Re: Thoughts on disease theory

February 27, 1999

I have been think a bit the last couple hours about the disease theory

and how it defies all logic when applied to Native Americans and

alcholics in general. i will obviously be writing from my understand ing

of these topics, so i may be mis-informed on some things and if so,

would welcome feedback.

As i said, i think it defies logic and reason. My understanding of teh

disease theory as i have been taught, is that becasue an alcholic is

somehow changed from thier use (increased tolerance for one) they can

never return to safe drinking agian. This seems to be the crutch of the

theory, that even if sober for decades, the idea that alcholic cant

returned to safe drinking ever is evidence it is a disease and that it

is dormat while sober. Please corerect or elborate if my undertanding of

thsi is flawed. but as i said, this was explanation given to me in a.a.,

and my a.a. memmber shrink.

Lets first start with the defination according to websters. Disease:

1.Illness in general. 2. A particular destructive process in an

organism.

if i am sober, i am not experincing any effect from alcholism. thus

there is no illness, or destructive process going on. Thus how can

anyone claim there is a disease?

but the belief (and it is just that unless the AMA can see the future

for any one indivdual) that one cant return to safe drinking is soemhow

evidence the disease isnt cured and is ever present in alcholic.

well this brings me to what i have been pondering in regard to alcohilsm

and native americans in particular. The native american population

suffred a heavey alholism rate when alcohol was introduced to thier

society. Apprently they never had been exposed to it and thus were

poorly able to metabolize it. Before this man made foriegn substance was

introduced, they would have been seen as being perfectly healthy people.

Now within one(?) generation of being exposed to it, they suddenly have

an incurable disease, which some would say is genetic.

The disease theory complety falls apart in this example. here's why.

A disease is something which is a " destructive process " to a normally

health body. its is an abnormal state for the body.

But whoever said the consumption and metabolization of a man made

intoxicant was the normal for the body? It certainly wasnt normal for

the native americans bodies. In fact addiction seemed to be the normal

reaction for them. The poplualr notion is they had a predispostion to

being addicted. Not unlike the pre-dispotion a recovered alcohlic

is said to have.

My point being,i believe a predispostion (wheather occuring naturally or

from years of abuse of the substance) to be addicited is not enough to

qualify for a disease. Not unless you are willing to say that native

americans were diseased for 10's of thousands of years prior to having

alcohol introduced. .

this was jsut one aspect of the whole theory i wanted to poke at, i know

some are returning to alchol after abstience with no problems at all (i

have a friend who has successfully done that), the genetic theory which

has yet to be proven and im not even going to go into jsut how usless

and damaging i believe forever lableing ones self as diseased or

alcholic is. i may have some of the disease theory and history of the

introduction of alcohol to native americans wrong.

if so plase let me know, and please if you find an idea here worth

expanding on , i would be interested in reading it.

i jsut want to add that it was the discription of alhcolism given by

Stanton Peele which msot acuratly matched my experince. Even when i was

in a.a., all the popular notions of the " dissease " be offred to me never

quite fit what alchliom was like or how i got sober.So after years of

trying to see how i could make my experince fit into poplular notion, i

came across peele's web page and books. His ideas make far more sense

and were a breathe of freash air.

-Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1999

---

Hi Dave --

Very interesting post! You made a number of good points. I'd like to

comment on a few items if I may.

First off, I wouldn't characterize alcohol as a " man-made " substance.

While man may have eventually refined the process to produce a variety of

different tasty alcoholic beverages, the actual process of fermentation (sugar

converting to alcohol) is quite natural and requires no human input. Many

bird-watchers have observed berry-munching birds become visibly intoxicated from

consuming overripe, fermenting berries. A number of " primitive " peoples were

making simple fermented beverages (to be consumed for pleasurable or mystical

effect) long before any contact with westerners, and probably learned about

alcohol from observing the " drunk bird " pheneomenon.

As with all foodstuffs, there are some people who get a bad reaction of one

kind or another when they ingest alcohol. I actually can much sooner support

the original AA idea of severe problem drinkers having an " allergy " to alcohol

than the " disease " concept as used today (particularly the ludicrous and

unsubstantiated " alcoholic personality " notion: your entire personality is

" diseased " !). Although technically incorrect, the imagery is a good one -- if

you get a bad reaction to alcohol (such as a tendency to make your way to the

bottom of any bottle, no matter how large, resulting in both untoward

circumstances that day and serious physical reactions the next) then you should

not consume this substance, much as if you get a bad reaction to strawberries

(e.g. hives) you should not consume strawberries. I have actually seen many

steppers post on AA newsgroups something to the effect of " I don't care whether

or not alcoholism is a disease, I just know I have to stay away from the stuff. "

This is a good way of looking at it, and I really don't think " is a disease,

isn't a disease " arguments are the issue. To me the problematic thing is the

pervasive belief that in order to be able to " stay away from the stuff " one MUST

attend recovery meetings, preferably of the 12-step variety, and preferably for

the rest of one's life, to prevent " relapse. " Certainly no one would make a

similar claim to someone who needs to stay away from strawberries due to

allergic reaction. (Strawberry Eaters Anonymous?)

