Patients refer to it as "the switch." "It's where you reach a point where alcohol doesn't matter anymore."
"I have prescribed Baclofen to more than 135 alcoholics who were at the end of their rope, and the results are quite frankly miraculous.”
—Renaud de Beaurepaire, MD Chief of Psychiatry and Director of the Psychopharmacology Laboratory PAUL GUIRAUD HOSPITAL, VILLEJUIF, FRANCE
High-Dose Baclofen: A Cure for Alcoholism?
I've been following the recent studies on an incredible drug. Baclofen is an off patent GABA agonist and muscle relaxant, and has been used for more than 40 years to treat spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, etc.
In 2005, attention to the drug grew when a cardiologist and long-term alcoholic announced in a case report that high-dose baclofen had completely suppressed all of his cravings for alcohol, and effectively "cured" him of his alcoholism. After years of going to daily AA meetings, working with a sponsor, and taking all the FDA approved medications, nothing was able to put a dent in his addiction. Yet he was cured by taking a pill.
More and more case reports have been published stating that individuals have been cured of their alcoholism and all cravings after taking high-dose baclofen. Numerous trials have shown that baclofen is effective in treating addictions including alcohol, cocaine, nicotine, and heroin. In a recent trial to treat alcoholics with liver cirrhosis using low-dose baclofen, an incredible 71% maintained complete abstinence from alcohol for 12 weeks.
Past studies of baclofen for addiction showed mixed results, because researchers were reluctant to test a dose higher than 30 mg/day. However, neurologists have safely prescribed up to 300 mg/day for the treatment of spasticity.
As word has spread of this incredible treatment, whole online communities have been popping up dedicated to treating their addictions with baclofen. Their forums are filled with success stories and gratitude for this "miracle cure." Unfortunately, addiction-treatment providers have been reluctant to accept it...
"At issue is the definition of treatment. In the U.S., successful treatment of addiction has traditionally been an all-or-nothing undertaking, involving complete abstinence — as promulgated by supporters of 12-step programs like AA — rather than a regimen of moderation. For many, that definition includes abstinence even from drugs that would help fight cravings. Indeed, for decades, experts have debated whether drug addicts who cannot or will not quit should even be offered ongoing treatments that would reduce harm related to their drug abuse. Although many providers have recently become more open to new options, the majority of American addiction treatment continues to use the 12-step abstinence model.
"But in many other countries harm reduction is a widely accepted treatment model. In Europe and Canada, government-funded antiaddiction programs routinely help alcoholic patients reduce drinking, even if they won't quit; in Sweden, health officials suggest that cigarette smokers switch to snus (smokeless tobacco), which, unlike smoking, is not associated with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease. American proponents of moderation also argue that by demanding complete sobriety, it is possible that we are missing the chance to improve the health of smokers or problem drinkers who cannot or are not ready to stop entirely.
"What's more, the abstinence-only model is far from foolproof: 90% of alcoholics do not get sober on their first attempt, and most rehab programs report a more than 50% relapse rate in their patients within months. First attempts to quit smoking cold turkey fail just as often. So, helping drinkers and smokers cut down, even if they can't quit immediately, may have significant value, says Teri Franklin, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania. "If you can prevent people from inhaling the 4,000 chemicals in just one cigarette, over 400 of which are carcinogenic, you can get a health benefit," she says, noting that she was only able to quit smoking by first cutting down."
(Time magazine, 2009)
A person who wishes to remain anonymous donated $750,000 to Amsterdam university in the Netherlands to initiate a clinical trial of high-dose baclofen. The trial was scheduled to start sometime in 2011.
Facts about balofen:
It is non-addictive, doesn't produce cravings, and has been safely prescribed for more than 40 years.
The highest dose of baclofen ever recorded, 2 grams in a suicide attempt, did not lead to death, and eventually the patient recovered completely.
Tolerance towards baclofen does not seem to occur to any significant degree, allowing a dose to be effective for many years.
In a restrospective study of 112 patients taking high-dose baclofen, only 8 discontinued treatment. The primary cause for discontinuation was not side effects, but a lack of improvement in spasticity.
The most common side effect is drowsiness, which typically dissipates after a few days.
Baclofen is off patent, and is cheaper than an alcoholic's days worth of liquor.
The most serious concern of the drug is a sudden discontinuation after prolonged periods of use. Discontinuation requires that the drug be tapered down. Sudden discontinuation can result in severe withdrawal symptoms, which are similar in nature to benzodiazepine or alcohol withdrawal.
If baclofen causes withdrawal, doesn't that mean it's addictive?
No. Addiction has many different criteria, and the majority are psychological in nature.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine has this definition for Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships.
In other words, baclofen does not exhibit any signs of psychological dependence. It doesn't produce cravings, it doesn't impair behavioral control, it isn't progressive, etc.
But isn't withdrawal listed in the DSM as a criteria for addiction?
Yes, but it specifically states that at least THREE of the criteria must be met in order to diagnose an individual as addicted.
(1) tolerance NO (2) withdrawal YES (3) the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended NO (4) there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use NO (5) a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects NO (6) important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use NO (7) the substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance NO
Following these criteria, baclofen has not been shown to cause addiction.
What happens after taking baclofen for addiction?
Usually, the patient will steadily reduce their dose once indifference to alcohol has been reached. However, below a certain threshold, referred to as the "maintenance dose," cravings for alcohol can return. This means that baclofen may be a life-long dedication, much like AA and fighting cravings is a life-long dedication for many alcoholics.
It is not known how effective baclofen in combination with cognitive behavioral therapy and 12-step programs can be. Perhaps baclofen can be used to achieve abstinence without going through withdrawal, and then baclofen can be substituted with standard addiction treatment methods. The point is, it is too early to tell what is either possible or necessary with this treatment.
Can't you "cure" alcoholism by choosing not to drink?
No. Abstinence is not referred to as a "cure," because the patient will still experience the symptoms of the disease, including life-long cravings for the drug of choice. Baclofen treatment has been referred to as a possible cure, because it is the only thing which has managed to eliminate the symptoms of addiction.
Does baclofen get you "drunk" like alcohol does, since it affects GABA receptors?
No, and yes. "Drunkenness" involves many different symptoms and has many different causes. Acting as an agonist of GABA receptors only produce a few of the symptoms of drunkenness.
Drugs that act as agonists of GABA receptors (known as GABA analogues or GABAergic drugs), have relaxing, anti-anxiety, and anti-convulsive effects. Alcohol also has these effects, but they are not the sole effects produced.
In other words, baclofen mimics the effects of drunkenness when it comes to the effects listed above, namely drowsiness, relaxation, anti-anxiety, and anti-convulsive effects, but no others. However, these effects usually subside after a few days at a given dose, except at significantly high doses, which differs for each individual.
If anyone has any other questions, feel free to ask. The more we can spread understanding and knowledge of addiction the better.
Seems cool if it continues to work, but I, personally, would be very wary of trying anything like 300mgs a day (or the drug at all) unless I were a dead end alcoholic with money to spend (which I am not) (and I assume this drug is fairly expensive).
All forms of addiction are disease whether psychological or physical someone stating that it a lack of will power is truly out of touch. I think that if this drug turns out to be as safe and effective it seems this a wonderful thing that could potentially save the lives of alcoholics and their possible victims.
Interesting. Naltrexone is also used to treat alcholism and low doses of that is an off label treatment for MS. Now we have Baclofen which is a treatment for MS being used in high doses to treat alcoholism. Sounds promising to me.
It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
sounds good. but look at those side effects. and those are seen at normal dosing and therapeutic levels. while this could be a great thing- long term side effects of this medication taken at these doses is not known.
known side effects include: ataxia , nausea vomiting other gi upsets and Neuro problems... epileptic like.
also because alchy addiction is a mental disorder - what happens when the patients stop taking the medication? relapse?
well.... u know, people exposed to morphine lose all interest in opium... and people exposed to heroin lose all interest in heroin... im not judging, im a jonkie, im just saying.. "cure"? i dont know...
On July 16 2011 10:34 Ramiel wrote: sounds good. but look at those side effects. and those are seen at normal dosing and therapeutic levels. while this could be a great thing- long term side effects of this medication taken at these doses is not known.
known side effects include: ataxia , nausea vomiting other gi upsets and Neuro problems... epileptic like.
also because alchy addiction is a mental disorder - what happens when the patients stop taking the medication? relapse?
If so, it's basically methadone but for alcoholics
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
Agreed with this post. It's not some crazy disease, it's just like quitting tobacco.
I can't really see it through an alcoholics eyes though, so my opinion shouldn't matter too much.
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
Agreed with this post. It's not some crazy disease, it's just like quitting tobacco.
I can't really see it through an alcoholics eyes though, so my opinion shouldn't matter too much.
Well, they have nicotine patches and gum for quitting smokers. The way I see it, this seems similar to that. (I have no idea the science between either of these products, so if that's a ridiculous/nonsensical comparison, sorry )
So a few things stuck out at me: -71% stayed abstinent for 12 weeks. What about after that? Why is 12 weeks significant? -I saw no mention of whether or not people eventually stop taking Baclofen or if it is a lifelong treatment. -Is there some kind of relationship between MS and alcoholism, as Plexa's mention of the drugs for each being intertwined?
As I understand it, rehab (notably the 12 step program) is pretty shaky to begin with. I recall hearing about studies that said it was largely ineffective/useless (this was mentioned in opposition to judicially mandated 12 step programs). Maybe someone can shed more light on whether or not rehab is even a good benchmark to be comparing this drug to. Moreover, what is the rate for treating alcoholism via placebo. 71% seems significant, but I have nothing to compare it to besides results of questionably effective rehab.
here is the thing about the entire alcoholism is not a disease debate. at first yes- people make the choice to drink. however over time there is a physical change in the brain. alcoholics can become physically addicted- and go through withdrawl symptoms. so at that point is it more than an impulse or addiction? where does one draw the line?
at first all addicts are not in a disease state. yet over time with pysicah and chemical changes that occur in the addics brain- when does one draw a line between disease and addiction?
