prschuster wrote:I have to go to work today so I can't continue this long interesting discussion at the moment, but I am impressed by the thought people put into their repsonses. This issue is complicated and needs to be sorted out. But don't worry. I'll be back. In the meantime I want to describe three different concepts that must not be conflated:
Disease is a medical term that best describes involuntary physical pathologies.

Do you think that the intense desire for alcohol that an alcoholic going through withdrawal is voluntary? Can you say that the mental desire for alcohol isn't a byproduct of physical processes in the person's brain?

Mental illness is a psychological term which best describes problems with feelings & perceptions.

This seems to leave out the aspect of mental illness that can be caused by physical characteristics or processes of the person's brain

Addiction is primarily defined by voluntary, compulsive, destructive behavior.

"Addiction: A chronic relapsing condition characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain. Addiction is the same irrespective of whether the drug is alcohol, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or nicotine. Every addictive substance induces pleasant states or relieves distress. Continued use of the addictive substance induces adaptive changes in the brain that lead to tolerance, physical dependence, uncontrollable craving and, all too often, relapse. Dependence is at such a point that stopping is very difficult and causes severe physical and mental reactions from withdrawal. The risk of addiction is in part inherited. Genetic factors, for example, account for about 40% of the risk of alcoholism. The genetic factors predisposing to addiction are not yet fully understood."
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=10177

"Addiction may refer to Substance dependence (drug addiction) or to Behavioral addiction.

Historically, addiction has been defined with regard solely to psychoactive substances (for example alcohol, tobacco and other drugs) which cross the blood-brain barrier once ingested, temporarily altering the chemical milieu of the brain.

Many people, both psychology professionals and laymen, now feel that there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as gambling, food, sex, pornography, computers, video games, internet, work, exercise, spiritual obsession (as opposed to religious devotion), pain [1], cutting and shopping so these behaviors count as 'addictions' as well and cause guilt, shame, fear, hopelessness, failure, rejection, anxiety, or humiliation symptoms associated with, among other medical conditions, depression and epilepsy.[1][2][3][4"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

If anyone can provide a better medical definition, it would be appreciated but this is the best I could find.

Nothing about either one of these descriptions suggests anything that would be voluntary. Extreme compulsion to partake in either an action or a substance that can lead to serious physical ailments would appear to be anything but voluntary. In fact, it often becomes a case where the inability to effectively control the disease can cause the situation to go into a downward spiral. Self-loathing or depression can settle in and the person seeks whatever will offer them the quickest route to ease the stress caused by the situation which could often be the cause of their stress to begin with. Voluntary would suggest that the person is within control of the situation. Again, I don't want to get into a discussion of absolutes. I would never argue that it is impossible for someone to break an addiction, but we have to be realistic that an addiction is generally the point where the person loses control of dealing effectively with an outside stimulus.

There is no doubt that addictive behavior is usually comlicated by medical conditions and mental illness, so there is a lot of room for confusion and controversy. That's all I have to say for now.

See you later!

Agrippina wrote:The thing I don't like about the idea of alcoholism as a 'disease' in modern parlance, is the idea that it can be treated with acceptance of a 'higher power.' All the old guys that live around us and who are able to swill 4/5 whiskies in quick succession before driving their cars home would be horrified if someone told them that they needed a higher power to stop them drinking, the higher power is usually their wives who are clutching the keys while steering them to the passenger seat and then allowing them to think that they actually did drive themselves home. I'm always amazed at the amount of whisky an 80 year old guy can drink.

You can build a pretty amazing tolerance to alcohol in 8 months, let alone 60-65 years.

@ Thickie, I agree that the tolerance for alcohol does take hold very quickly that's why I'm not in favour of giving it to kids. I think that the older they are when they start drinking the older they'll be when they develop a tolerance for it. Every kid I've ever known whose parents did the "if they learn to drink it at home, they'll respect it" idea has turned out to be a heavy drinker in their 20s and party drunks and drug users in their 30s. I think a healthy respect for alcohol should be taught rather than tolerance for alcohol, cigarettes and hubbly bubblies.

On the subject of tolerance, dependency and addiction, I think that in a lot of cases a mere tolerance for alcohol and an enjoyment of it is made out to be an 'illness' and the treatment is OTT. I think that if drinking (or other substance abuse) is not impinging on the person's ability to lead a normal life, i.e. they can do their job, drive a car, function normally within their society, then there isn't a problem. I think a problem only occurs when people are causing problems for other people and of course if the person can't function. If you're lying with you head on your desk, fast asleep after lunch every day, then you have a problem. And for me there is a real problem with drinking and driving. We have had really bad accidents with that so the law if very strict, 2 glasses of wine, or two beers, 2 ciders, and 2 tots of the hard stuff, depending on your weight. If you're smaller you have to drink less. If you've over the limit, they throw the book at you.

