Addiction or illness- choice or no choice

If an alcoholic (or a smoker, or a drug user) is "successful and functioning", what's the problem?

The reference to 20% having different rewiring is sloppy journalism reporting partial research. Different 'wiring' of the brain is not necessarily the cause of paedophilia - it could be the result of it, or simply a correlation that is not significant. Studies have not been replicated sufficiently to give consistent results. Sex offenders against children get lumped together as paedophiles, but there are different types. Some sex offenders who abuse children elevate them to the status of adult to permit themselves to abuse, so their cognitions about children differ. To simply look at brain patterns and activity before, during and after arousal does not sufficiently explain the thinking, planning, fantasising, learning and positive reinforcement or guilt about sexual abuse experienced in individual sex offenders' minds. They would like to claim it's an illness or not of their making, but they can still exercise control.

I've never really completely understood why alcoholism is classified as a disease while other dependencies, such as drugs or nicotine, are not. I used to be a smoker and was increasingly vilified for it as the anti-smoking culture grew. No-one ever made excuses for me nor offered sympathy and understanding - I was just looked on as having a disgusting habit and no self-control. I don't entirely disagree with that view, but if smokers have to accept that view of themselves, then why not alcoholics and drug users?

So true- one argument heard all the time from successful, functioning alcoholics is ' but all our friends drink as much as we do- therefore it is normal- so therefore it is not a problem'.

Anyone ever attended an AA meeting? Very sad, very uplifting, very strange. But those are the ones who admit to a problem and try to find a way back.

Too many don't accept they are alcoholic..

OK I see. I am lumping together, in a question not a statement. All I am doing is asking (myself... and researching/reading too).

About 20% of peodophile seem to have a brain that seems wired a little differently. Most peodophiles are not- and most peodophiles, eg people who are sexually attracted to younger people/children, do NOT act upon their fantasies. Possible like some people who seem genetically predisposed to excess drinking or other addictive behaviour, can keep it under check.

Thinking about my FIL- having served in the medical corps during the war, and revellion against a teatotal family- seem to have been more determining in his alcoholism than genetics, for instance. But I still maintain he did have a choice- to seek help, instead of destroying himself and his family.

GJ you said in your OP
'To say to people that they were genetically marked to becoming (insert alcoholics, bulimia, thief, paedophile)......is just the way it is'

That certainly looked as though you were lumping them together.

BTW, in the Mail on Sunday today, an article about a wonderful family, and a little boy in my GS's class with Duchenne's Distrophy- and the reason I mentioned this. The child has NO choice, and neither has his family. Wonderful people.

I have not at all lumped them together - all I am doing is asking if there is really a difference? I do not know the answer ... just thinking aloud and asking for others to comment and discuss.

So is there a major difference between alcohol, or shopping, or gambling?
And is fatalism helpful or indeed harmful? Some peodophiles are probably genetically damaged, but others perhaps not?

I've already said what I want to say on the subject of alcoholism on another thread. I agree with Soon that it is not relevant, or helpful, to lump thieves and paedophiles with people with addictions.

As far as genetics goes, I like this quote from Dean Ornish:
"Our genes, and our telomeres, are a predisposition, but they are not necessarily our fate"

My policy in all of this would be to look beyond; to really see and understand the individual, and not the label called addiction, whatever that addiction might be.

A columnist in one of the papers yesterday commented that we talk of alcoholism as a disease, but we never describe heroin addiction as a disease and our attitude to alcoholics is far kinder than to drug addicts.

Personally, I am never comfortable with the description of alcoholism as a disease. It is an addiction, and while I do accept that some people seem to have addictive personalities, so many ex-drug addicts and alcoholics become heavy smokers, I am with granjura when she says that it is not helpful to label it as a disease.

I tend to think that addiction is a sign that the person has psychological or social problems and uses their addiction to escape them.

I noticed that Alastair Campbell, who overcame an addiction to alcohol and was a close friend of Charles Kennedy and did all he could to help him, commented that CK would never agree to go into rehab, although he did have, as I understand, much counselling. I find this interesting because it suggests to me somebody who was truly terrified of going cold turkey and then having to face up to and admit his deep psychological insecurities, whatever they may have been

Alcoholism is not a disease and by calling it one we do not do the person any favours. The only way the alcoholic can move forward is by accepting that they have a problem. By calling it a disease we are absolving them from taking responsibility.

Perhaps addictive behaviour could apply to all four?
All very different but facets of the same underlying trait?

I think some people have an addictive personality, not necessarily to drink or drugs but also shopping or an acquisitive drive to have the latest whatever or the best of everything and no stop button or rationale behind the behaviours.

This certainly applied to BIL along with the incessant bragging about the latest buy (which really rankled when they knew we were struggling big time but never an offer to help) and they spent enormous sums of money at a time such as his & hers big flash cars with special order paintwork and interiors, completely changing carpets throughout their house every two years because they fancied a change of colour

I think SIL and BIL both enjoyed a drink and for him it cost him his very lucrative job and a spiral downwards into alcoholism. SIL says she no longer drinks.

alcoholics
bullimic
thief
peodophile

all different in my opinion.

They cant be lumped together.