As someone I know likes to say, "There is no virus that can force you to walk into a bar and bend your elbow."

I have previously come to the conclusion that there's no such thing as addiction. In reality, people are physically dependent on the substance, as well as compulsive in their behavior.

Addicts are not helpless, as Alcoholics Anonymous would have us believe. They just need to stop. Really tough cases need psychiatric help with regard to their compulsions.

They say you feel better and healthier after quitting cigarettes.

My experience: after a decade of enjoying every puff, I quit cold turkey. I wanted to smoke badly for two months, but resisted. For the next year, I thought about smoking, but did not. And I had heard you were supposed to feel better, but I did not.

Then one year later, during a stressful moment, I lit up again. Within one day I felt terrible and sick. Then I realized that during my year without cigarettes, I really did feel better and healthier; I just did not know it. The fact was that the process of "feeling better" was so slow and gradual, I did not realize I did feel better until I began smoking again.

I have been smoke free for a while, I feel great, and I wonder how I ever smoked.

Sorry - you keep portraying this as a matter of character or will-power.

It isn't.

Obsessive/compulsive behaviors are among the most difficult to overcome.

It's simplistic to say these people "choose" their behavior, and can just choose otherwise.

Most hard-core users are (unconsciously) using their behaviors to cover deeper wounds and quiet old terrors.

Before we can talk about meaningful change of behavior, there must be a long process of first uncovering, and then resolving, these issues and mechanisms.

...oh, and Amy: the exact same "I can't help myself" model was - and still is - used by gays to promote their identity - depsite the fact that no "gay gene" or other genetic/hormonal cause has ever been found for homosexuality.

Yet any objective observer can see that most gays are trapped in compulsive behaviors - which often include drug use.

I concur it is difficult to feel sympathy for people who destroy themselves--while there are others, diligently going to night school after a hard day's work, to make their lives better. Yes, who should we help?
Still, judge not too harshly--different people have different genetic make-ups. Some people get hooked on alcohol hard, often Native Americans and Northern Europeans (see Irish). It is a genetic predilection, and unless you feel the euphoria connected with alcohol, you won't understand it.
There is also the fact that if drugs were cheap and legal, what might be viewed as an addiction, would instead be viewed along the lines of cigarette smoking: An annoyance, but nothing to get riled up about. Some people need to get high before a day in boring jobs etc. A long day of gardening might be doable with a few rounds pot smoking.
I see no connection between gay behavior and taking hardcore drugs. Thee have been gays in every society known, indicating it must in some way be a inherent trait, not brought on by upbringing or society.

I agree with Ben-David.

I remember reading an article several years ago that described how, in Great Britain, the Alcoholics Anonymous model never caught on. The result is when someone is having trouble with drinking, they can go to a program or a counselor that will talk about moderation, learning to control their drinking, rather that stopping all drinking. They felt that this was the better approach because people didn't feel they had to completely change their lives and give up all alcohol forever. The result was that people didn't have to "hit bottom", which seems to be a very big concept in the AA world, and they might actually seek help earlier.

It was many years ago and I may not be remembering all the details, but I thought at the time, if this is working, then the AA model is incorrect.

Maybe there are some people who fit the AA model and shouldn't drink at all; people are so variable that I'm not sure you could rule it out. However, I think we medicalize then criminalize behavior a great deal. The courts always seem to be sending people to alcohol counseling, treating anyone who's been arrested while intoxicated as an alcoholic instead of someone who happened to get drunk and do something stupid.

I think of it as a bureaucratic impulse, the desire to categorize and classify everyone. The 6-year old cub scout was "carrying a weapon"; no, he was carrying a tool. The 13-year old who "supplied drugs to another student"; no, she gave a friend a tylenol.

I think Theodore Dalrymple (sp?) is skeptical of the addiction label, for many drugs.

I don't know much about other drugs, but alcohol affects me differently that it does most people. When I took a drink, I had no control over how many drinks I would have. Usually, I would drink until I was ab out to pass out and then go to bed. I don't think desease is exactly right. I see it similar to an allergy where I can eat peanuts with impunity, but another person eats a peanut and dies.

I would often take the first drink planning to just have a few. It never worked out that way. You may call it a choice to have that next drink, but it was a compulsion for me.

There is also a mental part of alcoholism. Why take that first drink at all? My mind always told me that this time would be different. I would only have a drink or two and then just enjoy the buzz. I thought I was like everyone else and could stop when I wanted even though every day proved me wrong.

I was always on edge. I was angry or resentful at something or someone or in fear that something would happen or not happen. A drink was the thing that calmed me down and made me able to face life for that few hours between the first drink and sleep.

I started going to AA meetings 25 years ago and haven`t had a drink for over 24 years. I learned to deal with the anger, resentment and fear, so I don`t need to take the first drink. I know that if I do take one drink, I will be right back where I was 25 years ago.

Telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking is the same as telling a depressed person to just cheer up or a gay person to just want a woman instead of a man. Telling me that there is no such thing as addiction is like me telling a woman that labour pain is not so bad. How would I know if I haven`t experienced it?

