From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Definition of an addict.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:53:25 GMT

al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
: 
: In a previous article, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) says:
: 
: >My father was an alcoholic. One day, he decided he had had enough and just
: >quit. He never had a drink for the rest of his life. In other words, he quit
: >for over 40 years - without any 'help' from AA where people would tell him
: >that he would not be able to stay sober.
: 
: Well, that explains why you're so crabby.  Alcoholism is
: a family disease.  You're sick, too.  Go to Al-Anon.
: That's why it's there.  You can thank me later.

Boy, you certainly are intelligent. Imagine, you have been able to come
to such conclusions about me, simply because I am "crabby".

For your information - I drink about pint of stout every week when I do
my laundry at the public laundromat. I also drink one or two glasses of
wine once a month at a social dinner with friends.

Now, you tell me - does that make me an alcoholic?

I can do without your help. From your above statement, anyone who ever
drinks (and is crabby) is an alcoholic. I can do without an such stupid
characterizations of me, or anyone else.

: >So, your statement is disproven by example.................
: 
: Right.  Division by zero is impossible, therefore division is impossible.

In what way? I gave you an example of an alcoholic who quit without help.
There are many others. How is that "division by zero"? Is this the way AA
works? Ignore the facts, if they go counter to AA dogma, and rely on assertion
instead? 

: >.............................................I am sure there are many others.
: >Of course, you can always say that my father was not an alcoholic. I am sure
: >you know better than the doctors.
: 
: Sixty years ago, the consensus of the medical community was that
: alcoholics were hopeless.  They didn't mean the ones who could
: quit on their own.  Then along came A.A. to blow the doors off
: that "hopeless" bullshit, and the professionals have resented it
: ever since.  Especially the atheists.  I can't for the life of me
: understand why the question of the existence of God is such a
: hot issue with some people.  I always thought eliminating the
: threat of nuclear war was WAY more important than that.  Must
: be an ego thing.

Hm. How come the non-AA funded studies show that AA is seldom better,
and sometimes worse, than other methods of treating alcoholism? And
don't say it is a "professional conspiracy", as you did above. That
is just a copout for a person wishing to ignore the facts and rely
on blind faith instead.

I don't think the question of the existance/nonexistance of God is
the problem. The problem is many people feel relying on a supernatural
agency is counterproductive. They feel that the addict/alcoholic is the
only person who can solve their drug abuse problem. As such, they must
accept that they are to blame for the addiction and that the drug is 
not responsible. The cause may be physical or mental (or a combination
of both), but it is still due to the person.

What does the threat of nuclear war have to do with the treating or
curing of alcoholism? Ever hear of a "straw man" argument?

Bill

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6295 alt.society.civil-liberty:5845