|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > April 2006 > Alcoholics and Loss of control
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Alcoholics and Loss of control
|
|
|
| 1) How do you tell the difference between an "Alcoholic" and a very
heavy drinker?
Joe Raisins response:
A heavy drinker with the right motivation can moderate or quit his/her
drinking.
The alcoholic with the same true intentions will find it ultimately
impossible to moderate with any continuing sucess and quitting will be
extremely difficult without a thorough 'lifestyle' change.
************************************************************************************************************How
do you explain these facts then?
"And in 1977 a review of the scientific literature cited nearly 60
pertinent reports of experiments and clinical studies and concluded
that "within a hospital or laboratory enviornment , the drinking of of
chronic alcoholics is explicitly a function of environmental
contingencies" The reviewers noted that the subects were able to
control their consumption on their own and also when they were
"rewarded" for doing so by special priveleges, opportunities for
socialization, or money"
* P.36, Heavy Drinking , The myth of alcoholism as a disease
So while your theory is interesting Joe, it is not supported by the
facts and research. For those interested Herbert Fingarette devotes a
whole chapter ot "Can Alcohokcs control their drinking".
*******************************************************************************************************
Let me add a little of my own personal insight to this. There IS such a
thing as loss of control of drinking FOR SOME PEOPLE or being powerless
if you prefer to put it that way. However, IT IS NOT A PERMANENT
CONDITION.Gods grace can restore SUCH a person to sanity,even to the
point where they can again control temperate drinking.It will however
take a true miracle. .
So the idea that an "alcoholic" has permanent loss of control is not
supported by the scientific studies.
| |
| ByTor 2006-04-24, 12:56 am |
| In article <1145847455.033253.70900@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, tedw2
@earthlink.net, tedw says...
> How do you explain these facts then?
>
>
> "And in 1977
>
> So the idea that an "alcoholic" has permanent loss of control is not
> supported by the scientific studies.
>
>
WOW! Outdated material.........Good choice teddyboy.
| |
|
|
ByTor wrote:
>
> WOW! Outdated material.........Good choice teddyboy.
Outdated and debunked!
1) "Fingarette is a philosopher, *not* a medical researcher. Most of
Fingarettes work has been in the area of individual responsability,
*not* in the biochemical aspects of alcoholism, and that Fingarette
was critisized for writing beyond his areas of expertise and conducted
no origional research of his own.
2) "*Fingarette's gullibility* was one thing, but why was society so
ready
and willing to be duped? The answer was in the changing composition of
society. By 1988 members of the aging baby-boom generation were
ascending to society's levers of control. Reared within the
academically sanctioned drug culture of denial of addiction-the
diabolic spawn of the older *moralistic ignorance of addiction*-they
were
programmed to believe that theirs was the enlightened view, and from
the beginning consensual validation had precluded any concern with
evidence. In flipping society back into its old moralisms, the task was
not so much to persuade as merely to pander to the mind set of
this rising majority-*denial imbedded in ignorance*. Never mind that
Fingarette's evidence and argument were specious. Who but a
cross-threaded voiceless minority could know? "
3) "In analyzing Fingarette's argument for the self-control theory of
drinking disorders I conclude that it is problematic for the following
reasons: (1) his argument assumes that the identification of a single
cause of alcoholism is a necessary condition of its being a disease;
(2) unless it is already assumed (a priori) that persons with drinking
disorders possess freedom and self-control to the extent that
Fingarette assumes they do, then such persons are likely to suffer from
apathy or defeatism regarding their condition; (3) even if Fingarette
is correct in his criticism of certain health care programs for those
with drinking disorders, it does not follow from this that certain
theories about the possible causes of such disorders are false; (4)
Fingarette's claim that those with drinking disorders are morally
responsible for their actions that result from their disorders is
problematic, that is, unless it can be shown that such persons act
freely; and (5) Fingarette attempts to support the self-control theory
of alcoholism by refuting a 'straw man' conception of the disease model
of alcoholism."
