[RUEZ]

poquas poquas:

The fact is that until you become an alcoholic, you are not. It does not matter how many people in your family are.

Exactly.

[Choban]

poquas poquas:

The fact is that until you become an alcoholic, you are not. It does not matter how many people in your family are.

It points to the genetics of the addiction in which case it can be viewed as a disease. Like I said earlier, I neither agree or disagree with the author of the book (who states it's a choice), was only pointing out that all these backyard med students should maybe at least listen to what the guy is saying rather than discounting what he was trying to say.
Hell, I'll agree with you on this, just stating facts, theres alcoholism in my family for generations back and I still enjoy a drink without fear of becoming an alci, odds are though from sciences point of view that if I make the choice to drink to excess then I'm at risk.

[Proculation]

poquas poquas:

The fact is that until you become an alcoholic, you are not. It does not matter how many people in your family are.

You are born with some genetics that can't be changed. You are not born a "virgin container". Some are more prone to hedonism. If it's not alcohol, it can be drugs or sex.

[Choban]

Proculation Proculation:

poquas poquas:

The fact is that until you become an alcoholic, you are not. It does not matter how many people in your family are.

You are born with some genetics that can't be changed. You are not born a "virgin container". Some are more prone to hedonism. If it's not alcohol, it can be drugs or sex.

exactly

[poquas]

An alcoholic is an individual who ABUSES alcohol. A person who does not abuse alcohol is NOT an alcoholic regardless how predisposed they may be to become one. The pathology applies in all cases.

This guy graduated a couple of years after I did and has been involved in the research and teaching side of the profession. I have been in the same field, IN THE FIELD, practising even longer.

His theory, which at this point is hypothesis, not fact and he represents only one of many "theories" and beliefs in the field.

His position, as I've stated previously is simplistic and obviously supports the theory he wishes to prove.

I happen to think that for the most part he is dead wrong.

[Choban]

poquas poquas:

An alcoholic is an individual who ABUSES alcohol is an alcoholic. A person who does not abuse alcohol is NOT an alcoholic regardless how predisposed they may be to become one. The pathology applies in all cases.

This guy graduated a couple of years after I did and has been involved in the research and teaching side of the profession. I have been in the same field, IN THE FIELD, practising even longer.

His theory, which at this point is hypothesis, not fact and he represents only one of many "theories" and beliefs in the field.

His position, as I've stated previously is simplistic and obviously supports the theory he wishes to prove.

I happen to think that for the most part he is dead wrong.

I think your wrong on your definition of an alcoholic, there are plenty of young adults that binge drink or drink to excess when they drink (this would be abusing alcohol) but no basis to deem them to be alcoholics.

In common and historic usage, alcoholism refers to any condition that results in the continued consumption of alcoholic beverages despite health problems and negative social consequences. Modern medical definitions[1] describe alcoholism as a disease and addiction which results in a persistent use of alcohol despite negative consequences. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, alcoholism, also referred to as dipsomania[2] described a preoccupation with, or compulsion toward the consumption of, alcohol and/or an impaired ability to recognize the negative effects of excessive alcohol consumption.

From Wiki

[poquas]

Choban Choban:

I think your wrong on your definition of an alcoholic, there are plenty of young adults that binge drink or drink to excess when they drink (this would be abusing alcohol) but no basis to deem them to be alcoholics.

If it only happens once a month, it’s stupidity. If it happens every night, or every week, it's alcoholism (usually).

I stand by my statement and the intent of the statement was pretty clear and simple to understand. If you want to “fence” over the words, I’m not about to try and convince you. You need to learn a little more about what you are trying to argue.

[Choban]

I stand by my statement and the intent of the statement was pretty clear and simple to understand. If you want to “fence” over the words, I’m not about to try and convince you. You need to learn a little more about what you are trying to argue.[/quote]

Well you said "An alcoholic is an individual who ABUSES alcohol is an alcoholic. A person who does not abuse alcohol is NOT an alcoholic regardless how predisposed they may be to become one. The pathology applies in all cases."

then and you say "If it only happens once a month, it’s stupidity. If it happens every night, or every week, it's alcoholism (usually).

So stand by your statement if you will, just ensure it's the same statement everytime.

[poquas]

Comprehension obviously is not one of your strengths, is it? If you are intent to argue for arguments sake, you’ll have to find someone else. I see nothing confusing in what I said earlier.

[RUEZ]

If both my parents smoke but I don't, am I addicted to cigarettes?

[Blue_Nose]

The parallel that's been made to obesity is interesting ...

Obviously some people are predisposed to be overweight, while others aren't, and some are predisposed to be alcoholics while others aren't.

Obviously some people overeat, and some people binge drink, and this may result in becoming obese/alcoholic, but not necessarily so.

Now, if those people that are predisposed to being obese watch their diet and exercise, they can lose the weight and they no longer suffering from obesity (even though they're still predisposed to becoming obese again). If an alcoholic straightens out or gets help and stops drinking, does it make sense to say they still suffer from alcoholism?

The point is, I would think it would make sense for there to be a distinction between the predisposion to a certain condition and the condition itself. It seems that people are referring to both the predisposition and the condition as 'alcoholism', though.

[ridenrain]

Alcoholism dosen't count because theres no money to be made from it.

[dino_bobba_renno]

poquas poquas:

Overall the opinion that addiction is a choice and quitting is also a choice is simplistic and silly.

Ya and that's why it's so easy to stop Do you think when someones life is going down the shitter and no matter how hard they try or how many times they try and still can't quit with out help that it's a simple matter of will power? Go to a few AA meetings before you decide that you know everything there is to know about addictions.

[Choban]

poquas poquas:

Comprehension obviously is not one of your strengths, is it? If you are intent to argue for arguments sake, you’ll have to find someone else. I see nothing confusing in what I said earlier.

I comprehend just fine thanks, you made two different statements hence my confusion on what you believe alcoholism to be, then you baited me by claiming my ignorance and suggesting I reasearch the subject which I have knowledge of due to family history and did provide links to backup my claims. So whos arguing for arguments sake? All I did was post a definition, I only brought alcoholism into play here to show some holes in the authors work as well.

[ShepherdsDog]

Not all who abuse alcohol are alcoholics, but all alcoholics abuse alcohol.