Do any of you know someone who quit for a while and then could manage drinking again?
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly and NYC
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by Samsonsworld 
That sir, is your opinion. which is fine but don't try to tell me it's some kind of absolute.
Let's see, I was to a point where I thought I was killing myself, at the very least damaging my health, and I had to drink just to feel normal, but believe it or not I still enjoyed it..a lot. I loved beer and still do. Heck, I'd love to go buy a 30 pack right now. I coulnd't picture going one day without a beer and Lord knows I didn't for over 7 years. I was very much an alcoholic but I don't agree with you point of view. I see alcohol as a bad habit, not a disease, not an allergy and most certainly not something I can't beat.
Case and point. I quit dipping snuff in 2003. That was a habit I'd had since the mid to late 80's. It was hard as heck to quit and break that cycle. But now I can mooch a dip or a chaw off of friends and I feel no inclination to run to the store and buy more. I can take it or leave it. I think that's a much more realistic view than your heroin. And again, I know somebody who kicked the habit of alcohol and moderates as of today.
I don't understand why some of us can't seem to voice an opinion without hear 'oh well you're not a real alcoholic'. That's a crock and a cop out for your failures.
Let's see, I was to a point where I thought I was killing myself, at the very least damaging my health, and I had to drink just to feel normal, but believe it or not I still enjoyed it..a lot. I loved beer and still do. Heck, I'd love to go buy a 30 pack right now. I coulnd't picture going one day without a beer and Lord knows I didn't for over 7 years. I was very much an alcoholic but I don't agree with you point of view. I see alcohol as a bad habit, not a disease, not an allergy and most certainly not something I can't beat.
Case and point. I quit dipping snuff in 2003. That was a habit I'd had since the mid to late 80's. It was hard as heck to quit and break that cycle. But now I can mooch a dip or a chaw off of friends and I feel no inclination to run to the store and buy more. I can take it or leave it. I think that's a much more realistic view than your heroin. And again, I know somebody who kicked the habit of alcohol and moderates as of today.
I don't understand why some of us can't seem to voice an opinion without hear 'oh well you're not a real alcoholic'. That's a crock and a cop out for your failures.
An alcoholic, is unable to live with it and unable to live without it Sam. Once you put it down you have mental obsession where you need to pick it back up...you don't have choice in the matter. And, when you do pick it up, you can't put it down.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 679
Argh. Once there is a debate, I feel like no one actually reads anyone else's posts on here unless they see complete agreeing words. Or they see some sort of disagreement with what they believe and react. It is so frustrating. Keep some sort of open mind.
I thought that the paragraph I posted from the study Southwalian linked to was fascinating and this thread might be just a small amount of proof of its thesis. It said that when there is basically a status quo when dealing with an issue, in this case abstinence in dealing with alcoholism, if anyone brings up any alternatives even (or perhaps especially) when backed by good science there is this herd mentality to shoot it down. This makes any challenge to the abstinence model an uphill battle. Of course most people think abstinence is the only way to go because it is virtually the only "acceptable" treatment of "true" alcoholism. It is also most of our experiences. However what came first the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure since there were really no other viable options. I, for one, am completely content with abstinence and do not want to follow a moderation path or explore it. I do not, however, think it is absurd to believe it could be an additional model to treat alcoholism. I do think it is absurd to counter scientific studies with vehement rhetoric and your own sole experience. Again what works for you might not work for the bunch. The herd mentality only prevents us from learning more about addiction which ultimately will help all of us conquer this great problem. Open your mind and ears. And please click on some of the links people put down and read them like you would read something about heart disease without letting all these emotions cloud your judgment. I really think it could help further a great dialogue instead of a screaming match.
I thought that the paragraph I posted from the study Southwalian linked to was fascinating and this thread might be just a small amount of proof of its thesis. It said that when there is basically a status quo when dealing with an issue, in this case abstinence in dealing with alcoholism, if anyone brings up any alternatives even (or perhaps especially) when backed by good science there is this herd mentality to shoot it down. This makes any challenge to the abstinence model an uphill battle. Of course most people think abstinence is the only way to go because it is virtually the only "acceptable" treatment of "true" alcoholism. It is also most of our experiences. However what came first the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure since there were really no other viable options. I, for one, am completely content with abstinence and do not want to follow a moderation path or explore it. I do not, however, think it is absurd to believe it could be an additional model to treat alcoholism. I do think it is absurd to counter scientific studies with vehement rhetoric and your own sole experience. Again what works for you might not work for the bunch. The herd mentality only prevents us from learning more about addiction which ultimately will help all of us conquer this great problem. Open your mind and ears. And please click on some of the links people put down and read them like you would read something about heart disease without letting all these emotions cloud your judgment. I really think it could help further a great dialogue instead of a screaming match.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,697
I think the whole point is:
If you can quit drinking for awhile to straighten your life out - and then go back to drinking...then alcohol wasn't really the problem.
