Author Topic: Alcoholism & Drug Addiction are Diseases  (Read 5973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Alcoholism & Drug Addiction are Diseases
« Reply #60 on: March 05, 2009, 03:49:43 PM »
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "psy"
Genetic predisposition to loss of control with a chemical does NOT mean disease.  It does *not* mean people are out of control.  It does *not* mean some gene causes people to pick up a drink ( a behavior ) and another and another.

hereditary baldness is a disease.  there is nothing a person can do to avoid it.  drinking, on the other hand, is a CHOICE.  C H O I C E.  If somebody who knows he has a hard time controlling his alcohol decides to drink anyway he/she is fucking stupid.  Fucking stupid is a subset of C H O I C E.  *NOT* disease.  A *disease* is out of a person's control and cannot be controlled with willpower.  People DO quit drinking by willpower alone.  There are so many differences between what constitutes a "disease" and what AA labels a "disease".

Plus.  All the CREB gene (studied in *rats*) shows is that people with that gene are more prone to anxiety.  People who have anxiety problems are more prone to deal with it using alcohol.  This does not mean that the gene causes alcoholism of that the gene somehow means a person has a disease.

Research with identical twins and children of alcohlics shows that there is an incereased chance (something like 20%) or problem drinking activity, but it does NOT mean that these people are somehow born diseased or that they cannot drink normally.

"Research has shown that alcohol addiction is a complex disease, with both genetics and a tendency toward anxiety playing "crucial roles," writes researcher Subhash C. Pandey, PhD, a psychiatrist with the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"Some 30% to 70% of alcoholics are reported to suffer from anxiety and depression," Pandey says in a news release. "Drinking is a way for these individuals to self-medicate."

Pandey's research focuses on the CREB gene, so-named because it produces a protein called CREB -- cyclic AMP responsive element binding protein. The CREB gene regulates brain function during development and learning. The gene is also involved in the process of alcohol tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms, writes Pandey.

A section of the brain -- called the central amygdala -- is another piece of this puzzle. Both the CREB gene and the central amygdala have been linked with withdrawal and anxiety. When there is less CREB in the central amygdala, rats show increased anxiety-like behaviors and preference for alcohol.

Pandey's newest study puts it all together: It is "the first direct evidence that a deficiency in the CREB gene is associated with anxiety and alcohol-drinking behavior," Pandey writes. "
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Alcoholism & Drug Addiction are Diseases
« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2012, 12:19:48 AM »
I value physical evidence above statistical. The gulags loved to say things like "90% of the people who didn't listen to us are now in prison". Suppose alcoholism were the type of disease that went into remission? We notice nothing about these cases when we do our studies but when it comes back, the study would have changed drastically. DNA is a molecule, composed of nucleotides, it can be empirically described and expresses proteins, other molecules. This is the same whether this is occurring in plants, humans or rats. Chemistry is a well-known science. Sure, the poll studies or whatever can be useful but what evidence is really stronger here?

I'm still somewhat curious that you people oppose the disease concept (as being considered separate from the rest of AA jargon). You claim to want to condemn the gulags and help those who are wrongly persecuted due to drug use - consider this analogy: (i) I kick a man who is considered immoral while he is down on the pavement (ii) I kick a man who is considered medically ill in some fashion while he is down on the pavement. Which case is more socially unacceptable? Certainly the majority of your everyday people out there would choose (i). In the case (ii) they would feel sympathy for the persecuted whereas in (i) there is more likelihood that they would agree with the persecutor. In the case of the gulags, this sympathetic view would create greater outrage over the injustices that occur. Sure, in history, the mentally ill have been abused but much of that has changed. Certain better than doing 20 in San Quentin. You can go do your own research there if you don't believe me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »