never will change,doesn’t mean that the rest of me cannot.
Thats just the way it is. I’ll never be able to drink ‘normally’. I don’t go out in the middle of the street and broadcast it at the top of lungs though.
Why would you do such a thing,and why does it bother you so much?
I know Im an alcoholic and always will be regardless of how long I abstain from alcohol. I know this from my own life experience.Not from some book in some AA meeting.
I have met many 'non-alcoholics who couldnt grasp my ‘addiction’.I could talk till I was blue in the face and they’d never understand.
The only thing that bothers me about being alcoholic is that I can’t have a drink with the fellas.It doesnt lower my self-esteem one bit.I dont know why others would relapse and wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to think I do.
So are you suggestion that AA or NA should begin by telling the addict or alcoholic: “Today,you are no longer an addict”
You’re right in that I could be being harsh saying he’s being a jerk. I don’t know the tone or content of their conversations. I certainly haven’t heard her side of it.
However, this line from the OP (bolding mine):
comes across as jerkish. Now, it’s certainly true that print on a screen isn’t nuanced the way speech is. Maybe as he says this, he’s smiling a crooked little rueful smile, and shrugging his shoulders. That’s just not the way it’s coming across to me. If he always argues, if he always insists that she stop referring to herself as “a fucking alcoholic” because (in his own words) it makes him “cringe”, that seems like jerkish behavior to me. She’s found what works for her, she’s doing it, and she’s not hurting anyone by doing so.
As I said in my first post, this is only my two cents, and probably isn’t worth more than that .
Actually, I always did. For the seven years that I gave up smoking, I always described myself as a smoker who no longer smoked. Now I am a smoker who smokes once more, but I hope soon to return to non-active duty.
That just isn’t true. Fat is a chemical. All of the components in the fat metabolism pathway and the hormones that deal with eating are chemicals. Physical changes occur in the body and brain when eating that might resemble the ones that take place during substance abuse. Why is it so hard to believe that they might affect the brain’s reward system in a similar way as alcohol?
It’s different, but that doesn’t make it not as good of an analogy. A better argument would be: being fat is not like being an alcoholic because animals will satiate on food but not on cocaine (for example).
I can understand the reasoning of many addicts to call themselves addicts in order to keep it in mind, so they (we) don’t slip up, but in my experience, I relapsed more while I was attending NA meetings. If I’m in an environment where people are talking about drugs, I’m like Pavlov’s dog–except instead of a bell, it’s the mention of narcotics (vicodin) that get me salivating. It was much more difficult to stay clean when all I talked about was trying to stay clean.
So, I agree that “once and addict, always an addict”, but I don’t self-identify as an addict. I know that if I were to take one pill, I’m headed down the wrong path again, but I won’t label myself. It’s what works for me.
So if Im reading this correctly you’re saying that fat has a direct and immediate profound effect on the neurotransmitters serotonin (5HT), dopamine, and GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid)?
That’s not really what you were claiming before. What you claimed before was–
The upstream pathway implicated in fat-related reward, the time course of fat-related reward, and the magnitude of fat-related reward are all variables which differentiate fat-related reward from drug-related reward. Of course. I won’t dispute that. I will disupte that fat doesn’t affect the reward circuitry in a fashion that is very similar to drug reward.
Maybe not immediate, or particularly direct, but yeah, I’d say fat activates the brain’s reward circuitry, or else we wouldn’t eat.
These researchers observed reduced dopaminergic transmission in NAc in ob/ob mice (which are leptin deficient). So it’s clear that fat and dopaminergic transmission are connected in some way. Furthermore, they cite articles that suggest the reward system in obese individuals is different from individuals who aren’t (specifically, it seems like they’d be more resistant to satiation). But you’re certainly correct that being fat is different (again, animals generally satiate in response to food but don’t satiate in response to certain drugs). But to claim that fat doesn’t cause chemical changes in the reward system or that it can’t be “addicting” is false IMO.
The problem with this mentality is that it encourages a person to identify with their addiction. Their addiction is part of them rather than an affliction that can be healed. With addiction its all about attitude. You don’t get over your addiction until you stop being an addict. Generally addiction is a substitute for some other need that is not being fulfilled, often love. If you can fill the need that is being substituted for then the addiction holds less sway.
No one who has AIDS says, “I am AIDS.” so why, “I am an addict”?
Ok nameless
How about if I say that being fat is not like being an alcoholic because animals will satiate on food but not on cocaine.
What do you say to THAT??! Uh huh I thought so…
wow,your last response generated 4 “reply to post” emails from SD.Is that from the edit function?
I am getting super close to ten years of sobriety. I consider my self an alcoholic and an addict. Here is why.
Cocaine, speed, crack, shooting up, heroine, inhalants, pills, alcohol, LSD and other hallucinogenics are what I consumed on a regular basis for ten years.
In ten days I will be ten years sober.
