Addiction in America
 

I was surprised by some statistics on addiction reported by Time Magazine this week, specifically regarding how many Americans are addicted to which type of substances or behaviors. I think our priorities to address and combat addiction are rather skewed, considering the reportedly true numbers of addicts and their actual addictions.

:cheers: Booze - 18.7 million people are addicted to alcohol, or 7% of the U.S. population. AA has 2 million members. 12,000 new people try alcohol for the first time every day.

:cool: Drugs - 3.6 million people are dependent on drugs. 700,00 are undergoing treatment for addiction. On average, 8,000 people try drugs for the first time each day. More then half of these are females under the age of 18. Marijuana, cocaine and pain relievers are the leading drugs of abuse.

:( Tobacco - There are about 71.5 million users of tobacco products in the U.S. About 23.4% of men and 18.5% of women are cigarette smokers, with cigarette use lowest in the Western states and highest in the Midwest. 44.3% of young adults ages 18 to 25 use tobacco, the highest rate for any age group.

:coffee: Caffeine - Caffeine is the most widely used mood-altering drug in the world, and is routinely ingested by about 80% to 90% of Americans, primarily through soda and coffee. A daily brewed cup of joe, with 100mg of caffeine, can lead to physical dependence. Withdrawal symptoms are experienced by 40% to 70% of those trying to quit.

:babette: Food - Food addiction affects as many as 4 million adults, and is strongly linked to depression. About 15% of mildly obese people are compulsive eaters. Binge eating, thought to be the most common eating disorder in America, is considered bulimia when a person purges to lose weight.

:confused: Gambling - Two million Americans, or 0.67% of the population, are thought to be pathological gamblers, wagering heedless of the consequences. An additional 4 million to 8 million are considered problem gamblers.

:rolleyes: Shopping - At least 1 in 20 Americans is a compulsive shopper. The addiction affects both genders almost equally.

:evil: Sex - About 16 million Americans suffer from compulsive sexual behavior, the least understood of addictions. A third are women. About 60% of all sex addicts were abused in childhood. An addict is dependent on the neurochemical changes that take place during sex and is consumed by sexual thoughts.

:cakes: The Internet - Like compulsive gambling, internet addiction is thought to be an impulse-control disorder that can disrupt social relationships. There is disagreement as to whether it should be formally considered a disorder. Though substance abusers strive for abstinence, an internet addict’s goal is to attain moderation.


Any surprises for you? Anything you care to discuss about addiction, resources and methods to combat addiction, myths and truths about addiction? Don’t get addicted to this thread, but please contribute - if you can handle it.

No surprises there for me.
I knew about my personal food addiction related to depression.
And I attended S-ANON meetings in my late teens.

And tobacco.... I was surprised by the highest age group.

I am one who engages in "retail therapy" ;)

Hard for me to say much useful on addiction. I have never smoked, never done any "illicit" drug more than once (technically tried LSD twice but the first dose was apparently a dud; to make up for it I have never taken the lightest of samplings of pot). Rarely drink caffeine and have an alcoholic drink maybe six times a year.

I can have sex any time I want it but it hardly interferes with my life and I have a shopping anti-addiction. I do like the gambling but again have never done it in a way that is at all dangerous to my lifestyle.

I'm fat but don't think I would qualify as having an eating disorder.

The internet is probably the closest thing but it is also my social environment and occupation and I have no problem experiencing life away from it either.

I will admit to simultaneously understanding that addiction is not a voluntary condition while feeling that becoming addicted is. So while I view the former as a medical condition I view the latter as a personal failure which renders me less than entirely sympathetic.

I do think that while it may be a medical condition, the move over the last 30 years to treat it on a disease model is not good. I consider AA to be a fraud (see that episode of Bull**** to understand my point of view).

I do not think addiction is sufficient cause for criminalization, nor do I consider it a public health issue. All drugs should be legal to any adults who want them and anybody who ends up in a bad relationship with those drugs has my sympathy and I hope they can kick the habit but they did choose (with very few exceptions) to get there, even if choosing to get back from there is not so easy. The societal evils of prohibition are far worse than anything that would result from decriminalization.

I have an eating disorder: I am bulimic. I just keep forgetting to purge.



Seriously though, I at times feel as though I have an addictive behavior, but nothing that seems to take over my life.

Addiction of one part behavioral / emotional and one part physical - at least substance abuse usually is. I have no clue about gambling or shopping (other than I like one and despise the other).

Oh lord I don't even know if I should start in on how horrifically wrong you are about this (regarding drugs). Losing the power of choice is a freaking scary thing. Doing something when you KNOW beforehand that you're going to end up in jail, or at best, in the hospital (or at worst, dead) as a result of that action and yet you have no choice to do that thing or you'll go COMPLETELY FREAKING BATSH8T and your mouth goes dry in anticipation and you cannot CANNOT thing of anything ANYTHING ANYTHING except getting something and needing something and DEAR GOD PLEASE MAKE IT STOP I DONT WANT TO DO THIS and youre SCREAMING in your head stop stop STOP....

Well yeah, it's a mental disease/condition. It is a disease in the same way that depression is a disease (a clinically depressed person cannot just "get over it".) With drug addiction specifically, addicts have had their brain chemistry altered (having to do with the pleasure centers of the brain). It is an obsession that cannot be turned off no matter how much willpower you think you have. There are people who are heavy users of their drug of choice, and there are people who cannot stop. The latter people we call addicts.

AA is a fraud? FYI there are a number of people on LOT that would be six feet under if it wasn't for AA. There are people who have been sober for decades through the 12 step programs who could not do it without AA. Even if you consider it to be brainwashing, if it makes hopeless addicts into responsible human beings actually contributing to society, then who the hell are you to judge?

Drug addiction not a public health issue? There are people who cannot control their drinking and then get behind the wheel of a car with or without their license.

Drunk driving not a public health issue? Doesn't affect anyone but the drunk now, does it?

The meth user will stop going to work, will alienate all friends, they drain their grieving parents and family members financially, they will lose the willpower to care about things like using condoms and ends up with AIDS which they then pass along to other people. Maybe they impregnate someone and then their baby is born HIV positive. I HAVE SEEN THIS HAPPEN WITH MY OWN EYES. But ho! They have my "sympathy". Boo hoo for them. Sorry, but f*ck your sympathy.

Addicts need treatment or they will die from the drug itself or various drug-related diseases and issues (and the vast majority take other people down with them). Addiction IS a public health issue. There are certain drugs which will drag you by your balls, screaming down into hell before you know what the f*ck hit you.

But ho, at least decriminalization will save a few dealers from lives of crime. How lovely for them.

Well stated Cherney. I applaud your post.

AA works for some but not all - and considering how powerful addiction is over ANYTHING that tries to help, it's a damn good thing it does work for some. Frankly, I think the people who AA doesn't work for don't really want help. They know they need it, even occasionally want it, but can't make it far enough to maintain some sort of regular recovery. Even in AA, relapses are not uncommon - such is the power of the addiction.

I've always thought that part of the problem with people getting help is the stigma associated with addiction. If someone gets cancer, they usually (not all, but usually) go to a doctor to get treatment. More often than not, an addict doesn't respond in the same logical way. Part of the issue is that addiction not only messes with the body, but messes with the ability to think coherently. It is a mental disease as well as a physical disease. We have a long history in the US of treating things that effect one's mind not as something to be treated pro actively, but as something sad and untreatable. Alcoholism and addiction is just as treatable as cancer, but the type of treatment is very different.

Yes, AA is a fraud. Now, frauds can help people but there is no indication that AA is any more successful than any other treatment out there including simply trying to go cold turkey. If you feel AA helped, then fine, but there is no objective reason to believe AA is anything more than a placebo effect. Like I said, watch the AA episode of Bull****. But if people want to do it then that is fine by me, my major complaint with it is that it is frequently legally mandated and despite what proponents will say, it is a religious program. If I were ever convicted of a DUI, odds are good that my government would give me the choice of going to jail or participating in a religious institution. That pisses me off, both at the government and at AA; the fact that it is placebo isn't good either.

Like I said, addiction is a condition beyond personal control. Becoming addicted is not.

Yes, drunk driving is an issue, it is not, however, and addiction issue. A drunk driver is just as much an issue whether or not the driver is an alcoholic.

I have seen meth addiction with my own eyes as well. Also people who destroyed their lives with alcohol, heroin, and pot. I still stand by my view of things.

People choose to take risks, just because the risk doesn't work out for them does not inherently make it a societal problem. People who choose to do drugs and become addicted have about as much sympathy from me as the base jumper who eventually gets a parachute that doesn't open. That's too bad, but you rolled the dice. I'm going to help if I can, but I don't consider it some kind of accidental disease.

