Cheney cancels speech in Canada due to safety concerns ‎

[dre]

That alone does not constitute alcoholism.

Actually its very close to the actual clinical definition.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually its very close to the actual clinical definition.

And I came "very close" to winning the lottery.....

[Shady]

Actually its very close to the actual clinical definition.

Binge drinkng is not tantamount to alcoholism.

[GostHacked]

"Problem drinker" and "alcoholic" are two different things.

Maybe you can educate us on the difference?

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe you can educate us on the difference?

Sure. One involves a dependency - chemical or psychological - while the other does not. Many people go through a stage in their lives where they drink too much - where their drinking is a problem - but they are not all alcoholics. link

"Well, I don't think I had an addiction," Bush told the Washington Post for a July 1999 profile. "You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted. . .and they required hitting bottom [to start] going to AA. I don't think that was my case."

Speculation in the national press, which went into a media frenzy over the report that Bush was arrested 24 years ago for drunk driving, ranged from the suggestion that if he never went to A.A. he is not really recovered, to the opinion that if he quit on his own, it was not a big problem in the first place.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Alcohol abuse can be a very serious problem in itself, but if it progresses into alcohol dependence, the solution can become much more complicated.

And regarding Bush (emphasis mine):

The highly publicized case brings to the public's attention the difference between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, or alcoholism.

Most people who abused alcohol, even to a dangerous extent at some point in their lives, never fit the criteria as alcoholics, or alcohol dependent.

I repeat: there is a difference, and it is not a "fact," "well known" or otherwise, that Bush is an alcoholic.

[Guest Manny]

Did he need help to control his alcohol problem?

[Guest American Woman]

Did he need help to control his alcohol problem?

No. As the info I posted verifies, he quit on his own.

[dre]

Did he need help to control his alcohol problem?

It doesnt matter if he did.

If you have any drinking habit beyond one or two drinks per day and its effecting your life you would meet the clinical definition of "alcoholic". The bar is set very low. When you are screened you will be asked questions like these...

1. Do you drink alone?

2. Have you ever missed work because of drinking?

3. Do you ever have memory loss because of drinking?

4. Do you drink more than 2 drinks per day?

5. Do you crave alcohol at a certain time of day?

6. Do you drink to improve your self confidence in social situations?

7. Has drinking ever caused you financial problems?

And other questions like that. If you answer yes to a couple of those questions you are an alcoholic. Even if you drink only a couple of drinks per day, if you do it because of a craving then thats considered a dependance, no different than if you smoke ciggarettes.

Edited April 5, 2012 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

If you have any drinking habit beyond one or two drinks per day and its effecting your life you would meet the clinical definition of "alcoholic".

No, you wouldn't - not based on that criteria alone; and I've explained why.

[dre]

No, you wouldn't - not based on that criteria alone; and I've explained why.

Yes you would. Thousand of people are diagnosed with alcoholism every day based on that criteria. If you drink every day due to cravings you are no less addicted to alcohol than a smoker is addicted to nicotine.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes you would. Thousand of people are diagnosed with alcoholism every day based on that criteria.

No, they're not; not based on your original claim: If you have any drinking habit beyond one or two drinks per day and its effecting your life you would meet the clinical definition of "alcoholic". If there is no "dependency" on the alcohol, if the person is not drinking to satisfy a "craving," that statement defines a problem drinker, not an alcoholic.

If you drink every day due to cravings you are no less addicted to alcohol than a smoker is addicted to nicotine.

It's your addition of "cravings" that sets this statement apart from your original - and supports what *I* said about alcoholism involving a chemical or psychological dependence.

Again. Not all problem drinkers crave alcohol; not all problem drinkers are dependent on it. As the information I posted confirms, most people who at one time or another have/had a problem with alcohol do not meet the criteria of alcoholic.

You can keep insisting otherwise if you are so inclined, but it won't make your claim correct.

Again. There is a difference between a problem drinker and an alcoholic. The difference is the dependency.

[dre]

No, they're not; not based on your original claim: If you have any drinking habit beyond one or two drinks per day and its effecting your life you would meet the clinical definition of "alcoholic". If there is no "dependency" on the alcohol, if the person is not drinking to satisfy a "craving," that statement defines a problem drinker, not an alcoholic.