Perhaps there's a genetic predisposition in many Native Americans toward

having a bad reaction to alcohol, perhaps not. But not only is this not a

" disease " , it's also irrelevant to addressing the problem of alcohol abuse. The

question we should be asking is, " What can we do to help awaken feelings of

pride, competence, and self-reliance in these people so they can say 'I'm not

going to abuse alcohol any more; it's not good for my health and it's not good

for our people'? " I DON'T think the answer is " get them to work the steps. "

~Rita

-----------------------------------

>I have been think a bit the last couple hours about the disease theory

>and how it defies all logic when applied to Native Americans and

>alcholics in general. i will obviously be writing from my understand ing

>of these topics, so i may be mis-informed on some things and if so,

>would welcome feedback.

>

>As i said, i think it defies logic and reason. My understanding of teh

>disease theory as i have been taught, is that becasue an alcholic is

>somehow changed from thier use (increased tolerance for one) they can

>never return to safe drinking agian. This seems to be the crutch of the

>theory, that even if sober for decades, the idea that alcholic cant

>returned to safe drinking ever is evidence it is a disease and that it

>is dormat while sober. Please corerect or elborate if my undertanding of

>thsi is flawed. but as i said, this was explanation given to me in a.a.,

>and my a.a. memmber shrink.

>

>Lets first start with the defination according to websters. Disease:

>1.Illness in general. 2. A particular destructive process in an

>organism.

>

>if i am sober, i am not experincing any effect from alcholism. thus

>there is no illness, or destructive process going on. Thus how can

>anyone claim there is a disease?

>

>but the belief (and it is just that unless the AMA can see the future

>for any one indivdual) that one cant return to safe drinking is soemhow

>evidence the disease isnt cured and is ever present in alcholic.

>

>well this brings me to what i have been pondering in regard to alcohilsm

>and native americans in particular. The native american population

>suffred a heavey alholism rate when alcohol was introduced to thier

>society. Apprently they never had been exposed to it and thus were

>poorly able to metabolize it. Before this man made foriegn substance was

>introduced, they would have been seen as being perfectly healthy people.

>Now within one(?) generation of being exposed to it, they suddenly have

>an incurable disease, which some would say is genetic.

>

>The disease theory complety falls apart in this example. here's why.

>A disease is something which is a " destructive process " to a normally

>health body. its is an abnormal state for the body.

>But whoever said the consumption and metabolization of a man made

>intoxicant was the normal for the body? It certainly wasnt normal for

>the native americans bodies. In fact addiction seemed to be the normal

>reaction for them. The poplualr notion is they had a predispostion to

>being addicted. Not unlike the pre-dispotion a recovered alcohlic

>is said to have.

>

>My point being,i believe a predispostion (wheather occuring naturally or

>from years of abuse of the substance) to be addicited is not enough to

>qualify for a disease. Not unless you are willing to say that native

>americans were diseased for 10's of thousands of years prior to having

>alcohol introduced. .

>

>this was jsut one aspect of the whole theory i wanted to poke at, i know

>some are returning to alchol after abstience with no problems at all (i

>have a friend who has successfully done that), the genetic theory which

>has yet to be proven and im not even going to go into jsut how usless

>and damaging i believe forever lableing ones self as diseased or

>alcholic is. i may have some of the disease theory and history of the

>introduction of alcohol to native americans wrong.

>if so plase let me know, and please if you find an idea here worth

>expanding on , i would be interested in reading it.

>

> i jsut want to add that it was the discription of alhcolism given by

>Stanton Peele which msot acuratly matched my experince. Even when i was

>in a.a., all the popular notions of the " dissease " be offred to me never

>quite fit what alchliom was like or how i got sober.So after years of

>trying to see how i could make my experince fit into poplular notion, i

>came across peele's web page and books. His ideas make far more sense

>and were a breathe of freash air.

