Re: The U.S. Navy defines alcoholism

April 13, 2000

its not true. there has never been a gene associated with alcholism.

this is BS

- In 12-step-freeegroups, " Arroyo " <arroyoh@h...> wrote:

> Take a look at this.

>

> It's funny how the Navy is quick to identify Alcoholism as a

disease,

> as a means of forcing Marines and Sailors into trickment but refuses

> to rate it as a disease when it's time to rate disability incurred

or

> aggravated by Service.

>

> The extract, below the line, was lifted off a major Navy page.

>

> My favorite sentence:

>

> " In the last few years, studies have persuasively demonstrated that

> approximately one half of all alcoholic persons have inherited a

> genetic predisposition --or susceptibility--to the disease. "

>

> ...persuasively demonstrated that approximately... Talk about a

> qualifier from hell.

>

> Anyone on the list heard anything about these studies?

> ----------------------------------------------

> Alcoholism

> The Navy defines alcoholism as, " a disease characterized by

> psychological and/or physical/physiological dependence on alcohol. "

> It continues the definition as " clinically defined as a cluster of

> cognitive, behavioral, and physiologic symptoms that indicate the

> person has impaired control of alcohol and continues use of the

> substance despite adverse consequences. "

> The American Society of Addiction Medicine and the National Council

> of Alcoholism and Drug Dependence jointly define alcoholism as,

" ...a

> primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and

> environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations

> the disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by

> continuous or periodic impaired control over drinking, preoccupation

> with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences,

> and distortions in thinking, most notably denial. "

> There is a variance among alcoholics: They have different drinking

> patterns (episodic, binge drinking, daily drinking, etc.), different

> choices of alcoholic beverages ( " hard " liquor, wine, beer, etc.) and

> different quantities consumed (a " few sips, " several six packs, a

> fifth a day, a few glasses of wine with dinner, etc.). Focus on the

> disease should not be on the differences but on the fact of

> uncontrolled drinking despite the consequences.

> There are many " theories " of the cause of alcoholism. One theory,

> diminishing in popularity, is that alcoholism is a " moral

> weakness " -- that the alcoholic could stop drinking if he or she

> " would just use a little willpower. "

> Other theories regarding the cause of alcoholism include:

> -- That anyone who drinks enough over a long period of time can

> become alcoholic.

> -- That alcoholism is an environmental product, influenced by one's

> surroundings. There are areas of the country where drinking is much

> more acceptable than in other areas; and, therefore, more drinkers

> can be found there. There are also occupations which appear to

> attract heavy drinkers. These include popular musicians, poets,

> novelists, salesmen, career soldiers and sailors, and coal miners.

> -- That alcoholism is caused by an individual's " allergy " to

alcohol.

> -- That this person metabolizes alcohol differently than others.

> -- That it is caused by either a deficiency or excess of

> neurotransmitters in the chemical make up of the brain.

> -- That the disease is genetically influenced. Research has made it

> increasingly clear that the genes people inherit can contribute to

> the development of alcoholism. In the last few years, studies have

> persuasively demonstrated that approximately one half of all

> alcoholic persons have inherited a genetic predisposition --or

> susceptibility--to the disease. Studies of twins and adoptees have

> shown that children who have a biological parent who is alcoholic

are

> four times more likely to develop alcoholism than the children of

> non-alcoholics. For sons of alcoholic fathers, the risk is even

> higher. This is true regardless of the environment in which they are

> raised.

> The disease of alcoholism may be compared to that of diabetes--while

> the individual is not responsible for developing the disease, he or

> she is responsible for carefully following a treatment program once

> they know they have it. As with other chronic diseases, the symptoms

> of alcoholism may " go away " with treatment, but the disease is still

> present in a controlled form. In other words, the disease is in

> remission as long as the alcoholic doesn't use alcohol. Although

> incurable and potentially fatal, it is important to remember that

> alcoholism is also among the most treatable of all chronic diseases.

> Anyone can be an alcoholic -- male or female, rich or poor, young or

> old. Alcoholism is an equal opportunity disease.

> Last updated Friday 17 Jan 1996

April 13, 2000

,

Who wrote this? Is it a directive? Is there a " By Direction "

signature?

Tommy

April 14, 2000

You should have received a response to this one by now Tommy. If you

haven't let me know.

Re: The U.S. Navy defines alcoholism

,

Who wrote this? Is it a directive? Is there a " By Direction "

signature?

Tommy

April 14, 2000

A guy I know from AA got booted out of the Navy because of his

drinking. He never even made it through basic training. He says the

Navy drug counselor told him " if you've had three blackouts, you're

an alcoholic. " Don't know if this info is reliable, though, because

the guy is kind of loopy, even after nearly 2 years without drink.

Funny, he's an AA pariah because he believes it conflicts with his

Xianity, and I'm an outcast because of my atheism. He's kind of a

dimwit, and I, as you all know quite well, am a goddamn genius. And

we both bitch about the same shit: How they tell you to be

" openminded " just long enough so they can plant the bullcrap in your

brain, then you're supposed to snap it shut (and don't forget to

" burp " the seal to make sure it's airtight!). Also how arrogant it is

to think that God, if one exists, can be custom-designed " as we

understand Him. " If we create the Creator, then we are the Creator.