So, you think I am horrifyingly wrong. And I think you are horrifyingly wrong. I suspect you'll have more people agreeing with you.

A program that has proven successful for a large number of people is a fraud? And so far, the evidence that you are providing is a single episode of an entertainment show? (I enjoy Penn and Teller, but their Bull**** program is just swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme on most topics, providing a HEAVILY slanted view of the given topic). And yes, I am sure you will find obscure testimony that also downplays AA. But the bottom line is that the program works for a vast majority of the people. Even if you believe that its success is strictly due to some placebo effect, does that make it a fraud?

There exists enough evidence (empirical, not anecdotal) to support the success of AA. Yes, there is some support to the contrary (particularly a Harvard study), so it is not a "slam dunk." No, AA is not for everyone and no, AA is not 100% effective. But its TRUE success rate speaks for itself.

I would say that it is a religious BASED program, not a religious program. I have brought this up with two different friends who have gained success through the program and BOTH have said that there are many non-religious options of the AA program.

But the bottom line is that if convicted of DUI, you have options: AA or jail. Would you prefer the only option to be jail? No one is forcing you to participate in a religious program - you always have another choice. However, I do agree that OTHER proven methods of alcohol recovery should be allowed - a third (fourth, etc.) option. But the bottom line is that no one is FORCED to AA (or at least shouldn't be - there have been a few exceptional cases of which the basis of has been thrown out in higher court appeals all the way to the Supreme Court).

But how about the second part of the statement that you are pissed off at AA that AA is an option to jail? What is the justification for this anger?

Then you do not understand the psychological aspect of this disease.

No one starts drinking (or taking drugs, et. al.) to BECOME an addict (OK, yes, there are rare exceptions to this, but they are quite exceptional). The transition is beyond their control. It is a psychological drive fueled by a physical driver. The psychological/physical balance is different for each case, but both aspects are present. If you believe that every person has the capability to prevent becoming an addict, then I flat out say you are wrong and that you need to research the topic more.

Thank god it is legally demanded or some LoTers might not be here today.

I wouldn't call AA a religious program. A spiritual program would be a more fitting description. There is a basic tenet you must accept - that there is a power greater than yourself and that you are not it. But, that's pretty simplified to be considered a religion. However, falsely believing it is a religious program keeps many people away.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it discounts factual information and the experiences of hundreds of thousands of recovering addicts. (And Penn & Teller are always right, RIGHT?)

You do realize that because of stigmas like the ones you present above, that many people who need help do not reach out and are unable to have the willingness or the means to better their lives? People relay experiences (very, very often) where they drank like fish starting at 11 years old when they tried their first drink. You rolled the dice kid, you got born to your cracked out mommy, tsk tsk shame on you!

Those people that you knew that destroyed their lives with alcohol, heroin and pot, they just killed themselves in their own little bubble world now did they? Dropped off the face of the earth without putting any strain on the healthcare system or their families did they?

Drunk driving is not an addiction issue? No, not every time. But jeez, if you're an addict who can't control your drinking (again, it is not a WILLPOWER issue) then how are you going to get home? If you get one DUI, then perhaps, oops you had one too many glasses of wine with dinner, and hopefully didn't run over someone's kid in the road. If you get more than one DUI, you REALLY gotta look at your drinking. If that one DUI puts you in AA and the thought of having to forcibly go there again turns you off of drinking heavily, then GOOD.

I'm glad that more people would agree with me. Sort of gives hope towards a general understanding and solution rather than a blind fumble into a pile of bull$hit.

drugs - back in my 20's I had a pretty serious meth habit. wasnt exactly called that then but I digress. got pissed off, almost killed someone in a blind rage over drugs and money, got scared, quit...never looked back. after it was behind me, never had the remotest urge to do it again. still don't


tobacco - geebus. cigs....100x harder to stop than meth. not a clue why, but it is. my mom died from smoking. my dad and my wife, smoking and booze. you'd figure I'd know better...and I do.

still...I havent stopped. Im workin' on it. at least its not a pack and a half a day anymore

its freakin hard.
stopping is easy. quitting, not so much

yeah, that surprised me a lot. kinda makes me sad


caffine - is it bad to say I dont want to and have no intention to ever stop? I know Im incredibly hooked. dont honestly care. not in the remotest

NA: That is a religious (spiritual if you wish) idea that I do not accept. And simply changing the word God to "power" does not make it any less religious than it did when Creationists moved on to Intelligent Design, which most here would reject as forcing religion into our science classes.

I do not accept that there is a force outside of myself controlling my life. And the fact that this "force" can be different things for different people just emphasizes the religious/spiritual nature of it. And every time a forced attendance case has made it into the federal appellate system the court has agreed.

The reason I think government agencies (as well as employers and insurance companies) find AA so attractive is not because it is so effective (AA has never officially released any numbers quantifying the success rates of their program and independent studies tend to find minimal improvement if any over controls) but because compared to other treatments it is, by far, much cheaper than the alternatives.

===

Kevy Baby, AA's own internal survey says that the 12-month effective rate for AA is 5% per year of participation. That is the same rate as among people who don't seek any treatment at all. So I hardly see how it could be said to be effective for the "works for a vast majority of the people." Among people who willingly seek treatment for alcoholism the success rate of AA is identical to pretty much every other moderated treatment method.

If 5% will be sober after a year no matter what, were the 5% who do so while attending AA give credit to being one of the lucky ones or to AA when actually that just happened to be where they were standing when it happened?

So, if you have empirical cites that AA works for the vast majority of people I'd be very interested in seeing them (note: I'm assuming "works" means that you're not drinking).

And being sentenced to AA is still a very common occurence. The fact that I consider it to require an unacceptable religious statement to attend (and NA says it is the only required thing you believe) that is unacceptable to me. No, if arrested for a DUI I would go to AA instead of jail for the same reason that if given the choice I would go sit in the mall food court for 30 days instead of going to jail. That is my justification for my anger. If it were entirely a self-chosen thing then I wouldn't really care about it at all in any way than I care about other forms of faith healing (defined as any treatment where failure is blamed on the willingness of the patient to be cured).

Nobody base jumps to find the one parachute that won't open but when it happens they are still responsible for having taken the risk. Yes, every person has the capacity to avoid becoming an addict. If you want to be certain of not becoming an alcoholic, then don't drink (or do whatever else you don't want to be addicted to). Of everything on that list above the only thing you can't abstain from is food.

I don't smoke because I don't want to become addicted to it and I consider it high risk. I'm pretty sure that so long as I keep making that decision I will never wake up to suddenly realize that I can't get through the day without a nicotine hit. That's the same reason I was willing to try LSD (low risk of addiction) but not heroin (high risk). Taking the risk is a choice, the outcome of taking the risk may not be. I do hold you responsible for making the initial choice even if I don't for the ultimate state you're in. I also hold you responsible for your behavior while addicted. Being a heroin addict may be explanation for why you robbed the convenience but it is not an excuse.

I'm willing to run the risk that 6-12 drinks a year will turn me into an alcoholic. If it does, my addiction will not be by choice but my exposure to the risk of becoming addicted will have been. And if I drive while drunk, I am responsible for that decision.

Personally, I don't find holding people responsible for the decisions they made to be a "stigma." It also doesn't mean that I don't want to help people deal with their situations and move themselves to a better place.

I have no problem with the idea that having a supportive social network will aid in finding the inner strength and desire to kick a habit (and still fail most of the time). I just don't buy that the specific 12-steps have anything to do with it which is why AA is generally found equivalent to other guided treatments.

===

Chernabog, of course they put strain on their families and the health care system. But that does not make it a public health issue except insofar as you accept that idea that any decision an individual makes that can conceivably result in a hospital bill gives the state an interest in prohibiting that decision.

And if so, then once again prohibiting alcohol should be everybody's single biggest public health issue. But while alcohol is legal I am of the opinion that heroin and vicodin should be legal.

Criminalize the bad behavior, not the decision. If you can do a half pound of coke a day and still be high functioning then, you're not a criminal and shouldn't be one just be the guy next to you will go out and rob convenience stores.

Prohibition of drugs and alcohol among minors is something I completely support for the very reason that they are not yet old enough to make informed decisions about their behavior. And if you were an alcoholic by 15 I have full sympathy for such people.

I still support, though, broadly available federally (and locally) subsidized dependency treatment for dependencies shown to cause serious immediate threats to the community and others. I just expect the treatments selected to bear up under the strain of proving effectiveness.

=====

I do find it interesting that alcoholism (and other addictions) seem to simultaneously be considered a physiological medical disease, but one best treated by apologizing to ex-girlfriends about bad behavior and talking it through in a group. What other medical disease is treated this way?

Why is smoking not generally treated using the 12-step method?

=====

Anyway, I didn't mean to cause a debate specifically about AA. iSm asked for thoughts on addiction so I shared mine.

