Conference turris::womannotes-v2

> Why do people take drugs or drink when they are pregnant? Because they are
>unable or unwilling to deny themselves the pleasures associated with said
>intoxicants even though it means a high risk to the health of the child.
>Further education regarding the risks is useless to anyone who already knows
>the score if they won't deny themselves the drugs/alcohol for 9 months.
    
    I don't think this belongs in the same category as the other things
    you're talking about.  Every social professional knows that ALCOHOLISM
    IS A DISEASE - not a character weakness, but A DISEASE.  I know that
    a person who has this disease must admit that she or he has this
    disease first before help can be made available, but denial of the
    disease is *part* of the disease.  How about some compassion for people
    who have this disease?  The same compassion that you would have for
    people who have any other type of disease?  Hmm?  How about it? 
    Please?

> Why do people gamble their paychecks away? Because they won't control their
>impulse to chase the excitement of getting more money for no work.
    
    Gambling is also a DISEASE, not a character weakness, a DISEASE.  See
    above.

    A few thoughts:
    
    First, if I recall correctly, there will be a program on NBC 
    this evening (10:00 E.D.T.) titled "Fatal Addictions"; from
    what I've heard, it deals with a good deal of the subject matter
    Mark has brought up.
    
    Second, a question: is the failure/inability to control impulses
    synonymous with "addiction"?
    
    Third, in regards to the disease model of addiction, it is just
    that - a theory, a model for treatment.  Treating addictions as
    a disease has proven to be the best theraputic method, by far, but
    this doesn't mean that addiction (or impulse control, if you will)
    is proven or disproven a disease.  Alcoholism was declared a "disease"
    by American Medical Association (around 1955, I think) primarily
    because it can be 1) diagnosed and 2) treated, but there remain
    some problems with the disease theory including the role of "free 
    will" and the frequency of the failure of treatment.  
    
    What does seem very helpful in treating these conditions is the
    removal of the question of morality.  Attempts to make "bad"
    addicts into "good" people have proven abysmal; attempts to 
    treat "sick" people have met with far more success.  One thing
    that works for me is to realize that I've never met an addict
    (yes, I know lots of them) who woke up one fine morning and said,
    "Well, by golly, this is just the perfect day for me to go out and
    become an addict; I think that's just what I want to do!"
    
    From my own observations, it appears to me that the common denominator
    in addictions of all sorts is the way the individual deals with
    emotions, particularly unpleasant ones.  For me, the word "addict"
    (or person lacking impulse control) is a short hand way of saying
    "person who learned unhealthy tools for coping with emotions".
    
    Steve
     

I read a wondeful article in CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility) that included the riotous: Just Say No To Bugs.

We all know we can't. We try, but it just doesn't work that way.

But the whole "Just Say No" thing in perspective for me. There are ways to
decrease bugs and addiction, and I think we've take "Just Say No" as far as
it'll go. It's time to provide positive support structures.
	Mez

    RE: .2 - Right. I agree.
    
    RE: .3 - yes, indeed.
    
    Taking alcoholsim and uncontrollable gambling out of the picture -
    call AA and GA for details on these diseases...
    
    I would say that impulse control is not the problem here. Perhaps
    children need to be taught about delayed gratification, but there
    must be some gratification at *some* point, or there is no reward
    to the training. For humans to learn something (anything) there
    must be *some* kind of reward. 
    
    I remember my 88-year-old aunt saying that "You just can't give
    a kid a *treat* anymore." Meaning that to take a kid out for an
    ice-cream cone simply wasn't appreciated by the kid. They're too
    *sophisticated* to appreciate anything as mundane as an ice-cream
    cone.
    
    The rewards people have come to "expect" are all material, monetary,
    etc. Mom and Dad don't take the time to raise a kid with appreciations
    for simple acts, simple rewards. It takes a lot of work to raise a
    kid, and to raise kids with *appreciation* for other folks and the
    trade-offs in life....well, hell - that's downright *hard*.
    
    You have to provide some reward for delaying gratification, or people
    simply won't see the point in it. That's a difficult concept, I have
    trouble with it myself. It's gotta be taught as you grow up, you
    can;t just suddenly decide you want to consider the trade-offs in life.
    
    
    --DE
    

 If you look at things from the perspective of just saying no to really big
things, it is easy to complain that it is contrary to human nature. Self-
denial is not fun, easy, or pleasurable. It is much easier to say "Why not?"
Self denial has to be taught. It IS contrary to human nature. But then, so
is peaceful coexistence with people that are different than we are. Just because
something is contrary to human nature doesn't mean that it is wrong or not as
good as human nature.

 Part of the evolution of man as a social being is that (s)he does things
that are contrary to his/her nature. Primitive man would kill another person
that stole his food. We have outgrown this stage, fortunately.

