What do you consider alcoholism to be ?

[soulgeezer]

The article was published in 1998, so its survey data, taken presumably in 97/98 is now out of date. However the historical facts about what those parts of the medical profession dealing with alcoholism are what is relevant. Further, as I am sure you are aware, the conculsion of the article rebukes the consensus found in that study and dismisses it as a problem of a lack of education among general medical practitioners (as opposed to those who specialise in the field). However, in order to rebuke the claim that the medical profession doens't generally agree you would need to show up to date survey data as that survey is now 10 years old.

You're kidding, right? It was your article. Either it's valid or it's not. You cannot use it to support your argument and then tell me that I can't do the same. That, in forensic terms, is an unfair tactic.

Again, Mark, I generally expect more from you, dude.

 

[Basshole]

You're kidding, right? It was your article. Either it's valid or it's not. You cannot use it to support your argument and then tell me that I can't do the same. That, in forensic terms, is an unfair tactic.

Again, Mark, I generally expect more from you, dude.

You mean his arguments don't always suck this bad?

 

[Marlat]

Mark, I would counter that YOUR posts are just fricken BRILLIANT, however. The issue of alcoholism being termed a disease is FAR from being a "consensus", I don't care what you OR Wikipedia says (still laughing at THAT one).

It would appear to be more a matter of "semantics", not science, as you would suggest...and since lexicon is determined by USAGE, and a great number of people seem to agree with me (no matter ho stupid you may think we all are), I would say that you're on the losing end of this one, bucko.

You seem to be getting quite worked up over this one. As I have said to you a number of times, put up some evidence. You seem to be the only person in this thread who needs to throw around terms like winnning and losing. That seems to me to indicate that you arn't applying an open mind to this and are more concerned about your ego then any intellectual debate or the issues. I am happy for you to show me that the information I Have found is wrong, but nothing I have seen gives any indication that the view of those medical professionals who specialise in the area support the position you put forward earlier in this thread. If you can't deal with that and need to throw around insults then that's fine - people will judge you by what you post here.

 

[soulgeezer]

The article was published in 1998, so its survey data, taken presumably in 97/98 is now out of date. However the historical facts about what those parts of the medical profession dealing with alcoholism are what is relevant. Further, as I am sure you are aware, the conculsion of the article rebukes the consensus found in that study and dismisses it as a problem of a lack of education among general medical practitioners (as opposed to those who specialise in the field). However, in order to rebuke the claim that the medical profession doens't generally agree you would need to show up to date survey data as that survey is now 10 years old.

OK, let's talk about that last paragraph:

Alcoholism should not be judged as a problem of willpower, misconduct, or any other unscientific diagnosis. The problem must be accepted for what it is—a biopsychosocial disease with a strong genetic influence, obvious signs and symptoms, a natural progression and a fatal outcome if not treated. In the past 10 years, the medical profession’s and the public’s acceptance of smoking as an addictive disease has resulted in reducing nicotine use in the United States. I feel that similar strides can be made with alcohol abuse. We must begin, as we did with nicotine, by educating and convincing our own colleagues that alcoholism is a disease. We must also emphasize that physicians have played a significant role in reducing the mortality and morbidity from nicotine use through patient education. Through strong physician intervention, I believe that we can achieve similar results with alcohol abuse.

The author is obviously an advocate for classifying alcoholism as a disease. So, why should his viewpoint - with not a single citation in the article, by the way - be relevant to this discussion at all?

 

[Basshole]

You seem to be getting quite worked up over this one. As I have said to you a number of times, put up some evidence. You seem to be the only person in this thread who needs to throw around terms like winnning and losing. That seems to me to indicate that you arn't applying an open mind to this and are more concerned about your ego then any intellectual debate or the issues. I am happy for you to show me that the information I Have found is wrong, but nothing I have seen gives any indication that the view of those medical professionals who specialise in the area support the position you put forward earlier in this thread. If you can't deal with that and need to throw around insults then that's fine - people will judge you by what you post here.

You have been insulting as well, my dear friend, I don't very often throw the first punch...it's just not my style. Check YOUR attitude before you gander at mine, ok?

As for "winning" any argument, I think you've got it all wrong.