For the last twenty years every day of my life has been about getting or using, quiting or recovering, form drugs and alcohol. It is still as much a part of me now as when I was using.
It has become a part of my identity.
I wish to have a new identity but I can’t seem to shake this one. It is not due to AA. I don’t go. It is not because I call myself an alcoholic or addict. I rarely say that. It is just that it still consumes me.
10 FUCKING YEARS!!! sober and it still takes a large part of my thought.
I often state that when I turn 65 I will start using again. Coke and drinking mainly. I have caught myself driving and longing for the day, muttering to myself. Ahh… only thirty years to go.
I guess it’s more the people who call addiction a “weakness”, and that people need to just suck it up, and have self-control. That’s all. I guess it was just losing my aunt that really makes it a sensitive subject for me. She was my godmother and my favorite aunt. And even now, I’m getting teary-eyed thinking about it. I’m not looking for sympathy. Just saying how it makes me feel.
I tend to be over protective when it comes to my family.
meh. It’s no more or less accurate than any other label. It’s more accurate to say “I have an addiction” or “I’m abusing drugs” than “I’m an addict”.
I guess the real issue people are getting at though is - if someone has had a problem abusing the object of their addiction and quit the said object, does that mean that they will never be able to casually come in contact with it without succumbing to abuse again? I think it boils down to a tautology - people that are able to do something casually without abusing it aren’t defined as addicts. People that can’t are defined as addicts.
But it’s really a more general case of that anything one does becomes habitual. If you are used to enjoying 6 drinks at a time, it’s likely to be harder to learn to enjoy just 2 drinks in a sitting (a new habit) than just not drinking at all. I’d say it would work the opposite way to some extent - someone who is used to enjoying one or two drinks for a light buzz probably wouldn’t feel comfortable starting to drink hard. Mixed of course with the fact that the scale is one sided - you can always have more, but you can’t have less than nothing - so any new behavior is likely to be in the direction of excess (except in the case of going totally opposite and becoming compulsive about healthy habits).
Sure, it’s possible for someone to have an addiction abuse problem, and than later become a casual user without ever succumbing to abuse again. There’s just a lot of selection pressure against the phemomenon making it less likely than other scenarios.
I still refer to myself as a drunk and a junkie, even though I haven’t touched a mood-altering chemical in almost 17 years. I will always be an alcoholic, even if I never drink again. The underlying condition isn’t ever going away. Same goes for my myriad of drug addictions.
At the core of my being, I know I can never drink like a non-alcoholic. Nor can I recreationally use drugs. I am cool with that.
But I do not reserve the right to drink at some point in the future. I know it’s a bit controversial, one day at a time and all that, but everybody I know who reserved the right to drink or use later on did it. And I’m not going there, thankyouverymuch.
:sigh:
Ok you asked me my opinion,I gave it to you. Ill point you towards this linky here. And here’s a New England Journal of Medicine Linky.You can’t see all the text in the NEJM link (registration req) but theres enough to get the gist. There should be contact info on both sites,perhaps you could tell the good Doctors at the NEJM about your miraculous epiphany.
Most alcoholics in recovery I’ve talked to would LOVE to drink - and they feel that if they were social drinkers, they wouldn’t - they would be out of control. To them, saying “I’m an alcoholic” is what they say - to themselves - over and over and over and over again to keep from having that one drink - just that one.
And, most of the ones I’ve run across have had a really hard time admitting that they were alcoholics, and then deciding to do something about it. It isn’t a label they wanted.
To tell someone like that “you aren’t an alcoholic” translates to them as “you can drink” - the thing so many of them want so badly. You aren’t doing them any favors by implying that they can drink. (Granted, SOME people can go from being heavy drinkers, maybe even alcoholics - to social drinkers - but if THIS person can’t, well, I think erring in support of not drinking - even if the label isn’t perfect - is better than not supporting it).
Only your opinion, my friend, and one that is not shared by many (if not most) alcoholics. You do not speak for me- my self-esteem rocks. In my case, your statement is dead wrong.
Please don’t presume to speak for anyone but yourself. Thank you.
digglebop, have you tried asking your aunt why she uses that label, instead of telling her she’s stupid for using it?
Generally speaking, I don’t argue with people’s self-identifications simply because it’s rude. The one exception I can think of was when a woman I’ve known very well for 10 years suddenly started expressing a desire for gender reassignment surgery. While I didn’t argue with her about her new label for herself, I did ask her about it. Based on her answers, I did suggest that perhaps she was simply too limited in her internal definition of “woman”, and expanding that definition to include herself might be easier and more useful than labeling herself a man. After a few months of pondering, she agreed with me, much to the relief of her husband and two daughters!
No one wants to hear that they’re stupid or wrong. Try a discussion instead of an argument and you might find out some interesting things about your aunt.
So, while I don’t think once an addict, always an addict (unless we “No True Scotsman” the definition of addict to mean only those who are always an addict), I certainly wouldn’t contradict any individual who labels themselves an addict.
)
.