 Controlling one's impulses takes on many forms. We are all able to control
our impulses to varying degrees.

 A DEC buyer is at a vendor site. The vendor sells a commodity part that DEC 
buys alot of. The vendor offers the buyer a very expensive gift- one that the
buyer REALLY wants. Does she take it? Why shouldn't she? Is there really any
fundamental difference between this and other impulses (ignoring the
chemical changes caused by addiction, for a moment)?

 Steve-

 I think you hit the nail on the head re: diseases. Alcoholism is described as a
disease. It is a useful model, especially in regards to treatement. It is
insufficient as a model, though, and that's where the problem lies. There are
aspects of alcoholism that cannot be adequately explained through the disease
model.

 The Doctah

    re .5:
    
    If I'm going to practice "self-denial", or deny myself something that
    is pleasurable, it's got to be for a reason other than just denying
    myself for the sake of being disciplined and being "good".  I don't buy
    that crapola that's been fed to women for eons about self-denial.
    
    If I deny myself a piece of carrot cake at lunch, it's because I know I'm
    going out for dinner tonight, or because I want my body to *feel*
    better, not being loaded down with all those calories.  It's certainly
    not because "I don't deserve it" and I want to "practice"
    self-discipline.
    
    Get it?  Lots of other examples I can think of.  I wouldn't dream of
    trying to teach "self-denial" to kids or teens.  I would teach them to
    see tradeoffs, gains and losses of each action, etc.
    
    Do I sound selfish?  I am.
    

>Not buying this "self-denial" bs

 Hey- live your life like you see fit. Your attitude is typical of what I'm 
talking about (or so it seems). Rather than self-denial (sounds alot like
what happens in a monastery), try self control. Try not having the eleventh
beer because ten is plenty. Try not buying that thing that you really like
but really can't afford. This is more of what I'm talking about.

 The attitude that bothers me is "I should have it because I want it, _no
matter what_."

 I am not into self-denial for the sense of self-denial. Far from it (as those
who know me can attest). I am saying that a degree of self-control is
necessary- and lacking in far too many cases.

 There is nothing wrong with being selfish in and of itself- but if you
overdo it, it can be a problem.

> I wouldn't dream of
>    trying to teach "self-denial" to kids or teens.  I would teach them to
>    see tradeoffs, gains and losses of each action, etc.

 Well, you are partly saying what I'm talking about here. What I think needs
to be emphasized is that you can't always get what you want. As far as
decision making goes, it's all well and good to say how you are going to
teach them how to think and make decisions, but when you see them making the
wrong decision (using faulty logic to boot) it is difficult to stop from
interceding. Yeah, you can say "but they have to learn from their own
mistakes" but it becomes more of an issue when their mistakes affect you
(or your other children).

>     Do I sound selfish?  I am.

 No way! You? Selfish? Nah! :-) :-)

The Doctah

Problem is, women have been taught to deny themselves and their
wishes (in favor of The Man whose wishes she should be serving).
(I sometimes  have a theory that men, conversely, have been taught they can
get anything they want, be whatever they want to be, etc., which
is why the overwhelming majority of rapes are by men.)

Read some sampling of literature of the 18th & 19th centuries
to hear how women aren't *supposed* to be happy, their
husband/father/brother *is* supposed to be happy, and women have
to work at that, and be happy (but not *too* happy) with that.

Sure, some things have changed for some people in some places.  But
we, I think, still have that model taught to us (at least I know
*I* did).

Maybe teaching reasoning for when and what one can have, rather
than either "yes because I want it" or "no because I want it",
makes sense, as a few notes back said.  Self-denial should not
be an end in itself, but should be a means -- towards making the
right decision, making the right tradeoffs.  (And maybe if one
feels they're not too good at self-denial when it would help
them, one can practice it -- as a method of building up the tool,
again, not just 'cuz it's good for you.)

Just some thoughts...

	MKV

    Re .8, I agree with your first paragraph (do I ever agree!), and
    I think this is why many men seem to be so bossy in relationships,
    and want their own way all the time.  I think many men have just
    grown up expecting that if they get married they will be the boss
    of the household (which is an offensive idea if I ever heard one). 