I said initially that I DON'T think it is a disease, but if you wanna call it that, then you damn well better call ALL addictions a disease, and let drug-use prisoners go...that's just being consistent and non-hypocritical, a concept that apparently escapes you.

If the government wants to officially call alcoholism a disease, I could give a flaming rat's rectum, but they better be consistent in their logic, or else it clearly just reeks of PURE BS and POLITICS.

I don't think THAT requires me to cite ANY references.

...although if I worked hard enough, I probably could (I really don't care that much). Hey, I could even cite references, and then discount them as worthless BS, as you have done...as clearly you are only in this to be the "winner", as you have accused me of doing, or else you wouldn't resort to such silly tactics.

 

[Marlat]

OK, let's talk about that last paragraph:



The author is obviously an advocate for classifying alcoholism as a disease. So, why should his viewpoint - with not a single citation in the article, by the way - be relevant to this discussion at all?

I am not sure if you are deliberately pretending I said something which I didn't or you actually don't understand this. I will spell it out:

1. The article is obviously biased - which is why I did not cite the whole article as a form of evidence.

2. The survey data is, as a matter of fact, at least 10 years old. Therefore what relevant it has on the issue today, given the speed at which things move, is questionable. This is the point I was addressing in my earlier post to you about the survey data.

3. The only quote I lifted from the article was a matter of fact which showed that either 2 or 3, cant remember now, bodies who are specilists in the field put together a definition of alcoholism in 1992 which recognised it as a disease. That was the only piece of evidence I was using the article to support (because of 1 above).

To be honest I am surprised you didnt appreciate that given that was all I quoted. To use your phrase - I expected better of you.

 

[soulgeezer]

I am not sure if you are deliberately pretending I said something which I didn't or you actually don't understand this. I will spell it out:

1. The article is obviously biased - which is why I did not cite the whole article as a form of evidence.

2. The survey data is, as a matter of fact, at least 10 years old. Therefore what relevant it has on the issue today, given the speed at which things move, is questionable. This is the point I was addressing in my earlier post to you about the survey data.

3. The only quote I lifted from the article was a matter of fact which showed that either 2 or 3, cant remember now, bodies who are specilists in the field put together a definition of alcoholism in 1992 which recognised it as a disease. That was the only piece of evidence I was using the article to support (because of 1 above).

To be honest I am surprised you didnt appreciate that given that was all I quoted. To use your phrase - I expected better of you.

No, I got what you were doing. It just seemed a bit questionable, why you were quoting one item out of context, when you clearly knew that the context would negatively impact your argument.

Generally speaking, when one finds info in an article that does not support his argument, it is incumbent on that person to find another article containing the same information as verification. There are no citations in the article you quoted, so the data can't easily be checked. Verification of such data doen't fall on your interrogator, but rather on yourself, if you wish to use the information to support your argument.

So, let's just agree to disregard that article as unreliable and not useful, as regards the current debate. It's the only way we're going to be able to move forward.

For the record, I wish that author had quoted sources -- Then, I'd be able to find out where her got his figures and look to see if they've been updated.

Just bad, bad scholarship on the author's part, I must say.

 

[morf]

what a pi**ing contest this thread is

 

[Marlat]

No, I got what you were doing. It just seemed a bit questionable, why you were quoting one item out of context, when you clearly knew that the context would negatively impact your argument.

Generally speaking, when one finds info in an article that does not support his argument, it is incumbent on that person to find another article containing the same information as verification. There are no citations in the article you quoted, so the data can't easily be checked. Verification of such data doen't fall on your interrogator, but rather on yourself, if you wish to use the information to support your argument.

So, let's just agree to disregard that article as unreliable and not useful, as regards the current debate. It's the only way we're going to be able to move forward.

For the record, I wish that author had quoted sources -- Then, I'd be able to find out where her got his figures and look to see if they've been updated.

Just bad, bad scholarship on the author's part, I must say.

Why would you disregard the quote about the definition that was put forward in 1992?

You seem to be backtracking now. I am happy for you to cite the figures that he quoted (ie 80% disagree) - the fact is that it is old data and could be disregarded on that basis. Perhaps there is something more up to date, but I couldn't find it.

However, nothing seems to counter the fact that medical professionals in the field of study in this area have put in place definitions which define alcoholism as a disease. Which is the relevant part that I quoted. It is also supported by the CDC classification.