Right?
I don't know anyone who classifies themselves as having alcoholism - that drinks moderately. Why would one, as they casually have a beer - say "Oh, I am alcoholic, but I can drink a little here and there no problem."
kind of silly.
If you can quit drinking for awhile to straighten your life out - and then go back to drinking...then alcohol wasn't really the problem.
Right?
I don't know anyone who classifies themselves as having alcoholism - that drinks moderately. Why would one, as they casually have a beer - say "Oh, I am alcoholic, but I can drink a little here and there no problem."
kind of silly.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly and NYC
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by sugErspun
I think the whole point is:
If you can quit drinking for awhile to straighten your life out - and then go back to drinking...then alcohol wasn't really the problem.
Right?
I don't know anyone who classifies themselves as having alcoholism - that drinks moderately. Why would one, as they casually have a beer - say "Oh, I am alcoholic, but I can drink a little here and there no problem."
kind of silly.
If you can quit drinking for awhile to straighten your life out - and then go back to drinking...then alcohol wasn't really the problem.
Right?
I don't know anyone who classifies themselves as having alcoholism - that drinks moderately. Why would one, as they casually have a beer - say "Oh, I am alcoholic, but I can drink a little here and there no problem."
kind of silly.
I looked at the article and in much of it the research are inclined to stray away from the term alcoholic. They do talk about the hard drinker and the problem drinker when citing certain studies. The Big Book also talked about this basically 70 years ago and said to nearly the same degree the exact same thing.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
Sugerspun - which is exactly the point I made at some point in time.
It doesn't mean however that I had not become physically dependent on alcohol - and according to some definitions that does an alcoholic make.
If I solve the problems I have I will no longer be an alcoholic IF and I say IF I can control it.
I really don't agree with the premise that for all people once an alcoholic always an alcoholic and I also don't agree that if you can have a drink you were never an alcoholic in the first place.
It would be a bit like saying someone who can eat normally was never a bulimic - surely there are many different types of alcoholic - some physical dependency, some mental, some self medicators etc etc.
If this forum is solely the preserve of ONE way of thinking, then it is a sad day for in the two weeks I have been on here I have found it a great source of strength as I learn to be a stronger person.
It doesn't mean however that I had not become physically dependent on alcohol - and according to some definitions that does an alcoholic make.
If I solve the problems I have I will no longer be an alcoholic IF and I say IF I can control it.
I really don't agree with the premise that for all people once an alcoholic always an alcoholic and I also don't agree that if you can have a drink you were never an alcoholic in the first place.
It would be a bit like saying someone who can eat normally was never a bulimic - surely there are many different types of alcoholic - some physical dependency, some mental, some self medicators etc etc.
If this forum is solely the preserve of ONE way of thinking, then it is a sad day for in the two weeks I have been on here I have found it a great source of strength as I learn to be a stronger person.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tejas
Posts: 192
Originally Posted by ian_g
Honestly, if you were alcoholic, you would not be able to drink moderately.
An alcoholic, is unable to live with it and unable to live without it Sam. Once you put it down you have mental obsession where you need to pick it back up...you don't have choice in the matter. And, when you do pick it up, you can't put it down.
An alcoholic, is unable to live with it and unable to live without it Sam. Once you put it down you have mental obsession where you need to pick it back up...you don't have choice in the matter. And, when you do pick it up, you can't put it down.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
So Ian - what you are saying is that an alcoholic is only an alcoholic according to the definition of ONE school of thought i.e. those defined is your Big Book?
I applaud the post of sfgirl - and hope that whatever else, we approach this with an open mind and at the very least critically analyse not just research but unresearched doctrine.
I applaud the post of sfgirl - and hope that whatever else, we approach this with an open mind and at the very least critically analyse not just research but unresearched doctrine.