    But, anyway, Mark, I agree with you to a degree, that people do
    have to learn to control some of their impulses, make trade-offs,
    realize they can't have everything, etc.  But, I don't think of
    this as "self-denial."  For me, the problem with the phrase
    "self-denial" is that it has religious overtones.  It reminds me
    of beliefs held by various religious people I have known that just
    seemed senseless to me.  I'm thinking of things such as one set
    of my grandparents were Baptists who, at the time, believed that
    dancing and playing cards were sins, and, of course, believed that
    drinking, and pre-marital sex were sins.  The idea seemed to be
    that one must exercise self-denial and not do these things, even
    tho they might be fun, for no reason other than some vague notion
    that you won't make it to heaven if you do them.  Meanwhile, these
    same people might do things such as practice racial prejudice, or
    make fun of retarded people.  And, I would find myself questioning
    their values, you know?  So, this is the type of thing that
    "self-denial" reminds me of.  Don't do such and such because it's
    *evil* and you'll go to *hell*. (Huh?)  Anyway, it's not that I
    disagree that much it's just that the phrase "self-denial" is very
    negative for me, and when I read Ellen's "I'm not taking that
    self-denial crap" I found myself thinking - yeah, me neither!
    
    I think alcoholism and drug addiction have to be treated differently
    than simply saying that people with these problems haven't exercised
    self-control.  I don't think it's that simple.
    
    Lorna
     

>But, I don't think of
>    this as "self-denial." 

 I realize the connotation of self-denial is a problem for some people. This
is why I said (annotation). People are conditioned to expect immediate
gratification. Who saves for anything anymore? Hardly anybody. We use this
magic source of immediate gratification called credit. An unfortunate side
effect of credit is that it make things cost alot more. Even our government
has become fond of buying things we cannot afford. Now our country is in
deep sneakers, all because a group of 500 people refused to say no.

 I don't go for the idea of "don't do it or you won't get to heaven" any more
than you do. I do plenty of "naughty things," believe me. I write notes when
I have alot of work to do, for instance. :-) This seems to be a common fault.;^)

>     I think alcoholism and drug addiction have to be treated differently
>    than simply saying that people with these problems haven't exercised
>    self-control.  I don't think it's that simple.

 Well, it is and it isn't. I think that people try something and start to like
it. They do it more and more. It becomes rather routine, and they don't think
about the effects that it is having on their body. Then comes the time when
they know that they should stop, but they figure they can when "things get
really bad." As time goes by, tolerance for the intoxicant increases, and
the willingness to resist temptation decreases. Now it isn't drinking to be
social, it's trying to recapture that feeling. The inability or unwillingness
to say no in a case like this is exacerbated by the body's increasing dependence
on the substance being consumed. Often actual physical dependencies are 
established. In order to treat people who have become addicted, doctors have
modeled the behavior as a disease. This makes the patients feel better about
themselves, as they are not "bad drinkers," they are "sick." Unfortunately,
the disease model is incomplete. It does not allow for freedom of choice or
any responsibility for the addict. So addiction has components of both a
disease and a chracter flaw. By ignoring one or the other of the components,
an incomplete picture is painted of the situation.

 The Doctah

re .10:
    
> Well, it is and it isn't. I think that people try something and start to like
>it. They do it more and more. It becomes rather routine, and they don't think
>about the effects that it is having on their body
    
    You really think that all alcoholics start like this?  Maybe someone
    started because that person has been faced with a *lot* of problems -
    proverty, broken home, abuse, many things.  Or maybe that person grew
    up with an alcoholic parent.  What we learn as children from our
    parents is *very deeply* ingrained in our makeup and ability to
    function as adults.
    
    >So addiction has components of both a disease and a chracter flaw.
    >By ignoring one or the other of the components, an incomplete picture
    >is painted of the situation.
    
    Wrongo.  Alcoholism is *not* a character flaw.  It *is* a disease.  What
    is to be gained by looking at it as a character flaw?  It just confirms
    people who are addicted's feelings of worthlessness, and allow them to
    keep on drinking.
    
    FLAME ON!!
    
    HOW ABOUT SOME COMPASSION FOR THOSE LESS FORTUNATE THAN YOURSELF,
    MR. ALWAYS-IN-CONTROL-OF-YOUR-ACTIONS??!!
    
    What a righteous, holier-than-thou attitude you carry!
    
    Let her or him that is without sin cast the first stone.
    
    Life must be great for you - having all the simple answers to the tough
    problems that social professionals have not been able to solve in
    hundreds of years.
    
    Flame off...
    

	I second this.
    
>    FLAME ON!!
>    
>    HOW ABOUT SOME COMPASSION FOR THOSE LESS FORTUNATE THAN YOURSELF,
>    MR. ALWAYS-IN-CONTROL-OF-YOUR-ACTIONS??!!
>    
>    What a righteous, holier-than-thou attitude you carry!
>    
>    Let her or him that is without sin cast the first stone.
>    
>    Life must be great for you - having all the simple answers to the tough
>    problems that social professionals have not been able to solve in
>    hundreds of years.
>    
>    Flame off...
    
	And I add that there is a "something" in blood that can make
	you react differently to alcohol - usually in a very bad way.

