Wholesome

Why is it only applied to alcoholism? People who recover from sex addiction or marijuana or sugar or cigarettes or cocaine or whatever aren't labeled with having some other ism to address. So why alcohol? Isn't it the same hi-jacked brain reward centers? Isn't it the same process of quitting and having to learn to live your life again without that behaviour/ DOC? The term bothers me. I get getting sober and doing work on yourself afterward and taking some kind of stock of where you are at and owning your behaviour for your actions while addicted. Dealing with the aftermath. But I don't agree with the label of having some ism wrong with me.

The disease label bothers me too. My sister has MS, that is a disease that she can have relapses in. She didn't get a choice. I think it's absurd and disrespect for me to use that label for myself. I guess you could say dis-ease but isn't that just being alive? Who doesn't experience some dis-ease? And if I made a decision to drink again, it would be that, a decision. Actually, a series of decisions, get up, put my shoes on, open the door, walk to the store, talk to the cashier, get out my money, walk home, go get a glass, pour the drink, lift it to my mouth and swallow. That is not a relapse from any disease I've heard of. It doesn't make sense.

I think believing in having an ism or disease lets one off too easy. It takes away the personal responsibility for the choices made to get a person into the depths of addiction. Like it wasn't my fault, I have a disease. If I "relapse" it's because I didn't treat my ism.

NewRomanMan

Respectfully disagree. It gets categorized as a disease because it fits the criteria for a disease. There is a beginning, a progression, and if left untreated, possibly death.
And yes, in the beginning there is a choice as to weather or not a person drinks. But there are many many alcoholics in the world that literally don't have a choice. If they stop drinking unsupervised, they die.
I have no problem with my "alcoholism" or calling it my disease. It doesn't let me off the hook anymore than someone developing adult onset diabetes. It needs to be treated or there are consequences.

soberlicious

no "ism" or disease for me either.

Wholesome

Well all addiction has a progression as the user gets a tolerance. At what point does it become a disease, what stage. When is the beginning, is it a timeline, an amount, a physical dependence? When can a doctor say you are now diagnosed with a disease? Either you have a disease or you don't. Either you are diagnosed with diabetes or you aren't. I think that alcoholism can give you a disease, cancer or liver cirrhosis or heart disease and that it can kill you by rotting you from the inside out. Absolutely.

I guess it doesn't really matter what others believe though. I look at what my sister is going through or think about people battling cancer and I feel lucky for my health. No disease here.

August252015

Semantics and fighting labels, splitting hairs and trying to work my way around terms I didn't like....never worked for me. I couldn't think or justify may way out of my situation. I call it alcoholism and believe it is indeed a disease; focusing on the ism would have just kept me drinking.

Redmayne

For me, alcohol-ISM is the only disease/illness that'll kill you whilst at the same time telling you, you haven't got it! The only respite from which is abstinence.

The alcohol is but a symptom, the ISM's are life itself lead in recovery dealing with those events which happen to us all which once would, big or small triggered drinking...

As Epictetus said,'It is not events that disturb man but his view of them' as is suggested alcoholism is a 'Disease of Perception' Clancy Imislund.

As we all exist in our state of mind, which is the only thing we really possess, the rest are all external factors good mental health is a something we should all aim for. Change your perception, change your life!

'Everything you need to know is already inside you. In your way of thinking'

' Your mind is dyed by the colour of your thoughts.' - Marcus Aurelius

Ably assisted by the words of the Serenity Prayer.

NewRomanMan

The "you either have a disease or you don't" isn't necessarily true. There are stages before a formal diagnosis that point to something definite happening, the same way pre diabetes often times points to full blown diabetes or the way osteopenia pre indicates osteoporosis. There are stages. Just like alcoholism. But that's not really my point. For me personally it is a disease because if I don't treat it every day, there are going to be physical consequences. But to each their own. Just my take.

Wholesome

I agree with this which is why I believe I am healthy and that I am lucky to be healthy after all the abuse I put myself through. Not everyone gets out. It is my own perception though and I respect that others view things through their own lens and have to follow their own path.

Fusion

Yes, since stopping drinking, forever, after a more than twenty year addiction, the last five of which were all day, every day - I'm now healthy, not disease-ridden, no ism, just my authentic self, higher cortex brain, ruling over the autonomous lower self brain.

My sister also has a disease, type 1 diabetes since a 4 year old child, involving 2 injections a day. My sister has no control over that disease, because her pancreas has stopped working and if she didn't inject herself with insulin, she'd die. My sister cannot use her self-will to order her pancreas to start working properly.