Psalm 118:24
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ILLINOIS
Posts: 15,203
A lot of us on here are going by their own past experience.
I was never able to drink in moderation from the first time, I drank over 40 years ago.
I'm living a sober and serene life without the aid of alcohol today.
I've done my field study, let someone else do the research, on drinking.
I was never able to drink in moderation from the first time, I drank over 40 years ago.
I'm living a sober and serene life without the aid of alcohol today.
I've done my field study, let someone else do the research, on drinking.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly and NYC
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by southwalian
Sugerspun - which is exactly the point I made at some point in time.
It doesn't mean however that I had not become physically dependent on alcohol - and according to some definitions that does an alcoholic make.
If I solve the problems I have I will no longer be an alcoholic IF and I say IF I can control it.
I really don't agree with the premise that for all people once an alcoholic always an alcoholic and I also don't agree that if you can have a drink you were never an alcoholic in the first place.
It would be a bit like saying someone who can eat normally was never a bulimic - surely there are many different types of alcoholic - some physical dependency, some mental, some self medicators etc etc.
If this forum is solely the preserve of ONE way of thinking, then it is a sad day for in the two weeks I have been on here I have found it a great source of strength as I learn to be a stronger person.
It doesn't mean however that I had not become physically dependent on alcohol - and according to some definitions that does an alcoholic make.
If I solve the problems I have I will no longer be an alcoholic IF and I say IF I can control it.
I really don't agree with the premise that for all people once an alcoholic always an alcoholic and I also don't agree that if you can have a drink you were never an alcoholic in the first place.
It would be a bit like saying someone who can eat normally was never a bulimic - surely there are many different types of alcoholic - some physical dependency, some mental, some self medicators etc etc.
If this forum is solely the preserve of ONE way of thinking, then it is a sad day for in the two weeks I have been on here I have found it a great source of strength as I learn to be a stronger person.
I read the last artical that was posted and it was a survey...they didn't even provide a standard deviation on the thing. How reliable could that possibly be? If they are alcoholics, you are asking them to tell you the truth? Come on think about the way this study was conducted.
I have yet to see a better and more thorough description of the alcoholic than the one clearly defined and outlined in the Big Book. It covers all basis. The DSM-IV can't even define it. All they have is alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. So yes I think it is the only accurate definition of an alcoholic.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
Ian, I posted one study. Go and do some research yourself.
Lets not get into a debate about standard deviations and so forth. Nor indeed about research methodologies etc. I notice you immediately assume that people are lying and you even state "Come on think about the way this study was conducted". Yet you know not HOW this study was conducted. Yet your immediate response is one that seeks to close your mind to the findings - possibly because it does not fit with your belief system.
You have yet to see a better defintion than the one if your Big Book. Does that make it correct?
This doubtless will run and run, but for me I am happy to explore all possibilities at this point in time. You come across, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is closed to this.
Lets not get into a debate about standard deviations and so forth. Nor indeed about research methodologies etc. I notice you immediately assume that people are lying and you even state "Come on think about the way this study was conducted". Yet you know not HOW this study was conducted. Yet your immediate response is one that seeks to close your mind to the findings - possibly because it does not fit with your belief system.
You have yet to see a better defintion than the one if your Big Book. Does that make it correct?
This doubtless will run and run, but for me I am happy to explore all possibilities at this point in time. You come across, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is closed to this.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Baghdad
Posts: 2,822
Originally Posted by ian_g
I think there are many types of drinkers...not many types of alcoholics.
I read the last artical that was posted and it was a survey...they didn't even provide a standard deviation on the thing. How reliable could that possibly be? If they are alcoholics, you are asking them to tell you the truth? Come on think about the way this study was conducted.
I have yet to see a better and more thorough description of the alcoholic than the one clearly defined and outlined in the Big Book. It covers all basis. The DSM-IV can't even define it. All they have is alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. So yes I think it is the only accurate definition of an alcoholic.
I read the last artical that was posted and it was a survey...they didn't even provide a standard deviation on the thing. How reliable could that possibly be? If they are alcoholics, you are asking them to tell you the truth? Come on think about the way this study was conducted.
I have yet to see a better and more thorough description of the alcoholic than the one clearly defined and outlined in the Big Book. It covers all basis. The DSM-IV can't even define it. All they have is alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. So yes I think it is the only accurate definition of an alcoholic.
