"Alcoholism is an illness"...
Discussion
Grumfutock said:
The bit I agree with the OP is that it is a personal choice to start drinking. Nobody forces you to start, nobody forces you to become hooked. Once you are it is out of your hands however until that point it is your choice!
Thats the interesting bit.Many people drink far to much but never become alcoholics. Its different to smoking for example where 100 people smoking daily will all get hooked.
I'm pretty sure there is something in the brain of an alc that is just waiting to be tripped by over exposure - that in anyone else would not happen.
Sure, they "choose" to drink to excess that causes that trip.....but in my example the person just had a rough 6 months and started having a few buds in the evening...then bang....might as well be dead. It's a level of exposure most people would experience at some point.
I'm no expert, but I understand that alcohol, along with certain drugs, forms permanent neural pathways, literally reconfiguring your brain - unlike any other behaviours. If like the OP your premise is that ongoing addiction is a conscious choice, then that alone should be enough to disabuse you of that notion.
Edited by trashbat on Monday 27th October 14:41
trashbat said:
I'm no expert, but I understand that alcohol, along with certain drugs, forms permanent neural pathways, literally reconfiguring your brain - unlike any other behaviours. If like the OP your premise is that ongoing addiction is a conscious choice, then that alone should be enough to disabuse you of that notion.
And that is how an alcoholics life appears - they do choose to drink, in the sense that they poor their beer down their throats......but their brain is not their own. It's like sating my hayfever is my fault because my body "chooses" to over react to pollen.Edited by trashbat on Monday 27th October 14:41
Interesting reading here > http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/The_addicte...
There was a great deal of research carried out in the USA with regards soldiers returning from the Vietnam war and drugs use.
One statistic that shocked me was that 90%+ of soldiers admitted to taking drugs - no differentiation between classes - during their service in Vietnam.
However, something like 15 years later there was no difference between drugs usage between ex squaddies and those who had not served. This was taking into consideration education, employment, and all the other variables. In other words, like for like.
The conclusion was that drugs are not addictive in the normal sense of the word. It varies it seems. There is the assumption (without proof) that there were types of personality, one of which was addictive.
Oddly enough, there was a suggestion that for alcohol it was statistically identical.
Research was not funded after that as sponsors did not want to be associated with a suggestion that drugs were not as harmful as the official line dictated. I could not find any supporting research post that, but that was pre-internet so there might well be some.
A further conclusion was that drug/alcohol addition is not, essentially, a self-inflicted wound. There are cultural pressures on people to use drugs such as alcohol, cannabis and opiates. Most people can cope with it but for a minority it is addictive almost from the word go.
The American officialdom were not keen on removing blame from addicts, whatever their choice of poison.
The majority in my group when I was in my teens and early 20s smoked. I did. When I took out my first mortgage at the age of 25, after 8 years of smoking, I had to give up something and it was tobacco. Despite some irritation I was able to switch off after a week. Most of my friends gave up just as easily. A couple tried and tried and tried and failed. They wanted to, there was no doubt about that, but they found it too difficult. One was an intelligent lad, a sportsman, but could not crack it.
I think all research shows that it is complicated.
One statistic that shocked me was that 90%+ of soldiers admitted to taking drugs - no differentiation between classes - during their service in Vietnam.
However, something like 15 years later there was no difference between drugs usage between ex squaddies and those who had not served. This was taking into consideration education, employment, and all the other variables. In other words, like for like.
The conclusion was that drugs are not addictive in the normal sense of the word. It varies it seems. There is the assumption (without proof) that there were types of personality, one of which was addictive.
Oddly enough, there was a suggestion that for alcohol it was statistically identical.
Research was not funded after that as sponsors did not want to be associated with a suggestion that drugs were not as harmful as the official line dictated. I could not find any supporting research post that, but that was pre-internet so there might well be some.
A further conclusion was that drug/alcohol addition is not, essentially, a self-inflicted wound. There are cultural pressures on people to use drugs such as alcohol, cannabis and opiates. Most people can cope with it but for a minority it is addictive almost from the word go.
The American officialdom were not keen on removing blame from addicts, whatever their choice of poison.
The majority in my group when I was in my teens and early 20s smoked. I did. When I took out my first mortgage at the age of 25, after 8 years of smoking, I had to give up something and it was tobacco. Despite some irritation I was able to switch off after a week. Most of my friends gave up just as easily. A couple tried and tried and tried and failed. They wanted to, there was no doubt about that, but they found it too difficult. One was an intelligent lad, a sportsman, but could not crack it.
I think all research shows that it is complicated.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 27th October 22:18
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff