Posted on 07/29/2006 2:12:15 PM PDT by Vision
Mel Gibson apologizes for DUI arrest
LOS ANGELES - Mel Gibson issued a lengthy statement Saturday apologizing for his drunk driving arrest and saying he has battled alcoholism throughout his life.
Gibson also apologized for what he said were "despicable" statements he made to the deputies who arrested him early Friday morning on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu.
"I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested," he said in a statement issued by his publicist. "I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse."
Publicist Alan Nierob declined to elaborate beyond the statement.
Gibson, 50, was arrested for investigation of driving under the influence of alcohol after deputies stopped his 2006 Lexus LS 430 for speeding. Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said deputies clocked him doing 87 mph in a 45 mph zone.
A breath test indicated Gibson's blood-alcohol level was 0.12 percent, Whitmore said. The legal limit in California is 0.08 percent.
The actor was released early Friday after posting $5,000 bail.
Uh, no. Cancer is a disease. I've never known anyone who could quit cancer cold turkey. There are plenty of "alcoholics" who managed to quit cold turkey.
You would'nt also happen to be 6'7", 280lbs, and mean looking? :)
"True. During my youthful days, I could swig down a bunch of Vodka + Grapefruits in an hour, hit that level, and you would barely be able to tell I was drinking."
LMAO...who couldn't tell? Your inebriated buddies? ;-)
I don't approve or condone what Gibson did,
It sounds like he doesn't either.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
I'm afraid you are the one misinterpreting this verse. We make decisions all day long, of course, and rightfully so, but I think the verse means that we should not condemn or punish others with those decisions.
Obviously, you've never heard of DT's... true, many problem drinkers quit "cold turkey", but true alcoholics in many cases have to undergo medically supervised withdrawal.
To quote:
In 1956, the American Medical Association (AMA) determined alcoholism to be a disease because it met all five AMA criteria necessary to be such: pattern of symptoms, chronic, progressive, subject to relapse, and treatable. But this decision has not been without its problems.
One Internet encyclopedia states: “The understanding of alcoholism, and hence its definition, continues to change. Many terms, often with hazy differences in meaning, have been used to describe different stages and manifestations of the disease.” This same encyclopedia further states:
“In 1992 the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine published a definition reflecting the current understanding of the disease:
‘Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial. Each of these symptoms may be continuous or periodic.’
“This definition recognizes alcoholism as a disease, i.e., as an involuntary disability. It accepts a genetic vulnerability in some people and identifies the phenomenon of denial as both a psychological defense mechanism and a physiological outcome of alcohol's effect on the memory.” [iv]
In the book, “Under the Influence: A Guide to the Myths and Realities of Alcoholism,” authors James R. Milam Ph.D. and Katherine Ketcham also define alcoholism (based on their research) as:
“A chronic, primary, hereditary disease which progresses from an early, physiological susceptibility into an addiction characterized by tolerance changes, physiological dependence, and loss of control over drinking. Psychological symptoms are secondary to the physiological disease and not relevant to its onset.” [v]
This definition clearly positions alcoholism as a genetically inherited physiological disease first, which in turn, causes psychological disorders. The authors further underscore this position by stating:
“The alcoholic appears to be using alcohol to solve his problems. His drinking appears to be an effort to drown his depression, forget work or marriage difficulties, obliterate loneliness and insecurities, and ease mounting tensions. The reality, however, is very different from the appearance. In reality, an abnormal physiological reaction is causing the alcoholic’s increasing psychological and emotional problems. Something has gone wrong inside.” (Emphasis theirs) [vi] “…while psychological, cultural, and social factors definitely influence the alcoholic’s drinking patterns and behavior, they have no effect on whether or not he becomes alcoholic in the first place. Physiology, not psychology, determines whether one drinker will become addicted to alcohol and another will not. The alcoholic’s enzymes, hormones, genes, and brain chemistry work together to create his abnormal and unfortunate reaction to alcohol.” (Emphasis theirs) [vii]
“The scientific evidence clearly indicates an interplay of various hereditary, physiological factors—metabolic, hormonal, and neurological—which work together and in tandem to determine the individual’s susceptibility to alcoholism. It would be a mistake to simplify the interactions in the body, making it appear that one specific gene, one enzyme, or one hormone is solely responsible for a chain of events leading in a straight line to physical dependence and addiction. Even a slight difference in the number or type of liver enzymes, for example, could alter a person’s drinking patterns, preference, and problems. Yet, while additional predisposing factors to alcoholism will undoubtedly be discovered, abundant knowledge already exists to confirm that alcoholism is a hereditary, physiological disease and to account fully for its onset and progression.” [viii]
Disease concept proponents also stress that, while both alcoholics and non-alcoholics have problems, the difference is that non-alcoholics don’t drink and alcoholics do. This reasoning appears to argue in favor of alcoholism as a physiological disease not caused by psychological problems alone.
http://www.empoweredrecovery.com/articles/underalco.htm
Yes, there is another side to that argument, but not supported by most, including the only successful recovery program, Alcoholics Anonymous. Prior to their formation, alcoholics where pretty much viewed as hopeless, condemned to the asylum from advanced dementia, or an early death from liver or other organ failure.
So if you "judge" someone not to be trustworthy and don't hire them for a job, or fire them if they already work for you, that is not punishing them for your decision/judgement of them? It certainly is.
P.S. Typically, first we make judgments, THEN we make "decisions" based on those "judgments".
I wrote:
Cancer is a disease. I've never known anyone who could quit cancer cold turkey. There are plenty of "alcoholics" who managed to quit cold turkey.
Where am I wrong exactly? Is cancer not a disease? Do you have medical evidence of someone quitting cancer cold turkey? Are you saying that no alcoholic ever quit drinking cold turkey?
Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.
You didn't completely quote yourself. LOL
Where are you wrong exactly?
I wrote "Alcoholism is a disease" and you responded:
Uh no. Cancer is a disease. I've never known anyone who could quit cancer cold turkey. There are plenty of "alcoholics" who managed to quit cold turkey.
Your "uh no," refuting my statement that "alcoholism is a disease," is where, exactly, you were wrong.
"I am jewish with a decidedly unjewish last name. You would probably not be surprised at the hateful antisemitic comments I have heard from people who would never have made such comments if they'd known I was jewish."
In the US? Actually I am surprised. I've never heard an antisematic remark by friends or anybody in my life. I can't imagine why anybody would feel that way. I am very sorry this happens to you.
That's true, I did write that. I wrote it parroting your reply to the poster with whom you took offense since I found your "Uh no" condescending and hardly an argument that refuted his position that alcoholism was a habit and not a disease.
You forgot the most telling sentence from your link:
"Intense controversy exists in the medical science community as to whether alcoholism is accurately defined as a physiological disease in which the alcoholic has no control, or a psychological aberration in which the alcoholic does have control"
BTW, part of the AA foundation is that alcoholics themselves are solely responsible for their actions. They don't blame anything or anyone. They abhor the "I don;t have a choice" disease argument.
To my knowledge, Alcohol addiction was never characterized as a disease by medical science, but only by the founders of AA some 70 years ago. They did this to describe what they felt was hopeless condition in which the sufferers only worsened over time. Even in the "Big Book" of AA, alcoholism is never referred to as a disease, but rather a spiritual malady. I think it does a disservice to label those who are addicted to alcohol as having an incurrable disease.
I do not think that by refusing to hire someone who is not qualified is condemnation or punishment. Period.
P.S. The Lord did not mean that we should be idiots.
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.