>From now on, I'll just search, cut and paste this response to teddy's
Fingering guy. tedw loves this guy; most research scoffs.
JimB
| |
| ByTor 2006-04-24, 12:56 am |
| In article <1145851871.428105.195660@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
jimbuckland@gmail.com, JimB says...
>
> ByTor wrote:
>
> Outdated and debunked!
He, He........Why am I not suprised........
>
> 1) "Fingarette is a philosopher, *not* a medical researcher. Most of
> Fingarettes work has been in the area of individual responsability,
> *not* in the biochemical aspects of alcoholism, and that Fingarette
> was critisized for writing beyond his areas of expertise and conducted
> no origional research of his own.
>
> 2) "*Fingarette's gullibility* was one thing, but why was society so
> ready
> and willing to be duped? The answer was in the changing composition of
> society. By 1988 members of the aging baby-boom generation were
> ascending to society's levers of control. Reared within the
> academically sanctioned drug culture of denial of addiction-the
> diabolic spawn of the older *moralistic ignorance of addiction*-they
> were
> programmed to believe that theirs was the enlightened view, and from
> the beginning consensual validation had precluded any concern with
> evidence. In flipping society back into its old moralisms, the task was
> not so much to persuade as merely to pander to the mind set of
> this rising majority-*denial imbedded in ignorance*. Never mind that
> Fingarette's evidence and argument were specious. Who but a
> cross-threaded voiceless minority could know? "
>
> 3) "In analyzing Fingarette's argument for the self-control theory of
> drinking disorders I conclude that it is problematic for the following
> reasons: (1) his argument assumes that the identification of a single
> cause of alcoholism is a necessary condition of its being a disease;
> (2) unless it is already assumed (a priori) that persons with drinking
> disorders possess freedom and self-control to the extent that
> Fingarette assumes they do, then such persons are likely to suffer from
> apathy or defeatism regarding their condition; (3) even if Fingarette
> is correct in his criticism of certain health care programs for those
> with drinking disorders, it does not follow from this that certain
> theories about the possible causes of such disorders are false; (4)
> Fingarette's claim that those with drinking disorders are morally
> responsible for their actions that result from their disorders is
> problematic, that is, unless it can be shown that such persons act
> freely; and (5) Fingarette attempts to support the self-control theory
> of alcoholism by refuting a 'straw man' conception of the disease model
> of alcoholism."
>
> Fingering guy. tedw loves this guy; most research scoffs.
>
> JimB
>
>
| |
|
|
ByTor wrote:
>
> He, He........Why am I not suprised........
>
ol' ted head pulls up this fingery guy once in a while. Total wacko
tedw still uses for some *strange* reason. ;-)
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-04-24, 10:57 am |
| And I too could control my intake of alcohol when that was the focus of
the evening.
It wasn't any fun and I was a real bear to be around.
But on those occasions I wasn't fixated on the number of drinks I could
have it was a crap shoot. Sometimes I would have a few and go home...
sometimes I would crawl home in the wee hours - despite a promise to my
lovely bride that I would be home early.
And... since "alcoholic" is a layman's term and not a term used in the
medical profession I would look carefully at any "scientific" study
using it.
IE: how did they come to the conclusion that they were using "Chronic
Alcoholics".
Joe
tedw wrote:
> 1) How do you tell the difference between an "Alcoholic" and a very
> heavy drinker?
>
> Joe Raisins response:
>
> A heavy drinker with the right motivation can moderate or quit his/her
> drinking.
>
> The alcoholic with the same true intentions will find it ultimately
> impossible to moderate with any continuing sucess and quitting will be
> extremely difficult without a thorough 'lifestyle' change.
>
>
> ************************************************************************************************************How
> do you explain these facts then?
>
>
> "And in 1977 a review of the scientific literature cited nearly 60
> pertinent reports of experiments and clinical studies and concluded
> that "within a hospital or laboratory enviornment , the drinking of of
> chronic alcoholics is explicitly a function of environmental
> contingencies" The reviewers noted that the subects were able to
> control their consumption on their own and also when they were
> "rewarded" for doing so by special priveleges, opportunities for
> socialization, or money"
>
>
> * P.36, Heavy Drinking , The myth of alcoholism as a disease
>
> So while your theory is interesting Joe, it is not supported by the
> facts and research. For those interested Herbert Fingarette devotes a
> whole chapter ot "Can Alcohokcs control their drinking".
