Talk:Alcoholism/Archive 4

=Opening paragraphs=

Common ground
For background on this decision, see Archive3

I think we're very close to something useable and it's just a matter of a couple of words. Let's try to find the common ground between these two:


 * 1) Alcoholism is the consumption of alcoholic beverages—which contain the drug ethanol—to the extent that such use causes physical or mental harm, or interferes with the drinker's normal personal, family, social, or work life. Such chronic use causes a diseased condition marked by psychological and physiological disorders.
 * 2) Alcoholism is the urge to consume alcoholic beverages to an extent that results in physical or mental harm, or interferes with the drinker's normal personal, family, social, or work life. The resulting chronic use can result in many psychological and physiological disorders.

What about this:


 * 3. Alcoholism is the consumption of, or preoccupation with, alcoholic beverages to an extent that such use causes physical or mental harm, or interferes with the drinker's normal personal, family, social, or work life.  The resulting chronic use can result in many psychological and physiological disorders.

Opinions? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that "addictive medical condition" is one of two major meanings, the other being "chronic excessive drinking". A person who no longer drinks could be considered an "alcoholic" under the first meaning, while a frequent, heavy, deleterious drinker who does not appear to satisfy the medical diagnosis can still be considered an "alcoholic" under the second meaning.
 * Clearly, it seems that the medical diagnosis is currently prevalent in the field, but the fact remains that all general sources do include that other meaning and it is not necessarily clearcut to distinguish between the two.
 * The primacy of the medical diagnosis may also be a recent phenomenon: The OED, 1989, whose definition appears to be primarily based on the 19th-century meaning, has alcoholism: "The action of alcohol upon the human system; diseased condition produced by alcohol." All of the quotations, spanning 1852 to 1882, indicate the "excessive drinking" meaning, not the "addictive medical condition" meaning. If the article is to be specifically about the modern medical definition, then that needs to be explicitly stated, and the other definition still warrants mention as it is the origin of this meaning. —Centrx?talk &bull; 21:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we need to add a section for "Historical treatments of Alcoholism", or maybe "Historical views of Alcoholism". It seems reasonable that the main article would deal with contemporary views, but there is a lot of historical info that would be interesting and useful. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no question that alcoholism has been redefined over the years. One of the reasons for the 1992 JAMA article was as an attempt to bring consensus to an area that had previously been fraught with multiple perspectives. If anyone had said that there's poor consensus in defining alcoholism, I'd be the first to agree. Still, I think it is reasonable for us to use more recent definition sources, at least for the first paragraph, then potentially explore earlier ones later in the article. The '92 definition does not talk of excessive use or of craving or of urges. The first paragraph above labelled "1." works. So does the third one, because preoccupation is spoken of in the DSM-IV definition. The second one doesn't quite fit. When you get right down to it, alcoholism is the repeated use of ethanol despite one's best interests. But we can't really say that, can we? Drgitlow 23:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, heh...if we could write the whole article at that level we'd be done in an hour. It seemed that there were hang-ups with both versions 1 and 2 so I tried to distil the commonalities into #3. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you did an excellen job, Doc. Does everyone else find definition #3 to be acceptable?Medical Man 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Agreed! Yes. Drgitlow 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! (#3 is excellent and has my full support) Mr Christopher 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Robert Rapplean 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, I'm thrilled that we seem to be achieving something like consensus on this. I'm just waiting to hear from R. Rapplean before making any changes to the article itself. I'd also like to hear from Centrx, but he's a busy guy and his contributions may be infrequent. My thanks to all of you for being willing to work together and compromise for the sake of the article. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In a brief exchange on his Talkpage, Centrx?talk expressed "no serious objections" to the proposed intro and suggested that we might as well proceed. I'm going to make the change in the article now, but if anyone, especially Robert Rapplean (who didn't have a chance to comment yet) does have a serious objection, then we can revisit it. Otherwise, I think we're ready to tackle the next sentence :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned I am in favor of door number three, but based on the history of this article, I'd really like to get Robert's opinion/buy off on this prior to making any changes. Again, based on the history until Robert buys off I do not feel we have consesus and for us to make changes without his opinion, if nothing else, looks bad.  Mr Christopher 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this - had a bit of a busy 24 hours. I believe that this is a workable compromise, although I'm not the least bit opposed to "alcoholism is the repeated use of ethanol despite one's best interests". We could fill in the details in later sentences. Robert Rapplean 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Robert. I agree that we can fill in the details later in the article, both on that, and other topics as well. I think this constitutes "full consensus" for our little workgroup (O we band of brothers) so I'll go ahead and make the change. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Marked by...disorders" means both that it results in these disorders, but also that it can be caused by these disorders, such as with a depressed person using alcohol to drown his sorrows. That is, the disorders may be found together with alcoholism, not only as a direct result of it. —Centrx?talk &bull; 01:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style: lead section
Manual of style, a guide not a policy suggests:

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked.

Thought this might help. You all are making real progress. Keep up the good work. -- FloNight  talk  15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro, second half
I'll copy in the remainder of the intro below this (I took the liberty of bluelinking "disease"). I wanted to offer an observation about cites: Cites are a good thing in any article and a necessity in a complex article, but the presence of 7 cites at the end of a single sentence suggests that a rewrite might be in order for the sake of clarification. Regarding the actual content of these sentences, I have no problems with what's being expressed there, but this is where your collective expertise is so important: is there a general consensus that this is a good representation of the issue?
 * Most medical clinicians consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors and characterized by compulsive drinking with impaired control, and preoccupation with and use of alcohol despite adverse consequences. However, the disease theory is still controversial and there is disagreement on the issue after 200 years of debate. U.S. Supreme Court decisions, books and scientific journal articles demonstrate this lack of consensus.


 * Yes, why don't you pare down the references to what you think appropriate. Thanks,Medical Man 18:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm going to be in a meeting for the rest of the afternoon, but I'll check in this evening. If no one else has started by then I'll have a go at it. If all 7 cites are necessary (I haven't read through all yet) then I would look at simply re-arranging things so that it's a bit tidier. My initial thought is that having more than 2 cites per statement ends up confusing rather than clarifying the issue. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, I do not feel we have consensus yet on the first section/sentence yet that sentence has now been changed in the article which puts Robert in an awkward position should he object to it. I can't speak for Robert and I think "preoccupation" is an excellent compromise but he has yet to chime in and has expressed specific concerns regarding the opening sentence/para.  Respectfully, can we wait for consensus on the first section before pressing on to the next?  Mr Christopher 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. And I don't think Robert should feel diffident about voicing any objection(s) he might have.Medical Man 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * My apologies if I jumped the gun. I reverted myself until we have full consensus. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you both :-) Mr Christopher 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

While waiting for RR to get back to us, I followed the link to MOS which Flonight provided for us (above) and based on the guidelines there, I have a sketchy proposal for the second half of the intro (not even the actual words yet; just an idea about what needs to be there):
 * 1) Trim down what we have now to simply mention the epidemiology/controversy exists. Save all the details for the main body of the article.
 * 2) New sentence re: diagnosis and treatment. As above, this should be a brief mention without going into details.
 * 3) New sentence re: societal impact, politics and public health.

This is just my first thought after reading through things again. Any input? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me back up a little and rewrite this (without compromising my thoughts at all) segment. Obviously, there will be disagreement and we'll need to compromise...one problem here is the definition of "medical." Rather than trying to define that, I'd stick with using terms like "physicians." The other problem is this whole "controversial" thing. I know MM has posted extensive references to there being a controversy, but even the Supreme Court isn't a medical resource and the other evidence cited is not from peer-reviewed literature in the medical field. The fact that sociologists have a different perspective is important to underscore. The fact that the legal system has a different perspective is also an important area to cover. But we shouldn't confuse people into thinking that their physicians are uncertain or are still arguing about something that they've long ago agreed upon. That's been my whole gripe from the start. MM has made clear to me how extensive the controversy is, but it still hasn't crossed the line from the lay public into the physician community.

Here's where we're starting:


 * Most medical clinicians consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors and characterized by compulsive drinking with impaired control, and preoccupation with and use of alcohol despite adverse consequences. However, the disease theory is still controversial and there is disagreement on the issue after 200 years of debate. U.S. Supreme Court decisions, books and scientific journal articles demonstrate this lack of consensus.

I'd go here:


 * Addiction Medicine specialists consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors (I'd leave out the rest of the sentence because we just gave the definition in the last paragraph). However, the disease theory is still controversial outside the physician community and there is disagreement on the issue after 200 years of debate. U.S. Supreme Court decisions, books and scientific journal articles demonstrate this lack of agreement.

Drgitlow 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually think that the 3rd sentence is essentially "details" that should appear in the main text rather than intro. I'm also wondering if we can "dumb-down" the first category a bit; I'm not at all sure an average reader will grok Addiction medicine specialists and WP doesn't have a page by that name to explain it. What about this:


 * While Addiction Medicine specialists consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors, the disease theory is not universally accepted, and still considered controversial by some practicioners, even after 200 years of research and debate.
 * I'm not convinced I'm giving enough to each side here, but I've got a pretty thick skin, so go ahead and slap me around :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Healthcare professionals, Physicians, Addiction Treatment Professionals, Addiction specialists, Doctors, Clinical specialists in addiction, Clinicians, Addiction Therapists, Addiction Counselors...every one of those is a different group of people, but I provide this list just so we can pick and choose what we want to say. Addiction medicine specialists are board-certified addiction specializing physicians, just as Family Practitioners are physicians who are board-certified in Family Practice. But I think you're right that it's not a known entity like Internist or Surgeon or Psychiatrist. Even within medicine, many doctors think that addiction specialists are psychiatrists...they're not. About 40% of addiction specialists are indeed psychiatrists but the rest aren't. You're just trying to get me to start a new article on Addiction Medicine, aren't you?! :) Drgitlow 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Couldn't resist...started an Addiction Medicine page!) Drgitlow 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, it worked didn't it? I've added the shiny new bluelink and changed my contrib to match. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle


 * I do not know if it is accurate, but a previous argument was that physicians agree on 'disease' but that alcoholism counselors were much more divided? —Centrx?talk &bull; 01:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's roughly the impression I have at this point, but I'm waiting to hear more from the actual experts. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make the following observations:


 * It doesn't seem accurate to say that "physicians agree" that alcoholism is a disease given the fact that at least one in five doesn't agree and with some evidence that the proportion of those who disagree may be higher. I think we could honestly say that the majority agrees.


 * It would seem to be incorrect to assume that the AMA speaks for American physicians. Its membership has declined over the years and is currently only about 244,000 of the 800,000 active US physicians. At best, it can be said to speak for only about 30.5% of active US physicians.


 * If we get too narrow in our reference group and report something like "X% of American psychiatrists whose practice is primarily devoted to treating alcoholics define alcoholism as a disease...," then we've provided an unintentionally misleading definition for readers.


 * I think the evidence supports a statement to the effect that smaller proportions of other treatment professionals accept the disease concept. If we try to be too specific about different categories within that rubric (see Drgitlow's list above and his observation about physician confusion about who does what to whom) we'll complicate matters and confuse readers -- and perhaps ourselves!


 * Here’s a suggested revision based on Drgitlow’s draft: Most physicians consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors. The disease theory remains controversial, however, especially outside the physician community and there is disagreement on the issue after 200 years of debate. Medical Man 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow MM, great input and many excellent points! In fact, they tie in neatly with something I wanted to bring up. There is some heated discussion on WP regarding systemic bias and "U.S.-centrism" in our articles. I think that the more we can "globalize" this article the wider its appeal will be. I'm not suggesting something silly like dropping all cites from the AMA...but maybe we could avoiding referencing too many American organizations in the main text, or try to tie-in with some international organizations. This is just a little something to think about, I don't see it having a major impact either way. Your latest revision of the intro looks good to me; the syntax of the second sentence seems a little awkward because it has been revised so many times, so I might suggest a minor tweak there. Otherwise, I'm good with it! And I'm putting it in bold below this so it doesn't get lost. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doc. I'm surprised that there's controversy about the obvious US-centric focus of most articles. In the controversies section of our article we can mention the fact that the disease theory generally receives less support in many other parts of the world. This pan-world matter is something we may want to keep in mind as we work on the piece.Medical Man 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most physicians consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors. The disease theory remains controversial, however, especially outside the physician community and there is disagreement on the issue after 200 years of debate. Medical Man 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reposted by Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Medical Man is absolutely correct to say that while the AMA may be the "voice" of American Medicine, it no longer has adequate membership to put the necessary oomph into its message. That said, the way the AMA develops policy is through a representative system made up of delegates from medical state and specialty societies. THOSE societies have much greater membership, and the specialty societies are probably much closer to 100%. So the AMA policy was established based upon a vote of the delegates from the other societies, not internally by its own members. One of the really strange things about the AMA is that if you're an AMA member but NOT a member of a state or specialty society, you actually have no voice at all within the AMA policy-making body. Another oddity is that the AMA could have no members at all yet would still represent American Medicine due to its house of delegates. That's a big reason why the AMA remains a powerful lobby in Washington (for good or bad) despite their primary membership being what it is.

I disagree with Medical Man's statement about physicians in which he notes that at least one in five doesn't agree. That was the result of a single non-random survey and an unvalidated source. I'm not saying it's not possible that the survey results aren't representative of physicians in general, but I'm saying it's highly unlikely. The type of survey that was conducted is the usual step that might be taken prior to conducting a research-oriented random survey.

But...and here's the best part...I'm pretty comfortable with MM's suggested revision. I'd probably amend the last sentence slightly to read: The disease theory remains controversial primarily outside the physician community, where there is disagreement on the issue after many years of debate. Drgitlow 04:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Medical Man 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reposted by Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC) and by Drgitlow 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose a one word edit to Drgitlow's streamlined revision:
 * Most physicians consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors. The disease theory remains controversial primarily outside the physician community, and there is disagreement on the issue after many years of debate. Medical Man 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

By the way, is it at all controversial that alcoholism falls into the addiction category? Don't we want to say that alcoholism is one of the addictions, and that most physicians also consider it a disease? Or is that getting way too picky? Drgitlow 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, heh, I would not have said "...way too picky", but now that you mention it... :) Seriously, remember that our Hypothetical Reader has (at best) a high school education. As long as we can communicate the basic ideas in an understandable manner we'll be doing good. I'm quite content to go with either your version, or MM's, unless someone else wants to incorporate more changes into either one. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Drgitlow, I think your hunch that the point might be a little too involved (I won't say picky) is correct. Perhaps that would be one of the many controversies discussed elsewhere in the article.Medical Man 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am going to make a suggestion in a new section below this one. This will in no way compete or take away from the existins tactical discussion you folks are having here. 06:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Doc, I agree that we try to keep potential readers in mind. As you indicate, their reading level may not be so high as we might assume. We will probably have failed is we don't accurately and effectively communicate with most readers, many of whom will probably be junior and senior high school students.Medical Man 16:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm comfortable with MM's edit of the two sentences above. Drgitlow 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So what we have so far is:

'''Alcoholism is the consumption of, or preoccupation with, alcoholic beverages to an extent that such use causes physical or mental harm, or interferes with the drinker's normal personal, family, social, or work life.[3][4] The resulting chronic use can result in many psychological and physiological disorders. Most physicians consider alcoholism an addiction and a disease influenced by genetic, psychological, and social factors. The disease theory remains controversial primarily outside the physician community, and there is disagreement on the issue after many years of debate'''.