Knucklehead
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Davenport, WA
Posts: 4,005
I'm not saying that these are the final word as information is being updated all the time. But, they are some things to think about, and if nothing else, they show that this is not a cut and dry issue, and that our attempt at classification is far from perfect.
30. Geneticists estimate that about 60% of the causes of alcohol dependence are due to genes that lead to increased "vulnerability" to alcoholism. These genes probably affect some physiological component of the brain that is associated with the production of "impaired control," the hallmark of alcohol dependence. (July 24, 2000)
31. Alcohol dependence ("alcoholism") is probably several diseases, each with a different cause. For example, some scientists talk about Type I and Type II alcoholics. Others have studied the differences between Types A & B alcoholism. It is also possible that brain chemistry differences could be involved in several types of alcoholism, leading to alcohol dependence associated with dopamine abnormalities in the brain's pleasure pathway, or serotonin abnormalities, endorphin abnormalities, etc. (July 31, 2000)
46. Is everyone who drinks too much, too often, an alcoholic? No, because the latest diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence ("alcoholism"), as listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Edition IV, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR, 2000) do not include amount consumed or duration of alcohol consumption as diagnostic criteria. The main difference between alcoholism (pathological alcohol dependence) and willful alcohol abuse is whether a person can stop when critical life events (e.g., loss of a job or a spouse) occur. If (s)he cannot, then by definition there is "impaired control" over alcohol use, the main diagnostic criterion of alcohol dependence. (November 13, 2000)
54. Is alcohol dependence a genetic disease? Yes, with qualifications. Genetics studies performed over the past 20-25 years have clearly shown that the tendency to become alcohol dependent ("alcoholic") is inherited. In other words, genetic vulnerability coupled with unknown environmental factors is the cause of most types of alcohol dependence. Science has yet to fully understand the transmission of genetic vulnerability, and the specific environmental factors that trigger the disease. (January 8, 2001)
78. Alcoholism is not a "too much, too often disease". It is an "I can't stop without help disease". This means that one should not try to diagnose alcoholism by looking at a person's drinking behavior (although drinking a lot may be a red flag that someone is alcohol dependent). Some people who drink very little are alcoholic, while others who drink a lot are not alcoholic. (June 25, 2001)
96. What is the evidence that alcoholism is a disease? In 1954 (and again in 1965), the American Medical Association asserted that alcoholism is a disease. (A disease is an illness with a causative agent, and the victim has no/little control over its onset.) Also, if one compares alcoholism with other accepted medical diseases, it nicely fits the criteria: it has an onset of symptoms, it is involved with a pathological process (in this case in the brain), there are ways to diagnose it, and there are accepted medical treatments. Sadly, science has already recognized these characteristics but they are not yet understood by everyone. (October 29, 2001)
102. A specific type of alcohol dependence appears to occur mostly in men. The so-called Type II alcoholism is also known as early onset alcoholism. It is a more severe form than the so-called Type I, which occurs in both men and women. Furthermore, there is a larger genetic component to the cause of Type II alcoholism, compared to Type I alcohol dependence. (December 10, 2001)
103. Alcohol dependence runs in families. While this suggests a genetic cause, many things run in families that are not genetic (for example, speaking Spanish). However, twin and adoption studies performed over the past two decades clearly indicate a genetic susceptibility for alcohol dependence in families. Alcohol dependence is not a genetic disease (which suggests destiny); rather, the tendency to become alcoholic is inherited. Thus alcoholism can skip generations, or affect only certain individuals in an alcoholic family. (December 17, 2001)
110. Does alcohol abuse lead to alcohol dependence ("alcoholism")? Although it appears that many people progress from social drinking to alcohol abuse (misuse) to alcohol dependence, obviously not everyone who drinks heavily becomes an alcoholic. Evidence is beginning to emerge that abuse and dependence are two separate conditions. For example, a recent study of alcohol abusers and dependent drinkers found, in a long-term follow-up study, that only about 3% of abusers had become dependent after 5 years. (February 4, 2002)
111. Does everyone who is dependent on alcohol ("alcoholic") have a history of alcohol abuse? Anecdotal (not scientific) evidence indicates that some people become alcohol dependent very early (there are 8 year old alcoholics), and sometimes with their very first drink. If this is true, then scientists must find out why and how some people become dependent ("addicted") with first exposure to the drug. The answer will probably be found in genetics studies. (February 11, 2002)
115. Isn't alcohol craving the same as alcoholism? No, craving is a drug quality that makes a person want to drink more alcohol. This can occur in either volitional alcohol misuse or pathological alcohol dependence ("alcoholism"). Alcohol dependence ("alcoholism") involves a compulsive "need" for the drug so that the person cannot stop without treatment or 12-step programs. (March 11, 2002)
