Mek2

Wow you just argue to be right. One is an allergy and the other is an addiction. You can skew it anyway you want but you put a bottle to your mouth and got drunk. You did it. It was nobody else's choice. Take some responsibility and drop it! You are not simply adjusting because your family passed on a disease. You drank, period. Your result was alcoholism.

jdooner

Again, you are judging when you do not have the facts about my life. I am simply quoting your incorrect statements.

You state opinions about things that are factually incorrect and have the audacicty to hide behind the cloak of wanting to help newcomers. That is a judgement.

jdooner

Once again, environmental factors and learned behaviros are not the same at all. They can be the same but do not have to be the same. If you are tortured and abused is that a learned behavior?

You express your opinions as facts over and over and they are actually incorrect over and over.

Mek2

We have different opinions. Why are mine ignorant?

You state alcohol has nothing to do with being an addict?

You said you were born an addict but it took you 15 years to be an alcoholic? Then you also said you interchange the words. You can see my confusion.

Alcoholism is a disease and should also be thought of along the same lines as Allergic reactions to bee-stings, and poison ivy?

In the end I am done with this because us arguing doesn't help anyone. Best of luck to you.

FT

I don't think jdooner is arguing just to be right.

Actually allergies and alcoholism are not entirely dissimilar. Jdooner is entirely correct about allergies being acquired over the lifespan, particularly when predisposed.

The point to me is that, for some, exposure to alcohol almost dooms some to a life of alcoholism, particularly if they lack the enzyme to break down acetaldehyde. Few people set out to become alcoholics. Most are unaware they are risking that straight out of the gate.

A genetic predisposition IS an environmental factor, and addiction/alcoholism CAN be learned behaviors to be sure. What you see around you growing up becomes your "normal." One does not NECESSARILY lead to the other, but the connection nonetheless is strong.

Mek2

FT I know allergies can come over a lifespan. We were discussing a predisposition to alcoholism and not bee-stings and poison ivy. I was allergic to poison ivy the first time I touched it. Poison ivy doesn't alter the brains chemistry... Unless I am being ignorant again.

FT

No, I think you are just trying to make valid points.

Both you guys have great, valid points.

Both of you have something to say here, and that resonates with a LOT of people suffering from addiction/alcoholism.

jdooner

Actually Mek2 - go back and reread your responses.

You stated:

Babies cannot be born addicted to alcohol - factually incorrect

Babies are allergic to penecillin immediately - factually incorrect

We never got into brain chemistry.

You state environmental is the same as learned - factually incorrect

My point in an acute manner is to point out that while you claim to be helping newcomers under the guise of professing correct infor, what you are instead doing is stating opinions that are factually incorrect over and over while judging me.

doggonecarl

Robert777

Maybe he is a just a heavy drinker who's cut down.

Mek2

I actually said babies are not born alcoholics. Of course there is the cases where a mother drinks during pregnancy but that is obviously not what we were discussing. I said a predisposition doesn't mean you are going to be an alcoholic. Your chances are just better

I said if someone is allergic to penicillin they know right away after a reaction. I could have explained the point better but the obvious conclusion was one is an allergy and the other is pouring something into our bodies until we start to shut-down.

I was wrong about the learned and environmental, because environmental can be expanded. I apologize for that.

Mek2

Btw I did not intend to judge you. I don't know you. I am happy you kicked the habit.

And you keeping stating I defended the cancer point for newcomers due to my ego. I am anonymous, no personal info stated, and not even an avatar. How am I stroking an ego when nobody knows who I am? The "disease" argument really erks me lately because I have seen people die of the real disease and had absolutely no choice about it. You and I have both have a choice.

As stated above by another user

littlefish

Well, to be honest MrBen, (our OP), I would have been really annoyed with the guy! Quitting was a huge thing for me.

It took the better part of 2 years for me to get truly sober, 2 years which included a frustrating struggle with relapses, and a huge amount of work with not 1 but 2 programs. It was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life.

Then some guy says he used to be an alcoholic and is all better and he has got the moderation down pat and it's no biggie.
Phhhhh!

FT

Yes Littlefish, I agree.