I used to work with a man who was a really heavy drinker. He'd go out for lunch (and I was often present at these lunches) eat a huge steak and potatoes and share a bottle of wine with his companion, so half a bottle with his food. He would then often have Irish Coffee (coffee with whisky and cream) instead of dessert, and then go straight from there into a Board Meeting. After the meeting he would have a couple of whiskies and by 6 or 7 pm drive home, totally sober. He had an amazing tolerance for alcohol. Now the funny thing is that he never broke any traffic rules when he drove, he always wore seat belts and always stayed within the speed limit and he was a fantastic driver (always drove big German cars). Then his doctor said he was running the risk of a heart attack and sent him to a dietician who put him on a strict diet, which included no alcohol. The change in him was terrible. He became aggressive, argumentative and a very bad driver. Possibly it was a form of withdrawal but he didn't drink for about 9 months and all of us used to say that we wished he would start drinking again. I worked with him for over 10 years so I got to know him fairly well, and I can honestly say that I never saw him drunk, disorderly, slurring or anything like that. When he entertained at home, he was a great host, and completely on top of what he was doing.

The industry I worked in was very entertainment oriented, so there was a lot of drinking and partying going on all the time. The worst drunks were the ones who never drank. The guys who used to drink beer all afternoon in meetings, they were great. The ones who sat there talking about people not controlling themselves and then would have one brandy or whisky after the meeting, they'd get slurry and silly. I remember one occasion when one of these guys went up to one of the secretaries and stuck his tongue in her ear. Everyone just stared, totally shocked because it was so out of character. And he'd only had one drink.

Then you get the drunks who start drinking early in the morning and who can't make it through the day without drinking. My husband has a friend like that. He starts drinking at 9 and he drinks wine and beer through the day. By mid-afternoon, he's reeling drunk and slimy and horrible, can't hold a sentence together. He gets into bed every night, out of his mind totally drunk. Now to me that's a horrible kind of alcoholic.

In SA, we drink, a lot. Beer, wine, are all so cheap that everybody can just about afford them. If we ran AA for everyone who drank every day, most of our population would be attending. The only time we get into trouble is if we're over the limit for driving, so we usually assign a non-drinker to do the driving. I've always drunk wine, mostly. Most evenings I have a glass or two with dinner, It's just the way we live. We don't think anything of people drinking. We would definitely not tolerate prohibition here, it would cause riots.

Agrippina wrote:@ Thickie, I agree that the tolerance for alcohol does take hold very quickly that's why I'm not in favour of giving it to kids. I think that the older they are when they start drinking the older they'll be when they develop a tolerance for it. Every kid I've ever known whose parents did the "if they learn to drink it at home, they'll respect it" idea has turned out to be a heavy drinker in their 20s and party drunks and drug users in their 30s. I think a healthy respect for alcohol should be taught rather than tolerance for alcohol, cigarettes and hubbly bubblies.

I agree! I would think that most people that have become an alcoholic never did it intentionally and probably never thought that they would be one until it was too late. I have no problems with alcohol, even though I don't really drink at all, but it appears to be one of those things than people sometimes take for granted because they enjoy it without looking at what could potentially happen by it's constant overuse.

On the subject of tolerance, dependency and addiction, I think that in a lot of cases a mere tolerance for alcohol and an enjoyment of it is made out to be an 'illness' and the treatment is OTT.

Absolutely, and that's why I was trying to make it clear that there is a very large gray area between abstinence and alcoholic. When I am talking about a disease, I am only referring to those who have reached a point where they have lost control of the compulsion to drink.

I think that if drinking (or other substance abuse) is not impinging on the person's ability to lead a normal life, i.e. they can do their job, drive a car, function normally within their society, then there isn't a problem.

I agree...mostly. You have to remember that even though the person seems to be in control, they really may not be and there may be other problems that cannot be seen. The person could slowly be killing their liver, and there may possibly be some deeper psychological issues that are being washed over with the alcohol. Again, I think that each situation and individual is too different to make any kind of a blanket judgment.