> *******************************************************************************************************
>
> Let me add a little of my own personal insight to this. There IS such a
> thing as loss of control of drinking FOR SOME PEOPLE or being powerless
> if you prefer to put it that way. However, IT IS NOT A PERMANENT
> CONDITION.Gods grace can restore SUCH a person to sanity,even to the
> point where they can again control temperate drinking.It will however
> take a true miracle. .
>
>
> So the idea that an "alcoholic" has permanent loss of control is not
> supported by the scientific studies.
>
| |
|
|
JoeRaisin wrote:
> But on those occasions I wasn't fixated on the number of drinks I could
> have it was a crap shoot. Sometimes I would have a few and go home...
> sometimes I would crawl home in the wee hours - despite a promise to my
> lovely bride that I would be home early.
Ditto on that Joe.
Baffled us. Kinda defies being pigeonholed doesn't it?
JimB
| |
|
| "Several recent general arguments still defend versions of loss of
control. contending that the experiments and studies of the sort just
discussed may not have used "true"alcoholics. Yet many of the subjects
in these experiments were diagnosed alcoholics. In over eighty studies
in the past decade that report on alcoholics who return to some
moderated form of drinking, at least half the subjects were diagnosed
as gamma alcoholics. In the face of the evidence, the question of
whether the subjects wer "true" alcoholics seems a mere polemical
device, not a ustainable objection to the conduct of the experiments"
While Fingarette is wrong about the spiritual part of heavy drinking,
he does a service by putting the research in a easily digestible form.
As much as it may not fit into your world view, the research shows it
is not true that "alcoholics" cannot regain control.
Of course, many are not going to accept this. It is contrary to their
BRAINWASHING.
| |
| Mark Warner 2006-04-24, 12:55 pm |
| tedw wrote:
>
> Let me add a little of my own personal insight to this. There IS such a
> thing as loss of control of drinking FOR SOME PEOPLE or being powerless
> if you prefer to put it that way. However, IT IS NOT A PERMANENT
> CONDITION.Gods grace can restore SUCH a person to sanity,even to the
> point where they can again control temperate drinking.It will however
> take a true miracle. .
But barring a "true miracle", they can't, right?
--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying
| |
|
| Yes, for some people that is probably true. In fact, some people cannot
even get sober without a true miracle.
Without repentance they are in constant danger of falling back into the
old way of life.
You'll notice I only say that those people who have had a true
spiritual awakening, can safely take a drink temperately.
The unrepentant person is constantly involved in some form of escape
from truth, even it is not drinking. (i.e. illlicit sex, gluttony, etc.
etc.)
| |
|
| On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:28:25 -0500, Mark Warner
<mhwarner.inhibitions@insightbb.com> wrote:
>tedw wrote:
>
>But barring a "true miracle", they can't, right?
God seems to have strange priorities.
As for me, I'd prefer that God get to more weightier things, like
murder, wars, rape, mayhem, cannibalism, pedophiles, etc., than seeing
that a former drunk can have a drink.
Best,
GaryE
| |
|
| In article <1145900158.648091.145780@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
tedw2@earthlink.net, tedw says...
> Yes, for some people that is probably true. In fact, some people cannot
> even get sober without a true miracle.
That is why there are "other" means of support teddyboy......If AA don't
work for ya than go get religion......Nothing wrong with that, I'm for
it 100% if it keeps that person "sober."
I don't see people in here bashing the "success" of religious
intervention means of treatment/self help.....
> Without repentance they are in constant danger of falling back into the
> old way of life.
Very, very blind, one-sided statement........This is where you stray
from reality teddy and slither in to your secluded bubble.
> You'll notice I only say that those people who have had a true
> spiritual awakening, can safely take a drink temperately.
