Am I an alcoholic???
Dave Wolff
I'm a 62 year old male in good health. Up until about a year-and-a-half ago
I drank a lot... 1/2 of a fifth if Southern Comfort every night, sometimes
more. I decided that was WAY too much and something had to be done.
I decided to cut down, drink one or two glasses of wine per night and skip a
day or two now and then just to prove I could do it. I've gone as long as
10 days with no alcohol at all just to see what would happen and had no ill
effects. I've actually managed to stick to the 1-2 glasses of wine per
night... except when we go out on weekends when I'm liable to drink as many
as 4 glasses.
Three weeks ago we went on vacation and I decided "a little Southern Comfort
couldn't hurt". Well, it did! I drank quite a lot when we were away for a
week, and now every evening on the way home from work I have a craving for
the stuff. I've managed to get back to my moderate wine drinking pretty
much, but tonight bought a pint of Southern Comfort, drank about 70% of it,
and as of this writing, feel like crap.
I really enjoy knowing about and drinking wine, but I hate the "hard liquor
compulsion" I seem to have now. Am I alcoholic? Can I drink wine
moderately and maintain control or do I have to give it ALL up (which I
really don't want to do)?
Bottom line is that I really don't think I'm alcoholic but am willing to
admit that I am... if I am. Am I wrong in thinking that one or two glasses
of wine in the evening is too much and if I stick to that and no more, I'm
okay? If I can get away from the Southern Comfort (or the like) 100% and
stick to the one to two glasses of wine, am I okay?
Thanks in advance for any input, help or advice.
Dave
Robert McGregor
"Dave Wolff" <dwo...@modsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:40da731b$1...@news.athenanews.com...
> Can I drink wine
> moderately and maintain control
Dave, given the countless folk who claim to benefit greatly from
doing just that, http://www.healthcastle.com/redwine-heart.shtml do
you think any of us would *really* know that much about you?
>or do I have to give it ALL up (which I
> really don't want to do)?
Having already learned from your own experience, if you can succeed
from now on with a commitment to always maintain control, why even
think of abandoning a beneficial, pleasurable, experience; if that's
what it *really* is, for you?
Bob
rosie read and post
has anyone ever told you that "normies" don't spend as much time, as
you seem to, thinking about drinking?
what to drink?
how much to drink?
how many days, can i go without drinking?
is it the "hard stuff"?
will wine be ok?
and on, and on, and on........................
been there, done that!
i wish you well in your search to find your
answer........................
--
rosie
http://www.nrablacklist.com/
"Dave Wolff" <dwo...@modsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:40da731b$1...@news.athenanews.com...
: Hi All,
:
:
Ron
<reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
> has anyone ever told you that "normies" don't spend as much time, as
> you seem to, thinking about drinking?
Baloney.
--
AB5DB9CC
rosie read and post
"Ron" <c...@the.spam> wrote in message
news:UUACc.99239$eu.30465@attbi_s02...
: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:15:49 GMT, rosie read and post
:
not in my experience............................
Dave Wolff
I don't think I "obsess" about drinking, but having had alcoholic parents I
try to be "aware". I do "test" myself occasionally by not drinking, and
again, have no negative effects. I don't have "eye-openers" in the morning,
I don't miss work, and I don't beat my wife (lol). My worry is that when I
get tangled up with the "hard stuff", getting away from it is a real chore.
The main reason for my original question (Am I an alcoholic?) was sincere.
I can stay away from hard liquor (once I get away from it for a few days),
and do because I know it isn't particularly good for me, among other things.
When I do drink a little though I usually drink WAY too much. Then I want
it again the next evening and so on.
Thanks for your reply. I guess in the end it's probably just a question of
being TOTALLY honest with myself and figuring out the answer myself... ah,
back to square one...
Thanks,
Dave
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9uACc.14192$Ss4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
rosie read and post
:
: The main reason for my original question (Am I an alcoholic?) was
sincere.
: I can stay away from hard liquor (once I get away from it for a
few days),
: and do because I know it isn't particularly good for me, among
other things.
: When I do drink a little though I usually drink WAY too much.
Then I want
: it again the next evening and so on.
dear dave,
i don't doubt your sincerity at all!
i can tell you that many of us, "real alcoholics" didn't drink in
the morning, never lost a job, never got a drunk driving ticket,
didn't lose our marriages, and yet, we definitely qualify as
alcoholics!
dave, i hope you find your answer.
i was assured i was in the right place, after hearing others share
their stories in FACE TO FACE AA MEETINGS.
that helped me to surrender to the reality that i was indeed an
alcoholic and could not drink anymore.
rosie
JB
>
> :
> : The main reason for my original question (Am I an alcoholic?) was
> sincere.
> : I can stay away from hard liquor (once I get away from it for a
> few days),
> : and do because I know it isn't particularly good for me, among
> other things.
> : When I do drink a little though I usually drink WAY too much.
> Then I want
> : it again the next evening and so on.
>
>
>
> dear dave,
> i don't doubt your sincerity at all!
>
> i can tell you that many of us, "real alcoholics" didn't drink in
> the morning, never lost a job, never got a drunk driving ticket,
> didn't lose our marriages, and yet, we definitely qualify as
> alcoholics!
Rosie,
In your opinion, what is it that makes an alcoholic an alcoholic ?
JB
Blue Moon
<dwo...@modsoftware.com> wrote:
> I do "test" myself occasionally by not drinking, and
>again, have no negative effects.
How long do you not drink for? 6 months? A year?
>My worry is that when I
>get tangled up with the "hard stuff", getting away from it is a real chore.
The fact you apparently return to the "hard stuff" despite knowing the
consequences is a definite warning sign.
>When I do drink a little though I usually drink WAY too much. Then I want
>it again the next evening and so on.
That's called being "powerless over alcohol". It's part of AA's first
Step.
--
Blue Moon
JB
"JB" <JBC...@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:cbfnfk$h9s$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
someone who has at times no defence against the first alcoholic drink
and when they take it their body craves more thus causing them to
carry on drinking. If I've got this wrong, maybe someone could put me
right.
In writing the above, I've begun to wonder how it is possible for any
alcoholic to not be a round the clock drinker. The AA line might be
that the frequency of drinking and how much gets drunk increases as
the illness known as alcoholism progresses ?
JB
Blue Moon
>PS: I believe that I now understand AA's view. An alcoholic is
>someone who has at times no defence against the first alcoholic drink
>and when they take it their body craves more thus causing them to
>carry on drinking. If I've got this wrong, maybe someone could put me
>right.
>
>In writing the above, I've begun to wonder how it is possible for any
>alcoholic to not be a round the clock drinker.
Because of the words "the alcoholic *at times* has no effective mental
defence", and the biological process called "passing out".
>The AA line might be that the frequency of drinking and how much gets
>drunk increases as the illness known as alcoholism progresses ?
Yes and no. Processing alcohol is a biological function of the liver.
Alcohol tolerance can increase or decrease depending on liver
function.
--
Blue Moon
rosie read and post
:................... The AA line might be
: that the frequency of drinking and how much gets drunk increases
as
: the illness known as alcoholism progresses ?
:
: JB
no.
Mias
Knowing the alcoholic personaility a bit, being one myself, the best I can
do is to assure you that if you were an alcoholic you would
a) Probably lie about your consumption
b) Ask your question expecting ONLY confirmation that you are not alcoholic
and being deaf to the other answers.
c) Only ask this question of yours if e.g. your wife complained about your
drinking and you want an 'exphert' opinion.
If you answered yes to any of the questions above the chances are that you
are an alcoholic. If so, do NOT hang around for a rock bottom.
Kind regards
Mias
Cheggers
> stick to the one to two glasses of wine, am I okay?
*IF* you can do that then you ought to be fine, according to all the
information I have read about moderate drinking, Dave.
*MY* problem is that I can't stick to a program like that for any
length of time. If I could, I would.
My father (not an alcoholic) would sometimes - like you - get a little
used to having a couple of scotches late of an evening and he'd put it
away for a week or two when his hemmorhoids gave him notice he was
becoming over-fond. He died of neither the bottle nor the bottom.
Cheggers
John Droge
Yes an alcoholic has no defense against that first drink but even more so an
alcoholic suffers from alcoholic thinking. Alcohol didn't make us
alcoholics, nobody twisted my lips and made me drink I made myself into an
alcoholic. The choices I made as I went through life made me an alcoholic;
alcohol only intensified it. This of course is something that can only be
seen in retrospect from a place of sobriety but it is an alcoholic mind
making alcoholic decisions that makes an alcoholic.
At the end of my drinking career I didn't need any reasons, joy, fear,
sorrow or whatever, anymore to drink----I drank because I was awake. It took
a long time, 15 or so years, to get to that state, and only some alcoholics
do. It's the mind that makes the alcoholic, not the alcohol the mind.
John
John Droge
It's been said that the only person who knows if your really an alcoholic is
yourself, but from what you've written here and later in the thread (to put
it in the vernacular-- getting shit faced and ergo hung over but then
craving it the next night) you is waddlin' and quakin' Jack and if I were
you I'd watch out for guys wearin' orange hats and carrying shotguns come
fall.
God's Speed Dave
John
JB
"John Droge" <jhd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1VOCc.211$lh4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
that not everyone mght know what this meant. Therefore, if someone
came back and asked me what it meant, I'd feel it necessary to try to
describe it. At that point I realised that I didn't really understand
what those words meant. Such a mind enables someone who has lost the
ability to control their drinking to believe that its OK for them to
drink and that they can control their drinking ?
JB
Robert McGregor
> OK. I was going to use the words "alcoholic mind" until I thought
> that not everyone mght know what this meant. Therefore, if someone
> came back and asked me what it meant, I'd feel it necessary to try
to
> describe it. At that point I realised that I didn't really
understand
> what those words meant. Such a mind enables someone who has lost
the
> ability to control their drinking to believe that its OK for them
to
> drink and that they can control their drinking ?
>
Reprinted in "Best Of The Grapevine."
Slips and Human Nature
by William Duncan Silkworth, MD
January 1947
"The mystery of slips is not so deep as it may appear. While it does
seem odd that an alcoholic, who has restored himself to a dignified
place among his fellowmen and continued dry for years, should
suddenly throw all his happiness overboard and find himself again in
mortal peril of drowning in liquor, often the reason is simple.
People are inclined to say, "There is something peculiar about
alcoholics. They seem to be well, yet at any moment they may turn
back to their old ways. You can never be sure."
This is largely twaddle. The alcoholic is a sick person. Under the
techniques of Alcoholics Anonymous, he gets well -- that is to say,
his disease is arrested. There is nothing unpredictable about him any
more than there is anything weird about a person who has arrested
diabetes.
Let's get it clear, once and for all, that alcoholics are human
beings. Then we can safeguard ourselves intelligently against most
slips.
In both professional and lay circles, there is a tendency to label
everything that an alcoholic may do as "alcoholic behavior." The
truth is, it is simply human nature.
It is very wrong to consider many of the personality traits observed
in liquor addicts as peculiar to the alcoholic. Emotional and mental
quirks are classified as symptoms of alcoholism merely because
alcoholics have them, yet those same quirks can be found among
non-alcoholic, too. Actually, they are symptoms of mankind!
Of course, the alcoholic himself tends to think of himself as
different, somebody special, with unique tendencies and reactions.
Many psychiatrists, doctors, and therapists carry the same idea to
extremes in their analyses and treatment of alcoholics. Sometimes,
they make a complicated mystery of a condition which is found in all
human beings, whether they drink whiskey or buttermilk.
To be sure, alcoholism, like every other disease, does manifest
itself
in some unique ways. It does have a number of baffling peculiarities
which differ from those of all other diseases.
At the same time, many of the symptoms and much of the behavior of
alcoholism are closely paralleled and even duplicated in other
diseases.
The slip is a relapse! It is a relapse that occurs after the
alcoholic has stopped drinking and started on the AA program of
recovery. Slips usually occur in the early stages of the alcoholic's
AA indoctrination, before he has had time to learn enough of the AA
technique and AA philosophy to give him a solid footing. But slips
may also occur after an alcoholic has been a member of AA for many
months or even several years, and it is in this kind, above all, that
one finds a marked similarity between the alcoholic's behavior and
that of "normal" victims of other diseases.
It happens this way: When a tubercular patient recovers sufficiently
to be released from the sanitarium, the doctor gives him careful
instructions for the way he is to live when he gets home. He must
drink plenty of milk. He must refrain from smoking. He must obey
other stringent rules.
For the first several months, perhaps for several years, the patient
follows directions. But as his strength increases and he feels fully
recovered, he becomes slack. There may come the night when he decides
he can stay up until ten o' clock. When he does this, nothing
untoward happens. Soon, he is disregarding the directions given him
when he left the sanitarium. Eventually, he has a relapse!
The same tragedy can be found in cardiac cases. After the heart
attack, the patient is put on a strict rest schedule. Frightened, he
naturally follows directions obediently for a long time. He, too,
goes to bed early, avoids exercise such as walking upstairs, quits
smoking, and leads a Spartan life. Eventually, though, there comes a
day, after he has been feeling good for months or several years, when
he feels he has regained his strength, and has also recovered from
his
fright. If the elevator is out of repair one day, he walks up the
three flights of stairs. Or he decides to go to a party -- or do just
a little smoking -- or take a cocktail or two. If no serious
after-effects follow the first departure from the rigorous schedule
prescribed, he may try it again, until he suffers a relapse.
In both cardiac and tubercular cases, the acts which led to the
relapses were preceded by wrong thinking. The patient in each case
rationalized himself out of a sense of his own perilous reality. He
deliberately turned away from his knowledge of the fact that he had
been the victim of a serious disease. He grew overconfident. He
decided he didn't have to follow directions.
Now that is precisely what happens with the alcoholic -- the arrested
alcoholic, or the alcoholic in AA who has a slip. Obviously, he
decides to take a drink again some time before he actually takes it.
He starts thinking wrong before he actually embarks on the course
that
leads to a slip.
There is no reason to charge the slip to alcoholic behavior or a
second heart attack to cardiac behavior. The alcoholic slip is not a
symptom of a psychotic condition. There's nothing screwy about it at
all. The patient simply didn't follow directions.
For the alcoholic, AA offers the directions. A vital factor, or
ingredient of the preventive, especially for the alcoholic, is
sustained emotion. The alcoholic who learns some of the techniques or
the mechanics of AA but misses the philosophy or the spirit may get
tired of following directions -- not because he is alcoholic, but
because he is human. Rules and regulations irk almost anyone, because
they are restraining, prohibitive, negative. The philosophy of AA,
however, is positive and provides ample sustained emotion -- a
sustained desire to follow directions voluntarily.
In any event, the psychology of the alcoholic is not as different as
some people try to make it. The disease has certain physical
differences, yes, and the alcoholic has problems peculiar to him,
perhaps, in that he has been put on the defensive and consequently
has
developed frustrations. But in many instances, there is no more
reason to be talking about "the alcoholic mind" than there is to try
to describe something called "the cardiac mind" or "the TB mind."
I think we'll help the alcoholic more if we can first recognize that
he is primarily human being -- afflicted with human nature."
neuro equipoise
(Dave Wolff) wrote:
> I'm a 62 year old male in good health. Up until
> about a year-and-a-half ago I drank a lot...
When was the last time you had blood work done? Is "in good health"
your doctor's prognosis based on a complete check-up? Is there any
diabetes in your family history?