"I concur it is difficult to feel sympathy for people who destroy themselves--while there are others, diligently going to night school after a hard day's work, to make their lives better."

Yet, I've known MANY that did both...

Nice post, Steamer.

Dalrymple:

And in China, millions of Chinese addicts gave up with only minimal help: Mao Tse-Tung's credible offer to shoot them if they did not. There is thus no question that Mao was the greatest drug-addiction therapist in history.

Then one year later, during a stressful moment, I lit up again. Within one day I felt terrible and sick. Then I realized that during my year without cigarettes, I really did feel better and healthier; I just did not know it. The fact was that the process of "feeling better" was so slow and gradual, I did not realize I did feel better until I began smoking again.

I had a very similar experience. Quit smoking for a couple of years, had a few smokes while out drinking one night, felt like crap the next day. Only then did I realize that I actually did feel better.

Most hard-core users are (unconsciously) using their behaviors to cover deeper wounds and quiet old terrors.

I think this is correct; many hard core users also use drugs and alcohol to self medicate psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Addiction is a very complicated problem, and there is no "one size fits all" solution. And what engenders problematic behavior in some is well tolerated by others. Some people can drink every night and be perfectly functional in their lives; some people can smoke pot daily without problems; some can occasionally use coke and not get hooked.

"I can't help myself" model was - and still is - used by gays to promote their identity - depsite the fact that no "gay gene" or other genetic/hormonal cause has ever been found for homosexuality.

No "gay gene" has been found, but certainly evidence strongly suggestive of a genetic link:

J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

LauraB, I read the same thing about the British model years ago, and it's one of the things that has, over the years, made me extremely skeptical every time I hear what I call science gossip. I know someone's bullshitting when you hear the word "toxins".

It influenced my behavior, as well: I quit smoking because I wanted to after 15 years, knowing it would be better for the baby if I got pregnant. (The baby's now 15!) I've happily used all the pain killers necessary to actually kill pain without giving it a second thought. (It makes me furious that House is supposed to be an "addict". What the hell are painkillers for, if not agonizing pain?) When I was younger, I loved drinking with my friends and did it a lot. When I got older, I stopped doing it much because the hangover was no longer worth it.

I suppose these examples are all Mao-lite: Weigh the options and decide what to do, but if I hadn't read the article in the first place, I probably would have thought all that stuff was too difficult, or dangerous, or that I should "get help". God forbid. I hate "getting help".

My point being not that everyone should have my experience, but that using the AA model is detrimental to the person who responds the same way I do to drugs.

``My point being not that everyone should have my experience, but that using the AA model is detrimental to the person who responds the same way I do to drugs.``

If Robin is referring to people mandated to go to AA by the courts, I agree. There are many people who are picked up for DUI or being drunk in public who are not alcoholics. My experience is that they come to meetings until they have satisfied whatever the court has ordered and then we never see them again.

If someone really wants to quit drinking, AA is one option. It is often the last option since people will try anything before admitting that they are alcoholics. There are people that I used to drink with that are now social drinkers and did not need any help giving up the every day drinking. I wasn't able to do that.

The addiction that is the toughest to quit? Answer is quite simple - entitlement programs.

Steamer writes: Telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking is the same as telling a depressed person to just cheer up or a gay person to just want a woman instead of a man.

Oh, thanks for that flattering comparison, Trent Lott.

Feeble: Seriously, how many drug addicts are working hard at a job, and going to night school to better their lot in life?
Uf this is true, then we should legalize hardcore drugs immediately, and hand 'em out on street corners.
Yeah, and I know a lot of call girls who have Phds from Cal Tech.
It may happen...but not that often.
I would like to meet a call girl with a Phd from Cal Tech. I did meet a Cal Tech girl in a bar once.....

Penny-ante contrarianism is a lot of fun for everyone, but I think if anybody knew of a better way to treat common alcoholism than AA does, we'd all have heard about it.

Acknowledging this is meta-humility; Alcoholism can't be defeated with the tools we'd want it to be... That's the problem.

"It was many years ago and I may not be remembering all the details, but I thought at the time, if this is working, then the AA model is incorrect."

Yeah, makes sense. I imagine that if you're an alcoholic, the idea of having to go the rest of your life without ever drinking again must seem so hopelessly impossible that many people probably mentally resign themselves to "failing" before they even start. They set the bar (no pun intended) basically impossibly high, and make you feel like a failure even if you only drink twice a year.

Anyway, I tend to agree with Amy. Saying that addictions are not really ultimately making choices about the movements and actions of their own bodies, is like saying humans don't really have control over themselves. This notion would turn the entire basis of our society's legal system on its head, and call for a restructuring of society whereby people should not be regarded as autonomous adults but rather as mere cattle to be herded by 'government'.

I don't think anyone's saying quitting an addiction is *easy*, of course it isn't, but it is a choice ... a difficult choice. You do control your body when you light up a cigarette or fill a wine glass and raise it to your mouth - nobody else does. Moving your arms is voluntary.

I argued with a slightly trouble 20-year old kid recently who had taken drugs in his teens after I laughed at a title "victims of drugs" ... I said drugs don't jump out from behind a bush and ambush you and force their way into your body; you're not a "victim" when you make the conscious decision to take drugs, it's your choice. He tried to argue with me at first, as he really wanted to view himself as a poor "victim" without blame (as his mom and the 'system' had always allowed him to do), but from my comments I think it really hit him that he should be expected to take responsibility for his own actions, and I think on some level he appreciated that. Perpetuating this lie that people aren't responsible for their own actions is counterproductive to fixing the problems.

Offtopic-

CNN.com has again published a conservative-seeming headline on a weekend afternoon:

Gaffes in federal reports this week about stimulus have called into question the government's ability to accurately track how many jobs are being created by the massive $787 billion Recovery Act... [17:27pst]

I expect that, just like a couple of weeks ago, this headline will be removed as soon as the presumably liberal shift manager returns from the meal break.

18:37pst - I was right!

Wanna ditch an addiction? Change everything. Like a friend of mine on coke-move one day with no forwarding address. Ditch the cell phone everyone had the # to. Never see any of your prior friends (associated with the behavior) again. Never go any of "your" places again. New start. And, according to her, once enacted-no desire to use again other than the occasional flash-back brief craving. It's not a disease, it's a behavior.

Back on topic —

Having chewed on this for a day, I think Amy's got this wrong, and in a bad way. (Not tragically bad, not criminally bad, but very silly bad.)

> addiction is not a disease but
> a choice, for short-term [versus]
> long-term orientation

[That's my edit of her opening passage: read her original at the top of the page]

People almost always prefer to ascribe good fortune to their own handsome character rather than to dumb luck. Skinny people will say it's their diet & exercise, old people will say it's the moderate servings of coffee and daily apples, people with good eyesight will say it's from years working in the forest or whatever. This quickly becomes simply egotistical. And now, sober people want to pretend they're just taking the long view?

There's very, very little bad that comes from thinking of addiction as a disease. There are many diseases for which people are genetically prone, as they are to alcoholism. To say this is about merely "a choice" savagely mocks the horror that addiction can bring into people's lives... Courageous people. Brilliant people. Steadfast people. People who are better at judging 'terms of orientation' than you are.

The breadth of that horror floods into almost every corner of the human experience. It's not a wispy judgment call. That's why it takes a dozen vague steps and a dedicated team of experienced strangers to make the treatment happen.... Often over the course of decades.

Addiction is big.

The monstrosity of addiction is almost a backhanded compliment to the enormous richness that a person's path may otherwise hold; only something with as much promise as a human life could be wasted as addiction can waste us.

> drug and substance policy that
> is moderated by solid scientific
> evidence and common sense.

Well, treatment and policy are two different things. Y'know what separates them?

Intimacy.

I think, Amy, that if you had been very close to someone who'd drifted into one of these nightmares, or maybe even to the children of an addict, you wouldn't speculate so casually.

I've occasionally had too much to drink (or whatever), but never had horrible consequences. Some of that's personal happenstance, but a lot of it's the (random) luck of my biological nature... I've tickled the dragon's tail repeatedly across several decades, but he's just not tempted by me. Many girlfriends have had severe alcoholism (etc.) in the family— But even so, I don't think I have any special energy about addiction...

So I'm not inclined to fault (or even read) Peele's ideas. But an advice blogger in particular might be expected to have the sharpest possible discernment in this matter... Or if there was no personal interest (as there is none for me), to speak carefully about the nature of a disaster that will almost certainly touch the lives of everyone who visits.

So far as I can tell, AA does better at healing than any other mechanism in the western world. (And of course, in the nations of the Middle East, they don't HAVE alcoholism, right? Just like there are no gays in Iran, right? Riiiiiigghhhht....)

The popular wordings and chatter from the addiction community may sometimes be mundane and technically incorrect... But those people got PROBLEMS, and the most common understanding helps solve those problems.

No one reading this who has an addiction, or is close to someone who does, should be discouraged from seeking help through the most popular programs.

> It doesn't get to the root of why
> people are drinking and teach them
> healthy behavior

I can't believe you had the nerve to type that sentence. I think of what's going on in church basements across this country every night.....

Just want be clear about this:

> It doesn't get to the root of why
> people are drinking and teach them
> healthy behavior

That's EXACTLY what twelve step does. Precisely.

If anyone's interested.

Amy - "People quit drinking and other addictions without any sort of support group all the time. I believe AA is a substitute addiction. It doesn't get to the root of why people are drinking and teach them healthy behavior."

Peolpe do quit drinking without AA. All the time. I'm happy for them. As I said before, most of the people in AA have tried to quit on their own for years. They were not able to quit on their own. So now what? Tell them it's a behaviour and that they should stop? That's a great plan. Let me know how that's working for you.

I chose to go to AA. I go every week, usually once, sometimes more often. I'm convinced that if I stop going to meetings, I will eventually drink again. Call that an addiction if you like, but I'll trade using one or two hours a week to meet with friends and newcomers and share how I got sober and handle life and hear about other's with the daily drinking from the time I got off work to the time I went to bed.