It seems like it (alcoholism) could be better described as a personality trait than a disease. This product is like a magic pill that could turn someone from an introvert to an extrovert (oh wait shit, that's alcohol...) Some people just tend to be more compulsive than others, so i tend to sit on the non-disease side of the fence. Whether or not it's a disease, like many philosophical debates is pretty hard to prove one way or another... but long story short Baclofen sounds promising... now if you'll excuse me, i have a beer to finish.
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
On July 16 2011 10:27 raja91 wrote: You have to be pretty stupid to start abusing alcohol in the first place.
Spoken like people who have no f'ing idea what they are talking about. Alcoholism is a serious problem.
A prescription drug that could cure alcoholism would be a pretty huge deal.
On July 16 2011 11:01 SirazTV wrote: I actually heard this guy on NPR a few weeks back and basically it is replacing one drug with another. I really don't see this being all that useful.
The part about: "It is non-addictive, doesn't produce cravings, and has been safely prescribed for more than 40 years" is pretty damn important. Can't say that about alcohol.
On July 16 2011 11:01 KimJongChill wrote: haha, sounds like a miracle, but life is hardly ever so easily dealt with.
Modern medicine seems to be able to 'easily' deal with quite a lot of illnesses. (Most of these has been long forgotten by the general first world population.) Hopefully alcoholism will go the same way.
guys, seriously, seems you all know any shit on drugs.
I have been using drugs for the last 15 years, and half of you seems falling for the pharmaceutical lie while the other half of you seems falling for that other lie about "adictions"
This news here is just another lie about a drug to overcome another drug. Alcohol is quite an awesome drug, btw, and all of the so called adictions have much more to do with personality issues than with the actual subtances.
I say it again, im kind of a jonky and i know that after i tried heroin i never wanted to try morphine again.
On July 16 2011 11:01 SirazTV wrote: I actually heard this guy on NPR a few weeks back and basically it is replacing one drug with another. I really don't see this being all that useful.
The part about: "It is non-addictive, doesn't produce cravings, and has been safely prescribed for more than 40 years" is pretty damn important. Can't say that about alcohol.
On July 16 2011 11:01 KimJongChill wrote: haha, sounds like a miracle, but life is hardly ever so easily dealt with.
Modern medicine seems to be able to 'easily' deal with quite a lot of illnesses. (Most of these has been long forgotten by the general first world population.) Hopefully alcoholism will go the same way.
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
Agreed with this post. It's not some crazy disease, it's just like quitting tobacco.
I can't really see it through an alcoholics eyes though, so my opinion shouldn't matter too much.
My dad quit smoking for 9 months after being a 30 year smoker, and never had a craving again. My uncle, an alcoholic, has been sober for over 2 years and still has cravings on a regular basis. The two are nothing alike. Once you become one, you are one for life; a cure for this would be a VERY big deal.
I got a better suggestion, which pretty much worked for lots of my friends: " When psychedelic therapy is given to alcoholics using methods described in the literature about one-third will remain sober after the therapy is completed, and one-third will be benefited. If schizophrenics and malvarians[10] are excluded from LSD therapy the results should be better by about 30 per cent. There are no published papers using psychedelic therapy which show it does not help about 50 per cent of the treated group.... Our conclusion after 13 years of research is that properly used LSD therapy can convert a large number of alcoholics into sober members of society.... Even more important is the fact that this can be done very quickly and therefore very economically. Whereas with standard therapy one bed might be used to treat about 4 to 6 patients per year, with LSD one can easily treat up to 36 patients per bed per year. " http://www.skeptically.org/recres/id3.html
Alcoholism - addiction to alcohol resulting from alcohol dependency
Alcohol dependence - withdrawal symptoms, tolerance, use of larger and larger amounts, significant time spent obtaining alcohol, neglecting other social responsibilities.
People have addictions, some people will label these behaviors as "personality characteristics, choices, personal flaws, habits, weakness... etc..." All of these terms reflect ignorance of the pathophysiology and development of addiction as well as human addictive behavior.
I doubt we can avoid these arguments in a thread like this, but lets hope.
On July 16 2011 11:01 SirazTV wrote: I actually heard this guy on NPR a few weeks back and basically it is replacing one drug with another. I really don't see this being all that useful.
The part about: "It is non-addictive, doesn't produce cravings, and has been safely prescribed for more than 40 years" is pretty damn important. Can't say that about alcohol.
On July 16 2011 11:01 KimJongChill wrote: haha, sounds like a miracle, but life is hardly ever so easily dealt with.
Modern medicine seems to be able to 'easily' deal with quite a lot of illnesses. (Most of these has been long forgotten by the general first world population.) Hopefully alcoholism will go the same way.
So you go from being addicted to alcohol, to being addicted to a prescription drug......how lovely. All that a prescription drug regarding alcoholism or any other curable mental disorder is doing is putting a band aid over the wound. You're not treating the source of the problem and you're going from one physical dependency to another. At least the pharmaceutical company behind this pill will make a lot more money, its probably all that they care about anyways.
Well if it's ok to give someone drugs because of mental problems, why isn't it ok to try the same thing with addictions, which lead to changes of the brain, just like mental problems as well. No one comes up with stuff like "well it's just replacing it with a drug" or something like that. And on top of that, if it really works anything like it, it means that it's not a lifetime treatment, more likely a "setting the brain back to 'normal' for about one year and after that it probably works normal again". Well I don't know shit about addictions, but that's what's comming to my mind when I think of it and hear people telling me addiction may actually change something in your brain.
its been known for thirty years that psychodelics offer unbelievable good rates of recovery for substance addiction if used in psychological setting
first it was LSD, now there are newer studies with psylocybin. the only thing is that it takes scientists like a decade to get grants for doing such research, and then it doesnt change anything. the powers that be seem to be scared of psychodelics...
all easily googlable, but hereis a link to start:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/lsd-helps-alcoholics-put-down-the-botttle-419523.html
On July 16 2011 11:29 Toadesstern wrote: Well if it's ok to give someone drugs because of mental problems, why isn't it ok to try the same thing with addictions, which lead to changes of the brain, just like mental problems as well. No one comes up with stuff like "well it's just replacing it with a drug" or something like that. And on top of that, if it really works anything like it, it means that it's not a lifetime treatment, more likely a "setting the brain back to 'normal' for about one year and after that it probably works normal again". Well I don't know shit about addictions, but that's what's comming to my mind when I think of it and hear people telling me addiction may actually change something in your brain.
If it were like that it would be a cure. This is not. Once people stopped taking the drug they started having cravings again.
I have been fighting alcoholism and drug addiction for a couple of years now. There is no cure I am an addict at heart. Even tho there are long periods I can go sober, I always have the urge to get drunk or fucked up somehow. Actually I think the drug problem is a lot easier to handle in my case, I almost dont get urges to get high anymore (cocaine) but I still feel the urges to get drunk.
I stay sober because I have learned to be in control I guess, and I know I dont want to be a low life loser alcoholic, but it gets hard sometimes. Every couple of months or so I get in this "I dont give a fuck anymore mode" and binge drink for days at the time 5+..it actually just happen not long ago at all lol I started drinking 4th of july and I just went on a binge that lasted 7 days and I ended up in key west lol ( i live like 5 hours away from there). The hardest part is not stopping, but what comes after you stop, the depression, anxiety, persecution feeling, fast heart beats, it fucking blows they usually last for like a day or so and then I feel like i recuperate my life and I am back in control
Anyways, what Also helps me big time is working out and fitness. Whenever i run everyday and go to the gym everyday that keeps me away from drinking. and of course ditching my party friends for a while
Alcoholism is not just "oh hey I like drinking and have no willpower". Alcoholism is a severe addiction which studies have shown to be passed down genetically, where the sufferers are far more predisposed than average people to abuse alcohol. Alcohol is a drug, and like any other drug, some people are more responsive and dependent on it than others. This drug reduces the dependency. It's a great step forward.
On July 16 2011 11:25 SirazTV wrote: Also, it does not cure alcoholism. Once you stop taking bachlofin the craving will resume.
Yes, probably, but it's still a great help. People who suffer from severe depression have to take anti-depressants for their entire lives; this is not any different. I know alcoholics who can quit for a few years but always come back, at least this drug gives them something they can come back to instead of the bottle.
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
On July 16 2011 11:27 Sovern wrote: So you go from being addicted to alcohol, to being addicted to a prescription drug......how lovely. All that a prescription drug regarding alcoholism or any other curable mental disorder is doing is putting a band aid over the wound. You're not treating the source of the problem and you're going from one physical dependency to another. At least the pharmaceutical company behind this pill will make a lot more money, its probably all that they care about anyways.
The difference is, alcohol causes changes in behavior that ruin an alcoholic's life, whereas this drug (presumably) does not. So are you saying being addicted to meth and being addicted to delicious cake are the same thing? Replacing an unhealthy addiction with a healthy one is the only way to treat such a disease.
These drugs cause changes in behavior too....they act in a similar manner as xanax or any benzo acts on the brain. Benzo's are known to cause mood changes and have a lot of the same side affects that alcohol has. Why do you think that they said in the article the OP listed that withdrawal must be done gradually from this pill.....its because it affects your brain the same way alcohol does which is by inhibiting your GABA receptors which is also how drugs like xanax work, they all inhibit the GABA receptors.
Good job at putting words in my mouth you're making yourself look like an idiot that lacks reading comprehension skills. No where did I say that being addicted to cake is akin to being addicted to meth. The funny part is that you actually think that being addicted to a drug like this one is a good thing.
I can't find the part where it says when they get off the new drug...Or...do they ever get off it? Sure, people say it's non addictive, but if you can't go off the drug without relapsing....that seems like it's just a replacement.
On July 16 2011 12:00 Roe wrote: I can't find the part where it says when they get off the new drug...Or...do they ever get off it? Sure, people say it's non addictive, but if you can't go off the drug without relapsing....that seems like it's just a replacement.