	I am begining to really not believe in the term "character
	flaw" - because they all seem to be related to where you
	live and who you are.  I also do not believe in "self-denial"
	just for the sake of it.  

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The concept of sin is something
			that belongs to someone else

Maybe it's the whole concept of control that just doesn't click.

Support is always a much better idea.

Practice self-support. Yeah; that's the ticket. Be good to yourself. Take care
of yourself. Take care of those around you. Don't harm your environment,
because it harms you.

	Mez

    I wonder if there is *anyone* out there in notesland who knows the
    struggle for self-control that I have exhibited in *not* getting
    into this rats nest until now?
    
    Firstly, I want to address the issue of alcoholism as disease vs
    alcholism as perhaps a character flaw, etc.
    
    I believe, based on empirical knowledge, that there is a strong
    argument for a tendency towards alcoholism being inherited.  However,
    I once heard a very old and wise man say, "Once you *know* what
    your problem is, you can *never* assume it is someone else's problem.
     It is yours.  And what you do about it shows not only who you are
    but what you are made of.  You will *always* have an excuse to drink;
    once you know that it is irresponsible and self-indulgent to continue
    when there is help available, you will *never again have a reason.*
    
    I am a 14 year recovered alcoholic.
    
    Self-control.  I was brought up in the era [ante-bellum] where
    self-control was a virtue.  I have discovered that the times I fail
    to exhibit self-control when there is justifiable reason to do so,
    my life becomes unmanageable and unhappy.  Example:
    overspending---overeating---mouthing off before thinking---and 1000
    other "small/insignificant" things.
    
    To deny oneself something just to prove you can be self-denying
    is perhaps a good lesson in will-power, but it strikes me as useless.
    There are so many other things which I think can be resisted that
    perhaps *should* be resisted, it seems a waste of time.
    
    And I am now going to resist saying anymore.  But those who *know*
    me.........
    
    M  
    
    	
    

>    Wrongo.  Alcoholism is *not* a character flaw.  It *is* a disease.  What
>    is to be gained by looking at it as a character flaw?  It just confirms
>    people who are addicted's feelings of worthlessness, and allow them to
>    keep on drinking.

 Forget it. You know better, no, best. Anything a psycho-phd type says is 
gospel. How could anyone without a phd know ANYTHING?

 Like Steve tried to tell you nicely (as he has more patience than I), 
alcoholism is MODELED as a disease _for treatment's sake_. The disease model
is incomplete, because it does not account for some of the factors which are
known to be present. Now, I'm sure that none of this is important to you,
because somebody made alcoholism real simple and easy to understand for you.
They called it a disease, and for the rest of your life, you will be convinced
it is so, whether these same people revise their THEORY or not. 

>    HOW ABOUT SOME COMPASSION FOR THOSE LESS FORTUNATE THAN YOURSELF,
>    MR. ALWAYS-IN-CONTROL-OF-YOUR-ACTIONS??!!
 
 Had you paid the slightest amount of attention to what I wrote, you'd have
noticed that I specifically stated that I am NOT always in control of my
actions. But then, the flame was turned on already. Next time, read before
you burn.

>    Life must be great for you - having all the simple answers to the tough
>    problems that social professionals have not been able to solve in
>    hundreds of years.

 If you think the answers are simple, then you got even less out of what I wrote
than I thought.

 !402 ot oG

 The Doctah

Those of you stating that alcoholism is a disease:

	What sort of [virus/bacterium/parasite] causes alcoholism?

						--D

    It's a  biochemical  difference,  not  caused by any organism, but
    inherited.  Diseases  don't  have to have a "germ" as their cause.
    Consider cancer, diabetes, or most heart disease.

--David

Seems to me we had this same argument in H_R just a few months ago. liesl

    For information, not to start a fight:
    
    If alcoholism is a biochemical disease, does it manifest itself
    in the absence of alcohol?
    
    If not, isn't the "cure" to abstain from alcohol?
    
    If an alcoholic (one who knows s/he is an alcoholic) doesn't abstain 
    from alcohol, isn't s/he voluntarily resisting treatment for the
    disease and responsible for that action and its consequences?
    