Remember the only thing that seems to be in issue here is whether alcoholism is a disease.

 

[Basshole]

what a pi**ing contest this thread is

It's the beer. Once you break the seal...ya just can't stop peeing.

 

[kserg]

I said initially that I DON'T think it is a disease, but if you wanna call it that, then you damn well better call ALL addictions a disease, and let drug-use prisoners go...

Hmm, well, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that... If a person is mentally ill and they become danger to society they don't go to jail right? They go to mental institution? So equivalent to that for addicts would be a rehab.

IMO If you have a problem with alcohol or drugs to point where you are danger to society you should be in a hospital until you can proof to society you are no longer a danger. IMO Addiction is a mental illness that needs to be under control if that illness threatens others. Of course, as just with anything this should be case to case bases as a standard will never work...

Hmmm, come to think of it, would you agree that it's an illness and not a Desiree? Would be a difference between the two? Or this also been talked about and i missed it...

 

[Marlat]

I wouldn't characterize it as a "disease" as it has become so fashionable to do of late. I think that is an insult to those who have a REAL disease. ... To characterize something that you essential HAVE the power to eliminate from your life as a disease, is a great disservice to those who have real diseases, and have ZERO choice in the matter.

That sir, is a genetic pre-disposition, as you yourself have suggested. It is NOT a disease.

Something tells me that if you consumed ANYTHING every day, to excess, you might metabolize it a wee tad differently than the rest of us.

That does not make it a disease.

If I could do something as simple as take the fricken bottle out of my mouth, and walk without excruciating pain again, or play without pain again, then I would. The fact is, they have a choice, and I do not. To characterize it as a disease is an insult to those of us who don't have this option.

There seems to be a lot on ignorance and misinformation in this thread ... I only sought to make a distinction between predisposition to an addiction, and an actual DISEASE.
... In my mind, a disease is something that happens TO YOU, not something you actively have a major role in bringing on yourlsef with a behavior that you CAN choose to cease (although I do not in any way suggest it's an EASY choice).

BFD. So it's a CONDITION that requires CAREFUL TREATMENT. That STILL doesn't make it a disease.

I have to go to bed now. But I tried googling and found so manhy articles on alcohism and disease that it would take weeks to sift through them all and cite the relevant ones etc etc. However, whether you agreeing with what seems to be the large body of medical professionals in this field of study who classify it as a disease or not (and given I am no expert I choose to put my faith in what is appearing to be the overwhelming medical opinion I keep coming across), the quotes above are clearly made in ignorance. They leave little to no room for doubt that it is a disease which is simply not supported by any of the debate that seems to go on in this area.

Clearly there is debate - although its not clear to me how much of it actually occurs within the medical profession in the field vs people outside with their own opinions. However this thread was only focused on the quotes and statements made above, which I have not seen any large body of support in all the medical articles I have looked at. Maybe Basshole is right and all the evidence is wrong. Maybe.

Personally I don't really care one way or the other. It just seemed to me that given how common a problem alcoholism is (although I personally don't know anyone affected by it), it was rather insensitive of Basshole to make the remarks above (particuarly when its clear they are fairly unsupported). So I thought I would check it up. I posted what I found. You can either agree with it or not. However, the quotes above speak for themselves AFAIAC.

 

[soulgeezer]

Why would you disregard the quote about the definition that was put forward in 1992?

You seem to be backtracking now. I am happy for you to cite the figures that he quoted (ie 80% disagree) - the fact is that it is old data and could be disregarded on that basis. Perhaps there is something more up to date, but I couldn't find it.

However, nothing seems to counter the fact that medical professionals in the field of study in this area have put in place definitions which define alcoholism as a disease. Which is the relevant part that I quoted. It is also supported by the CDC classification.

Remember the only thing that seems to be in issue here is whether alcoholism is a disease.

Yeah, I couldn't find any more recent data, either. So, I guess this is a case of "according to the most recent data available." (It seems like most of the data is from in or around 1997 -- Did something happen that year to change things?)

Also, I agree that there are medical organizations that have chosen to define alcoholism as a disease, i.e. the CDC, AMA, and others. However, the NIH, another governmental agency, disagrees with them. It classifies alcoholism as an "illness" and a "type of drug addiction."