A matter of weighing up pros and cons I suppose. I would wager that being addicted to this is better for your family, friends and yourself than being addicted to alcohol.
On July 16 2011 11:01 SirazTV wrote: I actually heard this guy on NPR a few weeks back and basically it is replacing one drug with another. I really don't see this being all that useful.
The part about: "It is non-addictive, doesn't produce cravings, and has been safely prescribed for more than 40 years" is pretty damn important. Can't say that about alcohol.
On July 16 2011 11:01 KimJongChill wrote: haha, sounds like a miracle, but life is hardly ever so easily dealt with.
Modern medicine seems to be able to 'easily' deal with quite a lot of illnesses. (Most of these has been long forgotten by the general first world population.) Hopefully alcoholism will go the same way.
Well... modern medicine is full of shit.
Not sure if serious.
Well, of course im serious. I am an user f many drugs, for the last 15 years of my life. Im kind of a jonky. I know for sure that some drugs make you lose interest in some other "softer" related drugs (like heroin does over morphine addicts) and im in quite of an aknowledge around the pharmaceutical "issue" with all the most wide overextended cultural and natural drugs, like alcohol, canabis, amanita, and mezcalina. I could add coffe to this list and talk a bit about energetic taureen-based drinks... how the first are growth in third world countries while the second are made in labs in the developed countries. Pharmaceutical companies are full of shit.
Modern medicine is about that... about sustainning illness so pharmaceutical companies can make more money selling pills. Modern medicine is not about curing illness, its about provoking drug (pill) dependency.
So now they have "the cure to alcoholism".
full of shit, they just are gonna develope a new race of jonkies.
On July 16 2011 12:00 Roe wrote: I can't find the part where it says when they get off the new drug...Or...do they ever get off it? Sure, people say it's non addictive, but if you can't go off the drug without relapsing....that seems like it's just a replacement.
This post is either pure wisdom or pure noob enlightment. Smart guy anyway. And im pretty sure there is way more control over this new drug than over the alcohol. Do the maths, guys... is better for you? or is it better for your owners?
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
On July 16 2011 10:27 raja91 wrote: You have to be pretty stupid to start abusing alcohol in the first place.
Spoken like people who have no f'ing idea what they are talking about. Alcoholism is a serious problem.
A prescription drug that could cure alcoholism would be a pretty huge deal.
Didn't say it wasn't a problem, it obviously is. But it isn't a disease or anything. You arn't born with alcoholism, you can't "catch" alcoholism.
Like I said you don't know what you are talking about. Studies have proven it to be hereditary.
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
This is why no one respects us Americans.
We talk a lot. Usually have no idea what we're talking about.
On July 16 2011 12:10 Crue wrote: i heard the cure for alcoholism is restraint. :X
It's hard to explain addiction to people. Addiction supersedes will, every time. You'll never hear of a crack addict who just one day decided "I'm going to stop being a crack addict, and start being awesome instead!" and then just stopped.
Your brain is addicted. To the chemicals. In your brain.
Shocking, I know. But the chemicals that are naturally in your brain, like say dopamine, are used to reward and punish behavior. It's your physical brain's way of controlling your psychological mind.
Going around touching fire seems like a horrible idea because of how much being burned hurts. Likewise, cookies are awesome because of how great they taste.
Each of these actions release chemicals into your brain that say "good job, human! You ate a delicious cookie and now we won't starve to death for the next 2 hours!" or "What the fuck were you thinking idiot? I can't believe you're actually a part of me. FIRE? ARE YOU KIDDING? THAT'S BAD MOTHER FUCKER!"
Introducing any drug that effects the chemical make-up of your brain, such as narcotics, stimulants, or depressants (like alcohol), over a long period of time, changes the way your brain responds to these types of chemicals.
Mixed with psychological/emotional trauma, like say being left by your wife, this could induce the perfect environment for a PHYSICAL dependance upon the drug in question. It isn't a matter of will, because you can't will your body into being no longer dependent on something. Real alcoholics are in real PAIN when they don't drink. It isn't them being stupid or not wanting to change. It's them not wanting to hurt.
From the outside looking in it's easy to say "Well, just stop for like 2 weeks and the rest of your life is better!" but from the inside, you don't feel like you've got a choice. You feel hopeless. You feel constricted.
That is why something like this is a fucking miracle on every level. Even if it's not the true cure, it's a big step. Bravo to science.
On July 16 2011 10:53 Craton wrote: So a few things stuck out at me: -71% stayed abstinent for 12 weeks. What about after that? Why is 12 weeks significant? -I saw no mention of whether or not people eventually stop taking Baclofen or if it is a lifelong treatment. -Is there some kind of relationship between MS and alcoholism, as Plexa's mention of the drugs for each being intertwined?
As I understand it, rehab (notably the 12 step program) is pretty shaky to begin with. I recall hearing about studies that said it was largely ineffective/useless (this was mentioned in opposition to judicially mandated 12 step programs). Maybe someone can shed more light on whether or not rehab is even a good benchmark to be comparing this drug to. Moreover, what is the rate for treating alcoholism via placebo. 71% seems significant, but I have nothing to compare it to besides results of questionably effective rehab.
12 weeks is significant because that was the length of the study.
I provided a link to the study, where you will see that the placebo experienced 29% abstinence compared to 71% in the baclofen group.
It is true that 12-step programs/AA have very poor success rates. Their own estimates state that within 3 years, 95% of people have dropped out.
On July 16 2011 12:00 Roe wrote: I can't find the part where it says when they get off the new drug...Or...do they ever get off it? Sure, people say it's non addictive, but if you can't go off the drug without relapsing....that seems like it's just a replacement.
OP here...
It is true that if baclofen is stopped, the cravings can come back. Therefore, it is likely a life-long commitment. The standard procedure is to steadily raise the dose until the patient experiences the "switch," which is a state of complete indifference to alcohol. After that point, the dose is steadily reduced as low as possible, until the patient finds the "sustainment" dosage where cravings for alcohol do not return.
Dr. Olivier Ameisen, who was the first to self-prescribe baclofen, reached a dose of 270 mg/day before he reached complete indifference to alcohol, and was able to stop drinking completely, or even choose to have a drink now and then socially. Unfortunately, at that high dose he experienced too much drowsiness, so he steadily reduced the dose to 120 mg/day. He stayed at that dose for several years, but I heard that recently he is sustaining at 50 mg/day.
I guess the point is, we don't really know much about the treatment yet. Perhaps it's possible to get through the withdrawal and cravings with baclofen, and then use cognitive behavioral therapy while you get off the drug, in order to achieve abstinence from both.
In either case, it is clear that baclofen is a significantly improved substitute in comparison to alcohol. Alcohol causes severe health issues, as well as social problems like losing your job, which baclofen does not cause. Baclofen doesn't make you drunk, or damage your liver, or give you intense cravings for ever higher doses like alcohol does. If baclofen can save lives, and it certainly can, then it should be considered as an option when all other methods and programs fail.
Seems cool if it continues to work, but I, personally, would be very wary of trying anything like 300mgs a day (or the drug at all) unless I were a dead end alcoholic with money to spend (which I am not) (and I assume this drug is fairly expensive).
I agree with the 300 mg a day part. It can't be good in the long run but I guess drinking isn't either. Also, he clearly stated that it was off patent and cheap if you had red to the end
I'm not sure what it's called but isn't this much like the stuff they give go heroine ? Methadone or what ever it's called ?
Seems cool if it continues to work, but I, personally, would be very wary of trying anything like 300mgs a day (or the drug at all) unless I were a dead end alcoholic with money to spend (which I am not) (and I assume this drug is fairly expensive).
I agree with the 300 mg a day part. It can't be good in the long run but I guess drinking isn't either. Also, he clearly stated that it was off patent and cheap if you had red to the end
I'm not sure what it's called but isn't this much like the stuff they give go heroine ? Methadone or what ever it's called ?
Methadone is a horrible comparison. That stuff is like rat poison. It's like chemotherapy. It's a horrible thing for the body. But given the circumstances, it's necessary. Cause it's do or die. This case sounds much less drastic.
Seems cool if it continues to work, but I, personally, would be very wary of trying anything like 300mgs a day (or the drug at all) unless I were a dead end alcoholic with money to spend (which I am not) (and I assume this drug is fairly expensive).
Seems cool if it continues to work, but I, personally, would be very wary of trying anything like 300mgs a day (or the drug at all) unless I were a dead end alcoholic with money to spend (which I am not) (and I assume this drug is fairly expensive).
I agree with the 300 mg a day part. It can't be good in the long run but I guess drinking isn't either. Also, he clearly stated that it was off patent and cheap if you had red to the end
I'm not sure what it's called but isn't this much like the stuff they give go heroine ? Methadone or what ever it's called ?
This is the same basic concept as methadone treatment, substituting one drug for another. But methadone is much, much worse than baclofen. It has worse health and side effects, and has a very high rate of dependence. Those that use baclofen have little trouble tapering their dose down, while with methadone it is an extremely difficult process.
Seems cool if it continues to work, but I, personally, would be very wary of trying anything like 300mgs a day (or the drug at all) unless I were a dead end alcoholic with money to spend (which I am not) (and I assume this drug is fairly expensive).
I agree with the 300 mg a day part. It can't be good in the long run but I guess drinking isn't either. Also, he clearly stated that it was off patent and cheap if you had red to the end
I'm not sure what it's called but isn't this much like the stuff they give go heroine ? Methadone or what ever it's called ?
Methadone is a horrible comparison. That stuff is like rat poison. It's like chemotherapy. It's a horrible thing for the body. But given the circumstances, it's necessary. Cause it's do or die. This case sounds much less drastic.
Methadone is a synthetic opiate that will stop making other opiates giving you euphoria. It is nothing like rat poison in anyway. It has no serious side effects if taken as prescribed.
EDIT: yes methadone is just as addictive as other opiates but it will allow you to get your life together before you start the uncomfortable weaning off process.
