Alcoholics Anonymous, who strangely claims to have no official position on the disease theory of addiction, has been instrumental in promoting the theory that alcoholics have an allergy to alcohol which makes them drink. Since their “Big Book” was first published it contained a section titled “The Doctor’s Opinion” in which Dr. William Silkworth M.D. introduces this theory. It has been expanded upon and widely promoted over the years and much effort has been put into proving it scientifically to no avail. The theory now says that alcoholics have an allergic reaction to alcohol in which their body creates toxins which decrease inhibition and cause irresistible cravings for alcohol. This theory is the basis for the claim that moderation is impossible, and it has been applied to drugs other than alcohol as well. But as you’ll see, it falls apart when psychological studies show that alcoholics who supposedly have this allergy which leads to loss of control over drinking don’t lose control of their drinking when they don’t know they’re drinking alcohol!
In 1973 Alan Marlatt of the University of Washington’s Addictive Behaviors Research Center asked an important question.(XIX) He wondered if expectancy is a more influential factor in excessive drinking than the actual physical properties of alcohol. His team formulated an experiment in which both alcoholics and social drinkers were subjected to four different conditions. One group was told they’d be drinking alcohol and indeed were given alcohol. The next group was told they’d be drinking nonalcoholic beverages and that’s exactly what they were given. Another group was told they’d be drinking alcohol but were instead given nonalcoholic drinks. And the final group was told they’d be drinking nonalcoholic beverages but were given alcohol. Important to the study was the fact that the alcoholic drinks the researchers gave out were a mixture of vodka and tonic in which the alcohol was undetectable by taste. Here’s what Marlatt wrote summing up his study:
“The results showed that for both alcoholics and social drinkers, subjects who expected to sample a drink containing alcohol drank almost twice as much beverage as those who expected to receive only tonic, regardless of the actual presence or absence of vodka in the drink. The findings provided a challenge to the disease model theory of loss of control.”
If alcoholics really had the allergy to alcohol that disease proponents claim then it wouldn’t matter what they thought that they were drinking, they would drink uncontrollably once they had alcohol in their system- but they didn’t. This study shows that people don’t drink more because they’re under the control of alcohol, they drink more because they’re expecting the intoxicating effects of alcohol, therefore the allergy model of addiction is null and void. People drink more because they consciously want the effect of alcohol, not because some biological mechanism or supposed allergy is forcing them to do so.
This allergy model of addiction is yet another blatant abuse and bastardization of a medical term by the treatment and recovery world. An allergy is hypersensitivity to a specific substance such as pollen or a particular food, and one could quite possibly have an allergic reaction to alcohol, but the results would be far different than they’re portrayed within the recovery movement. According to the authorities on alcoholism, alcoholics have an allergy to alcohol which causes them to keep drinking uncontrollably after they’ve had one drink. This is apparently the only allergy that has purely behavioral symptoms, but unfortunately there is no reliable body of evidence to support these claims. An allergic reaction is an automatic physiological reaction, common allergic reactions include difficulty breathing, irritation of the eyes, swelling, skin rashes, et-cetera – all involuntary physiological responses. There are however documented cases of people who have severe anaphylaxis after consuming alcohol. The symptoms of this very real all encompassing allergic reaction include nausea, vomiting, headaches, cramps, sneezing, coughing, diarrhea, swelling, itching, breathing difficulties, a drop in blood pressure, and possibly fatal shock. If you had this reaction you might decide to get yourself to the emergency room pretty quickly, you probably wouldn’t choose to drink more alcohol. Allergies elicit automatic physiological responses, not behavioral ones.
If someone presents you with the allergy theory of addiction then you should ask them for scientific evidence of this theory, they will have none, because there is none. But they may spout out some random results from unreliable studies, or they’ll throw around some impressive medical jargon which is often the case with proponents of the disease theory. They may talk about neurotransmitters, THIQ’s, Alcohol Dehydrogenase, or other biological elements involved in the processing of alcohol, but all of this is meaningless when faced with the truths evidenced by studies such as Alan Marlatt’s (listed above). The facts are that people drink because they desire the effects of alcohol, not because a taste or whiff of alcohol sent their body into some auto-pilot mode in which they have no control over their behavior.
Citation:
G. Alan Marlatt, Current Contents. Number 18, May 16, 1985 P18. The study was originally published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 81:233-41.1973.
There’s Much More Evidence (added 9/11/2013)
To those of you who have thought or commented that “this is only one experiment”, I offer you a review of 9 similar priming dose experiments. Again and again, it has been shown that alcohol does not trigger an automatic response of “uncontrolled” drinking. See this page for more info and full citations: Do Alcoholics Lose Control? The Results of Priming Dose Experiments Say NO
I’m allergic to seafood & beestings, and believe me, the last thing I would seek out for a big night of fun is either a big plate of shellfish or an angry beehhive. I’ve had occasion to be unknowingly exposed to seafood [example 1 – shrimp in guacamole…who does that? example 2 – burger fried on same grill as fish] & my face began to tingle & swell. I reached for Benadryl, not for another shrimp. Interestingly, after accidental consumption of seafood and occasions when I’ve been stung by insects, I didn’t have any urges to steal, defraud or assault anyone, or cheat on my spouse.
Real allergies are miserable to have, not improved or worsened by behavior, and very frightening to experience.
Yes! Obviously alcoholism is an addiction and not an allergy! It’s like quitting smoking, if u have just one
You want another one for sure so the extended version of the truth (allergy) has worked very well for many AA members
Regardless of the evidence!!! The late Abe Hoffer did the most extensive research into b3 (niacin) and the complete B group
To assist with alco list addiction!! Definately useful….
In the AA book Dr. Silkworth does not state that alcoholism is an allergy, instead he says that alcoholics seem to have an abnormal reaction to alcohol. He referred to it as an allergy and said if these allergic people could abstain they would not experience the debilitating affects of a drinking spree. Many of his patients were aware that when they drank they seemed lack the ability to control the amount they would consume. His question became not about moderation but why, these people, many of whom were leaders in their professional fields, would, after a period of sobriety, attempt to drink again setting the cycle of out of control drinking in motion. For most of these individuals there was a long history of disastrous results from drinking alcohol. He believed alcoholism and addiction as a disease had two components; mental, the seeming lack of memory recall, at times, to recognize that when they drink it is quiet often followed by the physical, the lack of predictability concerning how much they would consume. Science has made many advances since the early 1900’s and maybe Silkworth’s allergy theory doesn’t cut the mustard by todays standards, but based on the notion that some how their bodies react differently to alcohol consumption than the majority of the population, many people have been able to achieve and maintain abstinence. The fact that they gather in groups and support each other and discuss how they use the steps, including admitting they need help, the need to correct mistakes and bad acts in their past and seek inner peace to manage their emotions and live fuller lives is really inconsequential. Whether it is or isn’t an allergy bares no real importance on the lives they enjoy free from the chains of addiction and THIS MY OPINION.
Been There And Done That.
Thank you David
Only an alcoholic would know what Dr Silkworth was talking about and meant.
Also been there done that
I believe it is an attempt to explain a reaction to something that we cannot explain any other way. Diabetic people crave sugar, some types of allergies do create a craving such as tomatoes.
I suspect that alcohol leaves a residue in our systems, and this feeling is easier to expel by re-activating it with alcohol, unfortunately this creates a vicious circle, that results in non stop drinking. This is compounded by emotional issues and a collection of issues that have not been dealt with. Add to that the fact that many alcoholics started drinking at a young age before developing certain life skills.
So for this person a physiological reaction definitely aggravates the problem. The fact that a person can stop drinking for 5 years and one drink puts them right back into the problem does suggest some kind of physical reaction.
I am an alcoholic and attend AA. the idea of it being an allergy or disease is of course complete nonsense. I reckon the AA police would arrest me if i ever expressed those views at a meeting lol. There are a small few of us in AA who know this but the masses take it as gospel. There are freethinkers in AA we are not all sheep. I have been a member for 6 years
I have had 30 yrs. continuous sobriety in AA and I have never, ever believed I was allergic to alcohol. I have pointed some people in AA to evidence contradicting the myth, almost all of them have continued to say “I’m allergic to alcohol” at meetings.
For any AA members reading this, read “pass it on” page 388 third paragraph or, The disease concept of alcoholism-E.M. Jellinek
pages 86 and 87.
God Bless
It’s bs… An allergy is completely different than alcoholism. A bee sting can kill in 5 minutes. Most alcoholics take days, if not weeks. I went through AA, and thought it was a load of crap. It only made me want to drink more.
Trish, while I do not believe Alcoholism is an Allergy – I also feel it is quite irresponsible of you to label them as Liars, Cheats and Thieves.
You are 1000% CORRECT! Allergies are real and serious. Alcoholism and drug use is a selfish decision due to selfish, idiotic, maladaptive behavior. AA’s & NA’s like to play pity party and throw up excuses in order to avoid responsibility for their shitty selfish behavior. There are scientific studies that show there is no such thing as an allergy to alcohol in these people.Then there are “opinions” of 100 year old “doctors” that alcoholics like to quote. Its a bunch of malarkey. I quit smoking crack cold turkey 9yrs ago with no groups, therapy, or higher power to do it for me. I’ve never had a “relapse” because i make better decisions now. Its all about self awareness,responsibility, and self control. AA & NA are for weaklings that refuse to accept the truth that they are selfish aholes. I was a selfish ahole, but i made a conscious decision to start living and quit blaming everyone else for my inadequacies. I gained better coping skills. These crybabies need to get a grip on reality. Addiction=selfishness….PERIOD.
My son has recently been diagnosed with allergies to wheat and milk. He doesn’t have what most people would consider a typical “allergic response” to these foods when he eats them. Meaning, He doesn’t sneeze, break out in a rash, tingle or swell. His symptoms were more internal — stomach upsets, headaches, sluggishness, etc., that he didn’t relate to these foods. He also craved the foods that contained what the products that cause his allergy. So why couldn’t a person with an allergy to the grains or fruits in alcohol also have these same internal reactions and cravings from drinking and not realize it’s the drink that’s the culprit?
I checked out food allergies on MedlinePlus. True food allergies cause the exact kinds of symptoms you say our son doesn’t have – hives, itching, swelling, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, sneezing, tearing.
I’m curious, what sort of health professional diagnosed your son with food allergies? Did they blood test or skin (scratch) tests? What substances did they test for?
Is there lag time between eating the suspected foods & the symptoms?
Often when people have a distressing they believe to be an allergic reaction, they think the last thing they ate, smelled or had skin contact with is the cause of the symptom. If the symptom is not an allergic reaction, it could be a problem that has been brewing for days or weeks and may have nothing to do with the substance the person thinks is causing an “allergy.”
True allergic reactions develop quickly – the last time I was stung by an insect, in the amount of time between feeling a sting on my foot & getting my shoe off, my foot was already visibly swollen & even with immediate treatment, took 2 weeks to return to normal size.
I think there are some people who get very strong cravings from the alcohol or sugar they ingest, so they cannot enjoy just one drink or one cookie, and these people should probably remain abstinent. They are probably a fraction of a percentage of alcoholics and over-eaters.
I think the idea that alcohol or sugar could cause people to lose control of their conscious behavior, we need to look at the long view.
Before modern science discovered the germ theory of disease and public sanitation, water was not safe to drink. Every culture of humans in history has consumed alcoholic beverages, and some Asian cultures have brewed tea – because alcohol and boiling kill germs that can kill humans. The people who wrote America’s founding documents drank beer for breakfast – literally. If a genetic quirk appeared that could cause humans to become wildly antisocial in response to alcohol, evolutionary theory says it would be bred out of the human genome in a short time.
As for glucose – it is very attractive to primates because it is a concentrated source of energy and we evolved at a time & place where food could be scarce for indeterminate periods of time. Just because we don’t like the results (weight gain, diabetes) from consuming glucose in amounts that can’t be found in the wild, doesn’t mean that people who over-consume glucose have some sort of behavior-influencing disease.
Ah, I’m glad someone is finally responding to my quest for the answer. I was at the agnostic AA meeting this weekend, and I shared what I have learned about addiction as choice. The guy who started the group was so nice, he said he was so glad to see me again, and then he shared that for him, even having one drink sets off uncontrollable cravings that are too difficult to resist. He told me drugs are different than alcohol. Abstinence is all that works for him.