122. Is alcoholism a "will power" problem? No, although people look at the willingness to use alcohol, especially to the point of intoxication many times a week, a "will power" problem. However, the simple excess use of alcohol is not alcohol dependence (the new term for "alcoholism"). People are alcohol dependent when they exhibit consistent clinical signs of inability to control their drinking, along with significant life problems. Such signs must meet certain diagnostic criteria established by the American Psychiatric Association. An alcohol-dependent person does not have a will power problem any more than someone who has high blood pressure of unknown cause. (April 29, 2002)
135. Why do some people who drink a lot become addicted to alcohol, and others who drink a lot do not? The easy answer is that some people have "what it takes" to become addicted (newer term: dependent). Some people have a vulnerability for the disease (some of which is genetic), while others will never develop the disease. Scientists are trying to understand exactly why this happens. (July 29, 2002)
139. Unfortunately, the word "alcoholic" means different things to many people. To the public, this word is usually pejorative, meaning someone who drinks too much, too often, and only cares about drinking. Many people drink "alcoholic-ly", but usually only during brief periods. For example, college students often drink "alcoholic-ly", but are simply having a good time. The more scientific term for "alcoholic" is "alcohol dependent", which relates to pathological drinking in people who have a brain disease. (August 26, 2002)
155. How does alcohol cause alcoholism? Recent research findings indicate that alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism. To appreciate this, people must understand that alcohol dependence (the scientific word for "alcoholism") is a brain disease. This brain disease is expressed through the compulsive drinking of alcohol. Thus if a person never drinks alcohol, the disease will not be seen. (December 16, 2002)
156. If alcohol dependence is a brain disease, what is wrong with the brain? It appears as if there is a neurochemical abnormality (perhaps caused by abnormal genes) in the mesolimbic dopamine system ("pleasure pathway") of the brain. One or more of several neurotransmitter systems may be "dysregulated" (not working normally) in the pleasure pathway. Thus alcohol helps to "fix" these neuro-dysregulations, leading the person to subconsciously be unable to stop drinking without help. (December 23, 2002)
157. Wouldn't getting rid of alcohol in the world reduce alcohol dependence? Probably, except that the brain "dysregulation" related to alcohol dependence would still be present, and might cause the person to use another drug or to express some other compulsive behavior. More research must be done to confirm this suggestion, however. (December 30, 2002)
158. What is alcohol "craving"? Although most of us have "craved" something in our lives (alcohol, certain types of food, comfort, sex, etc.), craving means different things to different people. It is likely that craving is not the same as alcohol dependence ("alcoholism"), for many alcohol-dependent people report that they do not always crave alcohol, but that they "need" alcohol most of the time. Scientists thus have a hard time measuring craving, and in many cases would prefer the words "urge" or "strong desire" to describe the constant seeking of a chemical or activity. (January 6, 2003)
173. Where in the brain does "craving" for alcohol arise? No one knows for sure, but a recently published paper suggests that craving (desire, urge) for alcohol arises in the orbitofrontal cortex, a part of the brain behind your forehead. This may be the major site of craving, or it could be only one of several brain areas involved in this sensation. (April 21, 2003)
175. Alcohol dependence is just like other medical diseases. Some people have "what it takes" to get the disease, other people don't. Having "what it takes" involves having a genetic tendency, plus other (as yet) unknown factors. (Remember, we're not talking about voluntary alcohol abuse, as in college student drinking.) (May 5, 2003)
176. There are early onset and late onset forms of alcohol dependence. The early onset one (before the age of 25) is more severe, more closely associated with genetic causes, and involves more male than female sufferers. This is called Type II or Type B. Type I or Type A is "late onset" alcohol dependence, and is probably driven more by sensitivity to alcohol and its effects in producing dependence. There is also a "very early onset" alcohol dependence, where people seem to become "hooked" with the very first drink (although there is almost no research on this type). (May 12, 2003)
177. Based upon several neurotransmitter systems that seem to be dysregulated ("not working right") in the medial forebrain bundle ("pleasure pathway") of the brain, scientists are speculating that there may be different treatments in the future for different types of alcohol dependence. Thus naltrexone works on the endorphin system, ondansetron (in clinical study) works on the serotonin system, and acamprosate (in clinical study) works on the glutamate and/or GABA systems. (May 19, 2003)
178. An anti-seizure drug, topiramate, has recently been shown to promote abstinence in alcohol-dependent individuals. The apparent mechanism is an action in reducing dopamine release in the medial forebrain bundle through a direct action on glutamate function. More studies are needed to confirm the true clinical value of this drug and its exact mechanism of action. (May 26, 2003)
202. A combination of naltrexone and acamprosate might work better than either one alone in reducing craving in alcohol dependent patients undergoing treatment. Naltrexone was approved for this purpose in 1994, whereas acamprosate (a drug available in Europe) is undergoing clinical trials in the U.S. These drugs work on different neurochemical systems in the brain, so that their beneficial effects might be additive whereas their side effects might not be additive. More studies are needed. (November 10, 2003)
