I'll have to check out the article. I have had limited experience with addiction in my life, and I guess I'm thankful for that. However, I would think that having a support system such as AA would be much more effective than just trying to go it alone. Having people who have been there and understand is a powerful thing.

Slight derail, but does anyone else watch Intervention on A&E? There was a recent one with an alcoholic mom that was heartbreaking.

And Tipping is not just a city in China!

Don't forget to tip your server

And your cow

Hmmm - I put the "Anons" in a different category than those groups focused on addiction. I understand addiction effects family members and other loved one's and some of the tools of AA and other 12-step programs can certainly be used and be of benefit to those not facing addiction directly.

People can be codependent, enabling the addicts, and certainly can send their own lives out of balance if trying to deal with it. In that regards, I can certainly see the benefit some might derive from it. But making such a thing mandatory won't do much.

I went to a few Alanon meetings but never connected to the people there so I stopped going. In that regard I found other group sessions with both alcoholic and family/loved ones far more beneficial in understanding the disease, it effects, and healthier ways I can deal with it in my life as the "normie."

Oh and sessions, while not a 12-step program, usually closed with the serenity prayer but that didn't bother me (or the other self-identified atheists) - I just took it as metaphor.

Like some others here, I have a lot to say but will restrict my comments to a couple of semi-related points.

Over 20 years ago, I met someone whose idea about addiction was that many people who live with addictions are actually addicted to euphoria, which she defined as "an unearned sense of well-being". This definition obviously covers alcoholics and addicts, but also can include people who do unhealthy things to make themselves feel better, whether it be smoke a cigarette, eat lots of crappy food, play the stock market, or sit in front of a video game. Assuming that this theory is true, the stats in the OP would refer more to a "drug of choice" than anything else.

As far as the "anon" programs, I understand that many of them are based on the idea of codependency, which some describe as the concept of deriving your self-worth from the opinions of others. I don't mean to sound rude, but whenever I hear about someone who goes to many "anon" meetings because someone else "makes them go", I have to laugh, because letting other people decide how you run your private life is an indicator of codependency.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that the number of non-addicted smokers isn't large, just not 100% of the number of people who smoke. But I didn't have any numbers in support, just a feeling that it was a sensible statement (and a minor anality in being annoyed that the list was comparing different units).

So I got some help and tracked down some numbers. Not a deep literature search but it appears that depending on how you define "addiction indicators" about 50% of casual smokers (less than six cigarettes a day) show signs of addiction and somewhere between 85% and 95% of non-casual (six or more) smokers show signs of addiction.

Here's one study in particular, a CDC study of women in the United States. It defines a smoker as anybody who has smoked more than 100 cigarettes and at least one in the last 30 days. So, if those numbers, are approximately representative and the original list used the same definitions then of the 74.5 million smokers you'd expect about 60 million to be addicted. Of course, if whatever source that list uses had a more restrictive definition that cuts out the more casual end of the smoking scale then the percentage goes up. A British study gives a 5% non-addiction rate among regular smokers.

Not a hugely important distinction I just like lists to be in the same units of measurement. I'd still guess that technically caffeine addiction is higher in gross numbers. Except in Utah.

Ah, what little jems you discover after several weeks without internet!

I'm not going to spend too much time typing this cause I haven't had anything to eat all day and I'm quite hungry.

My feelings on addictions: it's all about self discipline and control (or lack of). I believe that anyone can control their behavior but it's up to each individual to discover that for themself. How & where someone gets that idea/inspiration is different for everyone. I've been to a few AA's before & can't really agree with people like Alex nor can I agree with Not Afraid. I don't think a program like AA is accurate in telling people they are powerless over their addiction or claiming alcoholism is a disease since it's not. However, the program has helped many people get their lives back together so it's definitely not some scam or fraud. I think God has already given us the power to better ourselves. We are not powerless. The problem is it's up to each individulal to realize that. As for not believing in God, I think atheism is stupid & childish but I'll save that for another thread.

Me personally, I'm not an alcoholic, but I am compulsive about the things I like (Disneyland, Madonna, Jazz, photography, computers, iSm, etc.) so I can get addicited if I let my behavior take control of me, rather than me controlling my behavior. I often give people the wrong impression of me, but I've been doing that most my life so I don't care much to correct anyone anymore.

The thing that annoy me about drugs is that only some are legal & others are not. I'd prefer they'd all be legal or all be illegal.


Anywho, those are just "some" thoughts of mine on this topic. ;)
Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a whopper with my name on it.

I don't know what the clinical definition of disease is, but I'm sure we each have our own turning point where a body malfunction becomes disease in our eyes.

I'm not sure that flooding the brain with dopamine is a disease. This happens with both alcohol and drugs, and it makes cravings stronger (to achieve similar pleasure satisfaction). Certainly the functioning of nerve cells is altered when they are releasing excess dopamine, but I don't think that's a disease, per se.

On the other hand, Heroine and Morphine cause other nerve cells to cease release of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA, the substance that prevents dopamine receptors from getting overstimulated. This is a more serious malfunction, physically preventing an important brain chemistry function and artificially upsetting a vital balance. I, myself, would call this a disease.

It's not claimed that alcohol causes this same effect. But is heroin addiction a disease, while alcohol addiction is not?

Perhaps.


And what about the cognitive disabiities associated with methamphetamine addicts? Brain scans demonstrate reduced levels of activation in the prefrontal cortex, where rationale thought can override impulsive behavior. It's not possible right now to say whether drugs have damaged these functions in meth addicts (i.e., an effect rather than a cause) ... but the cognitive defect existed in only some of the meth addicts in this study, suggesting there was something innate that was unique to them.


This inability to resist cravings or to make rationale decisions when it comes to imbibing drugs or alcohol is, I believe, the essence of whether or not overcoming addiction is simply a matter of will.

If the cognitive malfunction is caused by drugs, I'd call that a disease. If, rather, those who become addicted to drugs have an innate cognitive malfunction, I'd call it a disability.

In either case ... I'm willing to grant it's not a matter of purely free or strong will to combat methamphetamine addiction.



It's not been shown, as far as I can tell, that alcohol abuse results in or from the same kind of brain deficiencies as meth or heroin or morphine ... but I'm willing to keep an open mind that it's not simply a matter of having a strong enough will to resist.