>

>-Dave

>

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1999

rita,

i agree with you point on the strawberries (which i was first told by

my sponsor). but those slippery weasels have a way out of that. They

would say that a person with a allergy to strawberries isnt absolutly

obssessed with them. A huge myth in a.a. is the alledged obession

alcholics are supposed to have even when decades sober. And thus only

the higher power can remove that obession. Nevermind that cravings cease

when you stop consuming. afterwards, is a matter of learning how to

respond to the outside world with out running to a bar.

" What can we do to help awaken feelings of pride, competence, and

self-reliance in these people so they can say 'I'm not going to abuse

alcohol any more; it's not good for my health and it's not good for our

people'? "

Your point here is terriffic and right on target. I found it ironic that

when i was in A.A. i naturally sought thsoe things. And at every turn

my sponsor discouraged me from activites which eventually allowed

" feelings of pride, competence, and self-reliance " to grow with in me.

he said thsoe things never kept anyone sober and i should go to meetings

instead. How ironic that the skills i recognize as solidifying my

sobriety today, were same ones my a.a sponsor wanted to

sabotage. But of course he would, becasue the scariest idea to a steper

(a concept i never heard ro read anywhere in a year in a.a.) is

" self-reliance "

-Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1999

> This seems to be the crutch of the

> theory, that even if sober for decades, the idea that alcholic cant

> returned to safe drinking ever is evidence it is a disease and that it

> is dormat while sober.

" Doormat while sober " is a good description of many ppl who stay in AA...

> Please correct or elborate if my undertanding of

> this is flawed. but as i said, this was explanation given to me in a.a.,

> and my a.a. member shrink.

This is the " sleeping tiger " theory; or " The pickle that can never return to

a cucumber " . According to the tiger theory, it can " go to sleep " but

continues to grow while asleep, as if you were still drinking, so relapse

when it occurs, is as if you never stopped.

>

> Lets first start with the defination according to websters. Disease:

> 1.Illness in general. 2. A particular destructive process in an

> organism.

>

> if i am sober, i am not experincing any effect from alcholism. thus

> there is no illness, or destructive process going on. Thus how can

> anyone claim there is a disease?

I've asked forms of this question on several professional addiction lists,

and one of the responses was a call to have a professionals only list; stops

ppl asking awkward questions I guess.

>

> but the belief (and it is just that unless the AMA can see the future

> for any one indivdual) that one cant return to safe drinking is somehow

> evidence the disease isnt cured and is ever present in alcoholic.

Nice self-fiulfilling prophesy; if it's true then it's true, if it's false,

then obviously the person never had 'alcoholism', or they will eventually

succumb sooner or later.

>

> well this brings me to what i have been pondering in regard to alcoholism

> and native americans in particular. The native american population

> suffred a heavey alcoholism rate when alcohol was introduced to their

> society. Apprently they never had been exposed to it and thus were

> poorly able to metabolize it. Before this man made foreign substance was

> introduced, they would have been seen as being perfectly healthy people.

> Now within one(?) generation of being exposed to it, they suddenly have

> an incurable disease, which some would say is genetic.

I have used this example myself to indicate the absurdity of the " metabolic

disease " theory on addict-l too. In one Native American village study, the

lifetime prevalence for alcohol abuse in males was something like 75%, and

50% for females. however, this only applies to Native Americans in hardship;

with a good environment they do much better, demonstrating that this is a

*cultural and environmental* phenomonon, not a biological one. The problem

is caused when a culture is suddenly expoised to a drug without gradually

learningf to incorporate it. Alcohol does occur naturally in fomenting fruit

and other animal species can get loaded on it. However, distillation,

invented abt 500 years ago, made it available at much higher concentrations.

Cultures that were aleady familiar with less potent version swere better

able to incorporate spirits, but those exposed to it straight away like

Native Americans had no *cultural* resistance to it, in the form of social

protocols for moderate consumption. Also of course, the collapse of Native

American cultures through the devastating effects of European disease and

conquest also made it seductive to its victims.

>

> The disease theory complety falls apart in this example. here's why.

> A disease is something which is a " destructive process " to a normally

> health body. its is an abnormal state for the body.

> But whoever said the consumption and metabolization of a man made

> intoxicant was the normal for the body? It certainly wasnt normal for

> the native americans bodies. In fact addiction seemed to be the normal

> reaction for them. The popular notion is they had a predispostion to

> being addicted. Not unlike the pre-disposition a recovered alcohlic

> is said to have.

As above, this is a perfect demolition of the disease model I have used too,

but it basically concedes a biological determinant for alcohol abuse, which

in fact is not necessary and is actually contraindicated by Native AMericans

who can drink moderately.