212. People who are alcohol dependent lack control over their drinking. An analogy is a patient with Type I diabetes who cannot control the levels on insulin. Disagree? Talk to an alcohol dependent patient who has unsuccessfully tried to stop drinking, has received the best treatment available, cannot stop drinking even with support in A.A., and has tried the latest anti-craving medications, without success. This is why we call it a disease. (January 19, 2004)
231. There is a complex interaction between drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. During treatment for alcohol dependence, it is difficult to obtain approval from patients to stop smoking as well. It's almost as if the addictive process for alcohol and nicotine is not affected by alcohol treatment. The continuance of the addictive process is best seen by a person who continues smoking after giving up alcohol. (May 31, 2004)
232. The "craving" associated with alcohol dependence has been localized to a brain area known as the orbitofrontal cortex, which basically lies behind the forehead. This area "lights up" in brain imaging studies when a person is feeling that they really want alcohol. (June 7, 2004)
233. Brain areas associated with the cause of alcohol dependence include the ventral striatum, the extended amygdala, the ventral tegmental area, the nucleus accumbens, and the frontal cortex. These technical terms describe brain areas that are involved in the production of alcohol dependence, including memory of the drug's action, craving for the drug, and the pleasure of taking the drug. However, a "dysregulation" of these areas (meaning they aren't working properly) is associated with the actual disease of alcohol dependence. (June 14, 2004)
235. New research has found that genes for two neurotransmitter receptors are probably involved in the causes of alcohol dependence. These two receptors, GABA-A, and a form of the gene that codes for the serotonin transporter (SER, 5-HT), may produce abnormalities in the mesolimbic dopamine system that cause people to be unable to stop drinking. (June 28, 2004)
243. Another medication has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol dependence. Acamprosate, which seems to work through the GABA/glutamate systems of the brain's pleasure pathway, apparently reduces relapse in alcohol dependent patients undergoing abstinence treatment. It may also reduce craving for alcohol. This drug has shown effectiveness for years in Europe, and recent U.S. studies have confirmed its effectiveness and relative safety. It joins naltrexone as the only drugs to directly affect the brain to reduce the symptoms of alcohol dependence. (August 23, 2004)
246. Why is there a genetic basis for alcohol dependence? Because the genetics of alcohol problems have been studied for over 20 years, and such studies have clearly shown that over 50% of the causes of alcohol dependence are related to the genetic tendency to develop the disease. Family, twin, and adoption studies implicate the hereditary nature of alcohol dependence. Exciting new findings are showing that neurotransmitter receptors in the brain (for GABA, serotonin, and other chemicals) are somehow involved in the vulnerability of people for the disease. (September 13, 2004)
263. What role do acetate and acetaldehyde (break-down products of alcohol) play in the production of "alcoholism" (alcohol dependence)? Very little, according to available research. Old ideas that acetaldehyde is a poison that leads to organ damage and perhaps brain damage, and that the rate at which acetaldehyde turns to acetate in the brain influences the onset of alcoholism, have not been substantiated by science. (January 10, 2005)
271. People observe that "drinking declines with age". Why might this happen? First, alcohol misusers find as they get older that large amounts of alcohol are not as pleasurable as they used to be, and such amounts tend to cause more troublesome physical and mental effects. Thus abusers tend to moderate their drinking. In addition, alcohol dependent people are often in recovery at older ages. Is there much research on this topic? Not nearly enough. (March 7, 2005)
275. A recent study indicates that people with a variant of the DRD2 gene (a gene associated with dopamine function in the brain) may be more prone to receive pleasure from drinking. The implication is that people with this gene might drink more than people without the variant. Does this mean the gene variant may be the cause of alcohol dependence? No, since this gene merely relates to the pleasure associated with drinking, which is not the same as the genetic cause of alcohol dependence. (April 4, 2005)
287. Naltrexone and acamprosate are two medications that help alcohol dependent patients reduce their craving for alcohol. Both of these drugs are approved for treatment, and their best use is that they reduce relapse in abstinence-based treatment programs. Naltrexone works through the endorphin system of the brain, whereas acamprosate works through the GABA/glutamate system. (June 27, 2005)
288. Can we find genes that cause alcoholism? The concept that a single or multiple gene(s) causes alcoholism is much more complex than we expected. The latest research on "genomics" is telling us that the interplay of several genes probably affects the risk of developing the disease. Some gene sequences will greatly enhance the risk of becoming alcohol dependent, while other sequences will only somewhat enhance the risk. Other sequences may somewhat lower the risk of developing the disease. (July 4, 2005)
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philly and NYC
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by southwalian
Ian, I posted one study. Go and do some research yourself.