I do not intend to minimize the difficulties and personal tragedies of addiction, though I wouldn't agree that my views on the nature of addiction do so.

And yet you also do not believe in Free Will, so if it's not you in control, nor an outside force - what is it that is in your cosmology?

Chemistry and physics. The key aspect of it that I am balking at is not "outside of myself." Obviously there are things outside of myself that affect me, change me, and direct me.

The part that I balk at is "controlling" in the sense that there is some force out there that is aware of me, of my condition, and can change it.

To my view, there is no non-religious (and I consider "spirituality" to just be religion without a church; government has no more right to force a view of spirituality on me than they do to force a specific religion) way to accept and say these phrases:

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His Will for us and the power to carry that out.

Now, if you want to argue that the outside force can be something completely disinterested in you, your condition, and your fate, then that is a different thing. But then those 5 steps out of the 12 have essentially zero meaningful content. A disinterested force cannot remove your shortcomings. A disinterested force cannot offer increased understanding of its will. It can not return you to sanity, at least not with an intent. It can not accept responsibility for our care, will, and lives.


===

One other thing, I don't mean to offer up that episode of Bull**** as a cite, but just a fair compendium of my views. And they were my views long before that episode existed. They were my views when I took the anti-mandatory view in a high school debate back in 1991. But in trying to avoid a long itemization of my views I just figured I'd point there. I don't expect (or ask) that anybody accept it as correct simply because it was on TV or because Penn Jillette said it while Teller stood quietly beside him.

All I can say is that I'm glad you're not an alcoholic or an addict, Alex.

Actually, it's likely that alcoholism and other addictions will become more and more treated (and more and more successfully so) with - heheh, ironically - drugs.

Treating the complex brain chemisty is going to be far more effective than talk therapy or will power for those who are physical addicts.

The "normal" pleasure procedure in your brain is for happy chemicals to be released, such as dopamine ... and they bind to receptors, providing that yummy jolt of pleasure. Any excess dopamine is taken back up by the nerve cell that released it. Other nerve cells release GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter that works to prevent the receptor nerve from being overstimulated.

Addictive substances not only increase the amount of dopamine, many of them (heroin and morphine, for example) actually block the release of the inhibitory neurotransmitters. This is a recipe for a fuctup brain.

Unfortunately, drug addiction also inhibits the cognitive skills of the brain ... making it far more difficult for addicts to make good choices, or to keep from relapsing. The damage done to brain's cognitive powers is kinda long-lasting ... which is probably why people who can keep from relapsing for a year or so are far more likely to refrain permanently.

Some people have messed up neurotransmitter reuptake chemicals to begin with. Some have cognitive disorders to start off. These people are far more susceptible to addiction. Yeah, I agree with Alex that the initial choice to take the risk is each individual's responsibility. That doesn't change that some folks have the brain chemistry deck stacked against them.

Most addicts are known to have the messed up brain chemistry and cognitive disorders ... but it's not known how much is the chicken and how much the egg.

The studies referenced in the Time article put the AA success rate at abouty 20%, with identical success rates for most other forms of treatment for both alcohol and drug addiction. That's better than 5%, but still rather poor. Drugs may change that.

I'm not one for wantonly overusing western medicine's pharmacopia for everything that ails ... but it seems to me drugs targeting brain chemistry or the stress network or hormonal conditions (female alcoholics tend to progress more quickly to alcoholism) are going to be more effective than talk therapy or will power exercises.



* * * * *

I guess I'm pretty fortunate when it comes to addiction susceptibility. There were about 5 years when I did cocaine every weekend for 8 weeks out the year ... and at no other time. For a few years, I smoked a half-pack of cigarettes a day, at work on a particular job. Never smoked away from work, stopped smoking with no effort when I changed jobs.

I smoked marijuana on an almost daily basis for 25 years. Cut back to once or twice a week with pretty much zero effort. I did lots and lots of LSD, a fair amount of ecstacy, and a good amount of mushrooms. But those are not particularly addictive drugs.

I did a little speed, didn't like it. Downers, hate 'em. Tried heroin once. Booze ... well, you all know I drink a bit socially. And that's it.

Heheh, I don't do caffeine at all.


But I've rolled the addiction dice pretty heavily, and I guess I was taking a fairly big risk. But when it became clear to me that I was not the addictive type, I re-assessed the risk at minimal.

Other people are not so fortunate ... and I can hardly judge them severely for taking the same risks I did ... but having a less lovely outcome.

Although there are probably a few minor similarities in the behaviors of alcoholics and addicts, I would not be inclined to say all are of the 'addictive type". I would say "short attention span" would be more like it. But, not everyone with a proclivity to this type of behavior will become an aloholic or addict. And, not every alkie or addict exhibits this behavior. You really have to look for the similarities between alkies and addicts. They aren't usually very obvious.

Oh, and never say never about become an addict or alkie. It can happen at any age if you've got the right body for the disease to live in. ;)


Re, drug therapy. I know of no current studies or attempts to create a drug that make an alcoholic or addict able to drink and use. There still disagreement over the concept of "disease" for anyone to get much past that.

I really have to hand it to iSm for an exceptional, insightful post. Thank you.
_____________________________

One detail on AA that both supporters and some opponents (as well as many researchers) admit: coming up with solid success numbers with AA is very difficult given their predominantly voluntary nature, their (mostly) lack of centralized organization (each group is for the most part autonomous), and the almost forced anonymity of the people who participate.

Why? The studies indicate that I have about the same chance of kicking it as anybody else? But can you explain to me how those five steps do not require belief of a religious nature? Or at least a belief that almost all of us would laugh out of the room if put forward in a biology class?

But I too am glad I'm not an addict. Addicts tend to do stupid **** and if I have one phobia it is embarrassment. Being addicted to something seems like a surefire recipe for me to be embarrassed a lot (which is why my one drink-to-puking-in-the-bar-on-the-waitress incident was enough to keep me to 6-12 ever since).


I agree with Steve that the treatments ultimately (though way off in the future probably) are likely to be pharmacological (either in drugs that can "cure" the addiction or in creation of drugs that can create the highs without addiction).

Steve, I believe the 20% study was a multi-year study (sobriety without treatment among alcoholics approaches 50% over a ten year span) and also self-selected. That is one irony I find in enforced-AA. That if AA does have a benefit it is mostly likely to manifest among self-selected participants (those who were already motivated enough to find assistance in quitting) which is a benefit largely negated by mandated participation.

Are you saying that an alcoholic has the same chance of recovering without any assistance as if he/she relied on AA?

From what I understand, most drugs are not going to attempt that, but rather help increase the ability of a person to resist cravings, or not have cravings. A few drugs are actually going to target the dopamine system ... which theoretically would allow an addict to drink or use drugs "safely."

But the real object of all drugs is the same as other therapies ... i.e., to have addicts NOT drink or use drugs. Having them be ABLE to use or drink is not the goal.

I'm saying that according the AA's own internal surveys of all participants, that would appear to be the case. The 1989 survey that was leaked showed the 5% success rate over one year which is the same as found among untreated alcoholics.

But neither am I saying that I recognized myself as an alcoholic that I would seek no treatment. I would not seek treatment through AA and pretty much every researcher agrees that AA shows no significant improvement over alternate treatments. I just do not think it is a useful part of the process to find a god.

I don't think AA is worried much about statistics (and the fact that the second initial stands for Anonymous make valid statistics difficult). It works for some if it is allowed to work and you work the program.


Re: religion. I guess we need to come to an agreement as to how religion is defined.

I don't think the acknowledgment of a concept of GOD is a religion, per se. But I do see what Alex finds objectionable about it. Those who don't believe in any concept of god should not be coerced into partipating in a process which requires that belief.

Fine. But as soon as you say statistics are unimportant then you're just in the same category as magnetic healing, psychic surgery, and wishful thinking. If it is effective in a way that can't be quantified then that is meaningless so far as I am concerned.

And despite how "anonymous" supposedly makes study difficult many studies have been done over the decades showing minimal differential effectiveness.

We can discuss what defines religion but the 12 steps certainly define this "force," conveniently called "god," in most of the steps in terms that would pretty much fit any of them.

It is an external force that is unmeasurable and differently defined for every individual and yet has an interest in our lives and will work to effect change outside of the restrictions of the basic physical properties of the universe. Yes, I can say my "power" is a rock, but if that rock has a will that I can gain a better understanding of and it can grant me the power to achieve that will then we've moved into religious territory and I don't want my government forcing that on me.

Again, I have no problem with people doing AA so long as it is completely voluntary. But we'd freak if any teacher in a public school asked students to engage in "prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His Will for us and the power to carry that out."

Why? Because in that context we'd recognize it as an unacceptable encroachment of religion into government.