    Karen

Mark,

My personal experience is the opposite of what you describe in 
your base note. Two of the kids I knew as a child grew up to 
become heroin addicts (and we were raised in a "nice" 
middle-class suburb!), one of them serving time in prison for 
holding up a store to support his habit.  They both came from 
strict homes; they knew as kids that they most likely wouldn't 
get what they wanted, and if they made a fuss they would be 
punished, not gratified.
   My brothers and I, on the other hand, were "spoiled."  
It never seemed to occur to my parents 
to try and shape our characters (thank you, God). We were allowed 
to eat what, when, and as much as wanted.  We were allowed to 
wear whatever we felt like - if it was inappropriate (i.e., 
not warm enough or truly stupid looking) my parents figured 
we'd learn, and we did.  Today none of us is fat, none has 
died from exposure, and people rarely laugh or call the cops 
when they see what we're wearing.  In short, we grew up doing
pretty much whatever we wanted, my mother's only stipulation
being "as long as you don't break your neck."  Yet, so far, 
none of us has (to my knowledge) stolen, raped, murdered, or
cheated on spouse or income tax.
   Your whole premise seems to be based on the idea that people are 
inherently bad.  You know, this all seems to me to be the 
difference between conservatives and liberals - conservatives 
think that people are basically bad so they must be controlled, 
while liberals think that people are basically good so 
they must be helped.

Sue

    First, for those of who who don't really know anything about
    alcoholism, have never lived *with* it nor *though* it, please
    get in touch with AA and GET THE FACTS.
    
    I'm not going to get into the disease/non-disease argument here.
    If you know nothing about alcoholism (and so far, no-one replying
    to this note shows a wealth of [correct] information) then please
    go to the people who know. I think it would be an incredible disservice
    to the people here who are AA's ACOA's and ALANON's to continue
    this rat hole in ignorance.
    
    Alcoholism is an incredibly complex disease/problem.  No one, and I 
    mean NO ONE who has not dealt with it can truly understand anything
    about it. It looks very VERY different from the "outside", and making
    value judgements about people who ARE dealing with the problem
    DOES NOT help. 
    
    There is a physical/emotional/psychological interdependency/interaction
    that is difficult, if not impossible to understand. There is such a
    thing as an "alcoholic personality" - someone who would have a tendency
    to develop alcoholic behaviours. Not everyone develops into an
    alcoholic, and the reason why is not as simplistic as "impusle control".
    
    The AA system seems to work for many people, but as far as I know,
    nobody knows exactly *why*. If anyone with experience can shed light
    on this, maybe here is the place, but for those who do not have
    correct information, nor ANY information: let's leave the value
    judgements out of it.
    
    --DE
    

	One of my brothers is diabetic - his body reacts to sugars and
	substantances that turn into sugar in his body (this is real
	simplistic description - ok).

	One of my brothers is alcoholic - his body reacts to organic
	compounds with the general formula CnH2n+1OH.  This includes
	anything ingested or placed on the skin.

	My children may have inherited both or one or none of these
	problems.

	Sometimes we carry the genes for problems and not know it.

	_peggy

    < The AA system seems to work for many people, but as far as I know,
      nobody knows exactly *why*.
    
    I think it works--in part--because *many* people think that their
    problems/drinking behaviors/attitudes/etc. are unique.  At AA, they
    find they are only 1 person among many with the same problems, etc.
    
    Another reason I feel it worked for me was that I had very strong,
    non-judgemental, but *honest* support.  By honest I mean they told
    it to me as they saw it, not as I wanted to hear it.  *Nobody* but
    *nobody* let me hide, equivocate, deny, gloss over anything.  And
    no one ever let me forget that I was responsible for my own life,
    and not my husband, family, friends, etc.  
    
    Furthermore, as sponsors I had *women* not men, and I believe that
    made a very big difference.  One of my sponsors was so long into
    the program she actually was the only woman in many groups for quite
    a while in the Lowell/Nashua area.  And she felt that having men
    as sponsors was good enough, but felt that women understood specific
    problems, etc. that men too often either ignored or did not address
    sufficiently.
   
    I am also ACOA, but frankly, I prefer to ignore that, believing
    that the problems compounded by that part of my life was dealt with
    during the AA portion of my life and on-going therapy.  Plus, how
    in hell can I blame another for the choices I made in my life? 
    
    *HOWEVER*....I do believe that we are responsible for what happens
    to us, we do have an obligation to ourselves and our families to
    do what is best for the common good.  I quit high up on the ladder,
    and for my own sake first.  But I did firmly believe that my husband
    and my family deserved better than what I was giving.  I felt then,
    and still do, that to *know* there is a problem and to do nothing
    about it is wrong.
    
    Sorry, but I *am* judgemental and I will not apologize.  I use the
    same judgement for myself.
    
    M 
    
    

>   Your whole premise seems to be based on the idea that people are 
>inherently bad. 

 The operative word here is "seems." That's not the premise, and that you think
so is an indication that communication is not taking place. Probably the
transmitter's fault, I'm afraid.

>You know, this all seems to me to be the 
>difference between conservatives and liberals - conservatives 
>think that people are basically bad so they must be controlled, 
>while liberals think that people are basically good so 
>they must be helped.