It has been my observation that anyone who is secure in their knowledge and self-identification as a non-drinker does not feel the need to proclaim their status wherever they go.

"Normal" drinkers don't seem to need to proclaim that they are "normal drinkers" either.

As to the "responsible drinker" who "used to be an alcoholic," I would venture to say that they must not be so secure or they would not go around announcing their status.

tomsteve

not sure about pennicillan, but I can say that the dye used for PET scans was no problem for me at 1st. quite a few PET scans later I cant have it as I have an allergic reaction. the same for other meds I have been on for medical reasons. they are no longer an option as I have become allergic to them.
same with bee stings. I had no problem with them for a long time. I am now quite allergic to them.

jaynie04

Stating that someone becomes an alcoholic because they drank a lot is a what is called a logical fallacy (*** (Latin word it won't let through)--hoc ergo propter hoc).. After I drank a lot, then I became an alcoholic, therefore because I drank a lot, I became an alcoholic. It is using causal reductionism which in essence is using an overlay of oversimplification on a complex issue.

The problem is that this argument does not hold up. It confuses causation and correlation. By that argument then, anyone who drinks a lot will become an alcoholic, which we know is not the case. Defining causality in an epidemiological study is a highly complex science, one that is well out of my grasp. However, I do believe that when we do have a much clearer picture of addiction it will be a complex set of variables that aren't limited to a simple behavior.

If it were that simplistic by now we could have some sort of a litmus test. If your BMI is x, and you exceed y units of alcohol a day, you are an alcoholic. Most of my friends drank much more heavily than I did for many years, why then did I cross that invisible line?

I believe it is our nature as humans to try to simplify things that we can't explain…yet. I am sure you are familiar with many historical beliefs that were deeply embedded in societies. All witches can hold their breath under water, Mary drowned, therefore she was not a witch.

Taking the consequence and backing into a simplistic premise is not new. But I would argue that correlating behavior and consequence in too simplistic a manner is to some degree blaming the victim. We are not responsible for whatever set of circumstances brought us to this place, however, upon understanding that we do have this issue, it is upon us to take proper steps to do something about it.

tomsteve

yes,comparing alcoholism to cancer is ridiculous.
however, there is a certain class of alcoholic that at some time lost the power of choice in the matter of picking up a drink. they simply cannot chose to not drink at any time.

Mek2

Jaynie04, do you look at alcoholism as a state of mind? I ask because I have never truly thought of myself as an alcoholic. I was not drinking to dull feelings or anything like that. I was socially drinking and it turned into binge drinking. I did not drink every night. That led to symptoms I did not like and then quitting. I know I cannot drink anymore but I still don't consider myself an alcoholic.

Mek2

Tomsteve, point taken. Thanks.

jdooner

I appreciate you comments Mek2 - perhaps I became too involved. BTW - I define ego as the false sense of self. It has nothign to do with people knowing you. If I post something on this site and a bunch of people like my comment and that makes me feel good, perhaps I feel really smart, I am puffing up my own ego by posting that comment even though nobody knows my true identity.

We are all here to share our experiences in hopes of helping each other become and remain sober. In my many posts I have been guilty of judging others and stating my opinions as facts too - the same thing I was coming at you for (even if you were not doing this).

So I am all good. Hopefully our back and forth provides some insight for someone else and allows a derivative thread to get started that helps someone else.

Jaynie's post is brilliant BTW. She highlights the complexity and the risk of oversimplification - also something I have been guilty of too.

I find whenever I am wrestling with the "am I really and alcoholic or an addcit?" It was when I began rationalizing by comparing to another. This is a slippery slope. I no longer debate and have accepted I am an alcoholic and an addict and will always be one. The risk here is this disease is progressive - so who is to say you have just not reached a lower bottom but getting off at a higher floor than me?

I had more money than most and kept a career. This kept me stuck bc I could rationalize being high functioning (I consider an oxymoron), which meant I could slip deeper and deeper but bail myself out financially. Towards the end I wanted to die pretty much every day at some point and financially I was a mess - made a lot but spent a little more.

I would never want to go back to that hell, even though my mind tries to trick me sometimes.