Is Alcoholism a Disease? (Page 2)

Farwuq: "Cheers" Yup, that's right; everyday is one big piss-up, in my life
















Jk. Now where did I put that damn vodka?

Farwuq: I bet that hound took it.......... Never trust a dog with alcohol.....
Ya, that's right........ I saw you looking over at my drink with those big puppy-dog eyes! No! Bad dog! Now go to your house..... That's better..........

CoIin: On the forums here, we often see the religiously-oriented member and the scientifically-oriented member trading blows over the proper status of homo sapiens sapiens - are we animal or not?

The Christian, for example, tends to argue (as he must) that animals and humans are qualitatively different; we are different "kinds" of creatures - the Bible says so. The science fan meanwhile invariably argues that we are indeed animals; any differences are quantitative (chimps and us both have hair, but chimps have more [except Corvin ])

We see this again and again, whether the topic is homosexuality, ethics, or whatever.

Curiously enough though, when the topic comes round to free will, our two antagonists seem to be in tacit agreement - "we" have it, "they" ( ) don't, although they're likely to disagree as to its source.

Has anyone else noticed this asymmetry?

Well, chimps can be alkies, can't they? But it's not their fault, is it? So why do we hold wee Jimmy the Alkie from Glasgow accountable for his bombastic boozing and therefore worthy only of contempt, while our simian sipper gets entirely exculpated?

Why, it's a no-brainer - free will, of course.

When it comes to free will, the scientist seems to do a 180-degree turn, forgetting all his talk of laws and regularity, invoking some occult force known as "free will" which is somehow capable of suspending the deterministic laws of nature (much like miracles) so that "thy will be done".

Well, this position seems quite consistent for the Christian. It seems entirely incongruous to the proponent of the evolutionary worldview.

Moreover, if we both, as the science fan maintains, occupy different parts of the same evolutionary continuum, why is this free will thingy treated as if it only has two possible values - on or off, if you like. If the evolutionary worldview is correct, and this thing known as free will does indeed exist, then shouldn't we expect it to be a more/less kind of deal?

We might say that chimps have some, but we have more. But NO ONE around here says this. I wonder why What about Neanderthals? Or Glasgow Rangers fans?

Wee Jimmy from Glasgow is routinely held to be ENTIRELY responsible, while King Kong gets off scot free

And if free will is indeed a result of evolution, then what sense does it make to treat it, as we do, as some kind of "finished product"? Evolution knows no such thing as a "finished" eye or brain or face-recognition ability.

If you do take the view that evolution is correct, and free will does exist, then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the inveterate (human) drunkard is only partially responsible? And so is King Kong for that matter. And so are you for that matter. For what? For everything.

Well, it's just an idea to chew over. Seems awfully messy to me though. It would be a lot cleaner and symmetrical if it were simply the case that neither of them has free will, for the simple reason that there is no such thing; it's just another illusion.

Nature, of course, is under no obligation to be symmetrical.

A final thought - if consciousness had developed in the stomach rather than the brain, do you think the stomach-mind - the "stind" - in its arrogance and foolishness would come to believe that it, and not the organ itself, was the agent of digestion?

CoIin: Dang! I'm sitting here in an Internet cafe in Indonesia. An annoying drunk just wandered in and started hassling me

So, I've decided to change my position. All alkies are assholes.

Corwin: I would like to comment further on these last points that have been brought up...... but I feel that I lack the free-will to do so.

I'll have much more free-will after a coffee and a smoke.

CoIin: ^^^

Erm, getting back to Lipton's original question.... it could be read in two ways, as far as I can see anyway. It could mean....

1. Does alcoholism belong to the "natural kind" of diseases?

i.e. There is a class in nature that corresponds to what we term "disease" and the question we're asking is whether or not alcoholism is a member of this class.

The quintessential example of a "natural kind" is the chemical elements. For example, the answer to the question "Is wood an element?" lies in nature. The answer is irrelevant to what views we happen to hold about wood.

or

2. Should alcoholism be treated as belonging to the class "disease" which is agreed upon by consensus?

This would be like asking "Is Barry Manilow in the rock 'n' roll Hall of Fame?" or "Should Barry Manilow be inducted into the rock 'n' roll Hall of Fame?"

The answer in this case is a matter of convention - it's up to us whether something is labelled a "disease" or not.


I don't imagine there is a division in nature which corresponds with our notion of "disease", so I guess we're addressing the second question here. Is that what you meant, Lipton?

And what do you think anyway? You started this furore

Hyenablood: when people want to label alcoholism a ' disease' , I think they mean that it is a life-long struggle to fight against.

CoIin: Yeah, I guess AA, by calling it a disease, is trying to draw attention to the fact that it's not a simple matter of self-control (or lack thereof). It's much more complex.

