Re: Sober as a Bush?

[Guest guest]

:

Alcoholism does not appear in the DSM-IV. Substance abuse and dependency do

however appear there. However, a religious program (cult) is a very odd and

outdated way to " treat " substance dependency. For myself, I had diagnosed

myself as substance dependent and was sufficiently physically addicted to

require detox. I went to " aftercare " and was lectured about codependency (a

mysterious illness that doesn't exist) etc. I went to a few aa meetings -

same old tired shit. Finally just quit doing that. I stay abstinent as I

believe I am not capable of moderating because I don't want to moderate when

I drink. I'm not powerless over alcohol. That's a bunch of shit. If I was

powerless, how did I stay abstinent alone for four of the 15 plus years I was

in aa? I have read THE REAL AA, AA HORROR STORIES, and AA: CULT OR CURE. I

agree with just about everything I've read in them.

Further, aa's success rate is 5%. Quitting on one's own success rate is 5%.

So, what's the point is subjecting oneself to the fear, guilt and shame

caused by aa doctrinarian?

Jan

[Guest guest]

Vailliant's longitudinal studies have indicated the same thing.

And, IMO, that's another call for more egalitarianism in America, i.e., the need for more socioeconomic egalitarianism.

I'm sure it does not surpprise you that I disagree, if you have in mind coerced wealth redistribution. As between equality and freedom, I generally will always opt for freedom.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

>Peele is simply correct on this score. Even the first 100 members of AA

>demonstrate this point, and I recently read a physician who studied these

>early AA success stories who candidly stated that it was their being

>well-educated with careers, and having families, that pretty much made the

>difference between who made it and who did not.

>

>AA doesn't like this, as it is unegalitarian and flies in the face of their

> " we are all drunks " levelling.

>

>--Mona--

Vailliant's longitudinal studies have indicated the same thing.

And, IMO, that's another call for more egalitarianism in America, i.e., the

need for more socioeconomic egalitarianism.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Who says they're mutually exclusive?

They are mutually exclusive, if equality is your primary goal. The Civil Rights Act coerces private parties to hire, fire and accommodate persons regardless of certain attributes which the private property owner/employer is prohibited from considering. This may seem a pleasing result to many, but it constitutes coercion and deprives individuals of the liberty to act as they deem proper. Similarly, if the government takes money from me to give it to someone else, that is coercion and deprives me of my property and liberty to bring about "equality."

Many, many have written about the clash between equality and liberty, as primary values. Based upon what I know of you Steve, at the end of the day you would place equality above freedom; I would not.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi --

Oh, I agree totally that moderate, responsible drinking, especially

following a bout of irresponsible, unhealthy drinking, is great and provides a

good role model -- not only a role model of healthy drinking, but a role model

of competence at correcting behavioral problems.

BUT -- the fact is that Bush has stated publically, numerous times, that he

is completely abstinent and has been so since his decision to stop drinking some

20 years ago. Therefore moderate drinking on HIS part shows him to be a liar

and a coward.

~Rita

> >Pete,

> >

> >This is obviously footage of Dubya taken years ago.

> >

> >So what if he is drinking? To tell you the truth, I am supect of people who

> >can go 24/7/365 with out drinking!

> >

> >IMO. nothing suspect going on here.........

>

> Finally viewed the notorious clip . . . I tend to agree with you. While

> I'm hardly a Dubya fan, this clip seems pretty innocuous to me. The

> repetition of " Only in America " and so forth does seem to indicate that

> he may have had a few, but he hardly seems stumbling drunk. His

> speech is quite clear, for instance.

>

> This is, in fact, exactly what I hoped the clip was. Our current

> President is someone who gave up (heavy recreational) drinking,

> but still lifts a glass or two on special occasions. That's a good

> role model for people currently drinking too much -- you're not

> diseased and you don't need to convert to AA, just quit drinking

> so much!

>

> I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm suspicious of people who

> never drink, though. :-) There are lots of perfectly normal people

> who choose to abstain for whatever reason. I know some.

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 01:10 AM 7/27/01 +0000, you wrote:

> Hi --

>

> Oh, I agree totally that moderate, responsible drinking, especially

> following a bout of irresponsible, unhealthy drinking, is great and

> provides a good role model -- not only a role model of healthy drinking,

> but a role model of competence at correcting behavioral problems.