Well, if that's how you feel than......And you would go as far as
encouraging this eh? Jaysus's own controlled expirement eh?
> The unrepentant person is constantly involved in some form of escape
> from truth, even it is not drinking. (i.e. illlicit sex, gluttony, etc.
> etc.)
You sir I would say without a doubt are a hypocrite with that
statement......Thats right I forgot, mister perfect....HA, HA.
So let me get this straight, we are all dirty rotten swine if we don't
choose the "right" path?
WOWEEEEEEEEE!!! Don't that take the Drunkin Donut!!
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-04-24, 5:56 pm |
| Now you are contradicting yourself.
Is alcoholism a disease or not?
tedw wrote:
> "Several recent general arguments still defend versions of loss of
> control. contending that the experiments and studies of the sort just
> discussed may not have used "true"alcoholics. Yet many of the subjects
> in these experiments were diagnosed alcoholics. In over eighty studies
> in the past decade that report on alcoholics who return to some
> moderated form of drinking, at least half the subjects were diagnosed
> as gamma alcoholics. In the face of the evidence, the question of
> whether the subjects wer "true" alcoholics seems a mere polemical
> device, not a ustainable objection to the conduct of the experiments"
>
>
> While Fingarette is wrong about the spiritual part of heavy drinking,
> he does a service by putting the research in a easily digestible form.
>
> As much as it may not fit into your world view, the research shows it
> is not true that "alcoholics" cannot regain control.
>
> Of course, many are not going to accept this. It is contrary to their
> BRAINWASHING.
>
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-04-24, 5:56 pm |
| What do you consider repentence?
Wouldn't you say that admitting your wrongs and making amends is along
those lines?
Joe
tedw wrote:
> Yes, for some people that is probably true. In fact, some people cannot
> even get sober without a true miracle.
>
> Without repentance they are in constant danger of falling back into the
> old way of life.
>
> You'll notice I only say that those people who have had a true
> spiritual awakening, can safely take a drink temperately.
>
>
> The unrepentant person is constantly involved in some form of escape
> from truth, even it is not drinking. (i.e. illlicit sex, gluttony, etc.
> etc.)
>
| |
|
| I dont contradict myself on that. Its not a disease. Never was, never
will be.
| |
|
| Yes. It is along those lines, but making amends is not repentance.
Repentenace is the pain and sorrow you experience when you realize the
truth about yourself. Here is as close as I have come to be able to
describe it.
http://christianrecovery.blogspot.c...repentance.html
Jesus said "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand"But what
exactly is Repentance? Its not a word used a lot here in Modern
America. What does the dictionary say about it:
Main Entry: 1re=B7pent Pronunciation: ri-'pentFunction: verbEtymology:
Middle English, from Old French repentir, from re- + pentir to be
sorry, from Latin paenitEre -- more at PENITENTintransitive senses1 :
to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life2 a
: to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mindtransitive
senses1 : to cause to feel regret or contrition2 : to feel sorrow,
regret, or contrition for- re=B7pent=B7er noun
Here is one example:Several years ago after the breakup of a
destructive relationship I was driving down a country road. Up until
this time I had lived in illusion and believed I had "loved" this women
and that I had been hard done by.Then all of a sudden in a moment of
clarity I realized that I had not loved her at all. I realized that I
was selfish. It was an incredibly painful experience and I felt like I
was dying, I wept.
Afterwards there was a sort of peace that I had faced up to the Truth.
That is repentance and that is what God wants from us.To admit to the
Truth. And for some of us that is very, very painful because we have
been very, very sinful.
Mark 2:17-19 (King James Version)
17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no
need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance.
"Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free"
| |
| ByTor 2006-04-25, 12:57 am |
| In article <Eqb3g.24$Hg2.9@fe02.lga>, joeraisin@charter.net, JoeRaisin
says...
> What do you consider repentence?
>
> Wouldn't you say that admitting your wrongs and making amends is along
> those lines?
