Not in terms of the 'raving lunatic' aspect Jim. Lots of alcoholics just do lots of stupid things. That's different.

And AA does seem to work in lots of cases. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Not in terms of the 'raving lunatic' aspect Jim. Lots of alcoholics just do lots of stupid things. That's different.

There are a lot of studies that show actual alcoholics, as opposed to heavy drinkers, actually think differently than most people - far more self centred and addictive to the point of being self-destructive. "Raving lunatic" might be a bit strong sometimes but not by much and, often enough, it's too mild a term. It's these personality traits and thought patterns that make it so hard for them to quit drinking. Even feeding them antabuse doesn't help. They will drink right even though they know how sick they are going to be.

Whew!
Nice to know I'm only a faux Alcoholic, not an "actual" one! I'm seeing my doctor Monday, I'm sure he'll be glad as well.

Nice move though. When someone or something doesn't fit the stereotype then change the definition.

This man was a meth addict not an alcoholic. He might have been an alcoholic, too, but he was arrested for meth.

While many drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, fuel addiction by mimicking a neurotransmitter and teaching your brain to crave them, meth is slightly different. Meth actually imitates dopamine and norepinephrine, the pleasure-inducing and alertness-inducing chemicals in the brain. Every time you smoke, snort, or inject methamphetamine, your brain is triggered to release more of these chemicals naturally, until it eventually breaks down and loses the ability to produce them in adequate levels. So in order to feel high and even to stay awake, addicts need more and more meth. This is why a meth user coming off the drug will typically be volatile and may sleep for days at a time. While on the drug, meth users report feelings of confidence, euphoria, invincibility, and increased sexual drive. But meth soon burns up their bodies’ resources until they depend on it to function.

The number of meth addicts who remain sober at least three years after treatment hovers at 12 percent. Experts attribute the low number to several factors, including the lack of understanding of how meth addiction rehab is unlike rehab for other drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.

Without the benefit of rehab, the recovery rate for meth addiction drops from 12 percent to merely 5 percent.

http://www.meth-addiction-treatment.com ... ed-states/

Nice to know I'm only a faux Alcoholic, not an "actual" one! I'm seeing my doctor Monday, I'm sure he'll be glad as well.

Nice move though. When someone or something doesn't fit the stereotype then change the definition.

I'm not changing the definition. The difference between "heavy drinkers" (aka: problem drinkers or alcohol abusers) and "alcoholics" has been recognized by scientists for decades. I have no idea what category you fall into.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/i ... ind/human-

brain/alcoholism1.htmhttp://alcoholism.about.com/cs/effec ... 00510a.htm

Well Jim, I used to fall into both categories.

But I'm puzzled. One of the links you provide Leads to a "page not found" and the other to a Yahoo generated list of sites found in a search on "Alcoholism about effect" - which seems a strange list when the issue was definitional.

So, I looked it up on our good friend wiki. Not a definitive source of course, but not a bad place to start. Oddly enough, the distinction you make between "actual alcoholics" and "heavy drinkers" doesn't exactly leap out of the page. Not even a hop really. Strange for such an important distinction don't you think? I mean there is mention of "abuse" and "dependence", but they are sort of connected after all.

The AA style of program might not be appropriate for meth users Kath, but I think that points to the need for a range of different kinds of therapies for different forms of addiction and different kinds of addicts - including alcoholics.

And the bottom line is that they don't have to involve religion, even when it is disguised in terms like "spirituality" or "higher power" or "a power greater than you".

The links do the same thing for me. I don't know why. They are not what they were supposed to link to. But continue to go ahead into denial there Cattleman. The people that actually matter and are trying to do something about alcoholism know the difference between "alcoholism|" and "heavy drinkers". You are also welcome to let your blind ideology deride the only programs that actually work for alcoholics (and, apparently, other addictive materials). The guy in the opening post wasn't sent to the 12-step program because anyone was pushing God on him. He was sent because they are the only programs with any record of success. That he wasn't interested in cleaning-up was his problem.

Let's try these articles and see if they come up better.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addi ... c-overview

https://ncadd.org/learn-about-alcohol/s ... d-symptoms

Well Jim, thanks for my morning laugh. The new posts you found do make a distinction between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence (a pretty fuzzy one however), but neither support the claims you make in #27 which were the start of this little divergence.

In any case, it doesn't really matter since, in my case, I was both, and now I'm neither without doing the things you seem to think are necessary - like looking to some "force greater than me".

But now I'm "in denial" and have a "blind ideology" because I don't follow your fundamentalist line on the issue? Maybe you need to have another look at step 4.

And sure, I dislike AA, and think a lot of it is BS, but I never denied its effectiveness. But all sorts of BS can be effective - just look at Politics.

As to the other programs, I don't have the faintest idea of their effectiveness. I didn't use one. One thing that did become obvious to me was that most people have a stereotypical image of "the alcoholic" which isn't in accord with the real diversity of the group. Your attempt to fit alcoholism into the AA box is simplistic in the extreme.

But I suppose it could be because I don't have your mind-reading abilities. I don't know what the guy in the OP was "really" thinking, but his objection to being put in a religious program was fair enough, especially if he wouldn't have been regarded as 'passing" unless he took on the religious gobbledegook.

I am not at all sure where this discussion is going or has been, but there are specific DSM criteria defining the difference between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. Here is a link to the criteria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44358/

Gobbledegook. All therapies are goobledegook if the client is not invested in change. This guy didn't want to go to this therapy and got $2M. I am not a fan. The state of California has lived and learned. Hopefully, they've got state CBT therapies for atheists who don't want to go to therapy. They can go and listen to non spiritual and non religious gobbledegook.

And sure, I dislike AA, and think a lot of it is BS, but I never denied its effectiveness. But all sorts of BS can be effective - just look at Politics.

So things that work are b.s.? No wonder conservatives aren't swayed by leftist rationale.

And sure, I dislike AA, and think a lot of it is BS, but I never denied its effectiveness. But all sorts of BS can be effective - just look at Politics.

So things that work are b.s.? No wonder conservatives aren't swayed by leftist rationale.


Just swinging wildly now Jim?
If you are confusing "can be" with "are" then you obviously have a problem.
And what in the hell does "leftist rationale" have to do with anything at all?

I'd see someone about it if I were you.

Thanks for those criteria Kath. They are consistent with what I've been saying.

And nowhere did I suggest that all therapies are gobbledegook. I don't think they are. Not to mention that gobbledegook often works.

But I'm an atheist. Thinking religion is gobbledegook is pretty much one of the defining features.

I'm also still wondering how you (and Jim) can claim to know what was going on in the guys head. Maybe the odd "I suspect" might have been appropriate.

I don't know what's going on in his head nor do I really care. He's a meth addict and he didn't want to go to his mandated therapy because he thought it was crap.

Every one of the people in my (state mandated learn the effects of alcohol on the brain) IDRC group thought it was crap, but sat through it to get their driver's licenses back. They didn't get $2M.

Every one of the people in my (state mandated learn the effects of alcohol on the brain) IDRC group thought it was crap, but sat through it to get their driver's licenses back. They didn't get $2M.

That's why AA doesn't want these mandated people. Anyone who feels they may have a problem with alcohol is welcome to attend AA meetings but those who stay are the ones who want to be there, who want to sober-up. Part of the problem is there have been a plethora of so-called "treatment" programs which have tried to make money by copying the AA program. Sometimes they accessorize their routine a by throwing in a bit of counselling or chucking a pill or two at the guy but in general they just copy the AA program. The big difference is they don't care if the guy wants to sober-up or not. They're in it for the money and, far too often, the participant, like the guy in the opening story, is there because he has to be not because he wants to be.

I would have thought that if the person involved doesn't really want it to work it won't, no matter how good the therapy is.

Bingo, cm!!!!!!!

IMO, if one doesn't know what's going on in his head nor does one care, then one can't help and one doesn't really care if one does help or not

You're right. That's why the guy's lawsuit was bull dust. It didn't matter what program he was in, he didn't want it to work. If he did, the process wouldn't have mattered.....only the success rate.

The original discussion wasn't about whether a program works or not but about whether rights were violated or not.

I disagree with your comments, jim ~ there is NO question that the powers-that-be violated his civil rights by offering/forcing him into an ONLY religious-based program ~ and not only was it a religious-based program, it was a residential program ... meaning he was immersed in it 24/7 ~ I also find it dangerous for anyone to assume s/he knows how/what the guy in the op [or anyone else for that matter] was thinking ~

While I definitely agree that the addicted need to really want to beat it, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this problem ~ and my friend is a prime example of that ~ he didn't want the religious setting and inferences, and he searched until he found an AA group that didn't dwell on that ~

Sooz

Exactly, oskar ~ and for me, it points out why the separation of church and state is so important ~

Sooz

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that a good portion of the programs designed to deal with addictions contain a strong element of indoctrination/brainwashing. Clearly, the addict must want to be cured of his/her addiction for it to work but to introduce religious indoctrination/brainwashing is, IMO, a serious violation of rights, especially if it is one of the conditions to getting needed help.

Hope that makes sense.

The original discussion wasn't about whether a program works or not but about whether rights were violated or not

They weren't but only because of the massive wide spread Dinesh d'Souza style of ignorance about 12 Step programs.

That is YOUR opinion, jim, and you are entitled to it, but it is not MY opinion ~ MY opinion is that the government is constrained by the 1st Amendment from forcing anyone into any religious-based program ~

Sooz