On July 16 2011 12:10 Crue wrote: i heard the cure for alcoholism is restraint. :X
It's hard to explain addiction to people. Addiction supersedes will, every time. You'll never hear of a crack addict who just one day decided "I'm going to stop being a crack addict, and start being awesome instead!" and then just stopped.
Your brain is addicted. To the chemicals. In your brain.
Shocking, I know. But the chemicals that are naturally in your brain, like say dopamine, are used to reward and punish behavior. It's your physical brain's way of controlling your psychological mind.
Going around touching fire seems like a horrible idea because of how much being burned hurts. Likewise, cookies are awesome because of how great they taste.
Each of these actions release chemicals into your brain that say "good job, human! You ate a delicious cookie and now we won't starve to death for the next 2 hours!" or "What the fuck were you thinking idiot? I can't believe you're actually a part of me. FIRE? ARE YOU KIDDING? THAT'S BAD MOTHER FUCKER!"
Introducing any drug that effects the chemical make-up of your brain, such as narcotics, stimulants, or depressants (like alcohol), over a long period of time, changes the way your brain responds to these types of chemicals.
Mixed with psychological/emotional trauma, like say being left by your wife, this could induce the perfect environment for a PHYSICAL dependance upon the drug in question. It isn't a matter of will, because you can't will your body into being no longer dependent on something. Real alcoholics are in real PAIN when they don't drink. It isn't them being stupid or not wanting to change. It's them not wanting to hurt.
From the outside looking in it's easy to say "Well, just stop for like 2 weeks and the rest of your life is better!" but from the inside, you don't feel like you've got a choice. You feel hopeless. You feel constricted.
That is why something like this is a fucking miracle on every level. Even if it's not the true cure, it's a big step. Bravo to science.
Probably one of the best posts I've seen in this forum.
If magic pill addiction replaces alcohol addiction then that's a good trade until a final solution is developed.
I'm amazed how many people have posted in this thread who know absolutely nothing about medicine, alcoholism, or the human body in general. Not a single one of those people posting one-liner, generic, uneducated responses have any sources to back them. I sincerely doubt the majority of you have the training and education necessary to make such statements.
Thank you, Chargelot, for being one of the few intelligent posters in the thread. There were a few others, of course, but the majority (raja91, R0YAL, urasheep (at least you are sensible enough to admit your ignorance on the subject, and I commend you for that), etc.) are clueless.
On July 16 2011 11:01 SirazTV wrote: I actually heard this guy on NPR a few weeks back and basically it is replacing one drug with another. I really don't see this being all that useful.
Hey, as long as this drug doesn't lead to car accidents, bar fights, and domestic violence, I'd call it an improvement.
B.S. Suboxone is a "miracle" opiate / dope addict device. Doctors and studies said it had no side effects and it was non addictive but guess what, it is.
so it says you don't gain tolerance to any considerable degree, and yet you can suffer severe and dangerous withdrawal symptoms if you suddenly stop. I don't understand how this is not contradictory.
On July 16 2011 14:07 Gummy wrote: so it says you don't gain tolerance to any considerable degree, and yet you can suffer severe and dangerous withdrawal symptoms if you suddenly stop. I don't understand how this is not contradictory.
You must be misunderstanding the meaning of tolerance...
Drug tolerance means that the subjects reaction to the drug, or the effects that the drug has at a specific dose, reduces over time. This means that the patient gets "used to" a dose, and therefore has to take ever higher doses in order for it to be effective.
On July 16 2011 14:07 Gummy wrote: so it says you don't gain tolerance to any considerable degree, and yet you can suffer severe and dangerous withdrawal symptoms if you suddenly stop. I don't understand how this is not contradictory.
You must be misunderstanding the meaning of tolerance...
Drug tolerance means that the subjects reaction to the drug, or the effects that the drug has at a specific dose, reduces over time. This means that the patient gets "used to" a dose, and therefore has to take ever higher doses in order for it to be effective.
How is something not addictive, but have withdrawal symptoms though? It says that in the OP, in the facts about the drug. The first thing it says is its not addictive, the last thing is says is if you stop taking it suddenly you can have withdrawals (which to me means that its addictive).
On July 16 2011 14:07 Gummy wrote: so it says you don't gain tolerance to any considerable degree, and yet you can suffer severe and dangerous withdrawal symptoms if you suddenly stop. I don't understand how this is not contradictory.
You must be misunderstanding the meaning of tolerance...
Drug tolerance means that the subjects reaction to the drug, or the effects that the drug has at a specific dose, reduces over time. This means that the patient gets "used to" a dose, and therefore has to take ever higher doses in order for it to be effective.
How is something not addictive, but have withdrawal symptoms though? It says that in the OP, in the facts about the drug. The first thing it says is its not addictive, the last thing is says is if you stop taking it suddenly you can have withdrawals (which to me means that its addictive).
Uh. Hm. The two are related, but not directly. Like how squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares.
Withdrawal isn't EXCLUSIVELY a symptom of addiction. But Addiction can cause withdrawal.
On July 16 2011 14:07 Gummy wrote: so it says you don't gain tolerance to any considerable degree, and yet you can suffer severe and dangerous withdrawal symptoms if you suddenly stop. I don't understand how this is not contradictory.
You must be misunderstanding the meaning of tolerance...
Drug tolerance means that the subjects reaction to the drug, or the effects that the drug has at a specific dose, reduces over time. This means that the patient gets "used to" a dose, and therefore has to take ever higher doses in order for it to be effective.
How is something not addictive, but have withdrawal symptoms though? It says that in the OP, in the facts about the drug. The first thing it says is its not addictive, the last thing is says is if you stop taking it suddenly you can have withdrawals (which to me means that its addictive).
Uh. Hm. The two are related, but not directly. Like how squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares.
Withdrawal isn't EXCLUSIVELY a symptom of addiction. But Addiction can cause withdrawal.
On July 16 2011 14:07 Gummy wrote: so it says you don't gain tolerance to any considerable degree, and yet you can suffer severe and dangerous withdrawal symptoms if you suddenly stop. I don't understand how this is not contradictory.
You must be misunderstanding the meaning of tolerance...
Drug tolerance means that the subjects reaction to the drug, or the effects that the drug has at a specific dose, reduces over time. This means that the patient gets "used to" a dose, and therefore has to take ever higher doses in order for it to be effective.
How is something not addictive, but have withdrawal symptoms though? It says that in the OP, in the facts about the drug. The first thing it says is its not addictive, the last thing is says is if you stop taking it suddenly you can have withdrawals (which to me means that its addictive).
The American Society of Addiction Medicine has this definition for Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships.
In other words, baclofen does not exhibit any signs of psychological dependence. It doesn't produce cravings, it doesn't impair behavioral control, it isn't progressive, etc. It does, however, produce a physical dependency, which is distinct from addiction as it is currently defined.
On July 16 2011 14:00 -fj. wrote: if it binds to GABA receptors, wouldn't it make you drunk just like good old ethyl hydroxide ?
I guess the answer is yes, but that its like methadone for alcohol
The "drunkenness" caused by alcohol has many different causes, not simply GABA action.
Drugs that act as agonists of GABA receptors (known as GABA analogues or GABAergic drugs) or increase the available amount of GABA typically have relaxing, anti-anxiety, and anti-convulsive effects. Alcohol also has these effects, but they are not the sole effects produced.
In other words, baclofen mimics drunkenness when it comes to the effects of drowsiness, relaxation, anti-anxiety, etc., but none others.
This is stilly, Alcoholism and Drug addiction are really just a form of OCD. People who suffer from it do not need drugs or alcohol to demonstrate the behavior, it manifests in just about any activity that brings the person out of themselves.
IE: Work, sex, reading, gaming, gambling, biding for items on ebay, anything you can think of...
There is not, nor will be a "cure" for this, as it is a life long affliction. It is only manageable with either therapy or antidepressants (usually a combination of the two).
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
On July 16 2011 14:07 Gummy wrote: so it says you don't gain tolerance to any considerable degree, and yet you can suffer severe and dangerous withdrawal symptoms if you suddenly stop. I don't understand how this is not contradictory.
You must be misunderstanding the meaning of tolerance...
Drug tolerance means that the subjects reaction to the drug, or the effects that the drug has at a specific dose, reduces over time. This means that the patient gets "used to" a dose, and therefore has to take ever higher doses in order for it to be effective.
How is something not addictive, but have withdrawal symptoms though? It says that in the OP, in the facts about the drug. The first thing it says is its not addictive, the last thing is says is if you stop taking it suddenly you can have withdrawals (which to me means that its addictive).
Uh. Hm. The two are related, but not directly. Like how squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares.
Withdrawal isn't EXCLUSIVELY a symptom of addiction. But Addiction can cause withdrawal.
Ever been on antidepressants? There's definite withdrawal symptoms if you don't 'taper off them', but you certainly don't ever feel like you want to take them/your body doesn't 'crave' them (depending on the antidepressant, I'd assume).
On July 16 2011 15:00 Thacis wrote: This is stilly, Alcoholism and Drug addiction are really just a form of OCD. People who suffer from it do not need drugs or alcohol to demonstrate the behavior, it manifests in just about any activity that brings the person out of themselves.
IE: Work, sex, reading, gaming, gambling, biding for items on ebay, anything you can think of...
There is not, nor will be a "cure" for this, as it is a life long affliction. It is only manageable with either therapy or antidepressants (usually a combination of the two).
I was going to go to the reverse direction of this. This may relex or revert their attention from alcohol, but those who are addicted to alcohol are probably addicted to something else as well which will then be put in overdrive.
wow the ignorance in this topic is fucking stupid congrats to all the people posting ITT who've never had a drink in their lives and feel superior to alcohol addicts, you're huge douches
alcoholism is like the worst disease in the world because it's the only one that people LOOK DOWN on you for having. it's not like if they released a pill for curing cancer people would be saying "yeah well you just shouldn't have cancer, get some better genes!" and yet it's not considered snobby or rude when people are like "oh you're addicted to alcohol? lol yeah right just stop drinking n00b." completely baffles me
alcohol has completely destroyed my family, i'm currently dealing with my mom completely out of control of her life, physically unable to stop drinking. it's sad and depressing and what's even worse is that people refuse to support her through her disease because they view it as self-inflicted rather than something out of her control
anyways, i'd rather have my mom take 300mg of a pill that satisfies/eliminates her craving without turning her into the raging, angry, alcoholic person that she is on booze. saying that one dependence is no better than the other is a huge oversimplification
On July 16 2011 15:33 gtrsrs wrote: wow the ignorance in this topic is fucking stupid congrats to all the people posting ITT who've never had a drink in their lives and feel superior to alcohol addicts, you're huge douches
alcoholism is like the worst disease in the world because it's the only one that people LOOK DOWN on you for having. it's not like if they released a pill for curing cancer people would be saying "yeah well you just shouldn't have cancer, get some better genes!" and yet it's not considered snobby or rude when people are like "oh you're addicted to alcohol? lol yeah right just stop drinking n00b." completely baffles me
alcohol has completely destroyed my family, i'm currently dealing with my mom completely out of control of her life, physically unable to stop drinking. it's sad and depressing and what's even worse is that people refuse to support her through her disease because they view it as self-inflicted rather than something out of her control
anyways, i'd rather have my mom take 300mg of a pill that satisfies/eliminates her craving without turning her into the raging, angry, alcoholic person that she is on booze. saying that one dependence is no better than the other is a huge oversimplification
I don't want to sound condescending however, I've helped a few friends break away from opiate addictions. I know what you're going through, it's tough. But TL isn't a place to get out these frustrations, go hit a punching bag.
I also know about the whole 'looking down' on thing. I'm a high functioning schizophrenic. I'm open and honest about it, because it doesn't impact my day-to-day activities. I've had a lot of 'friends' and girlfriends leave me because of this, and it sucks really bad. The difference between alcoholism and schizophrenia is that one you're born with, one you acquire. That's why these people think they are justified in looking down on it. Whether that's morally right, or wrong, is a topic for another discussion however.
The thing is, is that Alcoholism starts as a mental dependency, then it progresses to the point where the withdrawal symptoms can completely shut your body down. The reason quite a lot of people say you should just put it down, is that in the initial stages, and for quite a long time, you can. The only thing stopping you from putting down the drink is yourself.
That's not to say your mother hasn't already crossed the threshold though.
EDIT: This took me about 3-4 tries to write, because each time I sounded pretentious, or cruel. I don't want to do either, and I apologize if that's how I sound.
EDIT2: Let me clarify, I'm not a paranoid schizophrenic, just a plain old schizophrenic, a lot of people confuse the two terms.
Baclofen is known as an alternative treatment for alcoholism for quite some time. There are a lot of online forums where people try to get rid of their disease on their own with the help of baclofen.
This kind of thing is a complex issue. It can be very different person to person why they do this. I think it boils down to a mental problem combined with a chemical dependence when they have drank so much so often their body starts to treat it as a normal condition. Its interesting nonetheless and if it can help some of those struggling with alcohol then its a positive step in the right direction but I don't think a drug can simply be the cure all for this. A lot of alcoholics have deeper issues that cannot be fixed by a drug alone.
hahahahaha. addiction is a disease roooofff. I sat in court ordered NA meetings for 2 yrs listening to people with 0 self control preach that shit. I was a mass drug addict and it simply came down to making wiser choices and resisting the temptation to use. 5 years clean ... no disease in sight rofl ...
On July 16 2011 17:59 ladytr0n wrote: hahahahaha. addiction is a disease roooofff. I sat in court ordered NA meetings for 2 yrs listening to people with 0 self control preach that shit. I was a mass drug addict and it simply came down to making wiser choices and resisting the temptation to use. 5 years clean ... no disease in sight rofl ...
it's not a disease in a sense of u can catch it. u r responsible for getting it. but after u got it the chemicals in your brain are messed up. and every addiction is different. it's not as simple as a mere choice. alcohol addiction stays with u for the rest of your life.
I'm glad that you stopped using those drugs and I have respect for that, but maybe alcohol addiction is different to your addictions.
On July 16 2011 18:21 DisneylandSC wrote: Alternate cure: stop drinking alcohol.
Side-effects: none
Costs: free
Side-Effects: pain, withdrawal, serious cravings for a lifetime. risk of a fallback nearly every day.
Costs: Most of your social connections because it is really hard to hang out with you and you can never be taken to a party where alcohol is given out, while on the other hand a pill might have prevented all of that stuff.
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
Quoted from your own wiki lnk. You're welcome.
He claimed there were no side effects from stopping drinking. There obviously is, of which I showed the most serious. If people can die from withdrawal from alcohol, you can't say just stop drinking will solve everything. Thought that was obvious. -_-
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
Quoted from your own wiki lnk. You're welcome.
It's hereditary
In a genetic study of unprecendented scope, researchers have used new genomic technology to indentify human genes in people most at risk for developing alcoholism, which could revolutionize treatment and prevention options. Researchers at the Molecular Neurobiology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse report that their comprehensive scan of the human genome is the first time the new technology has been used to comprehensively indentify genes linked to substance abuse.
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
On July 16 2011 18:58 sushiman wrote:
On July 16 2011 18:21 DisneylandSC wrote: Alternate cure: stop drinking alcohol.
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
Quoted from your own wiki lnk. You're welcome.
He claimed there were no side effects from stopping drinking. There obviously is, of which I showed the most serious. If people can die from withdrawal from alcohol, you can't say just stop drinking will solve everything. Thought that was obvious. -_-
I suppose. But still 50-60% won't get any significant symptons. Makes you wonder if most people arn't even trying to stop drinking.
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
On July 16 2011 18:58 sushiman wrote:
On July 16 2011 18:21 DisneylandSC wrote: Alternate cure: stop drinking alcohol.
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
Quoted from your own wiki lnk. You're welcome.
He claimed there were no side effects from stopping drinking. There obviously is, of which I showed the most serious. If people can die from withdrawal from alcohol, you can't say just stop drinking will solve everything. Thought that was obvious. -_-
I suppose. But still 50-60% won't get any significant symptons. Makes you wonder if most people arn't even trying to stop drinking.
It's not the fear of withdrawal that keeps people addicted...
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
On July 16 2011 18:58 sushiman wrote:
On July 16 2011 18:21 DisneylandSC wrote: Alternate cure: stop drinking alcohol.
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
Quoted from your own wiki lnk. You're welcome.
He claimed there were no side effects from stopping drinking. There obviously is, of which I showed the most serious. If people can die from withdrawal from alcohol, you can't say just stop drinking will solve everything. Thought that was obvious. -_-
I suppose. But still 50-60% won't get any significant symptons. Makes you wonder if most people arn't even trying to stop drinking.
I don't think you quite understand addiction. You can try and stop drinking, but then you just cave and start drinking again, it doesn't mean the person isn't trying to stop. Newsflash, kicking an addiction is fucking hard. Even if the symptoms aren't significant, which really depends on the length and amount of drinking, it can be enough to get that person to drink again. The shakes are just one of the many withdrawal symptoms of alcoholism.
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
On July 16 2011 18:58 sushiman wrote:
On July 16 2011 18:21 DisneylandSC wrote: Alternate cure: stop drinking alcohol.
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
In a genetic study of unprecendented scope, researchers have used new genomic technology to indentify human genes in people most at risk for developing alcoholism, which could revolutionize treatment and prevention options. Researchers at the Molecular Neurobiology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse report that their comprehensive scan of the human genome is the first time the new technology has been used to comprehensively indentify genes linked to substance abuse.
-People who say alcoholism isn't a disease have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. -People complaining that treatment using baclofen is essentially a replacement for alcohol need to look deeper at the issue. The Baclofen would have a specific dosage to be prescribed by a medical professional, and most likely would be coupled with therapy, etc. to maximize effectiveness (which is essentially what they already do today). So if you want to oversimplify it, then yes you're just taking a pill. But in reality, for the most effective treatment you won't just be taking a pill.
The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
If it's the later than I will call it a disease but it's the persons own fault and I won't have much sympathy for them. If it's the former, well I just can't wrap my head around how people are born destined to be addicted to things their body or minds have no clue even exists, that would scare the shit out of me if that was proven to happen. How could I do anything without knowing if I wasn't gonna ruin my life once I tried it?
On July 16 2011 18:58 sushiman wrote:
On July 16 2011 18:21 DisneylandSC wrote: Alternate cure: stop drinking alcohol.
In the U.S., fewer than 50% to 60% of alcoholics will develop any significant withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of alcohol intake, and of these, only 5% of cases of acute ethanol withdrawal progress to DT.
Quoted from your own wiki lnk. You're welcome.
It's hereditary
In a genetic study of unprecendented scope, researchers have used new genomic technology to indentify human genes in people most at risk for developing alcoholism, which could revolutionize treatment and prevention options. Researchers at the Molecular Neurobiology Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse report that their comprehensive scan of the human genome is the first time the new technology has been used to comprehensively indentify genes linked to substance abuse.
On July 16 2011 19:01 Zooper31 wrote: The problem I have with saying alcoholism is a disease is this. When exactly did you get the disease? Were you born destined to be addicted to alcohol when you tried it or did the alcohol give it to you because you drank way more than was needed, IE you gave it to yourself.
I found that people understand alcoholism better if you (colloquially) call it an illness instead of a disease, one that you aquired by your own fault, although some people are much more succeptible to it than others. But you will almost never get rid of it without proper treatment by a doctor and/or therapist.
On July 16 2011 11:27 Sovern wrote: So you go from being addicted to alcohol, to being addicted to a prescription drug......how lovely. All that a prescription drug regarding alcoholism or any other curable mental disorder is doing is putting a band aid over the wound. You're not treating the source of the problem and you're going from one physical dependency to another. At least the pharmaceutical company behind this pill will make a lot more money, its probably all that they care about anyways.
I love how you read further than the title, wait you didn't? The drug isn't physically addictive.
If the drug does what they say it does, this will be huge!
On July 16 2011 19:47 Pulimuli wrote: People should get their heads out of their asses, even it its a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it.
How about another analogy:
Stop having sex. Right now. Don't do it ever again, not even on your own. Even if it's a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it, dedicated monks come to mind.
That actually requires roughly about the same dedication and strenght of will as does abstinence for an alcoholic. Booze and sex work in a comparable way in the reward center of the brain, and in a comparable intensitiy.
thing about extreme alcohol abuse is that you cannot stop or your body dies from the withdrawl symptoms
it boggles my mind that substances like LSD, marijuana, magic mushrooms (and just about any hallucinogen for that matter) are illegal but two of the most harmful and addictive recreation drugs, alcohol and tobacco, are completely legal. someday we humans will look back on these days and think "lol wtf were we doing?"
On July 16 2011 19:47 Pulimuli wrote: People should get their heads out of their asses, even it its a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it.
How about another analogy:
Stop having sex. Right now. Don't do it ever again, not even on your own. Even if it's a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it, dedicated monks come to mind.
That actually requires roughly about the same dedication and strenght of will as does abstinence for an alcoholic. Booze and sex work in a comparable way in the reward center of the brain, and in a comparable intensitiy.
No. Extremely alcohol abuse is many, many times worse than abstaining from sex. In fact, most of the worlds population doesnt have sex on a regular basis. the difference between abstaining from sex and abstaining from alcohol is that a person literally DIES if they stop drinking. a person addicted to alcohol will rather have a beer than look for food if they're starving, if any of their basic needs like housing, food, etc aren;t being met.
On July 16 2011 19:47 Pulimuli wrote: People should get their heads out of their asses, even it its a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it.
How about another analogy:
Stop having sex. Right now. Don't do it ever again, not even on your own. Even if it's a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it, dedicated monks come to mind.
That actually requires roughly about the same dedication and strenght of will as does abstinence for an alcoholic. Booze and sex work in a comparable way in the reward center of the brain, and in a comparable intensitiy.
No. Extremely alcohol abuse is many, many times worse than sex addiction. In fact, most of the worlds population doesnt have sex on a regular basis. the difference between abstaining from sex and abstaining from alcohol is that a person literally DIES if they stop drinking. a person addicted to alcohol will rather have a beer than look for food if they're starving, if any of their basic needs like housing, food, etc aren;t being met.
I was not talking about sex addiction. I know that the gratification an alcoholic gets from drinking is even greater than the gratification the average guy gets from having sex. I just gave an example so people who insist one could stop drinking whenever one wants can try to imagine how much strength and effort it actually takes. And maybe adjust their attitude towards alcoholics a tiny bit without slapping psychological theories in their faces.
it's ironic because by comparing abstaining from alcohol to abstaining from sex you're actually belittling the extreme effects of alcohol withdrawl symptoms and down playing how much alcoholics suffer. If you drink enough alcohol, it begins to become literally physically impossible to stop drinking due to the withdrawl symptoms. To compare it to abstaining from sex seems like a massive injustice.
On July 16 2011 11:27 Sovern wrote: So you go from being addicted to alcohol, to being addicted to a prescription drug......how lovely. All that a prescription drug regarding alcoholism or any other curable mental disorder is doing is putting a band aid over the wound. You're not treating the source of the problem and you're going from one physical dependency to another. At least the pharmaceutical company behind this pill will make a lot more money, its probably all that they care about anyways.
I love how you read further than the title, wait you didn't? The drug isn't physically addictive.
If the drug does what they say it does, this will be huge!
have you read further than the title?
On July 16 2011 10:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The most serious concern of the drug is a sudden discontinuation after prolonged periods of use. Discontinuation requires that the drug be tapered down. Sudden discontinuation can result in severe withdrawal symptoms, which are similar in nature to benzodiazepine or alcohol withdrawal.
If you get withdrawal from something it is safe to say you developed a physical addiction to it. And withdrawal symptoms of benzo's are pretty severe, I heard you can actually die because of it (Don't quote me on that though, no official sources).
I see your point, although I wasn't even talking about withdrawal. It seemed that had been talked about enough in this thread. I just made a (simplified) comparison to something the eports demographic holds near and dear, in the hope to foster understanding of a disease that, although it has been around for thousands of years, is often misunderstood by those not affected.
On July 16 2011 10:52 tok wrote: I have alcoholism in my family I may need this some day.
There is no alcoholism gene.
On July 16 2011 20:38 Carush wrote: has it even been proven that alcoholism is a real disease?
i was under the impression it was just people who didn't have any self control (i could be wrong tho)
It has never been proven to be a disease. Cancer is a disease. You can't simply stop having cancer with willpower. You can stop alcoholism with willpower. If anyone wants to claim "alcoholism is a disease", the best they can do is to claim that some people have weak willpower really. I'm not disputing that there are withdrawal/physiological symptoms from alcohol abuse, but there is clearly no "alcoholism disease". Perhaps only some psychological traits which encourage alcoholism.
On July 16 2011 20:38 Carush wrote: has it even been proven that alcoholism is a real disease?
i was under the impression it was just people who didn't have any self control (i could be wrong tho)
It has never been proven to be a disease. Cancer is a disease. You can't simply stop having cancer with willpower. You can stop alcoholism with willpower. If anyone wants to claim "alcoholism is a disease", the best they can do is to claim that some people have weak willpower really. I'm not disputing that there are withdrawal/physiological symptoms from alcohol abuse, but there is clearly no "alcoholism disease". Perhaps only some psychological traits which encourage alcoholism.
I'd call it a disease, because of the meaning of the word. dis-ease, it brings pain to the person.
On July 16 2011 19:47 Pulimuli wrote: People should get their heads out of their asses, even it its a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it.
How about another analogy:
Stop having sex. Right now. Don't do it ever again, not even on your own. Even if it's a hard thing to do, some actually manage to do it, dedicated monks come to mind.
That actually requires roughly about the same dedication and strenght of will as does abstinence for an alcoholic. Booze and sex work in a comparable way in the reward center of the brain, and in a comparable intensitiy.
thats why i said that its a very hard thing to do but some people actually realize that they have to make a change and have the willpower to do so.
edit: Not having sex is probably way easier than staying away from alcohol if you're an alcoholic
On July 16 2011 20:41 Lucidity wrote:Cancer is a disease. You can't simply stop having cancer with willpower.
Well alcoholism alters and damages brain structures. You can't undo those alterations and damages with willpower. Furthermore, the alterations negatively affect your willpower regarding alcohol.
While Baclofen isn't "addictive", don't think for a second it's a terribly safe drug to come off of. Baclofen is a very dangerous drug to stop using. All of the GABA(beta) agonists are. So while it's nice that it could help for ending alcoholism, don't think it's without it's serious risks.
And that it can work for an alcoholic shouldn't be a surprise. Ethanol is a selective GABA (a)(b)(c) agonist, which is the reason why a person, when drunk, is so limber. Their muscles are really, really relaxed.
And going back to drinking like an alcoholic cares severe risk, up to making you dead, on Baclofen. So there's that worry as well.
On July 16 2011 20:41 Lucidity wrote:Cancer is a disease. You can't simply stop having cancer with willpower.
Well alcoholism alters and damages brain structures. You can't undo those alterations and damages with willpower. Furthermore, the alterations negatively affect your willpower regarding alcohol.
That is as a result from drinking alcohol. Not from the "alcoholism disease".
Think about this: If I had the "alcoholism disease" and while drunk I managed to stab something into my brain, I would also not be able to undo the damages caused. But you can't attribute the damage to the "alcoholism disease". The damage was caused by a sharp object in my brain. Just like alcohol can cause damage. It's not the "disease" that causes this damage. I could do the same damage to myself without being an alcoholic.
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
Agreed with this post. It's not some crazy disease, it's just like quitting tobacco.
I can't really see it through an alcoholics eyes though, so my opinion shouldn't matter too much.
You have never met a real alcoholic, now, have you?
That said,... "A person who wishes to remain anonymous donated $750,000 to Amsterdam university in the Netherlands to initiate a clinical trial of high-dose baclofen. The trial was scheduled to start sometime in 2011."
There is no "Amsterdam university". There's the a) University of Amsterdam and b) Free University of Amsterdam. Since we (UvA) have some specialists in the field of addiction (e.g. Prof. Dr. Richard Ridderinkhof) I would assume it's us, but yea.
On July 16 2011 10:52 tok wrote: I have alcoholism in my family I may need this some day.
There is no alcoholism gene.
On July 16 2011 20:38 Carush wrote: has it even been proven that alcoholism is a real disease?
i was under the impression it was just people who didn't have any self control (i could be wrong tho)
It has never been proven to be a disease. Cancer is a disease. You can't simply stop having cancer with willpower. You can stop alcoholism with willpower. If anyone wants to claim "alcoholism is a disease", the best they can do is to claim that some people have weak willpower really. I'm not disputing that there are withdrawal/physiological symptoms from alcohol abuse, but there is clearly no "alcoholism disease". Perhaps only some psychological traits which encourage alcoholism.
I'd call it a disease, because of the meaning of the word. dis-ease, it brings pain to the person.
Scratches also bring pain to a person but can hardly been seen as a disease. Just like breaking a bone isn't called a disease. Alcoholism isn't something you can cure in a hurry but it is not like you HAD to drink in the first place. One way or another you started drinking that much. Not someone else but you. That's why its so hard to call a disease and probably never will.
On July 16 2011 20:38 Carush wrote: has it even been proven that alcoholism is a real disease?
i was under the impression it was just people who didn't have any self control (i could be wrong tho)
it's mixed opinion
and you're right, your second sentence is incorrect. alcohol is not a drug you can just quit cold turkey with willpower or "self control".
you guys need to understand this .. once you drink enough alcohol your body undergoes changes and becomes dependent on it. without the alcohol you go through a myriad of horrendous withdrawl symptoms one of which (Delirium tremens) can kill you outright.
quitting alcohol if you're heavily addicted is not something you can do with self-control or will power alone. it's not comparable to something like losing weight by eating less or having self-discipline to go to the gym regularly, or abstaining from sex like someone said earlier. Some of you guys are under estimating and belittling just how terrible alcohol addiction is and how easily it can ruin people's lives.
On July 16 2011 21:03 Lucidity wrote: Think about this: If I had the "alcoholism disease" and while drunk I managed to stab something into my brain, I would also not be able to undo the damages caused. But you can't attribute the damage to the "alcoholism disease". The damage was caused by a sharp object in my brain. Just like alcohol can cause damage. It's not the "disease" that causes this damage. I could do the same damage to myself without being an alcoholic.
That is right regarding the long term brain damage done by alcohol. The alterations done to synaptic pathways in the reward center of your brain however are a result of alcohol abuse. They happen before it becomes a disease, and this time when alcoholism is developing is the time when willpower, and much more than that, just plain education about what alcohol abuse will do to you, can help a lot in preventing alcoholism. When those alterations are in effect however, they are irreversible and very severely hinder you from stopping, by rewarding you for drinking and punishing you for not drinking. That's the point when abuse turns into disease.
On July 16 2011 20:38 Carush wrote: has it even been proven that alcoholism is a real disease?
i was under the impression it was just people who didn't have any self control (i could be wrong tho)
it's mixed opinion
and you're right, your second sentence is incorrect. alcohol is not a drug you can just quit cold turkey with willpower or "self control".
you guys need to understand this .. once you drink enough alcohol your body undergoes changes and becomes dependent on it. without the alcohol you go through a myriad of horrendous withdrawl symptoms one of which (Delirium tremens) can kill you outright.
quitting alcohol if you're heavily addicted is not something you can do with self-control or will power alone. it's not comparable to something like losing weight by eating less or having self-discipline to go to the gym regularly, or abstaining from sex like someone said earlier. Some of you guys are under estimating and belittling just how terrible alcohol addiction is and how easily it can ruin people's lives.
That is simply not true. I personally know people who have become sober through willpower alone. People who sober up while going to AA do it with willpower alone.
edit: I realise that medical assistance might be required in some cases, but even in these cases after the initial withdrawal symptoms are treated, it is simply a case of willpower.
I also have a family member who is an alcoholic so I'm not underestimating the damage it can do, but that doesn't mean that it should be classified as a disease. Heroin withdrawal symptoms can be extreme, but I don't think anyone is claiming that people suffer from the "heroinism disease".
On July 16 2011 21:03 Lucidity wrote: Think about this: If I had the "alcoholism disease" and while drunk I managed to stab something into my brain, I would also not be able to undo the damages caused. But you can't attribute the damage to the "alcoholism disease". The damage was caused by a sharp object in my brain. Just like alcohol can cause damage. It's not the "disease" that causes this damage. I could do the same damage to myself without being an alcoholic.
That is right regarding the long term brain damage done by alcohol. The alterations done to synaptic pathways in the reward center of your brain however are a result of alcohol abuse. They happen before it becomes a disease, and this time when alcoholism is developing is the time when willpower, and much more than that, just plain education about what alcohol abuse will do to you, can help a lot in preventing alcoholism. When those alterations are in effect however, they are irreversible and very severely hinder you from stopping, by rewarding you for drinking and punishing you for not drinking. That's the point when abuse turns into disease.
I understand that, but I don't believe that you can call that a disease. Simply having withdrawal symptoms does not constitute a disease in my opinion. There are certainly withdrawal symptoms from other drugs. Smoking is not a disease. It may cause other diseases, similar to alcohol abuse, but it is not a disease.
So many in this people don't understand what an alcoholic is. You can't prescribe another drug to treat a drug addiction. Alcoholism/drug addiction (same thing) may not be genetic, but these certain "addicts" can't use drugs/alcohol AT ALL (this includes drugs like baclofen) or they will start using whatever they can get. Addicts don't use drugs to relax and hang out with friends, they use drugs because they HAVE to.
Some of these addicts can stop using, but they're only left feeling non content with cravings for the rest of their lives.The only thing that will most likely ever work for a true alcoholic/addict is spiritual recovery.
On July 16 2011 22:56 beachbeachy wrote: So many in this people don't understand what an alcoholic is. You can't prescribe another drug to treat a drug addiction. Alcoholism/drug addiction (same thing) may not be genetic, but these certain "addicts" can't use drugs/alcohol AT ALL (this includes drugs like baclofen) or they will start using whatever they can get. Addicts don't use drugs to relax and hang out with friends, they use drugs because they HAVE to.
Some of these addicts can stop using, but they're only left feeling non content with cravings for the rest of their lives.The only thing that will most likely ever work for a true alcoholic/addict is spiritual recovery.
I hope you don't mean finding Jesus
Can you link to some info regarding alcoholics and how they should not use ANY drugs for risk of addiction? I've never heard this theory before.
On July 16 2011 22:56 beachbeachy wrote: So many in this people don't understand what an alcoholic is. You can't prescribe another drug to treat a drug addiction. Alcoholism/drug addiction (same thing) may not be genetic, but these certain "addicts" can't use drugs/alcohol AT ALL (this includes drugs like baclofen) or they will start using whatever they can get. Addicts don't use drugs to relax and hang out with friends, they use drugs because they HAVE to.
Some of these addicts can stop using, but they're only left feeling non content with cravings for the rest of their lives.The only thing that will most likely ever work for a true alcoholic/addict is spiritual recovery.
I hope you don't mean finding Jesus
Can you link to some info regarding alcoholics and how they should not use ANY drugs for risk of addiction? I've never heard this theory before.
Alcoholism shouldn't even be a term, because it's 100% synonymous with drug addiction (considering alcohol is a drug). Addicts will abuse anything they can get.
Still it may be a chance for many people. I think there's a LOT of people here just ignoring that (possible) chance, because they think those people should be able to handle their problems alone or maybe because they think it's their own fault, cause noone forced them to start drinking. On top of that it's not a cure, if it has to be taken for the rest of their lifes. But still, it's the same way with several diseases. Cancer, aids, several mental diseases require you to take drugs for the rest of your life, some treatments may cure you, some may have to be done for the rest of your life. Still noone comes along and says it's just a replacement, or it's not a cure, it just weakens impacts of the disease.
As many said before, only very few got the background information to really judge this right and I sure don't as well, but I don't see the point of just downright ignoring it or saying you should not do that out of ignorance because you think it's not a disease or they'd be able to deal with it alone.
On July 16 2011 22:56 beachbeachy wrote: So many in this people don't understand what an alcoholic is. You can't prescribe another drug to treat a drug addiction. Alcoholism/drug addiction (same thing) may not be genetic, but these certain "addicts" can't use drugs/alcohol AT ALL (this includes drugs like baclofen) or they will start using whatever they can get. Addicts don't use drugs to relax and hang out with friends, they use drugs because they HAVE to.
Some of these addicts can stop using, but they're only left feeling non content with cravings for the rest of their lives.The only thing that will most likely ever work for a true alcoholic/addict is spiritual recovery.
I hope you don't mean finding Jesus
Can you link to some info regarding alcoholics and how they should not use ANY drugs for risk of addiction? I've never heard this theory before.
Alcoholism shouldn't even be a term, because it's 100% synonymous with drug addiction (considering alcohol is a drug). Addicts will abuse anything they can get.
No. Just no. From personal anecdotal evidence this is not the case at all. Do you have some proper studies that suggest otherwise? Where people start abusing the drug prescribed to treat their alcoholism? I'm not saying there aren't people with "addictive personalities", but that is a completely different thing to what we're discussing.
I would think that the millions of smokers would give you a hint that addiction to one substance does not automatically imply addiction to ALL drugs. Imagine not being able to prescribe drugs to smokers.
On July 16 2011 23:54 Toadesstern wrote: Still it may be a chance for many people. I think there's a LOT of people here just ignoring that (possible) chance, because they think those people should be able to handle their problems alone or maybe because they think it's their own fault, cause noone forced them to start drinking. On top of that it's not a cure, if it has to be taken for the rest of their lifes. But still, it's the same way with several diseases. Cancer, aids, several mental diseases require you to take drugs for the rest of your life, some treatments may cure you, some may have to be done for the rest of your life. Still noone comes along and says it's just a replacement, or it's not a cure, it just weakens impacts of the disease.
As many said before, only very few got the background information to really judge this right and I sure don't as well, but I don't see the point of just downright ignoring it or saying you should not do that out of ignorance because you think it's not a disease or they'd be able to deal with it alone.
I completely agree with you. I just don't think it has to be termed a "disease" in order for drugs to be prescribed.
Never understood why people are sooo interested in drinking alcohol (aside from being addicted like this). Most of them taste terrible. Wine is superb though, and I can drink a glass of red wine in almost any situation. However, the rest is just...not interesting. Especially beer tastes like you're drinking piss.
I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
Im not judging because I have my addictions too, I just dont like it when people abjegate theiir personal responsibility. Im responsible for my addictions, not some disease.
But to the OP, this sounds really cool. It makes me think of ibogaine for heroin users. Cant wait to see more studies on this stuff.
On July 16 2011 20:57 Taf the Ghost wrote: Oh, and any alcohol while on Baclofen could outright kill you. So there's that worry as well.
Do you have a source for this claim? I'm not any mention of it in my quick check, only the standard "may cause increased sedation" that applies to most everything that causes a degree of sedation.
On July 17 2011 00:30 Equity213 wrote: I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
Im not judging because I have my addictions too, I just dont like it when people abjegate theiir personal responsibility. Im responsible for my addictions, not some disease.
But to the OP, this sounds really cool. It makes me think of ibogaine for heroin users. Cant wait to see more studies on this stuff.
WOW. You, sir, win the Mr. Ignorant award for today. It's cool that you're an armchair expert in the realm of opinion and whatnot, but there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise.