A second case, in my own family, I have seen this person struggle with the sugar deal. He maintains his model physique by eating a low carb diet. Sometimes he lets his diet lapse and has a piece of cake or ice cream, and then it is a bender of sugar foods for a few days, before he is sick of it and goes back on his diet. He said the cravings are uncontrollable, and he just can’t help but give in to them. He gets upset if I try to tell him it’s a choice. His only choice, he says, is to not ingest any sugar at all.
The third case is a friend who is a social worker, has studied addiction, was in Overeaters Anon for many years, who says addiction is a disease because she gets uncontrollable cravings for sugar when she has some.
None of these people care about my experience, or studies. They just know how they feel!
So my question is – could there be people who get uncontrollable cravings for more, when the substance is food (sugar or alcohol), so that abstinence or moderation is the only answer? Or are they just deluded and out of touch?
I love chocolate. I have strong cravings for it, especially when im stressed. However, i know what the result will be if i eat too much chocolate; therefore i stop after a normal amount has been consumed. I also smoke cigarettes. Started 35 yrs ago. I refrain from smoking when in hospitals, work, and friends homes that dont smoke. Do i break out in hives, sweats, or anaphylactic shock? No. To say that a craving is “uncontrollable” is a testament to ones character. It is NOT an allergy, nor is it a DISEASE. Its lack of self control. Conscious decision to be selfish.
hi Jennifer,
Congratulations on overcoming your cravings and addictions. Every person is different, obviously antihistamines can’t help alcoholics, but I think it’s just that the word allergy is an over simplified word to describe a physiological response. Most people in AA will admit that they are mentally ill to a degree, but I have seen alcoholics thinking of killing themselves because they were powerless to stop. I believe there are as many degrees of alcoholism as there are alcoholics. I have been privy to the manipulation and obsessiveness and I am amazed by the human mind. But even though I have felt the urge to drink many times, I don’t claim to understand the seriousness of the powerlessness to stop. Maybe your right about it being ones character, but I think maybe you haven’t found yourself completely powerless to your addictions. The fact that people are admitting to that and asking God for help is testament to the desperation they are living, don’t you think?
I meant to ask, for some people is abstinence the only answer, so that they can never ingest in moderation?
People often confuse the terms “allergy” with “intolerance.” An allergy produces an immediate reaction, and an intolerance is more likely to produce the kind of symptoms your son has. For instance, a lot of people say that they are “allergic” to wheat, when what they really have is a gluten “intolerance,” which produces symptoms that your son has.
I won’t cite sources here, but they are easy to find elsewhere on the internet if you Google the two words.
Cheers!
kelly
many drink moderate after years of AA abstinence
you can read many ….bloggers…www.leavingaa.com go to the thread Abstinence VS Moderation
read a blogger called anon
Yes, of course, many do drink moderately. However, I know people who say they can never drink moderately.
So the question is: are there some people who can “never” drink moderately?
“Yes, of course, many do drink moderately. However, I know people who say they can never drink moderately.
So the question is: are there some people who can “never” drink moderately?”
Yes, Kelly, YES!!! THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN NEVER DRINK MODERATELY AND THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ABSTAIN.
You don’t need random people on the internet to confirm what those people you PERSONALLY KNOW, confirm to you about THEIR OWN SITUATIONS.
Yes, your friends and family that you mentioned struggle with an addiction, and they have told you what works for them. So, you already know the answer and it is not going to change. It varies for people.
Hi Chele,
It is simply not scientifically accurate to say that there are people who can never drink moderately.
Yes, there are plenty of people who have had drinking problems; then intended to drink moderately; then reverted to heavy “alcoholic” style drinking. Does this mean that they are incapable of moderate drinking? No. What people are capable of doing, and what they do in practice are two entirely different things.
There are many reasons why these people may fail to follow through on their stated goal of moderation and instead choose to drink heavily. But constitutionally lacking the potential to do so is not one of them. It has never been scientifically proven that once an alcoholic has a drink they are uncontrollably pushed by some sort of biological mechanism to keep drinking. Instead, the experiment discussed above (and several others have confirmed) the opposite.
So why then do these people “fail” at moderation? Well, other research (available in the link at the end of the article) has shown that after people take on the belief system represented by “one drink equals a drunk”, they become more likely to “relapse” and binge drink. And I understand many people start to think “maybe I can moderate”, “maybe I’m not an alcoholic”, and then they attempt to moderate and fail. But do you know what’s unspoken in such thoughts? The idea that there is such a thing as an “alcoholic”, i.e. someone who loses control of their alcohol consumption – and the lingering doubt: “I might be a person who loses control.”
As long as you think “real alcoholics” exist, and thus believe it is possible that you are one, I suggest you don’t attempt moderation.
The idea that such a person exists must be obliterated.
The other thing that must be obliterated (if you want to change) is the idea that drunkenness is such a pleasurable state that it’s worth the negative consequences that come along with being drunk most of the time. Any given “alcoholic” may not consciously think of it in this way when they are actively engaging in frequent heavy drinking, but it is exactly how they judge it.
The bottom line is that when you believe that you can be happier spending most of your time doing things other than drinking (and you’re willing to do so), then you will spend that time doing other things. But this is a complex matter. It involves self-esteem; self-worth; your awareness and evaluation of other options for creating an enjoyable life; committing to longer-term rewards rather than immediate gratification etc: it involves changing your perspective on your own abilities, potential, and life options. For some people, it is very hard to come to believe that it’d be worth the energy to build out their life and level of happiness in other ways. However, these issues can never be confronted as long as we don’t think that they matter – and the allergy/loss-of-control model of alcoholism tells us that they don’t matter. Also, to say it’s hard to make these changes in perspective and approach is not the same as to say it is impossible.
It takes work to go from a state of habitually deriving the bulk of your life satisfaction from drunkenness and other immediate gratifications, to the state of balancing your pursuit of long-term wellbeing and happiness with a workable level of immediate gratification in your life. Some people aren’t aware of the work it takes, and some people aren’t willing to do that work. Most would naturally make this transition with little to no conscious effort (i.e. they would simply begin to do less of the things that they realize bring negative consequences, and more of the things that bring lasting positive consequences as they discover them – without it being a deliberate effort to “recover from an addiction”), if they didn’t believe they had this special weakness called “addiction.”
People are not literally incapable of making this change. They’ve been misled to believe is impossible or at least irrelevant to their future behavior, and led to spend their mental energy fighting a boogieman/non-existent force called “addiction,” which is supposedly acting upon them to cause heavy drinking/drug use.
As far as people who choose to be abstinent: I am happy for them. Abstinence simplifies things greatly. There’s no shame in it. However, why should it be necessary to believe that moderation is impossible, in order to choose and sustain abstinence? Why not just say “I like to get drunk every time I drink, and then I like to do it again the next day – and changing my alcohol use habits and wants would be more complicated and require more effort than I’m willing to devote to it. So, I’m going to stop drinking altogether because it’s easier.” Where is the shame in that? Why would such an explanation be so bad? Why must we create a false disease, a false weakness, a false vulnerability in order to essentially “excuse” or justify our choice of abstinence?
Because there’s some pressure to conform to society’s drinking norms? I think that’s exactly what’s going on. I think that’s exactly why Marty Mann made it her life’s mission to spread the disease model of alcoholism (and succeeded) – to justify her past behavior and her subsequent choice to abstain: “please accept me, I’m not weird, I’m diseased.”
The people who say they “can’t moderate” cannot claim that as a scientific fact. But that is exactly what they do. Their logic sounds like this:
-Steven
The difference between a drinker and a alcoholic is comparing a pool to a ocean there just different in size, I can’t control alcohol period, 1 leads to 15 every time because I’m wire differently. A person without the predisposition of a drunk could drink a gallon of beer 1 day get sick and stop , the alcoholic would drink another gallon the next day because that’s what we do it’s uncontrollable after the first 1, trust me the only choice is the first 1 after that alcohol controls me there’s no moderation period, how do I know this? 33 yrs of experience trying to drink socially it’s a impossibility and to think otherwise is dangerous cause eventually the booze kills the alcoholic. Don’t think you can trick your mind into casual drinking if your a alcoholic cause it can’t work ,thinking it can is a obsessive mind meltdown of a repetitive destructive pattern , It’s simple common sense don’t ever trick yourself into thinking I can have three beers and stop ,if you’re a alcoholic it’s impossible. The hard part is the ego accepting the fact that it’s not in control after the 1st drink it took me 33 yrs of abuse to come to that realization and then bam presto sanity took over and I stopped mind screwing myself.
Quick answer, JJ–see the study above. There is no evidence whatsoever for this being the case for alcohol. Period.
I don’t fully understand what point JJ is trying to make, or rather how it’s relevant to the above discussion. Yes, you may be allergic to the ingredients in some alcoholic beverages, and you would have the allergic reactions that come along with those ingredients, which I think is commonly gas in the case of gluten. And yes, people often want to eat the foods to which they’re allergic, because they enjoy the taste. And yes, you may be unaware of what’s actually causing an allergic reaction. Many people go through great pains to determine which foods they’re allergic to. But none of this is news.
The question here is: is there an allergic reaction that causes you to involuntarily consume something? I don’t think so. Strong believers in Dr Silkworth’s allergy model of addiction presented in The Big Book Of Alcoholics Anonymous claim to have an allergy to alcohol which causes them to lose all control over consumption after the first drink – yet the study above calls this notion into question. It shows that expectancy is more important than an actual exposure to alcohol in the matter of how much one chooses to drink. People drink excessively because they want the effect of the alcohol – the pleasur or buzz that it produces – not because a drop of alcohol has set off a chain reaction in their body over which they’re powerless.
nonsense the alcoholic loses all self control after the first 1 that’s a fact, I really never set out to get drunk it just happens after the first one period, you’re not a alcoholic so don’t think for one, it’s a sickness a disease which can only be arrested never cured, don’t think otherwise or spew the self control part of it cause you’re not a drunk I am and yes I am ashamed of my lost 33 yrs of insanity but I’m also humbled grateful to maybe help others, I don’t believe anyone is consciously insane yet if I pick up that first 1 I’m out of control which is insane. The power of choice is gone after the first one period.
Hi Peter,
I understand that you are ashamed of the lost years, but my feeling is is to be ashamed is to make it truly lost time. I read somewhere that addicts are on their own journey and part of the healing is to honor the learning process and honor their pasts. Also if we don’t forgive ourselves we may be dooming ourselves to repeat the trauma, because we have not closed the learning process by seeing it through to forgiveness. So feel the things you feel as you do, but try to be open to forgiving yourself and honoring your journey.
Do have another study, besides this one to support this claim? If it doesn’t, then the study cannot be verified as accurate. One study not a “truth” make.
There certainly are other studies which poke holes in the allergy model, and I could do the work to dig them up, but before I do, 2 questions:
1) What in your opinion, is wrong with this study?
2) Are there are any studies (that aren’t based on merely subjective claims by alcoholics within an organization which has taught them that they have no control) which confirm the allergy/loss of control theory?
As far as I’ve been able to find, there are no studies which confirm loss of control as a real phenomenon. If there are, please enlighten me.
I don’t object to this study at all. I was asking for more verification. Now, if the scientific method is to be used then the process is check and recheck. I see but one study and no collaborating or extended study mentioned. That is all I’m saying.
The onus of proof is on the person making a claim. That is logic 101. I don’t claim that addiction is an allergy, or that people “lose control” of the choice to use drugs. I do my best to debunk these claims, but by no means am I logically responsible to provide mountains of evidence to prove a negative. I will sit here, and happily examine any molehills of “evidence” that come along.
Telling an alcoholic he has a choice to drink or not is like giving a man a box of laxatives and telling him not to poop.
I’m an alcoholic and there where many nights I could go out and have two drinks but there where times when I did not resurface for two days and in one instance I did not breath a sober breath for two years. The reality is that I do not know what will happen if I drink but I do know the difference between an alcoholic and a hard drinker. With the hard drinker, when the drink is removed the problem goes away, with an alcoholic when the drink is removed the problems begin. An alcoholic has two choices in my “opinion” as this study is an “opinion” also.
1) they will be irritable, discontented, and restless unless they drink
OR
2) they can except spiritual help …… I chose number two (2) after 22 years of listening to clinical, scientific, “legal-minded, and spiritually dead opinions.