>

> BUT -- the fact is that Bush has stated publically, numerous times,

> that he is completely abstinent and has been so since his decision to

> stop drinking some 20 years ago. Therefore moderate drinking on HIS part

> shows him to be a liar and a coward.

Did he? I don't recall ever hearing him say that he was completely

abstinent. I just remembered his saying that he had " stopped drinking, "

which I took to mean that he'd given up his habit of using alcohol

as a hobby. :-)

Yeah, if he says he has been abstinent for 20 years, then there

appears to be a fib involved. While I wouldn't call him drunk on

that video clip, that wasn't the behavior of a completely sober man.

If that is the case, one wonders why the mainstream media didn't

show more interest in this clip. IIRC, they pretty much brushed

it off as meaningless.

[Guest guest]

At 06:22 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote:

> >>To me, " alcoholism " is a folk expression for heavy long-term drinking.

>It is not a precise term, much less a specific condition.<<

>

>This is true about other things that medical science neverthless does

>consider to be specific conditions.

>Take unipolar depression, for example. If memory serves me correctly, the

>DSM-IV has nine " identifiers " for depression, five of which must be " passed "

>for a diagnosis of depression.

>That right there leaves a fair amount of latitude as to what constitutes

>depression, but I believe most the medical world still considers it a

>specific condition, even if it can't be nailed to the wall a lot better than

>jello.

>Or schizophrenia... again, diagnostic symptoms do not all have to be met for

>a diagnosis to be made.

Do you realize that there is no such thing as a diagnosis of alcoholism?

It doesn't appear in the DSM.

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve --

First off, welcome to the list!

What you say about the twin studies may be true, but nevertheless in the

bigger picture it is extremely irrelevant. Are you not more interested in

demographic and sociological studies of alcohol use/abuse?

The " genetic alcoholism predisposition " theory was for a while thought to

account for the very low rate of alcohol abuse among Jews, i.e. Jews were

thought to lack an " alcoholism gene " . However, the fact that Jews whose parents

rejected Jewish religious and cultural pratices, who grew up without exposure to

the Jewish manner of using alcohol (moderate use in a religious context, with

strong prohibitions against over-indulgence), soon began to show rates of

alcohol abuse approaching that of the general population, disproved the genetic

idea. Cultural and socioeconomic factors in alcohol abuse are FAR more

explanatory than genetics.

Despite the wild claims made by AA'ers, alcohol abuse and dependence are

NOT " equal-opportunity diseases " -- poor people have a significantly higher rate

of abuse/dependence, as do people from certain ethnic backgrounds -- and people

who are experiencing severe stress, grief, or personal crisis. People's DNA

does not change from being poor or experiencing trauma.

~Rita

>

> >Nope. I've seen 'em, and they aren't convincing. There are

> >lots more twins who *don't* share drinking behavior than

> >who do.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Ahh, but these twin studies don't claim to show, or purport to show, that

> genetics is the *only* cause of alcoholism. That's the old Aristotelean

> unexcluded middle. Since these studies aren't expecting to show genetics as

> the only cause, it's not at all surprising that they don't show a 100

> percent correlation. However, they do show a correlation much greater than

> random chance.

> It's just like diabetes. I don't know of anybody who would argue against a

> genetic component to diabetes. But, in the case of adult-onset Type II

> diabetes, one twin could get it by eating a lot of junk food early in life

> and another avoid gettting diabetes.

> In some cases, a genetic predisposition, because it likely involves mulitple

> genes, may not even involve an environmental trigger like that.

> Twin studies have shows (or I certainly believe they have) a genetic

> component to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Yet, they don't show, or

> claim to show, one gene is to blame or that the genetic component is the

> only one.

> Steve

>

[Guest guest]

At 06:16 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I guess I'm wondering more of what this group is about. I am alcoholic (yes,

>my definition) but not involved with AA. I am involved with " secular "

>recovery, though. Other than steering people away from AA, what is the focus

>of this group?

Um, well, it's not always focused. We generally don't like AA

much. We talk about crappy experiences with AA, alternatives

to AA, ways in which AA does harm to society, and all kinds of

other free-from-AA stuff.

>And more specific to your quote above, what is your focus in this group,

>what are you seeking from or for it, etc.?

At the moment, not a lot. When I joined I was seeking other people

to talk to about bad experiences with AA and about the best ways

to move on from them. At this point I just stay because I like the

company.

[Guest guest]

I went and had a look-see at that video clip. And I did see Bush drink

something from a

glass.

But do we know what was in that glass? Did someone confirm that it was booze?