>
> Joe
>
C'mon Joe, now he's gunna get on the soapbox & start preachin'..... ;0)
| |
| Mark Warner 2006-04-25, 12:57 am |
| tedw wrote:
>
> The unrepentant person is constantly involved in some form of escape
> from truth, even it is not drinking. (i.e. illlicit sex, gluttony,
obsessive rants on Usenet, etc.)
--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS 6.0 Experimental
lose .inhibitions when replying
| |
| Mark Warner 2006-04-25, 12:57 am |
| GaryE wrote:
> Mark Warner wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> God seems to have strange priorities.
>
> As for me, I'd prefer that God get to more weightier things, like
> murder, wars, rape, mayhem, cannibalism, pedophiles, etc., than seeing
> that a former drunk can have a drink.
*My* obsession with drinking has been lifted. Doesn't seem to be the
case with tedw.
--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS 6.0 Experimental
lose .inhibitions when replying
| |
|
| On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:50:10 -0400, Mark Warner
<mhwarner.inhibitions@insightbb.com> wrote:
>GaryE wrote:
>
>
>
>*My* obsession with drinking has been lifted. Doesn't seem to be the
>case with tedw.
You merely lost the obsession and teddy lost his alcoholism ....repent
repent and you too can lose the label alcoholic.
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-04-25, 10:56 am |
|
tedw wrote:
> I dont contradict myself on that. Its not a disease. Never was, never
> will be.
>
Then let me refresh what you stated:
"Several recent general arguments still defend versions of loss of
control. contending that the experiments and studies of the sort just
discussed may not have used "true"alcoholics. Yet many of the subjects
in these experiments were diagnosed alcoholics. In over eighty studies
in the past decade that report on alcoholics who return to some
moderated form of drinking, at least half the subjects were diagnosed
as gamma alcoholics. In the face of the evidence, the question of
whether the subjects wer "true" alcoholics seems a mere polemical
device, not a ustainable objection to the conduct of the experiments"
you cannot use as basis for your argument a statement that contradicts
you basic premise.
A 'diagnosis' presumes a disease.
Joe
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-04-25, 10:56 am |
| So... as long as I feel bad about what I have done, that is all I need
to do?
Sounds sort of like the easy way out.
tedw wrote:
> Yes. It is along those lines, but making amends is not repentance.
> Repentenace is the pain and sorrow you experience when you realize the
> truth about yourself. Here is as close as I have come to be able to
> describe it.
>
> http://christianrecovery.blogspot.c...repentance.html
>
> Jesus said "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand"But what
> exactly is Repentance? Its not a word used a lot here in Modern
> America. What does the dictionary say about it:
>
> Main Entry: 1re·pent Pronunciation: ri-'pentFunction: verbEtymology:
> Middle English, from Old French repentir, from re- + pentir to be
> sorry, from Latin paenitEre -- more at PENITENTintransitive senses1 :
> to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life2 a
> : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mindtransitive
> senses1 : to cause to feel regret or contrition2 : to feel sorrow,
> regret, or contrition for- re·pent·er noun
>
>
> Here is one example:Several years ago after the breakup of a
> destructive relationship I was driving down a country road. Up until
> this time I had lived in illusion and believed I had "loved" this women
> and that I had been hard done by.Then all of a sudden in a moment of
> clarity I realized that I had not loved her at all. I realized that I
> was selfish. It was an incredibly painful experience and I felt like I
> was dying, I wept.
>
> Afterwards there was a sort of peace that I had faced up to the Truth.
> That is repentance and that is what God wants from us.To admit to the
> Truth. And for some of us that is very, very painful because we have
> been very, very sinful.
>
> Mark 2:17-19 (King James Version)
> 17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no
> need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
> righteous, but sinners to repentance.
>
> "Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free"
>
| |
| TaraG 2006-04-25, 10:56 am |
|
"JoeRaisin" <joeraisin@charter.net> wrote in message
news:8pn3g.98$Gh1.58@fe06.lga...
>
>
> you cannot use as basis for your argument a statement that contradicts you
> basic premise.