Today my life is so big and bright I need to wear shades.. Thank you God, and Thank you friends of Bill W. and thank you Dr. Silkworth for you medical opinion. It might just be a theory but so is the above. And the theory of an allergy saved my life…
ARGH!
Scientific studies are NOT opinion! They are supposed to be OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS OF DATA collected during research, not OPINION!
Sheesh.
So much misunderstanding of science. I’m not even a scientist for cryin’ out loud.
It’s so easy to judge someone when you don’t have any clue the paths he’s traveled. I can relate to the individual who after thousands of times tried to control his drinking aka”normal” whatever that means and finally threw his hands up and said no mas. I can’t handle alcohol period, occasionally I can have 4-5 beers and fight the urge to have my normal 15-20 but eventually the cravings win out, over and over again , days run into weeks.. Sober up again sometimes for months and then bam the cycle starts over and over again like a vivid nightmare . Alcoholic is more then a word it’s a true disease, sickness which only another alcoholic can understand you could take a non alcoholic and get him drunk force feed him booze every night for a month I guarantee you he could stop and sober up for say a month and go back to having 2 beers on a Friday night and be completely functional. A alcoholic doesn’t have that choice the booze takes over and he’s at it’s whim and it’s nasty painful consequence’s. In a 33 yr career I’ve had over 100,000 drinks and have abstained for periods between a few days up to two months thinking this time would be different, nope same results every time and it gets harder as the years pass. I believe I’m sober for good thank GOD and this is just my story, I know I have a road to blackout drunk if I have that first one or if I find out I had shrimp scampi sautéed in white wine it makes no difference any amount of alcohol sets me off and there’s millions out there just like me. So in closing this is more then just mental it’s physical as well and a non alcoholic thank God has no clue what it’s about, I play golf and I’m a ten handicap what am I going to tell tiger woods about golf?
Amen Todd P. & thanks for sharing. My name is Dawn and I am an alcoholic. I’m not a doctor or a research scientist, nor do I claim to be one. Yet the dedicated Physicians, Scientists, and Researchers who dedicate a portion of their time to the Mayo Clinic say this, “Alcoholism is a chronic and often progressive disease that includes problems controlling your drinking, being preoccupied with alcohol, continuing to use alcohol even when it causes problems, having to drink more to get the same effect (physical dependence), or having withdrawal symptoms when you rapidly decrease or stop drinking.” Furthermore, Alcoholism is influenced by genetic, psychological, social and environmental factors that have an impact on how it affects your body and behavior.” The definition of an allergy, “an overreaction of the immune system to a previously encountered, ordinarily harmless substance, resulting in skin rash, swelling of mucous membranes, sneezing or wheezing, or other abnormal conditions.” “Severe anaphylaxis does include all the symptoms you previously cited here, however a “drop in blood pressure” is not one of them. Severe anaphylactic shock causes your blood pressure to RISE, to a level that is off the charts. If one has an EPI-PEN, survival is better. Waiting for paramedics is another option if you want to keep breathing. When writing your article above, you introduced the word, “theory.” All of your information is just a bunch of theories. I have just presented you with the facts. Here’s another fact, the AMA recognizes ALCOHOLISM as a disease. Furthermore, “The Doctor’s Opinion” is just that, nothing more. Yet Dr. Silkworth’s “opinions” are the facts. If you want to give us a bunch of “theories,” great. But don’t misconstrue a theory with a fact. You probably are not an alcoholic, and have no clue what you are talking about. We of AA, believe in facts, not theories. So, here’s my opinion, and don’t quote me as factual, People may talk, and it’s none of my business.
As I am not an expert on allergies, I won’t deny your claim that a rise in blood pressure can be involved in anaphylactic shock. BUT, if you wanna get nit-picky with me, and imply that I’m an idiot, at least get it right, and pick on me for something I’m actually wrong about. According to the National Institutes of Health, signs of anaphylactic shock include “low blood pressure”. Here is the page where you can read that: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001847/
And the Cleveland Clinic states on it’s page about anaphylactic shock that:
You can read that here: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/anaphylaxis/hic_anaphylaxis.aspx
And indeed, whether you google either “anaphylactic shock drop in blood pressure” or “anaphylactic shock rise in blood pressure”, you get a ton of results that talk about a DROP in blood pressure or low blood pressure.
And since you love the Mayo Clinic so much, here’s what they have to say about anaphylaxis:
Next time, try the simplest research method known to man before you start talking about facts: google it.
I did GOOGLE all my information. Didn’t want to overload your brain with all the facts. Who cares about anaphylaxis. Although I have experienced anaphylaxis more than once in my lifetime. Your main point was Addiction as an allergy. All your ranting and raving, whatever. Since you already went to the Mayo Clinic, I guess you can find the same information I did concerning all your THEORIES. You made claims, I refuted those claims with facts. I did not get “nit-picky” with you, nor did I “imply” that you are an idiot. If you don’t want comments, don’t write an article and put it on line for the world to see. Not everyone on the planet will agree with you concerning your theories about addiction as an allergy. Your drama queen response, just told the world that you really need to grow up.
For me, the “allergic reaction”(irresistible cravings) to alcohol, pot, food, etc, begins well BEFORE the actual consumption starts. This suggests that the problem is mostly psychological in nature and does not support the “allergy” model. Psychological issues can be very powerful and often last a lifetime, possibly explaining why one could equate them with an “allergy”.
-Don
Furthermore, Steven Slate, if you want to accuse me of not doing my research, just google it, like I did. Don’t act like a child and make false accusations concerning my character. Read my entire comment before insulting me. All I wrote were facts from google, like you said. Didn’t just make it all up. I know how to do research, thanks. I read your page before posting, you stated you welcome comments, obviously you need to rethink that. If you don’t appreciate people commenting then don’t write anything. Just a note about your article, the one you wrote here about AA. I may be an alcoholic, yet never suggested my opinions on the subject of addiction, allergy, or disease. I commend you for beating your addiction on your terms without a 12 step program. All I wrote were the facts, found on google.
Dawn a non alcoholic isn’t going to understand period, stay sober for yourself you get the disease part of it which is only one part of it but to me the biggest part. What is so hard to understand that some people like me can’t stop at 2 for more then a day or 2 it’s like the sun coming up it’s never going to stop rising and falling, it’s all a cycle. The world is going to say it’s a cop out you’re just weak minded , of course there going to see it that way cause they can stop at 1 where a alcoholic is destined to crash and burn it can’t be stopped only abstained from. The inability to control starts at not ingesting any in any form period, call it a allergy if you will it fits the criteria of a abnormal reaction. Alcohol makes my face red and heart rate . go through the roof is that a reaction or not? I wish I never had that first drink let sleeping dogs lie. Alcoholism is up and down my family tree which to me implies hereditary which I believe implies predisposed conditions..
“Who cares about anaphylaxis?” – well it seems like you cared enough to try to tell me I was wrong about the symptoms included in it. I can be a drama queen, but I don’t think my response above fits that description. You thought it was important to put “RISE” in all caps as if I was wrong about a drop in blood pressure. For the benefit of readers who might be bowled over by the overconfident tone with which you claimed that I was wrong, I needed to set the record straight. I’m sorry you view that as a drama queen response, but then, I don’t think you expected me to respond, and would’ve interpreted any response as such. It’s my blog, and I reserve the right to argue a point – if you don’t want to be called out, then don’t comment.
There were plenty of other things I could have argued with in your comment, but I’ve heard it all before and really just wished to set the record straight about the rise vs drop thing. But since you’re now trolling me into it, I’ll take the bait. You’re dodging the point of the post, which is that “alcoholism” is not a real allergy. It is relevant to discuss real allergies so that we can be clear about what we’re talking about when people try to say that what they call “alcoholism” is an allergy. Allergies elicit physiological responses – not behavioral ones, as I stated in the piece. You don’t seem to have any answer to that. What you do seem to have, is an incredible ability to make appeals to authority (a logical fallacy). You did not refute my claims with facts, you simply cut and pasted descriptions of addiction put forth by various organization (don’t think it’s lost on me that I responded in kind over the blood pressure issue).
There are times when appealing to authority may be acceptable, but this doesn’t seem like one of those times. What do you have to say to the fact that in this famous study, alcoholics were given alcohol without knowing it, yet they didn’t uncontrollably proceed to drink more? I mean, that’s how an allergy works, right? If you get the allergen in your system it knocks down the dominoes. These people got the supposed allergen, but the dominoes didn’t fall. You can’t answer this question by citing the fact that a trade guild (the AMA) took a vote back in the 50’s to decide whether they would call addiction a disease or not. Such facts are non-sequiturs in this discussion.
Addiction as an allergy is not a biological reality. At best, it’s a metaphor, and a bad one at that. Most people who have ever been “alcoholic” resolve their problems and become moderate drinkers: http://www.thecleanslate.org/self-change/substance-dependence-recovery-rates-with-and-without-treatment/ How do they do that if they have an allergy that causes them to lose control after a sip of alcohol?
Be careful not to believe everything you read on Google, or elsewhere for that matter. Personal experience is worth a thousand Google “facts”.
-Don
Experience is sadly not an objective fact, but a subjective relationship to one’s own perception and reaction to a situation. To explore the idea presented here in this article is worth a look. It might not alter the view of many members in AA, for what to seem to matter to most is the result, and not the specific of the problem. However, the story of Dr Bob, seems to express that even that he tried to solve his problem with spiritual means, he could not muster enough Will Power, to apply these principles until he understood what the problem was. So exploring at least for oneself, the condition of one’s “problem” (be addiction, alcoholism, be there be in form of substances, or behavioral – gambling, sex, online gaming, entertainment, shopping, working and the list can go on) would one state that in all these condition, it is the result of some physical allergy? or that it is indeed a lost of control, due mainly in the capability that one has to process thoughts. As the Big Book states, Lack of power is “really” our dilemma …and the book was written to help members to find a power by which they could live …or as expressed in the Appendix II of the Big Book…they learned to tap on an unsuspected inner resource…that a personality change is needed….That as expressed in the Doctor’s Opinion, that when such change occurred, one finds it easily to control his desire to drink…..
This would seem to emphasize that the problem is mostly within one’s perception…
As expressed in this article, that the “Physical reaction” (“allergy”) is merely the result of one’s inability to control one’s desire….
If not, why then if indeed any time one would consume alcohol one will go in a binge, the text in the Big Book, state that one is put in a place of neutrality, safe and protected? ….meaning, if by some occurrence one finds oneself consuming alcohol (be found in tomato sauce, or toothpaste, or in may conserves —where sugar is added as a preservative, and in such traces of alcohol can be found….nothing will occur to them? where then will be that idea of the physical “allergy”? Thank you for the article, it is worth a read…
Typo …”many conserves…”
Thanks
Jeez… Steve you knew the hardcore AA folks were gonna get their panties in a wad. It goes against their entire way of life. Free will… choice… these people are like that sunshine cult on the Bubble Boy movie. They want to believe in this CRUTCH to excuse their inability to say no.
Or, there’s a third option:
3) After you stop drinking you can do some personal work to figure out why you’re “irritable, discontented, and restless” all the time and make some positive changes in your life.
-Don
🙂
Steven Slate, do you have a link to the study above from the University of Washington’s Addictive Behaviors Research Center. Being an alcoholic, I’m just curious about how they actually conducted the study. I’m not trying to be argumentative, just asking a question. Here’s the real deal. It has taken me 10 years to get almost 1 year of sobriety. I am once again attempting to work the steps and my sponsor has given me a study guide to aid in the hopes of one day getting that “psychic change.” When trying to answer a couple of questions on the study guide, I decided to research on line and came upon your site. One question asked of me, “do you believe or can you accept the concept of an allergic reaction to alcohol?” Another question asked, “What is an allergy?” Confusion, once again entered my thought processes after reading this blog. Here I am hanging on by a thread, trying to work this program of AA, and the 12 steps. Like I said before, I do commend you for your sobriety, and doing it your way. On the other hand, I’m still trying to figure it all out.
‘
Steven Slate, by the way, I am a drama queen. The only reason I argued about the rise in blood pressure is because I experienced anaphylaxis after being bitten by a fire ant. My blood pressure went through the roof, and additionally I experienced all of the symptoms you described. If not for the paramedics quick response, I’d be dead. Furthermore, I have never experienced any of the allergic symptoms described in your blog, when drinking or after drinking. Well, aside from throwing up, but that really had nothing to do with the alcohol. So, once again I’m faced with a lot of confusion.
