Re: FW: your question (JOIN TOGETHER)

[Guest guest]

I recovered from alcohol dependence 20 months ago by stopping drinking .

I became diabetic 24 months ago , I still have it , it is for life and I have

moved from diet , to tablets , to Insulin injections (just started last

friday ) .

I have to watch every mouthful I eat till I die ( I am 53 ) test blood sugars

x times a day etc .

Alcohol dependence is NOT and should NOT be compared with diabetes . You dont

have to drink , and you do have to eat !!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

How is it that addiction to alcohol is a disease, but addiction to tobacco, narcotics, or anything else is simply addicion?

Separate Thought:

I think the battle here is somewhat like that between VHS and Beta tapes in the early 80s. Beta was far superior but VHS was able to get their size VCRs into everybody's homes.

Nate

From: RoyFlanigan

To: 12-Step-FreeEgroups (DOT) Com

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:32 AM

Subject: FW: your question (JOIN TOGETHER)

The following is a second reply from my question to this organizationregarding something CONCRETE to back up their claim that "addictions" shouldbe treated, and that if treated, "TREATMENT IS AS EFFECTIVE AS TREATMENT FOROTHER CHRONIC CONDITIONS LIKE ASTHMA AND DIABETES." Note the response...My understanding of the results of numerous studies, such as Project Matchis that the effectiveness of so-called treatment is fairly questionable, andthat the majority of drug and alcohol abusers who quit, do so ON THEIR OWN. re: your questionYou contacted Join Together, asking, in part "Too few consumers,family members and policymakers realize that drug and alcohol treatmentis as effective as treatment for other chronic conditions like asthmaand diabetes."Where on earth did you find statistics to support that claim?"This is not OUR statistic. What follows is part of an article that wepublished on our website:A team of prominent addiction researchers told skeptical doctors that drug dependence has much in common with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension and asthma, and should be insured, treated and evaluated in a like manner. Writing in the Oct. 4 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers Tom McLellan, Ph.D., , M.D., O'Brien, M.D., Ph.D., and Herbert Kleber, M.D., said that while many physicians believe there are no effective interventions for addiction, the research says otherwise. This is especially true when outcomes are compared with those for type 2 diabetes, hypertension and asthma, diseases that are "well studied and are widely believed to have effective treatments, although they are not yet curable."I hope this answers your question.Anara GuardDirector of Information and MarketingJoin Together441 Stuart Street, 7th FloorBoston MA 02116 [fax]anara@...www.jointogether.org

[Guest guest]

I guess that's an answer to your question. Yes, they are willing to lobby

the people and the government to divert billions of dollars into addiction

treatment. No, they are not willing to bother to find out whether those

billions would be well spent or merely flushed down the toilet.

All they will say is that someone else somewhere claims that it is so. Fish

around on their web site and you will find various references to claims

about treatment effectiveness. All the references are vague. If you wanted

to track down the original sources they have not always made your job easy.

And the claimants are financially interested.

For instance with the one quoted in their response to you, you have " a team

of prominent addiction researchers " addressing some " skeptical doctors. "

What is the chance, a priori, that they would say something like

" Well, it turns out that treatment is not effective.

In fact addiction research is largely a waste of time.

We have all decided to pack it in and change careers. " ?

The opinions of the " skeptical doctors " should carry more weight. I wonder

if a single one of them was won over, or if the real point of the exercise

was merely to get something quotable for propaganda purposes into JAMA?

--wally

re: your question

>

>

> You contacted Join Together, asking, in part " Too few consumers,

> family members and policymakers realize that drug and alcohol treatment

> is as effective as treatment for other chronic conditions like asthma

> and diabetes. "

> Where on earth did you find statistics to support that claim? "

>

> This is not OUR statistic. What follows is part of an article that we

> published on our website:

> A team of prominent addiction

> researchers told skeptical doctors

> that drug dependence has much in

> common with chronic illnesses such

> as diabetes, hypertension and asthma,

> and should be insured, treated and

> evaluated in a like manner.

