Day 98! And huge congratulations to LushNoMore on making 100 days yesterday. Awesome work, LNM!
Apologies to those of you who are bored with this topic already after reading 'Is Alcoholism a Disease?' yesterday, but, having done more research, I felt I had to come back to it. Don't worry, I'll move onto something much lighter tomorrow!
My friend P, who has a proper post grad degree in addiction studies, sent me an academic paper entitled 'Addiction Disease Concept: Advocates and Critics' by the hugely respected researcher William L White.
If you want to read to paper then here is a link.
As Angie and Anne pointed out yesterday, it is certainly not black and white. In fact the debate has been raging amongst 'experts' for centuries.
White writes (there's a tongue twister!): "For more than 200 years America has vacillated over the question of whether excessive drug use is a disease, an illness, a sickness, a malady, an affliction, a condition, a behaviour, a problem, a habit, a vice, a sin, a crime, or some combination of these. A new century opens with debate over this question raging ever more intensely."
White then sets out, extremely cogently, the two extremes of the argument.
Now I still stand by my criticism of the 'disease concept' (as White called it) which was the basis of my rant yesterday. However, the opposite extreme is much worse!
The most vocal critics of the 'disease concept' include a chap called Jeffry Schaler, publisher of a book entitled 'Addiction is a Choice'.
Schaler argues that "the idea that addiction is a disease is the greatest medical hoax since the idea that masturbation makes you go blind."
According to Schaler, the addict chooses to take the drug, and - by the same token - they can choose to stop. It is only because they are told they have an incurable disease that they do not. He believes that many people 'mature out' of addiction, and that they can learn to moderate.
Poppycock!
That is not how addictive narcotics work! People may choose to take them initially, but they do NOT choose to become addicted. Even those who decide to play with heroin believe that they are in control of it - until they are not. (Sound familiar?)
In the case of (the addictive narcotic) alcohol, we are led to believe that only a very small minority have the disease that makes copious consumption an issue. Its use is not only normalised and widespread, but advertised and glamorised.
There are no warnings on the bottle that we are playing fire by consuming a hugely addictive substance.
We do not choose to get addicted! Like the heroin addict, we think we are in control (we're told that 'normal' people are always in control) until we are not.
Then, according to Schaler, once addicted we should be able to 'choose' not to be. To moderate! Bollocks! Do we expect heroin addicts to be able to 'snap out of it?' Do we advise them to 'moderate'? Of course we don't!
A number of studies have shown that what causes addiction is a permanent shift in the brain chemistry - in the way we deal with and manufacture dopamine. Once a pickle, always a pickle.
When you've reached this point, the urge to take your drug is, as per the disease model, uncontrollable and unstoppable. And, like the disease model, moderation is not an option.
I looked up one of the old anti-drugs ads from 1987. Do you remember the 'heroin screws you up' campaign? Here's how the copy read:
At first you think you can control heroin.
But before long you'll start looking ill, losing weight and feeling like death.
Then one day you'll wake up knowing that, instead of you controlling heroin, it now controls you.
So, if a friends offers you heroin, you know what to say.
Alcohol is a slower burn addiction. And, at least initially, it makes you gain weight, not lose it. But, apart from that, same old, same old. And yet we condemn one drug whilst encouraging the widespread enjoyment of another.
Heroin screws you up, but alcohol relaxes you, gives you confidence, makes you more fun and sociable. "Just say no" to heroin, but say "make mine a double" to Scotch whisky. Where's the logic in that?
So, it's certainly not black and white. And despite the huge costs to individuals and society of 'alcoholism,' and centuries of research and debate, nobody seems to be able to agree what causes it or what to do about it.
What are we supposed to do in the midst of all this debate? Carry on not drinking, have a ball being alcohol free, and let them all fight it out.
Happy, hangover free Sunday everyone!
SM x
Showing posts with label alcoholism disease. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alcoholism disease. Show all posts
Sunday, 7 June 2015
Saturday, 6 June 2015
Is Alcoholism a Disease?
Day 97! A gloriously sunny, sober Saturday. Children still slumbering and the husband out hunter gathering (buying coffee and newspapers) on the streets of Chelsea.