Let's assume again (for now ) that we DO all have free will, at least in this matter. However to say that we're all on an even playing field is absurd.

For the person WITHOUT the propensity toward alcoholism to condemn the person WITH the propensity as "lacking in self-control" or "weak" is as grotesque as the lucky person with the fast metabolism condemning the obese person with the slow metabolism as "greedy".

"It all comes down to choices. If you don't wanna get fat, then don't eat"

Or how about we all got on a 12-hour flight and I banned us from going to the toilet. I've little doubt one or two of us would make it; most wouldn't. But one thing is for sure - that asshole with the catheter will be one gloating SOB

Hyenablood: it also has a lot to do with enviroment as well. If you're grandfather was a drunk, and your dad and uncle are alcholics, then it stands to reason that you might very well end up one too. You can see the drinking for what it is - a weakness, and choise to go in another direction. Or you can be weak, and reach for a bottle whenever you get stressed out, tired, are with friends, etc.
It can be a choice, or it can be a weakness, something that you cater towards because it was always around when you were growing up.

LiptonCambell: Yes, it's a matter of definition.

Claiming alcoholism is a disease is an insult to everyone who actually has a disease. It would be the only disease that the cure is self-control.

Addiction is a behavior- resolving your addictions is a matter of changing your behavior- can anyone give examples of a disease where, if your change your attitude, you're cured?

CoIin: Erm, I'm still not crazy about that term "weakness", Hyena LOL

I agree with Farwuq that if you NEVER touch alcohol, then you're not going to become an alcoholic.

Obviously most of us don't do this. And obviously most of us can enjoy the booze, even in copious amounts (see Corvin's post), without becoming alcoholics. I wouldn't consider alcohol consumption per se to be "pathological"; on the contrary as Corvin pointed out, it's supposed to be beneficial in some ways.

For a minority though, this is not the case. We don't know in advance which ones it will be. When the "victim" gradually comes to realize that he is an alcoholic (or proto-alcoholic or whatever), IT'S TOO LATE. All bets are off. The time to speak of choice/weakness is past.

CoIin: @ Lipton

I'm not sure I agree with the "insult" remark. What we call "diseases" do come in many forms after all - some are bacterial, some viral, some psychological, etc.

In some cases, the patient will recover without any "cure", whether that be medication, surgery, therapy, etc. In other cases he won't.

Looked at another way, I'm not sure that the cancer patient (depending on what kind of cancer) has any reason to be jealous of the alcoholic (I'm stuck with this thing; you're not). You'd have to compare mortality rates. I don't have statistics here.....but as far as I know, alcoholism is purty darn lethal.

CoIin: Just another thought - is the person who has been guilty of drinking and driving, but got away with it, any less culpable than the person who drove under the influence and killed someone?

What separates them? Just dumb luck as far as I can see.

Why then does ANYONE who has ever touched a drop of alcohol have any right to condemn the alcoholic as weak/lacking in self-control/etc?

Hyenablood: colin, I used the word weak cuz it's simple how I see it. You are right about the " why then does anyone who has ever touch - have any right to condemn the al as weak/ lacking "
I would never go to AA meeting and start ranting about how weak they all are ( I'm not suicidal )
it isn't a case of 'lack of control' or condemning anyone. Society might at large rant about this, but I as a person would not.
There are thousands of cases where an alcoholic has overcome his/her drinking problem and has gone on to great things. This is to be celebrated and encouraged.
No one has the right to point fingers at anyone in society and start name calling and insulting, it does not help anyone.
We must help out anyone in trouble, if we can, and encourage others to stand up for those who cannot.

CoIin: @ Hyena

Yeah, this is the point I'm trying to make. Some alcoholics are able to quit; some aren't. Those who aren't should not be held to the same standard as those who are - "Look, he did it! Why can't you?"

Some people ARE stronger than others just as some people are more attractive than others or more intelligent than others, but it makes no sense at all to hold the underdog accountable for his/her relative weakness/ugliness/stupidity.

If Jim is able to benchpress 400lbs, and George 300lbs, then it IS true that George is weaker than Jim, but why on Earth would we BLAME George for not being able to benchpress 400lbs? We're asking him to perform outwith his ability.

Now, even if we just take the individual in relation to no one else, we should not expect consistency in "strength" - "You were able to do it before. Why can't you do it again? You're weak!" Professional athletes, say, do not perform consistently day in day out. Because you lift 300 lbs today doesn't mean you'll be able to tomorrow.

And finally, the above are analogies used for illustrative purposes; good as far as they go, but we shouldn't expect them to fit perfectly. If X was a perfect analogy of Y, then X would BE Y

P.S. I like your "celebrate the successes; refrain from finger-pointing at the "failures" "

CoIin: @ Lipton - you wanted examples of "if you change your behavior, you're cured"

How about kleptomania? How about phobias? How about flashers?

Cured? Well, who knows, eh? In remission at least.

Corwin: I got drunk last night... between my daughter and I we polished off a 40 ouncer of fine Russian Vodka. And while we did that, we listened to great music, and tidied up the house, and had a bonfire. Then we enjoyed a wonderful meal, and watched a movie. It was a lovely evening.

I don't think that just because someone often drinks that it necessarily means they have a "problem" or a "disease"... it certainly doesn't seem to be a problem for me. But I imagine that it's a genetic predisposition... I come from a long line of German descendants who are quite adept at handling our liquor... "iron livers". My father can down a fifth of Vodka, and you'd never know it to look at him... no noticeable change in behavior or temperament.

My daughter also inherited this. I have often gotten a kick out of watching men try to get her drunk with the intention of taking advantage of her... they have no idea what they are getting themselves into if they think they can match her drink-for-drink. They would eventually be falling on their faces passed out, while my daughter, seemingly sober, would laugh and shrug. This is a good time to break out the permanent-markers and do some facial-decorating.

Like I said.... more of a hobby for us. Just the luck of the genes I guess.

CoIin: @ Hyena - "There are thousands of cases where an alcoholic has overcome his/her drinking problem and has gone on to great things. This is to be celebrated and encouraged"

Yeah, take George W Bush

Perhaps it's better if some pissheads remain pissheads LOL

Sorry, Hyena, couldn't resist it. Er, I mean we have no free will so I'd no control over it. I mean...

Farwuq: CoIin: @ Hyena - "There are thousands of cases where an alcoholic has overcome his/her drinking problem and has gone on to great things. This is to be celebrated and encouraged"

"Yeah, take George W Bush

Perhaps it's better if some pissheads remain pissheads LOL"




Not so bad in itself; if they could only remain out of politics, and such, so at least they would be prevented from doing further damage, on a massive scale/to other people

CoIin: Hmm, yeah, perhaps we should offer incentives to keep them out of politics. Like free bourbon

Farwuq: Sounds good.... I won't run for president, I promise

CoIin: I believe you, Deano.

Hey wait!!!!

Corwin: Hey, I'm in too... I swear off of any running for President. Heck, if you throw in some free Vodka and a big bag of crisps, I'll promise not to run for Senator or Governor either.

*pinky-swear*

Farwuq: Well, my word counts

Zanjan: Quick review:

"I need a whole 26er to do the job.. you've got a guy like me who only drinks say 3 times a week, but it amounts to between 50 and 70 ounces of Vodka per week. .....Does that make me an alcoholic?"

Yes, absolutely.

"But at the same time, I'm not dependent it"

You would know this…..how? What tests have you used; how often do you test? Ever failed? Ever had someone else test you?

"I am a well-behaved drunk".

Who told you that? You’re drunk. At home. Alone. Drunks are clumsy and cant carry a conversation, explaining the reason you drink at home - that way, you avoid people laughing at you. It's not pleasant when they're having fun at your expense.

If alcoholism isn’t a physical disease, you can bet it always leads to a serious one like cancer/ cirrhosis of the liver, degenerative brain disorder, etc. plus accidents from impaired faculties.

Alcoholism is a *disorder* - namely, addictive disorder. There's proof the disorder can be reversed, but not the damage it caused.

"“so you're saying he "chooses" to become an alcoholic, but he doesn't "choose" the consequences?”

It’s a trade-off. He chooses alcohol to medicate his pain, understanding there can be a variety of side effects. This painkiller tastes good and seems very effective so he believes the benefits outweigh the risks; additionally, the medication doesn't require a prescription top control dosage so he can decide it himself. Thus, he’s going to dismiss warnings and minimize any side effects that appear as that would reflect negatively on his judgement.

"why hold the alcoholic responsible for not doing something which is beyond his ability to do?"

Are you referring to walking a straight line for the officer or stabbing his drinking buddy to death?

"Why then does ANYONE who has ever touched a drop of alcohol have any right to condemn the alcoholic as weak/lacking in self-control/etc? "

The addict who has quit for good has the right to condemn them those who don't want to. Also, the people the alcoholic is hurting have that right. That doesn't imply one should always exercise a right - there are appropriate times to do so.

With assistance and support, many have quit booze for a long time and some for the rest of their life. Despite having lost so much before they quit, they found they had kept one thing - the ability to reclaim sobriety and re-order their lives. Love gives them the desire to employ that ability; whereas self-centeredness leads them to destructive behaviours.