 * I'm going to recuse myself of this portion of the discussion. I believe I've already more than adequately made my point that the disease discussion is a categorization of the problem, not an actual description or explanation of it, and will not significantly benefit the audience of this article.  As such, it should exist as a subsection, or even in a separate article.  That said, I believe that the rest of you are well on your way to consensus and I'll leave that decision to you. Robert Rapplean 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in great disagreement over the change in direction of this definition. We went from describing what alcdoholism is and somehow got side tracked into an article about doctors opinions and non-doctor opinions and we're making some all inclusive claims again. That sort of thing erodes credibility.  Again, I think we'd be wise to discuss an objective othwerwise we're going to get side tracked as it appears we are doing now.  Just my $02. Mr Christopher 00:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's OK...let's back up then. I think Chris and Robert have important points here. Why don't the two of you rewrite the first few sentences to satisfy your point about our being sidetracked. If I understand, the first two sentences are OK, and then the next two need to be removed from the intro, with the topic revisited elsewhere in the article. So what should be the next two sentences of the introduction instead?Drgitlow 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Important points to cover
Instead of attempting to hack prose, let's have a bit of brainstorming regarding what pieces of information people would want to know regarding alcoholism. I'll start it out. Robert Rapplean 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is or results in uncontrollable drinking
 * is not entirely under the drinker's control
 * Has many causes, all of which work towards encouraging a drinker
 * Has many treatments, few of which can boast high success rates
 * Is very controversial
 * Most people have strong opinions which prevent them from considering the whole picture (so get multiple opinions if you want a balanced viewpoint)
 * Is not completely understood by anybody


 * I'd do this a little bit differently, as follows:
 * A functional definition of alcoholism
 * The epidemiology of alcoholism
 * The typical course of a case of alcoholism
 * Available treatment methodologies and their outcomes
 * Brief discussion of related conditions (alcohol-induced mood disorder, etc.)
 * Possible causes (and I'm putting this down lower because it's an area that has no definitive explanation and many potential explanations)
 * Controversies


 * It is important to recognize that nearly all disease states have extensive controversy - what is the REAL cause of juvenile diabetes, for example. You'll see extensive controversy in the scientific literature regarding the RIGHT way to progress scientific research to determine how to cure diabetes (something we haven't achieved yet because we still don't know the entire mechanism). And yet the entry about diabetes doesn't say "is not completely understood by anybody" or "is very controversial." If we're really putting together a NPOV, then it's important to truly be neutral. The medical field is as comfortable with its position on alcoholism as it is with hypertension or cancer, which is to say there is much uncertainty accompanied by confidence regarding the current approach and treatment methodologies as being the best currently available. This isn't an article about the controversies; rather it is an article about alcoholism. I'd therefore suggest that we keep the controversies but not place them throughout an otherwise well-educated entry. Drgitlow 20:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need to keep controversies in perspectives. On the other hand, I think there's good reason why there haven't been great controversies (at least beyond the research community) about juvenile diabetes. JD has no history of being considered the result of moral failure, inadequate willpower, degenerate character, or lack of religious faith. Those who suffer dibetes haven't been accused of wasting their family income, abusing their spouses, neglecting their children, costing the taxayer unnecessary expense for treatment, or engaging in violence and crime because of their disease. Concern over diabetes has never led to a national prohibition against the manufacturing, distribution or sale of sugar. And the list of differences goes on and on.Medical Man 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On #2, Could you better define epidemiology for me? Robert Rapplean 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Epidemiology is a branch of public health which covers the study of incidence, distribution, and control. Typical areas of epidemiologic research include the percentage of the population impacted by a given condition, the distribution pattern and possible cultural and geographic implications, the cost of not treating to the public, the cost of treating to the public, and so forth. So a typical entry for epidemiology of a disease might say: "x% of people suffer from abc, with y% of those individuals ultimately dying of their illness. A greater percentage of those in the northeast have abc than those in the southwest. It is unclear as to whether this is the result of environmental conditions or of other factors. Due to extensive complications of abc, the cost of treatment averages $z per patient per year." and so on. Drgitlow 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article should also address the etiology or cause(s) of alcoholism. Epidemiology is typically the first step in trying to understand a disease. However, we have much better confidence in our understanding once we know the actual physiological proceses at work. HIV/AIDS provides a good example. The first step was epidemiological; who was suffering the disease, where did they live, where did the disease spread geographically and demographically, what common characteristics did suffers have, etc. But that was preliminary. Next came research to understand the physiological processes at work. That then permitted good pharmacological research on the disease.Medical Man 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ok, I think we need to take a step even further back and ask who our audience is. I think we can rule out medical professionals -- they have much better references for such a thing. As such, I think that the epidemiology should be deprioritized because that's largely useful to people who have to deal with many cases of it. It shouldn't be entirely removed, though, because it is of interest to our audience from the perspective of "how common is this". We also want to include social impact, obviously, and be able to give an overview to someone who wants to volunteer to facilitate for groups that help alcoholics.

Instead of "The typical course of a case of alcoholism", can we approach that from the perspective of "How to identify alcholism"? I think that the content would be very similar, but that the later would be a question that your typical reader would want answered.

I definitely like the "available treatment methodologies and their outcomes", but as Medicine Man hinted at above, I feel that we need to first describe the many factors involved with a person's decision to drink, and that they all need to be addressed for a treatment to be effective. Can we move "Current theories on the causes" above that? We should definitely mention that the lack of ability to identify a single cause makes treatment of it very difficult and often unsuccessful. Although this information isn't firm, I think it's important to know before people consider available treatments.Robert Rapplean 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) A functional definition of alcoholism
 * 2) How Alcoholism is identified
 * 3) Current theories on the causes
 * 4) Available treatment methodologies and their outcomes
 * 5) Epidemiology (includes societal impact), but we should use a more reader-friendly word
 * 6) Brief discussion of related conditions (alcohol-induced mood disorder, etc.)
 * 7) Controversies
 * 8) History


 * I don't disagree with your rearrangement, but I'm worried. How alcoholism is identified depends in large part upon how it is defined, which depends upon which model one follows. Under the medical model, alcoholism is diagnosed, fairly simply, with reference to the disease description in any of a number of textbooks (such as the DSM-IV). Those who disagree with that model, however, would have other approaches which, in some cases, don't include diagnosis at all. So we might want to go this route:


 * A functional definition of alcoholism
 * Theory 1
 * Who supports this theory
 * How to identify
 * How to treat
 * Potential complications
 * Theory 2
 * How to identify
 * How to treat


 * and so on until you get to the controversies section. Drgitlow 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I only disagree with this because it suggests a false dilema about which theory is most accurate. Pretty much everyone agrees, for instance, that peer pressure and believe that alcohol consumption provides value to a person's life are definitely components in the addiction. The moral incompetence theory, on the other hand, has wide acceptance and poor scientific support. Pharmacological extinction has the reverse condition. Nonetheless, I happen to know various people who would probably fall into all three categories, and require treatment for each of them. Additionally, treatment methods don't just target a single cause. AA, for instance, goes head to head with the moral issue, and treats the neurochemical addiction by providing its members with "supplementary fortitude". Antibuse treats the neurochemical addiction via counter-stimulation when the drinker drinks. I believe that the Betty Ford clinics treat the physical dependence through detox, and provide life counciling to try to convince the person that they don't want to drink, and then teach the person how to distract themselves from the craving. Pharmacological extinction relieves the person of the craving naturally, and deals with the dependence by allowing the drinker to reduce his intake over time.

All of this means that there's significant overlap between the theories, so we can't seperate them out as cleanly as that. This is why in the original article I separated out the three forms of addiction that alcohol causes, and then was planning on describing how each treatment deals with each form of addiction. Does that make sense?

As far as "how it's defined" is concerned, I think we can stick with "continued drinking after negative consequences become obvious" and describe how to identify it from that perspective. A person who doesn't drink any more but still has the urge probably doesn't need US to tell him how to identify it. Robert Rapplean 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And that brings us back to another key question: who are the readers that this is being written for? You're right that some people will come here because they're wondering if they're alcoholic. But others will come because they want to know what the history is of the term (which we haven't really discussed at all); still others will be concerned friends and family members looking to make sure their loved one takes the path most likely to result in improvement. That's why I think we have a responsibility to not only be fair to the Wiki methodology but also to present information in a manner most likely to be useful.


 * Your original approach is concerning to me only because it suggests that alcohol causes alcoholism. While alcohol is indeed a necessary ingredient without which someone could never become alcoholic in the first place, it doesn't cause the onset of the disease through biochemical or behavioral alteration. If an individual is a social drinker, we can't turn them into an alcoholic through provision of alcohol. On the other hand, if someone has never before had alcohol, we have to assume they have about a 10% chance of being alcoholic (but not knowing it because they've never had alcohol). Does alcohol turn those 10% into alcoholics? Not in a medical sense - they were there to begin with but didn't know it. But in a generic sense, perhaps one could make that argument. ??? Drgitlow 03:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added "history" as a section for this article. I agree with your comments in that paragraph, and feel that the direction we're headed covers them. Let me know if you feel otherwise.

I'm not sure why my direction suggests that. Could you elaborate? I do feel that uncontrolled drinking is the primary indicator of alcoholism. There are others, of course, but they all stem from uncontrolled drinking. I also think that the 10% genetic propensity for alcoholism is one of the things that could truly be referred to as a disease. Call it "Alcoholism Predisposition A", or something similar in medical jargon if you will. It's only a predisposition, though, and doesn't bloom into alcoholism unless the person gets into the habit of drinking. Essentially, drinking and "AP A" must both exist in the same person for the condition to develop. How can we convey that? How medically supported is that? Robert Rapplean 15:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the best way for me to answer that is by example. I got called once to a college fraternity identified by the school as being a place where alcohol use was "out of control." In interviewing the students, I found that nearly all of them drank great volumes of alcohol from time to time. Many of them drank with abandon during parties and at other times. Only a few (about 15%) were alcoholic, based upon repeated use of alcohol despite hardship (grades dropping below their acknowledged abilities, losing girlfriends, being put on academic probation, arrests secondary to public intoxication, etc.) and some of these individuals were drinking less in total quantity than some of their friends who had no such problems. If I had tried to diagnose these students because of uncontrolled drinking, I wouldn't have had a clue. There's no question that some of those students who drank a lot but hadn't had problems yet might end up being diagnosable, but at the time they weren't.


 * In my book, all those who have alcoholism have the genetic propensity (whatever that turns out to be precisely) because I believe this disease to be genetically moderated, but I can't readily prove my contention. All I can do is point to studies (such as the Shedler/Block studies) that indicate significant differences in children between those who eventually end up with substance use disorders and those who don't.


 * And the condition isn't about a habit. Alcoholics drink differently than others from their very first drink when they recognize what the alcohol does to/for them. Talk to 50 alcoholics...they not only remember their first drink, but recall it with a smile and a sparkle in their eye. Talk to anyone not an alcoholic...their recollection is about the same as if you asked them when the first time was that they had cranberry juice. Who knows? It didn't mean anything to them. And if it didn't mean anything, then it can't cause a problem. Drgitlow 01:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can barely stand alcohol, and I remember that my first drink was gin out of a glass soda bottle when I was 15. Some friends of mine in highschool went to a park, and one of the girls was dating a 23 year old, who brought the gin. Although I got drunk, I merely remember it as being dizzy and confused. I have an exceptional memory, though, so that doesn't in any way disprove what you said.

The college issue that your describing is an excellent example of what we might call "Alcoholism Predisposition B", which is social circumstances that provide a very high psychological benefit to drinking. Everybody has their personal set of scales in which they value experiences, and people who are fresh out from under their parent's thumb have an unusually high valuation of new social experiences. It isn't unusual, uncommon, or unexpected that some of these teenagers value new social experiences more than they value their educational experiences. Alcohol is a social lubricant in that it makes dealing with unfamiliar people much easier, and as such runs rampant under these conditions.

It's drinking alcohol beyond the point where it is causing obvious, chronic damage to your life. This is still a form of alcoholism, even though its root cause isn't the aforementioned "AP A". It's just that this form of alcoholism requires a completely different form of treatment, and goes away quickly when the person is removed from the encouraging environment. There is significant overlap between sufferers from AP A and AP B because they are mutually supporting. We might even go on to categorize things like "AP C", where the person drinks as a coping mechanism for unpleasant or stressful life circumstances and other psycho/social maladies. Personally I like to lump them in as being a psychological addiction, but then again I'm not trying to treat them.

So, again, we definitely CANNOT call heavy drinking alcoholism unless it's causing obvious, chronic damage to the drinker's life. Once that qualification is met, though, it becomes alcoholism regardless of the cause. Robert Rapplean 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got an interesting definition going. It's not the standard in the field, but it's pretty reasonable, and your last paragraph is entirely correct. Drgitlow 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the entire idea of a genetic propensity for a neurological addiction throws a lot of the "standard in the field" on its ear, I'm afraid, and the evidence I keep digging up seems to support it. I've certainly bent no shortage of my neurons over trying to sort this all out.

So I think we're finally coming to an agreement on how to characterize "active" alcoholism. I'd like to temporarily table the discussion of "passive" alcoholism (where a person needs a support group to help them resist the desire to drink) and "remissive" alcoholism (where a person has reverted their drinking conditioning, but could return to alcoholism if they drink without an opioid antagonist in their system) for a later time in favor of going back to discussion what direction the article should head in after the initial description of alcoholism.


 * 1) A functional definition of alcoholism
 * 2) How Alcoholism is identified
 * 3) Current theories on the causes
 * 4) Available treatment methodologies and their outcomes
 * 5) Epidemiology (includes societal impact), but we should use a more reader-friendly word
 * 6) Brief discussion of related conditions (alcohol-induced mood disorder, etc.)
 * 7) Controversies
 * 8) History

Running with being able to identify alcoholism as "continued consumption of alcohol dispite obvious, chronic damage to the drinker's life.", I think we can start with the various cannonical methods of recognizing it, maybe with a summary that characterizes the obvious symptoms for non-doctors.

OH, my wife also mentioned that kids doing book reports are also among our target audience. I don't think that adds anything to the details, but does effect our language and usage level somewhat. Robert Rapplean 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert, you speak of active, passive, and remissive alcoholism. These terms are not part of the medical perspective on alcoholism. From a medical perspective, one either has the disease or one does not. As in hypertension, an individual taking antihypertensives may bring his blood pressure back to normal. Thirty years later, that individual may still have normal blood pressure if he's been taking his medications. He still has the disease of hypertension. But it's been properly treated and the individual will not have the morbidity or mortality rates that one would expect from a case of untreated hypertension. Similarly, an alcoholic receiving proper treatment and not drinking will have morbidity/mortality rates that are close to normal. I suppose one might put descriptors upon the different states - a hypertensive taking anti-hypertensives, a diabetic on insulin therapy with normal hemoglobin a1c measures, an alcoholic who isn't drinking - all are in the same place with respect to their illness, but they still have the illness. I understand that you're still approaching this from a non-disease perspective and are therefore taking a different route to get to the descriptions, but it's tough for me to imagine that we're going to get a consensus if we're ultimately at odds about definition, cause, treatment, and beneficial outcomes. I'm not sure what the 'right' thing to do is, however. Drgitlow 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The "active, passive, and remissive" conditions are my words for three states that an alcoholic can be in, which really need to be differentiated. An active alcoholic is currently drinking more than is healthy for him. A passive alcoholic is someone who suffers from a strong desire to drink (obsesses about it), but is abstaining for whatever reasons. A remissive alcoholic is someone who has extinguished the desire to drink, but can re-develop it if they drink without an endorphin blocker. Technically they are all alcoholics, but their condition is in a different state and needs to be handled differently from a treatment perspective. What terminology would you like to apply to these? Robert Rapplean 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely understand how you're defining your terms, and it's not a bad categorical approach, but it isn't a standard. In medicine, the terms used are partial remission and full remission, both of which can be either early or sustained. The remission states refer to the presence or absence of disease symptoms, so they don't refer to whether someone has stopped drinking, although you can generalize that an individual in full remission is likely not drinking at all. I actually prefer your terminology, since it is MUCH more clear and would probably be used accurately by clinicians and easily understood by the lay public. But I don't think this article is the place to introduce new terminology not generally used in the field. If, on the other hand, there's a citation you could use to indicate that these terms have been suggested as a new approach, that would work. Drgitlow 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On that point, I have to agree with you that my terminology might be considered original research, which is definitely against Wikipedia policy. The idea of a person being completely clear of the desire to overdrink is pretty well new to the field, so I'll ask the doctors in Finland what their preferred terminology is, and if they have a reference for it. Robert Rapplean 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've checked with the good Doctor and he tells me that the terms he thinks are most commonly used are "active alcoholics", "remissive alcoholics" (but that we should double-check with what the AA calls them and use that instead if it's different), and "post-alcoholics". Apparently the post-alcoholic stage is so new that there's no established term for it. Robert Rapplean 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, we should probably follow WP:NEO (no neologisms), and stick to established terms, defining where necessary. Now I'm curious, are you actually in Finland, or do you just have contacts there? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. I don't feel that people grasp a concept unless they have a word to tie the ideas to, but that's not really our job, I guess.

I was raised in St. Louis, Mo, and currently reside in Denver, CO. I have contacts in Finland because I spent a bit of time researching Dr.Sinclair for an interview I did with him for Intellectual Icebergs. Sinclair is one of those strange inexplicable creatures that actually acts out of a desire to help his fellow man. Many people claim that they do, but when it comes right down to it they're usually too tied up in their own wealth or ego to let go of ideas that do more harm than good. What I discovered in my research is that Dr. Sinclair's work is very well reasoned and strongly supported, but not very well accepted because it contradicts the work of people who have more influence, and have their egos, career or income tied to a competing philosophy.