Lets not get into a debate about standard deviations and so forth. Nor indeed about research methodologies etc. I notice you immediately assume that people are lying and you even state "Come on think about the way this study was conducted". Yet you know not HOW this study was conducted. Yet your immediate response is one that seeks to close your mind to the findings - possibly because it does not fit with your belief system.
You have yet to see a better defintion than the one if your Big Book. Does that make it correct?
This doubtless will run and run, but for me I am happy to explore all possibilities at this point in time. You come across, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is closed to this.
Lets not get into a debate about standard deviations and so forth. Nor indeed about research methodologies etc. I notice you immediately assume that people are lying and you even state "Come on think about the way this study was conducted". Yet you know not HOW this study was conducted. Yet your immediate response is one that seeks to close your mind to the findings - possibly because it does not fit with your belief system.
You have yet to see a better defintion than the one if your Big Book. Does that make it correct?
This doubtless will run and run, but for me I am happy to explore all possibilities at this point in time. You come across, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is closed to this.
I have yet to see the Big Book's definition of an alcoholic to be wrong am I the last judgment on this: No. I do believe however that the Big Book put together the most thorough and accurate description I have seen of the alcoholic.
Explore to your heart's content all the possiblies...if you come back with no findings and want to get help, AA will be there. I too searched out many methods all with disastrous results. I tried the experimentation but eventually it set back in and I was as bad or worse than before. The thing along the way was that AA didn't change.
I sought out a solution, AA provided me with a solution...the 12 steps. This is my experience.
I'm not closed...science may one day find out a solution it but has been to no avail as of yet. It comes down to this, the alcoholics that I know have not been able to moderate. Even after long periods of sobreity, when they went back out, they ended up right back at it. Maybe not right away but usually fairly quickly.
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 1,924
Originally Posted by sfgirl
Of course most people think abstinence is the only way to go because it is virtually the only "acceptable" treatment of "true" alcoholism. It is also most of our experiences. However what came first the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure since there were really no other viable options. I, for one, am completely content with abstinence and do not want to follow a moderation path or explore it. I do not, however, think it is absurd to believe it could be an additional model to treat alcoholism. I do think it is absurd to counter scientific studies with vehement rhetoric and your own sole experience. Again what works for you might not work for the bunch.
I have read the entire thread and I find this debate endlessly durable only for those who wish they could drink without consequences; the absurd phenomena starting most recently with the book, "Controlled Drinking" By Nick Heather, Ian Robertson. Recovery from Alcoholism has been attacked by every quarter that wishes a different outcome than the one presented each time the Alcoholic returns to a drink.
I appreciate your well written post, but your position tends to support several rather empty assertions. What scientific study can replace the experience of millions of men and women who share a common disease and the recovery thereof and who live free via abstinence? Push spirituality to the side and look not at the old clichés of wet and dry, but at the results of those who changed their lives starting at simply not drinking first. Man has tried to weasel his way to a cure for Alcoholism for centuries and though I might be open-minded enough to believe that the possibility might exist in the future, why would it matter? Drinking as an avocation is no longer attractive to me, I do not need any of it magical properties in order to function or to be successful in society or in life. No longer do I need to be taller, or slimmer, or smarter, or happier, or anything but what I am. I need no mood changing, particular from a solvent that destroys living cell tissue faster that you can spit. I no longer have to fight to have a drink. I am recovered.