Back in the early '60's I was at a party when my first husband was in the Air

Force. (It

seemed to me that there was an awful lot of drinking. So very much booze on the

Air Force

Base. It was such a big thing, and it was a bit of a culture shock to come from

a home

where only my dad drank, and only moderately and responsibly - never got drunk -

and find

myself on an Air Force Base where people were getting loaded regularly.) It was

quite a

drinking scene, and there were some people making fools of themselves. I was

drifting

around with a glass of soda pop and drinking it. No alcohol whatsoever.

The next day the gossip came back to me, how drunk I'd been at that party. I

was

astonished, since I hadn't had even one drop of alcohol. But people saw me with

a glass

in my hand and having a good time. They just assumed I was drunk on my ass. It

seemed

obvious, since I was drinking some sort of liquid from a glass.

Not that I have any use for Bush (and if his damned Faith Based crap makes it, I

am going

to see if the Discordians can apply for money; or since I got my handy-dandy

Universal

Life Church ordination, maybe I can score some bucks), but is it possible that

he was

drinking soda pop or club soda? Is it possible that he was somewhat incoherent

because of

the social setting? A contact high?

I remember getting what might be called " high " or " drunk " , even though I was

sober, just

from being in a social setting where people were high or drunk. There was an

expectation

in that sort of setting. I find myself wondering just how much of drunken

*behavior* is

the result of expectations.

(Hmmm...now....if those people at the party thought I was drunk when I wasn't,

how do I

know they were drunk? In some cases I don't. In other cases I saw them pouring

booze in

their glass. And in yet other cases I made that assumption from the behavior.

One woman

was sprawled on a couch, moaning and babbling incoherently, waving her arms

around, with

her legs spread and her dress hiked up around her waist. And there were a

couple of guys

in the bathtub, with their clothes on, running water and getting all wet. That

didn't

strike me as sober behavior. But I may be wrong.)

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

RE: Sober as a Bush?

> At 06:22 PM 7/26/01 -0500, you wrote:

> > >>To me, " alcoholism " is a folk expression for heavy long-term drinking.

> >It is not a precise term, much less a specific condition.<<

> >

> >This is true about other things that medical science neverthless does

> >consider to be specific conditions.

> >Take unipolar depression, for example. If memory serves me correctly, the

> >DSM-IV has nine " identifiers " for depression, five of which must be

" passed "

> >for a diagnosis of depression.

> >That right there leaves a fair amount of latitude as to what constitutes

> >depression, but I believe most the medical world still considers it a

> >specific condition, even if it can't be nailed to the wall a lot better

than

> >jello.

> >Or schizophrenia... again, diagnostic symptoms do not all have to be met

for

> >a diagnosis to be made.

>

> Do you realize that there is no such thing as a diagnosis of alcoholism?

> It doesn't appear in the DSM.

>

>

>

Yes, I do know that. But I wasn't talking about the DSM for alcohol

dependence, alcohol abuse syndrome or exactly what it is in DSM-IV. I was

talking about depression.

Let's remove DSM from it. Let's say that a consensus of doctors and

counselors experience in research and/or treatment of depression have

determined nine " identifiers " for depression, five of which must be " passed "

for a diagnosis.

Same thing with schizophrenia.

And, of course, diabetes isn't in DSM.

The point still stands that there are other conditions which are considered

specific medical conditions, yet not easily defined.

And this, finally, to cut to the chase gets back to my other posts that twin

studies HAVE demonstrated a genetic component to them.

Or do you not believe those studies have shown that, either?

Steve

[Guest guest]

> What you say about the twin studies may be true, but nevertheless in

the bigger picture it is extremely irrelevant. Are you not more interested

in demographic and sociological studies of alcohol use/abuse?<

I don't think it's irrelevant. First, I said I believe, and that studies

support, genetic disposition is *one* component in alcoholism, and not the

only one. I stress that again, now.

I do know that sociological differences are also important.

As for the relevance, let's take the human genome project. What if one, or

several, of the numerous genes involved in the genetic component of

alcoholism are isolated, then found to be correctible -- even correctible in

utero? I would find that incredibly relevant.

>

> The " genetic alcoholism predisposition " theory was for a while

thought to account for the very low rate of alcohol abuse among Jews, i.e.