And the cost? I throw $2 in the basket at every meeting. At our group we always tell people to contribute only if they can afford it and newcomers are not expected to contribute. You can use your imagination to estimate how much I would be spending to get drunk every night.

Crid - "That's EXACTLY what twelve step does. Precisely."

Let me emphasize, PRECISELY!

I drank because my emotions controlled me. Anger, fear, and resentment, mainly. If I missed a bus, I would be pissed off all day. If my boss said he needed to meet with me tomorrow, I couldn't sleep at night. If someone cut me off, I would drive blocks out of my way to get in front of them and cut them off back. Irrational?, Very, but that is what was going on in my brain. The only peace I got was the few hours when I was drunk. I already mentioned how I couldn't control how much I drank after I took the first one. This is why I kept taking the first one.

When I started going to AA meetings, I heard people talking about how they used to feel. It was the way I was feeling. Thay talked about gaining some peace and serenity after doing the steps. After a while, I decided to try doing the steps. In the 4th step, I wrote down everything I could think of that related to these negative emotions to help me understand the root of my behaviours. In step 8, I listed all the people I had harmed and in step 9, I made amends. This was more than just saying, "I'm sorry". I changed my behaviour toward them and made up for whatever I had done.

This is a link to AA's "Twelve Promises"

http://www.recovery-man.com/AA/promises.htm

These have come true for me. I react normally to crap that happens to everyone. When I lost a job when the company went bankrupt, I went back to school and got a better job. I have a loving relationship with a wonderful woman. None of this would have happened if I had kept trying to quit on my own.

One thing about AA is that we don't try to recruit new members. We publish a phone number and people know how to find us. There is no point trying to help someone until they want to be helped.

What Crid and Steamer said. It works for folks. That's all I care about.

At age 22, I was spiraling out of control. I was in a job I hated with no ambition and no interest in finishing my degree. I had been drinking and smoking pot since I was 15, but at 20, I got into much harder drugs... meth, cocaine, methadone, xanax etc. I had gotten out of a bad relationship and was in a good relationship, but I felt hopeless and like I was a burden.

One night right after I turned 23, I purposely ODed. I was put in the County behavioral health clinic after the hospital because I was a threat to myself. I stayed there for 5 days until my parents could get me transferred to an excellent rehab and psychiatric hospital called Menninger in Houston. I stayed in Menninger for 7 weeks and had super intensive rehab and therapy there.

When I got home, I went to meetings. I had issues with the whole 'higher power' part, which made me an outsider, especially because where I live, people are really religious. I focused on step one, knowing I was powerless over drugs and alcohol. I made amends too.

After about 8 months of sobriety, I stopped going to meetings. I've been twice in the past 18 months, only to introduce new people to the program. It just wasn't right for me and I stay sober because I know I can't control myself.

I also focus on all that I have accomplished sober. I finished my degree, got a job I love and I don't take depression medicine like I did when I was using. My depression was linked to my usage because I was so used to being high, that not being high felt like a depression. I'm proud of where I am and I know it doesn't take AA to stay sober, but I also know that it has saved A LOT of lives and I would never put it down to an alcoholic or addict.

I believe a great rehab is the best way to stay sober. I dealt with the underlying issues and learned how to face my emotions, instead of burying them in drugs and alcohol.

Putting AA down just shows you don't have an addiction. Non-addicts don't understand. That is something we are used to and either smile and nod or try to enlighten people. There are stigmas to recovery. I think there should be stigmas on addicts, but not those in recovery. Just be compassionate, addiction is really nasty and there don't need to be more hurdles for people.

Oh nd I started smoking in rehab and still smoke, over 2 years later. I believe I can quit, but unlike drugs and alcohol, it isn't something that will kill me or make me lose all I have worked for... at least not immediately. I know the health consequences, but looking in the future is difficult, especially since I find comfort in my cigarrettes!

"Oh nd I started smoking in rehab and still smoke, over 2 years later. I believe I can quit, but unlike drugs and alcohol, it isn't something that will kill me or make me lose all I have worked for... at least not immediately. I know the health consequences, but looking in the future is difficult, especially since I find comfort in my cigarrettes!"

Penny, I am not trying to be mean here but you have traded one addiction for another. My mother in law had this problem. Her drinking and smoking calmed her nerves. She was agoraphobic and also feared flying. When I first met her she drank about half a bottle of Dry Sack sherry a day and sipped it out of a coffee cup. She would smoke two to three packs of cigarettes at day at the same time. She wasn't a "drunk" because in her mind she was never "falling down drunk" like her dad. In 1988 at the age of 54 she was hospitalized for cirrhosis of the liver. She was so panicked by that that she gave up the drinking but of course started smoking more than ever to calm her nerves and was hospitalized again with emphysema less than a year later. After than she was never again in good health; little better than an invalid until she finally died in 1995. We felt bad for her but there was nothing that we could do. I worry because I see some of these same tendencies and fears in my daughter.
Speaking of addictions, how about eating? I always said that if I could "quit cold turkey" with food I would have no problem beating it. Probably why so many people subject themselves to rigid pre measured packaged portions like Jenny Craig. I can't live like that but have had some success keeping stuff that I should not be eating out of the house and shopping very carefully. Isabel

I don't deny I traded addictions... it is pretty obvious I have. However, if I kept drinking or snorting meth, I would be dead now. I smoke about 8-10 cigarettes a day. If I go out with friends, I smoke more because it keeps my hands occupied. Food has always been a demon of mine as well, using or sober. I also had a sex addiction while using, but I've overcome that as well. One thing at a time though!