 I disagree. Both groups think that people are basically good. Liberals don't
think that anyone could actually be responsible for anti-social (bad) behavior
but conservatives think that you are responsible for what you do. So if
you do something bad, you are responsible for that. Liberals find it easier to
diffuse the responsibility for anti-social behavior towards factors other
than free will.

 The Doctah

    RE: .24
    
    Liberals don't think anyone could be responsible for anti-social
    behaviour, but conservatives think you're responsible for what
    you do?
    
    Uh-huh. Sorry, doc, I'm a liberal, and I believe people are responsible
    for their actions. But that's an incredibly simplistic way to
    differentiate, don't you think?
    
    
    Marilyn - go ahead and judge, you've *been* there. I don't think
    anyone who *hasn't*, or doesn't have the facts, oughtta be doing
    it, however.
    
    --DE
    

>But that's an incredibly simplistic way to
>    differentiate, don't you think?

 Seems alot less simplistic than Conservatives- people = bad
                                 Liberals       people = good

 The Doctah

    Mark,
    
    Lord, in the past few years there've been so many conservatives 
    up to no good and getting away with it that I don't see how you
    can say something like "conservatives believe in being responsible 
    for their actions" with a straight face.  You really should add
    a disclaimer list to that (-: .  Something like:
       You're Responsible for Your Actions*   
    
   * unless
    1. You're making, or stand to make, a really tidy profit.
    2.  You were appointed by, or are yourself, a conservative president.
    3. Your only intention in running drugs was to contribute to
       conservative causes like funding South American death squads. 
    
    But I didn't mean to get you off track with all this 
    conservative/liberal stuff.  I'm trying to become apolitical myself,
    better for my blood pressure.
    
    Sue 
    

    That's Phil Ochs, not Tom Paxton.

>Those of you stating that alcoholism is a disease:
>
>	What sort of [virus/bacterium/parasite] causes alcoholism?
    
    The same one that causes diabetes, muscular dystrophy, and
    multiple sclerosis.
    
    					andrew

    It has been proved beyond a doubt that alcoholism is a disease.
    Not modeled as a disease, is a disease. I don't know the name of
    the medical research facility, but an article appeared on the front
    pages of the Boston Globe and NY Times about 3 or 4 months ago.
    The red blood cells of alcoholics differ from those of the rest
    of us and react differently to alcohol. The alcoholic has no
    way of knowing this when he/she takes the first drink. He/she
    from that point on is an alcoholic and usually cannot withdraw
    without medical help.
    
    Similar statements have been made in this string already, but
    this seems to require reiteration.
    
    Eileen

There is mucho evidence about the genetic and biochemical difference
in alcoholics.  Alcohol's bodies process alchohol differently.  Unless
you've been there, please don't say its a matter of self control.
Addiction is not like that.  Many are exposed to alchohol, it takes
time for it to develop.  One's exposure may reflect social conditions
and pressure.  Different races are affected differently since there
have been shown to be liver differences in these groups.  For example,
Asians tend to be low in an enzme that metabolizes alcohol.

Most researchers don't think that alcoholics are different
emotionally.  Later on, when you are addicted, you are different.  You
are in the ravages of a disease and you need treatment and firm
compassion from you loved ones.  What you don't need is prejudice,
ignorance, and judgemental pronouncements from people misinformed
about alcoholism.  I'll try and type in later the names of some
excellent books on alcoholism that I've read.

Sorry to be so harsh - this is a hot button of mine.

john

Re: .29

	I almost put in "biochemical" (in essence, since I didn't have a good
word for it, I omitted it.  I admit it made the question seem naive.)

	In your list, (diabetes, muscular dystrophy, and multiple sclerosis)
I see them more as failure of parts of the body to perfom their normal
function.  Even cancer is a malfunction of the cell division process.

[disclaimer: I grew up in a partially medical household.  I'm not completely
ignorant, but I may be in the "little knowledge is dangerous" category.]

	So if alcoholics metabolize alcohol differently, does this lead to
physical addiction?  Are there alcoholics without this biochemical malady?

	What's biochemical about gambling?

							--D

Some good books on alcoholism:

Alcoholism - The Genetic Inheritance Kathleen Fitzgerald

Covers all the evidence for alcoholism as primarily a physical disease
in terms of cause, covers the disease model, recovery, etc.

Under The Influence - Milan & ???

Mostly concerned with the scientific evidence of alcoholism as a
physical disease.

Understanding Alcohol - Kinney/Leaten

Great introduction to the subject.  Covers all aspects of alcoholism.

The Courage To Change - Whooley

Case stories from recovering alcoholics.

Getting Better - Inside AA - Nan Robertson

Gives insight into what AA is all about.

    I intend this as a dumb question, not an argumentative one; it's
    something I've always wondered about and been afraid to ask:
    
    If alcoholism is a disease, why is it treated by self control
    (deciding daily not to take a drink) and living by a set of rules
    that are primarily spiritual?
    