Jews were thought to lack an " alcoholism gene " . However, the fact that Jews

whose parents rejected Jewish religious and cultural pratices, who grew up

without exposure to the Jewish manner of using alcohol (moderate use in a

religious context, with strong prohibitions against over-indulgence), soon

began to show rates of alcohol abuse approaching that of the general

population, disproved the genetic idea. Cultural and socioeconomic factors

in alcohol abuse are FAR more explanatory than genetics.<

I think the jury is still out as to which is more explanatory, myself. And,

without wanting to sound Brave New World-ish, 100 years from now, genetics

may well be more easily adjustable than society.

And studies have shown Orientals to have a greater susceptibilty to the

effects of alcohol., due to many of them not metabolizing it as quickly.

Whether that is causatory of alcoholism or not, I don't know.

>

> Despite the wild claims made by AA'ers, alcohol abuse and dependence

are NOT " equal-opportunity diseases " -- poor people have a significantly

higher rate of abuse/dependence, as do people from certain ethnic

backgrounds -- and people who are experiencing severe stress, grief, or

personal crisis. People's DNA does not change from being poor or

experiencing trauma.<

I know rich and poor use drugs equally, as many sociological studies have

shown. Hard drugs are just as common on Wall Street as in Harlem. I haven't

seen any info one way or the other on addiction, or abuse/dependency.

Steve

[Guest guest]

And, to the degree the government does not provide reasonable economic

protection to workers, people are deprived of that money by other people

before the government deprives therich of anything.

Greater economic equality IS greater economic liberty from the workingman's

point of view, Mona.

It is not properly up to the government to "provide" any "protection" to anyone, including "workers," above and beyond the enforcement of contracts and prohibitions on fraud and theft. People who wish to secure economic liberty are free to aspire to that, but it is not the proper role of the government to provide it for them by taking it away from others. It is as basic as: Thou Shalt Not Steal.

The government should keep its hands off of my pocketbook and out of my private life, unless and until I directly interfere with the rights of another. (Yes, reasonable people can differ over what constitutes "direct interference"; I assume a good faith willingness to reach an intellectually respectable standard.)

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

In the Declaration of Independence, those rights include "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Founding Fathers of the French Revolution, IMO, understood exactly what that meant when they wrote of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. So, they didn't see them as contradictory, either.

Well now Steve, if you want to stand on the French Revolution as an example of the idea that placing equality on par with liberty is desireable, you are free to do so. I think, however, you will find that most of us are not enamored of guillotines.

And, to the degree that liberty includes freedom from exploitation, MY government has a duty to prevent that.

It's not stealing to protect workers from being exploited by the rich, Mona. Rather, it's the prevention of stealing the honest value of honest labor. Exactly why government protection is needed.

You are protected from exploitation when your contracts are enforced, and laws against fraud and theft are enforced. If someone is "stealing" something from you, the penal codes are there to do something about it.

Other than that, the government has no place in coercing an employer to vest your labor with a value s/he does not hold.

The value of your labor is what you can command for it in a free market. No more, and no less. Padding that value by government fiat is immoral, as well as impractical.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> What you say about the twin studies may be true, but nevertheless in

the bigger picture it is extremely irrelevant. Are you not more interested

in demographic and sociological studies of alcohol use/abuse?<

Another reason why I believe a genetic predisposition is quite relevant.

What if a purely choice/behaviorist approach tells people over and over that

it is nothing but their choice and their fault they get drunk time after

time, when a genetic predisposition says, while you are choosing to drink,

indeed, you are, to some degree due to an inheirted genetic makeup, affected

differently?

The net result is sociological and psychological -- that these people don't

beat themselves up with so much self recrimination.

Plus, some researchers stressing the genetic predisposition believe it's

specifically related to neurotransmitters in the limbic system. In another

post, I mentioned the possibility of genetic engineering in utero to

allieviate this genetic predisposition. Even before that point, if SSRI's or

something newer in the psychopharmaceutical bin were found to treat the

specific neurotransmitters of potential alcoholics or addicts before they

became that way, and such potential alcoholics or addicts were identified

based on genetic testing, it would again be very relevant.

Steve

[Guest guest]

>From: MonaHolland@...

>In a message dated 7/26/01 5:39:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

>steverino63@... writes:

>

>

> > Vailliant's longitudinal studies have indicated the same thing.

> > And, IMO, that's another call for more egalitarianism in America, i.e.,

>the

> > need for more socioeconomic egalitarianism.

> >

>

>I'm sure it does not surpprise you that I disagree, if you have in mind

>coerced wealth redistribution. As between equality and freedom, I

>generally

>will always opt for freedom.