You don't seem to be in good health to me, at the moment. This
'craving' should be discussed with your endocrine test results in hand,
and with your doctor, if you haven't already. Wishing you well.
JB
"Robert McGregor" <robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2k249vF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "JB" <JBC...@coldman.com> wrote in message
> news:cbgkog$5rq$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > OK. I was going to use the words "alcoholic mind" until I thought
someone
> > came back and asked me what it meant, I'd feel it necessary to try
> to
> > describe it. At that point I realised that I didn't really
> understand
> > what those words meant. Such a mind enables someone who has lost
> the
> > ability to control their drinking to believe that its OK for them
> to
> > drink and that they can control their drinking ?
Dear Bob,
Thank you for this thought-provoking article.
> >
> Reprinted in "Best Of The Grapevine."
>
>
> Slips and Human Nature
>
> by William Duncan Silkworth, MD
>
> January 1947
>
<snip>
>
> In both professional and lay circles, there is a tendency to label
> everything that an alcoholic may do as "alcoholic behavior." The
> truth is, it is simply human nature.
>
> It is very wrong to consider many of the personality traits observed
> in liquor addicts as peculiar to the alcoholic. Emotional and mental
> quirks are classified as symptoms of alcoholism merely because
> alcoholics have them, yet those same quirks can be found among
> non-alcoholic, too. Actually, they are symptoms of mankind!
I agree. From time to time I see my husband and others who are not
alcoholics exhibiting the same characteristics that I have (eg
fears, desire to be loved/thought well off, self-centredness,
selfishness, buck-passing, <g> getting pissed off when someone
doesn't do what you want them to)
<snip>
> In both cardiac and tubercular cases, the acts which led to the
> relapses were preceded by wrong thinking. The patient in each case
> rationalized himself out of a sense of his own perilous reality. He
> deliberately turned away from his knowledge of the fact that he had
> been the victim of a serious disease. He grew overconfident. He
> decided he didn't have to follow directions.
> Now that is precisely what happens with the alcoholic -- the
arrested
> alcoholic, or the alcoholic in AA who has a slip. Obviously, he
> decides to take a drink again some time before he actually takes it.
> He starts thinking wrong before he actually embarks on the course
> that leads to a slip.
> There is no reason to charge the slip to alcoholic behavior or a
> second heart attack to cardiac behavior. The alcoholic slip is not a
> symptom of a psychotic condition. There's nothing screwy about it at
> all. The patient simply didn't follow directions.
To me, this argument is a plausible one. A consequence of deciding
not to follow directions means that the person believes that it's OK
for them to go back to doing what they used to do.
>
> For the alcoholic, AA offers the directions. A vital factor, or
> ingredient of the preventive, especially for the alcoholic, is
> sustained emotion. The alcoholic who learns some of the techniques
or
> the mechanics of AA but misses the philosophy or the spirit may get
> tired of following directions -- not because he is alcoholic, but
> because he is human. Rules and regulations irk almost anyone,
because
> they are restraining, prohibitive, negative. The philosophy of AA,
> however, is positive and provides ample sustained emotion -- a
> sustained desire to follow directions voluntarily.
AA's Fellowship and it's 12 Step programme appear to be designed to
bring about in those who makes use of them a psychic
change/personality change/change in outlook on life. Maybe those who
have undergone this change and consider it to be a change for the
better, find it easier to keep on making use of the Fellowship and the
12 Steps than do those in whom no such change has taken place.
For those in whom no such change has taken place, the willingness to
continue to engage in AA activities may be greater in those who
genuinely desire to be engaged in such activities than it is in those
who either do them only because someone has made them do them or
they feel that they ought to do them ?
JB
Ron
<robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Slips and Human Nature
> by William Duncan Silkworth, MD
> January 1947
>
> This is largely twaddle. The alcoholic is a sick person. Under the
> techniques of Alcoholics Anonymous, he gets well -- that is to say,
> his disease is arrested. There is nothing unpredictable about him any
> more than there is anything weird about a person who has arrested
> diabetes.
>
> blah blah
Yes. Alcoholism is a disease. And the best way to treat a disease is
to get on your knees and pray in the morning.
--
AB5DB9CC
Robert McGregor
>
> AA's Fellowship and it's 12 Step programme appear to be designed to
> bring about in those who makes use of them a psychic
> change/personality change/change in outlook on life. Maybe those
who
> have undergone this change and consider it to be a change for the
> better, find it easier to keep on making use of the Fellowship and
the
> 12 Steps than do those in whom no such change has taken place.
>
> For those in whom no such change has taken place, the willingness
to
> continue to engage in AA activities may be greater in those who
> genuinely desire to be engaged in such activities than it is in
those
> who either do them only because someone has made them do them or
> they feel that they ought to do them ?
>
Really? So only those who do not benefit from kindergarten ever
graduate from kindergarten?
Bob
Robert McGregor
"Ron" <c...@the.spam> wrote in message
Hahahahaha, did that disease theory press your God button?
Are you sure any disease of alcoholism would not much prefer to be
treated to a morning drink, than being forced to wait, for a morning
prayer?
Bob;-)
rosie read and post
--
rosie
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/25/news/fortune500/homedepot/index.htm
"Robert McGregor" <robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2k249vF...@uni-berlin.de...
:
: "JB" <JBC...@coldman.com> wrote in message
:
:
:
Ron
<robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> "Ron" <c...@the.spam> wrote in message
> news:L_UCc.115424$Sw.11654@attbi_s51...
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:58:47 +1000, Robert McGregor
>> <robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > Slips and Human Nature
>> > by William Duncan Silkworth, MD
>> > January 1947
>>> This is largely twaddle. The alcoholic is a sick person. Under the
>>> techniques of Alcoholics Anonymous, he gets well -- that is to say,
>>> his disease is arrested. There is nothing unpredictable about him
>>> any more than there is anything weird about a person who has
>>> arrested diabetes.
>>>
>>> blah blah
>> Yes. Alcoholism is a disease. And the best way to treat a disease
>> is to get on your knees and pray in the morning.
> Hahahahaha, did that disease theory press your God button?
>
> Are you sure any disease of alcoholism would not much prefer to be
> treated to a morning drink, than being forced to wait, for a morning
> prayer?
>
> Bob;-)
In a rather stupified delirium, I actually once pondered whether my
problem with alcohol could be ascribed to my father dumping hundreds of
bushels of corn on my head. Oy.
No, I think the twaddle is Dr. Silkworth, and his disease theory. It,
along with the 'no defense' argument, absolves alcholics of
responsibility for their actions, as if they were epileptics. And the
'cure'? Why, a higher power of course!
hahahahahahaha
Oh, I'm all for asking for help, and agree with the general tenor of
what the steps outline. Let's just not wash our hands and declare
ourselves blameless for our drinking.
--
AB5DB9CC
rosie read and post
of
: what the steps outline. Let's just not wash our hands and declare
: ourselves blameless for our drinking.
:
: --
ron,
imo, believing in the disease concept DOES NOT make me
blameless................it is up to me to continue with the
treatment so i can avoid relapse.............i do not believe that
alcoholism can be "cured"....................................
Robert McGregor
"Ron" <c...@the.spam> wrote in message
If alcoholism were a disease rather than a condition that can be
arrested by a psychic change, and your ad hominem aside, seems to me
you have expressed sentiments as absurd as the disease theory by
extrapolating blamelesness from that Silkworth essay.
Bob
Ron
Well, that sure is a long winded way of saying you agree. ;)
--
AB5DB9CC
Robert McGregor
"Ron" <c...@the.spam> wrote in message
Agree? To the contrary!
I'm blaming you for your diseased extrapolation of blamelesness!
Bob;-)
JB
Firstly, I thought it a good idea to find out what "graduate" means ?
Some definitions:
Graduate - (1) a student who has completed a course of studies at a
high school and received a diploma. (2) to change gradually or by
degrees (from something to something else) (3) to advance to a new
level of skill, achievement, or activity: (Refs: Collins English Dic
and www.dictionary.com)
This enabled me to think that graduating involves change.
Not all changes result in there being a need for whatever or whoever
that is changing to change environments and/or stop whatever they're
doing.
I remember you posting Bill W's comment:
""Because I had over the years undergone a little spiritual
development, the absolute quality of these frightful dependencies had
never before been so starkly revealed. Reinforced by what Grace I
could secure in prayer, I found I had to exert every ounce of will and
action to cut off these faulty emotional dependencies upon people,
upon AA, indeed, upon any set of circumstances whatsoever".
It's caused me to wonder whether you consider AA meetings to be the
equivalent of kindergarten and AA's 12 Step programme to be a form of
higher education.
JB
Robert McGregor
The primary founders of AA each referred to AA meetings with "less
than" sentiments.
"(Dr) Bob said there was the hard way and the easy way. The hard way
was just going to meetings" .... Dr Bob and the Good Oldtimers p192
I (Bill Wilson) was always rushing around talking and organising and
'teaching kindergarten' I never grew up myself." Dr Bob and the Good
Oldtimers, p 315.
While I'm checking sources, here's one for Ron, if he's watching:-
In 1960 at a convention of the National Clergy Conference on
Alcoholism, Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics anonymous said: "We
have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking,
it is not a disease entity ... " NCCA p20. Reference from
"Not - God" p22
Bob
neuro equipoise
> OK. I was going to use the words "alcoholic mind"
> until I thought that not everyone mght know what
> this meant. Therefore, if someone came back and
> asked me what it meant, I'd feel it necessary to try
> to describe it. At that point I realised that I didn't
> really understand what those words meant. Such
> a mind enables someone who has lost the ability
> to control their drinking to believe that its OK for
> them to drink and that they can control their
> drinking ?
Alcohol is a neuro-toxin which desensitizes receptors and can
alter/mutate G-proteins, which are the cell communication cascade
"switchboards".
Serotonin is just one of the positive brain chemicals coupled to
G-protein "switchboards". If the switchboards are altered or mutated,
then the ability to inhibit, deal with stress, regulate glucose, etc. is
impaired/diseased...as is the ability for cascades of information to
travel.
Endogenous opioids are also coupled to G-protein switchboards. This
positive chemical network gives us a sense of overall well being, the
ability to withstand stress and pain, and feel serenity. Alcohol also
affects DNA and this determines the abundance of the positive chemical
network we inherit genetically.
Given the right building blocks, the brain can rewire and reorganize
itself after damage, depending on the extent of damage or mutation
caused by alcohol. The damage is progressive, and affects more and more
of the cell-communication 'switchboards'.
Excerpt:
"Opioid receptors presynaptically inhibit transmission of excitatory
pathways. These pathways include acetylcholine, the catecholamines,
serotonin, and substance P. Substance P is a neuropeptide active in
neurons that mediate our sense of pain; antagonists of substance P are
currently under investigation as clinical antidepressants. Endorphins
are also involved in glucose regulation... Also, opioid receptors all
have a common general structure. They are typically G protein-linked
receptors embedded in the plasma membrane of neurons."
rosie read and post
: In 1960 at a convention of the National Clergy Conference on
: Alcoholism, Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics anonymous said: "We
: have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
speaking,
: it is not a disease entity ... " NCCA p20. Reference from
: "Not - God" p22
:
: Bob
:
:
:
with the information that bill wilson had at his disposal in 1960
that was his truth!
today, however, ALCOHOLISM is considered a disease.
Robert McGregor
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
His truth?????
Read the Big Book story, (Those early stories are documented as being
edited by Bill, often against the authors wishes) Alcoholics
Anonymous Number Three,
http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_pioneers1.pdf "No, you have a
disease" is there for posterity;-)
Not to fret, poopski! Lots of folks consider lots of things.
Bob
rosie read and post
:
: "rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
:
:
has anyone thanked you lately, for giving us such a perfect example
of what someone who stops meetings acts like?
reading your opinions is like sitting in on a FIRST STEP
meeting..............over and over!
keep coming back bob and keep the faith, it'll sink in one of these
days!
Robert McGregor
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
Opinining that lots of folks consider lots of things exemplifies a
first step meeting? No wonder you're popping pills, after languishing
in Bill's kindergarten for so long!
Bob
Bob
rosie read and post
: in Bill's kindergarten for so long!
:
: Bob
call it what you will.......................you'll be back!
(((((((((((((((((((((robert))))))))))))))))))))))))
JB
>
> "rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:t9ZCc.800$9l5...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > : > : In 1960 at a convention of the National Clergy Conference on
> > : > : Alcoholism, Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics anonymous
> said:
> > : "We
> > : > : have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
> > : > speaking,
> > : > : it is not a disease entity ... " NCCA p20. Reference from
> > : > : "Not - God" p22
> > : > :
> > : > : Bob
> > : >
Rosie replied:
> > : > with the information that bill wilson had at his disposal in
> > 1960
> > : > that was his truth!
> > : > today, however, ALCOHOLISM is considered a disease.
Given that some AAers don't think it's necessary to take the Steps in
order to recover from alcohlism, it follows that all who take them are
wasting their time doing unnecessary work ?
Extract from: rosie (sorry@toomanyweirdo's.com)
i attend an AA meeting here in my little town with a WONDERFUL old
man, who has been sober for 35 yrs.
according to him, he has NEVER had a sponsor, and has NEVER worked
the 12 steps as suggested in the BIG BOOK.
he is sober, he is serene, he is just a wonderful example of
"serenity"..........................."
-----------------
JB
Robert McGregor
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
while trying in vain to sublimate your pathetic, self centred misery?
Having once suffered in desperation too, I can understand your need
for validation, but no thanks.
Bob
From: "rosie readandpost" <reada...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
Message-ID: < wkHa.22568$fe.4...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>
>YES, whatever works!
>i belong to the "old school" of counting sobriety from the LAST
>drink/drug,
"rosie" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZERqc.20596$oQ6....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> there are those, like me, who work quite hard at "keeping it
> simple", NOT fixing it when it already works.......................
From: "rosie@readandpost" <reada...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ZPSl5.19140$E05.3...@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net>
>i am thinking about asking my pdoc to increase my celexa to
>60mg..........anyone else in here have good results with that
dosage?
>my 40mg seems to be "pooping out"...........
"rosie readandpost" <reada...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:A98Ka.109221$Xl.20...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> i will never be recovered..............................
JB
For info:
Alcoholics Anonymous and the Disease Concept of Alcoholism
http://www.bhrm.org/papers/AAand%20DiseaseConcept.pdf
JB
>
>
Ron
<reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
> imo, believing in the disease concept DOES NOT make me
> blameless................it is up to me to continue with the
> treatment so i can avoid relapse.............i do not believe that
> alcoholism can be "cured"....................................
If bad habits compounded by emotional unintelligence are a 'disease',
then the treatment industry is in for a windfall! Especially when the
cure is so elusive!
--
AB5DB9CC
rosie read and post
:
: Given that some AAers don't think it's necessary to take the Steps
in
: order to recover from alcohlism, it follows that all who take them
are
: wasting their time doing unnecessary work
oy vey!
rosie read and post
'disease',
: then the treatment industry is in for a windfall! Especially when
the
: cure is so elusive!
:
: --
ron,
i for one don't believe there is a cure........................
i prefer to follow what the BB taught me..............."my sobriety
is dependant on my daily spiritual maintenance."
i like it that way, it works for me, so why change?
rosie read and post
does it matter to you what your alcoholism is called?
a disease?
a character defect?
a lack of willpower?
does it matter?