However, I disagree with your assertion that the only thing at issue here is whether alcoholism is a disease. I believe we established earlier that the real question was whether any or all addictions were diseases. Alcoholism is just one more addiction, in that frame.

I'm not backtracking. The article you quoted is either valid for both of us or for neither of us. As I learned in school, once you enter an article into a debate, you've entered the whole article, not just parts of it. If any part of the article can be shown to be invalid, then the article as a whole must be thrown out and the information validated elsewhere.

I've actually learned a lot during this debate. During my research, I've discovered that the whole "disease concept of alcoholism" has been supported and propagated by the AA crowd, as they see it as advantageous to their agenda. So, it seems that we have a little politics mixed in with the science, as well.

 

[kserg]

However, the NIH, another governmental agency, disagrees with them. It classifies alcoholism as an "illness" and a "type of drug addiction."

ill·ness (ĭl'nĭs) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. Poor health resulting from disease of body or mind; sickness.
2. A disease.
2. Obsolete. Evil; wickedness.

 

[soulgeezer]

ill·ness (ĭl'nĭs) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. Poor health resulting from disease of body or mind; sickness.
2. A disease.
2. Obsolete. Evil; wickedness.

So, you're saying alcohol is evil and wicked?

You silly boy, you...

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

...it seems that we have a little politics mixed in with the science, as well.

NEVER!!!

 

[kserg]

So, you're saying alcohol is evil and wicked?

You silly boy, you...

Logically speaking; Jesus made it, Jesus spread a message of love and community, I remember another group of people who spread that message as well:

&
\MM/

And they were evil, there for, Jesus & alcoholism must be too...

A > B
C > B
A > C

PS Don't kill me, it was McCarthy & Nixon who said it! Not me!

 

[soulgeezer]

Y'know, kserg, that raises an interesting question...

If Jesus needed a drink so badly that He was turning water into wine, was He an acoholic?

Or, should that be "Alcoholic" (capital "A")?

And, if He was, and He went to AA, did He acknowledge Himself?

Wow, I'd hate to be the guy that He was sponsoring!

 

[Basshole]

Hmm, well, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that... If a person is mentally ill and they become danger to society they don't go to jail right? They go to mental institution? So equivalent to that for addicts would be a rehab.

IMO If you have a problem with alcohol or drugs to point where you are danger to society you should be in a hospital until you can proof to society you are no longer a danger. IMO Addiction is a mental illness that needs to be under control if that illness threatens others. Of course, as just with anything this should be case to case bases as a standard will never work...

+1

I agree wholeheartedly to all of this.

Hmmm, come to think of it, would you agree that it's an illness and not a Desiree? Would be a difference between the two? Or this also been talked about and i missed it...

Sure...if there is a genetic predisposition to addiction (and I believe there is) then yes, I would call it an illness...hell, you can even call it a disease, if the semantics really bother you that much (like I said, I only think it's a bit insulting to those with SERIOUS diseases)...but if you choose to call it an illness or a disease, then as Soulgeezer said since the heart of the argument is whether ALL addictions are a disease, then you must, as an extension of this reasoning, extend the same moniker, considerations, and treatments to the "sufferers" of ALL similar "diseases" (addictions)...NOT put them in jail. Just as you said, we excuse the insane of crimes, and commit them, we should send addicts to rehab, not prison.

 

[Marlat]

I'm not backtracking. The article you quoted is either valid for both of us or for neither of us. As I learned in school, once you enter an article into a debate, you've entered the whole article, not just parts of it. If any part of the article can be shown to be invalid, then the article as a whole must be thrown out and the information validated elsewhere.

Perhaps you are not backtracking, but you are clearly misunderstanding what I was saying about the article. I think the article is valid for both of us to rely on. However, it is biased, therefore I am not relying on it to suppot anything I have put forward other than the statement of fact about the adopting of the definition which I quoted.

You can rely on the figures quoted about disagreement. That is fine. However, as I have said I would not put too much weight on those figures as they are 10 years old in a field that is developing rapidly. That is all I was saying. I was not saying that the article was not valid for you to use or rely on, just that the only part I was relying on was the factual statement made and not the rest of the assertions made (such as the conclusion in the last paragraph).