>

> i just want to add that it was the discription of alcoholism given by

> Stanton Peele which most acuratly matched my experince. Even when i was

> in a.a., all the popular notions of the " disease " offered to me never

> quite fit what alcoholism was like or how i got sober.So after years of

> trying to see how i could make my experince fit into popular notion, i

> came across peele's web page and books. His ideas make far more sense

> and were a breathe of fresh air.

Hope you liked my response dave -

From one typoholic to another!

Pete

----------------------

" I wish to live without hate, whim, jealousy, envy, fear. I wish to be

simiple, honest, frank, natural, clean in mind and clean in body...to

face any obstacle and meet every difficulty unabashed and unafraid. "

--Elbert Hubbard

PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT/INFO LIST:

http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 27, 1999

Railroad Rita (great name; I love trains) wrote " As with all

foodstuffs, there are some people who get a bad reaction of one kind or

another when they ingest alcohol. . I actually can much sooner support the

original AA idea of severe problem drinkers having an " allergy " to alcohol

than the " disease " concept as used today (particularly the ludicrous and

unsubstantiated " alcoholic personality " notion: your entire personality is

" diseased " !). "

My mother's father was apparently allergic to alcohol: after one drink,

he'd become violently ill, and so he did not drink at all.

Anne

thomasal@...

1234 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., #927

Washington, D.C. 20005-4556

202 737-0840

------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 28, 1999

At 03:34 PM 2/27/99 -0500, you wrote:

>rita,

>i agree with you point on the strawberries (which i was first told by

>my sponsor). but those slippery weasels have a way out of that. They

>would say that a person with a allergy to strawberries isnt absolutly

>obssessed with them. A huge myth in a.a. is the alledged obession

>alcholics are supposed to have even when decades sober. And thus only

>the higher power can remove that obession. Nevermind that cravings cease

>when you stop consuming. afterwards, is a matter of learning how to

>respond to the outside world with out running to a bar.

It is a circular problem but they can't see it. First they have to go to AA

meetings indefinitely, in which the subjects of alcohol, drinking and only

being saved by God are raised in ritual fashion, but astutely, they notice

that the obsession never goes away. So because of the obsession never going

away (which for some reason they do not connect with sitting in a basement

talking about alcoholic drinking five nights a week) they sit in a basement

talking about it five nights a week. Simple really. If you have really let

go of drinking it is no longer much of a subject, surely.

> " What can we do to help awaken feelings of pride, competence, and

>self-reliance in these people so they can say 'I'm not going to abuse

>alcohol any more; it's not good for my health and it's not good for our

>people'? "

>

>Your point here is terriffic and right on target. I found it ironic that

>when i was in A.A. i naturally sought thsoe things. And at every turn

>my sponsor discouraged me from activites which eventually allowed

> " feelings of pride, competence, and self-reliance " to grow with in me.

>

>he said thsoe things never kept anyone sober and i should go to meetings

>instead. How ironic that the skills i recognize as solidifying my

>sobriety today, were same ones my a.a sponsor wanted to

>sabotage. But of course he would, becasue the scariest idea to a steper

>(a concept i never heard ro read anywhere in a year in a.a.) is

> " self-reliance "

>-Dave

Sounds like your sponsor was trying to help you become humble. Humility is

such a poisoned idea in AA. Those who stress it are often anything but, but

this irony escapes them.

Here is the ultimate " humility " story, and it is sad and funny all at once,

deoending on your perspective, or could be just sad. A friend of mine was

an AA member and did the main share at an AA meeting. She was a bit intense

and was very into therapy, and so she talked a lot about that, and

assertiveness, and codependency and childhood messages, and so on. Not

exactly a standard AA share... Really, they should have been grateful for

the variety. Then afterwards one elderly man shared back to her saying,

sarcastically; " That is all very advanced, but I'm not an expert like you,

I've only been sober for 15 years, so I only talk about what I know about,

which is my drinking " - and proceeded to talk about his drinking in a very

boring manner for several minutes. My friend, mortified by this criticism,

fled the meeting in tears. A couple of elderly women in the meeting turned

to this man and said " Oh you always have to go and do that, don't you " . He

looked at them with a puzzled expression, and went silent. A master of

humility.

Joe Berenbaum

------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 1, 1999

re master of humility:

In retrospect, what i recall from being raised in 12step cult and then as

member, was the meanness and cruelty. Not by all, but All allowed it to

continue. Humility almost always went hand in hand with humiliation.

If you couldn't stand this shit you eventually left.

-GP

----------

From: Joe Berenbaum[sMTP:joe-b@...]

Sent: Sunday, February 28, 1999 12:26 AM

To: 12-step-freeegroups

Subject: Re: Thoughts on " disease " theory