Someone's gotta be an asshole, so it might as well be me.

I object to attaching the word "disease" to addiction because of the implication that I'm supposed to feel sympathy for addicts -- as in, "oh, she can't help it, she's SICK." Like the addiction is something that invaded them from somewhere.

Congrats to everyone here who has beaten an addiction; I don't imagine it was easy. But I will save my sympathy and empathy for the children, spouses and friends of addicts. When I listen to alcoholics and drug addicts whining about how hard it is to stop -- or worse, how they don't have a problem at all -- I wonder whether they think about how hard it is for other people to live with them.

Monica - ya know - I am one of those kids.

The only way I can handle having an active addict in my family and still keep my sanity is to understand that she has a disease. Trying to think of it any other way (which I have done) has proved over and over to be a dead end road.

But it doesn't sound like you have experience with this...

"I wonder whether they think about how hard it is for other people to live with them."

If your LUCKY they think about it. Only if your LUCKY. If they actually think about these things, they could possibly be receptive to treatment. But the truth is, many don't. Doesn't even occur to them. They are that *ill*.

Thinking of it as a disease didn't help. It just made me more inclined to tell them to suck it up. But if it made things easier for you, then great. Like I said, I have more sympathy for the family of addicts than addicts.

In my experience, treating addiction as a disease made the ones who were inclined to at least see a problem conclude, "I can't possibly do anything about this. Don't you understand how sick I am?"

You are confusing enabling someone to continue the addictive behavior with addiction being treated and dealt with as a disease.

> Someone's gotta be an asshole, so
> it might as well be me.

What am I, chopped liver? Helll-loooo... I'm standing right here, Monica.

Seriously...

First of all, I sympathize with your point, truly. The capacity for addiction is characterologic... If people did resist these temptations with some imaginary strength, they'd not have the problems.

But again, there are other diseases for which susceptibility varies quite randomly, such as cancer. There are some (few) people who can smoke a pack a day for fifty years and die of something unrelated. And there are others for whom twenty packs, or even twenty single cigarettes in their senior year of high school, are enough to guarantee a choking death in their 21st year. Do you feel no distinction between them?

Y'know, the elephant has the trunk, the giraffe has the neck, and humans have their character. Each faces particular risks for having special equipment. The machinery that gets choked by addiction is what makes us distinctive animals.

Flippantly dismissing addicts isn't just short-sighted: It dismisses the power that character can have on identity. Addiction is worth careful consideration if only because it makes people do such very strange things.

If you're going to simplisticly condemn anyone who makes a bad choice, what's the point of running this experiment at all?

Addiction, if it is, in fact, a disease, is one of the few diseases that's more devastating for the people around the addict than the addict himself or herself. (Alzheimer's is another.)

To torture the bejeezus out of your comparison, Crid, if I had a curable cancer and refused treatment, I wouldn't expect other people to get the chemo for me. Abstract conversations about character fall away when you're leading a crying 5-year-old girl by the hand to a police officer because her heroin-addicted father was shooting up in a public bathroom and passed out.

Yeah, I'm a cold-hearted bastard about this.

> I wouldn't expect other people to
> get the chemo for me.

Sure you would.

Wouldn't you expect doctors to have treatment available? Wouldn't you expect medical science to bring the best available reasoning to their response to your disease? Wouldn't you expect government to regulate and certify treatments? Paying your bill is a tiny part of 'getting' chemo, of having all that machinery in operation. (But don't let Brian read that, he'll take it the wrong way.)

What you certainly wouldn't expect is that people would tell you it's your own damn fault for getting cancer. Even if some piddling individual behavior had triggered your illness....

Maybe an extra serving of processed sugar in the eighth year (Reece's Peanut Butter Cup, bay-bee! I used to love those little fuckers! But that was decades ago, it was probably real sugar back then.) Or an afternoon of shirtless play in solar radiation, or some other undetectably small actuating event. Something pushed your outcome over the line.

The fact that science can't observe everything and tell you where the line is doesn't get you off the hook, does it?

> more devastating for the people
> around the addict than the
> addict himself

If you just wanna get pissed off, have at it... It's characterologic problem, and people should be responsible for managing their own thresholds, even when those thresholds (as assigned by God in Heaven) are extremely low.

The fact that some diseases result from willful behavior doesn't mean we can dismiss concern for those who suffer.

Two things

One, the men in my familly are addicts, I noticed addictive pattern behaviors in myself as a teenager, as a result I refuse to drink, never touched the stuff, never use pain killers when at all possible. People make choices and addiction is a choice that can be easily avoided.