But alcohol addicted people can use their self-will to stop drinking. Indeed, people in AA stop drinking before they've worked the steps and many don't work the steps and still remain abstinent. My sister, with her disease, can't attend meetings to cure herself, she can't use spiritual means to cure herself and she can't ask God to remove her disease, because that disease is lifelong. The more I think about it, the more horrid is the presumption that God will remove the desire to drink (which may lead to death) but he won't cure my sister, or Zen's sister or my little nephew who's dying from cancer. AA says that it seeks to remove the ego, but really, isn't it building up, the ego - what special people we are that God will remove our disease of pouring alcohol down our throats?

The only reason alcohol addiction was classified as a disease, was originally AA, to remove the immoral dimension from self-intoxication, but looking at AA history, the AA founders used the word disease, as a metaphor for loss of control.

I cannot say anymore than that, because this post would and may still be deleted, as the site is funded by AA related rehabs and AA works for many people and to that end, thinking that it's a disease helps some folks, apparently.

Yet, this site is full of people who have stopped drinking on their own, under their own self-will, with their own plans in place to improve their lives - how could they do that if they suffered from a disease, without treatment, medication etc?

soberlicious

Not being defined by terms that were useless to me is exactly what worked for me. We are all different in how we view things and that's why I like this site. There is something for everyone and thus a way out for everyone suffering the state of addiction.

Wholesome

Indeed Tatsy, why would God pick me to heal my desire to self intoxicate over my beautiful sister who didn't do anything to deserve her unfortunate fate in the lottery of health? I find the idea outrageous and horrible too. I spent years being a hedonistic person, driven my own pleasures and damn the consequences. Until I wanted to stop but couldn't. God didn't do that to me. I did. God can't cure me but I can cure myself. What my sister or yours would give to be able to do that.

Fitcher

Wow, there are some amazing thinkers and beautiful minds in this community. Agree or disagree, the respect and support we show one another is truly uplifting. Thank you!

DeathBox

You're right. The reason why there's no crackaholic syndrome is because crack isn't a socially acceptable drug - we all automatically associate crack as being a poison, so we assume anyone who indulges in it has a problem. Crack addicts also tend to know immediately that they have a problem, they don't have to go to meetings to figure it out.

Alcohol gets to skirt that issue and many breeds of dogma have been born out of it because of our supposed 'lack of understanding'. If they would have just called it a drug to begin with, it might have saved some of us from the trap!

I also hate the 'drugs and alcohol' phrase. I've decided to just use 'drugs' to encompass alcohol as well.

Wholesome

I agree DeathBox, alcohol is the one drug we are encouraged constantly to use and then ostracized if we get addicted. Drink, drink, drink, drink, but drink responsibly. I was actually gossiped about for not drinking, like oh look, zen's not drinking, I wonder if she has a problem? People would be patting me on the back and congratulating me if they thought I had a heroin problem and kicked it. When I quit smoking I got to tell people with pride that I'd finally stopped poisoning myself with tobacco. But with alcohol, I'm somehow morally weak or defective because it got its claws into me and I've escaped its grasp. I now have a disease and an ism to treat for the rest of my life. I'll never get better, it's a life sentence. Why not with smoking? That was damn hard to give up! Yet I'm not labeled diseased. No ism to treat. My brain was just as addicted. It's a double standard and I'm not buying it.

Algorithm

What is often overlooked in these discussions of the disease concept of alcoholism, as put forth by Alcoholics Anonymous, is that AA had its origins in the Oxford Group, and thus borrowed much of its theology. The Oxford Group adopted the disease concept of sin, and essentially viewed sin as an illness requiring treatment.

See What is the Oxford Group by The Layman With a Notebook, pages 15-16.

The AA view of alcoholism as a disease, or an illness, if you prefer, is little different from the Oxford Group view of sin as an illness. It is sin-disease that they both speak of. AA understands alcoholism not as sinful in and of itself, but rather, as a symptom of an internal spiritual malady. Theologically, AA effectively understands alcoholism as a manifestation of original sin.

See Alcoholics Anonymous: A phenomenon in American Religious History by Ernest Kurtz, page 5.

Although they may be using similar words, without the proper context, people often end up speaking of very different things when discussing the disease concept of alcoholism. I hope this helps.

Wholesome

Thanks, Algorithm. Still, leaves me wondering though.....if a person who uses AA has a spiritual awakening, see the promises in the program come to fruition, has their mental obsession to drink lifted from them, wouldn't they then be cured? Isn't their internal spiritual malady healed? The disease of sin behind them? Why doesn't it get to be over? Seems logical to me that it would be. I get the impression that people who use AA feel like they are never fully cured and once these things have happened for them according to their own steps and doctrine they are. I obviously don't know enough about it though. Maybe someone from AA can explain why to me.

Algorithm

Alcoholics Anonymous, much like the Oxford Group, is really about surrender to G-d control in order to combat the disease, and AA views the daily reprieve from alcoholism as contingent upon this surrender, which must be maintained.