The term "God" can be anything but yourself: The jar of honey in the cupboard, the Matterhorn, the granite peaks of Kings canyon, the man with the great white beard, Lounge of Tomorrow as a collective group. It's not the god of religion - although to some it is. Religion is NOT a requirement. The 12 steps are not a requirement - but they are suggested as a way to stay sober.

I'm kind of wondering what good metrics for success are in this realm of treatment.

There is the absolute of staying sober, but with relapse a common occurance do you measure a ratio of drunk versus sober days? Does a program fail if someone oes off the waon for a week and then returns? Is decreased usaage (implying more moderation) an acceptable measure?

Do people with sex addiction see abstinence as the only answer? How about eating disorders?

It seems to me one of the benefits of AA is it's attempt to keep things in the now - you may get drunk later, but for today, this hour, this minute, you commit to being sober.

I can imagine that it's a psychological advantage for AA members (or others in other types of therapy) to imagine that there is a force outside themselves that is assisting ... since they have themselves been such miserable failures at assisting themselves.


I think, for the most part, that's a fantasy. But so what? If it's a mental construct that works, I don't see the problem with it ... for those willing to indulge in it.




And for those who truly believe in an aiding spiritual force, and are not just adopting that belief on a temporary basis to help with their little problem ... well, they're completely right. There is.

There are numerous former drunks that post on this board. ALL of them got sober initially through AA. Is that quantifiable enough?

Bottom line is that, it works for some - those some even include the people who were court mandated to do it. Low and behold, some are not driving drunk any more.

Yes, your argument can be successful on paper, but in reality, whatever it takes to get a drunk sober is probably a good thing.

Yeah, like that'll happen.

So when you pray to the Matterhorn, what greater understanding of its will are you hoping for? How do you expect the Matterhorn to return your sanity? How is the Matterhorn going to remove my shortcomings?

Are you of the view that if a public school teacher said "I want every student in this room to pray to a god, any god you want because I think this will help you do better on tests; if you really find that objectionable I suppose you don't have to but I find it really helps" that this would be ok with you?

This power was certainly intended to be God when the whole movement started and redefining the word to meaningless is just the same stunt (as I mentioned above) the Creationists pulled on evolution.

It is like you saying that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have religious beliefs because they don't believe in the trinity. If that is what you believe then I can't argue you out of it and you can go on believing that there is no religion going on in Kingdom Halls. But I'm going to object strongly if told that I have to sit in there through a month's meetings if I want to avoid jail.

Of course, heheh, "some" are not driving any more, period.



In all honesty, I don't think "some" will be driving drunk when they are once again driving. And I honestly don't think AA had anything to do with that.


But I do credit AA with helping other folks I love here on LoT. That's enough for me to acknowledge a general goodness about it.

Oh, there's lots of "logic" that prevents people from getting sober through AA. I guess I don't really care about said "logic" because it is more important to be and stay sober than it is to try to understand what I don't understand - and that is why AA worked. That's far more important to me than logical answers.

I don't know Alex, I've encountered enough atheists in AA to know they figured it out for themselves how to work the program. In my recollections the one's that argued the most about the "God" factor usually seemed to use that as an excuse to keep drinking.

One person declared that "alcohol" itself was his higher power because obviously he had no power over it. Perhaps that doesn't make sense as a logical argument to the exact literal meaning text of the steps - but it worked for him.

Perhaps all that is important about the god thing is acknowledging that some things are unknowable, and that you are powerless over certain things? That seems to be the crux of the serenity prayer anyway.

No, honestly it isn't. I'm not at all saying that people who go to AA don't get sober, I'm saying there is little evidence that people who go to AA get sober at a significantly different success rate than people who don't go to AA.

I can provide millions of people who believe that horoscopes accurately predict their life, that doesn't make it so.

If it actually does anything. And if it does actually do anything it will be a quantifiable difference. If no matter what 5% each year will go sober, then the 5% who do it cold will think they are giants of willpower. The 5% who do AA will give AA credit. The 5% who try hypnosis will think it was the greatest thing ever. The 5% who find god will credit god.

The 95% who went to AA will just move on. The 95% who tried willpower will just move on. Then 5% of those 95% will find success in the next year with whatever they are doing and they will say "wow, this works so much better than that thing I was trying before."

Now go one step farther and create a society where everybody is pressured to believe that the only effective treatment is Treatment X so almost everybody who tries to kick the habit tries it with Treatment X and then 5% of the people get better. It will certainly look like Treatment X should get the credit for every sober person.

Show me a solid differential then I will grant that it is even worth considering forcing people to AA. There is no clear evidence of this so if you want to claim it, that's fine, but it has all the power of someone saying that sunspots are causing global warming because it seems to make sense to them.

But I still won't accept it because it is religion (even if loosely defined) and a fundamental bedrock of our nation is that nothing is more important than not forcing religion on someone. And if given a choice between pretending to religion and going to jail I'd like to think I'd stand by my principals and go to jail but I wouldn't. That doesn't make it ok, though.

I hope not, but alcoholism is a powerful disease. And, the cats broke my crystal ball. ;)

You know what's odd.....I can name only ONE person - of all of the thousands of people I know - that got sober without AA. I know lots of sober people who went to AA and i know lots of drunks. But, only one who did it another way.

And I know quite a few people who just reached a point in their life and stopped drinking despite years of near daily excessive consumption. My dad drank about two six packs a day and several bottles of Kahlua a week (gross) until he was 40 woke up one day and said "I'm sick of feeling like **** every morning" and that was that.

But that is anecdotal too and has no more value than the people you know.

The experts, when they study these things find similar results regardless of method. And, regardless of method, the results over the short term are poor and requires years upon years before you even get a majority of successes.

There is a huge perception bias. At any given time the core of an AA meeting are going to be the success cases. If you have a group and every week a group of ten people gathers. If there are two new people who show up, make it two meetings, then disappear and are replaced by two new people who do the same, but also a core group of 8 people who stay sober for the full year, attending every week, you are going to say "wow, everybody I know has found great success with AA" but tend to forget about the 52 people who completely failed to find any help.



I am still curious, would you be ok with a high school teacher saying this to his class:

If you're fine with that, then we definitely just have to disagree. If not, what is different about AA that is ok for a judge to require me to go listen to someone say it to me?

I guess I agree with this ax your grinding, but honestly I kind of put it up there with the whole "God" in the pledge of allegiance thing, and the "In God We Trust" motto emblazoned on our money - that stuff shouldn't be there either, but as a pragmatic atheist I just chalk it up for living in predominantly Christian culture

By the way, I hope nobody is getting upset by this. I am enjoying the discussion and while I am honestly expressing my view I hope nobody thinks I am just trolling or trying to hurt feelings.

I know it is a very personal issue for a lot of people here.

Bottom line - taking a test is not a matter of life or death. No, I wouldn't be ok with it. However, I'm perfectly fine with requiring people convicted of a DUI to go to AA. I'm not saying it is logical.

BTW, the Judge who is responsible for this whole thing is a local guy - Judge Leon Emerson. He's quite an interesting man. I wish I could in writing what we discussed IRL. He has a pretty great (IMHO) opinion on this whole deal.

Chris,

I agree on the pledge of allegiance and in god we trust on coins. But at no point am I legally required to participate in the pledge of allegiance (and I haven't said it myself since 2nd grade).

But if I were told by a judge that I could either go to jail or have the pledge of allegiance recited to me every day then I would take a much stronger view about the inclusion of god.

If ever there is clear case law saying that non-12 step programs must be offered (I am ok with someone selecting AA among options) made available then 70% of my objection will go away.

I'll still argue with claims that AA is particularly effective but it will be purely academic like arguing about homeopathy. I'll have a point of view but don't really care what people decide to do on their own.

The judge who is responsible for what whole thing?

Just to be clear, you agree it has some religious element, since it is over the line for what would be acceptable in schools (if it had none, it should be fine in a school too) but that the benefits of AA, in your view, outweigh the negative of forcing that level of religious content on someone.

If so, we've made progress. We're no longer debating an axiom. I still disagree but it is on a completely different level.

You know, if it works and does less harm than NOT doing it, then who are we to argue. Personally, I'd rather be sober than have my liver being pecked away by the vulture of alcohol. I'd rather people NOT drive when drunk. I'd rather friends no ruin their life by drinking too much. But, really, all I care about is me.

The judge who developed the "AA as a requirement" program.

I still wouldn't call it religion. I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian - now THAT is religion. AA has NOTHING on Christianity as I've experienced it.

There are also MANY MANY atheists who have gotten sober through AA. I think it is possible to be an atheist and still get benefits from the program of AA.

