Posted on 07/29/2005 5:37:23 AM PDT by RobFromGa
There's also a very realistic possibility that calling alcoholism a "disease" is part and parcel of the desired result -- a way to deal with self-destructive human behavior.
later pingout.
Note: One of my parents is an alcoholic, several siblings have had "substance" problems, and I was an alcoholic drug user for a number of years.
I quit, anyone can. They just have to want to.
You're right. Alcoholism isn't a disease.
Some people may be more prone to the vice of intemperance as some people may be more prone to the vice of stealing, neither of which is a medical condition.
8 posted on 07/29/2005 5:44:55 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Seeking the truth here folks.)
Hehehehe...
Nah...not a disease...just one of many mechanisms people use to continue being selfish and deal with life and lifes choices incorrectly. You could replace alcohol with drugs, sex, food, workalcoholism, etc.; they all can be depended upon the same way. Calling it a disease just takes away personal responsibility...thats just not right...ever.
Great post.
I agree. We have become, or rather we have let others manipulate us into becoming a nation of hand wringers. He or she comitted this act because...............ect., ect. A cottage industry of counsling has been thrust upon us, these so called experts have an explanation for everything except personal responsibility. This God awful permissive approach is pushing us closer and closer to the cliff.
The obsession aspect means that an alcoholic will continue to drink, even knowing that it will probably lead to problems, and somehow thinks that it will be different the next time.
The physical aspect or "allergy" refers to the physical craving that develops once alcohol has been ingested.
Whether that qualifies as a disease is debataable.. All I know is that the physical part can be avoided simply by not taking that first drink. The obsession, however, is much trickier to overcome.
Please understand something here . . . I'm not trying to diminish the hardship that you and your family faced when dealing with this problem. In fact, one of the most destructive aspects of alcoholism is that it is just that -- DESTRUCTIVE, and friends and family members have to watch as a person engages in ongoing behavior that has such terrible consequences.
Goerge W. Bush stopped drinking years ago when his wife threatened to take their two daughters and leave him if he didn't stop. No medical treatment was needed at the time, and from what I can see there is no ongoing medical treatment at all. He just made a personal decision that some things in his life were far more important than getting drunk.
And your comment is like saying abstinence isn't an effective cure for pregnancy. (even though it works every time it's tried)
Sure it does. What medical treatment did you receive for your alcoholism, and what ongoing medical treatments do you undergo to remain sober?
And your comment is like saying abstinence isn't an effective cure for pregnancy. (even though it works every time it's tried)
Actually, my point is that abstinance IS an effective "cure" for pregnancy. But abstinance isn't a medical treatment -- it's a matter of controlling your behavior.
Do you have a source for that? He just made a personal decision that some things in his life were far more important than getting drunk.
This part of it I have heard, but I don't believe the part about Laura threatening to leave. I think that she likely wanted him to quit, but nothing I have read leads me to believe that his drinking was ever to the stage that she was leaving if he didn't quit.
My personal experience If You Suspect You Might Have A Drinking Problem (An Open Letter) is that you must quit for yourself, and that you cannot do it for others. Of course a fear of loss of something important could be a trigger to make one want to quit, but that realization can be arrived at without actual spoken threats.
Being drunk is not.
Well said.
While it's reasonable to call alcholism a disease, medically speaking, it's no legal excuse. The judge was absolutely right to reject that argument during sentencing.
Speaking from experience: go to an AA meeting and proclaim, "but I have a disease," as an excuse for broken marriages, lost jobs, failed businesses, and criminal convictions. You won't get alot of sympathy - and rightly so.
Awareness that "alcoholism is a disease" has it's place in recovery. But it has no place as an excuse for unreasonable behavior.
(Thanks for the ping, Rob.)
"Drug use just doesn't meet that definition, since not using the drug in and of itself will not hurt you."
Stu, that isn't really true in all cases. Especially with opiates and certain other drugs, if a hardcore addict just quits cold turkey there is a real risk of death. That's why doctors tend to try to slowly reduce the doses when they have someone on heavy duty opiate type drugs for an extended period.
I wasn't talking about withdrawal, I was saying that people will not die if they don't drink alcohol in the first place. Nobody will ever die of an "alcohol imbalance" from never drinking. They may do so if they do not take insulin or depakote, or drugs that are necessary to treat medical conditions.
Yes, alcohol withdrawal can indeed be fatal cold tukey. Hoever, opiate withdrawal, while uncomfortable, is almost never fatal - even cold turkey. The exception is if there is an underlying medical condition such as heart disease, in which case any kind of stress could prove fatal.
That's why doctors tend to try to slowly reduce the doses when they have someone on heavy duty opiate type drugs for an extended period.
This is done for comfort, not safety. Cold turkey will not kill you, but may make you wish someone would. It is very unpleasant, but is not considered medicaly dangrous in otherwise healthy adults. Many a heroin addict has been stranded without their stash and has had to go cold turkey. This actually happens with regularity. A true alcoholic cannot do this without seizures and delerium tremors.
Again, if you have a heart condition or any other underlying disorder, EVERY drug should be withdrawn slowly, as rapid changes to the body can cause harm. This is not due to the particular drug, but other medical disorders.
Might as well try to argue fine points of theology with an atheist.
Mdically, alcohol is the only recreatinal drugs that is lethal in withdrawl. (unless prescription sedatives are used for recreational purposes, in which case they also share this danger).
Cocaine, Meth, Ecstacy, Heroin, and certainly Marijuana withdrawal will almost never cause mortality.
It may be a disease, but it's a self-inflicted one, which should not be accepted as a legal defense.
Nobody ever became an alcoholic without taking a drink.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.