The first step, despite apologetics from some about it meaning 'acceptance' that one can't drink, nevertheless has two parts to it, one of which is the unmanageable life. The first step is written as one single sentence, and the two parts are not separable from each other.

The following from the AA book is read at the beginning of the vast majority of AA meetings:

Like the first step, (a) has two parts, one of which is the inability to manage one's own life, and (c) means that G-d could not only relieve alcoholism, but also manage the lives of alcoholics. Powerless over alcohol means alcoholic, and that means that one cannot manage their own life. It is a 'package deal' that requires surrender to G-d control in order to overcome.

The second half of the first step of AA is essentially the counterpart of the Oxford Group's unmanageability prayer, which was also very common in early AA:

"O Lord, manage me, for I cannot manage myself."

See For Sinners Only by Arthur J. Russell, page 62.

Wholesome

Thanks Algorithm. I see that it's forever because people turn their lives and will over to God to manage. And that of course one is never finished a spiritual way of life and can constantly be improving, that it would be a forever process. In my way of thinking it is still that individual who made the decision to quit and then continues to make decisions to support that one decision whether they believe in God's help or not. I've never been a religious person so I don't understand turning over my will. I tried AA but it just didn't click for me. I felt like at a time in my life when I was at my lowest AA made me feel lower. I needed my ego boosted not further shattered with inventories about my defects and confessions about my faults. I needed to feel empowered, not powerless. But that's just me. I see how it helps many and I agree with some of it.



No one makes sin but ourselves. Temptation is not action. It is an invitation we can accept or refuse. This invitation is often so worded or pictured in our minds that refusal seems beyond the power of our refusing. Because they are so often the most enjoyable part of sinning, in the same way that anticipation of a pleasurable event in life is often so much more enjoyable than the actual event itself, temptations are the allure of Sin. If, as they come to us, we can give these invitations of Sin to God for His answer, we have the certain knowledge that they will not be too strong for us to resist. Under the all-powerful light of Christ they shrink back into the darkness from whence they came.

This bit stuck out to me from What is the Oxford Group pg 17. It's a common theme that I keep reading from different sources. RR uses our higher cortex brain to override these urges instead of the light of Christ, but the message is the same to me. Gary Zukav wrote about it too in Seat of the Soul except he words it as a response from a compassionate universe to our intention to quit and to use those urges as an opportunity to challenge and release the addiction. To stand between our lower and whole selves and choose wisely.

I find it all very interesting.

PhoenixJ

Lots if 'isms'. Yes some conveniently explain it as a disease. It certainly is not normal. It is not the drug- it is the person/behaviour. Some find being able to externalise alcohol use/abuse this way helps them cope- and some- successfully use the label to remain sober. Others use god, a higher power, 'the rooms', a therapist, it is a disorder, an allergy, genetic, due to a crap childhood, depression, anxiety, PTSD, CSFS etc.
That is just to name all the things I have been diagnosed with over my lengthy and very successful drinking myself to death career. As you say- the important bit for me- is I cannot drink or I will die. I can call it what I will.
Blowing up one's own troops- a mistake? Friendly fire? Collateral damage?'. They are still just as dead.
Good thread, thanks.

Algorithm

There is no mention in the 12-Step program of actually deciding to quit drinking, because AA considers alcohol consumption 'but a symptom' of other character defects. In fact, 'swearing off' is effectively discouraged, and abstinence is considered a miracle, a side effect of not having a desire to drink, which is contingent on working a good program.

Aside: This idea of needing to 'continue to make decisions' in support of your decision to quit drinking is your Addictive Voice. That idea suggests that your drinking is not really over yet, and that more 'daily decisions' need to be made, along the lines of one-day-at-a-time tentative sobriety. AVRT is not about 'choosing not to drink today', because the Big Plan forces the loss of choice over the matter.

Few religions advocate this sort of thing, with most espousing freedom of the will. AA theology is somewhat distinct in that regard, although not entirely so, since it borrowed much from the Oxford Group. AA's view of alcoholism is more deterministic than the Oxford Group's view of sin, however.

I read your thread, Gary Zukav | . It may certainly be an interesting book, but much of it would nevertheless qualify as Addictive Voice. If in each desire, there is an opportunity to challenge the addiction, there must necessarily be a possibility of losing the challenge.

AVRT is not about strengthening one's "intention" to abstain, and gaining a little more power, one-craving-at-a-time. In AVRT, there is no "choosing again and again and again" in order to gain a little more power over the Beast each time that it barks, Gary Zukav style.

The Big Plan forces the loss of choice over the matter of drinking some more. Regardless of desire, the Structural Model shows us that the Beast has no power or capacity to act, and must always appeal to us, via the Addictive Voice. In AVRT, we welcome the AV, and do not seek to remove or weaken the underlying desire which gave rise to it.