The "Big Book" also has a chapter devoted to agnostics. not QUITE the same, but remember this was written in the "dark ages". Nor am I a scholar of AA texts. I just do what works for me - which is better than the alternative.

You do realize that the chapter on Agnostics essentially says "don't be sad if you're agnostic, once you find god it will get better"? It does not say you can be agnostic and successful it says that by casting aside your agnosticism you will find success. Agnoticism and atheism are repeatedly described as unreasonable, ignorant, prejudice.

I had never read that chapter of the Big Book (I've read other parts) but I do think that it rather supports my point of view. Now I'm even less inclined towards it being mandatory.

Just some highlights, bolding mine.

You know, now despite your disclaimer it looks like you are picking a fight. AA was founded by at least one minister (my program knowledge is not to be relied on) and was based on a religious program. It thus bears those artifacts - like our pledge, words on money, opening prayers in Congress. Yup God and religion are there - I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this?

There are atheists in the program - I don't know how they reconcile these passages, but I assume not everyone takes it so dogmatically as it is written (though certainly some do).

But if you feel so strongly about this, you can always choose jail time on your next DUI. Perhaps recovery statistics for doing time have a better sobriety success than AA.

OK,
I had a long response to many points that once I hit submit, it kept asking me to log in (even though I was) so I am taking it as a hint from a higher power (even if that is a SQL database) that I am not supposed to respond to Alex point by point. (I lost the post twice)


Bottom line is this:
It looks like you think treatment centers and court ordered programs to be AA. They are not. Read AA's traditions:
"An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose."
You call AA a "farce" yet you have know personally many people whom it has helped who would not have a chance had it not been for AA.
If you consider something that has saved many of your personal friends lives a farce, than that seems like a slap in the face of those friends.
It looks t me like you are picking a fight based on closed mindedness and misinformation, and I for one do take it personally.

Well, I suggest you go to an open meeting and see if you can corner someone there after the meeting is over. I'm sure they will want to spend their time talking to someone who doesn't have an alcohol problem because, that really would be worth their time. People go to meetings to get and stay sober. Period. The book has some great suggestions for doing that and the people that actually want to get sober in AA are usually in such a desperate state that the will accept help and suggestions. People don't usually go to AA meetings for fun and pleasure - at least at first. It's not a religious environment - but you surely can make it out to be one if that's the excuse you need to continue drinking.

You're not going to convince me that it is a religious program. You can try and convince someone who needs to get sober and doesn't want to that that's a good reason to say away, though. That will be really helpful.

Actually it was founded by a stockbroker/ con-artist (Bill Wilson) and a doctor (Dr. Bob). It was based off of the Oxford Group which did have religious connotation but was changed to be open to anyone. Also instrumental in helping/influencing those 2 with the start of the program were Dr. Silkworth, Carl Jung, and Emmet Fox.

I'm fairly open about my experiences here on LoT but I never have shared what a very serious struggle getting sober was for me and how it took me over 10 years to get to where I'm at now. I'm not inclined to do that here because, frankly, if you haven't been through it you wouldn't understand. That's where AA meetings are so helpful. You don't have to "prove your point" first, you can just concentrate on getting and staying sober. It saved my ass and literally my life.

The end.

Well when six people you know who tried do do it on their own have died within the last year of overdoses, suicides, accidents, and let's not forget my dear friend Beverly who was strangled to death by her boyfriend when they both decided to do it on their own and relapsed (funny things happen when you're on meth, tee hee)(oh yeah, and he's in jail permanently) then you sort of get a skewed view of how well "doing it on your own" works.

I know not one person who has been able to maintain sobriety for an extended period of time on their own. NOT ONE. Some people are able to come back into the program, and some of those people are dead or in prison due to their using.

When you go through a facility where over 60% of the people who have been through it are sober FIVE YEARS LATER, and the 12-step program is an integral part of that program, then yeah, you tend to have a little faith. (When you come back from the dead it also tends to give you a little perspective, but I digress).

If we're all just a bunch of meaningless molecules spinning through space, then how bleak and pointless getting up in the morning becomes.

So yeah, it is a personal issue because it is something I have to deal with every motherf*cking day for the rest of my life and how DARE you call it a farce.

I'm going to sleep. :mad:

Thanks, I knew there was someone out there to help get past my own laziness to do some research.

Hey, I have to wonder if I'm sorry I brought this up. I know several people here have struggled with addiction, and I had hoped we could have a reasoned discussion about it ... although I assumed passions would come to fore.

I myself have always been fascinated with the subject. I have friends and family members who have sufferered terribly from it ... and my own seeming immunity has boggled my mind at times.


I can see both sides of the coin here ... and I don't see the harm in going so far as to say AA is no more helpful than any other program, or indeed no more helpful than no program at all (if Alex is correct that just as many people stay sober through their own efforts as do via participation in a program).

That's NOT to say AA is not helpful. It may not be as helpful as anything else, but it's obviously helpful and we have first-person "testimony" right here on the LoT to demonstrate that.


I also don't care that it's got religious undertones or doctrine. Um, has it been around for more than 50 years? If so ... almost anthing in the country that's been around for more than 50 years has got religious undertones or doctrine. I don't see what the big deal is.

Yes, the criminal justice system coerces people to participate. As pointed out, it's cheap and easy, and the government makes you do it. Yes, it's not the most fair and just thing on earth. Can we just accept that and stop railing about it. There are tiny injustices everywhere.

Perhaps this one isn't exactly "tiny." Frankly, it was beyond stupid for Mr. "Some" to be forced into AA. It was a waste of his time. It was also, by the way, not experienced by Mr. "Some" as a religious program.

But being that there are thousands of independent AA meetings every hour in this country, I'm sure their are religious ones ... and political ones, and medical ones, and pizza-eating ones, etc., etc.


* * * * *

Personally, I think the more interesting discussion is not an argument about whether AA is effective or religious ... but rather why it is effective (to whatever degree it is). Why is acceptance of a power beyond yourself useful to combat addiction and relapse.


As I've pointed out before ... there's the obvious of not being able to trust yourself or rely on yourself as a basic condition of addiction. While I would hope that addicted persons could call up extraordinary resources within themselves to combat their addiction, I don't see why they should have to. Employing the idea of an outside "power" (whether it be fiction or truth) seems to be a reasonable tactic for potential success.


* * * *

For myself, though I'm not an addict, I've been pummeled by brain chemistry quite a bit (not surprising, considering all the things I've ingested that mess with brain chemistry). I've been fortunate in that in simply gaining the knowledge about particular brain chemistry functions and reactions was also gaining the power to combat them. Just knowing that feelings or cravings or emotions were the result of unusual brain chemistry that would normalize over time - enabled me to override or ride things out.

I didn't much like the thought of being at the mercy of my chemistry. And I was able to find inner resources to battle that ... resources that I might never have sought if I thought, as addicts must have for eons, that my depressions and cravings and crazy emotions were "real."

Of course, it's unlikely things ever progressed far enough to impair my basic cognitive abilities. If they had, then perhaps I would not have been able to put up a fight or would not have thought of doing so.

From what I've read recently and over time, it's the impairment of basic cognitive abilities that really fux addicts over. But - for those who don't become addicts via their cognitive disabilitie - these abilities mostly return over time ... perhaps a year or more. That's why those who don't relapse for a year or so end up with better results - - and why the longer you go between relapsing, the more successful your sobriety or abstinence will be.

If AA helps to go that important year or more without relapsing, who cares if it's got god in the mix? Who really cares if it's applied a little unfairly by the DUI system, or if it doesn't work any better than anything else?

This is all my opinion as someone on the periphery of the program, but I think what makes that useful is the acknowledgment that you, the alcoholic, are not in control of the things you think you are. That enables you to focus on what you can control - getting to a meeting (i.e. doing something other than drinking). A lot of people (and not just alcoholics) mess themselves up projecting far in the future worrying about things they have very little control over. In that respect the od thing could be seen as a thought experiment to keep you in the now, and keep you focused on recovery.

I think there are a lot of great tools that can be learned from AA (again, not just for alcoholics or other addictions). Perhaps it's all sympathetic magic - stuff people could do without AA - but it seems enough people lack those tools that they are a revelation to many who enter the program.

Alex has repeatedly used the 5% statistic to show that AA is ineffective, but without more information about that number (or any number), it's practically meaningless. Without knowing what constituted success in that study, or who was in the sample group, or the other variables that went into it, you are (ironically) just accepting it on faith. (The line about lies, damn lies and statistics comes to mind here)

There are many people I love, on this board and off, who have gone through AA and gotten better, and just looking at the Wikipedia page for AA just now revealed several studies that demonstrated AA's effectiveness. Until I can determine why/whether the figure cited above is so accurate, then I give at least as much weight to these other studies and our anecdotal evidence.