Dr. Sinclair was raised and trained in the US, but currently works for the Finnish health department. He has been very helpful in providing me with requested information to help me understand the quagmire that is alcoholism treatment in the US and Europe. I've also made a few calls to his institute an the Contral clinics, although the language barrier is often a problem, and Dr. Sinclair himself has been very responsive to my requests and provides some extremely valuable insight into both the medical and political issues. Robert Rapplean 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Developing a Strategy
I think we'll be more effective in the tactical discussion (what words do we use to explain alcoholism) if we have a clear set of objectives for the remaining definition first. So rather than talk about what to write in this section, let's talk about what our objective is for the remaining definition section. If we first have an objective then I think finding the words will come much more naturally. It would be worth reviewing what we have agreed upon to give us an idea of how to approach finishing the definition. I'll have some thoughts on the subject but I plan on not being here much over the weekend. I'm not saying wait for me, only that I might not be around much. Anyhow, it's something to think about and what we have agreed upon I think is very respectful to the reader and non-confrontational. I think the reader would so far say "Ok, they're not trying to sell me anything and what they're saying makes sense" and want to continue reading. So far the introductory definition seems quite credible to me. 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we've made some real good progress and have a "credible" definition. I'm also open to anything that will help us move forward. Unfortunately, I'm going to be out of town for about a week so I'll have to leave it to the rest of you. And I can just see you all breathing a big sigh of relief at my upcoming vacation: Finally, some peace and quite around here, they say. Seriously, keep up the good work, all of you. :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
I've made several minor edits, mostly for the sake of formatting, and I think I see a need for many, many more. I really don't anticipate these will be "controversial" since the changes are largely cosmetic in order to Wikify the article, but if I accidently turn something into nonsense feel free to revert it and mention it here. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just moved or deleted the first 9 cites in order to keep them with (what I think is) the proper text, and to reduce redundancy. I'm hoping someone will review this carefully because it was a bit of a headache and I may have goofed. I did it in 2 rounds of editing, clearly marked, so it should be easy to correct. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 12:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that didn't go well. I totally bolluxed it and had to revert myself. I'll try again when I haven't been awake for 20+ hours. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blood tests
Do the superscript numbers in this section mean anything anymore? I assume they were references to footnotes either in the article they came from or an earlier version of this wiki article. Any ideas? Nunquam Dormio 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ND, I'm afraid the majority of our cites, links, and refs need a major overhaul. Your work in formatting and streamlining has been excellent, and I was hoping you could help in this area as well. I've tried but I lack any subject-matter expertise, and usually just end up with a headache. I'm beginning to wonder if we need to just "burn" all three sections and start over? That sounds like a potential headache as well, so I'm somewhat at a loss. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to be Citing another encyclopedia?
In reviewing the cites in our first paragraph, both of the remaining cites are to other encyclopedias (Medline Plus Medical and Britanica). I think that it's a very poor showing that, for our first paragraph, we have to point to another encyclopedia and say "See, they think so, too!" After some consideration, I think it would be a better policy to back up our opening section with the rest of the article, and if we need to back up individual statements in the rest of the article, then we should find more authoritative sources than other encyclopedias. Unless someone protests, I'm going to remove those two references. Robert Rapplean 17:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree (although I thought Medline was a Journal rather than an Encyclopedia). It really bothers me to see refs to EB anywhere; I'm sure we can do better. Once you've taken care of those two, would you like to sort through 3 - 9? I tried to reduce and reposition those more appropriately; maybe you'll have better luck :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I realized that Medline self-identifies as an encyclopedia so I went ahead and removed the first two cites. They're still available in the history of course, so if anyone really wants to replace them it's easy enough. I couldn't find a specific WP:POLICY against citing other encyclopdias, but I strongly agree that our intro should stand on its own and we should think carefully about citing other encyclopedias anywhere, ever. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also removed a broken link from the next section. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco, not alcohol, is most widely abused substance
46 million US adults are smokers and most are addicted says the CDC. Tobacco smoke contains at least 43 carcinogens. The CDC estimates that male smokers lose an average of 13.2 years of life and females lose an average of 14.5 years of live because of smoking the numerous health problems it causes.

For these reasons, the Alcoholism article is in error, the qualification is not "weasel words" and the reference is not a "nonsense link." Non-smoker 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Non-smoker (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The referrence was a nonsense link because it had absolutely no bearing on the article at all; if you want to use a link like that to prove a point it can be done here on the Talkpage, but not in the article. I removed the weasel words because "alcoholism affects over 15 million people" is a verifiable fact, not an estimate. I realize that you are new to WP and I'm sorry if my initial response seemed harsh to you. Since we're in the process of trying to reduce the cites in this article, it was largely a case of bad timing. Please don't get frustrated, this article has been under construction for a while :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

XXXXXXXX

I'm not trying to prove a point only to correct a verifiable error on the Alcoholism page.

The 15 million alcoholics is only an estimate, not a verifiable fact. (And where is the reference supporting it?) All we have are estimates of the incidence of any diseases or behaviors because no census (to my knowledge) has been taken of these diseases or behaviors. A CDC estimate is an official estimate of the U.S. government. So it appears that to be in every way as strong a statistic as the 15 million estimate. So over 45 million is roughly three (3) times 15 million.

In what way am I wrong?Non-smoker 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Non-smoker (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Sorry for the confusion about "prove a point"; I was trying to explain that if you disagree with a point in the article you could post the link that you used on the Talkpage to discuss it, but I'm sure you understand that linking to a website about smoking isn't appropriate in an article about alcoholism. Since I'm really just a humble simple> woefully undereducated editor I'm hoping that one of our resident eggheads subject-matter experts will address the balance of this : ) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, there. This is one of the resident eggheads.  Non-smoker, you are quite correct that tobacco smoking is a bigger problem than alcoholism, but let me disect the terminology here.  I'm going to quote a few numbers here to start us off:


 * Alcoholics: about 15 million (as per the NIAAA)
 * Tobacco smokers: about 45 million (let's assume you're right)
 * Alcohol drinkers: about 200 million (as per SAMSA)


 * For alcohol, there is a clear distinction between alcohol users and alcohol abusers. Most of us just plain don't have a problem with it, and can occasionally drink it safely on a regular basis with no hint of long-term damage.  Most of us do not suffer from the addiction that it causes in others.


 * Tobbacco doesn't have that quality. 100% of all tobbacco smokers will get addicted over time.  Nicotine supplements and replaces choline in such a way that our body forgets that it needs to make its own.  Also, there is no way to smoke tobacco safely.  Even small amounts of it will increase your risk of cancer by small amounts, while large amounts of it will increase your risk of cancer by large amounts.  Thus, you could make the argument that all tobacco use is a drug abuse problem.


 * Where the real problem comes in is that there is no standard definition for the term "abuse" because it's a term that's been used too much by people with political agendas to mean "use of something that I don't approve of". Once you tie a term to morality it takes on a relative quality necessary for a line that people draw immediately beneath themselves to identify who they are superior to.  Thus, in our current culture, drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco become "use" while alcoholism becomes "abuse".


 * I do know that tobacco induced medical costs far exceed alcohol induced medical costs, although it would take some doing to dig up the numbers, and the total cost of alcohol would also need to include property damage, divorce bills, and similar difficult to pin down expenses. Can anyone else give some input on this? Robert Rapplean 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks RR, I knew I could count on one of the editors here to reply in more depth and detail than I'd be able to. My strongest objection to Non-smoker's changes was the addition of the cite which linked to a smoking-related website. I may well have been overreacting when I deleted the text that was added; my primary concern was trying to manage the size and scope of this article at a time when we're trying to trim extraneous details. If other editors feel that the text was appropriate, I won't object again. I do think that we need to be concerned about the overall size and readability of this article however, and any further additions should be carefully scrutinized. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The page says that "alcoholism is the most common substance abuse problem." But that is simply wrong if 15 million are addicted to alcohol and 46 million are addicted to tobacco. Why not say that "alcoholism is one of the most common substance abuse problems"? That would seem to be accurate. Are you going to let an error stand to avoid linking to a page citing the source of a statistic? That seems like a strange priority.Non-smoker 19:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Non-smoker (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * In retrospect I have no significant objection to the sentence reading "alcoholism is one of the most common substance abuse problems." That phrase would be acceptable, but the link is not. Citations in an article about alcoholism should link to the topic of alcoholism, not websites about cigarette smoking, heroin addiction, crystal meth, or any other unrelated topic. Please feel free to re-insert your original phrasing, but I hope you won't add the link again without consensus to do so. Thanks for engaging in discussion; even when we don't agree, this is far more productive than edit-warring and reverts :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the addition of the word "estimated", since we don't actually state a number down to any precision it can safely be assumed that it's an estimation. All numbers of that form are an estimation, simply because you can't exactly take a weekly nation-wide survey and ask everyone if they're an alcoholic.  Numbers for tobacco users are a little easier to pin down because health insurance keeps tabs on it, but lying about smoking for health insurance purposes is common, and those who don't have life insurance are more likely to smoke than those who do, so those numbers are similarly suspect.  I favor leaving out the "estimated" because it can be presumed, but will look to see if Wikipedia has a policy on that kind of concept.


 * The cites, on the other hand, are another issue. We're definitely trying to eliminate cites in the opening paragraphs.  Also, the page that is referenced doesn't say anything about alcoholism.  I'd agree that it doesn't belong in the article, although it can be mentioned on the talk page in order to make a point.


 * I'd like to be a little more specific than calling it one of the most common. I'd really like to get across that it's many times more prevalant than opiate addictions, for instance.  I'm sure that we can come up with some kind of wording that relays that without overlooking the problems that smoking causes. Robert Rapplean 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that Non-smoker decided to update this himself. I like the statement, but think that it may be a sweeping generalization.  I'm willing to leave it as it is, though, until we have the time to dig up more specific information on the rates of various substance abuse problems throughout the world. Robert Rapplean 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make several points regarding this discussion. The first is that there are many people for whom nicotine/tobacco use does not become an addiction. While all tobacco use is "bad" with respect to causing health-related consequences, one can make the same argument for alcohol (although alcohol in small quantities is said to be helpful from a cardiac perspective, it is harmful from multiple other perspectives, including hepatic, neurologic, etc.). There are many who smoke cigarettes "once in a while" when they go to social occasions or when they're with someone else who smokes, yet do not become addicted for whatever reason. This is a subject of ongoing research to determine why some people get addicted to nicotine quickly while others do not. There's no question that alcohol addiction is a MUCH greater problem in terms of cost to society and # of people afflicted than ALL other substance addictions combined - except for nicotine, as pointed out above. Drgitlow 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My experience with tobacco smokers is that nicotine addiction takes several months of continuous smoking in order to set in. Unlike alcohol, nobody sucks down their first Camel and says "I gotta get me some more of that!", they think, "That's not so bad, and now I fit in with the cool crowd!". The psychological/social addiction sets in first, giving time for the physical addiction to get its grip. I smoked myself for about three weeks just because I was curious and I didn't get addicted, but the trial period was too short for that to be meaningful. The primary reason that the factors of nicotine addiction are so difficult to pin down is because the signal to noise ratio is so high. The cost/benefit formula for the initial picking up of the habit involves nearly intangible benefit and negligible cost, so it's often swamped by other considerations.

I will admit, though, that my statement of 100% nicotine addiction is based on those who have picked up smoking. It may be that the unaddictable percentage just forget to purchase the next pack at some point, but I've never met anyone who has smoked for a while and then just lost interest. I'll have to start asking that specific question. I don't think that anybody has done a study where they take x non-smokers, ask them to smoke a pack a day for a year, and then find out how many of them can easily quit, so I think that the evidence is out either way.

But back on topic, can we say "Second only to nicotine addiction, alcoholism is one of the world's most costly drug use problems. Alcoholism is more costly to our world's societies than all other drug use problems, excepting nicotine addiction, combined." Robert Rapplean 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That works. Drgitlow 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I want the article to keep moving forward, and I especially don't want do be responsible for holding things up. Having said that however, I'd really rather avoid extraneous references to other substances unless it's a direct comparison that's important to a particular point. I'd also like to make the following statement:
 * While it's important for us to always assume good faith please let me offer my frank opinion. Non-smoker, an apparently new user with absolutely no contrib history outside this article has suddenly appeared and begun inserting references about cigarette smoking into an article about alcoholism. While honest consensus between editors is critical to our project, I am somewhat dubious about the honesty of these contributions. I really don't feel that they are relevant or productive, nor do I feel a need to compromise by inserting irrelevant or inappropriate material for the sake of appeasing an editor with a single purpose account. I certainly won't object to any reasonable suggestion by any established editor, but I think that we should carefully scrutinize the comments of newcomers with no previous edit history.
 * --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, doc, thanks for voicing your concern. Fortunately, in this case, nicotine addiction is in my field of expertise (social impact of drug use), and I can verify that his claims of social damage and addiction rates are reasonably accurate, at least in the US. I feel that referencing nicotine addiction, but not specifically smoking, gives the reader a feel for where alcoholism falls in the heirarchy of drug-related social problems. If you would like this to be cited then we can tag it as needing citation, but I'm comfortable with the statement. Robert Rapplean 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I recently had a very negative experience with an SPA elsewhere on this wiki and it's entirely possible that I'm overreacting because of that. I will certainly be pleased to agree with RR and Dr. G on this. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Doc Tropics, I noticed that you added the word abuse after the word drug in the third sentence of the article. That's a very politically charged word, and I'm not sure we can fairly use it. Most people don't know the difference between immoral, illegal, and harmful, and our population would apply varying amounts of the three to that word depending on their background. Some people, for instance, would insist that you can't abuse something if it isn't illegal - that it would be misuse or overuse. Others would insist that there's no difference between use and abuse. This is especially a problem when attempting to apply those words to legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Would you mind if we changed the wording to "drug use", but still linked it to the drug abuse article? Robert Rapplean 02:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that up. I mostly changed the wording to provide the link, so I've already made the change you suggested. Good catch! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - Does the rest of it look ok? We're all making lots of changes and it's going well, but it's important to stay in touch this way. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed with the progress we've been making. I'm purposely taking it slow to give others an opportunity to catch my slips. I definitely need to thank everyone who has caught my misspellings. I'm making small changes while code is compiling, so I don't always have time to triple-check my spelling. I still want to move the Terminology section up, and replace the statement about addiction with something that describes how addiction applies to alcoholism. Time, time. Robert Rapplean 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just reviewed the Terminology section and I agree that an actual mention of addiction, in addition to the link, would be useful. Moving the section up higher in the article also makes sense. I'd say go ahead; we know that we can always discuss things and make more changes as necessary. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why we don't use the word "dependency" in our primary definition
who came up with a stupid definition that omits the word dependency / Palx 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Palx. Opine much? Dependency refers to the body's physical adaption to a persistant high alcohol level. It's a very strong indicator of alcoholism, but is not the ONLY strong indicator of alcoholism, nor is it a required symptom for alcoholism to be diagnosed. There is a misperception that the dependence on alcohol is synonymous with alcoholism, but dependence is an adaption while alcoholism is a misdirected drive. Robert Rapplean 16:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The big reason, Palx, is that dependence itself can mean many things. To some, dependence is synonymous with addiction; to others, dependence refers to a physiologic state. Psychiatrists use the term dependence the way other physicians use the term addiction. Dependence to some is a disease state while to others it represents a natural mammalian response to specific groups of drugs. Because of the many standards (and resulting confusion) around this term, we elected not to incorporate it within the definition of alcoholism itself. That way, we can be clear about what alcoholism means without using other terms which, while clear to some, might not be clear to all readers. Drgitlow 02:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

=Terminology Section=

I took a stab at the definition of Addiction. It's a simplification of what the article has to say, and I think that's what we need here. Please let me know if you find a problem with it.

I'd like to revisit our definitions of 'abuse' and 'dependence'. Right now the page currently reads:

Abuse and Dependence have standard medical diagnosis definitions in the DSM-IV-TR, but this terminology is now under discussion for change as DSM-V is being prepared.

What this translates to is that "abuse and dependence have definitions, but these definitions might change". I think we'd be better off if we actually provided the readers with a definition that's currently accurate. I do have to say, though, that most politicians have never opened a DSM, and they have more influence over the commonly understood definition of abuse than any doctor does. Robert Rapplean 18:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A Psychiatrist's definition of abuse
Hey, Dr. Gitlow. I noticed that you adjusted the aforementioned section to say:

A psychiatrist would probably quote the DSM-IV and state that the presence of abuse is based upon the definition provided there.

I was hoping to give the reader a better perspective on the considerations a medical professional would have for labelling something as abuse. This kind of says that "if you're not smart enough to read the DSM that I'm not going to tell you." Could you elaborate a little for our audience? Robert Rapplean 00:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See what you think of the changes I implemented just now. I'm trying to avoid actually putting the full working definition of 'abuse' and 'dependence' as defined in DSM-IV, but we could present an overview of this in a sidebar. I figured that would be covered in the entries for abuse and dependence, but now that I've just looked those up, there really isn't much there. Think it belongs here? Drgitlow 03:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a definite improvement, but I think you misunderstand how most people think of the DSM. To be more specific, most people don't know the DSM from Billy Joe Bob. To illustrate how this effects people's comprehension of what you're writing, I'm going to copy what you wrote here, replacing all references to the DSM with references to Billy Joe Bob:

'The term abuse has a variety of possible meanings. Within psychiatry, Billy Joe Bob has a specific definition involving a set of life circumstances which take place as a result of substance use. Within politics, abuse is often used to refer to the illegal use of any substance. Within the broad field of medicine, abuse sometimes refers to use of prescribed medication in excess of the prescribed dosage or to use of a prescription drug without a prescription. The term can therefore cause confusion due to the possibility that an audience doesn't share a single definition.'

'Dependence also has a variety of definitions. The standard psychiatric diagnosis of dependence is defined by Billy Joe Bob, but here the terminology is being reconsidered by Billy Joe Bob due in part to the many working definitions for dependence.'

The first paragraph works because it actually describes abuse, but the second one doesn't actually tell the audience anything. I believe that what we're really looking for here is a summary of the definition, using the DMS as your reference. Does this convey what I'm trying to get at? I'd write it myself but I figured it would be better from someone who knew the DSM better. Robert Rapplean 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Got it. In part, I've been avoiding a more detailed approach because the precise definition has a copyright issue. Give me a couple of days to find out the extent to which I can simply summarize and that will get us around the Billy Joe Bob issue. Drgitlow 03:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking a stab at dependence
I created a straw model for a definition of dependence in the terminology section. I belive that it's reasonably accurate and more informative than what it replaced, but feel free to pick it apart. Robert Rapplean 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

=Identification and Diagnosis section=

I've moved all of the diagnosis information into one place. I'd like to change this heading to something less technical, preferably something like "Identification", specifically to avoid controversy over whether this is a medical, behavioral, or spiritual problem. Also, many of the entries here refer to concepts that aren't discussed in this article, and we need to fix that.

Could we have a bit of brainstorming about the various ways of identifying an alcoholic? I'd like to put each major method under its own subheading. Obviously the DSM and CAGE models belong there.

I'd also like to expand on my first paragraph that describes the difficulties involved in diagnosis. Can we put a section in previous to it that describes the various addiction factors that contribute to alcoholism? I think that would properly belong in the "extended definition" section of the article. Robert Rapplean 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the technical end of things to our panel of experts, but the changes you've made so far look good to me; it's a better format for the info I think. I also agree that "addiction factors" does belong in the extended definition (unless it gets so long that it deserves its own section). It seems we've re-established enough goodwill that you could go ahead and edit, just be prepared to discuss if anyone objects. Happy editing! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The CAGE isn't a diagnostic test. It is simply a screening test used to identify those individuals likely to have alcoholism. As an analogy, to diagnose primary hypertension, one might conduct a screening test of measuring blood pressure. A single result of an elevated blood pressure may have many causes, one of which is primary hypertension. The DSM definition of alcohol dependence is a diagnostic definition for the disease of alcohol dependence (DSM's term for alcoholism). The 1992 JAMA article's definition of alcoholism is another diagnostic definition for the disease. From a medical standpoint, a physician will ask a series of questions designed to determine whether an individual's intake of alcohol has led to adverse outcomes in a repetitive manner. If the answer is 'yes,' then the individual is alcoholic. If 'no,' then intake of alcohol may be either nonpathologic or causing something other than alcoholism. For instance, let's say an individual comes in to see me complaining of significant anxiety, but has NO other problems. And let's say that individual honestly reports drinking 2-3 beers each day. That patient possibly has an alcohol-induced anxiety disorder. I then tell the patient that their anxiety, which is causing significant discomfort, may be a result of alcohol intake. I recommend cessation of alcohol use and a re-examination in 1 month. If in one month the patient has not stopped drinking despite the possible adverse reaction, now I must consider alcoholism as one possible diagnosis. Drgitlow 02:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting example Dr. G, and well written. Keeping in mind our Hypothetical Reader (who is still working towards a high school diploma), is it possible to clarify the difference between screening and diagnosis within the article a bit? It seems that the different techniques could probably stay in the same section since, to a layman, the difference appears to be a rather minor one? I think this actually sums up a challenge facing the article overall: We really need to bring the overall level down a bit to make it more accessible to our HR, but without dumbing it down so much it turns into nonsense. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely an important distiction, and one of the reasons why I wanted to rename the section "Identification" instead of "diagnosis". Remember that our target audience doesn't contain a lot of medical professionals, so if it gets to the diagnosis stage we probably just need to give a brief overview of "how do them doctor guys know, anyway?" As such, the screening is a good tool that people can use in order to help them decide that maybe they really do need to see a doctor about this, and as such is perfect for our audience. Robert Rapplean 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, who forgot to log in? :) I went waaay out on a limb and unilaterally changed the section header to "Identification and Diagnosis", although "Screening and Diagnosis" might also be appropriate. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Doh. That was me. I own that IP address, so I should make it a synonym to my name. Robert Rapplean 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Diagnosis
The current diagnosis section opens with a sentence that reads that diagnosis of alcoholism is difficult. I'm not sure what that statement is, whether it's an opinion or a value judgment in and of itself, but it's certainly not true for an addiction medicine specialist. Alcoholism is our bread & butter -- making the diagnosis is about as easy as pulling weeds. Can we reword that? Drgitlow 18:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rewording might be appropriate, if handled with care. I just read through that section again and it seems to be refering to "borderline" cases, but that isn't clearly stated. If you can clarify that without delving too deep into "specialist stuff" it would be perfect :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that this can be fixed by changing the leading word "diagnosis" to "identification". I agree that diagnosis isn't terribly hard.  If a person tells you that they have trouble not drinking then that pretty well settles it (oversimplification, I know).  The difficult part comes in when other people are trying to decide if their loved ones are alcoholics.  This usually involves attempting to apply the observer's priorities on the drinker, which is more often than not a mis-match.  This is where the difficulty comes in.  Again, trying to keep the non-medical-professional audience in mind.  Does that make sense?  Robert Rapplean 04:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, and I'm probably the lowest-common-denominator around here :) I also tweaked a couple of words in the opening sentence of this section. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RR, your latest change to "Identification and Diagnosis" does an excellent job of clarifying! It's a good use of NPOV languange that should be understandable to everyone, and hopefully agreeable to all the editors as well. This is exactly the kind of cleanup that the article needs. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that there is now a test they can do that sees if you have one of the more common genes in people with addictive personalities. Does anyone else know anything about this?--Twintone 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A removal
I have removed the following chunk from the page because it was in the identification and diagnosis section. It doesn't really seem to fit, but I've archived it here in case we want to use it later for something. Regardless, it's a rather large quote that should probably be broken up and explained, or paraphrased. Robert Rapplean 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Diagnosis
In 1992, a joint committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and the American Society of Addiction Medicine was formed to establish a definition of alcoholism that could be used in a clinical setting. That committee defined the condition as a "primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal...characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial. Each of these symptoms may be continuous or periodic."

=Treatment Discussions=

Curing by moderation (Reposted comment from archive)
There is reason that healthcare professionals have a tough time accepting any treatment that involves continued drinking. The Pendery article in Science in 1982 (Science. 1982 Jul 9;217(4555):169-75.) essentially blew the moderation movement out of the water by demonstrating that over the long-term, patients who truly had alcoholism and who tried to drink in moderation either a) died of alcohol-related disease, b) ended up with significant morbidity due to alcohol-related disease, or c) had successfully entered abstinence. One method of diagnosing the disease is to simply see whether a patient tries to control their alcohol intake; if they do, they probably have alcoholism (noone tries to control their orange juice intake -- if they did, one would think there's something wrong). Drgitlow 16:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaking pharmacological extinction with moderation. Moderation is an attempt to use personal habits and willpower to attempt to decrease one's drinking habits to a more healthy level. Pharmacological extinction is an attempt to reverse conditioning placed upon a person's neurochemistry by providing stimulus, but by blocking the reward mechanism. I agree and accept that moderation doesn't work, but there is a great deal of evidence indicating that PE does. Robert Rapplean 21:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Pharmacological Extinction
I think that the countersite on pharmacological extinction needs to be more closely examined. PA isn't an attempt at moderation, and the cited study is dated 1982, before PA was developed, which was around 1992. PA is based on observations that overdrinking prone rats have overactive endorphin systems. Endorphin is our body's chemical mechanism for making us want to perform behaviors like sex, exercise, and fighting, which aren't terribly productive or efficient in their own right but which provide notable benefits in the long run. It has been demonstrated that the consumption of alcohol releases endorphins in our system, so the theory is that alcoholism is caused by the inappropriate rewarding of our neurological system when we drink.

Pavlov demonstrated that providing a stimulus coupled by a reward causes conditioning, but he also proved that providing the stimulus without the reward causes the extinction of that conditioning. Bell without food results in cessation of salivation over time. For alcoholism the bell is all of the sensations involved with drinking alcohol, and the reward is an endorphin reward to our neurons. Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist. In short, it blocks our bodies from being rewarded when we drink. Thus, if we drink alcohol while on naltrexone, our neurons unlearn their drinking impulses.

So, again, it has nothing to do with attempting to moderate drinking, it has to do with providing stimulus without reward so that the urge to drink is extinguished. Thus, any study which involves moderation without naltrexone use has nothing to do with this. Similarly, any study which involves naltrexone (or nalphamene, or noloxone) coupled with abstinence or abstinence encouraging therapies (like AA) similarly demonstrates nothing about PE. If you would like a complete list of the studies which have been performed involving opioid antagonists, let me know. I have a list that was updated around Nov 2004. Robert Rapplean 02:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert, the PE approach is a behavioral modification approach combined with neurochemical findings. And I see your point about it leading to abstinence through a process which involves some continued use of alcohol for the behavioral modification to occur. It's a fascinating idea. My understanding of it is that it works theoretically as follows:


 * Alcohol causes the production of endorphins. In some individuals, alcohol causes endorphins to a greater extent than usual. This causes those individuals to have a reduced ability to refuse alcohol (because, simply put, the alcohol is too enjoyable for them to refuse even if it causes them hardship). Naltrexone, among other drugs, stops the endorphins from getting their message through by antagonizing the neurotransmitter system involved. Therefore, if you give the naltrexone and these individuals drink, they will no longer feel the enjoyment they once did. Behavioral modification will result due to the lack of positive feedback and the drinker will ultimately be able to stop drinking on his or her own.


 * While liver toxicity is an issue with naltrexone, the doses necessary here would be low enough as to present a low risk of hepatic damage (in general), even when combined with alcohol. I reviewed the Sinclair paper from Alcohol & Alcoholism 36(1)2-10. 2001 that discusses this in greater detail. What Sinclair reports is something that hasn't been replicated well in US trials since the US trials haven't followed his instruction that naltrexone be given simultaneously with alcohol. This provides a potential explanation as to why the US trials for naltrexone have been less than successful. All very interesting and deserving of additional study. Drgitlow 02:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is almost correct. Right idea, but the theory states that it's a neurochemical effect, not a behavioral one. In order to clarify, I want to Quote Dr. Sinclair directly:


 * ''"On the other question, you are correct that mixing naltrexone and disulfiram together will not work. Many people would expect it to, but this expectation is based on the incorrect common sense understanding of behavior (CUB).  CUB says that a person sits and contemplates what behaviors will bring pleasure and what will bring pain, and then choose to make the behavior expected to produce the most net pleasure.  Inherent in this view is the idea that pleasure and pain add together algebraically.  Like pleasure has positive numbers and pain has negative.  So if you have behavior that produces something good (+2) but then you shock the person for doing it (-3), the end result is the algebraic sum -1, so the person will avoid doing that.  If you only give a little shock (-1), the sum is +1 and the person will continue doing it.  If you really wollop them (-5), then the sum is -3 and the person will avoid the behavior completely.  This seems so logical.  It is the basis for our legal system, the basis for economic, the basis for how most people raise their kid, and the basis for how most people treat others.  It is, however, definitely incorrect.


 * ''"It has been the basis for how we treat alcoholism. And we have been punishing alcoholics with -5s and even -10s, but it almost never has worked.


 * ''"There is the classic statement that the effect of punishment depends upon which end of dog you inflict it upon. The reaction to pain is to find a response that gets rid of the pain. So punishing an alcoholic is most likely to drive them out of treatment.  It does not get rid of the craving.


 * ''"According to CUB there is no mechanism of extinction. Naltrexone works, CUB says, because the patient is told that he will get no pleasure from drinking, so they do not bother.   That was the logic that caused them to put in the instructions for naltrexone that the heroin addict is told first that they will get no pleasure and second that they may die if they drink while on naltrexone.  You remember that this was completely ineffective.


 * "Making a response and not getting the normal positive reinforcement extinguishes the behavior. Adding punishment only makes the patient want to get out of the treatment.  If you were to look in the brain, you would find, I believe, that after taking naltrexone and then drinking, that there is a process going on that weakens the pathways producing drinking.  If you look in after drinking (without naltrexone) and then getting beat up in a fight, you will find the pathway causing drinking is being strengthened - the endorphins are still there producing the reinforcement.  At the same time pathways the cause getting out of that bar and avoiding fights are also being strengthened.  End result, the guy continues drinking but someplace else." -Dr. John David Sinclair, Jan 21, 2006

The reason I want to make this distinction is because people's lives give them -10s when they drink. They lose their jobs, their spouses, their property, and can wind up in a gutter. This doesn't make them stop drinking alcohol, even though sensibly and obviously the net effect is quite negative. It just tells them that they need to get help, and sometimes even that isn't enough, which is why they have interventions. There's more to it than an intellectual assessment of the benefits.

Robert Rapplean 04:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits on Detox section
Hi, Doc. Thanks for making the correction on the detox section. I was finding it tough to believe that any alcohol center actually administers alcohol as part of in-patient detoxification. It's terribly contrary to their philosophy. I'll remove the chunks of the previous paragraphs that conflict with it. Robert Rapplean 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Until at least the late 80s, some VAs were still using alcohol on a tapering dose schedule, but I don't think that's done anymore. When you get right down to it, as far as the brain is concerned, there's no real difference between alcohol and the other sedatives, so the conflict to using alcohol for the taper is psychologic or philosophic rather than biologic. Drgitlow 18:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but the bias is still there. Theoretically the endorphin conditioning might be getting worse while you're tapering, whereas it wouldn't with other GABA immitators, but the person's probably already deep in the throws of endorphin conditioning by then anyway, so it wouldn't matter much. Robert Rapplean 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

=References Section=

Hey, folks. The references section has gotten out of control as an unreadable mishmash of cites that may or may not actually be pertinant to something that is still in the article. Could you help me out here? I'd like to maintain a permanent section in the talk page that specifically lists the significance of each reference to the article at large. Many of these articles are not readily accessible, so I'd like to create a guide to their significance so the reader doesn't have to go digging into a bunch of medical journals to figure out what the purpose of the cite is. I'm going to use this site from Dr. Sinclair as an example of how I'd like to see the cites explained. In the article I'd like to see them ordered based on the position of the text in the article that they support. Robert Rapplean 16:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is an excellent idea, and without question, something needs to be done. It appears that many of the cites are redundant in the sense that they point to articles which say essentially the same thing. I'd like to suggest a couple of ideas, but I'll wait for input from others before taking any actions:

--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Eliminate some of the redundant cites.
 * 2) Try to avoid referencing the websites of individuals, even if they are MDs. I think these don't have as much credibilty as the numerous journals we can link to.
 * 3) If any sentence actually needs more than a single cite, that might indicate that we need to rewrite the sentence for clarity.

I think that this is a very insightful piece of input, Doc. In fact, I'd like to see the second two points embodied as long-term policy. Robert Rapplean 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Sinclair, J. D. (2001) Evidence about the use of Naltrexone and for different ways of using it in the treatment of alcoholism. Alcohol and Alcoholism 36: 2-10.''' An invited review in the Oxford Journal of Medicine which describes the pharmacological extiction treatment, its effectiveness in treating alcoholism, and the relative (read: poor) effectiveness of the use of naltrexone in other treatment methods. Belongs attached to "Alcoholism:Treatments:Pharmacological Extinction"


 * O’Malley, S. S., Jaffe, A. J., Chang, G., Rode, S., Schottenfeld, R. S.,  Meyer, R. E., and Rounsaville, B. (1996).  Six-month follow-up of Naltrexone and psychotherapy for alcohol dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry 53: 217-224.
 * Månsson, M., Balldin, J., Berglund, M., and Borg, S. (1999) Six-month follow-up of interaction effect between Naltrexone and coping skills therapy in outpatient alcoholism treatment. Alcohol and Alcoholism 34: 454


 * Ewing, John A. “Detecting Alcoholism: The CAGE Questionnaire” JAMA 252: 1905-1907, 1984


 * Korhonen, M. Alcohol Problems and Approaches: Theories, Evidence and Northern Practice. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organizations, 2004

The following removed as no evidence of being cited any more

 * Tonnesen H, Hejberg L, Frobenius S, Andersen JR. Erythrocyte mean cell volume--correlation to drinking pattern in heavy alcoholics. Acta Med Scand. 1986;219(5):515-8. (Medline abstract)


 * Schwan R, Albuisson E, Malet L, Loiseaux MN, Reynaud M, Schellenberg F, Brousse G, Llorca PM. The use of biological laboratory markers in the diagnosis of alcohol misuse: an evidence-based approach. Drug Alcohol Depend. 11 June 2004 ;74(3):273-9. (Medline abstract)


 * McKelvey v. Turnage, 792 F.2d 194 (D.C. Cir. 1986) and Traynor v. Walters, 791 F.2d 226 (2d. Cir. 1986)


 * The Diseasing of America: How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control, Stanton Peele, PhD (Jossey-Bass, 1999)


 * Meyer, Roger E. The disease called addiction: emerging evidence in a 200-year debate. Lancet, 1996, 347, 162-166.
 * Korhonen, M. Alcohol Problems and Approaches: Theories, Evidence and Northern Practice. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organizations, 2004


 * Schaler, J. A. Thinking about drinking: the power of self-fulfilling prophecies. The International Journal of Drug Policy, 1996, 7(3), 187-191


 * Doweiko, H. E. Concepts of Chemical dependency. NY: Brooks-Cole, 1996.


 * Anton RF, O’Malley, SS Ciraulo DC, Cisler RA. Couper D, Donovan DM, Gastfriend DR, Hosking JD, Johnson BA, LoCastro JS, Longabaugh R, Mason BJ, Mattson ME, Miller WR, Pettinati HM, Randall CL, Swift R, Weiss RD, Williams LD, Zweben AZ, for the COMBINE Study Research Group (2006) Combined pharmacotherapies and behavioral interventions for alcohol dependence: The COMBINE Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial JAMA. 2006;295:2003-2017.

=Things which impact the entire article=

APA vs APA
I'm not sure how to handle the APA's in this article. I've made reference to the American Psychiatric Association in my entries. MedicalMan has made reference to the American Psychological Association in his. Both organizations use the abbreviation APA and some of our current paragraphs use the APA abbreviation as well. Readers won't know which APA we refer to. It's annoying, but I suggest we spell out each such reference to be certain readers (and we) know whom is being cited. Drgitlow 04:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Likely that American Psychological Association is the more commonly recognized use of APA. Agree that writing out each one is necessary in this case. FloNight   talk  15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Systemic geographical bias

 * Given the fact that we are aware of the need to globalize the article and are working to remedy the problem, do we need to keep the Tag posted??Medical Man 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has been Tagged for "Systemic Bias", specifically "U.S.-centrism". Ironically, I had voiced this concern previously and was considering how to best address the problem. Unfortunately, the editor who added the tag didn't offer up any suggestions (which I consider a bit sloppy; adding a tag without any follow-up is actually a dis-improvement). My only idea so far is to check out the World Health Organization and see if they offer more "global" statistics, and I haven't actually done so yet. Can anyone suggest other possible resources for globalizing the article? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I was just going to change the end of the first paragraph, but had an edit conflict with Nonsmoker. Rather than make rapid changes to the article let me offer this proposed change for commnets: --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alcoholism is the most common substance abuse problem in most developed nations, and affects more than 15 million people in the United States alone.


 * I agree that this article suffers from US-centrism, but considered that to be a concern entirely secondary to attempting to hammer out the information that doesn't change from one location to the next, for instance the symptoms and treatment thereof. That's the problem with drive-by tagging like that - it doesn't take the opportunity to determine what the current discussions are about and seems to insist that this be taken care of before we take another step.


 * Your sentence looks good to me, go ahead and insert it. Robert Rapplean 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "bias" issue is secondary to other content-oriented considerations, that's why I haven't put much effort into it yet. I really would like to bring this article up to GA or FA status, so we'll need to address it eventually, but we seem to be making good progress in other areas right now. Since RR and I have made a number of changes recently I'll hold off on the one I suggested above until we get more input. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [Jacob] Having not commented, yet used Wikipedia extensively, this conversation gave me the push to begin. Enough said, while I am not in a position to comment on the above debate, I would strongly argue that the page Alcoholism should contain something similar to a 'Cultural Perceptions of Acceptable Alcohol Consumption' section in the begining or at the end to put the discourse into a global or at least Western context (examples of both are available). The point should not be to dispute medical facts on the negative effects of alcohol, but rather show that perceptions of alcohol consumptions vary widely from country to country. So, using the CAGE test many many Scandinavians would be alcoholics. While they might be, it might also be the case that societies and cultures deal differently with heavy (weekend) alcohold consumption and their societies are not falling apart. This is arguably a subjective point of view. Yet, for instance, the official Danish PR body of the ministry of health (Sundhedsstyrelsen) recommends a maximum intake of 21 (14 for females) units of alcohol (a 33 cl bottle of beer is one unit and so is a shot of strong alcohol (vodka, snaps etc)) per week. From the Wikipedia page I get the view that such recommendations would make officials in other Western countries shake their heads in disbelief. As said, this serves not to dispute medical facts or ruling beliefs, but merely to put this hotly debated topic into perspective. Finally, making such a section should also not be a 'trojan horse' to say that North Americans (or others) are too strict in their definitions, but - again - just to show how societies and individuals deal with the abundance of alcohol and the cultural acceptance of indulging in such abundances differently. Documenting such the above points would be fairly easy.

Hi, Jacob, and welcome to the conversation. I hope you don't mind that I moved your paragraph to this topic, it really seems to belong here. This would be very useful in taking some of the geographic bias out of the Identification section. I think that the proper way to present this would be to give examples of the two extremes (for instance, places in the middle east where any alcohol is sinful), and then give a general feel for what kinds of people have what kinds of social tolerances for alcohol. I'm a bit tied up with other information gathering activities, but would anyone else like to take a whack at that? Robert Rapplean 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a few issues here: the first is that we can't confuse what should go in the Alcohol article as opposed to what should go in the Alcoholism article. Alcoholism, the condition defined by the World Health Organization, is akin to all other health conditions in that it is not defined by virtue of culture, country of origin, or any other parameter other than being human. Just as one either has hypertension or not, independent of whether a particular race has a lower or higher than human population average for blood pressure, one either has alcoholism or not, again independent of the usual intake of alcohol among one's peers. The fact, of course, is that the likelihood that one suffers from alcoholism is nil if there's no alcohol around, as is common among particular cultural groups.


 * Maximum or minimum recommended intake levels are indeed defined differently by different groups, and with much controversy among various cultures, but those issues apply to alcohol, not to alcoholism. I'd therefore vote that we leave that topic out and rather focus on the defining aspects of alcoholism. I recognize, as we've discussed here, that there are differing definitions - but I don't believe there are any who would define the condition based upon cultural factors. Worst case scenario is that of an individual who has lost his home, finances, and health as a result of his alcohol intake - an alcoholic in any culture. Drgitlow 04:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I have to agree with Dr. Gitlow. One of the things that is tough to understand about alcohol is the relationship between alcoholism and drinking. Drinking doesn't cause alcoholism, but alcoholism does cause drinking. There's a verifiable unidirectional causal relationship there. The only berring that this might have on the article would be that it's more difficult to spot alcoholism in cultures where heavy drinking is common and socially acceptable, and over-diagnosed where it isn't acceptable. In St. Louis, Missouri, for example (which works extra hard because it isn't "officially" in the bible belt), someone who regularly drinks heavily on the weekend will often be considered an alcoholic, even though true alcoholics would consider five days of sobriety a major victory. In your typical US college town it's difficult to tell the difference between someone who just can't let go of the bottle and someone who has no sense of how much money their parents are wasting on their lack of desire to attend classes.

In general I'd say that it warrents a mention, but that an in-depth examination of this, while good information, doesn't really fit in this topic. Can I have opinions from other editors, please? Robert Rapplean 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's very important to globalize this article as much as we can and one way to promote that is to include a discussion about the issue of differences in diagnosing alcoholism in different countries, even when using the same diagnostic tool. Different physicians in the same country will diagree on a diagnosis of alcoholism using DSM-IV. We should expect that these differences will be even greater between physicians in different societies. In short, whether or not a person is diagnosed as alcoholic will depend to some degree on the society in which he lives. An anthropologist or sociologist could probably add a great deal to this discussion.Medical Man 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * There's a sociologist called David J. Hanson who specializes in alcohol matters. He contributes to wikipedia as David Justin. Perhaps you could send him a message and invite him to contribute?

Globalising this article
Attempting to globalize this article will certainly be an ongoing process. I have found this [| W.H.O. webiste]. I've only just started exploring the articles available there, but I'm hoping to dig out useful info and help would be welcome. Also, I've taken the liberty of shuffling some things around in a couple of sections with the purpose of moving U.S.-specific info towards the bottom of each section. Whenever it's available I'd like to add general content above region-specific content. Does this sound reasonable? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully support this approach. Robert Rapplean 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found a 71-page 2003 UK Government document Alcohol misuse: How much does it cost? which looks promising. I don't have the time to go through it now but I'll try to work through it over the next few weeks. Nunquam Dormio 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose that presenting statistics by country for alcoholism, preferably as a % of population, would be more accurate and useful than estimates of economic costs, which are notoriously inaccurate Statistics by Country for Alcoholism.


 * For example, when PIRE estimated the economic costs of underage drinking in the US, over one-third of its final estimate was based on “pain and suffering.” It also ignored the economic benefits generated by that drinking and other important components of any legitimate economic analysis. It’s own figures actually suggest not the annual economic cost of  $61.9 billion that it reported, but a net economic benefit of $21.7 billion. That’s a big difference.


 * The problem is wide spread. Economists have found similar problems with cost estimates published by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Not only are it’s cost estimates also gross rather than net, but up to 80% of the final figures are often highly debatable as being pseudo costs. The problems go on and on.


 * Using economic estimates from countries around the world would be even less equivalent and nothing more than comparing apples to oranges.Medical Man 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Statistics by Country for Alcoholism looks meaningless to me. It just extrapolates figures based on population so we get, for example, 1,432,053 alcoholics in Saudi Arabia. Figures calculated from within each country will be more reliable, though they'll no doubt have their own problems.

=Conversation between editors=

Regarding recent edits
I'm going to attempt to rearrange the talk page so that it has major sections which reflect the major sections of the article itself, in the same order. I archived the discussion about moving the Disease topic, but need to put a placeholder at the top telling people that all discussion about that topic should be addressed there. I'd like to suggest that we have effectively resolved the differences that required us to go into mediation, and comments pertaining to that can also go into the archive. Robert Rapplean 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be more careful
drgitlow, please be more careful in honoring Chris with edits I made. Because you chose to highlight Dr. Benjamin Rush's view that alcoholism is a disease, I think it essential to point out his view that Negroidism is also a disease because this helps the reader understand his conception of disease.Medical Man 01:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I didn't highlight Dr. Benjamin Rush's view. I never wrote a sentence about Dr. Rush. I thought that was there before I ever got here, but I can check back in the history. Drgitlow 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup...it was added on April 9 by someone without a user signature. After I started working on this, but not me. Drgitlow 04:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alcoholism Discussed in Popular Media by Alcoholism Experts
Did anyone catch this 20/20 investigative report on the alcoholism disease debate or participate in the chat below it?

Treatment Wars: The 20/20 Report

What Is Alcoholism?

I didn't catch the show but I want to read the full transcripts. The investigative approach to it by a major news source is an interesting angle. Mr Christopher 04:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd put "alcoholism experts" in quotes, since I don't see that there were any alcoholism experts involved in either the 20/20 report or the chat. It's an interesting discussion and report, but please don't confuse the popular media and those who actively involve themselves with the public debate as being qualified experts in the field.


 * Let me give another example from a completely different field. Here in the northeast, there is an ongoing debate as to whether a wind farm should be built in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod. Self-proclaimed experts have written editorials and participated in debates, some very much in favor and some very much opposed. As a citizen with absolutely no knowledge as to whether this is an economically or environmentally appropriate approach to take, I'd very much like to hear from the real experts. But I have difficulty distinguishing the people who really know from the people who know nothing but think they know a great deal, or from the people who simply are trying to make a point but who know how to use the media to accomplish their task. I fear that is what happens with alcoholism and it brings us back to our whole controversy issue again. Is there a controversy in the media? Yes, absolutely. Is there a controversy among the community of medical experts in the field? Nope. Drgitlow 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Had the participants in the 20/20 piece defined disease early-on, they may not have had so much disagreement about that issue. Of course, there was also controversy about other issues such as treatment options and effectiveness.


 * Drs. Alan Marlatt and Nick Heather are both highly regarded experts in alcoholism research and treatment. Years ago Nick Heather ignited the heated and continuing debate over whether or not some alcoholics can learn to drink in moderation. Based on evidence that they can, some treatment profesionals have established alternatives to the traditional abstinece only model.


 * Obviously, we can't sweep such controversies under the rug and thereby shortchange our readers of information they should have.Medical Man 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid both Alan Marlatt and Nick Heather are psychologists, not physicians, and therefore don't tend to approach issues using a medical ethic. Whether they're seen as "highly regarded experts" is an opinion. The drinking in moderation approach really ignited with the Sobells, and I invite you to see this article for an interesting perspective: http://www.habitsmart.com/cntrldnk.html


 * You'll like Dr. Westermeyer's take on the issue, and while I disagree with his conclusion, his historical description covers the bases. He feels the Sobells were ultimately vindicated, but many disagree - and that's yet another controversy in this field.


 * I can see why you feel comfortable about there being a controversy, and I've come to totally understand your perspective. Indeed, there appear to be strong viewpoints held by sociologists, strong viewpoints held by psychologists, and strong viewpoints held by physicians, all of which appear to be at odds with one another. These groups have different diagnostic strategies, differing opinion regarding treatment outcomes (because they're all treating different things based on different definitions, and looking for different outcomes based upon differing strategies as to what is a "good" outcome), and differing opinions regarding the mechanism of the problem. So even the question as to who is a highly regarded expert is up for grabs - in my opinion, to be an expert in a disease state, you'd need to have certain qualifications. But of course circular reasoning comes into play there; if alcoholism is not a disease, then my specified qualifications wouldn't matter. I've said before that there isn't a controversy - and I stand by that to the extent that within the field of qualified medical experts in addiction medicine, there is no controversy about alcoholism's status as a disease. But...


 * We could have several VERY different articles, "Alcoholism - The Medical Disease," "Alcoholism - The Social Problem," and so forth. And maybe that's the best way to go. Drgitlow 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Discussion
At this point, I think what is happening is that the editors are working together to build consensus and to discover directions for the article with which all can agree and/or compromise about. After the serious disagreements that we had originally, we've come a long way. I admire the fact that we've all stepped back, are taking a breather, and are simply discussing perspectives for now without fighting about the article. And though the new template at the top of the page is correct, a couple of more days of discussion prior to getting back to the work at hand seems reasonable to me. Other thoughts? Drgitlow 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just checking in real quick from the cruise ship. It looks like you're doing great work here :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mirror site?
I was looking for a definition of alcohol toxemia and found this instead []. A quick look at the article and the associated talkpage [] indicates that it's very up to date. I assume it's a "mirror", but the website appears to be at least semi-commercial (note the HUGE ads?). Can anyone shed some light on this? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a spam link. The first link randomly fails to actually go to the alcoholism article and displayes a page full of advertisements for bible software instead.  Nice spotting.  How do we report such things?  Oh, I fixed the alcohol toxemia to link to Effects of alcohol on the body, which is redirected from Alcohol poisoning.  Robert Rapplean 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's worse than that. It isn't even a mirror.  I made a change and accessed their site, and it immediately had the change in its version.  They're directly querying Wikipedia and re-presenting the information as their own.  That's really underhanded. Robert Rapplean 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it seemed really strange; I'll ask someone to take a look. Thanks for fixing the link, I got distracted and forgot :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent a message to the dev team, and they blocked the offending IP address. Brion sends his thanks for catching this. Robert Rapplean 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quick work! And I did something useful! :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Our assertion about early onset of drinking
Our generalization in the second paragraph that "Those with alcoholism tend to start drinking alcohol at an earlier age than those without alcoholism" may have only limited applicability. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) says that early onset of drinking is later associated with certain alcohol-related problems in "some Western countries"

The NIAAA also notes that "It is not clear whether starting to drink at an early age actually causes alcoholism or whether it simply indicates an existing vulnerability to alcohol use disorders (26). For example, both early drinking and alcoholism have been linked to personality characteristics such as strong tendencies to act impulsively and to seek out new experiences and sensations (27). Some evidence indicates that genetic factors may contribute to the relationship between early drinking and subsequent alcoholism (28,29)." (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Alcohol Alert, #59, April, 2003.)

Unless we research the applicability of the statement globally and also address the highly controversial issue of causality, I think we should delete the assertion.Medical Man 02:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC) — Medical Man (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Medical Man makes a good point, and I agree with him since the statement is very easily misinterpreted. Here's the issue as I see it - there has been some early research demonstrating that those who have alcoholism started drinking at an earlier age, in general, than those who don't. Some people interpret that as meaning that if you take a given individual and don't allow that individual to start drinking until age 21, you have reduced that individual's chances of being alcoholic. There is no evidence that this is the explanation to the research finding. There are nearly half a dozen other possible explanations of the research finding, but at the moment I concur that unless we want to go into a detailed discussion of this, we should simply exclude the material. Drgitlow 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll second-second this decision. We'd have to get into a discussion about causal and casual relationships for people to understand this.  Also, the fact that there's no evidence to support the idea of alcohol at an early age resulting in alcoholism states pretty clearly that there's no evidence to suggest that including this statement would benefit the reader. Robert Rapplean 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy Snifters, Batman!
It's been a while since I dropped by this article, and I must say, this has been some damn fine work. Discussion, concensus building, rewording... you guys have been brilliant in fixing this thing up. Ronabop 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I heartily agree. This is great. —Centrx→talk &bull; 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Gabbard
"This is generally accomplished in a majority of patients entering treatment through a combination of supportive therapy, attendance at self-help groups, and ongoing development of coping mechanisms. The treatment community for alcoholism therefore supports an abstinence-based approach, unlike the harm-reduction approach that is supported for opioid dependence."

The above doesn't make sense... how does the "therefore" get put in there? (I added "usually therefore", to bridge HR treatment and abs treatment (most folks in HR hope it's a bridge for the worst cases) but it's still somewhat nonsensical).. "entering treatment through a combination of supportive therapy, attendance at self-help groups, and ongoing development of coping mechanisms"... That says nothing about abstinence, unless the reader is supposed to *infer* that therapy requires abstinence (nope), self-help groups require abstinence (nope), or development of coping mechanisms require abstinence (no, but it sure *helps*).

