I think our responses show the difference in our thinking: I consider having a drink to be an activity; you consider it to be a disease. I've found that nobody yields in that discussion.
When one first drinks or drugs, it is an activity.
Over time your brain chemistry changes. Your physical reactions to these substances is greatly altered. You have an allergic reaction that comes out in obsession and compulsion. I know from a fact. When I first started out with cocaine, it was pleasurable. Eventually, my brain changed. It became instant misery. Yet I was compelled to do it, and obsessed over it.
If that is not a disease, then there are no diseases.
The reality is, it doesn't matter if it's a disease or an activity. If the act of doing it causes one problems, then the sane thing is to not do it. If you're not allergic to "peanut butter", then it's a non-issue for you and your opinions can only be based on observation and hearsay, which makes them interesting to you, but useless to the one with the "allergy". Much like a man trying to tell a woman how she really feels during childbirth - the man only has his own experiences to go by and they do not include the particular one he is opining about.
Not meant as a cut down, just an observation.
With all due respect, were you drinking when you posted this? My response was about the disease called alcoholism. It was not about all drinking, and I see no reason you couldn't get that from what I wrote. After all, I was responding in a thread about alcoholism to a post by you that referred to alcoholics. It almost couldn't have been more plain.
You are confusing an activity many people enjoy without the slightest trouble with a disease that wrecks lives, and you seem to think we're weird because we haven't made the same error. As for the disease aspect, I think trebb's peanut butter post said exactly what needed to be said.
jiggyboy, you will not find in my post that I refer to alcoholism as a disease. I don't believe it's a disease because I know of no instance in medical history where a disease is cured by telling God you can't control its existence or progression, and then working to depend on Him to keep you from repeating the activity (drinking) that will kill you. This formula DOES work for addictions.
Alcoholism IS, however, a physical addiction. It creates cravings in people who are addicted. Alcohol changes the way addicts think and act.
My grandfather died from complications from alcoholism after contributing greatly to the destruction of the lives of everyone near him. I have relatives by marriage who are horribly addicted. Not one of these people has sought treatment.
I went to Al-Anon, the support group for people whose lives are being wrenched around by the drinking of people close to them. Al-Anon uses a modified form of the AA's 12 Steps and teachings. It was so liberating to me that to this day I still rely on what I learned there; its truth and messages are in my marrow.
I've seen lives destroyed by alcohol. Conversely, going to Al-Anon and having friends in AA and Al-Anon, I've seen people reclaim their lives by the truths these marvelous organizations proclaim. I also know horror stories of people who went to AA and didn't ever "get" that most important step, admitting they couldn't control their drinking, and turning things over to a higher power (God) for help.
Shame on the "The New York Times" for publishing this garbage; the author clearly did not research the program effectively enough. The "controlled studies" were flawed, and anyone seriously intent on finding the facts would realize how flawed they are. AA and related organizations have long track records of success for people who truly apply the 12 Steps.
tommix2, you're welcome, and thanks back. The thread got off to a bad start quickly and needed some adjusting in the form of facts.