    Unless you're a spiritual healer, you don't treat cancer by self
    control or heart disease by getting closer to God.  Dietary
    control can play a role in a lot of diseases, but that's not the
    same thing as waking up each day and saying "I'm not going to be
    sick today," or "I'm sick today but I'm not going to give in to
    it."  It doesn't make sense to me.
    
    puzzled,
    --bonnie

 Well, we've sort of gotten stuck on a single point of the basenote. If someone
could address some of the other aspects of impulse control (beyond chemically
induced diseases) I would be appreciative. (But if someone could answer
Bonnie's questions, please do).

 The Doctah

    re: bonnie...
    
    Well, I'm not an AA'er, but I have friends who are, so I will
    attempt a *very poor* analogy.  Please, someone who is closer to
    this, correct, or enhance as best you can...
    
    suppose you get migraines...don't know why...then find out, its
    a food allergy.  Anytime you eat hotdogs you get a migraine.  Now
    the doctors can't take away the problem...you must CHOOSE not to
    eat hotdogs.  Medical science can';t cure you, maybe they can help
    to relieve some of the pain, but the problem (disease) persists
    for your entire life.
    
    So goes the alcoholic...no cure, just a daily choice, as you said,
    to keep from being sick.  Obviously the analogy is poor, I mean,
    when you go to dinner the waiter doesn't ask you if you want a hotdog,
    or when you go to a party folks aren't pressing hotdogs on you ...
    and wedding receptions don't serve hotdogs....
    i think you get the picture...
    
    that's a poor analogy, and certainly alcoholism is a very complex
    problem......and as the doctah said,,,probly worth a separate note
    if the discussion continues...
    
    deb
    

RE:  .-2

Diabetes is a good analogy.  If something that you ingest triggers a
disease in your body or you happen to have a body that can't process
that substance, then you need to not ingest that substance.

There is no cure for the disease of alcoholism.  But there is
recovery.  The choice is simple:  continue drinking and die from it
or stop drinking and start living again.  Once you are addicted, it
becomes much more than a physical disease, it affects every aspect of
your life - physical, emotional, spiritual, pyschological.  But the
cause appears to be physical although your exposure varies with your
condition.

People can be alcoholic that never have had a drink and they won't
have a problem.  Likewise, culture is a factor.  For example, in
Jewish culture (this is second hand so bear with me), drinking  alot
was discouraged so alcoholism was low.  Apparenttly, in the US where
some of the traditional cultural inhibitions against drinking may be
lessening, alcoholism is becoming more of a problem in the Jewish
community as people gets exposed enough to set the disease in motion.

I know its hard to understand this disease.  It's really helpful the
more folks get educated about it.  It causes so much destruction in
the world today, its amazing that so little is done about it and how much
misinformation and prejudice there is.

john

>    If alcoholism is a disease, why is it treated by self control
>    (deciding daily not to take a drink) and living by a set of rules
>    that are primarily spiritual?
    
    Bonnie,

	The biggest problem is that society does not treat the intake
	of alcohol as bad - in fact, up until recently there was a 
	lot of pressure to drink it.  "If you can't handle strong
	drink what kind of a man are you???"  "I can drink anyone 
	under the table."

	Tabacco addiction is close to the same thing only no one
	blames you if you keep going back after you have stopped
	smoking for a few years.  But if you stop drinking and then
	go back to drinking and get out of control it is all your
	own fault, at least that is what society says to you over
	and over again.

	It is my understanding that AA and its rules are there to keep
	the individual on track because they can not have just one
	little tiny drink ever again and be safe.  There is no support
	in society to help people with problems like these and in
	some ways there are no rewards given from society for being
	healthy.

	_peggy

    re: .36, .37
    
    Thanks for taking time to explain that -- I think I see what you
    mean.  The hotdogs analogy was a particularly apropos choice since
    Kat used to be allergic to some of the preservatives commonly
    found in hotdogs, and when you're 5 or 6, people DO push hotdogs
    on you constantly.  And she loved them; it took a while before she
    learned that the pain of the headache she got after having too
    many hotdogs was worse than the pleasure she got from eating them.
    
    But that makes me wonder -- if alcholism is a disease, caused by a
    metabolic inability to handle certain substances,  that implies
    that in the future science might be able to provide more options. 
    Perhaps there will be a diagnostic test so you can tell ahead of
    time whether you're a person who doesn't manufacture the right
    enzymes.  Perhaps  abstinence might not be the only cure --
    alcoholic individuals might be able to receive supplements of
    whatever enzymes etc. that it takes to handle alcohol properly.  
    