Hi Dawn,
Here’s a link to the article: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1985/A1985AFW2300001.pdf
Sorry I didn’t already have it up there. Stanton Peele also discusses it in his book “The Diseasing of America”. I don’t agree with all of Marlatt’s work, but he did develop an important idea which was probably influenced by this experiment called “The Abstinence Violation Effect” . Again, I don’t agree with everything said here, but it may be helpful in your context to learn about the AVE: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1868965,00.html
Ever notice how the AA folks love to broadcast to everyone that they are alcoholic?
Forgive those of us who can control ourselves.
Don’t drink alcohol but keep guzzling that AA kool-aid! That seems to be working well for you. Dawn, it’s way past dawn and time to wake the fuck up! Cheers!
Hey counselor, I am awake! Thanks for the nice language, very classy.
*Applauds Counselorchick*
Congratulations on your sobriety. AA has nothing to do with it. It was a choice you made. By the way, the anology you provided in the first sentence only works one way and so therefore is meaningless. You also say, “they will be irritable, discontented, and restless unless they drink.” Do you think telling someone this, perhaps like one of your sponsees, could in any way influence any of their future behavior and/or present conception of their self? If the answer is no, then you deny that verbal communication (especially in the downward direction) has no influential bearing on anyone so why even say anything to begin with. If the answer is yes, then telling someone this, besides being a gross generalization that you possibly couldn’t know for sure (unless you are a fortune-teller), is really just endorsing excessive drinking. Someone may need to call their sponsor.
Because AA exploits language on par with Frank Luntz, not one bit of their doctrine should be taken seriously. They call the steps ‘suggestions’, religion ‘spirituality’ and desire to drink alcohol an ‘allergy’. The only way you could go through a pogram designed to break down your very understanding of basic word meaning is either by denial or sheer idiocy.
The “allergy” concept was brought up by a doctor in early 1900s. Medicine has come a long way since then. Is addiction a disease? I don’t have the answer, however, you might want to read up on THIQ (both for alcoholism and heroine addiction). There has also been studies involving a gene mutation.
Toby –
The allergy version of the disease concept is still extremely popular today, which is why I chose to address it here – it comes up all the time. The latest version of the disease model is the “brain disease” theory, which I’ve spent a good deal of time refuting elsewhere on the site.
Thanks for the advice, but I’m already quite aware of THIQ’s, adrenaline, dopamine, Delta FosB, the Blum-Noble Gene, etc. While I haven’t really addressed each one of these on the site yet, I don’t think any one of them poses a threat to the choice view of addiction. Citing the existence of such biological components is akin to citing the existence of acids in the stomach, and then declaring eating to be a disease.
-Steven
Mr. Slate
It seems that you are not really fond of Alcoholic Anonymous or the disease concept of addiction. That is absolutely ok with me. I am an addiction counselor and have been working in this field for years. I have seen thousands of patients in treatment struggling to have an ordinary life which most people take them for granted. I have asked that question from myself many times to whether to drink or not to drink is just a matter of choice or there is something else that pushes these people to destroy their lives. I do not believe that being homeless and sleeping on streets or public places in the middle of winter is a dream of anyone. How about losing the people you care about the most or being incarcerated over and over again. Have you spent a night in prison and not being able to close your eyes for the fear of being raped or your teeth being broken so you can give the best head? I don’t think so. The men and women I work with do not care about studies or opinions such as yours or anyone else. All they care about is to be able to hang on to something that makes sense to them because honestly, nothing else in their lives make sense to an alcoholic or a drug addict. Alcoholic Anonymous, Narcotic, Anonymous, the concept of an allergy, spirituality, and many other things that you may call them a fraud, unsubstantiated, unproven, or bogus has saved millions of lives since they were originated and still do.
Michael –
I was a homeless crack head. Now I’m not and am on the cusp of earning an MSW. I don’t go to AA or NA. I know, I know, I guess I’m really not a “true addict” right?
Dear College Educated Homeless Crack Head,
Maybe you just haven’t relapsed yet. Why does anyone care what anyone else believes or practices in order to live a better life? Get over yourselves, make your choices, let others make theirs and don’t be so self absorbed.
Exactly.
Now STFU LAC Michael. Im glad you attended one class a weekend for one year.
Michael, I’ve asked AA members this same question – why do you call yourself an alcoholic when you haven’t had a drink in x years? Some of them are convinced that once they pick up, they totally lose control. I don’t understand. Maybe there are different levels/types of addiction.
Addiction is a love affair with a substance, or a fear of living without it. A person in the throes of addiction is not choosing between giving head in prison or a successful career. The choice is, can I get through this minute or this situation without my crutch, my best friend? I’m afraid to live without it, so I need it.
Until we come to believe that a life without drugs is possible, we hold on dearly to that best friend. And yes, that best friend slowly destroys us.
So that is the understanding I reached for myself. I have presented this to 3 of my friends who believed they were powerless, and these 3 have said the love affair explanation makes much more sense.
So what do you think?
Dear ZSL and Kelly,
It is not my place to say whether you are an addict or not. Recovery from addiction is not one size fit all. People in the grip of addiction try to find a way that can help them to free themselves so they can re-build their lives. My point is that it is premature to state that if something did not work for me it will not help anyone else. Respectively, if something works for me, then it must help everyone. For every person that you say got help with the choice recovery, I can produce thousands who were helped by AA or NA. It is childish to bash a program just because it did not work for some people. In the treatment center I work, we help patients with CBT, reality therapy, self actualization, spirituality and mindfulness, and 12 step book studies. The patients receive information and follow what works for them. No one, absolutely no one can say “I know what works. ” I have been working in this field for years and I still can’t say what works and what doesn’t. The only thing I am positive that works is love, compassion, understanding, and lots and lots of patience. That is all I am saying.
“I have been working in this field for years and I still can’t say what works and what doesn’t. The only thing I am positive that works is love, compassion, understanding, and lots and lots of patience.”
So, which is it?
Also, I don’t understand why it isn’t ok for people who have had a negative experiences with conventional treatment methods (AA, rehabs, etc) to voice their concerns. If I had diabetes and the doctors gave me medicine that didn’t work, I would critique that as well. Why are pro-12-step people so outraged and defensive whenever someone critiques the approach? If you really believed that “whatever works is cool – let’s just all get along”, then you wouldn’t feel the need to defend your position.
Because, to be opened minded, is thrown out as soon as one grabs into a specific idea, that seems to work for one…..
The 12 steps program, is a scientific method as to create a change of perception within oneself. It was not discovered by the founders of AA, it was only formulated as such by them. We also need to remember, that these founders of AA, did not recover in AA, but in another group, the Oxford Group. Which at the time did not have the opinion of Doctor Silkworth…and so even without the concept of “a physical” allergy, or powerlessness, these people were able to recover….
This said, to each his own. one’s experience is only valid for oneself, and hopefully will change. And one could not state as a fact, what one experience, for that experience is subjective, and not an objective fact.
Thank you
What works? Isn’t it CHOOSING a better life?
Even the old-timers “choose” to be sober. I popped in at an AA meeting last week, just to see if I missed the meetings. The topic was relapse. These two guys have been around a while. One guy shared he was at the convenience store last week, and the guy in front of him was paying for a bottle of hard liquor that had been his favorite. So immediately the 12 stepper prayed to God, and that is how he avoided a relapse. Another guy shared that he “runs the tape” when he gets an urge, and he plays out in his mind what will happen when he drinks, all the way to ending up in a fight or handcuffs, an outcome he does not want at his age. So these men gained some tools in AA that could have just as easily be summed up with:
These men made a CHOICE about their behavior by redirecting their attention to something that gave them greater meaning.
Hi Michael,
I know that points like ‘no one wants to be homeless’, or ‘no one wants to have a stroke from smoking crack’ or the one from the famous public service announcement “nobody ever says I wanna be a junkie when I grow up” are pretty attractive for people to use in this debate, but they’re flat out irrelevant. When someone spends too much money on their credit card, are they deliberately and directly choosing to have crippling debt? Does anybody want that? When I go skiing, do I want to break my leg?
There are plenty of bad outcomes in life that people don’t directly want and choose, but nonetheless are the result of behavior that they did choose freely for personal reasons. The debtor wants many material things, even though he can’t afford them. The guy with the broken leg just wanted to enjoy skiing. And the homeless substance user just wants to get that little bit of short-lived happiness provided by drugs and alcohol. So I obviously reject your point.
I find it particularly astounding that you could actually take the time to argue against me without arguing. That is, your last few sentences seem to concede that you have no argument for your vision of powerlessness and disease, and you seem to assert that it doesn’t matter whether these concepts are technically incorrect. You’re simply rejecting reality.
Perhaps you believe it’s just a metaphorical disease, and metaphorical powerlessness? If that is the case, I’ll ask you to stop pretending to treat a real medical disease.
If people want “to hang on to something that makes sense to them”, then why don’t you provide that? The disease, powerlessness, 12-step vision clearly does not make sense to most people. If it did, then 12-step programs wouldn’t have a 95% dropout rate within a year.
Also, and I gather from the other commenters that I’m not alone in this: it seems like you’re playing the “real addict” card. I sincerely wish we could get away from this foolish rhetoric and simply discuss the issues. I have no desire to jump on here and defend my status as a former “real addict”, nor do I think that would be relevant to a serious question as to whether or not people are actually powerless or ‘out of control’ (i.e. unable to choose) in regard to substances.
-Steven
Hello,
You know, I have drinking problem. For whatever reason, I cannot seem to control my drinking most of the time when I drink socially. When I drink at home, it’s not to much of a problem, but I have had many, many consequences from drinking—d.u.i, hellish hangovers, broken shoulder, blackouts, etc.
While agree whole heartedly with your critique of A.A (I do not believe in the disease or allergy concept either, for starters,) I do not at all whatsoever “set out” to drink until I become blacked out. I set out to drink like a normal human being, to “catch a buzz” to be sure, but I don’t ever “intend” to go beyond that, and I so, so often do, with dire consequences that leave me feeling ashamed, guilty, and out of control. So, while I don’t buy A.A’s disease model, I’m not really buying the “it’s my choice” model either.
BTW, are you ruling out or re-defining what a “physical dependency” to an addictive substance is? Are you discounting that some people have become “physically dependent” on a substance or are you challenging that idea as well? I’m wondering were you stand on that issue.
I do not believe that I have a “physical dependency” to alcohol, but for what ever reason, I seem incapable of moderating much of the time–and yes, I’ve tried–many, many times. So, is there any merit to there being hereditary reasons for peoples different reactions to alcohol? It’s a standard idea that different ethnicity’s have different tolerances for the substance (generalities abound here I’m sure.) but I don’t have studies to cite here.
I’m just wondering, if it’s my choice, why can’t I seem to just choose to moderate my alcohol intake when I go out? I went out for a “few beers” the other night, and I don’t remember getting home AT ALL. I spent the next day on the couch with a world class hangover, complete with migraine, nausea, and severe anxiety. Why would I “choose” to do this to myself when clearly, experience would tell me that I don’t enjoy this experience. Interestingly, I know plenty of people, my husband included, who have no problem moderating at all. My husband can easily say, “no thanks, I’ve got to drive home.” He gets a nice buzz and then stops drinking. I’ve hardly ever seen him drunk. How does the “choice” theory deal with such discrepancies in behavior especially when there are such dire consequences involved for one and not the other?
I don’t know the answer to any of this, I’m trying to figure it out. I wish to god I could drink socially with out having this problem, but for now I am “choosing” to abstain because well, you know, Einstein’s definition of insanity–doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And yes, I do believe that where my “choice” is concerned here is between abstaining or dysfunctional drinking–and at the moment it doesn’t really matter to me what the “cause” of the dysfunctional drinking is.
Cheers.
Woops, I don’t believe in god. Just an expression.
I’m not against anyone making the choice to be abstinent – it can be a wonderful choice to make.
On physical dependency: I believe that when you acclimate the body to the presence of a chemical, it certainly adjusts to the presence of that chemical, and when you remove that chemical, it tries to find homeostasis, and causes discomfort in the process. I don’t think anyone is powerless in the face of this discomfort, although I’m always sure to remind my readers that if you feel you’re having strong withdrawal symptoms from alcohol, and some other prescription drugs, then please seek medical attention immediately, as withdrawal from some substances can lead to fatal seizures. Adi Jaffe Ph.D provides some good information on that here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-addiction/201001/alcohol-benzos-and-opiates-withdrawal-might-kill-you
I would note, I know of a close friend whose husband had repeatedly detoxed from alcohol in the hospital and routinely went through seizures. This was at a time when part of the detox treatment for alcohol in the hospital he attended was to ingest small amounts of alcohol. He knew the consequences, knew he might die, and chose in the hospital to refuse the small amount of alcohol they wanted to give him, because he had sworn off alcohol finally – damn the consequences. He died. He chose death over ingesting alcohol to ease withdrawal symptoms. This story shows me that although the physical effects of withdrawal can be horrific, that choice still exists.
Long story short, I don’t deny physical withdrawal, although I do not believe it creates “powerlessness” or loss of control. However, if it did cause powerlessness, their are very reliable time tested methods of detoxification available to anyone at nearly any hospital, and it only takes a few days of medical help to get over that withdrawal effect.
Many people have the goal of getting “totally wasted” from the moment they start a substance usage session. Many people don’t have that goal, and may even have the goal of only having one joint or hit or whatever, but then along the way, they change their mind and decide that they want a little more, and then a little more, and then a little more. It’s a series of choices. Is this so unbelievable? People change their minds about all sorts of things. The fact that you regret this series of choices later doesn’t mean that you get to deny the series of choices and blame it on a “loss of control”. Sure, it’s comforting to chalk it up to powerlessness, but it’s not reality. And if your retort is to say that you don’t remember making those choices because you blacked out, I’m sorry to say, but people are in control of themselves and known to be quite coherent in the midst of blackouts – but when a certain amount of alcohol is in the body, it shuts down the memory-creating systems of the brain. So new memories are not created, but this doesn’t mean you lost volition while you were making those choices, it just means you don’t remember each instance of saying “what the heck, I’ll have another”.
I say none of this to attack you, but only to say, let’s be realistic about what’s going on. It doesn’t make you a bad person, and that’s not what I’m suggesting about anyone who drinks or uses large amounts of drugs. The fact is though, that each use of a substance is freely chosen.
Would you choose a behavior that leads to a painful hangover and shame? Yes. People make all sorts of choices that they know will be accompanied by pain and negative consequences – see my discussion further up in this comment thread, or my post on Jeffrey Schaler’s book Addiction Is A Choice: http://www.thecleanslate.org/review-addiction-is-a-choice-by-jeffrey-schaler/
You “can’t seem to moderate when you go out” because you enjoy getting wasted in such social settings – bottom line. You can accept that, and either continue it and own it, avoid such situations, or go do the uncomfortable work of trying to find enjoyment in such situations in a new way. Use your judgment to decide which is the best option for you, and stand behind whatever you choose.
-Steven
That’s fine that you say AA and it cousin “programs” have helped millions, but how do you prove organizations that promote anonymity where the “members” can use false names at any meeting they go to and then track their success in staying clean and sober? The facts are you can’t scientifically. Sober is a legal term and only a term that means “the absence of intoxicating liquor” spiritual is a religious term flat out. The ninth circuit court of appeals gave a unanimous opinion it Filed on Sept, 7th, 2007 in the case of Inoye vs Kemna case no# 06- 15474, D.C. no# CV-04-00026-DAE. That decision was and is that AA was finally declared to so close to a religion that no State Court could force one to attend AA as a requirement of a court order as such an order would violate a citizens 1st amendment rights that religious beliefs CANNOT be forced upon a citizen if they are not in fact religious and object to such a “program”. This was previously tried in 12 different state courts and all upheld the same legal findings were upheld in prior court cases. And no, I am NOT an attorney, just a student of the US Constitution, which I hold far more dear then Bill Wilson’s cultish “big book”.
Dear ZSL,
It seems that I was not clear enough in what I was saying. Let me say it clearly now that “I am not defending 12 steps programs.” If a medication that helps many others, does not work for you and causes you adverse reaction, you have a right to criticize your doctor or the medication. However, going on a crusade to ban the medication is just going over board. You have no way knowing that this medication does not work for anyone. That is it never did and never will. Statement like this are obviously wrong and short sighted. On the other hand, even going over board is your right as well and no one argues that. If choice recovery worked for you and you were able to get your life and your sanity back, it is great. I am very happy for you and wish you the best.
I’m a former 12 stepper who loves much about the program. The 12 step community offers a fellowship, a place to go anytime, and a place to share openly what is going on. The womens meetings opened my heart and gave me a place I felt understood. I certainly learned a lot there, and I am grateful AA and NA were there during my transition out of opiate addiction. Some of my biggest breakthroughs in personal discovery happened with my sponsor, a person who understood what it was like to be addicted. My husband and kids did not understand, so I really needed to be around others who did. My other biggest breakthrough came through learning about cognitive therapy, which I just stumbled across. That said, I have outgrown the rooms now, and the beliefs they hold are an obstacle to me. Still, the hugs and open sharing – that is not available in church or anywhere else I know.
I do wish that cognitive therapy and 12 step could be somehow blended. Many of the steps themselves are an obstacle to growth, for they don’t encourage individual choice and responsibility, and they tell me what I was rather than allowing me to discover for myself what my drug use was about, so that was a complete lack of freedom to self discover. They focus on character defects, instead of on courage, risks, dreams. The one day at a time is a step back – I live months at a time, I have goals. Serenity prayer is dumb – I can always change my thoughts or my actions or the environment I am in. You don’t need God to recover. And there is no proof it’s a disease. Still, the support and community provides encouragement and love.
I feel sorry for the pseudo intellectuals who feel a need to crap on the 12 step programs, which have help millions of people. I’ve been in AA for 38 years and have seen these very same people come into the rooms, declare exactly what you are declaring, and then relapse…over and over again. I see them continue to struggle with their addiction, simply because they are just “too smart” to “fall for this bullshit.” A perfect example of this is the author/creator of the website Orange-Papers.org. Here we have a guy who sounds exactly like you, who is spouting off that AA is bullshit and that he has a better way to stay sober. However, upon further investigation, we find out that this guy is homeless and jobless and living on the streets of Portland, OR. I don’t know for a fact that he has relapsed, but it wouldn’t surprise me. But hey, at least he didn’t fall for that “AA bullshit.” Whatever. So, am I going to follow the dictates of a homeless person? Or am I going to listen to the MILLIONS of people who have joined AA, followed the 12 Steps, and became happy and useful members of society? Hmmmmm…. Tough choice.
Katherine – thanks for reminding me why I left AA. Your limited outlook and ad hominem attacks reminded me of the black and white, judgmental nature of AA and the dogma that surrounds it. Isn’t love and tolerance your “code”? I feel for you because for 38 years it seems as if you still are terrified to admit that some that struggle with addictions don’t need AA to get better. Granted – it took me 18 years, and I wish I had trusted my instincts way back when – but its hard when the people that you’ve come to trust tell you that if you leave AA, you will drink and die. Obviously, this is not true and any rational human being knows this.
Of course that is what you read into my comments! I should’ve known. Did I say anywhere in my post that there aren’t other ways to get sober? Absolutely not! I know for a fact that there are. And please point out the page in the Big Book that says that AA is the only way. In fact it states the opposite. My point, which always seems to elude the “really smart” people, is that I would rather follow millions of success stories, than one, or a handful of people who find it necessary to spew lies about AA. I’m not crapping on your way to stay sober. Why must you crap on mine? Why not just say: “AA didn’t work for me. (Period. End of story.) Here’s how I got sober….” I have shown sponsees your website as perhaps a different way to get sober. I’ve talked to them about religion or cognitive therapy as other ways, so that they have options. NEVER have I said that AA is the only way to get sober. But I DO tell them that that I tried all the other ways, and NOTHING worked until I found AA. I’m a pragmatic that way!
Katherine, I understood your post perfectly, which I why I decided to respond to it. As a “smart person”, let me try and break this down for you. There are many people that find AA and the principles and ideas preached there to be injurious. Being taught that you are powerless and sick, that the only way to change is through spiritual means, that alcoholics and “normies” are completely different – these are just some of the ideas that I find troublesome. And so, based on that experience, I speak out. Its not really rocket science. You feel the way you do and you speak out against others that disagree. What is so interesting to me is why die-hard AA folks are so upset by people that disagree with them. Why so adamantly defensive in regards to my disagreement? I’m not “spewing lies”. I’m simply telling you that the attitude in your post resembles my experience in AA and is the reason why I left. And since I’ve left, I’ve been happier and more successful. Why not follow your own logic, tip your cap, and move on? Why would you intentionally seek out a website that sees addiction not as a disease but as a choice and ask the people that believe this to stop talking about why they think addiction and AA need a make-over? Seems a little arrogant if you ask me…
Oh my! Way too smart for me. I tip my hat to you and bid you farewell. Your unwitting myopia has grown tiresome.
Good riddance! You jumped in here to assault Orange for some reason, and then got mad because another reader called you out on it. Do you realize what a small mind it takes to take shots at someone rather than debating them on the issue? You are just plain rude. I don’t know if Orange is homeless, I don’t even know what you would consider a “relapse”, and I don’t know that any of that matters – what matters is the veracity of his claims. Either show us where he’s wrong, or kindly shut up.
You also basically said that I, the author of this site, am arrogant and will “relapse”, like all those people who didn’t tow the line in AA over the years. Do you realize that’s what ZSL is complaining about? You steppers try to scare people into compliance with your views. You tell them it’s your way or the highway, or should I say, your way or “jails, institutions, and death”.
Let me fill you in on some facts. According to the NIAAA, 75% of people who’ve gotten over “alcohol dependence” (alcoholism) never stepped foot in a single recovery meeting or received any formal help. Of the remainder who got over their problem, only 20% ever attend a recovery meeting. Then, as you should be well aware, only 5% of people actually stay involved in your recovery meetings for a year or longer. 5% of 20% = 1%. A measly 1% of people who’ve gotten over “alcoholism” followed your plan. So, for every one of you who live it one day at a time, there are 99 more who’ve simply moved on with their lives and refuse to be identified by and tethered to past problems.
Where do you and your kind get off telling the rest of us that we’ll die without you and your belief system?
Your recovery stats are bogus. You are jaded against AA for some reason. AA is not for every alcoholic, but is the only hope for the alcoholic of the disease variety. Get It? If you are the problem drinker, binge drinker or even the hard drinker you can find help in another solution or perhaps even quit on your own. But if you are the alcoholic of the hopeless and helpless variety that the Big Book talks about then AA is your only solution.
No Rod, I do not get it.
What exactly is an “alcoholic of the disease variety?” Can you define this term? Can you explain why you claim that “if you are the alcoholic of the hopeless and helpless variety that the Big Book talks about then AA is your only solution.”
-Steven
Please explain how a homeless so financially broken man can host a huge website such as the orangepapers.org? That costs money and brains to do so, which leads me to ask the basic question, so your better then him?
I have seen people grow stronger through the steps, and I have seen others fail and come to meetings loaded. If the 12 steps “work”, then why would anyone relapse? The point is, ANY HABIT IS HARD TO CHANGE. Just ask any couch potato!
This site is about an alternative. It’s to say if you don’t want to struggle with a lifelong disease, you don’t have to. But if you do, that’s okay too. This site shows there is no proof of the disease theory or of powerlessness or loss of control. In the end, whatever helps you live a better life, go for it.
This information here empowers me. Whenever I thought if there is something wrong with me, I feel better to know that I just made a poor choice, and I can focus on healthier alternatives. So that’s what I like about it.
Hey Kelly, thanks for that comment.
I want to say that where I’ve said “poor choice” on this site, sometimes I would take that back and use something less negative. For instance, I look at some of my own past extreme drug use as being a choice that provided something I wanted at that time, but not lining up with my current wants. I don’t necessarily look at it as bad, just what I chose with my perspective a t the time, and I have a different perspective on the value of excessive substance use to my life at this time.
Then again, I say poor choice because blabbing like I just did in this comment can get boring and laborious! But I think you get what I mean – that you can own the past choices and a new choice without necessarily being too negative about the past choice.
A bit too much paradox here. The study supposedly says that both sets of boozers drank twice as much. It doesn’t matter if there was booze in the mix or not: BOTH drank twice as much. They were not expecting a gratification pattern for anything other than feeding the overgrowth of pathogenic microbes in their guts that were telling them what to do. A social drinker is a very stupid word substitute for an addicted alcoholic. You can go your entire life without consuming alcohol if your body is not overgrown with pathogenic organisms that force the host to crave what the organism wants to consume. Ask anyone who has had a Candida infection about sugar craving. Then ask them about autointoxication after giving in to that craving. This simple premise answers both the alcohol addiction and the food allergy/addiction brought up by the intelligent poster to this forum. Addiction responses are part of a continuum that Clemens Von Pirquet described in the early 1900s of Allergy/Immunity/Hypersensitivity
http://vactruth.com/2012/09/05/allergy-and-vaccines/
http://vactruth.com/2012/09/14/eczema-as-a-biomarker/
also add Theron Randolph’s view of addiction and CHEMICAL ALLERGY into the mix. It is well known to the drug industry that when pure starter chemicals for meth are used that the addiction rates jump exponentially but when Jimbo and Jimbob are mixing up hardware store chemicals the addiction rates go down and the morbidity and mortality go up. Many chemicals cause permanent structural changes to the brain.
I fail to see the need to promote choice or willpower as some over-arching virtue when admitting that the yeast of bread and beer that has been turned into a biological weapon allows for the humbleness to say that there are those who have maliciously controlled entire nations of people via gut microbe manipulation since the times of the pyramid builders (bread and beer) while at the same time giving a practical science-based approach to overcoming said addiction/allergy by attacking the biological agent of that outside control by restoring gut health. Or — you could just go back to meetings where the substitute addictions to caffeine, donuts and nicotine fill in for that burning ache that you know is still in there. Oh — wait — the flour and the sugar in the donuts will feed the yeast —-
Every human culture that existed before modern germ theory & sanitation made it safe to drink (some) fresh water produced & consumed alcohol, because water wan’t safe to drink (cholera, typhoid, etc.).
If some humans developed a genetic mutation that made them respond to alcohol with wildly anti-social behavior, that mutation would have been deleted from the human genome long ago.
Our Constitution was written by people who drank beer for breakfast.
Your interpretation of how genetics work, or why gene expression in people is either turned “on” or “off” speaks to your relative misunderstanding of the subject. I have A.D.H.D, now, it has traits that make it very difficult for me to get by in the way modern society is set up. By your logic, any and all genetic malfunction or disorders, should have been de-selected over time, because the expression of those genes in a person make that person an ill-fit for society. Since we can see clearly with our own eyes that disabilities do occur because of genetic reasons, regardless of whether or not the expression of that genetic material– i.e disease, disorder, or disability, by your logic, none of these should exist.
I may have a genetic “predisposition” for alcoholism. Whether that “gene” gets expressed (switched on, or off) probably depends on other factors, and that’s where my understanding, such as it is ends.
Cheers.
You seem to think I am referring to fitting into current society. I am referring to thousands of years of human lifetimes. Since humans are a social species, it’s not consistent with the survival of the species if some members, when consuming a ubiquitous foodstuff, develop behaviors that are not only detrimental to their own functioning, but also to the functioning of the social group. Natural selection not only selects *for* traits that improve fitness of the species, but also deletes traits that are detrimental to the functioning of the species.
There are times when genetic mutations that cause problems are not de-selected, usually because they’re caused by getting two copies of a gene that is helpful when someone has only one copy (for example in the case of the genetic disease sickle cell anemia: 1 copy protects against malaria, 2 copies causes sickle cell).
What is your education on the subject of genetics that makes you think I misunderstand the subject?
I find it amazing that you think” we can clearly see with our own eyes that disabilities occur due to genetic reasons.” If that were the case, it would not have taken 20th century discoveries in genetics to show which disabilities are genetic. Especially since there are also disabilities are caused by infections (like polio or rubella), or by physical damage to a fetus during gestation or maternal malnutrition.
Trish-
I am curious to know your thoughts along the lines of genetics and evolution regarding the eating habits of the human species. As you have probably figured out by now, I have an interest in nutrition that is related to my desire to improve my and my family’s health. I don’t know a lot about evolution, but I certainly believe in it. I’ve been wondering whether human behavior that is “consistent with the survival of the species” can sometimes actually seem to backfire and have just the opposite effect. Here is what I am referring to:
It seems consistent with the survival of the species for humans to produce and consume food in amounts necessary for survival and in fact to produce more than is necessary to ensure we don’t run out, and maybe even to consume more than is necessary in case we run out. These days, however, we see many people not only consuming at a rate which is obviously unhealthy and way beyond that necessary for survival, but also consuming all manner of unhealthy, chemical-laden things that we call food. A very large percentage(more than half) of our population seems to be eating in this way, to the detriment of their health and long-term survival. There are now an alarming number of people who are sick and dieing from chronic diseases, like diabetes and heart disease, related to this style of eating. So it appears that a trait that helps people to survive is now killing us.
Here are a couple thoughts that I have on this:
This is a fairly recent trend in our history. Prior to the modern age, It seems that people used to eat more like nature intended – more whole, natural, and fresh foods, and not in such large quantities. The down side was that there often wasn’t enough for everyone and food could be hard to find. Being the thinking, logical creatures that we are, we invented modern agricultural techniques with the good and honorable goal of feeding the masses, and it worked. Not only that, but, thanks to modern manufacturing techniques and chemicals, we made it much cheaper and easier for ourselves to eat by inventing all manner of fast foods and junk foods that have a long shelf life. But low and behold, we now find ourselves in the health dilemma that I have described. Maybe this is just a short-term blip in the longer-term process of survival and we will eventually understand it better and transform back to healthy eating practices.
Another thought is related to something I have heard regarding short vs. long-term thinking and actions. We have simply not evolved enough yet to be good long-term thinkers and doers. Modern homo sapiens are really not far removed time-wise from our ancestors who evolved with the survival trait of short-term thinking and action – where will I get my next meal, how will I survive if attacked by a wild animal, where will I sleep tonight – all good skills to have when survival was difficult. Now however, in the modern age of long-term survival, our survival skills have not yet caught up. We’re still instinctively applying the “skill” of short-term thinking and action in a time that now demands some longer-term outlook, hence all of the over-eating, smoking, drinking, etc., with little regard for the long-term effects to our health. Maybe we are witnessing evolution in action here as the short-term thinkers gradually get weeded out of the gene pool in favor of the long-term thinkers. Maybe addicts are “dinosaurs” and will gradually be eliminated from the population……Just a thought.
All of these modern ways, of course, apply mostly to western culture. I realize that in many parts of the world people simply don’t have these luxuries.
-Don
I have experienced addictions to both alcohol and food. I haven’t read all the comments here, but I think what most folks who struggle with alcohol and food addiction are not realizing and accepting are the psychological reasons for over-indulging. There are psychological reasons why they want to “get out of their own head” with alcohol or drugs or why they feel a need for immediate gratification from over-eating food that they know is not good for them in the long term. It’s much easier to blame these problems on some physical issue that they have no control over than to put in the time and effort to deal with the real, underlying problems. And of course it also becomes easier to maintain the addiction cycle than to go thru the painful period of physical and emotional withdrawal that occurs with both alcohol and food.
When you refer to the painful physical withdrawal to alcohol, does that mean you’ve experienced the DTs? How can you have “withdrawal” from food? Do you go entirely without food – in that case you might be experiencing physiological signals that are designed to keep you from dying for lack of food.
If there are psychological reasons for over-indulging, that undercuts the arguments in favor of “addiction” being a “disease”, and supporting the idea that what is called “addiction” by our society is a collection of behaviors, possibly destructive & anti-social behaviors. But behaviors, not a disease or (as the Big Book claims) a substance taking control over human behavior.
Trish-
As far as alcohol, no, I have not experienced the DTs.
To explain what I meant by over-indulging with food: I am referring to a diet filled with the over-indulgence of unhealthy foods containing loads of chemicals(most processed foods), saturated fats, trans fats, sugar, and processing(like wheat flour) that our bodies have not evolved to deal with in a completely healthy way. A good example is sugar, one of the worst, most unhealthy foods one can eat. Our grocery stores and fast-food restaurants are loaded with many examples. This type of toxic eating leads to a toxicity at a cellular level that is contributing to many of the chronic diseases experienced in our culture today. So essentially, these diseases are brought on by the food and nutrition choices one has made over time. There is no “allergy” or “disease” that makes one eat this way. The diseases(like diabetes, cancer) are a result or consequence of the choices one has made.
So yes, I do not see addiction as a disease, but the cause of disease. Addiction is a biological state in which our body has become acclimated to a noxious or toxic agent(like those described above in food or alcohol). Indulging in the addiction is mildly pleasurable, but if we stop taking the substance, we feel ill as the body mobilizes cellular wastes and attempts to repair the damage caused by the exposure. This is called withdrawal. To feel better you could take more of the substance or eat the food more frequently, which would help, because eating and digesting retards detoxification or withdrawal. Over-indulging refers to continuously maintaining this biological state referred to as addiction. I believe that it is certainly possible to consume some moderate level of toxic foods or alcohol and not become addicted.
Now to the reasons for over-indulging and becoming addicted. Above, I referred to some of the physical reasons(pleasure, withdrawal symptoms) why one might remain addicted. There are many psychological reasons also and I believe these are much more powerful and difficult to overcome than the physical reasons. Many people over-indulge in reaction to being emotionally stressed. Over-indulging can provide a temporary and soothing escape from our problems. The psychological reasons for this behavior can be very deep seated, perhaps related to childhood experiences reinforced and not solved over time. And yes, these behaviors can certainly be destructive and anti-social, defying all logic. The psychological literature is filled with examples and information on this and can do a much better job of describing than I can. And yes, I do believe that this does undercut the false notion that addiction is a disease. Remaining in a state of addiction can be the CAUSE of many diseases.
I do not believe that consuming a substance, whether it be food or alcohol, is a disease or an allergy that can take control of human behavior. We all have a choice of what we put in our bodies and a responsibility to understand how it affects us.
Thanks for your inquiry and comments. I welcome further discussion.
-Don
Don, I have a close friend in his mid 40’s who struggles with sugar “addiction” but is very lean and muscular anyway. He uses willpower most of the time to overcome what he says are physical cravings for sugar that appear whenever he is around people who eat sugar. He gets mad when I say it’s mental or emotional or to look for an underlying cause or to distract himself, because he says he has thought this over enough and after years of thinking about this, he believes it’s physical. He says it’s easy to quit alcohol or gambling by not going to bars or casinos, but how do you stop craving sugar when it is everywhere. For him, it’s a physical craving he must struggle with everytime he is around sugar. Even if he avoids people who eat sugar, eating something with sugar in it (bread, tomato paste), releases his craving all the more. Once he gives in, he goes on a sugar binge for a few days, then goes back on his diet. Thus, he looks really good. But the food struggle is always with him. What do you make of this?
Kelly-
I’m by no means an expert on this but I can offer an opinion. Perhaps Steven or someone else can comment at some point to help us understand.
Here’s what I’m thinking based on what I am learning on this site and what I know:
There are 2 components to the physical part of addiction. First there’s the tolerance/withdrawal piece that is present for a short while when your friend first stops eating sugar after a binge period. This part goes away in short order but it’s easy to eat more sugar during this time in order to feel better. The second component of the physical part(I’m really out of my league here) is the physical brain “plasticity” component. From what I understand, your friend’s brain changed or rewired some of it’s neuro-circuits in response to a longer period of time when your friend liked sugar, ate lots of sugar, and got pleasure from eating it. This process could have begun in childhood and lasted a long time. So when your friend says it’s physical, this might be what he is referring to. His brain is still physically “wired” to love and crave sugar. This is not hard to do, by the way, because I believe that evolution has seen to it that we naturally crave sweet food for quick energy and survival purposes. The difference being that sugar was mainly available to our distant ancestors in the form of good, healthy, fresh fruit, while now it comes in many fast-acting, unhealthy forms. The really interesting part to me is that, according to modern brain science, we are supposedly capable of “re-wiring” our brains with changed behavior and thinking. I’m hoping this is true for my own sake as I try to alter my behavior. I’m not sure how long it takes or how difficult it is to accomplish; I’m sure it varies. So I think there is validity to what your friend says and I hope we can alter it such that the cravings become less and the desired behavior becomes easier.
In addition to the physical component, I believe there is also a psychological component in most, if not all cases. It doesn’t have to be some earth-shattering trauma that one is blocking. I think it can be as simple as a “love affair” that one has with sweet foods when they were younger. Perhaps over-indulging in sweets brought comfort to a young child in times of high stress and this process was reinforced over and over again. I’m sure this happened for me. So psychologically, I could see sugar as my “friend” in the same way one might see alcohol or marijuana as a close “friend”. If your friend is able and willing to think back on his experiences with life and food as a young person he may discover a pattern that existed along these lines. I think a lot of behaviors we have today, both positive and negative, can be traced back to early childhood behaviors that were reinforced over and over again. I have found this to be true for me. Perhaps there is a “plasticity” to the psychological component as well, and change begins by recognizing the pattern and revisiting some of the old feelings associated with it.
I hope this helps.
-Don
In all of the comments and questions I see a lack of humility and inquiry that is essential to get to the heart of a matter not just argue dogma of the new religion of psychobabble or unprovable evolutionary opinions. When we examine just sucrose alone we see that it is an essential ingredient for growing viruses in the human body. Given that there are over 10,000 cataloged organisms in and on the human body and their biochemistry dictates behaviors, thoughts, moods via the hormone/neurotransmitters made by the microbes or the host, then your thoughts and drives are not your own so the first step is to lose the false impression that you have some kind of master-control over the process other than forcing a decision for the colony that you host. It is still a forced-reaction not a matter of simple intellectual choice. Given that the military is studying how to modify human behavior by recoding bacteria as if they were writing computer code it is in your best interest to lose the feel-good-about-yourself willpower line of thought in terms of the raw Us against Them survival thought that preserved the cavemen avoiding predators. Today it is just avoiding predator drones. In ancient Shumeria they grew tons of barley. It was no less ‘industrialized’ 5000 years ago then it was today. One-third of their crop went to making beer. That was a choice based on mind control of the population because even the scientists at Loyola University call alcohol the oldest mind control agent on the planet. When you relax your mind past dogma of a new religion of psychology vs. physiology a third grader can see that if you infect the guts of people with the organisms that fermented the beverages then feed that population the feedstock of those organisms — in this case both are barley — then at some point the microbial overgrowth is going to FORCE a craving for their feedstock. Plus you will get autointoxication just like what is seen with Candida victims who eat sugar. Bacteriophages, the viruses that can liquefy bacteria or turn them into toxin-factories do not require bacteria to grow. They can self-replicate in the presence of B-vitamins (that used to be called Yeast Growth Factors in the 1930s), casein (milk protein), and YEAST EXTRACT. Look at a package of prepared ANYTHING these days to see if those components are not in there. Find a selection of foods that are not made from Yeast (the stuff that makes bread and BEER) and you will be surprised to find that they are nearly inescapable. Microbes time-share with your nervous system. Whether that upsets your self-image of autonomy or not it is a physical reality that some are so dominated by the microbes that they host that no amount of lying on a couch at a hundred-bucks per hour will ever touch. Realization of this microbial dominance and pursuit of ways to eliminate it and rebalance the flora for an unaffected life may be the single most important step to release of yourself into your own custody.
Patrick-
Huh?
Good choice of words: “a lack of humility and inquiry that is essential to get to the heart of a matter”.
They seem very appropriate in your case. Are you a biologist or just paranoid?
I think many of the folks on this site realize that our bodies contain and work in concert with thousands of microbes, a healthy balance of which is maintained thru good nutrition. I think we also realize that they can get out of balance in various ways, one way being poor nutrition, leading to various diseased conditions. This, however, does not preclude our human ability to think and act for ourselves or to affect our own moods. Nor does it negate the very real science behind evolution and psychology.
As for the drones, I’ll let you worry about that.
Peace
For anyone who is interested, here is a link to a good article related to some of what Patrick is referring to – the relationships between your brain and the bacteria in your gut. Thanks to Patrick for pointing out this relationship. Interesting stuff and certainly something to be considered.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/09/gut-feeling.aspx
Who wrote this? Only two kinds of people could have written this. A non alcoholic who misreads or an alcoholic who is grasping at straws to be able to continue drinking. as far as continuing to drink, don’t give that stuff up one second before it stops working… if you are non alcoholic, let me correct your misrepresentation of what William D. Silkworth wrote. He did develop the theory that the physical aspect of alcohol addiction is an allergy. that is true. However, the allergy is not what makes an alcoholic drink. I saw a woman on the comments above compare this allergy to her allergy of certain seafood. for the comparison, any allergy will do. Anaphylactic shock is not the only symptom to allergies. (unless anaphylactic shock is a very generic term that is synonymous with “allergy symptoms”) the symptom of the allergy to seafood is swelling, closing of the throat, etc… the symptom of the allergy to strawberries is rash. The symptom of the allergy to milk can be dysentery. The symptom to the allergy to alcohol is the phenomenon of craving. Human senses can detect it, but not the sense of sight, which is very week proof anyway. the only people who can sense the phenomenon of craving are alcoholics, within themselves. I can’t pretend to know what an allergy to strawberries feels like, I probably wouldn’t know it even if I saw it, I’d just see a rash and go, Oh, ick… the phenomenon of craving will insure that an alcoholic will continue to drink, but it will not make him drink. If a follow up was not done on the “alcoholics” who drank in this study, you cannot say there was any proof at all. Also, what makes an alcoholic drink is a mental illness, not a physical craving. It is called a two-fold disease. If the alcoholic never picked up the drink, he couldn’t trigger the allergy, the phenomenon of craving, and would render this whole argument academic and pointless. All one would have to do is not drink. I know a story of a man, though, who had an allergy to fish. anytime he’d eat it, he would swell up and nearly die, like our friend above. the real problem was, something in the guys head didn’t work quite right and once in awhile he would deliberately eat fish, thinking it would be different. the real problem of the alcoholic centers in his mind, which ensures that he will drink, rather than in his body, which ensures that he can’t safely drink.
This is yet another incoherent comment. Is it a physical allergy or a mental illness? No one seems to want to address the points I made in the post, they only want to spout nonsensical dogma. The point is, everything we know of as an “allergy” creates physiological symptoms, not behavioral ones. According to most sources, an allergy is a hypersensitivity disorder – which would seem to directly contradict a main feature of heavy drinking: TOLERANCE.
Conceptually, the behavior of “alcoholics” doesn’t resemble an “allergy” at all.
Who wrote this? I did – Steven Slate – the author of everything on this site. You can check the about page for a quick bio. And I’ll save you some time so you don’t need to make your next ridiculous comment: I’m not a “real alcoholic” or “real addict”. I’m just a guy who spent five years completely destroying his life with drug and alcohol use, and refuses to subscribe to a made up cultural belief that I have to consider myself doomed to repeat such nonsensical behavior for the rest of my life. The only real addicts are those who believe they should identify as such. I am a person, who once felt powerless when I was taught to believe I should, and stopped feeling that way when I was taught that I didn’t have to, and then I stopped destroying my life with drugs and alcohol.
Amen Steven Slate. Thanks to Ryan Maroney, even though I am a grateful and recovering alcoholic, I now have a “mental illness.”
Thanks for the links. Marlatt’s work is very interesting. I will be doing some more research on AVE.
But, in the case of diabetics–when their sugar is off, they “appear” drunk. A behavioral reaction caused by sugar levels being off.. But, I agree with the rest of what you have posted–
Thanks,
Not all unpleasant effects are an “allergy.” Milk causing dysentery?! REALLY? Dysentery is bloody diarrhea caused by infection. It has nothing to do with allergy.
Allergy is a systemic inflammatory reaction involving excess histamine release, period. Any other reaction is not really an allergy, but what we call in the medical community an “adverse reaction.” Even if a drug speeds your heart rate to 200, it’s STILL not a true allergy. Alcohol rarely causes an immune system response, so the “alcohol as an allergy” idea just doesn’t hold water. If alcoholics REALLY have an “allergy” to booze, why isn’t their alcoholism improved when they are given antihistamines or steroids? Hint: it’s because it’s NOT AN ALLERGY.
I haven’t read a lot of the posts, but has anyone pointed out yet that a true allergy has to do with excess histamine release, and not with excess substance use? At least, that’s what I learned in medical school.
No they haven’t. Good point Richard.
Here’s a little summary from “How Stuff Works“:
No one seems to care about what an actual allergy is here though. They insist on believing that this poor metaphor is a medical reality. The idea that a single sip of alcohol triggers a domino effect of heavy drinking has been disproven by the epidemiological data which shows that most formerly dependent drinkers eventually become moderate drinkers, and it’s been called into question by experiments like the one listed above in this post. It doesn’t fit metaphorically, and it doesn’t fit literally. Addiction/alcoholism is not an allergy – it’s not even “like an allergy”.
Thanks again for bringing up one more way in which the allergy model doesn’t pan out.
Richard,
Are you a doctor?
See ya,
Matt
I have come to find when an alcoholic is asked, “Do you believe you have an allergy to alcohol?”, the alcoholic will not know what you are talking about. AA has taught me all opinions are welcome. When we set out to prove a statement to be false, we will find evidence to prove our point. The suffering alcoholic could care less about an allergy, obsession, craving etc. We just want to put enough alcohol in our bodies to change the way we think and feel. A closed meeting of AA will quickly terminate a debate on whether we have an allergy or not, it does not matter. What matters is the solution to our common malady without ingesting alcohol. Be very careful about the information you put out for the still confused alcoholic to read. You present them evidence to steer them away from a fellowship that works and into the arms of a cunning, baffling, powerful, insidious and patient disease firmly focused on destroying all in its path.
Great post Micheal. Steven Slate apparently has a problem with AA. It has been my experience as the why most people like him don’t like AA is because they just simply can not or will not believe in the Christian God of the Bible. The intellectuals are the hardest to reach. They are too smart for their own good.
He mentions he was an addict/alcoholic for only five years. Probably too young and not enough pain for him to get to the point where most AA’s got too in the alcoholism. He is probably an alcoholic, but not of the disease variety. So he doesn’t understand AA.
By implying that one must believe in Christianity and/or the Bible in order to succeed in AA directly goes against the Big Book’s chapter to the agnostic, as well as the 10th Tradition which states that AA has no opinion on outside issues (which specifically mentions politics, sectarian religion, and alcohol reform as examples of outside issues in the long form of the tradition).
Thanks for reminding me I made the right decision by running far from AA.
http://www.livescience.com/15563-addiction-defined-brain-disease.html
it’s a disease plain and simple. deal with it how you want to, and let others do it their way. this is exactly like the age old atheists vs theist arguments. I understand you are just putting this kind of info out there for people to think about, but honestly, everyone knows about AA, Smart recovery and all the other programs. Let it be, and stop being a preachy asshole. -Sober Agnostic who is sick of both sides arguing over who is right and who is wrong.
The physical allergy is nothing more than a metaphor. Dr. Silkworth chose this as a way to explain the phenomenon of what happens to the alcoholic after he takes the first drink. I cannot believe someone would take this literally. By the way I am a recovering alcohol and very active in AA. Keep it simple folks.
Thank you Michael J. and John C. I appreciate your comments and am grateful that you posted. I haven’t had a drink in 26 years. I go to AA meetings but have never worked the 12 Steps of the program. Because I am still the same miserable and fearful person that walked into the rooms of AA 26 years ago, I know I need to “clear away the wreckage of the past”. I am starting to go through the steps and The Big Book now, with a sponsor. We have only just begun and I have already stalled because of 3 questions that I can’t answer and have never really been able to say yes to. “Do I believe I was the victim of a mental obsession?”; “Do I believe I have a disease?” and “Do I believe I have an allergy to alcohol?”. I can make an argument for the mental obsession. It’s the words “disease” and “allergy” that I have an issue with. It is ok to keep moving forward, even if I don’t have the answer to these questions.
Of course it is ok to keep moving forward. As mentioned before the steps of AA are merely suggestions. I do know for me when I have followed the suggestions my life has got better. Do the steps keep me sober–no. What they do for me is teach me how to live a productive and responsible life, help others, and not run down people who believe differently than I do. In short AA is not the only gig in town and if someone finds a way to stay clean and sober on their own who am I to judge. Just don’t judge me.
The steps are not suggestions. They are a vital “must” of the AA program. It’s not called 12 steps for nothing. I realize that AA hasn’t changed but the way modern AA is practiced has changed. Now even the steps are taken a suggestions.
Debbie: You might be an alcoholic but not one of the disease variety. Check out Dr. Jellineks disease theory and see which type of alcoholic you are. Click on the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Morton_Jellinek
AA can help any type of alcoholic but is the only hope for the diseased alcoholic. I suspect you do not have the disease of alcoholism because you could not have stayed sober for 28 years without doing the steps if you were of the hopeless and helpless variety, In the big book they were called last gaspers.
Hilarious that you post about Jellinek, a scientist who later in his career completely disassociated himself with the curve that he theorized. “Out of vogue” doesn’t begin to describe the current attitude about Jellinek’s work on alcoholism.
What a waste of time, what difference does it make if the allergy is physical, mental or psychological, or a combination of influences, when the end results are so destructive? Some people know they should stop after they have started, but once their thinking has been distorted, they continue with absolute abandon into insanely dangerous territory, over and over again. Pumped stomach at the ER, taking pills again less than an hour after being released. Liver transplant due to alcohol abuse, more than 50% go back to drinking after the transplant, against doctor orders. No matter what you call it, something very baffling and powerful is going on here and if simple abstinence is a good foundation for avoiding a repeat performance, I say do yourself and society a huge favor: abstain, go to AA and ignore the intellectual debate team who have not yet suffered a truly brutal beat down from alcohol or drugs.
How dare you sit there and talk shit about AA saying that they “basdardize” medical terms. It’s recovery language! If you don’t understand that addiction is a disease or anything about addiction and that it is something you cannot control, then you shouldn’t open your mouth and speak bad about it. One thing about addiction is that it is uncontrollable, if it was easy to take control of then why are so many people seeking help for it and why are so many others stuck in the middle of it and can’t stop.
I wondwer why the fact that alcoholism is a disease (AMA found it to be a primary illness and countless scientific tests have been done,) is a threat to the founder of this site. Gotta tell ya, billions of dollars are not spent on this disease without their having KNOWLEDGE about it. Insurance companies don’t throw money away. You would make insurance companies elated if you could prove this one wrong. In fact, you could slip the recovery right out of millions of recovering people. You need to spread this news of yours, it could TRULY change the course of history! I am always impressed to meet people who know so much more than the scientists, doctors, and businesses of the world combined. Show the world your brilliance, get the word out!
. According to the authorities on alcoholism, alcoholics have an allergy to alcohol which causes them to keep drinking uncontrollably after they’ve had one drink. This is apparently the only allergy that has purely behavioral symptoms, but unfortunately there is no reliable body of evidence to support these claims¨ i agree there isnt some reaction .. but for me when i had that 1 sip of wine from church.. and didnt drink for days that gave me the ok or thinking that i could drink normally so i really believed i could .. eventually i ended really bad again.. so i ask you, you say on other articles people can go back to moderation if they believe they can… why has it not work for me.. i dont believe in the disease theory to..
i have another example that might help some people save a lot of time and trouble with this “issue”. how many people do you know that were once addicted to cigarettes, but now only smoke a few in moderation every now and then without relapsing back to their old smoking habits? MY ANSWER: ZERO. Does anyone really think a scientific study is worth more than this observation? How about this. Nicotine in amount common to 1-4 cigarettes do not result in addiction, meaning if you never smoke more than 4 cigarettes at a time, you probably won’t BECOME addicted; (they call them “chippers”). But how many PREVIOUSLY ADDICTED cigarette smokers do you know that go back to smoking less than 4 cigarettes a day, successfully? Again, my answer based on my personal experience and all my observations over several decades is: NONE. That’s enough proof for me.
Actually I know a least a dozen people who have gone from a pack a day habit to just a cigarette now and then. And I know even more people who have gone from drinking to obliteration every day but who now can have a glass of wine with dinner and nothing else happens. My observations over 4 decades are proof enough for me.
Before I say this, I want you to know I’m not trying to single you out:
You drank heavily/frequently again (or however you want to describe the drinking you regret) because you wanted to.
Even though you may have thought or stated initially that you’d drink at some lesser level/frequency, you ended up wanting more. You had a drink, liked the feeling, and thought it would be worth it to have another (or to do it again the next day/whatever).
That is the explanation. Somehow, almost everybody defaults to the position that if someone drank in a problematic way, that they had to do it, and were incapable of drinking moderately. Why do we automatically go to that explanation? And what difference does it make if we intended something different at the outset. The other day, I intended to go out to the convenience store for bread and milk. I ended up going to the dollar store and then the grocery store, coming back with a whole load of groceries and other goods for my home. Was it that I lost control of my shopping? Or did I change my mind while I was out? Was I incapable of buying just milk and bread?
We wouldn’t apply the disease/loss-of-control logic to my shopping trip, because we generally approve of keeping our houses stocked with the things we need to live comfortably. There is no incentive for me or others to think of my little story as being due to a loss-of-control. I don’t need an excuse for it. But since heavy drinking is generally disapproved of, then we explain it with excuses. The attitude that would change this is one where the individual embraces their right to heavy drinking – which would be accompanied by an explanation of “I did it because I wanted to.” From that place of ownership you can then move yourself to other wants.
You like to get drunk. You don’t like the consequences. So you explain it to yourself (and sometimes others) as a loss-of-control or disability after the fact. This is clouding the process of finding better options.
i have no clue what it is you are trying to say. i posted that I am aware of NO ONE involved in the scientific treatment of smoking cessastion that has ever suggested “moderation” as a goal for former smokers. ANYONE who has ever been addicted to cigarettes KNOWS without a doubt what happens when they try to smoke cigarettes “in moderation”. IT NEVER WORKS, NEVER. Call it an allergy, powerless condition or whatever you want, but it is a very powerful phenomenon that apparently bypasses higher cognitive decision making functions and does so EXCEPTIONALLY WELL; (with nicotine addiction, it is apparently close to 100%). Argue with 100% all day if you want, but people will trust what they personally observe and experience more than what anyone tells them.
George,
My comment is a reply to the comment above yours, by Ben (the same comment to which you replied). It is not a reply to your comment about smoking.
Now I will reply to you.
I think you’re probably correct about moderate smoking after being a regular smoker. It’s unusual, but it’s not entirely unheard of though. I have known plenty of people who’ve gone from being pack-a-day smokers, to a policy of not buying cigarettes, and instead bumming the occasional smoke from others. I think most people find that unsatisfying though, and either quit fully or return to regular smoking.
But let’s put that aside for a moment and pretend I agree with you that 100% of smokers either abstain fully or continue to smoke heavily. It seems as if you’re trying to say that nobody becomes a moderate drinker or drug user based on this notion about smoking. I’m sorry to say, but that clearly isn’t the case. There are plenty of former “addicted” people who now use drugs and/or alcohol moderately. This is well documented in the epidemiological research, and various other published accounts. Furthermore, I meet people all the time who confide in me that they used to have a problem and now use moderately. Furthermore, I am one such person – I drink occasionally, even though I used to ravenously consume drugs and alcohol daily to such a degree that it resulted in stints in jail, living out of my car, and being homeless – and felt as if I couldn’t stop.
Cigarettes are different from drugs and alcohol for one main reason: they don’t provide a high. And although the withdrawal is extremely weak, it probably sets in faster than any other drug. We can compare smoking and drug/alcohol use in some ways, but they’re fundamentally different in some other ways so that some other comparisons don’t really apply. Bottom line though, moderate use after having drug/alcohol problems is a well documented reality.
-steven
Steve,
It is not ok to compare drugs/alcohol to smoking, but it is ok to compare drugs/alcohol to Steven Slate’s shopping list…right Steve?
Matt
Not what I’m saying at all, Matt.
If we had no data about people returning to moderate drug/alcohol use after periods of “addiction”, and we had a mountain of evidence showing that smoking is either all or nothing – then I would go with that comparison since it is a “drug” of sorts. But the fact is that we have a mountain of evidence showing that people return to moderate use after periods of drug/alcohol “addiction.” So whatever we may find about the existence or non-existence of moderate smoking outcomes is really inapplicable to drugs and alcohol.
Well, scientists see it very differently Steve. One of the main reasons they use nicotine addictions studies is because the stage at which one becomes truly “addicted” is well defined (in part, due to the fact that nicotine is the only addictive drug that humans do not develop a tolerance to – i.e. if you are a pack a day smoker after 2 years of smoking, 22 years later you will still be smoking a pack a day, not 10 packs a day).
The “mountain of evidence” you refer to is limited to alcohol, there is an extremely wide variance in human tolerance to alcohol; ie. some can drink hard for years, without becoming “dependent” on alcohol (suffering physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms when they stop). So that “evidence” is of very limited value (at best) to people who went through extended periods of physical and psychological withdrawal, and “know” they were truly “addicted” to a substance. It is this group of people to whom I refer, no one else.
For those who have truly been “addicted” to a substance, here is what the most recent scientific studies are finding in regard to how “true addiction” changes the brain structure (in case you don’t think Steve is a real scientist):
Research: The Brain Rewires Itself To Accommodate Addiction
Meditation is just one focus of the research taking place at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Much of it is being done at the school’s Brudnick Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, which has a center devoted solely to addiction research. The researchers are measuring activity in the brain, brain chemistry and other things, and mostly what they’re uncovering is that the brain plays a powerful role in addiction. So, they conclude, any addiction treatment is going to have to take that into account.
One study found the part of the brain responsible for craving, and that the brain actually rewires itself to accommodate addiction.
Dr. Joesph DiFranza, a family doctor and professor of family medicine and community health at the medical school, studies the brains of smokers using MRIs. He says what happens in the brain when someone craves a cigarette is the same thing that happens when someone is hungry: The brain will not quiet down until that need is met.
“We put people in the [MRI] who haven’t smoked overnight and these specific areas of the brain become activated,” he said. “The more the person reports they’re craving a cigarette, the more activation there are in these regions of the brain. This is not something that we understood even a year ago. We thought craving was [based] on cues.”
DiFranza found something else surprising: that addiction affects the connections in the brain, sometimes permanently. In some cases he says the brain is actually supporting the addiction. His work found that as cravings increase, there is a weakening in the connections from the anterior cingulate (the part of the brain where cravings appear to originate) to the frontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for self control).
“They’ve lost about two-thirds of the nerve fibers connecting the part of the brain responsible for the self control to the part where the craving is generated,” the doctor said. “So people face some major obstacles when they quit because their brain is actually hard-wired now to support that addiction.”
In a yet-to-be-published study done by Andrew Tapper, associate professor of psychiatry and interim director of the medical school’s Brudnick institute, scientists identified the area in the brains of mice responsible for withdrawal.
“We were able to cause nicotine withdrawal symptoms, even in an animal that had never seen nicotine before,” Tapper said. “That was the ‘aha’ moment that linked that particular brain region and a certain group of neurons to nicotine withdrawal symptoms directly.”
Tapper hopes his research helps scientists figure out how to reduce activity in that part of the brain, alleviating withdrawal symptoms. But what scientists don’t know is why some people become addicted, while others do not.
“I think it’s becoming clear that addiction is a disease,” Tapper said. “So there are certain groups of people that if they start smoking, drinking or doing drugs, they will have a tough time quitting and they can’t help it. This is a disease in my mind like cancer or any other disease.”
What this means, the scientists say, is that any addiction treatment will have to be individualized and take into account that addiction changes the brain.
Dr. Jean King, professor of psychiatry and associate provost for biomedical science research, says with addiction it’s not likely that there will ever be one “cure.”
“You can’t go in like certain diseases and you fix it. This is a disease that you fix it now and somebody could in 10 years go back to drugs. That’s what’s so insidious. It’s the disease that never really quits,” she said. “When our patients come back and say, ‘I’ve tried this and it’s not working,’ then it’s our job as scientists to figure out how to give them options. Wherever the problems are, that’s where we need to go, so all people with addiction have an opportunity to be healed.”
And for many of those struggling, like Farley-Dimino, treatment is ultimately going to have to address the root of addiction.
“Substance abuse is a symptom and a solution for a larger problem, which is this discomfort, So people use substances to get out of that discomfort,” she said. “I think it’s the human condition.”
Maybe neuroscience will tackle that someday as well.