Re: it's a selective disease

October 4, 1999

--- dmarcoot@... wrote:

> from my experince at aa, you hit nail on head. those

> with worst war

> stories (and for some reason they are the most pig

> headed abusive ones

> i knew) seemed to dominate (aka: bully) post meeting

> life.

>

> jackandj-@... wrote:

> original

>

article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8435

> > Interestingly, At the IOP (intensive outpatient

> program) which was 1/2

> > 12step and 1/2 pop psychology, we were taught that

> the table game and

> > sportsbetting players took on average 15-20 years

> to seek help, and

> the

> > video poker players managed to get dragged to

> their bottom in an

> > average of 3 years.

> >

> > Having never been a drinker, my inquiring mind

> wants to know, is there

> > a substance hierarchy at AA such as beer drinkers

> at the bottom and

> > Scotch Drinkers at the top?

> >

> > I can imagine the following scenarios:

> > 1)At an actual meeting---Time of abstinance rules

> > 2)Aftermeeting coffee, everyone with some

> abstinance---lowest bottom

> > rules:

> > 3)All other things being equal---Scotch rules!

> >

> > Tell me if I'm wrong.

> >

> > > >

> > > >At GA, It was the sports betters, and table

> game losers at the top

> > and

> > > >the slot video poker losers at the bottom.

> > >

> > > Re NA, I always thought that the ex-cons and

> heroin addictswho

> > stressed the

> > > credentials a lot only THOUGHT they were at the

> top. Bragging about

> > how bad

> > > an addict you were and then almost in the same

> breath saying how

> glad

> > you

> > > are for all the god-given humility and

> especially stressing how " it

> > doesn't

> > > matter what or how much you used " - it just

> doesn't fit together. The

> > > braggers were embarrassing to many. It is like

> saying- " look how BAD

> > a road

> > > accident victim I am. Look how long I behaved

> stupidly, and how

> really

> > > seriously stupid I was. Look how much I walked

> in the road in front

> of

> > > moving traffic. This makes me someone to be

> reckoned with. " It is

> > nonsense.

> > >

> > > I think the reaosn is to get some feeling of

> being a worthwhile

> > person and

> > > cashing in on one's addiction career and trying

> to use that to be

> > " better "

> > > is the nearest some people get to that.

> > >

> >

>

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

>

> eGroups.com home:

> /group/12-step-free

> - Simplifying group

> communications

>

=====

__________________________________________________

October 4, 1999

> Having never been a drinker, my inquiring mind wants to know, is there

> a substance hierarchy at AA such as beer drinkers at the bottom and

> Scotch Drinkers at the top?

>

> I can imagine the following scenarios:

> 1)At an actual meeting---Time of abstinance rules

> 2)Aftermeeting coffee, everyone with some abstinance---lowest bottom

> rules:

> 3)All other things being equal---Scotch rules!

>

> Tell me if I'm wrong.

The first two sound dead-on to me. But the actual choice of alcohol

didn't seem to impose as much of a hierarchy as the drug of choice

seems to in NA. The guys who had been hardcore street winos, or drank

kerosene or cleaning products to get shitfaced could impress the

miss-lonelyhearts-white-wine and sports-bar-pitcher-of-Coors folks, but

the

hierarchy I observed was based mostly on a combination of length of

abstinence, how well you could talk The Shit, and how well you were

doing

materially/sexually.

But Scotch still rules! :^)

Cheers,

.

>

> > >

> > >At GA, It was the sports betters, and table game losers at the top

> and

> > >the slot video poker losers at the bottom.

> >

> > Re NA, I always thought that the ex-cons and heroin addictswho

> stressed the

> > credentials a lot only THOUGHT they were at the top. Bragging about

> how bad

> > an addict you were and then almost in the same breath saying how

glad

> you

> > are for all the god-given humility and especially stressing how " it

> doesn't

> > matter what or how much you used " - it just doesn't fit together. The

> > braggers were embarrassing to many. It is like saying- " look how BAD

> a road

> > accident victim I am. Look how long I behaved stupidly, and how

really

> > seriously stupid I was. Look how much I walked in the road in front

of

> > moving traffic. This makes me someone to be reckoned with. " It is

> nonsense.

> >

> > I think the reaosn is to get some feeling of being a worthwhile

> person and

> > cashing in on one's addiction career and trying to use that to be

> " better "

> > is the nearest some people get to that.

> >

>

October 4, 1999

> Having never been a drinker, my inquiring mind wants to know, is there

> a substance hierarchy at AA such as beer drinkers at the bottom and

> Scotch Drinkers at the top?

>

> I can imagine the following scenarios:

> 1)At an actual meeting---Time of abstinance rules

> 2)Aftermeeting coffee, everyone with some abstinance---lowest bottom

> rules:

> 3)All other things being equal---Scotch rules!

>

> Tell me if I'm wrong.