I think a problem only occurs when people are causing problems for other people and of course if the person can't function. If you're lying with you head on your desk, fast asleep after lunch every day, then you have a problem. And for me there is a real problem with drinking and driving. We have had really bad accidents with that so the law if very strict, 2 glasses of wine, or two beers, 2 ciders, and 2 tots of the hard stuff, depending on your weight. If you're smaller you have to drink less. If you've over the limit, they throw the book at you.

I used to work with a man who was a really heavy drinker. He'd go out for lunch (and I was often present at these lunches) eat a huge steak and potatoes and share a bottle of wine with his companion, so half a bottle with his food. He would then often have Irish Coffee (coffee with whisky and cream) instead of dessert, and then go straight from there into a Board Meeting. After the meeting he would have a couple of whiskies and by 6 or 7 pm drive home, totally sober. He had an amazing tolerance for alcohol. Now the funny thing is that he never broke any traffic rules when he drove, he always wore seat belts and always stayed within the speed limit and he was a fantastic driver (always drove big German cars). Then his doctor said he was running the risk of a heart attack and sent him to a dietician who put him on a strict diet, which included no alcohol. The change in him was terrible. He became aggressive, argumentative and a very bad driver. Possibly it was a form of withdrawal but he didn't drink for about 9 months and all of us used to say that we wished he would start drinking again. I worked with him for over 10 years so I got to know him fairly well, and I can honestly say that I never saw him drunk, disorderly, slurring or anything like that. When he entertained at home, he was a great host, and completely on top of what he was doing.

I understand what you are trying to say, but ultimately he was a different person when he wasn't drinking. For some people, they can be friendly and outgoing and a blast to be around, and others can turn into Mr. Hyde before your eyes. Just because he was great to be around when he had some alcohol doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem. I was obviously causing health issues, he may have been going through withdrawal which is a sure sign of alcoholism, possibly had other deeper psychological issues held in check by the alcohol that probably need proper addressing, and ultimately the alcohol probably had more control over him than he had over it until his legs got kicked out from under him.

The industry I worked in was very entertainment oriented, so there was a lot of drinking and partying going on all the time. The worst drunks were the ones who never drank. The guys who used to drink beer all afternoon in meetings, they were great. The ones who sat there talking about people not controlling themselves and then would have one brandy or whisky after the meeting, they'd get slurry and silly. I remember one occasion when one of these guys went up to one of the secretaries and stuck his tongue in her ear. Everyone just stared, totally shocked because it was so out of character. And he'd only had one drink.

I know exactly what you are talking about. I work with plenty of people in sales roles and it's safe to say that over half of them either currently have or have had at one point a drinking or drug problem. It has to do with the entertaining customers and others that helps to lead to it. Just remember though, just because someone seems to be great to get along with when they drink, it doesn't mean that there isn't a problem.

Then you get the drunks who start drinking early in the morning and who can't make it through the day without drinking. My husband has a friend like that. He starts drinking at 9 and he drinks wine and beer through the day. By mid-afternoon, he's reeling drunk and slimy and horrible, can't hold a sentence together. He gets into bed every night, out of his mind totally drunk. Now to me that's a horrible kind of alcoholic.

In SA, we drink, a lot. Beer, wine, are all so cheap that everybody can just about afford them. If we ran AA for everyone who drank every day, most of our population would be attending. The only time we get into trouble is if we're over the limit for driving, so we usually assign a non-drinker to do the driving. I've always drunk wine, mostly. Most evenings I have a glass or two with dinner, It's just the way we live. We don't think anything of people drinking. We would definitely not tolerate prohibition here, it would cause riots.

There is a difference though between drinking everyday and having control of the situation and drinking everyday and not.

Tbickle wrote:
"Addiction: A chronic relapsing condition characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain. Addiction is the same irrespective of whether the drug is alcohol, amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or nicotine. Every addictive substance induces pleasant states or relieves distress. Continued use of the addictive substance induces adaptive changes in the brain that lead to tolerance, physical dependence, uncontrollable craving and, all too often, relapse. Dependence is at such a point that stopping is very difficult and causes severe physical and mental reactions from withdrawal. The risk of addiction is in part inherited. Genetic factors, for example, account for about 40% of the risk of alcoholism. The genetic factors predisposing to addiction are not yet fully understood."
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=10177

I don't think marijuana can be included here. Certainly, it does not induce the kinds of chemical changes in the brain that determine physical addiction or chemical dependence.