>

> Writing in the Oct. 4 edition of the

> Journal of the American Medical

> Association, researchers Tom

> McLellan, Ph.D., ,

> M.D., O'Brien, M.D., Ph.D.,

> and Herbert Kleber, M.D., said that

> while many physicians believe there

> are no effective interventions for

> addiction, the research says

> otherwise. This is especially true

> when outcomes are compared with

> those for type 2 diabetes,

> hypertension and asthma, diseases

> that are " well studied and are widely

> believed to have effective treatments,

> although they are not yet curable. "

>

> I hope this answers your question.

>

> Anara Guard

> Director of Information and Marketing

> Join Together

> 441 Stuart Street, 7th Floor

> Boston MA 02116

>

> [fax]

> anara@...

> www.jointogether.org

>

[Guest guest]

At 06:59 AM 12/13/00 -0600, you wrote:

>How is it that addiction to alcohol is a disease, but addiction to

>tobacco, narcotics, or anything else is simply addicion?

Not to worry. We've been blessed with Narcotics Anonymous,

Nicotine Anonymous, and about a zillion other knockoff groups.

Lots of people will even tell you that gambling addiction is a

disease, even though it doesn't directly involve a mind-altering

substance -- I suppose they babble vaguely about adrenaline

or something if you press them.

[Guest guest]

> Lots of people will even tell you that gambling addiction is a

> disease, even though it doesn't directly involve a mind-altering

> substance -- I suppose they babble vaguely about adrenaline

> or something if you press them.

" Opioid deficiency " in the case of JC Gunnclann. The thing is, if you

accept gambling as another disease of addiction, bang goes the

" allergy to alcohol " aspect of classic AAlcoholism by Occam's Razor.

P.

[Guest guest]

> > " Opioid deficiency " in the case of JC Gunnclann. The thing is, if

you

> >accept gambling as another disease of addiction, bang goes the

> > " allergy to alcohol " aspect of classic AAlcoholism by Occam's

Razor.

>

> Um . . . a *what* deficiency? Does this mean the disease of

> gambling addiction could be treated by smoking opium?

Some of the endorphins that make you " feel good " are called opioids

because they are the natural neurotransmitters that normally bind to

those sites which the opiates bind to. Gunnclann sees addiction as

resulting from a genetic deficiency of same. You should see what he

wrote on add_med recently, 'humbly' including himself as and addict of

course:

" We are liars, cheats, [other derogatory terms] BEFORE and AFTER our

involvement with the object of our addiction. "

I asked him for a citation for such an assertion and I pointed out

that without using the " we " he has characterised a class of patients

in what otherwise would have been thought a most scandalous fashion.

He admitted it was true and apologised, saying: " I was paraphrasing

something my sponsor once said to me. " !

Steppism plus neurobabble is a frightening combination.

P.

[Guest guest]

the pathalogical use of " we " in everything concerning addcition is

scary.

>

> > > " Opioid deficiency " in the case of JC Gunnclann. The thing

is, if

> you

> > >accept gambling as another disease of addiction, bang

goes the

> > > " allergy to alcohol " aspect of classic AAlcoholism by

Occam's

> Razor.

> >

> > Um . . . a *what* deficiency? Does this mean the disease of

> > gambling addiction could be treated by smoking opium?

>

> Some of the endorphins that make you " feel good " are called

opioids

> because they are the natural neurotransmitters that normally

bind to

> those sites which the opiates bind to. Gunnclann sees

addiction as

> resulting from a genetic deficiency of same. You should see

what he

> wrote on add_med recently, 'humbly' including himself as and

addict of

> course:

>

> " We are liars, cheats, [other derogatory terms] BEFORE and

AFTER our

> involvement with the object of our addiction. "

>

> I asked him for a citation for such an assertion and I pointed

out

> that without using the " we " he has characterised a class of

patients

> in what otherwise would have been thought a most

scandalous fashion.

> He admitted it was true and apologised, saying: " I was

paraphrasing

> something my sponsor once said to me. " !

>

> Steppism plus neurobabble is a frightening combination.

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

> Please feel free to quote me when I write about the

>hideousness

> of altruism.

How do you define altruism and why do you consider it hideous?