Spoiler alert: this post is somewhat controversial. Please do not feel obliged to agree with me, in fact all debate warmly encouraged!
It was announced in the press yesterday that Charles Kennedy (see my post: When the wine witch wins. Part 2) was, indeed, killed by his alcoholism. He had a 'massive haemorrhage'.
This news caused yet more discussion about alcoholism in the press, which you might think is a very good thing. Here's a typical quote from the Guardian:
“I also hope that politicians of all parties develop a better understanding of alcoholism, take it more seriously and devise policies to treat it as a disease on a par with the other major diseases."
And, yes, it would be good for "all parties develop a better understanding of alcoholism", and to "take it more seriously," BUT all the language used is designed to distance the commentator, and the vast proportion of the population, from the problem.
What they are, in effect, saying is "pity those poor souls that have this terrible disease they can do nothing about. Thank goodness the vase majority of us don't have it! Let's raise a glass to that!"
They think they know what the 'disease of alcoholism' looks like. It's the homeless wino in the gutter. It's the girl collapsed, in a pool of her own vomit, outside the nightclub with her knickers on show.
It's not them with their 'civilised' half bottle of wine with a colleague or client over lunch, gin and tonic when they get home, and another bottle shared with the wife at dinner. Oh no.
I don't believe that alcoholism is a disease or an illness. I'm with Jason Vale and Alan Carr, who believe that 'alcoholism' is a drug addiction like any other.
Some people are more prone to becoming addicted more quickly. The Horizon documentary on the BBC recently showed how some racial groups (e.g. Irish, American Indians) are, because of the slow speed with which they metabolise alcohol, more likely to develop alcoholism than others (e.g. Japanese, Chinese).
And 'nurture' plays a part as well as 'nature'. If you're raised to believe that drinking daily, copious, amounts of alcohol is the norm, you are more likely to do so yourself.
Certain professions encourage 'alcoholism' for the same reason: advertising and media, journalism and investment banking for example.
Plus, anyone dealing with any form of 'emotional damage' is far more likely to become hooked on the blurry oblivion provided by alcohol (and other drugs) in order to fill the 'hole in the soul'.
But, the truth is, that just like heroin, nicotine, cocaine and any other addictive drug, anyone who drinks enough alcohol over a long enough period of time will eventually become hooked.
Sooner or later your brain chemistry is permanently altered such that it becomes reliant on your drug of choice (in this case alcohol) for dopamine. Eventually your cucumber becomes a pickle (see Moderation. Is it possible? Part 2 for more on this one)
Going back to the quote from yesterday's papers, if it had read like this: “I also hope that politicians of all parties develop a better understanding of alcohol, take it more seriously and devise policies to treat it as an addictive drug on a par with the other addictive drugs" then that would be helpful. That would be a game changer.
Why? Because talking about it that way makes it clear that no-one is immune. It would encourage people to question their own drinking habits before they become too entrenched. More and more people would jump off the elevator before it gets to rock bottom.
As a society we insist on treating alcohol differently from other drugs because a huge proportion of the population are using it. The same used to be true of nicotine. At one point even doctors promoted smoking as, not just harmless, but healthy! How extraordinary that seems now.
I understand that talking about alcoholism as 'a disease' or 'an illness' ensures that people struggling with it are pitied rather than scorned, which is something. But even when we manage to 'recover' they feel sorry for us, trapped in a world without alcohol for ever.
Do we want pity? If alcoholism was seen for what it is - as a chronic addiction that anyone can be sucked into - then those of us who manage to break the chains would be envied and lauded. We wouldn't be hiding behind anonymity in church halls, or pseudonyms on the internet.
We have to stop blaming 'the disease' and start blaming the drug.
Only then can we give people proper help before they get to rock bottom, like Charles Kennedy. Only then can we properly counsel our children. Only then can we stop, not just the effects of alcoholism that people know about - like fights in city centres late at night and cirrhosis of the liver, but the effects they don't see: the gradual leeching of talent, ambition and energy of vast hidden swathes of the population.
Wake up, and smell the coffee (on a glorious hangover free, sunny day like today) people.
Feel free to disagree vehemently in the comments section below!
