Posted on 07/29/2005 5:37:23 AM PDT by RobFromGa
That's a valid point
A disease implies the lack of a substance would kill or hurt you
Yes, but there's also mental disease is there not?
Lack of a substance in that case would not kill one because the disease is not for lack of a drug, ie crack, alcohol, etc. However, one could argue that the mental disease is due to a chemical imbalance yet those chemicals are not street drugs or alcohol.
I don't claim to know all the details about this issue, but I do know that the term "disease" is applied to just about everything under the sun these days -- by people who stand to derive a huge financial benefit from it.
Like I told the man, "I can't be an alcoholic, I don't have time for all those d@mned meetings!"
I drank because I liked the care free feeling it gave me, the party atmosphere the most mundane event became and the soothing taste as I swallowed it.
I also thought it picked me up when I was feeling down or alone, when in fact it just magnified the situation by making me angry. Most times I didn't set out to become drunk, just to calm down and/or to have fun. It had the ability to creep up on me because I didn't monitor the quantity I was consuming.
I believe my over drinking was my fault, it was my choice and I now choose not to drink. I didn't like the person I was when I drank and it's like looking in a mirror when I see others who are drunk.
Good -- because you know precious little about it, it seems. Ever been in a detox ward? Ever been in a rehab facility? Most rehab facilities need volunteers. You might consider doing that so you know what you are talking about.
Congratulations. As the daughter of a woman who suffered from this disease, I salute you.
"When you are really ready to stop, it is possible."
Agreed. :)
huh. I made no money off my mom's alcoholism. BTW, my mother was a patriotic American...she entered nursing school in the 40s, and then joined the WAVES. I speak from first hand knowledge and experience that this IS a disease.
You seem to be confused about the basic premise of this judge's decision, and the discussion about the subject here on this thread. Alcohol-related toxification is not alcoholism, and I don't need a medical license to know that.
I'll ask the same question again: What medical pathology is involved in the "disease" of alcoholism?
What is the medical basis of that statement? If I have a twin brother who is an alcoholic and I am not, is there a tangible difference between our conditions (a virus, bacteria, genetic anomaly or other pathogen) that can be clearly identified and diagnosed by a medical doctor?
As others have noted on this thread, there is often a deliberate blurring of the line between "disease" and "behavioral disorders" on this issue.
Use google to look it up. It's been recognized as a disease since 1956. Now maybe you know something several generations of experts have missed. I'd be interested to read it.
So... as long as they keep using it, they'll keep using it.
Deep! So glad our national soul is in these people's hands, and we've deferred all judgment on everything to them!
< /ads >
The Judge is right.
Alcoholism is recognized as a disease by both the American Medical Association and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which is responsible for 90 percent of the nations research on alcohol addiction,
Yep....and with all the research comes all that lovely $ FUNDING $.
The medical and psychiatric professions have a vested interest in classifying certain 'behaviors' as *diseases*.
Medical basis? I lived with it for 18 years. Again, you said you dont' know much about it. Obviously you don't.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00340
I just love it when judgemental people come to FR and spout opinions of which they know nothing. And remember, there but for the grace of god goes I.
I believe alcoholism is a disease, and is passed along in the genes. Good news, it is treatable and can be put into remission, where it poses no problem whatsoever.
The responsibility to treat the illnes rests ENTIRELY with the afficted person.
In no way should the definition of the illness be used as an excuse for illegal behavior.
Yes, that is either cause by neurotransmitters (or the lack thereof) or congeneital brain defects.
Neither of which is a result of alcohol (unless the pregnant mother dranks).
Lack of a substance in that case would not kill one because the disease is not for lack of a drug, ie crack, alcohol, etc. However, one could argue that the mental disease is due to a chemical imbalance yet those chemicals are not street drugs or alcohol.
Okay, but to believe that, we have to believe that people are born with an "alcohol imbalance".
Alcoholism usually involves physical dependence on the drug alcohol, but genetic, psychological and social factors contribute to this addiction.
Alcoholism sounds more like an accute addiction in certain individuals and that they do not really know why it affects thiose particular people the way it does. It does not have the ear marks of most diseases the way that term is normally used and that the term is used for lack of a better.
One thing is clear...there is a condition in certain people (who knows why) that makes alcohol use an accute problem for them...and it doesn't take much use to trigger it. The results of abuse of alcohol, either by alcoholics or not, is a staggering butcher's bill each yoear in our nation.
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.