Does Gabbard go into better detail on the theory that treatment = abstinence, or does he start from a theory that all non-abstinence treatment is not to be counted as treatment? I'm even wondering if he's working with since-discredited models that it is reasonable, healthy, or even *possible* to have a 100% ethanol free diet. (There's a sticky line here.. most fruit juice contains ethanol, but it is not intentional ethanol use, or abuse(?), to drink orange juice. OTOH, chugging mouthwash is not the same thing at all). Ronabop 05:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the paragraph to address your quite appropriate criticism. I think this does the trick, but if not, we can wordsmith further here in the discussion area, then repost to the article afterward. I'm curious about your statement regarding fruit juice and ethanol content. I don't believe there is any ethanol in fruit juice - in fact, disulfiram (Antabuse) can be administered to patients when dissolved in fruit juice. Were there any ethanol in fruit juice, that would be a recipe for an immediate reaction. Drgitlow 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of concentration levels.  and  are some starting points. The quick talk-page summary is that it's just about impossible to eat a healthy diet without consuming *some* alcohol on a regular basis, but if the ppm is low enough, it's diluted to trace amounts. Some background on raising the issue: I work in a field where "five nines" is a normal term for the field (that's 99.999%), and "nine nines" (99.999999999%, or .000000001%) is considered an optimal target. Contrast this with some interesting(?) brochures I once saw at an AA meeting, which recommended against eating homemade Ice Cream(!), because vanilla extract often contained alcohol, and people were worried that it might lead to relapse. *sigh*. I could write a really big essay here on how people in early stages of recovery tend to think in absolute terms (I will consume lots of alcohol, or I will not consume *any* alcohol), but to summarize the screed/rant/essay, Antabuse can be taken with alcohol, as long as the amount of alcohol is fairly minor, because there is no such thing as a 100% free alcohol diet, if a person consumes anything capable of fermentation. Like bread. Or fruit. Ronabop 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in support of what Ronabop says, I understand that alcohol is also produced naturally as part of our digestive system, although in small amounts. A sugar is six carbons long. As part of the krebs cycle it gets cracked in half, and then another carbon gets pulled off. That's how yeast and higher creatures create metabolic energy. The result is alcohol. As higher level lifeforms we can then crack the alcohol in half generating just a tad bit more energy, so generally the alcohol doesn't hang around too terribly long. It's an over-abundance of alcohol in our system that triggers alcoholism, not its actual consumption. Robert Rapplean 05:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology in epidemiology section
I changed the wording at the very start of the section from Substance Abuse Disorders to Substance Use Disorders, the currently preferred term. The reason the term was changed is that Substance Abuse Disorders refers to the entities such as Alcohol Abuse, Opioid Abuse, etc., but not necessarily to the dependencies/addictions such as Alcoholism. Substance Use Disorders includes all the conditions related to pathologic use of substances. This terminology change is taking place gradually, and you'll see many references out there to "substance abuse disorders." However, that term is no longer in favor due to the confusion it causes.Drgitlow 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. My experience with the usage of "substance abuse" definitely makes me want to avoid the term abuse entirely, except to define it and explain why the article avoids it (which I think is valid). Robert Rapplean 05:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with both; the term "abuse" should be avoided except to explain why it's not currently used. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wheeeeee, I went on an anti-abuse rampage. I also removed the bit about early drinking at the beginning.  I hope you like the new wording. Robert Rapplean 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarificiation on recent edits
Ashmoo asked for citations on two statements. The first one was for the idea that many studies have been done demonstrating naltrexone to be of questionable value in supporting abstinance. Since the statement says "many" I assume he wants more than one. How many would you like? Here's a quick list:


 * Renault, P. F. (1978) Treatment of heroin-dependent persons with antagonists: Current status. Bulletin on Narcotics 30: 21-29 ¶ Renault, P. F. (1980) Treatment of heroin dependent persons with antagonists: Current status. In: Naltrexone: Research Monograph 28, Willett, R. E., and Barnett, G., (eds.), Washington, DC: National Institute of Drug Abuse, 11 22.


 * O'Malley, S.S., Jaffe, A.J., Rode, S., and Rounsaville, B.J. (1996) Experience of a “slip'' among alcoholics treated with Naltrexone or placebo. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(2): 281-283.


 * Maxwell, S., and Shinderman, M. S. (1997) Naltrexone in the treatment of dually-diagnosed patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases 16: A27, 125, 1997 ¶ Maxwell, S., and Shinderman M. S. (2000) Use of Naltrexone in the treatment of alcohol use disorders in patients with concomitant severe mental illness. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 19:61-69.


 * Oslin, D., Liberto, J., O’Brien, C.P., Krois, S., and Norbeck J. (1997) Naltrexone as an adjunct treatment for older patients with alcohol dependence. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 5: 324-332.


 * Kranzler, H. R., Tennen, H., Penta, C., and Bohn, M. J. (1997). Targeted Naltrexone treatment of early problem drinkers. Addictive Behaviors 22: 431-436. ¶ Kranzler, H. R., Tennen, H., Blomqvist et al.. (2001) Targeted naltrexone treatment for early problem drinkers. Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research 25 (Suppl. 5) 144A.


 * Balldin, J., Berglund, M., Borg, S., Månsson, M., Berndtsen, P., Franck, J., Gustafsson, L., Halldin, J., Hollstedt, C., Nilsson, L-H., and Stolt, G. (1997) A randomized 6 month double-blind placebo-controlled study of Naltrexone and coping skills education programme.  Alcohol and Alcoholism 32: 325; ¶ Månsson, M., Balldin, J., Berglund, M., and Borg, S. (1999) Six-month follow-up of interaction effect between Naltrexone and coping skills therapy in outpatient alcoholism treatment. Alcohol and Alcoholism 34:  454; ¶ Månsson, M., Balldin, J., Berglund, M., and Borg, S. (1999) Interaction effect between Naltrexone and coping skills.  Treatment and follow-up data. Abstract to “Evidence Based Medicine of Naltrexone in Alcoholism”, satellite symposium to the 7th Congress of the European Society for Biomedical Research on Alcoholism. Barcelona, Spain, June 16-19, 1999.

I could probably provide about a dozen more. How many do you feel is sufficient?

Also, he requested citation for "For those who don't understand the mechanism involved, these results have been assumed to reflect the effectiveness of the two treatments in combination.". I'm not sure what he's asking for on this. Maybe a physician's opinion survey performed by someone like Reuters? This information was gathered in an unofficial manner, having discussed the issue with a couple dozen or so medical professionals regarding their and their professional associate's thoughts on the matter. Do you feel that this needs rephrasing? Does someone have better information on this?

I also noticed that he had a problem with "This logic is faulty because it assumes that the two treatments are merely complementary, like two people pushing a car, as opposed to sequential, like turning a doorknob and then pulling on it.", stating that it is "POV demagogic unsourced comment". You're big on making sure that nobody uses words in an original manner, aren't you? I'll accept that the statement may be "leading", the same way that a description of addition leads people to believe that things can be summed. I don't believe, however, that it in any way takes advantage of people's prejudices, fears, or suspicions. Please support this statement and/or provide a better way to describe this phenomena to the reader. Robert Rapplean 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking for more information on Allele testing
Twintone, do you have any more information on the testing that you mentioned in the "testing" section? "A1" sounds a bit vague. I'd like to put something in that describes what evidence exists that this allele is linked with alcoholism and addiction, and more specifically what KINDS of addiction. For instance, does this apply to tobacco addiction as well as narcotics and alcohol? Please cite references if you can. Thanks. Robert Rapplean 17:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Robert, I'll look up some more stuff when I can. I heard Dr. Drew talk about this on his Discovery Health show and then it took me awhile to find it online.  What he said, however, was that tobacco addiction is different so it won't test for that.  This test will only help doctor's forsee risks for patients that might get hooked on alcohol or opiates.  The A1 does sound vague and not having a medical degree I'm not exactly sure what that means except it's the type of allele linked with that genetic coding.  The test is fairly new, and I don't know if it's even officially out on the market so hopefully there will be more information available about it soon!--Twintone 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In answering part of my own question (and just to get this information somewhere where it can be organized into a coherent statement, this piece of information refers to the TaqI polymporphism (A1 vs. A2) of the dopamine receptor gene D(2), abbreviated "DRD2 TaqI A1". The word allele is fancy genetics talk for "option".  Those with the A1 allele of this polymorphism show a mild but significant tendency towards addiction to opiates and alcohol versus those with the A2 allele of this polymorphism. ( http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/41/5/479 )  It appears that this allele plays no part in nicotine addiction ( http://international.drugabuse.gov/downloads/SmokingCessation.pdf )  This is all very interesting, and I think it should be moved higher in the "identification and diagnosis" section once the details have been fleshed out. Robert Rapplean 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rephrasing
I find this sentence a bit strange: "the majority of the population can drink alcoholic beverages with no danger of suffering from it". How about replacing it with "for most people, moderate alcohol consumption poses little danger of addiction"? grendelsmother 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this. It's a good simplification without losing the original intent. Robert Rapplean 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph
well, glancing over this talk page it looks like you've been beating the shit out of the lead in to this article, so sorry my 2 cents might feel more taxing. anyways, the 2nd paragraph:


 * The biological mechanism of alcoholism is unknown.
 * this really really needs further explaination. one of those 'wtf' moments there. especially when you just spent the first paragraph explaining how fucked up it can make you (to put it in kind vernacular prose).


 * While alcohol use is required to trigger alcoholism, the majority of the population can drink alcoholic beverages with no danger of suffering from it.
 * again, the lead in paragraph reviled alcholism's effects; it seems like the article just made an aboutface.


 * These factors may include a person's social environment, emotional health and genetic predisposition.
 * genetic predisposition sounds a lot like a biological mechanism, previously stated as 'unknown'.

something else i've noticed on briefly skimming more; i see Disease Theory of Alcoholism over there, which is a feels like a POV Fork to me. no reason why it couldn't get a paragraph or two and then nix the old crappy 'pro/con' article sitting over at Disease Theory of Alcoholism right now. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 08:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Joe. Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address them as fully as possible, and make adjustments where needed.

Regarding the first two points, alcoholism isn't the consumption of alcohol, it's the inability to stop drinking alcohol in the face of obvious problems. The biological, mental, and social problems caused by the uncontrolled consumption of alcohol are pretty well understood, but the medical community can't agree on a reason why an alcoholic can't just put the bottle down and leave it there. The uncontrolled alcohol consumption is caused by alcoholism, not the other way around. Maybe this needs to be more strongly described in the opening paragraphs.
 * Here is where I get confused again: 'The biological mechanism of alcoholism is unknown'. I'm still not sure what this is poking at. You just said it was pretty well understood. I thought originally it was about genetic predisposition (talked about below), but there is a sentence later on about that.
 * My statment was that the problems that drinking alcohol causes are understood. Drinking alcohol isn't alcoholism, it's the most notable symptom of alcoholism.  Alcoholism is an unreasonably strong desire to drink.  In the archetypical alcoholic, that desire to drink precludes employment and relationships with others.  Even for those who do manage to push alcohol away, the desire to drink continues to wear on them, requiring ongoing efforts at self-control.  Even though they no longer drink they still suffer from alcoholism.  Although various theories exist for this compulsion, no single theory has a strong enough backing or experimental evidence necessary to be considered authoritative.  Does that explain it?
 * One of several other factors must exist for alcohol use to develop into alcoholism. So should we say then that alcohol is both a symptom and a catalyst? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a catalyst - catalysts don't get used up in the reaction. More of a trigger.  The consumption of alcohol is the symptom, and the urge to consume alcohol is the actual condition.  I think that you have the idea now.


 * On further thought, I think that part of the problem with describing alcoholism is that the word is used to describe two completely separate conditions. The first is the alcohol-triggered endorphine addiction, and the second is the psychological perception that drinking alcohol is more important than earning a living, raising your kids, getting an education, or any of the dozens of other things that a responsible individual does with their lives.  These two are both referred to as alcoholism, and a lot of people keep insisting that it has to be one or the other.  Food for thought, but something that'll get slapped with an "original research" if we actually try to mention it in the article.  Maybe it's something that belongs at the top of the discussion page. Robert Rapplean 19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it a shot - be bold. I don't think POV soldiers have reached the level of hegemony quite yet. ;) JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 00:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The genetic predisposition is a stickier matter. There exists a single known test for dopamine receptor genetic predisposition, that only has a small influence on predisposition. While there's a lot of evidence that there's a strong correspondance between either endorphin production or reception and alcoholism, nobody has yet developed a test for that, so it remains unproven. Even if there were, there are numerous people who suffer from an intellectual misperception of alcohol's value in their lives, and overdrink because they feel it's providing them with benefit that it's really not. College kids are common sufferes of this, and it is also referred to as alcoholism. The first kind of alcoholic (physically addicted) continues to drink when they leave the encouraging environment, whereas the second kind (psychologically addicted) doesn't. This creates an immense bias against the first type because the second type just assumes that they're weak-willed pantywastes.
 * Backing off from the brain-science, how about epidemiology? The college student stuff sounds about right (i just graduated college), but in terms of 'genetic predisposition' - a child of an alcoholic parent is many times more likely to become an alcoholic themself, right? This may/may not be hard coded into DNA (maybe this is what you meant by 'biological mechanism is unknown'), but incidence nevertheless skyrockets for kids with besotting parents.

The disease theory was moved to its own topic for two reasons. The primary reason was because it was taking over the article. Roughly two thirds of the article at one time was dedicated to point and counterpoint on the disease issue. The second reason is because it's an extremely minor point of nomenclature that's really only important to politicans and the medical facilities administrators that want the politicians to fund them. Since nobody can agree on the physical basis for alcoholism, neither side has any hard evidence to present, making the entire argument POV by nature. It breaks down into a "he said, she said, Dr. X said" argument where each side has no shortage of experts and none of it is really meaningful to those who actually want to understand the problem.

I guess what the issue of the Disease Theory comes down to is that its existence in this article is too tempting to POV hacks. While it seems sensible that there's "no reason why it couldn't get a paragraph or two", the history of this article demonstrates that people just won't leave off at a paragraph or two, or five or ten. Its inclusion tends to denigrate the quality of the article to the point of unreadability.
 * Man, I know how you feel. I started wikipedia with and still regularly look after AIDS. A similar POV fork exists in AIDS reappraisal. Stuff like that can get messy, and it's hard to deal with effectively.

Again, thanks for chiming in. I feel that your questions identify areas that probably require more thorough explanations in a lot of places. Part of the problem with this article is that very little professional work has been done to cross-examine the various opinions of how alcoholism works. Any time I put two words next to each other in a way that hasn't already been done in a proper double blind placebo controlled peer reviewed study, somebody slaps "pov", "original research", or "cite needed" on it, so properly describing even the patently obvious aspects of alcoholism can be an uphill battle.

Thanks again. Robert Rapplean 15:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, i know what you mean. I'll try to comb over it more over the next few days. I've reworked the leadin a bit; tell me what you think. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Point that needs work
This statement was placed under the Diagnosis section. It makes a valid point, although the grammar and sentence structure needs some help. I'm placing it here for consideration of where it belongs in the article and how to state it within the context of the section it gets put in. Robert Rapplean 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is signifitant to contemplate that an alcoholic can only truly classify themselves as such. whether abstinent or practicing, any addmission, either external or internal (if honest) is a significant proof that one is alcoiholic (or addictive)

Addiction
Does this mean I can't be addicted to coffee? I don't think that it has ever been demonstrated as harmful to me (or maybe thats just the addiction talking). I can see that a whole lot of this article is about walking on a sword's edge in terms of articulation! ;) JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can be as addicted to coffee as you want to, I won't stop you *grin*. Caffiene increases incidence of heart and colon problems, depletes B vitimins, and causes sleeping problems.  Anything can be done in excess, even water, and excess is pretty much defined by the point at which it causes problems.  I've even gone so far as to say that you can be addicted to cheese and potatoe chips because they can cause cholesterol problems, and yet people continue to consume them to great excess.


 * The real problem here is that people assume an addiction has to be to something illegal, or that something has to be immediately life threatening to be harmful. But, as stated at the very beginning, the precise definition is heavily debated. Robert Rapplean 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, cause I like my coffee. ;) Thanks for clearing that up. And thanks for second-overing some of my copy editing. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

images
i found these two images over in the wikimedia commons :



...and this article could use a little imagery. the top was given from a german contributor, and the bottom from an icelandic (here is a site for its explaination, hope someone speaks the language ). either way, i hate to see an article go without images but i also don't know the context of these two pictures too well as they are in a foriegn tounge. anyone game to try and incorporate one or both? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 20:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly that the article needs images. Where would you put these and to illustrate what?--Twintone 21:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There in lies the problem; a simple sentence about the era these images are from in the description of the thumb would do, but both sources are in languages other than english. Anyone know someone who speaks German or Icelandic? Actually, thats a dumb question, i'll look around the Babel categories, unless someone beats me to it. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 22:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going out for the night, but in case anyone wants to beat me to it before tomorrow, here ya go ! :) JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Look what I foooooound: . JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 18:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I tracked down the original and recropped it to get a bigger picture out of it. I've added it to the article. Here it is:

JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 18:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I like where you put that one, it makes a good opening. I think someone took offense to the images that were in here a while ago, because there used to be many more. I'd really like to see more informational images (like statistical charts or whatnot) because most of the "alcoholism" images tend to be ominous pro-prohibition woodcuts and whatnot, and too much of that can be very offputting to readers. I'll keep an eye out. Robert Rapplean 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tah-rue. Some info graphs on statistics would be excellent. I'll see what I can do too. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

sinclair method/Pharmacological extinction
i'm not sure if this section of the Sinclair Method/Pharmacological extinction is supposed to be a critism aspect or anything, but right now its just a study abstract. the references these studies are connected to might be laced into other places as cites, but i don't think they should be getting 2/3rds of the section - especially as the first is heavily docked for being illogical. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 16:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The last section can be summed up as "check out the actual studies for proof". It's really too technical for this article, so should be summarized or deleted.  I believe it was put in there by a psychiatrist who was editing this article earlier, and was trying to adjust it to appeal better to medical professionals.


 * The middle paragraph is necessary because it describes the ongoing mental conflict that causes people to disregard a treatment option of unprecedented effectiveness. I'd appreciate an explanation of why you consider it illogical, because it scans pretty logically to me. Robert Rapplean 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be for deleting both unless the middle got a re-write. I called it 'illogical' as the final sentence says This logic isn't applicable because... which pretty much dashes some of the afore mentioned studies to the rocks. At least I think what thats refering too (which you might interpret as what X readers are thinking). Also the phrase For those who don't understand the mechanism involved immediately sets up a position of writer vs. reader, which feels, uh, condescending (i'm here to understand the mechanism involved). It is definitely not encyclopedic style writting.