Besides, even if AA only represents a path to sobriety for those who have already chosen to get there, that makes it much more than a fraud, and I am grateful for it in any case.

Quite possibly because people will do for others what they won't do for themselves. A person whose lack of self love has led them down this path in the first place (eg: willingness to do something they KNOW isn't good for them, but it's their choice to make and they make it) might not care enough about themselves to face the struggle. But when you bring "other" into it, now they acknowledge how their behavior affects those who do not have control over (the original person's) behavior. Now they have some responsibility to others whom they may love more than themselves, or at least not want to be the cause of harm to others.

Can't atheists' "higher power" be logic? Natural law?

Hear, hear. I have seen the good it's done, and that is good enough for me.

Also. "Fraud" is an inflammatory word, Alex; any number of disclaimers will not disguise the fact that you jumped into a discussion with a large number of AA members, expressing your disdain for their choice of recovery. Surely, you may be enjoying the discussion-- but when you use that kind of inflammatory language you come off as petulant and, yes, trollish. If you hadn't wondered that yourself, you wouldn't have used the word first.

You know - I'm kind of uncomfortable that this discussion has been more about AA/12-step programs instead of addiction, since the best people to talk about AA are the one's who have been in it and to comment about it breaks their anonymity.

I'm not sure what value a discussion about AA between people outside of it really has.

*****

That said I find addiction baffling as it is one of those things that's hard to define. I can match drink for drink with an alcoholic and yet the effect is quite different for me, so it's not a measure of how much.

It's easy to point to people and speculate about them being an addict (whether or not they agree), but what really is the marker?

A traditional definition is when the substance/activity starts to interfere with the rest of your life, and yet I bet we can all point to "functional alcoholics" we've know in our lives.

Maybe I need to read the article mentioned in the OP.

Why, yes! Good point.

I just want to comment on Penn & Teller... I used to find them entertaining; back when they actually entertained. For that last few years, all they seem to want to do is debunk everything. I now find them strident, humorless, and boring.

I have very little patience with people who take their beliefs to the extreme - be they religion, politics, or whatever. Extremism and narrow-mindedness in the name of rational thought is just as bad as extremism and narrow-mindedness in the name of irrationality. It is just as impossible to change the mind of someone who fervently dis-believes as it is to change the mind of a fervent believer; because neither have an open mind. Dogma, is dogma, is dogma.

I've been meaning to say that your icon choice in the OP was bloody brilliant!

Hmmm, I didn't consider that bringing up the subject of addiction around members of Alcoholics Anonymous might defeat the anonymity of some folks. Not that it's been any kind of secret as far as those who have responded thus far, to their credit.

Openness and honesty and willingness to share among friends are wonderful attributes, and I loathe the thought of such people coming under attack. If it was not meant that way, please nonetheless modify the approach, Alex. I'm still, I regret to say, a little touchy for coming under attack as a result of my own openness and sharing.


I've said it before ... but one of the things I most like about the LoT, and other forms of non-i.r.l. communication ... is the ability to share deeper stuff than what's likely to come up in person.

This is different from previous incarnations of friendships in my life ... ironically, because of drugs. My pals and I used to trip on LSD quite frequently ... and, roughly a third of the time, we'd end up sitting around talking ... revealing deep stuff to each other, and gaining much understanding and groking of our friends and ourselves.


Nowadays, I see my friends in the real world almost exclusively in fun, social situations. Deep discussions happen far less frequently.

To use an example ... I see Chernabog Joe less often than I'd like. And when I do, we are having a good time with a light mood ... and though I'd like to know more about his previously dire situation, I never break the mood to ask what it was like to be a depraved junkie, ya know?

I've learned more in this thread thru his candid and brave revelations of his junkie thought processes than I have in dozens of times seeing him in person.


The LoT is great for light fluff, and it's great once in a while for deep stuff. It's ok to have a back-and-forth discussion, but let's please not stifle the ability to share some deep stuff. Speaking from experience, people may be less likely to continue sharing if they perceive they are being attacked for what they reveal.



I've never done this before, but I'm going to quote from a mojo comment I received, without revealing the mojoer's identity of course.

Well, It certainly wasn't my intention to stifle conversation - I just found myself (and others) in a position of speaking with authority over an issue where really I have none.

Of course, we all can speak with authority about our own experiences, but as far as AA goes, I am more observer than participant and I think those two experiences are quite different.

I'm happy when people can speak with candor here, but on the flip side I want to make sure we respect people's privacy - while I like the closeness of our community, it still is a public forum and accessible to anyone who's willing to do a google search.

I have a very addictive personality. My dad is an alchoholic, and my sister and I are sure we got the "gene." I have had more than my fair share of addictions. I think that AA does a lot of good for a lot of people. At one point my mom was going to Al-anon. The most important thing she learned from that was that his alchoholism was not her fault, and out of her control.

When I was 18 I tried crank (meth) for the first time. That was all it took. I was hooked from the first line. I have very little sinus tissue left because of it. I never shot up or smoked it.

When I was 20 I woke up one day and looked in the mirror. I took a long look. I decided I didn't like who I had become. I liked that I was thinner, but I could admit I looked like crap. That morning I flushed everything down the toilet and walked away from that lifestyle. I stopped hanging around with those people, made new friends. I focused on my school work and made the Dean's list.

I have no tollerance for Team Challenge. I know of only 3 people that have remained drug free after 6 months.


For me it has been 19 years since I did the flushing. I have never, ever regretted it. Yeah, I smoke cigarettes, but that is all I will smoke. I have no problem with what other people do, but it is just not a lifestyle I ever want to go back to. I also have a wonderful young man in my life and I need to be a good role model for him.

And so, frankly, it doesn't help to disregard the (weak) anonymity of screen names. It's not a giant deal, but constantly referring to people by their real names is, while not a taboo, sort of poor internet manners.

I just made the same minor faux pas in a post above - and in a tight community like this, I don't really think it's that big a deal. But still.



I also sometimes post in a much smaller, also very tight internet community message board ... one where real names are used pretty much exclusively. It's kinda nice that way, very friendly-seeming ... the acknowlegment that we are all pals in real life.

BUT ... I once posted something there that got me in big trouble. My first name and rather iconic last name were all over that site, and my name then got published in newspapers with my troublesome internet quotes, and I started getting flak for it in the real world. Not Good.



So perhaps in threads about addicts, or just generally as custom here, we can try to stick primarily to using screen names, huh? If you want to choose to use your real name for your screen name, that's your perrogative, but I think it's best to respect the wishes of others to maintain their minor anonymity.

(When I cross-posted an el jay entry recently, I went thru the trouble of changing everyone's real names to their LoT screen names. It was a silly exercise, but I was observing LoT custom nonetheless.)

No, it's not a measure of how much or when. A person can switch from normal drinker to alcoholic quickly or slowly; at a young age or at an old age; by having one daily drink, lots of daily drinks or just the occasional binge. It's not about how much a person drinks but what happens when a person drinks. It's very much a PHYSICAL illness that effects the mind as well as the body.

There usually is no marker - although some people show signs of the disease from the start. In others, it takes time to manifest itself. Just like cancer starts as a small cell mutation, alcoholism may start with few warning signs. However, by feeding the disease, it continues to grow.

The baffling part about addiction is the mental trickery that goes on. That trickery is precisely why the concept of AA seems to work. The alcoholic has no power over the disease so, by giving the power over the disease away to a "higher power" the disease can be fought.

This has been, I must say, a fascinatingly deep discussion.

On the other hand, I agree that if ALL our conversations were this deep, things would become rather tiresome. I think I appreciated depth in moderation.

I am grateful for it being there to help the people that I care about.

I agree with NA's comment about not having to explain/prove yourself here. I think the person whom I know attends meetings feels the same way. You just can't get it.

I have been to only one meeting, it didn't feel like a church event.

I do know people who went to meetings because the court ordered it. Or rather, perhaps, it ordered them to do something. They never intended to become sober or deal with their problems. They are now dead.

Someone said to me 'I don't get AA, I mean, a bunch of people dying for a drink sitting around talking about drinking'. But I don't think it was talking about drinking but rather their experiences and how low they went and how they don't want to go there again.

Our family has very strong addictive genes. Some say {and this is going to get flamed but here goes} that the Indian blood has something to do with it. {I always thought it was the way of lifestyle but what do I know?}

Also, I know there is a lot of depression in the genes. One counselor suggesteded the addicitons were people self medicating?

I personally have been able to stop whatever I'm doing when I've chosen to. I had a drug of choice and when I chose to stop, I did. When I set my mind to lose weight, I did. People couldn't believe I didn't have a problem stopping the drug use and everyone talked behind my back that I must be on drugs or have had surgery!

Final word, from me, {I hope} whatever works to keep you sober and sane, do it. Life is too short to be wasted. And, so many people have left this earth way too early because of it.

