Alan6154

I prefer to think of it as an allergy.
My thought process:
1) I'm not allergic to poison Ivy, almost everyone else I know is.
2) My neighbor who is a serious runner (5k, 10k, or 1/2 every other week) is a diabetic and she can't have sugar. I can. (I understand the pancreatic issue)
3) A close friend carries an Epi pen because of bee stings. I barely swell.
4) Most people can drink alcohol with minimal consequences. I can't.
5) Another close friend can't have shellfish because they are allergic to iodine. I love Steamed Crabs (Yeah, I'm a Marylander), shrimp, oysters, clams, lobster..... I can't imagine having that one.

So therefore I must be allergic to alcohol. I do not care if I oversimplified it I just know it is extremely unhealthy, possibly deadly for me while it's only mildly unhealthy for others.

MLD51

This is an interesting discussion. When I was new to sobriety, I really focused on the idea that I had an "allergy," as the big book says. It helped me get over some of the shame I was feeling about being an alcoholic. Like it or not, many people in society still think of any kind of addiction as a character flaw - a lack of willpower, or an underlying moral failing of some sort. Logically, I knew that wasn't really true, but part of me was still ashamed at some level. So it helped me to think of it as something I really had no control over - my body simply does not react to alcohol in a normal way. I went to an alcohol assessment, got a diagnosis, went to treatment, and learned a lot about my condition. I got better - and thinking of it as an illness or disease in a clinical sort of way helped me get partway down the road in recovery.

As time has gone on, I don't really care if it's a disease or an allergy or mental illness or what. All I know and care about is that I cannot drink and live the sort of life I want to live. I no longer feel shame about being an alcoholic - I simply don't care what other people think anymore. I still feel some shame from time to time about things I DID while drinking, but I don't feel shame about who I AM. Being an alcoholic is part of who I am. But it doesn't completely define me.

Call it whatever you want - disease, allergy, mental illness - but I'd stay away from calling it a character defect or moral failing. That's just more negative self-talk none of us need, alcoholic or not.

soberlicious

I think that calling addiction a disease is kind of odd. Generally, we accept that "disease" is something we can become afflicted with that we have no control over. One can have lung disease from smoking, but plenty of other people get lung disease (cancer) and have never smoked a day in their lives. Alcohol and drug addiction is different than that. There is no person who is actively addicted to alcohol that doesn't drink it.

Re: moral failings...I do consider continuing a behavior despite serious negative consequences a moral failing. It is morally wrong for me personally to drink alcohol knowing the negative effects it will have on me and those around me. If I don't take action against any desire which will harm myself and others, then I am failing to live up to my moral standards. I can continue the harmful behavior if I want to, but I can't say that I am #morallywinning. If my choice is to continue, then I must accept my moral failing.

Fitcher

My personal belief is that alcoholism isn't a disease, unless it has progressed into a physical chemical dependency.

I drank to mask the symptoms of other issues - depression, anxiety and an inferiority complex the size of the national debt - all of which were the result of abandonment and abuse during my childhood/teenage years.

But like Dee said - doesn't matter so much what you call it, but rather, what you do about it!

Peace.

ljc267

I think alcoholism is a genetic defect and that defect increases the likelihood of an individual becoming an alcoholic. I have a long lineage of alcoholism in my family, and I don't think it is a coincidence I became one as well. I do not think I became an alcoholic because of my upbringing or hardship. In truth, I was always drawn to alcohol in good times and bad. Always loved drinking for as long as I can remember, and I drank harder then everyone. I knew a long time ago that alcohol was different for me then for others.

Whether I am right or not, and whether it is disease or not is irrelevant. It's what you do about it.

thomas11

My personal belief regarding alcoholism and the medical definition probably are not in sync. But I do not let that alter my stance that I should not drink. Whether or not its a disease is a battle I will let others pursue.

zerothehero

It's worth noting that the DSM 5 does not use the term alcoholism. People suffer from "substance use disorder, mild, moderate, or severe," and the substance can be alcohol, heroin, or whatever. In other words, people are no longer diagnosed with alcoholism (if the counselor or psych is using the newest DSM).

My problem when I met criteria for substance use disorder was that (at the time) sobriety was the disease. That is, I was not at ease (dis-eased) when I was sober. That first drink of the day made me suddenly feel "right." I drank because I was suffering and then the drinking eventually caused greater suffering. I became an addict because sobriety was so uncomfortable, and in retrospect, I was not comfortable in my skin long before I started using (in childhood). That discomfort led to using in the first place (and it could be the subject of another thread).

For the addict, sobriety is the disease and the substance seems to be the cure, that is, until substance use backfires and makes things worse. When I quit drinking and using, my greatest challenge was to sit with the dis-ease of sobriety long enough for the dis-ease to subside. I had to work at it so that eventually sobriety was no longer a disease.