The first paragraph to this section is great and clear, the 2nd and 3rd are foggy. There should be like one paragraph summarizing studies out there, it doesn't have to get too nitty gritty; thats what the sinclair article fork is for. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This being the case, could I enlist your help in rewriting? Let me see if I can clarify what I'm trying to describe.  Pharmacological extinction is a little like a [Glossary_of_wildland_fire_terms|backfire].  Setting fire to trees is known to make them burn.  I don't need a study to prove that.  Blowing air at large fires makes them burn faster.  Again, easily provable.  Each of these by themselves would only make a wildfire spread more quickly, and again, that's readily demonstrable.  However, if you find a place where the wind is burning towards the fire and set fire at that place, the backfire will burn towards the main fire and consume all of the fuel in its path.  This doesn't contradict our two starting facts, it just invalidates the idea that you can't combine the two in order to fight fire.  Could you help me explain this? Robert Rapplean 22:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I steer from the complex metaphor just a bit. Here is how i re-wrote it, tell me how you feel:


 * maybe throw that Finnish study ref in there as a nail on the coffin (as an inline cite, the last sentence will do as a summary)? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with this, with the exception of others "feeling" that they are effective. Pharmacological extinction makes some pretty bold claims, and I've given it a monumental level of scrutiny, even going so far as to talk on the phone with all of the researchers involved, calling a good dozen treatment agencies, and have a chat with the head of the research department at the NIAAA. The comments about it tend to fall into one of three categories. (a) it's obviously proven to work, (b) studies show naltrexone is a waste of money and letting an alcoholic drink is like trying to put a fire out with gasoline, or (c) I haven't looked at it before, but it sure seems to make sense. I've examined studies out the wazoo (I'll give you a list if you like), and everything done on opiate antagonists and alcoholism either supports it or completely fails to address it. The only room for feeling here is those who don't feel that it's worth their time to look into, which unfortunately is damn near everyone. I think we'd be doing our readers a disservice by making such a weak statment about it. Robert Rapplean 22:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that last sentence still kinda bothers me too. The important thing to remember here is no original research (although it sounds like you've taken the time to be extremely erudite on the subject), and to be NPOV. I think you can explain the con side's shortcomings without making it unbalanced. Take a cut at that last sentence (try removing the metaphor, although good) and try to articulate the point in another way perhaps. UPDATE: Whoop, looks like you're doing that right now. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 22:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps saying people presume that the effects are 'additive', where adding together two failure still means failure. However research shows the effects tend to be 'synergetic'; where each fails alone both can succeed together. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. Attempting to moderate alcohol use actually enhances the addiction by increasing the endorphin conditioning, although more slowly than for excessive drinking. Similarly, naltrexone all by itself has no notable effect on the actual addiction if you don't drink. It slightly decreases the urge to drink while you're taking it, but there's a rebound effect when you stop taking it and the sum total results in effects slightly worse than if you don't take it at all. Synergy suggests that the two effects are minor on their own, but significant when used together, and that isn't the case. The two are actually negative when used alone.
 * I have to disagree with you there, . 'Synergy' the word doesn't mean the two effects alone are minor, just that when the two combine the effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.

Ok, strike "minor" insert "lesser". Nonetheless, in synergy the effect is only changed in magnitude, not in direction. That is where the difference lies. Robert Rapplean 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The door example helps describe this. You turn the knob and pull on it, the door opens towards you. But let's say that the door is hinged to swing both ways, and there's a wind at your back. If you turn the knob without pulling on it under those conditions, the door will open away from you instead of toward you. Similarly if you pull on it without turning the knob you wedge the pin against the side of its hole, making it harder to turn the knob and open the door. Individually, the two efforts have a negative effect on the goal of getting the door to open towards you, but taken sequentially they work with little effort. 198.152.13.67 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * the metaphor is fine and good, but doesn't sound encyclopedic and gets kinda like 'wait, what was he talking about again?' towards the end. personally it looses me. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you there, but I'm still at a loss for how to describe it in the article in a way that doesn't violate some principle, and yet actually describes it accurately. Robert Rapplean 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Blossoming list of detox drugs
This is largely addressed to Dr. Gitlow because of his contributions of information regarding barbituates' value in the detox process. It's also addressed to PointlessForest, whose addition looks an aweful lot like an advertisement. Because of criticism from the recent peer review we are currently attempting to decrease the total length of the article. Creating lists of specific drugs and going into detail about their prevalance and comparative benefits is not condusive to this goal, and is kind of tangential to the general topic. Unless you're looking for a primer on how to drug someone who is going through detox, it's not very useful. I'd like to find a way of summarizing that entire section. Robert Rapplean 19:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I read through this section, and I'm somewhat on the fence. There is some good info there, but from a layman's point of view I'm not sure that all the specific references add much to the article itself. Perhaps a general summary, rather than detailing the individual drugs in such depth? As Robert points out, some of them sound rather like advertising blurbs. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no question that it's all too easy for an encyclopedia article about a subject to expand, especially when the topic is covered by textbooks, each hundreds of pages long. When I've made entries, I've tried to incorporate answers to questions that patients most frequently ask. Patients often ask about detox...is it safe or dangerous to do on one's own...is it painful or painless...what process is followed...and so on. There are quite a number of protocols out there, but they can be boiled down to two drug classes (barbiturates and benzodiazepines) and two intervention methods (drug challenge followed by taper; CIWA, which is a screen for withdrawal symptoms that will be repeatedly processed with the patient). Treatment is comfortable when correctly carried out and takes a few days. It is not safe to do this alone, though it is safe in an outpatient setting with proper oversight. Obviously, this brief explanation might lead to other questions: what do I mean by drug challenge, for instance, or what are the differences encountered between barbs and benzos. This is where the line might be drawn regarding the scope of the article. Drgitlow 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the technical nature of the subject, a certain level of precision is required, and this further implies a certan level of necessary detail. Something that might help keep the article clean would be to write the entry as sparely as possible, while liberally linking to the important related concepts. For example, drug challenge might be an important concept, but explaining it within the article itself is sub-optimum. However, a very reasonable stub article for drug challenge could be created; it need be no more than 2 or 3 paragraphs to start. If Dr. G, or anyone else, would enter a block of relevant text, I would be happy to wikify it and add appropriate links. We could do the same for Treatment diffs of barbs and benzos, or any other important facts/concepts. This would not only streeamline the article, it would improve coverage in the med/sci articles and provide room for future expansion. I'll do the grunt-work if someone will give me the raw material to start with. Just let me know. Doc   Tropics  23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doc Tropics on this. DrGitlow's statements within his paragraph are adequate to summarize everything that people need to know on this subject. We can move the specifics to their own articles. This is central to the wiki medium. I think, though, that we need to make a firm statement about which drugs we want to list. I think we can limit it to just naming the general classes of the drugs benzoidazepine and barbituate without going into specific drug names. These should be sufficient for the reader to get an understanding of the process if linked to the appropriate pages. We have to draw a line somewhere, and that seems like a logical spot. How does that sound? Robert Rapplean 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds reasonable to me, but as always, I would defer to the consensus of our local experts : ) Doc  Tropics  18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Forms of Alcoholism Debate
I've split this discussion into two parts. One to discuss different definitions of alcoholism, and one to assess their relevance and validity. --Elplatt 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Elplatt is correct that various forms of literature have various definitions for alcoholism. The same can be said for many things. Sociologists might approach an issue from one perspective, while politicians would use another approach, and engineers a third. That doesn't mean that any one approach is wrong, but as I've said before in these pages, if I want an opinion rendered on the condition of my home's roof, I don't really give a darn what the attorney next door thinks. I want an expert roofer's opinion. Here, we're talking about a medical condition, and what readers want is the current medical consensus (though it would be appropriate to refer to and cite relevant disagreements). The current medical consensus was published in 1992 (JAMA 8/26/92): "Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial. Each of these symptoms may be continuous or periodic." There's nothing in any medical definition that distinguishes between or among psychological, neurochemical, and/or physical addiction, though Robert's point here is an important one that each of these areas represent a contributing factor to the development of the disease. Alcoholism is called alcohol dependence within DSM-IV - same disease, and the psychiatrists have a somewhat different mechanism for diagnosis based upon a set of criteria that is consistent with psychiatric diagnostic routine. Alcohol abuse is another illness in the psychiatric literature, but is generally viewed as being a mild form of the same thing, just as one can have mild hypertension or severe hypertension. "Problem drinking" is something else entirely, and is actually under current discussion within the medical community - it's not a medical term but is used frequently within the political community to a great extent. I'm hard-pressed to tell you how to differentiate problem drinking from alcoholism. But I don't know that everyone using the term is trying to refer to people who require medical attention to address an illness.

By the way, alcohol dependence as defined in DSM-IV has little or nothing to do with drinking to relieve withdrawal symptoms though such individuals will often do so by drinking in the morning to get rid of their alcohol withdrawal tremors from their use the night before. Drgitlow 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, we go back to the JAMA definition of alcoholism. It suffers from the primary problem that it doesn't differentiate between psychological and neurochemical addiction.  Although it's common to find the two together, each can exist independently of each other, and it effects the kind of treatment which is effective.  Those who are psychologically addicted to it will continue what they're doing until hit upside by reality hard enough.  No amount of chemical treatment is going to dissuade them, they just have to come (or be lead to) their own conclusions.  There are no shortage of the neurochemically addicted who are thorougly undeluded about how damaging alcohol is to their lives, and yet still can't resist drinking.  These people can be helped a little by those who can teach them that they can live a nearly normal life while avoiding alcohol like the plague, but after ten years of abstinance a single drink can still wind them up in a ditch a month later.


 * This would be the crux of the problem. Both of these conditions exist, and we need a definition that recognizes both of them.  JAMA doesn't, they take the standard line of "we know all, here's the one true answer".  They've pretty well demonstrated that taking that tactic does nothing to quell those who have evidence that the JAMA answer doesn't tell the whole story.  I want to tell the whole story in this article. Robert Rapplean 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert, if the JAMA article were one person's opinion, or if it failed to reflect consensus of the medical community, I'd agree with you. But the article wasn't written by one person. It was the result of several work groups coming together over many years, incorporating the National Council on Alcoholism's definition from 1972 and the medical specialty's definition that was prepared in 1976. It was, and remains, the primary definition for alcoholism, as agreed upon by all those in the medical community who have interest in the field. Naturally, there are those outside of the healthcare profession who have differing opinions and differing perspectives. Those opinions and perspectives have their place, just as they would in any article, but need to take a backseat to the primary definition as developed by those who have expertise in the field. There are also secondary definitions within the field of medicine, such as the one in DSM-IV. That material also needs to be covered within the article, and should probably be presented alongside the overall medical consensus material.

The medical community as a whole doesn't disagree with you regarding what you said about "No amount of chemical treatment...." Physicians don't generally use chemical treatment to treat alcoholism. While there are several drugs which have indications for use in alcoholism, they haven't been demonstrated to be of particular value and prescription rates remain quite low. I recognize that you have a perspective about alcoholism in which you've separated it into various forms of addiction. It's an interesting perspective, and to my mind reflects important points about alcoholism; your thoughts are probably going to be reflected within some of the discussion taking place at the American Society of Addiction Medicine's annual conference this May. But as yet your perspective isn't shared by the medical profession as being part of the alcoholism definition. While I recognize that you want to tell "the whole story" in the article, your whole story isn't the same as others', and I'm uncertain as to how that should be dealt with during the formulation of an article like this. Drgitlow 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So the medical community has this alcoholism thing all cured, do they? They know what causes it?  They have a high success rate for treatment?  When you can answer yes to these questions, then I will consider the medical community's opinion more significant than anyone else's.  Until then, please recognize that maybe there's a thing or two that they don't know or aren't admitting. Robert Rapplean 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert, your questions are important ones, but your argument isn't logical. Many illnesses can't be cured and have unknown etiologies and poor rates of treatment success. We can't cure juvenile diabetes, aren't exactly sure why some people get it and some don't, and treatment requires complex daily attention. Many forms of cancer are incurable, of uncertain origin, and can't be treated. Nevertheless, the medical community is going to be the appropriate source for expert information on those illnesses. I've never suggested that doctors have alcoholism licked, and while there is a strong indication that there are both environmental and genetic causes for alcoholism, the precise nature of those causes has yet to be elucidated. Treatment success by addiction specialists runs about 70-80%. Treatment success by non-physicians runs in the high 40's. There have been no head-to-head comparison studies, however, so those two figures may not be entirely comparable. But there remains much that physicians don't know.

If I want my car engine rebuilt, I will base my decision upon knowledge presented to me by a mechanic with expertise in rebuilding car engines, not upon someone without such expertise. If I want to read about how to rebuild a car engine, I'll read a book written by or under the guidance of a real mechanic. There may well be people who think that mechanics in general are out to sell their services to those who haven't a clue as to what their car really needs. And that may indeed happen from time to time. But it doesn't change the fact that actual expertise and information about engines has to come from people who know engines.

The article about Star Wars doesn't need to be written by George Lucas, and in fact it could be argued that it would be better if it weren't. The article about the Ford Mustang doesn't need to be written by someone at Ford because there are people with more overall knowledge about the car outside the manufacturer's doors. By the same token, the article on alcoholism doesn't need to be written by an alcoholic; rather, it needs to be written by someone who has broad knowledge of the condition.

In this case, we're talking about a medical condition, one which is directly associated with related illnesses and death. The group with the greatest understanding of medical conditions are physicians. In the US, we spend an enormous percentage of our tax dollars on medical training, and physicians spend a minimum of 11 years in training after high school just to get to the point where they can start their work. So you and I have bought that expertise. If you want to ignore it, you have that right, but I don't think it's appropriate to simply say that they're wrong. Drgitlow 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For starters, the mechanic analogy is inapplicable. Engines are something designed by humans, and the mechanics base their knowledge on documents created by those who designed the engines, but doctors don't get their knowledge from the entity that designed humans, assuming there even is one.  There's a joke where a mechanic is telling a surgeon how he's better at his job because he can make any engine run perfectly.  The surgeon tells the mechanic "Sure, but let's see you do that without turning the engine off to work on it."  It's apples and oranges, really.


 * The Star Wars and Mustang examples are invalid because I could readily use it to support my side. If you want the full perspective on something, it's important to get the perspective of those who deal with it outside of a professional environment.


 * Diabetes and cancer are things that medicine has a pretty good handle on. Diabetes is caused because the pancreas is behaving in a way that causes it to be targeted by our own immune system.  We can't cure it because we don't know how to make our immune system "unlearn" an enemy.  Cancer is caused by errors in cell division that "turn off" our mitochondria and result in the cells multiplying in an uncontrolled fashion.  It's looking like a treatment of dichloroacetate can turn the mitochondria back on, resulting in the self-destruction of cancer cells.  We agreed a long time ago that alcoholism is the inability for a person to not drink alcohol.  We're not certain why the person can't just not drink alcohol, and the answer lies within our sense of self, which is still described in terms of pixie dust and superstrings even by the experts in the field.


 * Similarly, your estimates of treatment success are in question. Almost every treatment facility measures their success based on the percentage of those who complete and continue the treatment.  This means that the majority of those for which the treatment doesn't work are removed from the original percentage.  This is kind of like a workshop claiming zero accidents because it retroactively fires people the moment an accident happens.  Additionally, most don't consider the long-term relapse rates.  Even for that, the treatments don't actually cure the root cause of the alcoholism - the desire to drink - it just teaches the person how to cope with it.  This is analogus to providing a person with pain killers instead of figuring out why they hurt.


 * Dr. Gitlow, can you honestly say that there are no people who continue to perceive positive value in drinking beyond the point where damage exceeds values for those with other perspectives, or even an objective perspective? This is an extremely common condition, but it's a condition that most people are capable of overcoming without treatment.  It's much more common than the clinical disease that you refer to, it's the only form of alcoholism that most people have any personal experience with, and it is what most people are thinking of to when they talk about alcoholism.


 * This is the alcoholism that makes people insist that it isn't a disease, and this is the alcoholism that Congress refuses to pay for the treatment of in VA hospitals. It is a real phenomena, and your insistance that the AMA doesn't recognize it won't make it go away. If we're going to illuminate the public about alcoholism it is necessary to hold the two up for comparison so people realize that the AMA's alcoholism isn't the same thing as Congress's alcoholism.


 * Wikipedia is a reference of human usage of words and terminology. Even dictionaries recognize when usage of a term is different from their definitions, and they change their definitions to match the usage.  The AMA didn't invent the term 'alcoholism' and they aren't the majority user of it.  While their definition is relevant, it isn't decisive except among AMA members.  The Wikipedia definition of alcohol has to take into account all of the usages, and possibly shed light on how connected these usages are with reality, but we can't just wholesale ignore the ones we don't agree with. Robert Rapplean 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked, "can you honestly say that there are no people who continue to perceive positive value in drinking beyond the point where damage exceeds values for those with other perspectives, or even an objective perspective?" In some respects, that's the disease. From a subjective vantage point, the alcoholic always perceives positive value in drinking alcohol even when the negative value is clearly greater from an objective perspective. If I were to light a match under my fingers, burning them, there is obvious negative value to the exercise. And if I continue to do so, despite increasingly severe injury to my hands, simply because I get subjective pleasure from the match lighting/burning, there's something wrong with me. That would be clear to any objective and unbiased observer even if not clear to me.

We could expand this argument, and perhaps we need to. In suicide, an individual feels that the positive benefit of killing himself outweighs the negative value of the action. An outside observer would say that individual needs treatment of some form and that the individual is suffering from a disease state. (If someone who is suicidal isn't having a sense of dis-ease, I'm not sure anyone could be defined as falling into such a category).

If you agree that suicidal intent and plan is a disease state, then you must agree that alcoholism is as well. In both cases, individuals harm themselves despite their best interest as determined by a neutral and unbiased third party. If you do not agree that suicidal intent and plan is a disease state, then we're obviously looking at this from very different perspectives or otherwise don't understand one another's terminology. Drgitlow 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Suicide is an extreme case, and happens to be on for which I have plenty of experience. I can definitely disagree that the mindset that results in it is necessarily a diseased state.  Having been there a couple times in my life, I can specifically look back and identify it as a misplacement of weightings between current circumstances and future possibilities.  Time and experience fixed the problem with no medical treatment.  This is a lapse in judgement, not a disease.  If you're going to call that a disease then it isn't much of a stretch to call voting for a bad candidate a disease.  Fearing terrorists is certainly a dis-ease, but it isn't a medical condition.  Chronic depression, on the other hand generally is a disease.  Specifically, it's usually a misadjustment of the brain chemicals which affect our mood.  Depression can result in suicide, but that doesn't make suicidal intent a disease.