I have smoked marijuana on and off nearly my whole life, from age 12 to age 78. I've had many long periods (some as long as a decade), where I didn't smoke it at all, and other periods in which I smoked it every day for extended periods. Today, if I never saw another joint for the rest of my life, my world would not come to an end and I'd hardly notice it, at least until I played my guitar or wanted to really hear Pink Floy'd's "The Wall."

For about 30 years of my life (age 20 to 50) I used just about every psychoactive drug known to man, as they were plentiful in my social environment and when one didn't come by another would. But this use was not in a mood altering modus, albeit I did enjoy the altered states; it was more from curiosity and a desire to know for myself. In many instances, my use was one-time only (meth, crack, heroin, amphetamines) but in others it involved at least sporadic uses over time. In all of this I rarely bought the drugs I used, they just came by and I partook. I particualrly enjoyed good powder cocaine, which acted on me like a mind food. But I haven't used coke in fifteen years. Oh I could probably go out an locate some to buy, but that's too much like trouble and does not incite my interest. I reckon I've been there and done that, I dunno. If someone came down my driveway with some I'd probably partake.

The one big exception for me has been alcohol, which was never appealing to me becuase I didn't care to be pouring a toxic substance down my throat and didn't care for the state of being poisoned we call "inebriation" or drunk. I do enjoy a good Cabernet with dinner now and then, but a glass or two is sufficient to enhance a meal, and I used to enjoy a bit of Remy Martin when doing cocaine. I haven't drank a beer since I was in the army as a very young man.

I know that I do not have any genetic predispositions nor am I an "addictive personality" (if I was, I'd have long ago died from OD'ing on heroin!). I'm a user not an abuser.

I realize that anecdotal information such as this isn't all that helpful, so take it for what it's worth.

Now, let's see, where did I put that stash?

Well, I can't comment personally as I only have one embarrassingly bad story about it. That being said, I think that cases have been made regarding psychological addictions to pot and potential physical addictions to it as well, but again, I'm no expert and will leave the discussion to them.

Here's a historical perspective that might help. I believe Bill W and Dr Bob, the cofounders of AA, signed on to the disease idea because they were reacting to the heavy guilt ladden aura of moralizing that came with previous sobriety movements. So they took the emphasis away from sin and started refering to alcoholism as an illness, sickness or malady. Then Marty Mann & Bill W formed what is now known as NCADD to promote the disease model and take the moral stigma out of alcoholism. But to many people, this talk of a disease carried another type of stigma, and so there has been a movement to emphasize the role personal choice. Maybe it's best to put this all into perspective and look at where there is a real moral issue, bona fide medical aspects, and elements of choice involved with alcoholism & drug addiction. Can we find a balance here?

prschuster wrote:Here's a historical perspective that might help. I believe Bill W and Dr Bob, the cofounders of AA, signed on to the disease idea because they were reacting to the heavy guilt ladden aura of moralizing that came with previous sobriety movements. So they took the emphasis away from sin and started refering to alcoholism as an illness, sickness or malady. Then Marty Mann & Bill W formed what is now known as NCADD to promote the disease model and take the moral stigma out of alcoholism. But to many people, this talk of a disease carried another type of stigma, and so there has been a movement to emphasize the role personal choice. Maybe it's best to put this all into perspective and look at where there is a real moral issue, bona fide medical aspects, and elements of choice involved with alcoholism & drug addiction. Can we find a balance here?

All that matters to me in this case is if the definition of disease applies to a particular addiction, like alcoholism. It's going to depend on the individual and the syptoms/severity of the case, but a genuine case where the person has lost control of their ability to effectively manage their alcohol intake fits the bills of being a disease. Now, we could call it whatever we want, but it doesn't change the fact that the definition fits.

Again, I think the real issue that most people have is the idea that since it is controllable, that it shouldn't be called a disease. I don't agree. My father in law quite smoking about 15 years ago after smoking for most of his life and still occasionally gets incredible urges to reach for a cigarette now and then for a few seconds. He is at a point where he has controlled it well enough but the urge still persists and if he ever tried to smoke socially, he would most likely succumb to being a full blown smoker in short time. Remember that we are not talking about the person that enjoys having a glass of wine each night or the person who likes to have some drinks with friends on the weekends. The idea of addiction applies to those who have effectively lost control of their compulsion to drink, and this applies to all addictions.