--
rosie
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/25/news/fortune500/homedepot/index.htm
"JB" <JBC...@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:cbhr4a$rnl$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
: "Robert McGregor" <robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
:
: >
: >
:
:
rosie read and post
meetings,
: while trying in vain to sublimate your pathetic, self centred
misery?
:
: Having once suffered in desperation too, I can understand your
need
: for validation, but no thanks.
:
: Bob
no robert, i don't want to you have what i have, they are mine, and
god given!.............i expect you to get INTO ACTION and begin to
gain YOUR OWN achievements.
i am sorry that you have suffered desperation, but i can assure you,
that if you get into recovery, your pitiful and incomprehensible
demoralization need not come back.
in my almost 22years of sobriety, i have not been disappointed in
the recovery program that AA offers.
try it, you'll like it!
robert,
you need to get a hobby! your humping my posts, is causing folks to
talk!
;)
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
Extract from: rosie (sorry@toomanyweirdo's.com)
i attend an AA meeting here in my little town with a WONDERFUL old
man, who has been sober for 35 yrs.
according to him, he has NEVER had a sponsor, and has NEVER worked
the 12 steps as suggested in the BIG BOOK.
he is sober, he is serene, he is just a wonderful example of
"serenity"..........................."
-----------------
Admittedly, you did not say that this man has recovered from
alcoholism. However, the impression it gives is that long-term
sobriety can be achieved without working the Steps in the BB.
The BB touches on this issue:
"If he thinks he can do the job in some other way or prefers some
other spiritual approach, encourage him to follow his own conscience"
(page 95).
For me, it matters not how someone achieves and maintains sobriety.
However, as an AAer I feel I have a responsibility to not give the
impression that the AA route to recovery involves only stopping
drinking and going to AA meetings.
JB
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
> JB,
> does it matter to you what your alcoholism is called?
> a disease?
> a character defect?
> a lack of willpower?
>
> does it matter?
What I call it matters to me. What I call it shapes my thinking about
ways of
tackling my own alcoholism.
JB
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
message news:SK_Cc.14580$Ss4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> : If bad habits compounded by emotional unintelligence are a
> 'disease',
> : then the treatment industry is in for a windfall! Especially when
> the
> : cure is so elusive!
> :
> : --
>
>
> ron,
> i for one don't believe there is a cure........................
> i prefer to follow what the BB taught me..............."my sobriety
> is dependant on my daily spiritual maintenance."
Rosie,
When you're criticising others; gossiping or making claims that people
are not who they say they are, on each occasion you're taking a break
from what you need to do in order to maintain your spiritual condition
at the level necessary for you to maintain your sobriety ?
JB
NOting Slagging off other's is one of the things you need to do in
order to do this aminspart of helps you to do that ?
JB
rosie read and post
: Admittedly, you did not say that this man has recovered from
: alcoholism.
as you know, i don't use the word RECOVERED!
:However, the impression it gives is that long-term
: sobriety can be achieved without working the Steps in the BB.
yes, i believe that it can...................there are MANY ways to
achieve long term sobriety, as i have said in this forum many, many,
many, times!
: However, as an AAer I feel I have a responsibility to not give the
: impression that the AA route to recovery involves only stopping
: drinking and going to AA meetings.
:
: JB
:
:
actually JB, your ONLY responsibility is to share YOUR EXPERIENCE,
STRENGTH, AND HOPE.
JB
<snip>
> : However, as an AAer I feel I have a responsibility to not give the
> : impression that the AA route to recovery involves only stopping
> : drinking and going to AA meetings.
> :
> : JB
> :
>
> actually JB, your ONLY responsibility is to share YOUR EXPERIENCE,
> STRENGTH, AND HOPE.
>
I note your comment and disagree with it.
JB
Robert McGregor
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
rosie wrote:
>
> i like to remind people who gossip, and those who listen to gossip
> are EQUALLY wrong.
>
> when someone starts gossiping about another in my presence, i STOP
> THEM, and tell them that my listening to them is as bad as their
> gossiping, and i am not comfortable doing so.
> they NEVER persist in their gossiping with me.
Robert McGregor
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
> :
>
> actually JB, your ONLY responsibility is to share YOUR EXPERIENCE,
> STRENGTH, AND HOPE.
>
"rosie readandpost" <readandp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z0Sxa.60832$dl6.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> ATTRACTION, NOT PROMOTION is what we in AA are suppose to remember,
and
abide by
JB
PS: Do you think as you do because of this:
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their
experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve
their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism
.................. " (AA Preamble)
Given that AA has a recovery programme - ie the 12 Steps in the BB -
what reasons could there be for anyone who claims to have gained their
sobriety and maintain it as a result of working the Steps to not give
the programme credit but rather suggest that all some seeking recovery
from alcoholism need to do is "stop drinking and go to meetings,
meetings, meetings". Is such advice good advice ?
JB
Bill W
Robert McGregor
"Bill W" <disor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a86b551c.04062...@posting.google.com...
> Progressive fatal loss of control.
That's life!
Bob
Ron
> For info:
>
> Alcoholics Anonymous and the Disease Concept of Alcoholism
> http://www.bhrm.org/papers/AAand%20DiseaseConcept.pdf
Thanks JB, that's a good read.
I found it interesting that the narrative made mention of what I'm sure
many alcoholics often express: "what is *wrong* with me"? It struck me
especially because that's exactly what I've often asked myself. I have
all the experience I need to know exactly what kind of outcome to expect
(not good), but I do the same stupid thing over and over again. I
expressed that sentiment using those very words out loud after my last
nearly fatal bender.
I would very much like to know what 'alcoholism' is, because I don't
really know the proper way to cope with something I don't understand. I
don't think I'm alone in that regard. I think the danger is that the
zeal to explain can foment rationalizations that belie real
understanding.
And what else are we to do? It's just human nature. I really don't
lose much sleep over the use of the word 'disease' as applied to
alcoholism. And my ranting aside, I don't trouble myself about the AA
program much either. I just see them as broad brush best effort
explanations/solutions that fall short of the detail I crave. Detail I
might never find.
I'm also coming to terms with the fact that I may never encounter
adequate definitions of 'alcoholism' or 'alcoholic'. I will simply have
to stand by the colloquial "I know it when I see it" vernacular.
The thing that irks me is when people ascribe greater profundity and
salience to these concepts than they deserve. Speaking of "*the*
doctor's opinion" rather than "*a* doctor's opinion", etc.
So where does that leave me? Well, among other things, it leaves me
spending less time pondering "am I or aren't I". Instead, I'm
approaching this from the perspective of "Is it better if I drink, or if
I don't?". It's not just about whether it's better or not for *me*,
either. My drinking affects a lot of people around me too.
So I'm not drinking. Perhaps I could take certain steps to clarify my
understanding. Maybe that would work, maybe not. I don't think it's
wise to find out.
Best.
--
AB5DB9CC
rosie read and post
:
: >
: > actually JB, your ONLY responsibility is to share YOUR
EXPERIENCE,
: > STRENGTH, AND HOPE.
: >
: I note your comment and disagree with it.
:
: JB
:
:
you will have the last word.......................
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
Maybe :^)
Do you think that my " ONLY responsibility is to share YOUR
EXPERIENCE, STRENGTH, AND HOPE" (your words) is because of this:
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
>
>
> : In 1960 at a convention of the National Clergy Conference on
> : Alcoholism, Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics anonymous said: "We
> : have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
> speaking,
> : it is not a disease entity ... " NCCA p20. Reference from
> : "Not - God" p22
> :
> : Bob
> :
>
> with the information that bill wilson had at his disposal in 1960
> that was his truth!
At that NCCA Conference, Bill W gave reasons why the word "disease "
was not thought appropriate:
"We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
speaking, it is not a disease entity. For example, there is no such
thing as heart disease. Instead there are many separate heart
ailments, or combinations of them. It is something like that with
alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical
profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore we
always called it an illness, or a malady -- a far safer term for us to
use."
>
> today, however, ALCOHOLISM is considered a disease.
Only today is alcoholism viewed as a disease ? It appears not:
"At the time of the birth and youth of Alcoholics Anonymous, from 1934
through its self-proclaimed "Coming of Age" in 1955, the
understandings that "the alcoholic" was a person who "had alcoholism"
and that alcoholism was a disease were commonplace in
the professional literature. As a report of the Scientific Committee
of the Research Council on Problems of Alcohol put it in 1938: "An
alcoholic should be regarded as a sick person, just as one who is
suffering from tuberculosis, cancer, heart disease, or other serious
chronic disorder." Those doubting that "disease" was the orthodoxy
before Alcoholics Anonymous came onto the scene
should hie themselves to a good library and read "Drinking and
Alcoholism," by Genevieve Parkhurst, in the July 1937 Harpers
Magazine. From the mid-1940s on, at first from a base within Yale
University's Center of Alcohol Studies, the National Committee on
Education on Alcoholism -- later the National Council on Alcoholism --
actively pushed this understanding under the guiding hand of Mrs.
Marty Mann. Few in that era questioned the terminology or its
assumptions: alcoholism-understood-as-disease "worked" and thus passed
the pragmatic criterion of truth that ruled the age of World War II
and its immediate aftermath. What it "worked" at doing, as Dwight
Anderson had set forth even before Ms. Mann arrived on the scene, was
to elicit the kind of attention and concern that led to help for the
alcoholic (Anderson 1942). But the setting of the RCPA and Howard
Haggard's early Yale efforts were only background, and in fact a
context to which A.A. almost from its beginnings contributed. For as
co-founder Bill Wilson's personal history and the opening of the book
Alcoholics Anonymous attest, A.A.'s early understanding of alcoholism
came to it directly from Dr. William Duncan Silkworth, who viewed
alcoholism as a manifestation of allergy."
(Source: http://www.bhrm.org/papers/AAand%20DiseaseConcept.pdf
Also note the stories in the BB in which people mention being treated
in hospitals and sanatoriums. From these, can we deduce that the view
that alcoholism is a disease is not a new idea ?
JB
rosie read and post
:
: At that NCCA Conference, Bill W gave reasons why the word "disease
"
: was not thought appropriate:
: "We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
: speaking, it is not a disease entity.
that was "his truth" and knowledge at the time.
:For example, there is no such
: thing as heart disease.
this is another good example of "his truth"................we do
INDEED have such a thing as "heart disease".
: can we deduce that the view
: that alcoholism is a disease is not a new idea ?
:
: JB
a new idea?
an old idea?
it depends on what source you wish to quote..................
JB,
i am not interested in your intellectual masturbation game, i have
never found it to contribute a positive thing to anyone's
sobriety/serenity.
YMMV, and probably does!
neuro equipoise
> I'm also coming to terms with the fact that I may
> never encounter adequate definitions of
> 'alcoholism' or 'alcoholic'. I will simply have to
> stand by the colloquial "I know it when I see it"
> vernacular.
Excerpt:
"What is a "Disease"?"
"To intelligently discuss the issue of whether or not alcoholism is a
disease, we must first define the term "disease". To do this I turned
to the 24th Edition of the Stedman's Medical Dictionary which provided
the following definitions.
1. A disease is a morbus, an illness, a sickness
that causes an interruption, cessation, or disorder of bodily functions,
systems, or organs
2. A disease is an entity characterized by at
least two of these criteria:
(1) a recognized etiologic agent (or agents);
(2) an identifiable group of signs and symptoms; or
(3) consistent anatomical alterations of known body systems.
To determine if alcoholism is a disease, we must see if it meets this
definition.
There is a good reason for taking the position that alcoholism is a
disease - alcoholism meets all of the criteria of a disease as defined
by any medical dictionary or text book.
1. Is alcoholism "an illness or a sickness?
2. Does alcoholism causes an interruption,
cessation, or disorder of bodily functions, systems, or organs?"
3. Is alcoholism "an entity characterized by a
recognized etiologic agent (or agents);
4. Is alcoholism "an entity characterized by an
identifiable group of signs and symptoms?"
5. Is alcoholism "an entity characterized by
consistent anatomical alterations of known body systems?"
6. Do all people who experience alcohol problems
have the disease of alcoholism?"
Let's systematically answer these six questions...."
http://www.tgorski.com/gorski_articles/disease_model_of_addiction_010704.htm
JB
>
JB wrote :
> : At that NCCA Conference, Bill W gave reasons why the word "disease
> "
> : was not thought appropriate:
>
> : "We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
> : speaking, it is not a disease entity.
Rosie replied:
> that was "his truth" and knowledge at the time.
>
JB wrote:
> :For example, there is no such
> : thing as heart disease.
Rosie replied:
> this is another good example of "his truth"................we do
> INDEED have such a thing as "heart disease".
JB wrote:
>
> : can we deduce that the view
> : that alcoholism is a disease is not a new idea ?
> :
> : JB
>
Rosie replied:
> a new idea?
> an old idea?
>
> it depends on what source you wish to quote..................
>
> JB,
> i am not interested in your intellectual masturbation game, i have
> never found it to contribute a positive thing to anyone's
> sobriety/serenity.
> YMMV, and probably does!
Rosie,
You thnk that when you post comments that deserve to be challenged,
they should not be ? Maybe when they are, you ought to consider
viewing these challenges as an opportunity for you to learn something
new rather than immediately dismissing them, which gives the
impression that your mind is a closed one.
JB
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the
disposition of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not
understand".-- Samuel Johnson
rosie read and post
"JB" <JBC...@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:cbk0qg$evf$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
: "rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
my comments DESERVE to be challenged?
LOL!
if your mental masturbation gives you something to do, go for
it..............................imo, if you have that much time on
your hands why not attend an AA meeting?
it would probably serve you better!
YMMV and obviously does!
rosie
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
I note your reply.
JB
Ron
<NeuroEq...@webtv.net> wrote:
> 2. A disease is an entity characterized by at
> least two of these criteria:
> (1) a recognized etiologic agent (or agents);
> http://www.tgorski.com/gorski_articles/disease_model_of_addiction_010704.htm
2. is where I guess I get hung up. The article concludes:
"There is clear evidence that a new diagnostic paradigm is emerging that
is reframing the definition of disease from one that is physiological
symptoms only to one that is biopsychosocial in nature."
Biopsychosocial ... umm, well, what else is there? :) It's the
complexity of the etiology that I get hung up on. I'm basically just
used to thinking about disease being the result of a bacteria or virus,
or maybe a maladaptive gene, etc. That might not be correct, but it's
my knee jerk reaction anyway.
I liked the link. The patterns described sound very familiar. Alcohol
absolutely makes me feel euphoric, so another bottle and another, and
damn, it goes away and I can't figure out where it went. I found the
following rather alarmingly accurate:
"They come view people who support their alcohol and drug use as friends
and people who fail to support it as their enemies."
The "low grade agitated depression" and anhedonia bit intrigues me.
It's been so long since I haven't regularly consumed alcohol that I have
no idea if that applies to me. I've only very recently decided to
attempt quitting coffee and sugar, just to see what a life without out
any even very mild mood enhancers is like. I'm taking vitamin
supplements too, though, so if anhedonia or mild depression are related
to nutritional deficiencies, I might not recognize the problem if it
exists.
--
AB5DB9CC
rosie read and post
gorski is the "father" of the relapse prevention
theory.................................
some of his stuff is really great!
"Ron" <c...@the.spam> wrote in message
news:usgDc.115122$HG.53866@attbi_s53...
: On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:04:49 -0400, neuro equipoise
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
> ron,
> gorski is the "father" of the relapse prevention
> theory.................................
> some of his stuff is really great!