It's your addition of "cravings" that sets this statement apart from your original - and supports what *I* said about alcoholism involving a chemical or psychological dependence.

Again. Not all problem drinkers crave alcohol; not all problem drinkers are dependent on it. As the information I posted confirms, most people who at one time or another have/had a problem with alcohol do not meet the criteria of alcoholic.

You can keep insisting otherwise if you are so inclined, but it won't make your claim correct.

Again. There is a difference between a problem drinker and an alcoholic. The difference is the dependency.

Cravings are what produces that habitual behavior though. If you end up having a few drinks per day, it IS because its a habit, and that habit is driven by cravings. If it wasnt you would just not do it... That "Hey, I think Id enjoy a drink right now!" that reminds you to even go and mix one in the first place IS a craving. These cravings can just be phsycological as opposed to being bio chemical. Its also characterized by withdrawal... if you normally drink a few drinks a day, and then for whatever reason one day you dont have access to any... do you sit there and think about it? That again represents an addiction.

Edited April 5, 2012 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Cravings are what produces that habitual behavior though. If you end up having a few drinks per day, it IS because its a habit, and that habit is driven by cravings.

No, not all habits are driven by cravings. Just as there is a difference between "problem drinker" and "alcoholic," there is a difference between "habit" and "craving." In fact, some habits are due to being in a rut, hardly a "craving."

[Shady]

Yes you would. Thousand of people are diagnosed with alcoholism every day based on that criteria. If you drink every day due to cravings you are no less addicted to alcohol than a smoker is addicted to nicotine.

Like I've already said. Binge drinking isn't tantamount to alcoholism. Stop pretending to be dense.

[dre]

Like I've already said. Binge drinking isn't tantamount to alcoholism. Stop pretending to be dense.

You must have accidentally replied to my post, when you meant to reply one that mentioned binge drinking?

[WWWTT]

I have read the past couple of pages of the recent additions in this thread and something occured to me.

I would believe that if you were an alcy you probably would not admit it.After all not recognizing/admiting your problem/addiction is a big factor in contributing to.But somehow there a couple here who probably have never even met Cheney are defendin him on second hand info.I personaly would never defend someone whom I have never met on something as personel as this.

Aswell I believe the definition of an alcoholic is not the same as say 30-40yrs ago.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

I have read the past couple of pages of the recent additions in this thread and something occured to me.

I would believe that if you were an alcy you probably would not admit it.

Many a recovering and recovered alcoholic has admitted it. It's nothing to be ashamed of; quite the opposite - and many recovered alcoholics have gone on to accomplish great things.

After all not recognizing/admiting your problem/addiction is a big factor in contributing to.

You're referring to an alcoholic who still is struggling with the problem. Many have overcome their addiction, and if Bush is an alcoholic, he would be in that category. He has never said he was an alcoholic, however, and there is no conclusive evidence that he is; therefore, I'm refuting the claim that "it's a well known fact that he is an alcoholic." That simply is not true.

But somehow there a couple here who probably have never even met Cheney are defendin him on second hand info.

"Defending" him how? And of course it would be "second hand information" since we weren't a witness to the hunting accident, but neither were those condemning him. In other words, they are condemning him on second hand information, which would be no more acceptable to you, right?

I personaly would never defend someone whom I have never met on something as personel as this.

As personal as what? - Whether or not the shooting was a hunting accident?

Aswell I believe the definition of an alcoholic is not the same as say 30-40yrs ago.

So what do you think it was then - what do you think it is now - and what are you basing it on?

Edited April 5, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

No, they're not; not based on your original claim: If you have any drinking habit beyond one or two drinks per day and its effecting your life you would meet the clinical definition of "alcoholic". If there is no "dependency" on the alcohol, if the person is not drinking to satisfy a "craving," that statement defines a problem drinker, not an alcoholic.

It's your addition of "cravings" that sets this statement apart from your original - and supports what *I* said about alcoholism involving a chemical or psychological dependence.

Again. Not all problem drinkers crave alcohol; not all problem drinkers are dependent on it. As the information I posted confirms, most people who at one time or another have/had a problem with alcohol do not meet the criteria of alcoholic.

You can keep insisting otherwise if you are so inclined, but it won't make your claim correct.

Again. There is a difference between a problem drinker and an alcoholic. The difference is the dependency.

What are you talking about? If your drinking poses problems in your personal and professional life, then obviously you're not in control of your 'cravings.' Someone that can control their drinking would not allow it to be a problem. If their drinking is out of control, then it must be the cravings that have taken over. I'm not sure why you're contorting yourself into drawing this bizarre distinction between 'problem drinker' and 'alcoholic'. If drinking becomes a problem, then you're an alcoholic. End of story.

Edited April 5, 2012 by cybercoma

[WWWTT]

So what do you think it was then - what do you think it is now - and what are you basing it on?

I'm not going to answer all your questions.

First off I do not drink,smoke or do drugs!I only drink the odd cup of coffee and am careful about what I eat.Aswell I regularly work out.

Many alcoholics are very good at hiding their issues and this is a personal health issue.

My beliefs work well for me and I am not going to change nor am I going to preach of how anyone should live.But if you get behind the wheel or are in politics then thats a different story

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure why you're contorting yourself into drawing this bizarre distinction between 'problem drinker' and 'alcoholic'.

"Contorting" myself? "Bizarre distinction?" Could you possibly sound more ignorant? The distinction is no more "bizarre" than the distinction between one's biological sex and one's gender identity. Are you beginning to get it yet?

If drinking becomes a problem, then you're an alcoholic. End of story.

Wrong. End of story. Just because you can't wrap your head around the difference doesn't change the reality.

[cybercoma]

"Contorting" myself? "Bizarre distinction?" Could you possibly sound more ignorant? The distinction is no more "bizarre" than the distinction between one's biological sex and one's gender identity. Are you beginning to get it yet?

Wrong. End of story. Just because you can't wrap your head around the difference doesn't change the reality.

You have the nerve to call me ignorant, when you have absolutely nothing to offer in contradiction to what I posted, but you still cling to the idea that a problem drinker isn't an alcoholic. Once again, I'm reminded that it's a really stupid idea to try to discuss anything with you.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not going to answer all your questions.

Ok. Then I'll just assume that you can't.

First off I do not drink,smoke or do drugs!I only drink the odd cup of coffee and am careful about what I eat.Aswell I regularly work out.

Okaaay. Good to know.

Many alcoholics are very good at hiding their issues and this is a personal health issue.

Not so good that people around them aren't aware of their addiction, but I'm not sure what this has to do with any of the questions that I raised.

My beliefs work well for me and I am not going to change nor am I going to preach of how anyone should live.But if you get behind the wheel or are in politics then thats a different story

I have no idea what you're getting at here. Are you saying anyone who has had an addiction problem in the past has no right to get involved in politics?

Edited April 6, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

You have the nerve to call me ignorant, when you have absolutely nothing to offer in contradiction to what I posted,

I offered the information explaining the difference before you made your ignorant post.

...but you still cling to the idea that a problem drinker isn't an alcoholic.

I cling to the fact that there is a difference between a problem drinker and an alcoholic.

Once again, I'm reminded that it's a really stupid idea to try to discuss anything with you.

And I'm reminded again that you think "it's a stupid idea to try to discuss anything" with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Even when you are flat out wrong.

To paraphrase your words: I understand you've been raised and socialized into thinking anyone who has a drinking problem is an alcoholic, but in "reality" it's not true. You're ignoring everything about the difference that I've posted. I get it. You don't understand the distinctions and you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the two are not the same. This doesn't give you the right to diagnose people, making claims about them based on your uneducated view, ignoring the differences that actually exist in reality.

[Guest Manny]

I offered the information explaining the difference before you made your ignorant post.

I cling to the fact that there is a difference between a problem drinker and an alcoholic.

You're ignoring everything about the difference that I've posted.

Which post has the difference again?

So many posts!

[Guest American Woman]

Which post has the difference again?

So many posts!

Post #330. There's a link to the source provided - and there are more links provided within the source.