Two, Ben David, at what point in your life did you choose to become a heterosexual?

...oh, and Amy: the exact same "I can't help myself" model was - and still is - used by gays to promote their identity - depsite the fact that no "gay gene" or other genetic/hormonal cause has ever been found for homosexuality.

Yet any objective observer can see that most gays are trapped in compulsive behaviors - which often include drug use.

Posted by: Ben-David

Whatever:
No "gay gene" has been found, but certainly evidence strongly suggestive of a genetic link:
- - - - - - - - -
Nope.
Identical twins separated at birth have abysmally low correlation rates for homosexuality - around 10 percent. And large-scale twin surveys have produced the exact opposite results you quote: Family environment, rather than genetics, determine the incidence of homosexuality.

A biochemist dissects "scientific" claims about homosexuality:

http://mygenes.co.nz/

lujlp:
at what point in your life did you choose to become a heterosexual?
- - - - - - - - -
Emotional - but false - rhetorical flourish. Typical of most pro-gay propaganda.

Truth:
Freud and other major lights of psychology trace homosexuality back to early childhood deficits (for example - boys differentiate from mom and bond with dad around age 2).

These theories have been confirmed by large-scale studies of out-n-proud homosexuals, who report similar, dysfunctional childhood memories.

One big study conducted by GMHC during the 80s was first used by the gay lobby in its pity-me campaign - then quickly yanked when objective readers drew the obvious conclusion: homosexuals share developmental blocks and dysfunctional behaviors more than they share anything genetic. So it's a disorder rather than a "lifestyle option."

On topic:
The gay-rights movement deploys many of the emotionally manipulative, self-justifying techniques that addicts and others gripped by compulsion use on the codependent.

I disagree with B-D about this

> So it's a disorder rather than a
> "lifestyle option."

You should never use quotes unless you're quoting someone, and quoting them ON POINT.

And homosexuality is a lifestyle option. You wanna spend your live seeking erotic fulfillment with the same sex, you should certainly be permitted to do so... At least as readily as you might be permitted to pursue fulfillment with a person of the opposite sex who, in the eyes of everyone who knows and loves you both, is the wrong one for you.

Got that? Even if it's a "disorder" (and it's not), free people should pursue as much homosexuality as their hearts (and consenting partners) permit.

On the other hand, I love this–

> homosexuals share developmental
> blocks

Because it jells so well with what's going on in nearby threads, and with Paglia's concerns about the popular perception of homosexual life.

Crid (edited to extract the libertarian essence):
Even if it's a "disorder"... free people should pursue as much.... as their hearts (and consenting partners) permit.
- - - - - - - - -
How do you apply that sentiment/policy to the larger topic of this thread - addictive behaviors?

You've posted rather sympathetic comments about the difficulty of getting out of some behaviors, and the nightmare of the "non-consenting" partners to such behaviors.

So:
When am I "freed" to do as I please - even to the point of self-destruction - and when is compassionate preventiona/intercession in order?

Anorexia was classed as a disorder requiring intervention based largely on significant, recurring patterns of depression, promiscuity, addiction, and suicidal behavior - even though the patients protested (as do many addicts and compulsives) that they were just fine, and that their behavior made them feel attractive and empowered.

Well, the exact same patterns of dysfunction - coupled with "I'm all right, Jack" justifications - are still pervasive in the gay community, decades after liberalization.

Why is one dysfunction classed as a disease, while the other is christened as a "life style option"?

Why is one group offered treatment before they destroy themselves - while the other is encourage to "embrace their differences"?

(Could it be that pathologizing anorexia fits the left-wing script of male oppression, while normalizing homosexuality fits the left-wing script of upending sexual mores?)

I think this cuts to the heart of the original post as well... there are limits to the libertarian reduction of everything to individual free choice.

MonicaP - if I had a curable cancer and refused treatment, I wouldn't expect other people to get the chemo for me."

The point of seeing Alcoholism as a disease for me was that I stopped trying to quit on my own and accepted treatment in the form of AA meetings. I don't see calling it a disease or condition as a ploy to get sympathy. It is simply a recognition that my body reacts to alcohol in that if I take a drink, I can't stop. Will power is not enough and I was fortunate that my wife steered me toward AA rather than telling me, "It's a behaviour. Just stop drinking."

Alcoholism is a mental illness like depression or anxiety. Or rather a symptom of it.

You can't get help for it until you accept the fact that you have a problem that you cannot solve on your own.

Hence AA.

> Why is one dysfunction classed
> as a disease, while the other is
> christened as a "life style
> option"?

There's a difference between starvation and kissing other men on the lips. I know plenty of gay guys who thrive in rude animal health. They eat good food, work out all the time, their skin glows, and they're not likely to die at 25 of heart disease (Schiavo had bulimia) or at 35 of renal failure.

Starvation is inherently dangerous, homosexuality isn't.

I don't see the point of your comparison. Why did it come to mind?

The debate over whether addiction is a disease or a character flaw is similar to that over depression. I think, for some people, addiction is a disease - but they're still responsible for recognizing their own limitations and doing whatever THEY need to do to stay sane and healthy. They have to manage their disease.