We're God! No wonder those AAs act like their shit don't stink.

WARNING!! SERIOUS BLASPHEMY BELOW! DO NOT KEEP READING IF YOU ARE

EVEN REMOTELY RELIGIOUS OR SENSITIVE TO SCATOLOGICAL REFERENCES!!!

Of course, I've always considered it a bit solipsistic for us to

think God created human beings in " His " own image. I'm sure the Turd

People of Uranus have a similar delusion. They envision God as a

giant, infinitely long rope of excrement, floating in the Heavenly

Toilet Bowl.

You know, it really would be a letdown to get to Heaven and find out

God was just a big piece of poop. But hey, It's God... What are you

gonna do? If the Creator of the Universe is a giant stool, you accept

it and move on. No way am I gonna sass that Frass!

I once read a huge tome that purported to be the complete collected

works of Blake, including marginalia. It described one of his

marginal scriblings as " A drawing of a pair of buttocks, labeled 'the

devil's arse,' and a chain of excrement depending therefrom, labeled

'a bishop.' " Or something like that.

April 14, 2000

>

> I once read a huge tome that purported to be the complete collected

> works of Blake, including marginalia. It described one of

his

> marginal scriblings as " A drawing of a pair of buttocks,

labeled 'the

> devil's arse,' and a chain of excrement depending therefrom,

labeled

> 'a bishop.' " Or something like that.

Are you refering to this Blake masterpiece? Can anyone give me the

title and date?

http://www.members.aa.net/~urizen/pageart/michael_satan.jpg

April 14, 2000

Umm, don't think so Tommy. Pretty sure the devil's ass was just

something he scrawled on the margin of a book he was reading or a

poem he was working on. Wonder if that illustration could be the

Blake work that inspired the " Tooth Fairy " in " Red Dragon " ?

> >

> > I once read a huge tome that purported to be the complete

collected

> > works of Blake, including marginalia. It described one of

> his

> > marginal scriblings as " A drawing of a pair of buttocks,

> labeled 'the

> > devil's arse,' and a chain of excrement depending therefrom,

> labeled

> > 'a bishop.' " Or something like that.

>

> Are you refering to this Blake masterpiece? Can anyone give me the

> title and date?

>

> http://www.members.aa.net/~urizen/pageart/michael_satan.jpg

April 14, 2000

Jim,

I didn't think so either. The moon shot here is that of .

This is " The Angel Binding Satan " circa. 1805. It graces the

cover of Szasz's " The Untamed Tongue: A Dissenting Dictionary. "

What fascinates me in this one is the way Blake has captured the

expressions on the two faces. Watercolor, black ink and graphite.

Tommy

> > >

> > > I once read a huge tome that purported to be the complete

> collected

> > > works of Blake, including marginalia. It described one

of

> > his

> > > marginal scriblings as " A drawing of a pair of buttocks,

> > labeled 'the

> > > devil's arse,' and a chain of excrement depending therefrom,

> > labeled

> > > 'a bishop.' " Or something like that.

> >

> > Are you refering to this Blake masterpiece? Can anyone give me

the

> > title and date?

> >

> > http://www.members.aa.net/~urizen/pageart/michael_satan.jpg

April 14, 2000

At 09:09 AM 4/14/00 -0000, Jim Hankins wrote:

>We're God! No wonder those AAs act like their shit don't stink.

>

>WARNING!! SERIOUS BLASPHEMY BELOW! DO NOT KEEP READING IF YOU ARE

>EVEN REMOTELY RELIGIOUS OR SENSITIVE TO SCATOLOGICAL REFERENCES!!!

Have you read Piers 's " God of Tarot " or whatever that three-book

series is called? It covers a view of God and religion similar to the one

you described. I wonder if it inspired your post.

-----

http://listen.to/benbradley

April 19, 2000

Hi

Two points:

The NACDD is basically an AA political wing.

With regard to:

'Anyone can be an alcoholic -- male or female, rich or poor, young or

old. Alcoholism is an equal opportunity disease.'

In any meaningful sense this is total horseshit; if this is held true

for 'alcoholism' then it must also be held true for almost *any*

disease, even sex-linked ones; for example, it is actually possible

to

have female hemophiliacs, if a female is born to a carrier by a

hemophiliac father.

In reality, almost all diseases are made worse by poverty, whether it

be disadvantaged Western minorities or entire populations of poor

countries. Males suffer from more from some psychological disorders

and females more from others, probably as a result of genetic factors

in the former case and perhaps sexism in the latter. Gay ppl are

know

to have more psychological problems on average than straight ppl,

again possibly thru oppression; blacks tend to suffer schizophrenia

more than whites, and mixed race ppl more than either, again perhaps

because of social exclusion.

Alcohol and drug problems show this disparity at least a greatly as

other diseases.

It might be more accurate to say 'alcoholism' practises positive

discrimination, in that it actively prefers minorities and the poor!

another irony is that the evidence indicating a biological component

to the illness is strongest specifically with reference to a very

extreme form thought *solely* found in men, called 'male-limited

alcoholism'!!! - that found in women is entirely 'milieu-limited' -

i.e. caused by psychosocial factors, like discrimination and poverty!

In other words, to call 'alcoholism' as an 'equal opportunity

disease'

is a crock whichever way you look at it.

P.