>

>--Mona--

Who says they're mutually exclusive?

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> They are mutually exclusive, if equality is your primary goal. The Civil

> Rights Act coerces private parties to hire, fire and accommodate persons

> regardless of certain attributes which the private property owner/employer

is

> prohibited from considering. This may seem a pleasing result to many, but

it

> constitutes coercion and deprives individuals of the liberty to act as

they

> deem proper. Similarly, if the government takes money from me to give it

to

> someone else, that is coercion and deprives me of my property and liberty

to

> bring about " equality. "

>

> Many, many have written about the clash between equality and liberty, as

> primary values. Based upon what I know of you Steve, at the end of the

day

> you would place equality above freedom; I would not.

>

> --Mona--

I believe a reasonable accommodation can be found between the two. Now,

rational-minded folks may differ as to where exactly the balance points are

to be found, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

To me, it's black and white thinking, Western thinking I daresay, to say

equality and liberty are that exclusive.

And, sometimes what appears to be someone's money really isn't. Witness

billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (both of whom I would consider at

least moderately libertarian) asking Congress to ***keep*** the inheiritance

tax in place. I believe they didn't really think their money was their

heirs' money.

And, to the degree the government does not provide reasonable economic

protection to workers, people are deprived of that money by other people

before the government deprives therich of anything.

Greater economic equality IS greater economic liberty from the workingman's

point of view, Mona.

Steve

[Guest guest]

" There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a

miracle. The other is as if everything is. " -- Albert Einstein

" The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of

thinking we were at when we created them. " -- Einstein

" The fundamental question is: Is this universe a friendly place or not? " --

Einstein

What is well closed has no bolt locking it. Tao Te Ching 27

The richness of subliminal virtue is comparable to an infant. Its tendons

are flexible yet its grip is firm. Tao Te Ching 55

Those who know do not say; those who say do not know. Tao Te Ching 56

Nothing is more flexible and yielding than water. Yet when it attacks the

firm and strong none can withstand it. So the flexible overcome the adamant,

the yielding overcome the forceful. Tao Te Ching 78

What hurts you, blesses you. Darkness is your candle. Your boundaries are

your quest. Rumi

• You must ask for what you really want. Draw back the lock bolt. One

level flows into another.

• The real truth of existence is sealed, Until many twists and turns of

the road. Exixtence does this switching trick, Giving you hope from one

source, then satisfaction from another. It keeps you bewildered and

wondering and lets your trust in the unseen grow. — Rumi

•Apart from what we wish and what we fear may happpen, we are filled with

other light. Wait for the illuminating opening, as though your heart were

filling with light. Don't look for it outside of yourself. There is a

fountain inside you. Knock on your inner door. Beg for that love expansion.

Meditate only on that. — Rumi

• To see 'both sides' of a problem is the surest way to prevent its

solution; there are always more than two sides. -- Idries Shah

ICQ: 94367059

http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/SeekingSt/gentle---man/ (my website)

>From: MonaHolland@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Sober as a Bush?

>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 02:19:41 EDT

>

>In a message dated 7/26/01 11:01:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

>steverino63@... writes:

>

>

> > And, to the degree the government does not provide reasonable economic

> > protection to workers, people are deprived of that money by other people

> > before the government deprives therich of anything.

> > Greater economic equality IS greater economic liberty from the

>workingman's

> > point of view, Mona.

> >

>

>It is not properly up to the government to " provide " any " protection " to

>anyone, including " workers, " above and beyond the enforcement of contracts

>and prohibitions on fraud and theft. People who wish to secure economic

>liberty are free to aspire to that, but it is not the proper role of the

>government to provide it for them by taking it away from others. It is as

>basic as: Thou Shalt Not Steal.

>

>The government should keep its hands off of my pocketbook and out of my

>private life, unless and until I directly interfere with the rights of

>another.

In the Declaration of Independence, those rights include " Life, Liberty and

the Pursuit of Happiness. " The Founding Fathers of the French Revolution,

IMO, understood exactly what that meant when they wrote of Liberty,

Equality, Fraternity. So, they didn't see them as contradictory, either.

And, to the degree that liberty includes freedom from exploitation, MY

government has a duty to prevent that.

It's not stealing to protect workers from being exploited by the rich, Mona.

Rather, it's the prevention of stealing the honest value of honest labor.

Exactly why government protection is needed.

Steve

To see 'both sides' of a problem is the surest way to prevent its solution;

there are always more than two sides. -- Idries Shah

(I meant to put this on my last post, where I commented that it is Western

thinking that tends to see so much of life in these bipolar opposites.)

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

>The value of your labor is what you can command for it in a free market.

>No

>more, and no less. Padding that value by government fiat is immoral, as

>well

>as impractical.

>

>--Mona--

The " free " market is not free when it's controlled by those who own it and

you know that, Mona. Or I should say, to paraphrase Orwell, it's not equally

free for all. That's why the phrase " wage slave " originated.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Sorry Steve, I don't believe their is such a thing as alcoholism - at

least not according to the popular (and AA) definition of " alcoholism

is a disease. "

> However, there are such things as alcoholics. So, I'm suspicious of

people

> who are suspicious of people who never drink. Do they believe there

is no

> such thing as alcoholism?

> Steve

[Guest guest]

coward?

> BUT -- the fact is that Bush has stated publically, numerous

times, that he is completely abstinent and has been so since his

decision to stop drinking some 20 years ago. Therefore moderate

drinking on HIS part shows him to be a liar and a coward.

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

You need to read up on behavioral economics. It's very different from

behaviorism.

> >I've never heard Peele express a belief similar to behaviorism. On

> >the contrary, he seems to believe in free will and human choice.

Have

> >you read anything by him which seems behaviorist?

> >

> >

>

> I don't un-believe in free will or human choice myself.

> I quote from Peele's website:

> " In this classic piece, Stanton and DeGrandpre review human

and

> animal research against the claim that cocaine is such a powerful

reinforcer

> that it invariably causes the organism with unlimited access to

> self-administer the drug to the exclusion of all other activity and

reward,

> often until death. In place of this model, Stanton and Rich apply

behavioral

> economic research and models which show that animals balance the

> opportunities for available rewards, among which cocaine appears to

be a

> strong but far from overwhelming or unique example. They contrast

their view

> with that of Nobel prize-winning economist Becker, who rather

than

> suggesting an economic model of behavior instead imagines that drugs

create

> a biologically compelling state that drives the addict's behavior. "

> To me, it sounds like he's talking the classic language of

behaviorism when

> he talks abot " animals (who) balance the opportunities for available

> rewards. " Sounds like the language of operant conditioning to me.

> Steve

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> But again your focus on biological issues prevents you from looking

>at social factors -- if there are social factors in alcohol abuse, then

>there are social factors in AVOIDING alcohol misuse.

As I said in a previous post, I grew up near high alcoholism on the Navajo

reservation.l I'm NOT ignoring social factors.

> Why don't you read some of the studies that Peele cites? --

>particularly studies of families where parents specifically teach moderate

>drinking behavior to their children, do not stigmatize alcohol (thereby

>making drinking a secret, forbidden activity that can't be discussed), and

>generally teach responsibility as well as problem-solving skills. Their

>DNA hasn't changed, nor has their biochemistry -- but alcohol

>abuse/dependence rates are very significantly lower than the general

>population in such families.

That's well and good, but sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree,

so in those cases childhood social learning becomes irrelevant.

Otherwise, I do believe in such examples.

However, to use myself as a counterexample, my parents both drank

moderately. I had a high metabolic tolerance for alcohol from the first

drunk. I believe that's a clear indication of some biological disposition.

So the modeling of moderation didn't " take. "

Before you respond, I chose to drink that much. However, if I hadn't had

that level of tolerance, the choice to do otherwise might have been easier.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> >Not even twin studies on the genetic disposition?

>

> Nope. I've seen 'em, and they aren't convincing. There are

> lots more twins who *don't* share drinking behavior than

> who do.

Fram what I've seen, also featured on that site, the Bush daughters

are non-indectical twins with not-quite identical drinking habits!

P.

[Guest guest]

> >

> >So, then did you have " behavioral problems with alcohol " yourself. I

>wasn't

> >even sure of that from your earlier posts?

>

>Yes. Probably just about everyone here has, at some point in

>our lives.

>

>And you?

>

>

I've already said I'm an alcoholic, which for me includes both behavioral

and biological factors. I believe it does not just for me, of course, but

you differ on that.

Behaviorially, other than the physical act of drinking alcohol, I didn't

have behavioral problems, actually. No " laundry lists, " no " character

disorders " or anything like that. I did have a couple of runins with the

constables, sigh.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp