Addiction or illness- choice or no choice

Sorry about all the misplaced commas.

I so agree with you granjura; 'functioning' they may be to the outside world , but at home the mood swings affect the whole family ,and treading on eggshells is the norm, not to mention as someone said earlier the expense. Your comment in your OP also,struck a chord with me. It's ok to be , as Alistair Campbell put it ' enslaved' to alcohol, but anyone with a bad relationship,with food is treated with disgust, not sympathy. Excess weight is more difficult to hide than a damaged liver and a drink problem.

I think there is such a thing as a personality trait that leads a person to excess, which can be something chemical such as alcohol and caffeine or something behavioural such as gambling and pornography. I think George W. Bush was the example given in the article I read; having been an alcoholic, he moved on to become a fanatical born-again Christian.

In this context I think smoking and alcohol are very different. Alcohol changes peoples' moods and the way they interact with others- especially close family members, be their spouses or children. So yes, someone can be a very successful businessman, Judge, whatever- and yet be an alcoholic with moods swings and other behaviour that does impact on his /her family (as well as risk liver and oesophagus and other diseases that can and do cut their lives short).

My sil smokes heavily- just like my mum did. My mum died aged 94- but was crippled for many years due to her smoking. But I would love my grandchildren to have their dad into adulthood- I've known many youngsters who lost their parents far too early due to smoking, or drinking.

Anya and KatyK I totally agree.

BIL even after very expensive 8 week stays in the Priory didn't stay dry for long. He can't take Antabuse medication because of a heart condition and clearly has zero intention of stopping regardless of the appalling effects on him and his family.

It's put me off alcohol completely. There's no history of any type of addictive behaviour at all in the family.

I just don't understand how his body copes, 21+ units/day of strong cider + a litre of vodka...........not forgetting several admissions for head injuries when he's fallen over, fractured ribs....

Thank goodness we haven't had gambling addiction in our family - at least, not as far as I know.
Drinking alcohol regularly is a habit which eventually creates dependence, physically and psychologically. I think anyone can become hooked.
Sometimes it seems to "run in families", but most of that is due to familiarity.
It certainly doesn't help to call it a disease, unless you're looking for an excuse to continue.

I know this thread has been mainly about addiction to substances, but a gambling addiction can ruin just as many lives. In purely monetary terms it must be a major cause of family breakups and in some cases, destitution. And as with all addictions, it's certainly not confined to men.

KatyK and Anya, I'm so sorry you have had these experiences ((hugs))

I can't imagine how awful it must be to live with a violent, destructive addict. It doesn't compare, but I do think even the 'functioning alcoholics' have an impact on those that share their lives. I think they kid themselves that they are not hurting anyone else. It can be very hard to be angry with them because they can be kind, loving people who provide well for their families, at the same time as slowly destroying themselves. While I feel compassion for them, that can wear very thin as you watch someone slowly destroy themselves without ever accepting that there might be a different way.

KatyK I understand exactly what you are saying all this talk of 'functioning' alcoholics leaves me cold. It's the out-of- control alcoholics who destroy everyone they touch. We both know the reality of that.

My understanding of addiction is:

No one sets out to become addicted (in other words, they have a compulsion).

Denial is part of and is one of the symptoms of addiction (and it's not just "functioning" alcoholics who are in denial).

There is a growing problem with "behavioural addiction" - gambling, porn, gaming etc. The effects on the family is probably not as bad as living with an alcoholic, but it has a big impact nonetheless.

Re denial - it was popular in the 1990s to have "interventions" - a group of close family and friends, led by a professional would confront the addicted person and tell them of the effect it is having on them, in an attempt to breach the denial. Then interventions fell out of fashion, now I believe it is coming back. So if there was a skilled intervention, I believe the person then has a choice. Before that or without that, no choice (unless they have an epiphany).

My father was a violent alcoholic. He could give up for weeks on end but would always go back to it. His wife and all of us children suffered terribly because of it (my brother so traumatised by his childhood that he
committed suicide in his 20s). He never seemed remorseful for any problems he caused because he was living his life as he wanted to live it. He should never have married and had children but he was reckless. A few weeks before he died, he told my sister that he had cried for hours on a particular day, reflecting on his life. He wasn't ill but maybe had a premonition that he would die soon, so maybe there was some remorse at the end or maybe he was scared that he was about to meet his maker. I enjoy a drink myself, but I hope I know where to draw the line and my family have never suffered because of me.

there

I feel compassion for the ones who aren't fighting it too. There but for 'grace' might I have gone.

I'm using the word grace their somewhat poetically. It's not to be taken literally as the religious sort.

Well, alcohol is a drug, so I guess there isn't any difference technically. Nicotine ditto.

I don't feel angry with my dad. Never did with regard to his smoking. The fact that he smoked certainly impacted his five kids: none of us took it up because we saw how difficult it was for him to give up. He said he had only one regret in his life and that if he had his life again there was only one thing he would do differently: he wouldn't have started smoking.

I'm not going to start blaming and judging because he made a mistake when he was twelve and happened to get addicted to nicotine. Smoking was not seen in the same way back then. My mum, who never smoked, said she was the only one among their university pals who didn't smoke and she only didn't because she was asthmatic.

I feel the same compassion for someone fighting an addiction as I feel for someone with a chronic illness so, I guess, answering the OP question, I regard addiction as if not an illness then an affliction.