That would be true....if:
> A 'diagnosis' presumes a disease.
Well, I'm not sure that the presence of a disease is a given based on the
use of the word "diagnosis". Someone might be diagnosed with a disease, but
they may instead be diagnosed with a disorder. One may be diagnosed with a
cold, or diagnosed with a short term infection. One may be diagnosed with a
host of mental syndromes that are entirely *non* biological in origin.
So that seems a bit of a large leap to make.
But then I don't believe alcohol to be a disease in the classic sense
either.
Tara
| |
|
| Believe me its not easy. Its incredibly painful. Yes, true repentance
is all you need.
But after repentance, you will have a new spirit which will enable you
to live differently.
God doesnt require you to go make up for every wrong thing you ever did
Joe. It was taken care of at the cross. There is nothing you can add to
that or take away from it.
But after repentance, you may very well be lead to make some apolgies
to poeple.
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:48:10 GMT, "TaraG" <taragreen2@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>But then I don't believe alcohol to be a disease in the classic sense
>either.
>
>Tara
It doesn't really matter to me. The only people who care about it are
the people who are pretty focused (obsessed) with AA. It's just two
points of view and who cares who is correct? Really. I think it's
utilitarian (because language should accommodate utilitarian precepts
in some cases) if it helps a drunk to stop drinking and wrecking
havoc on society and families. The argument that it isn't doesn't
seem to offer any benefits like that. It's just an academic debate
started by an academic who needed to write a book. Some others have
addressed it, but nada has changed in the real world or in AA. It's
really a loser's argument. You get nothing much out of it, that I can
see.
In order to settle anything, you have to at least know the cause of
alcoholism. No one does yet. And ironically, the nutbar that posts
here ironically professes to be a believer, which is a little lacking
in evidence for a lot of things. He can't scientifically prove that
homosexuals (his other favorite topic) are, by definition, defective
and deleterious by their nature. He can't even prove that it's a
matter of choice or how does it go, 'sexual preference'. I'd surmise
that people's 'sexual preferences' are quite natural and not subject
to analysis and decisions. Certainly nothing to do with morality
except in the minds of relatively ignorant fanatics who also claimed
divine authorization.
Best,
GaryE
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-04-26, 12:56 am |
| Using the word "diagnosis" with "Alcoholic" or Alcoholism" would be
incorrect anyway since neither appear in any diagnostic manual.
Joe
TaraG wrote:
> "JoeRaisin" <joeraisin@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:8pn3g.98$Gh1.58@fe06.lga...
>
>
>
>
> That would be true....if:
>
>
>
>
> Well, I'm not sure that the presence of a disease is a given based on the
> use of the word "diagnosis". Someone might be diagnosed with a disease, but
> they may instead be diagnosed with a disorder. One may be diagnosed with a
> cold, or diagnosed with a short term infection. One may be diagnosed with a
> host of mental syndromes that are entirely *non* biological in origin.
>
> So that seems a bit of a large leap to make.
>
> But then I don't believe alcohol to be a disease in the classic sense
> either.
>
> Tara
>
>
| |
| JoeRaisin 2006-04-26, 12:56 am |
| Sounds a hell of a lot easier than what I went through.
I already felt pretty bad about my behavior...
It took making amends to enable me to face myself. (and btw make
appropriate changes in my behavior)
tedw wrote:
> Believe me its not easy. Its incredibly painful. Yes, true repentance
> is all you need.
>
> But after repentance, you will have a new spirit which will enable you
> to live differently.
>
> God doesnt require you to go make up for every wrong thing you ever did
> Joe. It was taken care of at the cross. There is nothing you can add to
> that or take away from it.
>
> But after repentance, you may very well be lead to make some apolgies
> to poeple.
>
| |
| ernie 2006-04-26, 10:56 am |
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1145847455.033253.70900@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> 1) How do you tell the difference between an "Alcoholic" and a very
> heavy drinker?
>
> Joe Raisins response:
>
> A heavy drinker with the right motivation can moderate or quit his/her
> drinking.