So... some people can't drink. My mother was like that - one drink and she'd suck down a whole bottle until she was falling down drunk. Her character flaw was not that she could not metabolize alcohol. It was that she insisted on drinking anyway.

Perhaps it is a bit like having a peanut allergy. There is no shame or judgment attached to someone whose throat closes up when they eat a peanut. But, if they insist on knowingly eating peanuts while saying, "This time it'll be different," now how silly would that be?

I've known depressed people who literally refused to get out of bed. One of them, his wife would make appointments for him with psychiatrists and he wouldn't go. He wouldn't work, either - sat around the house all day smoking pot and playing music on the Internet. Even after the divorce he blamed his ex for "enabling" him!

Another friend who was depressed eventually recognized that what was happening to him wasn't normal, and he scraped himself out of bed and crawled to a shrink and a medical doc. Got himself on meds and therapy, and improved his functioning dramatically.

So it's sometimes useful to separate out the medical and the ethical layers and address them both, rather than take an either-or approach. Maybe there's more than two medical layers: metabolic, behavioral, emotional, cognitive. But THEN there's still ethics & responsibility, which is not a medical condition.

BTW thanks to Crid, Steamer & a few others who wrote very thoughtful posts & shared their direct life experience with addiction.

Amy:
Homosexuality may be a form of alloparenting -- an extra person or two to take care of the tribe's kids who doesn't have kids of his own.
- - - - - - - -
1) I'll remember this nonsensical statement the next time you post a news story about priests abusing altar boys.... which leads to:

2) It doesn't work out that way in reality.

The numbers - coming out of the Dutch Ministry of Health and other places - don't lie: the typical picture of homosexuality is one of compulsive, dehumanizing promiscuity, relationships doomed by narcissism and immaturity, and lives dogged by depression, loneliness, and addiction.

And these patterns play out in any corner of the world when homosexuality is tolerated - including non-Judeo-Christian ones.

So the "Guy in the Sky" angle is a rhetorical dodge that doesn't begin to explain why homosexuality was/is considered dysfunctional in most major, successful cultures of the world.

No Bible thumping necessary - just a willingness to look at how the gay "community" really organizes itself, and how gays really live day to day.

Crid:
There's a difference between starvation and kissing other men on the lips. I know plenty of gay guys who thrive
- - - - - - - - -
... yet the life expentancy of gay men is 20-30 years less than for heteros.

Crid: there is a subculture in the gay world of men who actively seek to get infected with HIV. Should we intervene to protect them?

> ... yet the life expentancy of
> gay men is 20-30 years less
> than for heteros.

We're gonna need to a cite on that one, big guy. I'm the same age as my gay neighbors, and it's obvious they're going to bury me and toast the 20th anniversary of my death. Those guys are leading tremendously orderly lives... In fact, I don't know of any gays in my life who aren't.

> there is a subculture in the gay
> world of men who actively seek
> to get infected with HIV.

Sure. Also we should do something about that guy who woke up in a bathtub full of ice with the kidney missing, and the people who make all those snuff films, and Rod Stewart and the soccer team, and Richard Gere and the little woodland creatures.

A decent society will bring the full force of law to bear on all these nightmares.

OK:
The life-expentancy claim turns out to be based on old data from the height of the AIDs epidemic, before treatment was available.

BUT - the "bugchasing" subculture is real.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

http://blog.ctnews.com/evans/more-about-the-gift-men-seeking-hiv/

So... do we "save these people from themselves" - like that poor bulimic girl - or do we shrug and applaud ourselves for being such cosmopolitan libertarians?

> So... do we "save these people
> from themselves"

Yes! Let's go absolutely apeshit over this and worry about these people very much!...

...At least as much as we worry about any other "subculture" of troubled people pursuing reckless and self-destructive behaviors.

(Be forewarned: There may be a few people like that in straight culture, too.)

Crid:
There may be a few people like that in straight culture, too.
- - - - - - - - -
of course - that's the context of the original post.

I now understand that you are hedging/retracting your brave libertarian statement that:

Even if it's a "disorder", free people should pursue as much (insert admittedly dysfunctional behavior here) as their hearts (and consenting partners) permit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
... although it's still unclear what political agenda/moral yardstick you would apply to determine when we abandon people to their own devices, and when we intervene.

> you are hedging/retracting

Never!

> (insert admittedly dysfunctional
> behavior here)

I think you have energy about the things people choose to insert. And where did the "admittedly" come from? And the "dysfunctional"? I mean, how is this a topic? I'm still trying to figure out why you want this to be about gays. Your argument seems to be that if we'd eventually want to take steps to contain the behavior of one of your spooky "bug catchers", that we'd therefore want to intervene in the conduct of any homosexuals.

This is not the case. As a rule, I just don't care where grownup people wiggle their naughty bits and for whom. I'm more concerned about beer-drinking ATV riders in the desert than with this microscopically small collection of people who are so desperately troubled in a way you find personally terrifying, and who were likely to face something tragic anyway. C'mon... It's not the addictive features of their behavior that fascinates you, is it?