I take your point bags but I think people who are addicted - whether to cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, drugs or whatever can convince themselves that they are not affecting anyone else but themselves but this is so far from the truth to be ridiculous. At the very least, they are spending a lot of money on their habit. This may not be a problem if they are very wealthy but for most ordinary people it will have an impact. Their health will suffer to some extent, causing worry and concern for their family members, as well as intense frustration at seeing someone they love destroy themselves slowly. Ultimately, many will die of related illnesses, like your father thatbags. I mentioned this in a earlier post on the other thread, and acknowledged that I find it very difficult to feel compassion for members of my family who have died in this way and others who seem intent on doing so. I think children whose parents die young from alcohol, tobacco, or drug abuse are often understandably angry with them, which is a heavy burden for a child to manage alongside their grief.

Like some others on here, I draw no distinction between alcoholics and drug addicts, they're all the same to me.

That's interesting about the gag reflex, tresco. My husband has a very sensitive gag reflex. He's not an alcoholic.

The best definition of being an alcoholic that I have seen is "when alcohol costs you more than money". If you start to lose your relationships, your job, your health, then you have a problem. It really doesn't matter whether there is a disease or lifestyle choice model at this point of someone's drinking, because ultimately the question is "Do I drink THIS drink, NOW?" If the answer is no, then there is hope of recovery; if the answer is yes, then that way the problems usually get worse. Some alcoholics can stop, some can keep their drinking under control and still function, and some simply can't stop for whatever reason.The trouble with the middle group is that there is usually no way of distinguishing them from the last group until it's too late, which is why total abstinence is often the recommended strategy.
As an aside, my dentist once told me he could tell who was likely to be drinking too much because alcoholics tend to have an abnormal gag reflex when having dentistry. I don't know what the evidence for this is.

I guess I interpreted "functioning" in a positive way. Obviously one could function in a negative way, but that could hardly be spoken of in the same breath as "successful".

I think my query may have been misunderstood. My father was a smoker, addicted to nicotine. He tried several times to give up but various stresses in his life made it too difficult for him. He was a good man, a brilliant teacher and lecturer, a great dad, fun to be with, etc, etc. He was successful and functioning in a perfectly acceptable way. Yes, he was damaging his lungs and eventually died of lung cancer but he wasn't damaging anyone else (he never smoked in my house, always went outside to smoke). Quite the reverse actually as he was very good at persuading other people that taking up smoking was a bad idea.

Don't you think that people should be free to choose their own poison so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's life? I thought that's what you meant by successful and functioning. If an alcoholic is abusing his family as a result of his addiction I wouldn't call that successful and functioning.

But the above seems to be referring solely to alcoholics who regularly drink unsafe amounts of alcohol, possible throughout the day - otherwise why would they suffer extreme withdrawal symptoms if they suddenly stop?

Isn't anyone who drinks because they feel they need to (maybe only in the evening, maybe only at weekends) just as likely to be an alcoholic? I'm sure I've read that this is the case.

I've also known functioning alcoholics who were surgeons- I hope you can see the problem there.

There is a lot out there re functioning alcoholics. Here is just one article:

Denial and Disease

One of the main characteristics of a functioning alcoholic is denial. Functioning alcoholics are often in denial. They do not see a problem with their drinking habits because they have not experienced extremely negative consequences or hit bottom. While close friends and family members may notice a functioning alcoholic’s worrisome drinking patterns, often times they’re also in denial because they too fail to see the problem if the alcoholic has a successful life.

However, there is a problem. Functioning alcoholics are drinking alcoholically, which means they’re doing serious damage to their bodies. A functioning alcoholic usually has a very high tolerance level for alcohol, and they may be regularly drinking unsafe, even potentially deadly, levels of alcohol.

Long-term, severe alcoholism can lead to many negative health consequences, including liver disease, heart disease, respiratory disease, cancer, and a mental health disorder like depression. Without alcohol, functioning alcoholics will also experience severe withdrawal symptoms that can be fatal if they don’t seek professional help, which is why their denial can be so dangerous.

Functioning alcoholics are also putting others at risk when they drive with high levels of alcohol in their systems. If you or someone you know may be a functioning alcoholic, getting treatment is essential in order to live a life that’s long, healthy, and safe for everyone.

well said Granjura ...........as I remember 2 "successful " people who were very hard to live with

I think it depends on if the addicted person's conduct adversely affects others in and around the family. I have little sympathy for those who claim to be addicted because of my experiences.
For 60 years I ate food, any food I liked. I have been various weights during my life time. After some blood tests I received a letter giving the results of these tests. I had been found to have very suddenly become a Ceoliac, probably as a result of great stress. I had to stop eating normal food immediately. If I had not done that I would be lucky to be alive today. Food is essential in life, drugs, drink and cigarettes are not. I am no paragon of viceless life. I used to have the odd drink when out but when I got pregnant I stopped drinking and have never taken any alcohol since. I smoked from the age of 14 or 15 until I was 58 and I went to a "stop smoking" seminar and stopped smoking instantly. I have never had a cigarette since despite the death of two significant persons in my life shortly after stopping. I have never taken drugs and as a result of what I have seen I hate drugs all the more. There is a drug taker around the family but not included. I have watched the manipulation of people this person has done and it is only because a person has pleaded with me not to, that I have not dealt severely with that blighter.
My life and well being depended on me stopping eating immediately and I did that. So my view of addictions is that the people do not care about those around them and will continue with their selfish, greedy and manipulative ways. I look after my own food needs and do not expect anything from anyone and I will sit and watch people eat but not touch a morsel.

Are you really asking this? Do you think that the lungs of a successful smoker don't get damaged by the smoke, or their arteries (as many or more people lose their legs to smoking than to diabetes)- or the liver of a successful alcoholic does not get damaged because the person is 'succesful' in their profession? Or that the families of successful drinkers suffer any less, from their mood swigns, lashing out of one kind or another?

I actually know many very successful cocaine taker (they will all say they are NOT addicted btw). Do you think that because they have vast salaries they are not being damaged by this?