    But while a person who's metabolizing alcohol correctly won't
    become physically addicted to the intake of alcohol, is it going
    to stop that person from  drinking too much at a party and
    punching out his roommate, or getting into a traffic accident
    driving home drunk?  If the person's not an alcoholic, those are
    issues of responsibility and self-control, not of illness.
    
    And even if the person isn't physically addicted, does that
    eliminate psychological dependency, using the chemical to dull the
    pain of living?
    
    --bonnie

    RE: .39
    
    Bonnie, I think that alcoholism is a complex mix of physical,
    emotional, and psychological components. The mind/body connection
    is not well understood yet - people still view it as "mind over
    matter" - your head exerting will on your body. But it's much more
    than that, and even Western medicine is coming to understand that.
    
    Take, for example, the case of the man with multiple personality
    who had sliced thru the tendons in his hand with a knife, rendering
    his hand fairly useless. Seems he had done this while in one of
    his personalities - the other personalities didn't know about it.
    His hand showed the effects of the severed tendons while in the
    personality  he experienced the injury in, but while in the other
    personalities, no symptoms existed.
    
    Turns out there are lots of cases like this.  The mind/body
    connection is not well explored in the West - I think Eastern
    philosophies understand it better. I know a person who says that
    spiritual, or energetic healing is really the *only* healing,
    and many nurses are using Therapeutic Touch now, which works on
    the patient's "field" or aura.
    
    Alcoholism and other adictions are going to be much better understood
    when this mind/body connection is better understood. Since we're
    relying on Western medicine for this understanding, it'll be a while.
    Why, there's a drug program in NY that's using acupuncture and getting
    excellent results, but the support is tied up because Western medicine
    can't "prove" that it works!
    
    --DE
    

    Alcoholism and addiction may have physiological causes,
    but they require conscious effort to cure. You can strap
    a person with a viral infection down, pump him full of
    penicillin, and 'cure' him. (Leaving aside the ethics
    of that treatment. ) You can't do the same for an alcoholic -
    he must *want* to be cured. 
    
    This is the weakness in labeling alcoholism a 'disease' -
    the volitional factor may be left unrecognized. 
                          ---
    A real cure will involve both physical and psychological
    treatment, or the chance of relapse is high.
    
    (It may be that someday we'll know enough about the
    physical factors of alcoholism to cure it with strictly
    physical treatment. Until that time, alcoholics must 
    be made to accept *some* responsibility in their own cure.)

    I object the word "cure" here. I think that a better term would be
    "arrest the condition", and that can only be done if and when the alcoholic
    wants the condition arrested. Did anyone see "The Days of Wine and Roses"?
    The movie illustrates my point.

    Deb

    re: .5 and .1
    
    To put my two cents in: alcoholism is more than an issue of a disease
    and a character flaw.  It is also a social issue, with the family or
    significant others of the alcoholic functioning to maintain the system
    (however painful it may be) because it is FAMILIAR.
    
    See also 750.4.
    
    Lynn

 Could we possibly move the alcoholism/substance abuse discussions to the
newly started topics? 750- is a discussion about personal experiences and
observations about the effects of alcoholism. 748 is a discussion about the
nature of alcoholism, ie what it is/isn't. Opinions are welcome.

 The Doctah

Re:  .41

>   You can strap a person with a viral infection down, pump him full of
>   penicillin, and 'cure' him.

A nit:  penicillin works on bacteria, but not on viruses.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

	The title of this topic is "Impulse Control", and a few early
	replies addressed the usefulness of self-denial. I'd like to point
	out that for some people (I include myself) self-discipline is
	an acquired skill, and one that must be practiced at frequent
	intervals or else the skill is diminished. In this context,
	what might appear as an exercise in self-denial for it's own
	sake may be an exercise in self denial for the purpose of keeping
	this skill sharp. My own opinion is that, sadly, this is rapidly 
	becoming a lost art.

					Tom_K

Re.  <<< Note 737.46 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "Ollie would have got 'em" >>>

>	The title of this topic is "Impulse Control", and a few early
>	replies addressed the usefulness of self-denial. I'd like to point
>	out that for some people (I include myself) self-discipline is
>	an acquired skill, and one that must be practiced at frequent
>	intervals or else the skill is diminished. In this context,
>	what might appear as an exercise in self-denial for it's own
>	sake may be an exercise in self denial for the purpose of keeping
>	this skill sharp. My own opinion is that, sadly, this is rapidly 
>	becoming a lost art.
>
>					Tom_K

I agree about it being an acquired skill, but have you been involved in any
of the 12-step programs available these days?  One of the implicit principles 
in any of these programs is self-denial.  The term I hear most often is 
'delayed gratification'.  You might want to check it out - there are numerous
open meetings in the Boston area, especially AA.  What you see there may
change your opinion.

/Mike