Temple of the Dog did a song, 'Say Hello To Heaven' and I dedicate to the people whom I've lost. :(

I don't want to lose anymore.

Hmmmm, and my mom's a pill-addict. Been in and out of recovery x number of times.



Genetically, that would mean I'm prone to it. As it turns out, though, it's just another indication I'm eerily addiction-immune.

alphabassettgrrl~my hubby, too.

iSm~in my family, out of nine of us, it is hit or miss. But, my parents were non-drinkers and clean.

{so much for my final word...:rolleyes: this really too deep for just one post, I guess...}

You're still young. ;)

I have never tried an illegal drug. I've never smoked a cigarette. I've never been seriously drunk. (slightly buzzed, but no more).

And that's intentional. I know that if I tried something and it gave me an amazing experience or made me feel great - or even just made me stop feeling miserable for a moment - I'd stop at nothing to do whatever that was as often as I possibly could.

One of the many great things about LSD - from a practical perspective - is that, besides being non-addictive, it was pretty much abuse-resistant.

It does indeed provide a "wonderful experience" and makes you "feel great" ... but it is non-effective if repeatedly ingested. I've found, in fact, that it takes a break of about a week before LSD will again have its full effect on a partaking person.

(Of course, this simply meant that I would only take acid once per week ... and that's a habit, but it was not possible to become abuse.)

With LSD -- when my mind wanders, it tends to go very unpleasant places. I'm concerned that would inspire the infamous "bad trip."

Honey it is possible to get mentally addicted to any drug (or any THING), whether or not it is physically addicting in the sense of withdrawal symptoms, etc.

Hmm.

I've sort of been treading lightly around the board since the "pancake" incident. I had no idea this thread existed until the Chernamate asked me my opinion on it. I have to say, I enjoy the irony inherent in the OP. I don't know that I've seen Ism (even THAT'S funny!) sober on more than a couple of occasions. I think what you've written here is very thoughtful, clearly you've done quite a bit of mental reflection on the question of your own potential addictions.

I think that most drugs should be legalized. I would hope that social acceptance and education would lessen the desire for and availablity of some of the more devastating drugs, crystal meth in particular.

I've always enjoyed Penn and Teller, until I sat through their BS episode on AA. At no time has that organization gone out of its way to convert anyone who didn't want what it had to offer. When someone receives a "nudge from the judge" to attend AA meetings, they aren't required to participate in any way. They're simply there to get their court card signed. What is it, 9 meetings? 10 Meetings? Pffft. If, during their time there, they gain some education on the devastation drinking has caused in other people's lives, they may never become the type of problem drinker that ends up in AA. AA does not accept funding from outside sources, no one's tax dollar has ever gone into AA's coffers. AA doesn't recruit, it is a resource available to anyone who needs or wants it. Members are free to come and go as they please. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to question another member's right to be in an AA meeting. AA doesn't put out political screeds, exhorting its members to vote this way or that, doesn't put its name behind sanctioned dry-out clinics, and doesn't collect any sort of membership fees. All-in-all, it is as disorganized an organization as has ever existed. Frankly, I'm surprised that AA is able to collect any statistics at all. Thousands of meetings are off the AA radar, as each meeting runs itself as its own members see fit. I once heard someone say, "Call it brainwashing if you will, but what better brains to wash?"

Many of you know that it's been many years since my last drink or drug. Trust me, if my life was in any way manageable while still drinking, I never would have given it up. I love a gin and tonic. I love a long island iced tea. I love sparking up a doob.

I don't love not having a driver's license. I don't love stealing out of your cash register. I don't love seeing my boyfriend arrested in my apartment for stealing the neighbor's VCR. I don't love seeing him die of his addictions. I don't love that I miss him so much that I'm sobbing as I type this.

My life is better sober. My life is productive sober. My life has potential sober. Drinking and using, I lose my business, I lose my apartment, I lose my self-esteem. I try to have sex with your boyfriend and I become an unlikeable prick. To paraphrase, in exchange for putting aside the drink and drugs, even if it's for just one day, I have received the vast potential of the rest of my life.

Well, apparently Divine Universal Intelligence has decided that I'm to revisit the topic of Steve's (my ex) death. This morning, on my way to work, I saw the guy that was Steve's BF when he died. I hauled a u-turn in the middle of Vine street hollering this guy's name, he was just as freaked to see me as I was to see him. I haven't seen this guy in about 5 years, when I moved out of crazyhouse. Why I moved into crazyhouse in the first place deserves it's own thread. Anyhow, I found out about Steve's death about two years after the fact, from the people who had moved into the house when Steve died and his BF moved out. Nobody contacted me, and I had no contact number, or even a last name to work with for the BF. I didn't have much of an emotional reaction at the time, because I had anticipated Steve's death for such a long time.

This morning I finally lost it.

After getting his number and getting back into my truck, I experienced the kind of howling emotional freakout normally reserved for seeing airliners crash into skyscrapers.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked. A large part of living sober is learning to live with unresolved issues. I've been given an incredible opportunity to lay some of my worst demons to rest.

Think what you like, this, to me, is evidence of a Higher Power at work.

I know that I am coming into the party very late, but since I dont post on the weekends, I felt like I ditched the thread.

I have to say that I know a great many people feel they owe their lives or their sanity to AA.
Good for you, I am glad it worked for you.
If you started going to church after your recovery, again, I am pleased.

I however, have to admit that I'm with Alex. To me, its bs. I attended AA meetings with a friend, and attended NAnon, and S-anon meetings after that.

Now, WHY... on earth did I want to sit on the s-anon meetings aas long as I did? I was told that becuase of another family members addiction that I needed them.
For two years I sat there and listened to how I would always be screwed up, and never have a normal relationship because of my relationship to an addict.
This is what it had done to the rest of my life.
Never mind that I hadnt shared a home with that addict for over ten years.
But I had the markers.
I was co-dependant, I was this, I was that.
And they wanted me to follow thier steps to get out of a situation that they felt I had, and no one had bothered to ask me about?

There are a great many addictions, I'm aware of that. And the type or even the level of addiction changes everything from one person to another.

I am not surprised by the stats in the OP. I am saddened by them.
But I cannot tell any one how to recover from their adiction, nor can I ask or prod anyone to.
How am I to know they wont think exactly what I did? That I am the one saying they are ill, or an addict, when they dont think they are.

My two cents.

Ponine~ While I know people who have benefited from AA, I also feel as you do about myself and Al-Anon.

While going through all that we have, we were told to go to Al-Anon. To help us deal with these people. {the ones who have passed away} I was like, no way. I don't need help, they do and they aren't even trying so don't tell me I have the problem.

I never went to those meetings and I am fine. Sure, there are always issues to be dealt with but in time I feel I can.

So, like with the AA meetings, if you need them, go. I guess there are people who go to Al-Anon and get from them but not me.

And, I didn't like how it was presented to me, like here, you are having problems in accepting this/these person/people, this is what you need. Nope, what I needed was them out of my life and that solved it all. Of course, them dying wasn't the answer I wanted but that was out of my hands.

Gn2Dlnd~I do think that is amazing that you saw this person right after your post.

Not to dial things back to Square One, but I am surprised and dismayed by many of those stats.


Wow, 18 million American Alcoholics is alot. So why is all the political hay made about the (comparatively) paltry 3.6 million who are drug addicts? I'm not for prohibition, which was morally wrong and absolutely unworkable ... but obviously the booze problem is many magnitudes more dangerous than the drug problem.

Ironically (or maybe quite purposely), keeping booze legal and drugs illegal makes sure that the violence associated with both types of substances remains at maximum.


Then ... 18 million alcoholics and .... 16 million sex addicts?!!? Ok, sex addiction probably doesn't wreck lives to the degree that alcohol addiction does ... but if the numbers of sex addicts approaches the astronomical numbers of alcoholics, that's big news that's been swept under the rug.


Last on my dismayed list is that there are only 1.5 times more drug addicts than gambling addicts. Gambling addicts destroy their lives as surely and completely as any meth head ... so again, a problem this large has been swept under the rug.


Follow the money, and you'll see why some addictions get no press, why others are kept criminilized and warriorized, and others are legal to pursue and abuse.

Pfft, 71 million tobacco addicts makes all others pale in comparison.

You can't tell them how to recover, but you CAN set boundaries and limits to what type of behavior you will accept from the addict. I think that is where Alanon tries to help. I don't know much about alanon. I did go to a women's retreat one time with both AA and Alanon women and I wanted to slap 90% the Alanon people - bunch of whiners. But, setting boundaries ad limits hasn't been one of my bigger problems in 25 years or so. ;)

I think all of the programs are about responsibility. What you are responsible for and what you are not. Somehow our culture has a pretty messed up sense of that that comes with a lot of guilt. So, people take on the responsibility for stuff that doesn't really belong to them. The "anonymous" programs tend to help straighten that out.