The first two sound dead-on to me. But the actual choice of alcohol

didn't seem to impose as much of a hierarchy as the drug of choice

seems to in NA. The guys who had been hardcore street winos, or drank

kerosene or cleaning products to get shitfaced could impress the

miss-lonelyhearts-white-wine and sports-bar-pitcher-of-Coors folks, but

the

hierarchy I observed was based mostly on a combination of length of

abstinence, how well you could talk The Shit, and how well you were

doing

materially/sexually.

But Scotch still rules! :^)

Cheers,

.

>

> > >

> > >At GA, It was the sports betters, and table game losers at the top

> and

> > >the slot video poker losers at the bottom.

> >

> > Re NA, I always thought that the ex-cons and heroin addictswho

> stressed the

> > credentials a lot only THOUGHT they were at the top. Bragging about

> how bad

> > an addict you were and then almost in the same breath saying how

glad

> you

> > are for all the god-given humility and especially stressing how " it

> doesn't

> > matter what or how much you used " - it just doesn't fit together. The

> > braggers were embarrassing to many. It is like saying- " look how BAD

> a road

> > accident victim I am. Look how long I behaved stupidly, and how

really

> > seriously stupid I was. Look how much I walked in the road in front

of

> > moving traffic. This makes me someone to be reckoned with. " It is

> nonsense.

> >

> > I think the reaosn is to get some feeling of being a worthwhile

> person and

> > cashing in on one's addiction career and trying to use that to be

> " better "

> > is the nearest some people get to that.

> >

>

October 4, 1999

> Having never been a drinker, my inquiring mind wants to know, is there

> a substance hierarchy at AA such as beer drinkers at the bottom and

> Scotch Drinkers at the top?

>

> I can imagine the following scenarios:

> 1)At an actual meeting---Time of abstinance rules

> 2)Aftermeeting coffee, everyone with some abstinance---lowest bottom

> rules:

> 3)All other things being equal---Scotch rules!

>

> Tell me if I'm wrong.

The first two sound dead-on to me. But the actual choice of alcohol

didn't seem to impose as much of a hierarchy as the drug of choice

seems to in NA. The guys who had been hardcore street winos, or drank

kerosene or cleaning products to get shitfaced could impress the

miss-lonelyhearts-white-wine and sports-bar-pitcher-of-Coors folks, but

the

hierarchy I observed was based mostly on a combination of length of

abstinence, how well you could talk The Shit, and how well you were

doing

materially/sexually.

But Scotch still rules! :^)

Cheers,

.

>

> > >

> > >At GA, It was the sports betters, and table game losers at the top

> and

> > >the slot video poker losers at the bottom.

> >

> > Re NA, I always thought that the ex-cons and heroin addictswho

> stressed the

> > credentials a lot only THOUGHT they were at the top. Bragging about

> how bad

> > an addict you were and then almost in the same breath saying how

glad

> you

> > are for all the god-given humility and especially stressing how " it

> doesn't

> > matter what or how much you used " - it just doesn't fit together. The

> > braggers were embarrassing to many. It is like saying- " look how BAD

> a road

> > accident victim I am. Look how long I behaved stupidly, and how

really

> > seriously stupid I was. Look how much I walked in the road in front

of

> > moving traffic. This makes me someone to be reckoned with. " It is

> nonsense.

> >

> > I think the reaosn is to get some feeling of being a worthwhile

> person and

> > cashing in on one's addiction career and trying to use that to be

> " better "

> > is the nearest some people get to that.

> >

>

October 5, 1999

Hi Kim, folks

In fairness the disease theorists take as a symptom the substitution of

different brands, or even different drugs, if the preferred one is not

available as a sign of addiction. However, you do make a very good

point. I met an AA once who had beat several addictions but one; she

binged on ice cream at the movies. Only ice cream, only at movies. she

didnt want to call herself a compulsive overeater on the basis of that

- and probably not go down the no white flour, no sugar, no snacking

mainstream OA track either - but that was the only option the disease

model offered her.

The highly stereotypical nature of addiction, on both the individual

and group level, reflecting personal expereince and group norms - is so

powerful that we tend not to notice it - such as not considering

smoking or caffeine drinking an addiction, and viewung all drug use as

addictive but not all alcohol drinking. when aware of these massive

individual and group differences (between cultures) it shows to think

of addiction as an innate, biological disorder is clearly absurd.

Pete

kim rh wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8411

>

> Hmn- funny how my so called disease usually " made "

> me drink Coors Light beer and not another brand.

> Although at times I also had bouts of Molson Export

> disease. You would think though that if a person had

> an " uncontrollable " " disease " , that this " disease "

> would force them to drink booze they didn't like, or

> do drugs they didn't want to do. Funny how that

> doesn't happen, hmm!

>

> So some people have coke disease ( this disease

> actually has several strains- freebase disease, line

> disease, intravenous disease,etc),hash disease(not to

> be confused with hash OIL disease- a different disease

> altogether).

> Similarly, a potential OA member may " suffer " (? Is

> it suffering if you partly enjoy it, and you bring it

> on yourself?!) from chocolate donut disease (there are

> a large number of donut related diseases. Many strains

> of the virus- or " flavours " as sufferers call them).

>

> What's your favorite disease?!!(Rhetorical question).

>

> Kim.

>

> =====

>

> __________________________________________________

>

October 5, 1999

LOL - well makes a change from ringing all the bars!

Funnily enough, on addict-l they have been dicussing whether reading

can be an addicition. Perhaps you might like to enlighten them!

Pete

babystrang-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8417

> > Hmn- funny how my so called disease usually " made "

> > me drink Coors Light beer and not another brand.

> > Although at times I also had bouts of Molson Export

> > disease. You would think though that if a person had

> > an " uncontrollable " " disease " , that this " disease "

> > would force them to drink booze they didn't like, or

> > do drugs they didn't want to do. Funny how that

> > doesn't happen, hmm!

>

> Yeah, tell me about it! My progressive, uncontrollable

> disease allowed me to drink Irish Whiskey and Scotch, but gin

> was simply too vile--I left a gathering at a friend's house

> once because all he had left after I drank the last glass of

> decent Cabernet was a choice between gin or pink wine from a

> box <shudder>

>

> <snipped>

>

> > What's your favorite disease?!!(Rhetorical question).

> >

> > Kim.

> Biblioholism, no doubt about it.

> My mother's car broke down one Sunday afternoon and

> she needed a ride; when she couldn't reach me at home

> she called all of the bookstores in town until she

> found out which one I was at. It wasn't the fact that

> her hunch turned out to be right that struck her as odd;

> it was that every person she talked to knew exactly who

> I was and which bookstore I was headed to next.

>

October 5, 1999

The disease modellers normally cover their ass to explain this kind of

thing by saying that addiction is a mixture of genetic predisposition

and environment, and here the environment just turned you on to video

poker. In fdoing this of course they violate Occam's Razor since they

*have* to invoke environment to explain all the phenomena, the need for

a genetic component is lost and hence should not be included without

other, supportive evidence.

Pete

jackandj-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8419

> kim rh wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8411

>

> > What's your favorite disease?!!(Rhetorical question).

>

> It's not rhetorical at all. It begs to be answered, and goes to the

> very heart of the " disease " theory which is underlying the whole

> premise of XA and subsequently 12sf.

>

> I had a video poker disease. But I didn't have a sports betting

disease

> or a slot disease, or a craps or blackjack disease. If I had a

> gambling disease, anyone of the games should have been good enough.

>

October 5, 1999

I have been thinking about the placebo effect and the disease model of

addiction. Do you think it is it possible to become addicted to a inert

placebo? Hmmmm.

Re: it's a selective disease

> Hi Kim, folks

>

> In fairness the disease theorists take as a symptom the substitution of

> different brands, or even different drugs, if the preferred one is not

> available as a sign of addiction. However, you do make a very good

> point. I met an AA once who had beat several addictions but one; she

> binged on ice cream at the movies. Only ice cream, only at movies. she

> didnt want to call herself a compulsive overeater on the basis of that

> - and probably not go down the no white flour, no sugar, no snacking

> mainstream OA track either - but that was the only option the disease

> model offered her.

>

> The highly stereotypical nature of addiction, on both the individual

> and group level, reflecting personal expereince and group norms - is so

> powerful that we tend not to notice it - such as not considering

> smoking or caffeine drinking an addiction, and viewung all drug use as

> addictive but not all alcohol drinking. when aware of these massive

> individual and group differences (between cultures) it shows to think

> of addiction as an innate, biological disorder is clearly absurd.

>

> Pete

>

> kim rh wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8411

> >

> > Hmn- funny how my so called disease usually " made "

> > me drink Coors Light beer and not another brand.

> > Although at times I also had bouts of Molson Export

> > disease. You would think though that if a person had

> > an " uncontrollable " " disease " , that this " disease "

> > would force them to drink booze they didn't like, or

> > do drugs they didn't want to do. Funny how that

> > doesn't happen, hmm!

> >

> > So some people have coke disease ( this disease

> > actually has several strains- freebase disease, line

> > disease, intravenous disease,etc),hash disease(not to

> > be confused with hash OIL disease- a different disease

> > altogether).

> > Similarly, a potential OA member may " suffer " (? Is

> > it suffering if you partly enjoy it, and you bring it

> > on yourself?!) from chocolate donut disease (there are

> > a large number of donut related diseases. Many strains

> > of the virus- or " flavours " as sufferers call them).

> >

> > What's your favorite disease?!!(Rhetorical question).

> >

> > Kim.

> >

> > =====

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

October 5, 1999