We have a casino in close proximity to my home and the casinos (at least in Illinois if not the whole US) have a program gor gambling addictsto willingly sing up to a program to bar them entering casinos to help control their addiction on penalty of arrest. We somewhat regularly hear of these individuals trying to gain access to the casinos and are arrested, some even donning costumes to sneak their way in. These are examples of individuals that have lost control of their compulsion and it can manifest itself in a number of ways, often to their own personal detriment. That is why I would call it a disease. No addict ever probably intended for it to happen, and most would probably wish that they could get rid of their addiction easily, so I think that it may be too simplistic to say that it really hinges on the person's choice.

Tbickle wrote:
"Do you think that the intense desire for alcohol that an alcoholic going through withdrawal is voluntary? Can you say that the mental desire for alcohol isn't a byproduct of physical processes in the person's brain? "

I have already made a thorough analysis of the distinctions between predisposing brain chemistry (which is pretty sketchy), withdrawal symptoms and medical complications of alcoholic drinking in order to pinpoint where the actual disease processes lie. I couldn't have been more meticulous. If all forms of pain, urges, cravings and distraught emotions, not to mention obsessive thoughts, are to be considered part of a disease process because they are mediated by brain function, then you might as well consider all unpleasant experiences as diseases. This is where the rather sloppy definition of disease leads to in medicine. In it's most strict traditional sense, the term "disease" used to refer to pretty easily identifiable physical changes with resulting pathologies. Now the notion of a disease can cover any obsessive thought pattern or affective state because they are mediated by brain chemistry beyond voluntary control. It's just a small step from here to claiming that there is no such thing as volition to begin by citing a reductionist view of determinism as applied to neural function. This defies common sense. BTW, I had mentioned earlier that alcohol withdrawal may be considered a disease, even though the decision to take that first drink is still voluntary behavior.

Tbickle wrote:
" We somewhat regularly hear of these individuals (compulsive gamblers) trying to gain access to the casinos and are arrested, some even donning costumes to sneak their way in. These are examples of individuals that have lost control of their compulsion and it can manifest itself in a number of ways, often to their own personal detriment. That is why I would call it a disease."

Sorry I have to draw the line here. You might as well call serial rapists "sex addicts" or serial killers "murder addicts" if reptitious compulsive behavior is considered beyond control. I don't buy it. I'll tell you what is involuntary behavior. Tourettes syndrome is a classic example where disinhibition of the limbic system makes a person unable to control their tics or utterances. If alcoholism were in this category I would expect the alcoholic to register an involuntary reflex to bend their elbow every time someone put a drink in their hand.

I have one more parting remark before signing off for now. I think the notion that some people cannot control their urge to drink or use drugs is a lame excuse for lacking the desire or gumption to refrain from use. I won't give anyone a free pess on that one. The only time I would consider it impossible for someone to refrain from using is when they have already started getting high and are too intoxicated to make rational decicions. This is a temporary chemically induced disability. And that in itself is a perfectly rational reason to abstain from use without having to refer to voluntary behavior as a disease.

All human behavior has it's roots in genetics.

OK, if all human behavior has its roots in genetics, how is this relevant to theories about the nature of addiction?

bookmarking

Animavore wrote:I have some problems with addiction as well as compulsive behaviour. The idea of calling it a "disease" seems absurd to me.

Actually, both words (compulsive and obsessive) sum up the catholic mind set, its what the priesthood would encourage.

prschuster wrote:I have one more parting remark before signing off for now. I think the notion that some people cannot control their urge to drink or use drugs is a lame excuse for lacking the desire or gumption to refrain from use. I won't give anyone a free pess on that one. The only time I would consider it impossible for someone to refrain from using is when they have already started getting high and are too intoxicated to make rational decicions. This is a temporary chemically induced disability. And that in itself is a perfectly rational reason to abstain from use without having to refer to voluntary behavior as a disease.

That's exactly how I feel. I still have a hard time admitting I'm an alcoholic since I totally feel it's my responsibility to either quit it or curb it. The doctors and whoever keep insisting that it is a disease.

Here's another distinction I make regarding problems with behavior... Brain chemistry does factor into some behavior problems. I acknowledge that. Also, substance abuse itself will cause chemical changes in the brain. Alcohol in particular will lower the amount of serotonin and GABA receptors, which will help to increase cravings. But then there is another aspect to behavior patterns and longstanding habits - such as addictions. The actual connections between neurons in the brain for certain habits are reinforced by repeated use. This happens in all types of behavior. So I wouldn't consider these changes to be disease processes. They're just part of normal brain function. Building and reinforcing these habits is part of normal behvior and this is perfectly volitional. We humans are not like rats in a maze. We have a tremendous amount of neocortex and we're able to learn new behaviors. We can choose healthy behaviors and we can learn maladptive behaviors. We can also unlearn bad behaviors.