Only because he was the first to coin the phrase " relapse prevention"
?
"Marlatt's relapse prevention model was developed in the late 1970s,
and the term relapse prevention became well known during the 1980s as
an empirically-based, cognitive social learning theory explanation of
the relapse process, with associated treatment implications. Gorski's
model was introduced several years later and is referred to by Gorski
as relapse prevention. The CENAPS Corporation, of which Gorski is
President, offers training workshops and certificates in relapse
prevention counseling. In sum, both approaches have come to be
referred to as relapse prevention."
(Source: http://www.robertchapman.net/essays/relapse1.htm
I'm not going to comment on Gorski's work simply because I do not know
enough about it to be able to do so. Others have:
http://www.tgorski.com/clin_mod/clin_mod.htm)
http://www.robertchapman.net/essays/relapse1.htm
So have others ?
JB
Blue Moon
>The thing that irks me is when people ascribe greater profundity and
>salience to these concepts than they deserve. Speaking of "*the*
>doctor's opinion" rather than "*a* doctor's opinion", etc.
Why sweat the small stuff?
There is only 1 doctor's opinion written in the Big Book (ignoring the
stories at the back - they really don't count). So there is a
contextual place for "the" doctor's opinion, and that is when
referring to the book. Taken out of context, it could be interpreted
that all doctors have the same opinion.
However, given that this opinion was written before 1939, when things
such as metabolism weren't so well understood, the opinion turned out
to have a huge amount of foresight, in the light of hindsight.
--
Blue Moon
Blue Moon
<reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
>: At that NCCA Conference, Bill W gave reasons why the word "disease
>"
>: was not thought appropriate:
>
>: "We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
>: speaking, it is not a disease entity.
>
>that was "his truth" and knowledge at the time.
>
>:For example, there is no such
>: thing as heart disease.
>
>this is another good example of "his truth"................we do
>INDEED have such a thing as "heart disease".
So what makes "your truth" today any more valid than "his truth" then?
--
Blue Moon
Blue Moon
<reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
>my comments DESERVE to be challenged?
>LOL!
The danger of comments not being challenged is that newcomers may
interpret them as truth. They may be your truth, but they may not be
what someone else needs to do.
However, if they stick around long enough, they'll come to realise
that what you do, and what you tell others to do, have a tendency to
be diametrically opposed anyway.
JB certainly "reads and posts", which is doing what you do. But
apparently you don't like that trait in others, and tell them to NOT
do it but only share their own experience, strength and hope.
Should anyone be challenged on the religious dogma of "do what I say,
not what I do"? Hell yes!
--
Blue Moon
rosie read and post
:
: So what makes "your truth" today any more valid than "his truth"
then?
:
: --
: Blue Moon
hey BM, you need to chill........................feeling crabby
today?
i never said there was anything at all wrong (valid) with "his
truth" in the first place....................
good grief!
neuro equipoise
> It's the complexity of the etiology that I get hung
> up on. I'm basically just used to thinking about
> disease being the result of a bacteria or virus, or
> maybe a maladaptive gene, etc. That might not be
> correct, but it's my knee jerk reaction anyway.
If you have alzheimer's, thyroid or heart 'disease', for example, it
doesn't mean you have pus or a virus there, or were born that way.
Degenerative diseases are distinct from infectious, viral, genetic
diseases.
> The article concludes:
> "There is clear evidence that a new diagnostic
> paradigm is emerging that is reframing the
> definition of disease from one that is
> physiological symptoms only to one that is
> biopsychosocial in nature."
> Biopsychosocial ... umm, well, what else is there?
> :)
The author went into detail explaining the *physiological* factors. The
central point is that cell alteration (disease) is *progressive* and
does affect our DNA. The amount and quality of positive brain chemistry
we each inherit is an unknown, and therefore no one can know when the
scales are tipped by further alcohol abuse, and when the line is crossed
into addiction. That is why the author wrote:
Quote:
"There is also convincing evidence that
psychological and social factors can increase the
risk of future alcohol and abuse and alcoholism. There is an
interaction between personality style, lifestyle, culture, and social
system. When these psychosocial variables encourage the following
behaviors related to alcohol and drug use the prevalence of addiction
increases."
End Quote
> I liked the link. The patterns described sound very
> familiar. Alcohol absolutely makes me feel
> euphoric,
It does the opposite for me, and I can feel euphoric without it.
> I found the following rather alarmingly accurate:
> "They come view people who support their
> alcohol and drug use as friends and people who
> fail to support it as their enemies."
I've always found it odd, that neighbors who were drinkers, insisted on
me drinking with them before we can become "friends". : )
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
message news:eIkDc.1382$9l5...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
If that was true, why disagree with his view ?
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:11:59 GMT, "rosie read and post"
> <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
JB wrote:
> >: At that NCCA Conference, Bill W gave reasons why the word
"disease
> >"
> >: was not thought appropriate:
> >
> >: "We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
> >: speaking, it is not a disease entity.
Rosie wrote:
> >
> >that was "his truth" and knowledge at the time.
JB (Bill W quote continued):
> >:For example, there is no such
> >: thing as heart disease.
> >
Blue Moon
<reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
>: So what makes "your truth" today any more valid than "his truth"
>then?
>:
>: --
>: Blue Moon
>
>
>hey BM, you need to chill........................feeling crabby
>today?
Not at all.
>i never said there was anything at all wrong (valid) with "his
>truth" in the first place....................
>good grief!
Then why the attempt to discredit "his truth"?
--
Blue Moon
rosie read and post
"Blue Moon" <mf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message :
: Then why the attempt to discredit "his truth"?
:
: --
: Blue Moon
no one, including me is trying to discredit "his
truth"..........................
it was the truth as he and many others knew it...............PERIOD.
we know much, much, more about alcoholism today, then our founders
ever did!
years ago, "their truth" included the opinion that women were not
alcoholics, remember?
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
message news:CSzDc.14953$Ss4....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> "Blue Moon" <mf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message :
> : Then why the attempt to discredit "his truth"?
> :
> : --
> : Blue Moon
>
>
> no one, including me is trying to discredit "his
> truth"..........................
> it was the truth as he and many others knew it...............PERIOD.
>
> we know much, much, more about alcoholism today, then our founders
> ever did!
Maybe so. However, given that there is as yet no universal agreement
about the most effective treatment for it, there's scope for further
learning.
JB
Blue Moon
<reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Blue Moon" <mf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message :
>: Then why the attempt to discredit "his truth"?
>:
>: --
>: Blue Moon
>
>
>no one, including me is trying to discredit "his
>truth"..........................
>it was the truth as he and many others knew it...............PERIOD.
>
>we know much, much, more about alcoholism today, then our founders
>ever did!
I see very little evidence of this, and certainly nothing new in terms
of any directions for recovery. In fact, the statistical chances of
recovery today are minuscule compared with even the most conservative
of figures claimed in AA's early days. However, your words clearly
indicate that you do, indeed, discredit his truth, even if you claim
you don't - on the basis that "we know much, much, more...". So I'll
ask again... what makes "your truth" today any more valid than "his
truth" then?
>years ago, "their truth" included the opinion that women were not
>alcoholics, remember?
Where / when was that claim made?
--
Blue Moon
rosie read and post
: indicate that you do, indeed, discredit his truth, even if you
claim
: you don't - on the basis that "we know much, much, more...".
either i am not explaining myself well enough or you are being
deliberately obtuse......................you DO seem to be "itching
for an argument"...................
maybe this example will be better for you:
in the 50's and 60's, folks treated small burns by slathering them
in butter.......................and in the hospital burn centers, we
used petroleum based ointments.
that was their "truth" then (the knowledge they had at the time)
the state of the art of medicine today has us doing things
differently now.....................we know more
now.......................
Robert McGregor
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
message news:kXJDc.3818$9l5....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
What "state of the art" medicine is now more successfuly treating the
alcoholism Bill Wilson claimed he never called a disease?
Bob
JB
"rosie read and post" <reada...@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in
message news:kXJDc.3818$9l5....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Blue wrote:
> :................. However, your words clearly
> : indicate that you do, indeed, discredit his truth, even if you
> claim
> : you don't - on the basis that "we know much, much, more...".
>
Rosie replied:
> either i am not explaining myself well enough or you are being
> deliberately obtuse......................you DO seem to be "itching
> for an argument"...................
>
<g>
Effective Arguing
http://www.hwcn.org/~ag687/argue.html
JB
JB
news:ulevd0lns63er8n71...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:19:04 -0400, "Dave Wolff"
<dwo...@modsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I'm a 62 year old male in good health. Up until about a
year-and-a-half ago
> >I drank a lot... 1/2 of a fifth if Southern Comfort every night,
sometimes
> >more. I decided that was WAY too much and something had to be
done.
> >
> >I decided to cut down, drink one or two glasses of wine per night
and skip a
> >day or two now and then just to prove I could do it. I've gone as
long as
> >10 days with no alcohol at all just to see what would happen and
had no ill
> >effects. I've actually managed to stick to the 1-2 glasses of wine
per
> >night... except when we go out on weekends when I'm liable to drink
as many
> >as 4 glasses.
> >
<snip>.
> >Bottom line is that I really don't think I'm alcoholic but am
willing to
> >admit that I am... if I am. Am I wrong in thinking that one or two
glasses
> >of wine in the evening is too much and if I stick to that and no
more, I'm
> >okay? If I can get away from the Southern Comfort (or the like)
100% and
> >stick to the one to two glasses of wine, am I okay?
>
> Dave, my situation is almost identical to yours except that I am
younger
> and have brendy and rum. When it's got to the point that I was
constantly
> trying to finish my work as earlier as I could *just* to get a drink
> ASAP, I decided that, yes, I am an alcoholic.
>
> I hate the idea of giving up drinking wine (I am a bit of an
enophile),
> and currently am trying moderation, but if that fails, I feel that
> ultimately I will have to go totally dry.
>
> G-A
I've heard it said that if someone is trying to decide whether or not
they might be an alcoholic they need answer only two questions:
Firstly: Have you been able to quit drinking entirely on your own
resources?
Secondly: Do you have any control over the amount you take after you
once start drinking ?
A real alcoholic's answer to both questions would be "No".
JB
Dave Wolff
I've been playing a little game with myself ever since I left my original
post last Thursday. Thursday night, at home, I had a glass of wine. Friday
night, my usual "Hit it WAY too hard" night, we went to our usual steak
house. We had grandkids with us which made things much easier... and I
drank club soda all evening. My excuse was the grand kids, and that I was
making my wife the "designated drunk" for the night. I must admit that I
didn't have nearly as much fun as I would have with a couple of Southern
Comforts under my belt, and all-in-all it was a pretty damned boring
evening.
Saturday we stayed at home. I bought a 6 pack of St. Pauli Girl Non-alcohol
beer (which really wasn't all that bad) and had one of those in the
afternoon. I had a glass of wine with dinner. Would liked to have had more
for the taste (?), but didn't really need any, so I didn't. Woke up Sunday
morning "un-hung" for the first time in a while. Hmmmm....
Yesterday (Sunday) I had another bottle of the non-alc. beer just cause it
tasted good. Last evening my wife decided to have one of her little temper
tantrums which usually sends me to the liquor cabinet... and I managed to
pass... had a cup of green tea and a couple glasses of Diet Coke through the
evening.
Tonight when I came home from work my wife was still on the war path, so
instead of getting shit-faced (normal solution to that particular problem),
I took a little nap. No alcohol with dinner and green tea for the rest of
the evening. I might get crazy and have a Diet Coke too, but what the hell,
a guy's gotta' cut loose now and then... (lol).
My drinking in "moderate moderation" over the last few days has worked
pretty well. Like anything else at the beginning though, (weight loss,
quitting cigarettes, etc.) the first few days are "fun". I'm going to keep
at it as a (I hope) new "life style" and see what happens. Week two may not
be fun anymore... but we'll see. Also may not have the grandkids as an
excuse next Friday night at the Steak House... that could get interesting...
I really don't believe I'm an alcoholic although I think I could be without
too much trouble. I love the taste and smell of Southern Comfort and love
the way it makes me feel... the first couple at least. I really don't like
how I feel (or act...) after the next two or three though, and really HATE
the way I feel the next morning. We'll see what happens... and I really
don't want to give up my wine.
Keep in touch... maybe we can help keep each other out of trouble :-)
Dave
"G-A" <ga@net> wrote in message
news:ulevd0lns63er8n71...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:19:04 -0400, "Dave Wolff" <dwo...@modsoftware.com>
wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I'm a 62 year old male in good health. Up until about a year-and-a-half
ago
> >I drank a lot... 1/2 of a fifth if Southern Comfort every night,
sometimes
> >more. I decided that was WAY too much and something had to be done.
> >
> >I decided to cut down, drink one or two glasses of wine per night and
skip a
> >day or two now and then just to prove I could do it. I've gone as long
as
> >10 days with no alcohol at all just to see what would happen and had no
ill
> >effects. I've actually managed to stick to the 1-2 glasses of wine per
> >night... except when we go out on weekends when I'm liable to drink as
many
> >as 4 glasses.
> >
> >Three weeks ago we went on vacation and I decided "a little Southern
Comfort
> >couldn't hurt". Well, it did! I drank quite a lot when we were away for
a
> >week, and now every evening on the way home from work I have a craving
for
> >the stuff. I've managed to get back to my moderate wine drinking pretty
> >much, but tonight bought a pint of Southern Comfort, drank about 70% of
it,
> >and as of this writing, feel like crap.
> >
> >I really enjoy knowing about and drinking wine, but I hate the "hard
liquor
> >compulsion" I seem to have now. Am I alcoholic? Can I drink wine
> >moderately and maintain control or do I have to give it ALL up (which I
> >really don't want to do)?
Blue Moon
>But by AAA or NIAAA standards, it seems that I am clearly
>and unequivocally alcohol-dependent. You know, hiding a bottle
>from my wife on few occasions, sometimes drinking in the
>morning when I can afford it - all that stuff and more.
>What really worries my is that it's getting progressively
>worse. Cannot be healthy!
See the chart at:
http://www.aamolly.org.uk/faq.htm
--
Blue Moon
Nat
> >and unequivocally alcohol-dependent. You know, hiding a
bottle
> >from my wife on few occasions, sometimes drinking in the
> >morning when I can afford it - all that stuff and more.
> >What really worries my is that it's getting progressively
> >worse. Cannot be healthy!
>
> See the chart at:
>
> http://www.aamolly.org.uk/faq.htm
YES - that chart is informative!
The problem with Alcoholism is that it always gets worse.
One could probably live with it if it's demands were alway
no more than "I must have a glass of wine at dinner". :o)
I suggest that you attend an AA meeting and while there, try
to buy a copy of the book "Alcoholics Anonymous" which we
call "The big Book". The entire AA probram of recovery is
within it's covers.
Best,
Nat
rosie read and post
: how I feel (or act...) after the next two or three though, and
really HATE
: the way I feel the next morning. We'll see what happens... and I
really
: don't want to give up my wine.
:
: Keep in touch... maybe we can help keep each other out of trouble
:-)
:
: Dave
:
dave,
this is the part of your post that JUMPED out at
me......................
imo, it really isn't about HOW MUCH you/i drink, but rather how we
FEEL about our behavior, when we drink.
i learned that early in recovery and have never forgotten it.
there is NOT a measuring tool for alcoholism, where consumption is
concerned.
rosie
here is a great source:
http://anonpress.org/bb/Page_30.htm