> it's still unclear what
> political agenda/moral yardstick
> you would apply

Addiction treatment is our topic, right? Politics agendas don't a apply: Liberals and conservatives are both burdened by this. Sorting out the morality of addiction is the work of a lifetime, and without personal experience, I won't try to cut you a yardstick. My argument is that the usual western treatments (AA especially) do offer yardsticks, and you shouldn't hesitate to consult them if you need one.

_______________________

PS - I once read and article about those desert places where people ride ATVs until the break their spines: Beer is cheaper than water there.

i recently had a "discussion" with a friend of mine in AA over whether or not there was even a possibility of other programs for alcoholism being successful. i haven't heard so much propaganda spewed from any actual individual (versus media sources, i mean) ever. i was rather surprised.
she said the same line about it being a disease and an allergy. i can't catch alcoholism, but if i choose to drink too much, often, i will eventually cause myself to become an alcoholic, whether or not i have any genetic predispositions. and if i do that, i will not only NOT get a rash from drinking, i will also not stop breathing - these are symptoms of an allergic reaction. therefore, it is not an allergy.
THAT SAID: once you become an alcoholic, i do believe that it is impossible for most to quit drinking on their own without help of some sort, and if AA is the solution, great. so what if it is a replacement addiction, and i think for some it is - it's not a dangerous one. it will not kill you. there are other options, but if this one works, why try another? and, coincidentally, an alcohol addiction is not just psychological. the body actually becomes physically dependent on having a certain percentage of alcohol in the blood in order to function. that's why it's actually the most physically dangerous drug to withdraw from - the withdrawal can actually kill you.
as for the gay thing, bd, most of us actually live quite normal lives. we sleep around roughly the same amount as straight people do, and settle down at roughly the same period in our lives and in the same percentages. i'm sure you've noticed some straight people sleeping around and using drugs too? if it were a disorder, or a disease of some kind, there would be a variable percentage of incidence throughout history. it's pretty stable at 10-11%. it also exists in every animal population ever studied. at similar percentages, actually, and with no relationship to relative gender populations, actually often opposite, and bonobos are 100% bisexual. not that i actually care about your ridiculous opinion. but i have, coincidentally, never been an alcoholic, a smoker, a drug user, a slut, or straight. and i had a great relationship with all members of my family, thanks.

Crid:
Addiction treatment is our topic, right? Politics agendas don't a apply
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
But they do - especially as Amy has framed this in terms of libertarian "let's leave folks to take care of themselves" jargon... as a pushback against the (highly politicized) culture of victimhood.

You - and several others - pointed out that many people cannot just will their way out of many dysfunctional/compulsive behaviors. In other words, there should be limits to the libertarian bootstrap mentality in a civil society.

Well, there are sexual compulsions as well - with equal power as alcoholism to destroy self, family, and community.

So:
If you're fucking your life up using food, lack of food, alcohol, or drugs - then society should extend treatment (implying a certain lack of tolerance for your "personal liberty" and "choice").

But if you're regularly visiting baths and parks for anonymous sex... and trashing "committed" relationships because of this compulsion (most gay relationships don't last beyond 24 months)... and using drugs and alcohol to cover up your distress (at rates 4-5 times the general population)...

....well we'll ignore all that - and applaud you for "embracing your gay identity".

Not because you aren't displaying the same patterns of dysfunction/denial/destruction as the other victim groups.

But because... well, we want to think of ourselves as cool, and that means being non-judgmental about sexual behaviors.

Even if they're obviously dysfunctional.

How does that work?

Whatever:
Most of the statements in your post are demonstrably false, based on statistics gathered by Ministries of Health from Amsterdam to San Francisco... and by GMHC and other pro-gay organizations.

Taking the most common errors:

Whatever:
most of us actually live quite normal lives. we sleep around roughly the same amount as straight people do, and settle down at roughly the same period in our lives and in the same percentages.
- - - - - - - - - - -
The numbers for gay promiscuity are off the charts relative to straights.

Straight single men have 4-10 partners a year.

Gays in "committed relationships" have around 20. Those not in "committed relationships" commonly have many more.

Most gay men engage in 20-30 years of unrelenting promiscuity, then "settle down" to open relationships that usually don't last - the track record for gay couples makes straight divorce rates look like success.

Not at all the same pattern.

Whatever:
if it were a disorder, or a disease of some kind, there would be a variable percentage of incidence throughout history. it's pretty stable at 10-11%.
- - - - - - - - - -
Gays are less than 3 percent of the population. We now know that this was one of the Big Lies of pro-gay propaganda - and that gay-rights organizations repeated this even though they knew it was a lie.

Whatever:
it also exists in every animal population ever studied.
- - - - - - - - - -
1) No, it's actually quite rare, and
2) Is typically exhibited in response to environmental stress - as in the famous "gay bear" in the Berlin zoo who went back to being hetero once a female bear was available.

and most important:
3) what on earth does animal sexual behavior - we've seen articles about gay mosquitoes! - have to do with the rich, emotional experience of human sexuality?

Nothing. These stories are propaganda trying to make the sloppy argument that natural=normal.