>
> The alcoholic with the same true intentions will find it ultimately
> impossible to moderate with any continuing sucess and quitting will be
> extremely difficult without a thorough 'lifestyle' change.
>
>
> ************************************************************************************************************How
> do you explain these facts then?
>
>
> "And in 1977 a review of the scientific literature cited nearly 60
> pertinent reports of experiments and clinical studies and concluded
> that "within a hospital or laboratory enviornment , the drinking of of
> chronic alcoholics is explicitly a function of environmental
> contingencies" The reviewers noted that the subects were able to
> control their consumption on their own and also when they were
> "rewarded" for doing so by special priveleges, opportunities for
> socialization, or money"
>
>
> * P.36, Heavy Drinking , The myth of alcoholism as a disease
>
> So while your theory is interesting Joe, it is not supported by the
> facts and research. For those interested Herbert Fingarette devotes a
> whole chapter ot "Can Alcohokcs control their drinking".
> *******************************************************************************************************
>
> Let me add a little of my own personal insight to this. There IS such a
> thing as loss of control of drinking FOR SOME PEOPLE or being powerless
> if you prefer to put it that way. However, IT IS NOT A PERMANENT
> CONDITION.Gods grace can restore SUCH a person to sanity,even to the
> point where they can again control temperate drinking.It will however
> take a true miracle. .
>
>
> So the idea that an "alcoholic" has permanent loss of control is not
> supported by the scientific studies.
Well for me,,, I did have a little control when I picked back up. Picked up
and stopped, picked up and stopped. had a little and left it alone. But it
got me into trouble. And still had a hard time staying totally abstanent
(hysi) for a while. Now I'm doing the relapse program to get back on the
transplant list and an ARD program for the courts. And still find it hard
to stay away from booze at times. And all it took was that one controlled
taste. Back to reality and it still hits, a little taste but I know it
won't end there. I lose everything I had, while I picked up anyway. But it
comes back as long as I keep the plug in the jug. Funny how easy I let go
of most of my true convitions once I picked up. It all went out of the
window. Well later for that, back to a day at a tiime...
I choose not to drink today, Hope it stays dat way 
eb
| |
|
| ByTor wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> In article <1145900158.648091.145780@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> tedw2@earthlink.net, tedw says...
>
>
> Well, if that's how you feel than......And you would go as far as
> encouraging this eh? Jaysus's own controlled expirement eh?
>
And in particular making a nusiance of itself on an AA oriented newsgroup
with constant posting of disparaging remarrks to whoever disagreew with it.
I doubt the OP is a man, men don't carry one like that. I won't offend the
nice girls around here, so I'm left with one conclusion, that its an 'it'...
I'd be into a bit of gluttony, especially if there was sex after it, (or
before it). A good feed before a ride is great for the old pumping
mechanism, they say it takes a heavy hammer to drive a long nail :-))
Whoop hah
whoop hah
whoop hah
| |
| ByTor 2006-04-27, 12:56 am |
| In article <pPS3g.80$AD2.13@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
tommyleprechaun@geemale.comp, Tommy says...
> And in particular making a nusiance of itself on an AA oriented newsgroup
> with constant posting of disparaging remarrks to whoever disagreew with it.
Your response in the chain of the thread "replys" to me, is this your
intention?
Little confused with your above remark...........
| |
|
|
"ByTor" <wsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
> tommyleprechaun@geemale.comp, Tommy says...
>
>
> Your response in the chain of the thread "replys" to me, is this your
> intention?
> Little confused with your above remark...........
You're confused, how the hciking heck do you think I feel.
I think I was replying to the berserker baptist or whatever he flays for :-)
Cheers
Me
>
| |
|
| In article <vzb4g.1349$EM5.464@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
tommyleprechaun@geemale.comp, Tommy says...
>
> "ByTor" <wsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
>
> You're confused, how the hciking heck do you think I feel.
>
> I think I was replying to the berserker baptist or whatever he flays for :-)
> Cheers
> Me
Aight cool............. ;0)
|
| |
|
|