It is my opinion that the disease model of addiction tends to blur these distinctions. There is a tendency to consider addictive behavior patterns to be permanently etched into the addict's brain so that they need lifelong "recovery". This is where the notion of a "chronic progressive" disease comes in. The only thing that I would consider chronic is the organ damage caused by long term substance abuse, including damage to the brain. But the neural circuitry that mediates our habits is subject to change and I have found that I could easily retrain my brain to seek non-alcohol related activities. The cravings do tend to lessen with time as well. But the present treatment/recovery model looks at the recovering addict as if they were permanently changed by their experience and that rerlapse is always around the corner if they don't embark on a lifetime of working a vigorous recovery program. So even though I see actual disease processes happening in substance abuse, I think the disease model goes over the line at this point.

I'm not really qualified to comment except from the point of view of my observations of people who abuse substances whatever they are: cigarettes, booze, drugs whatever. I think that calling it a 'disease' somewhat removes the responsibility from the person who is using the substance. Do you tell someone who is dying of emphysema that they have one disease that's caused them to get the second one, and that their kids who are standing around with ciggies in their fingers don't have to worry because "it's a disease" and you can't stop yourself and then send them to smokers anonymous (yes such an organisation exists in SA) to stop smoking and get Jesus.

Then then are people like myself who have always been able to pick up a ciggie, smoke it and never have another one ever, and others who smoke purely because everyone else is smoking and then give up, never to start again because of the fear of the second "disease." I know that if I don't have chocolate in the house it doesn't bother me, and I don't really like chocolate-flavoured desserts but if there is a box or a slab of chocolate in the house I don't stop until it's all gone. Do I have a disease or do I merely love the taste of chocolate? And alcohol. I don't have an inclination to drink until I fall down drunk and I've never used any "drugs" but I really do enjoy drinking alcohol. But I've always known when to stop, usually at the point where I know I'll have a headache in the morning if I have another mouthful and then that deters me a lot more than people pointing at me and saying "you need help!"

However, I'm not denying that there are people who are felled by one drink and who can't stop until the bottle is empty and who would sell their families for another bottle or another "fix" in my opinion these are the only people who need help. Not the ones who sit around watching TV at night with a whisky on the table next to them while they read the paper, even if they do it "religiously" every night.

An example from personal experience on the real addict side, the woman who cleans my house has a 22 year old son. He starting smoking cigarettes at a fairly young age and then he got onto marijuana. Now the mj they get here is not the good "stuff' that you get in Europe and America, this is literally wild grass that grows here naturally, and the people who live here, harvest it and crush it and roll it up in newspapers to smoke. This guy smokes this stuff. To buy it, because it's too much trouble for him to grow it himself, and to get his booze at the weekend, he takes everything his mother has to sell. Even her underwear. When he comes to stay with her between jobs, she wears everything she owns, which is not very much, wraps herself in a blanked and comes to work. She can't leave anything in her house, he simply sells it. When we first got to know them we helped her with furniture, carpets, curtains, a TV a cellphone and piles of other stuff. Her little house looked really good, now she has nothing. She won't allow me to give her anything except money which she carries around in her underwear, because he takes it to sell. That is the kind of addiction that's a problem and I'm sure even Jesus can't help this guy. Our Social Services don't care because its one family out of millions like it. They wait until they commit a real crime then throw them into prison where they learn to become better criminals. This is the kind of problem that bothers me with substance abuse, as I said not dad around the braai with his sixth beer on Sunday afternoon.

Reading this.....................................is this mean I can start drinking again if I think I can manage it???? If I told this to my doctor or my AA friends, they'd shout out a big "NO DON"T".

I'm struggling with it. I really love to drink wine and buzz out especially with a meal.

kiki5711 wrote:Reading this.....................................is this mean I can start drinking again if I think I can manage it???? If I told this to my doctor or my AA friends, they'd shout out a big "NO DON"T".

I'm struggling with it. I really love to drink wine and buzz out especially with a meal.

I'm not prepared to tell anyone what to do either way. I know that AA tells everybody who's ever had a drink that it's one drink too many. I also know that I enjoy wine with my food and if I was told right now that I had only a few days to live, I would go our on a totally drunken hi with a chocolate in one hand and a cigarette in the other. So no, I'm the wrong person to ask.