Love SM
Related post: Is Alcoholism a Disease? Part 2
Spoiler alert: this post is somewhat controversial. Please do not feel obliged to agree with me, in fact all debate warmly encouraged!
It was announced in the press yesterday that Charles Kennedy (see my post: When the wine witch wins. Part 2) was, indeed, killed by his alcoholism. He had a 'massive haemorrhage'.
This news caused yet more discussion about alcoholism in the press, which you might think is a very good thing. Here's a typical quote from the Guardian:
“I also hope that politicians of all parties develop a better understanding of alcoholism, take it more seriously and devise policies to treat it as a disease on a par with the other major diseases."
And, yes, it would be good for "all parties develop a better understanding of alcoholism", and to "take it more seriously," BUT all the language used is designed to distance the commentator, and the vast proportion of the population, from the problem.
What they are, in effect, saying is "pity those poor souls that have this terrible disease they can do nothing about. Thank goodness the vase majority of us don't have it! Let's raise a glass to that!"
They think they know what the 'disease of alcoholism' looks like. It's the homeless wino in the gutter. It's the girl collapsed, in a pool of her own vomit, outside the nightclub with her knickers on show.
It's not them with their 'civilised' half bottle of wine with a colleague or client over lunch, gin and tonic when they get home, and another bottle shared with the wife at dinner. Oh no.
I don't believe that alcoholism is a disease or an illness. I'm with Jason Vale and Alan Carr, who believe that 'alcoholism' is a drug addiction like any other.
Some people are more prone to becoming addicted more quickly. The Horizon documentary on the BBC recently showed how some racial groups (e.g. Irish, American Indians) are, because of the slow speed with which they metabolise alcohol, more likely to develop alcoholism than others (e.g. Japanese, Chinese).
And 'nurture' plays a part as well as 'nature'. If you're raised to believe that drinking daily, copious, amounts of alcohol is the norm, you are more likely to do so yourself.
Certain professions encourage 'alcoholism' for the same reason: advertising and media, journalism and investment banking for example.
Plus, anyone dealing with any form of 'emotional damage' is far more likely to become hooked on the blurry oblivion provided by alcohol (and other drugs) in order to fill the 'hole in the soul'.
But, the truth is, that just like heroin, nicotine, cocaine and any other addictive drug, anyone who drinks enough alcohol over a long enough period of time will eventually become hooked.
Sooner or later your brain chemistry is permanently altered such that it becomes reliant on your drug of choice (in this case alcohol) for dopamine. Eventually your cucumber becomes a pickle (see Moderation. Is it possible? Part 2 for more on this one)
Going back to the quote from yesterday's papers, if it had read like this: “I also hope that politicians of all parties develop a better understanding of alcohol, take it more seriously and devise policies to treat it as an addictive drug on a par with the other addictive drugs" then that would be helpful. That would be a game changer.
Why? Because talking about it that way makes it clear that no-one is immune. It would encourage people to question their own drinking habits before they become too entrenched. More and more people would jump off the elevator before it gets to rock bottom.
As a society we insist on treating alcohol differently from other drugs because a huge proportion of the population are using it. The same used to be true of nicotine. At one point even doctors promoted smoking as, not just harmless, but healthy! How extraordinary that seems now.
I understand that talking about alcoholism as 'a disease' or 'an illness' ensures that people struggling with it are pitied rather than scorned, which is something. But even when we manage to 'recover' they feel sorry for us, trapped in a world without alcohol for ever.
Do we want pity? If alcoholism was seen for what it is - as a chronic addiction that anyone can be sucked into - then those of us who manage to break the chains would be envied and lauded. We wouldn't be hiding behind anonymity in church halls, or pseudonyms on the internet.
We have to stop blaming 'the disease' and start blaming the drug.
Only then can we give people proper help before they get to rock bottom, like Charles Kennedy. Only then can we properly counsel our children. Only then can we stop, not just the effects of alcoholism that people know about - like fights in city centres late at night and cirrhosis of the liver, but the effects they don't see: the gradual leeching of talent, ambition and energy of vast hidden swathes of the population.
Wake up, and smell the coffee (on a glorious hangover free, sunny day like today) people.
Feel free to disagree vehemently in the comments section below!
Love SM
Related post: Is Alcoholism a Disease? Part 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)