So my question is this to all who wish to have a drink; why don't you try some controlled drinking and leave those of us who choose not to drink alone? Why come to SR and make a case for something you want to do, just do it. Frankly, you do not have to justify your drinking to anyone and there is no need to fight over the souls of the newcomers; each will choose a path best suited for them or not. Your premises are fine for those who want to live with drinking; my experience has been that it did not work for me and it hasn't work for those men I have sponsored who gave their lives back in the pursuit of drinking. Of course, you could discount my thoughts as easily as any who wants what they want when they want it. Isn’t that what a return to drinking is? Best to you in all.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,876
Just speaking from my experience I can never safely drink again...nor do I want to try...that is the beauty of sobriety.
Since this is not the 12 step forum many people will not agree with the opinions written in the bb. For me the "definition" of an alcoholic is not aligned with the bb simply because of the bait and switch when it comes to the "treatment".
I do think it is very telling that the word "alcoholism" is not used by the DSM-IV and that the AMA believes alcoholism and smoking are the same disease.
Moderation will never be an issue for me...I tried it for years...once you know better you do better.
Since this is not the 12 step forum many people will not agree with the opinions written in the bb. For me the "definition" of an alcoholic is not aligned with the bb simply because of the bait and switch when it comes to the "treatment".
I do think it is very telling that the word "alcoholism" is not used by the DSM-IV and that the AMA believes alcoholism and smoking are the same disease.
Moderation will never be an issue for me...I tried it for years...once you know better you do better.
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Baghdad
Posts: 2,822
Originally Posted by southwalian
Sailor John - define sober?
TOTAL ABSTINANCE?
Or safe drinking which incidentally fits with a healthy lifestyle.
Grow up - you can be sober and still enjoy a glass of wine.
TOTAL ABSTINANCE?
Or safe drinking which incidentally fits with a healthy lifestyle.
Grow up - you can be sober and still enjoy a glass of wine.
How old were you when you started drinking?
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
Ian are we reading the same study? I can find nothing that says it was a phone survey/mail. In any event - like I said it was but one study amongst several others and I again mention other views on this that are gaining in credibility here in Europe.
Anyway, to RufusACanal and all the other AA supporters. Why can you not accept that those of us who believe we have a drink problem are of the belief that we may at some point return to a moderate and indeed healthy level of drinking. I managed it for years without any hint that I may at some point in the future indulge in unacceptably high levels of alcohol consumption.
I stated earlier I have self image issues and turned to alcohol whenever I felt unloved etc. My misuse of alcohol is tied up with psychological issues concerned with my own self worth. I don't feel I have ever been so dependent on alcohol that I HAVE TO HAVE a drink. rarely have I ever started to drink before say 8pm.
According to some definitions I al an alcoholic - probably not according to yours. But I still think I have every right to post on these forums as I seek to recover from my problems. I find it sad that some of you seem to want to deny me that right purely cos my drink problem differs from your own.
Anyway, to RufusACanal and all the other AA supporters. Why can you not accept that those of us who believe we have a drink problem are of the belief that we may at some point return to a moderate and indeed healthy level of drinking. I managed it for years without any hint that I may at some point in the future indulge in unacceptably high levels of alcohol consumption.
I stated earlier I have self image issues and turned to alcohol whenever I felt unloved etc. My misuse of alcohol is tied up with psychological issues concerned with my own self worth. I don't feel I have ever been so dependent on alcohol that I HAVE TO HAVE a drink. rarely have I ever started to drink before say 8pm.
According to some definitions I al an alcoholic - probably not according to yours. But I still think I have every right to post on these forums as I seek to recover from my problems. I find it sad that some of you seem to want to deny me that right purely cos my drink problem differs from your own.
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by RufusACanal
An excellent example of mutual exclusion;
"You can be sober and still enjoy a glass of wine."
"You can be sober and still enjoy a glass of wine."
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by sailorjohn
Well, you brought the subject up, they say that an alcoholic stops maturing emotionally-growing up, as you put it, when they started drinking.
How old were you when you started drinking?
How old were you when you started drinking?
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