 * Alcoholism is similar, but because one of alcohol's functions is to degrade a person's judgement faculties the lapse in judgement can sometimes last years. This is different from the opioid addiction that results in people who have a difficult or impossible time in kicking the habit even after they've realized the disasterous consequences that have befallen them.  Two different phenomena - one a lapse in judgement, one a disease - both with the same symptoms.


 * Is it possible that you think that all alcholism is just a lapse in judgement? That the neurological affinity for alcohol consumption doesn't exist? Robert Rapplean 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr. Gitlow, I second Robert's question, in your opinion how is alcoholism different from a lapse in judgement. --Elplatt 18:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert, you and I have differing definitions for "disease," so it may be that is the context within which our disagreement is based. Fearing terrorists, for instance, creates a dis-ease, and it becomes a medical condition if the fear is great enough that functional impairment results. Look at people with PTSD, a disease that impacts many as a result of an experienced traumatic event. The same event might be experienced by others who have no disease and no symptoms as a result. There may be no biochemical difference at all. It might simply be that some people have it and some don't, for whatever reason. That lack of knowledge doesn't prevent us from saying that some have a disease and some don't.

I do not think that alcoholism represents a lapse in judgment. I've never said that. The choice that the alcoholic has is whether to obtain treatment or not. (Treatment, in this case, meaning any form of help outside oneself). Lapses in judgment: going through a red light at 2am because you guess that there won't be anyone else in the intersection at the same time. You will eventually get hurt, after which you probably won't do it again. Shoplifting as a teenager. That's something many teens do, until they get caught, after which, for the most part, they don't do it again. Lapses in judgment happen once, or happen until something bad results, after which there are typically no further equivalent lapses. That's part of maturation, part of wisdom, and explains why as we get older we get more conservative. In high school or college, many adolescents get drunk and have a bad experience which follows, after which they don't bother doing that again. About 10% of the population gets drunk, has a bad experience, and yet returns to repeat the experience. That's not a lapse of judgment, but rather represents a failure to learn something that is obvious to 90% of the population on experiencing the same thing. It represents a failure to interpret the collection of inputs that the brain is receiving in a "normal" manner, where normal is defined by that which allows the organism to have an increased lifespan. This has nothing to do with a lapse of judgment. There's something broken in the brain of people with this illness, just as there is in Major Depression, PTSD, Schizophrenia. They're all brain-based diseases that result at least in part from genetic underpinnings. It's too bad folks don't have a choice in the matter. I assure you that 100% of my patients, given the choice, would all choose not to have it. Drgitlow 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so given that we have varying definitions of the word disease. I think that voting yourself into decades of debt and a murderous and pointless war is a pretty serious impairment, but that's just me.  We can revisit that one later, as I consider it dangerous to believe that coming to a different (if illogical) conclusion should be considered a treatable illness.


 * I think that you have an effective basis for what I'm trying to explain. You state that, for 10% of the population, that the normal clues provided by problem drinking are inadequate for them to realize how alcoholism is harming them.  I find myself unable to dig out my reference for the 17% number that I've been using, so we'll go with your 10%.  We both agree that these are diseased people, who are generally in need of some kind of outside intervention to correct their behavior.


 * Regarding the other 90%, it isn't as cut and dry as you describe. Some of them have a single traumatic experience that causes them to realize how problematic alcoholism can be.  Sometimes that experience is so traumatic that it causes everyone around them to be more careful about their drinking.  More often, though, the information feeds in over years.  Little things that just mount up.  They may convince themselves "yes, it was a problem then, but I learned from it and it won't happen next time".  People underestimate their inability to monitor their own drinking all the time.  Sometimes observers perceive the problems caused as more significant than the one who actually experienced them.  Sometimes the drinker perceives benefits (like social accumen) from drinking that far exceed the true benefits.  Sometimes the observers feel that their personal distain should be enough to discourage drinking, and are driven to name calling in their frustration.  This isn't a chemical imbalance in the mind of the drinker so much as a failure of effective information gathering, a (possibly reasonable) belief in ability to deal with things, or even just a difference of opinion.


 * Nonetheless, these things are all referred to as alcoholism, and have been referred to as alcoholism for centuries. You, the AMA, and I could probably agree that it isn't the true disease of alcoholism, but is instead an uninformed public applying the label to a more common and less dangerous behavior.  Our agreement won't change the way the word is used, and won't prevent people from deciding that others are drinking irresponsibly, even in the absence of the psychological disorder.


 * The unfortunate reality is that this non-medical definition is the majority usage of the word alcoholism. It's a real phenomena and they have to call it something.  They're not likely to give up the term alcoholism, and as of the authoring of this article they certainly haven't yet.


 * Can you see the difference? Robert Rapplean 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Millions of people have been taught that Pluto is a planet. Astronomers recently decided that Pluto isn't a planet. Rather it is a dwarf planet. Who's right? The millions of people who think Pluto is a planet? Or the much smaller group of experts in the field who have redefined the term? The correct answer, in my mind, is that the latter group is correct and that the literature will gradually be updated in support of their definition.

You're absolutely right that most people think of alcoholism in a way that is variably different from how the experts in the field define the term. Nevertheless, the correct definition is that which is most up to date and which is supported by the consensus of physicians who treat the illness and clinical researchers who evaluate the illness. It may well be our role to indicate that the definition has changed over the centuries, or to indicate that many remain uninformed as to the current scientific perspective on the illness, but there is a current and correct definition as established by experts in the field.

Even HBO for their upcoming Addiction special, has said in their promotional material: --- Countless television shows, both fictional and real, have captured the seemingly hopeless downward spiral of the drug addict or alcoholic. But, they have failed to explain to the public:

What addiction really is (a brain disease); What causes it (a variety of genetic and psychosocial factors); and How to get the best available treatment (by seeking out evidence-based medical and behavioral treatments).

---

They're right. The public, as a group, is uneducated regarding this illness. That's why "majority rules" aren't used to determine scientific accuracy or encyclopedic perspective. Most people think the Earth is spherical, but that's not the reason we include that in the Earth's description in its Wiki entry. Drgitlow 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems everyone agrees to some extent that the medical description of alcoholism should go into the article. I personally agree that it should be a primary focus.  However, the one disagreement we seem to have is whether the other descriptions of alcoholism are relevant to the article.  I really hope I can convince you that they are, because I think we could greatly improve the article.


 * This is as clear an argument as I can make, so please give it some thought:


 * Inspired by your Pluto analogy, consider if an astronomer discovered a new comet, named it Jupiter and then claimed "Jupiter is not a planet because it is a comet." That statement would be correct by their definition of Jupiter, but not by the definition everyone else was used to.  This is a better analogy for alcoholism.


 * The "alcoholism" that has been in our language for hundreds of years refers to a social state and a behavior. This continues to be the primary usage among most people.  However, doctors quite reasonably concluded that in many cases the behavior was really a symptom of a disease.  Unfortunately they decided to call that disease by the same name as the symptom (compare this to hepatitis, although named after the same symptom, hepatitis a and hepatitis b are completely distinct diseases, furthermore if I punched myself repeatedly in the abdomen I could develop a non-disease form of "hepatitis").


 * Alcoholism, using your def, is a disease influenced by heredity. However, anyone can decide to drink to the point of it being problematic, though that doesn't necessarily make them an alcoholic (again, by your def).  The behavior that most people call alcoholism can exist outside of the disease, although there is considerable overlap.


 * So, as I've said many times. To describe AMA alcoholism to the public, it is necessary to explain that it is not to be confused with colloquial alcoholism.  --Elplatt 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Elplatt is essentially correct. Let me provide a different analogy. The t-shirt is a well known part of our culture. Let's say some corporation came out with a line of garments in this category that they named "The T-Shirt". They could do their darndest to insist that everyone stop calling the rest of those garments t-shirts, but they probably wouldn't have much impact. A better analogy would probably be the astronomers trying to tell Roman mythology buffs that they can't use the name for the Roman god of the underworld any more.

Alcoholism is similar in that the AMA has taken a subset of those things that we call alcoholism and decided that this is the one and only true alcoholism, and everyone else is just plain wrong for calling the rest of it alcoholism. The rest of the world continues to turn at its own pace in complete ignorance of the AMA's decree. Those not in the medical profession really don't bother themselves with such details until it becomes a problem to them.

What those not in the medical profession do pay attention to is what others not in the medical profession call those who regularly fail to control their drinking. On those occasions when alcoholic is used beyond its purely derogatory sense, it is generally used to describe someone who the listener does not have a close association with. All they can see is the behavior, not its causes. From this perspective the AMA's alcoholism is completely undifferentiable from any other form of drinking that can cause problems.

So people with non "AMA alcoholism" drinking problems will get told that people with matching symptoms are alcoholics, or even told that they themselves are alcoholics. Since alcoholism really is what we call that kind of problem, then the person will reasonably be convinced that he has alcoholism. Most of them will react to this by deciding to cut down on their drinking. It isn't until this point that we are able to differentiate AMA alcoholics from "common" alcoholics. The common alcoholic will reduce their drinking sensibly, maybe only getting into trouble at big parties, while the AMA alcoholic will regularly find their resolve to be inaccessible while they get worse and worse over time.

The result of this is a society-wide case of equivocation, where group X says something about alcoholism, and then group Y gets to agree with or dispute the statement based on which definition they chose to pick. This is especially true for people's subconscious perception of alcoholics. The recovered common alcoholic can say to himself that he got over his alcoholism, so it must not be as bad as this other alcoholics, the AMA, or someone asking for money makes it out to be. This is a HUGE social problem, and one that I would very much like to take a step towards correcting in this article. Robert Rapplean 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you both that all of the major definitions need to be incorporated into the article. Robert has hit on something with his terminology of AMA alcoholic versus common alcoholic. What he means, I think, is that there are the people who have the disease, as the medical community defines it, and there are people who get in trouble with alcohol, as the overall population defines it. There is obviously overlap between these two groups. Some folks who get into trouble with alcohol and who are seen as alcoholic by a bystander would also be seen as alcoholic by a physician. But some are not. And some alcoholics, diagnosed as such by a physician, do not regularly have trouble with alcohol and might not be recognized as alcoholic by a layperson. I very much agree that when a physician says "alcoholic" and a "person on the street" says "alcoholic," they are likely referring to two different groups of people. It is important that we recognize this within the article and describe the two perspectives. And I think we all agree on this point, yes? Drgitlow 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I think we understand each other now. Now we just have to figure out how to incorporate it into the article. Robert Rapplean 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WITCH BURNING
Why do we need the label ‘alcoholic’? Yes, there are people whose consumption of alcohol is on balance detrimental to their well being, but there are people whose consumption of carbonated drinks (soda) or cholesterol is detrimental to their well being too. Do we feel the need to define who is, and who isn’t a ‘cholesterolic'? The reason we have trouble defining who is an alcoholic in rigorous scientific terms is because 'alcoholic' is a social construct and not a scientific one. This desire to mark people out with labels is as old as humanity. In earlier times I suspect the participants in this debate would have spent much time defining who is, and who isn't a 'witch' or a 'heretic' (choose your period in history).

Because biochemistry is unique to the individual it is impossible to say what the overall effects of alcohol consumption will be on any individuals 'balance sheet' of well-being.

When the word 'alcoholic' is used the instinctive tendency is to conjure up images of a shambolic unhealthy individual, maybe a social outcast, these images have been taught to us by years of movie making and literature. We too may have come across extreme alcohol users who confirm this stereotype. It is said that Winston Churchill spent the entire second world war drunk, I wonder if the sober reader of this article has lived a life as full as Britain's former Prime Minister.

I think we need to have a new debate, who in our society is a 'label-olic'.


 * I think what is happening is that the mental health profession profit more from having more people labled as 'alcoholics' (Just as they do for ADHD etc). I have taken several of the on line tests as an experiment. I tried different levels of alchohol comsumption. It seemed to me that no matter how low your consumption is the test will say you have a problem and should seek help. Excessive coffee drinking can make one drive badly yet no one is tested for that after an accident. Many small cities get a lot of income from DWI arrests and fines. I am not saying there are not some real problem drinkers but it seems now that there no level of alcohol consumption which the mental health community will feel is acceptable. Then on the other side there is evidence that say 1 or 2 drinks a day is beneficial. But if you drank that much you would be considered an alcoholic. The 'alcoholic' in many ways (as the smoker) has been a bit of a scapegoat for society's ills. I would like to hear from the mental health community what amount of alcohol a person could consume and not be labeled a 'problem drinker' or 'alcoholic'. Maybe this whole side of the issue could be brought up in the article. 69.211.150.60 13:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

( THINKER 26.04.95) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The topic you suggest, again, is not appropriate for an informational article. It is a topic for a forum of debate.


 * As to your request, the consumption of alcohol to the point where that alcohol consumption does not impair the individual by virtue of the medically defined standard used by law enforcement to determine intoxication leaves one outside the diagnostic category.


 * Any individual who engages in the consumption of alcohol to the point of impairment on a regular basis (i.e., daily and/or several times a week), binge drinks, maintenance drinks, or uses alcohol to self-medicate, can be classified as having a drinking problem, being a problem drinker (they are different) or being an alcoholic. That's it.  Empacher 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC) aka a member of the mental health community.


 * But how do we define or measure an 'impairment'? Is there anything wrong with self-medicdiation? I would like to see in the article some mention of the benefits of alcohol and how some feel that many in the mental health community are over diagnosing. 68.109.234.155 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We just moved into the arena of the absurd. Alcoholism is one of the few empirically measurable psychiatric conditions.  And "feelings" are POV, not citable studies.  Again, wrong forum...move on.  Empacher 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No I whole hearted disagree. OK I won't use the word feel: I would like to see in the article some mention of the benefits of alcohol and how some surmize that many in the mental health community are over diagnosing. Emprically measureable? How does one measure 'impairment' as you used above? 68.109.234.155 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may disagree, that is your perogative. But, again, I ask, "What part of it's the wrong forum do you not understand?" Empacher 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was assuming that this is the place to discuss changes and addtions to the article. I surmize that the mental health community overdiagnoses 'alcoholism' (and other condtions). The way it has been measured to my estimation is erroneous and I feel that should be brought out in the article. In the attention deficit disorder article that is brought out. I do not see why that same should not apply here. 68.109.234.155 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alcoholic is not a label. It is an acknowledged part of the medical nomenclature.  Empacher 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain that one description doesn't preclude the other? A giraffe does not stop being an animal because it is also a mammal.

(THINKER 27.4.07)


 * Kindly read the disclaimer at the top of this page regarding conversational etiquette.


 * It is easy to snipe when you are not a registered user. Further, you have been making contributions only since April 4th, and those you have made have no relevence to this topic, or those topics related.


 * Finally, this is a discussion page intended for discussion of the article, not a forum to debate one's personal POV on nomenclature and its applicability. This article is controversial, and those contributing are working hard to help it along.  That said, any useful contributions are welcome.  Otherwise, you may wish to find a bullentin board or chat room more suited to your needs.  Empacher 12:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't alcoholics burn slightly faster than witches due to BAC? :) To more politely address THINKER, yes, there is a social construction component, indeed, to all things which are labeled disease, in that they contribute to the dis-ease of society, or the individual who complains. If a person enjoys masturbating, in a clown suit, in private, it would not be dis-ease, but if they do do it on a children's playground, people will be uneasy about it. They might even call it dis-ease, or a disease. Having spent a great deal of time with someone who had type I diabetes, combined with anorexia, I can also attest that needing to keep up (and feed) somebody who would disrupt society with unusual antics also destabilizes ease, for both themselves, and others. OTOH, if they were alone, in the woods, and nobody (including themselves) had a problem with their actions, that would not be a disease to them, or anybody else. Ronabop 06:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I get for not watching the discussion for a couple of weeks. An alcoholic is anyone who suffers from alcoholism. End of discussion. What we are in the business of discussing here is what people refer to as alcoholism. We are DEFINITELY NOT here to discuss why people refer to something as alcoholism, or how we can get them to stop doing so. It is well within our domain to explain that the usage of the word alcoholism varies heavily, ranging from an expletive to a medical diagnosis, and that is one of the things that I've set out to do.

Additionally, it is not our place to describe the beneficial effects of alcohol drinking, or explain that alcohol can be drank safely. That kind of thing goes on in the alcohol article, where it belongs. This isn't the alcohol article, it's an article about alcoholism, which is rather specifically the bad side of alcohol use. - Robert Rapplean 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I second both points made by Robert above. Of course, I've made it abundantly clear in the past that I think we should be careful about the terminology we use and make sure we use it consistently and use the most specific terminology possible. Since the topic of terminology and the purpose of this article comes up repeatedly, perhaps we should add a simple reminder to the top of the talk page about which information is and is not appropriate for this page. --Elplatt 05:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"An alcoholic is anyone who suffers from alcoholism". What a wonderful quote! It is a shame that Descartes is not around to witness the great advances in philosophy that are being made here in Wikipedia.

A witch is anyone who practices witchcraft.

On second thoughts, an illiterate medieval peasant would recognise the logic.

(THINKER 12 May 2007)

See above. How does that work for you? - Robert Rapplean 16:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)