But, some people LIKE to stew in their shyt. It may be bad, but it is comfortable. And, co-dependent, alcoholic, addict, whatever - you have to get tired of where you are at and be willing to change. No one can help you if you're not willing to accept help.

Out of curiosity, did you work the steps (I mean all 12). Did you get a sponsor? Write out your 4th step? Make amends? Going to meetings is great and all, but it is only one part of the recovery picture. I don't mean that as an attack or anything, it's just that a LOT of people think it is BS initially (including yours truly). But seeing that it HAS worked for so many people allowed me to keep an open mind and to reserve judgment until actually doing the ENTIRE program. ("Half-measures availed us nothing.") I mean, one does not go to to a 12-step program for fun, there has to have been some behaviour that made you seek it out.... are you still exhibiting that behaviour? (Again, I'm just curious). If there wasn't any negative behaviour to begin with then maybe you didn't belong in there to begin with.

Of course it is more amorphous when it refers to one's relationship issues with people (in the Al-Anon program) as opposed to ones relationship issues with a drug. However, there is something to be said about letting go of the things which you cannot control, i.e. other people. Letting someone else's psychological or physical state suck you down with them is not healthy (that's my understanding of what Al-Anon tries to help).

What I'm hearing though is that it didn't work FOR YOU (if you indeed needed it to begin with.)

But thankfully you are still keeping an open mind and not calling it a fraud, as Alex has done. (People in the program who are off drugs for a great many years as a result of working ALL the steps are just delusional? Oh dear lord no, they've been brainwashed and swindled into being productive members of society!) ;)

To switch gears tho about the general topic - meth use is an epidemic right now in the gay community. That drug in particular, when you're on it, causes you to have an incredible (false) sense of security, power and energy that causes people to stop going to work, stop eating, stop sleeping, stop using condoms, stop being selective about their sexual partners, etc. etc. It is mentally and physically addicting and will turn you into a skeleton (literally and figuratively). Oh, and that's before the hallucinations and schizophrenic paranoia kicks in. (I am of the ilk that CERTAIN drugs should be legalized, i.e. pot, but certain other ones like meth and various Rx are SO incredibly physically addicting that they should not be just open for anyone. It would be like selling rat poison for human consumption, and for no other reason).

I think it was one of the former mayors of West Hollywood that had commented on how horrific it was that the gay community had survived the beatings and public revulsion/ridicule and the AIDS epidemic only to pop out the other end a community of meth addicts. Very sad indeed.

okay, maybe if I posted this with some more details.
KNow that I didnt particulary want to air this laundry, but for the sake of not confusing the issue I will.

Yes, I had a sponsor, yes, I did what I was told step wise.
I was "instructed" so attended S-anon by my family, which I did, for over a year.
To deal with the issues that were manifested on me by my fathers addiction to sex.
Now, mind you, I havent lived with him since I was eight.
And I was "instructed" to enter S-anon until I was 24, and living three states away.

I have no idea if I exhibited any behavior to warrant sending me. It was something my family wanted me to do.

But when you barely know about the addiction, and dont live near it, what was the point?

******
On the meth topic.
Yes, that is rampant here. Esp in my friends in the gay community. There was a high influx a while back as well, then I saw it die off personally, and now its back.
And I noticed that my drive to work is full of Meth advertising.

Interesting to me, in my circles the persons that have seemingly new addictions are people that have lost faith in their cocktails.

It sounds like a tired old cliché, but somehow has to make the decision themselves that they want to get better - no can force anyone else into it. Sometimes the best you can do is watch painfully as someone destroys their life. I have watched it (though not with an addiction) and went quite a ways down a self destructive path myself before deciding to make a change (and will probably spend the rest of my life working on that change). But the individual needs to make the choice.

I oft post one of my favorite quotes: "Each day you get better or worse: it's your choice."



(Small clarification: I am NOT saying that one can get better simply by deciding to do so. Sometimes one needs a little help, sometimes a lot. But the decision to WANT to get better must from within.)

The decision has to come from within. However, it certainly helps to know that there are options for help out there. I think that is the advantage of having court ordered AA a part of the sentence for a DUI. At least there is some exposure to where there is help available.

I've known quite a few people who have gotten sober as a result of a "nudge from the judge". But, there are always the people who are not done yet. As well as those who will never be done. Such is the difficulty of change.

I know for a fact that I used to sit in meetings and say "That won't happen to me". And, there were things that never DID happen to me. I never got a DUI. Yet........

There are a lot of "yets" that didn't happen, I could've kept digging my own hole, it was getting pretty deep and difficult to see out of, but I sure could've kept digging to see what other "treasures" I could've found. But, what for? For me, it wasn't about "hitting bottom" but about putting down the shovel.

Well, if you don't WANT what they have to offer than the program won't do much good. YOU have to be willing - which usually means that you, yourself are tired of living with the results and effects of the behaviors of others. I don't know much about sex addiction, effects and treatment but I can imagine that. living with a sex addict, would skew how a person looks at and reacts to sex.

True, assuming that you lived with them.
I did, for the first 7.5 years of my life. Before they had the addiction. never lived with them again.

They wouldn't respect our boundaries so we cut them out. We set them, discussed them, and they ignored them. We were treated as if we had a problem, 'uptight'. Whatever.

I did not want to sit around and talk to other people about what was going on because I knew what I would put up with and what I would not. But, yes, NA, people accept too much. Family does not have the right to fun all over you and you don't have to take whatever they dish out.

A sad example of family just turning the other cheek to alcohol abuse~
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...1m15fatal.html

Some family was very upset with our decision to not allow them time with our kids unless they were sober. Sleepovers? Trips to the store? No way. I have some horrible stories from a nephew whose mother allowed such visits. More than what everyone knows, like, being taken home in a police car when the adult was hauled off to jail on a DUI {luckily he was a smart kid, young, and he could say how to get home}.....after tell the mom that he was at our house {a safe place} but instead was off, oh well...you all probably have similar stories....

I regret using the word scam. I do think, however, that AA and 12-step in general is broadly misrepresented as more effective than it is and when it does work for an individual I think the cause is misassigned (the former is more of an objective statement the latter more of a personal metaphysical view).

I do not mean to suggest that anybody who feels it can help them stop drinking shouldn't try it.

I strongly suspect that if we were all sitting on couches in living rooms this is a conversation I would have been able to have without pissing anybody off or hurting any feelings but I am apparently not capable of it in written form.

So I'll stop trying and take my licks.

===

Having nothing to do with 12-step/AA.

iSm, I think the tobacco number is a bit not like the others since it simply talks about users and not addiction, not every smoker is addicted (though the rate is higher than for just about anything else). If the same were done with alcohol, according to a page at USDH the alcohol number would be 110 million. No real number is given caffeine but I'm guessing even when talking addiction (not usage) it way outnumbers smoking (though the negative impacts of caffeine usage are much less than the other drugs on the list).

Maybe you can find the studies to reveal the stats ... but in my experience, 96 out of a hundred smokers are addicted to tobacco. I think the number of users pretty much represents the number of addicts.

I could be wrong. This is based just on everybody I've ever known who smokes or smoked cigarettes (teehee, except me).

Yup. That's sometimes what it takes. I got that from my mother and evil sister. "I" was the one with the problem. But, their own thoughts are beyond my control. They are free to think and believe whatever they want. There really is only so much a person can do other than accept that you have no control, drop the baggage associated with it and move on to better things.

Great relationships are so much more fulfilling than fu<ked up ones. I don't have much time for the fu<ked up ones any more.

Some people go to the meetings, finally look for similarities in people's testimony instead of differences, and come to a realization that they do indeed want and need help. (this happens sometimes with the "nudge from the judge" scenario... the legal system does not FORCE anyone to participate, only to attend a meeting and get their court card signed). AA may help an alcoholic achieve sobriety only if the person wants to get sober. It is said in AA that the ONLY requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.

"Working the program" will NOT help a non-addict. (Though being court-ordered to attend meetings may help open their eyes a little bit and allow them to stop some potentially destructive behaviour before it crosses the invisible line of addiction).

I'm gonna stop program-talk tho in this thread since I'm done with justifying or defending it. (Somehow I feel like I am on a gay-day thread, which only serves to make gay people feel less-than by having to justify certain things)

Anyway, drugs are bad, m'kay? ;)

Alcoholism is a disease. Cancer is a disease. Chemo doesn't always work. People die from cancer that has resisted treatment every day. But, that doesn't mean that treatment shouldn't be sought nor revisited if it doesn't work the first time. I look at AA very similarly.

And denial is not a river in Egypt. ;)

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.