From: met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Re: Addiction a disease? (not)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:30:32 GMT

fullerto@carp.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy dwight fullerton) writes:

>In article <Brz692.Go5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot) writes:

>>
>>Here we need to differentiate between drug (read MIND ALTERING)/alcohol
>>abuse and addiction.  Yes, alcoholism is an addiction.  Yes, smoking is
>>also an addiction.  Can we compare the two?  Maybe.  A goldfish is an
>>animal.  A hampster is an animal.  Why can't a hamster live under water?
>>Why can't the alcoholic just quit like the smoker does? :-)
>>

>	You made a lot of good points, but I feel I have to respond to this
>one.

>	I am of the drug-is-a-drug school of thought. This means that, 
>according to my experience, it is not the drug alone that is necessarily
>addictive but my obsessive, compulsiveness in general. This is directly in 
>line with the disease concept of alcoholism.

>	What I am calling you on is that you discount the comparison of
>quitting smoking with quitting alcohol. I feel they are closer. True, 
>untreated alcohol withdrawal is more dangerous, but for everyone that I
>know who has gone through it (myself included), nicotine withdrawal put
>us through more intense, relentless, and lasting physical and emotional
>pain.

>	I feel that they are the same in that both require the same 
>treatment to be ultimately effective--a conscious contact with God or
>something equally fulfilling. AA shows a way for that, and it provides a
>fantastic support group for alcohol and illegal mood altering chemicals,
>but it is by no means the only source. I raise this point because I found
>it completely ineffective and downright detrimental to quitting smoking.
>I was capable of finally quitting because of my spiritual development in
>AA, but it was without the luxury of human support. Just God and myself.
>(Smokers Anonymous failed dismally here.)

>	Regarding the success of the rest of the world quitting by themselves,
>I can only offer speculation. First, I don't know how many people have quit
>by themselves or how long they will stay that way. I imagine that if they
>do not have the required spiritual depth and level of fulfillment, they will
>ultimately fail. Also, as more people go through it, the pool of human support
>grows, so more will have that. Finally, most of the people I know who are 
>quitting lately are on the patch and are on it to date. I know that supplanting
>one drug inducing machine with another and tapering off that way failed for
>me, but lets just see if it works for them.

The nicotine patch is one of my biggest arguements that nicotine addiction
has certain distinctive characteristics from an alcohol/mood altering
substance addiction.  I can't imagine weaning down an alcohol or drug
addiction (yes, i know, nicotine's a drug!).  I know several recovering
people who have used the
patch and have been smoke-free for quite some time.  They indicated to me
that being smoke-free was not really a "daily maintenance" sort of thing
for them.  I think probably this varies from person to person, and we
have to look more at the mental aspects of the addiction than the physical
side.  I think in some people's cases, as with myself with regards
to drugs and alcohol, the mental aspects are a lot stronger.  I was
probably to quick to make light of the comparison between quitting 
smoking and quitting drinking.  I think it's fair to say that it varies
from person to person.


>	Tirade over. I hope you do not feel flamed. It is hard to disagree
>in text without it having a much harsher tone than I wished to project.
>I was just set off by your saying "just quit like the smoker."

>				best wishes
>					Tim F.
>					fullerto@cis.ohio-state.edu


Not at all.  I just like to argue! :-)

Marc