On July 16 2011 20:57 Taf the Ghost wrote: While Baclofen isn't "addictive", don't think for a second it's a terribly safe drug to come off of. Baclofen is a very dangerous drug to stop using. All of the GABA(beta) agonists are. So while it's nice that it could help for ending alcoholism, don't think it's without it's serious risks.
And that it can work for an alcoholic shouldn't be a surprise. Ethanol is a selective GABA (a)(b)(c) agonist, which is the reason why a person, when drunk, is so limber. Their muscles are really, really relaxed.
Oh, and any alcohol while on Baclofen could outright kill you. So there's that worry as well.
Baclofen is addictive. I get withdrawal if I stop using it too quickly. It can be dangerous to come off of it if you do it wrong, luckily I don't have to worry about that because I have a pump instead of taking it orally, which means only my doctor can change the dosing. Even then, my dose isn't high enough for it to be a serious concern. I have come off of it cold turkey and my withdrawal symptoms were pretty mild but that isn't necessarily true for everyone. Oh, and I drink all the time, I don't know where you got the idea that Baclofen plus alcohol could kill you (besides maybe overdosing, but that is true of any drug).
I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
... Please, people who know absolutely nothing about medecine, educate yourself before writing comments.
Alcoholism much like obesity has a genetic predisposition. Most of the people who actually carry those predispositions will never become alcoholics, but the few who are exposed to the a specific environnement (wich is often indepedent of the patient) "walk down" the path of alcoholism. And then there is no turning back.
I compare alcoholism to obesity because that disease is also to frequently regarded as a "weak will" problem. To people who are not obese, it seems impossible to stay that fat when it would be so easy to just get off the couch and run like the wind, or just eat 1500kcal instead of 2500. But it is not, your body reacts heavily to the change you try to put it through, just like it is hard to stop having sex or reduce drastically the number of hours you sleep.
Of course you can say that getting fat, or start drinking (sometimes knowing that you are predisposed to become addicted) is a proof of a weak will. But we are all very influenced by our environnement, especially the one we grew up in, to the point where the "choices" we make are just mere consequences of the thing we saw or lived through.
As for the people who stopped drinking on willpower alone, they are not cured, they are actually "less" cured than those taking baclofen since their craving is still there. That fact has introduced a debate on the interest of treating alcoholics regardless of their ability to suppress their urge.
Baclofen is addictive. I get withdrawal if I stop using it too quickly.
It is physically addictive but not mentally addictive which is what people are most concerned about. Of course, for that reason, the patient needs to be very compliant before you prescribe the drug.
On July 17 2011 01:40 Diavlo wrote: As for the people who stopped drinking on willpower alone, they are not cured, they are actually "less" cured than those taking baclofen since their craving is still there. That fact has introduced a debate on the interest of treating alcoholics regardless of their ability to suppress their urge.
Baclofen is addictive. I get withdrawal if I stop using it too quickly.
It is physically addictive but not mentally addictive which is what people are most concerned about. Of course, for that reason, the patient needs to be very compliant before you prescribe the drug.
So ... the people who overcome the alcoholism with will power arent cured? How comes that? Your brain must evolve back over time to a state where you can live without it or not? I have no degree in medicine nor biology but interest in psychology. And isnt supressing urges the most normal thing which a human being should learn? For me it sounds just as a "fast implemented fix" instead of dealin with the problem :/
And if u still statisfy the brain with the "drug"(receptors whatever) isnt that a problem? I mean several ppl said that your brain changes because of the drug, so you more orl ess want it to change back?
Or will this "medicine" be used while the patient will have a therapy?
I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
... Please, people who know absolutely nothing about medecine, educate yourself before writing comments.
Alcoholism much like obesity has a genetic predisposition. Most of the people who actually carry those predispositions will never become alcoholics, but the few who are exposed to the a specific environnement (wich is often indepedent of the patient) "walk down" the path of alcoholism. And then there is no turning back.
I compare alcoholism to obesity because that disease is also to frequently regarded as a "weak will" problem. To people who are not obese, it seems impossible to stay that fat when it would be so easy to just get off the couch and run like the wind, or just eat 1500kcal instead of 2500. But it is not, your body reacts heavily to the change you try to put it through, just like it is hard to stop having sex or reduce drastically the number of hours you sleep.
Of course you can say that getting fat, or start drinking (sometimes knowing that you are predisposed to become addicted) is a proof of a weak will. But we are all very influenced by our environnement, especially the one we grew up in, to the point where the "choices" we make are just mere consequences of the thing we saw or lived through.
As for the people who stopped drinking on willpower alone, they are not cured, they are actually "less" cured than those taking baclofen since their craving is still there. That fact has introduced a debate on the interest of treating alcoholics regardless of their ability to suppress their urge.
Baclofen is addictive. I get withdrawal if I stop using it too quickly.
It is physically addictive but not mentally addictive which is what people are most concerned about. Of course, for that reason, the patient needs to be very compliant before you prescribe the drug.
I was going to make an argument, but this website explains everything better than I could in any reasonable amount of time. Although only focused on obesity, the arguments used on the website and the advice on the second page can also be applied to alcoholism (which, to your point, they are quite similar).
Seems cool if it continues to work, but I, personally, would be very wary of trying anything like 300mgs a day (or the drug at all) unless I were a dead end alcoholic with money to spend (which I am not) (and I assume this drug is fairly expensive).
Since it is off-patent it probably isn't expensive.
On July 16 2011 10:29 R0YAL wrote: It seems silly to me that you can say "cure for alcoholism," its not like alcoholism is a diagnosis. Its just people who cant control their drinking habits. Interesting nonetheless.
By "alcoholism" they mean the body's (acquired) chemical dependency on alcohol. Once you get hooked enough, your body uses cravings to demand that you ingest alcohol, otherwise you can't metabolize some things properly. Similar to heroine - you feel sick if you can't get your fix. It ceases to become psychological and becomes a physical addiction- this drug claims to alleviate the physical end of it.
The purpose of this drug is to help people who want to quit, but every time they try are overcome by the physical end of addiction. While theoretically it is possible to overcome this through sheer willpower, the results are pretty horrific. Ever heard stories of junkies handcuffing themselves to radiators because they know that within a few days the pain of withdrawal will be so great that they'd do anything to get a fix? Its true. Same thing applies for alcohol, and while the withdrawal affects are usually less pronounced, the substance is much easier to acquire - and far more socially acceptable.
On July 16 2011 10:27 raja91 wrote: You have to be pretty stupid to start abusing alcohol in the first place.
As a college student I find this statement pretty hilarious. Extreme overconsumption of alcohol is not only commonplace, it is celebrated. Anyone with a predisposition for addiction or substance abuse could easily find themselves with a dependency on a destructive habit before they realized it was anything other than normal college life. Nobody will tell you "hey man, maybe you shouldn't drink so much". You're far more likely to hear "CHUG! CHUG! CHUG!"
Our society is pretty cruel to people who have a predisposition for alcoholism - be it a personality trait, a genetic trait (as is likely), or what have you. Society drenches itself in alcohol to a point where not drinking is considered a significant sacrifice, and also unsympathetically denounces the people who can't handle alcohol. All the while other drugs, specifically marijuana, which are no more harmful than alcohol, are demonized, and its users prosecuted. Human hypocrisy and hubris continues to amaze me.
On July 17 2011 00:30 Equity213 wrote: I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
Im not judging because I have my addictions too, I just dont like it when people abjegate theiir personal responsibility. Im responsible for my addictions, not some disease.
But to the OP, this sounds really cool. It makes me think of ibogaine for heroin users. Cant wait to see more studies on this stuff.
WOW. You, sir, win the Mr. Ignorant award for today. It's cool that you're an armchair expert in the realm of opinion and whatnot, but there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise.
And there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise. As far as I'm aware, alcoholism as a disease was commonly accepted in the past. The more recent trend is to move away from calling it a disease.
I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
... Please, people who know absolutely nothing about medecine, educate yourself before writing comments.
Alcoholism much like obesity has a genetic predisposition. Most of the people who actually carry those predispositions will never become alcoholics, but the few who are exposed to the a specific environnement (wich is often indepedent of the patient) "walk down" the path of alcoholism. And then there is no turning back..
While there are certain genetic factors which might make you enjoy alcohol consumption more (by a small amount) etc, there is no actual "alcoholism gene". There is no predictor for alcoholism which you can test for. Just because you might enjoy alcohol slightly more than someone else, or might have a slightly harder time stopping doesn't not mean it is a disease which you cannot control with willpower alone.
It's great that there are genetic factors that can affect your likelihood of abusing alcohol and that there are environmental factors and traumas which do the same, but at the end of the day... You are not destined to become an alcoholic. There are still a series of choices that lead up to you becoming an alcoholic. You can also stop abusing alcohol by making a choice to do so. Compare this to Huntington's. No matter what choices you make in life, if you inherited the mutated gene, that's it. End of story. You will have Huntington's. You cannot choose not to have it. THAT is a disease.
Btw, how can a patient's environment be independent of the patient? :p
On July 16 2011 22:56 beachbeachy wrote: So many in this people don't understand what an alcoholic is. You can't prescribe another drug to treat a drug addiction. Alcoholism/drug addiction (same thing) may not be genetic, but these certain "addicts" can't use drugs/alcohol AT ALL (this includes drugs like baclofen) or they will start using whatever they can get. Addicts don't use drugs to relax and hang out with friends, they use drugs because they HAVE to.
Some of these addicts can stop using, but they're only left feeling non content with cravings for the rest of their lives.The only thing that will most likely ever work for a true alcoholic/addict is spiritual recovery.
I hope you don't mean finding Jesus
Can you link to some info regarding alcoholics and how they should not use ANY drugs for risk of addiction? I've never heard this theory before.
Alcoholism shouldn't even be a term, because it's 100% synonymous with drug addiction (considering alcohol is a drug). Addicts will abuse anything they can get.
No. Just no. From personal anecdotal evidence this is not the case at all. Do you have some proper studies that suggest otherwise? Where people start abusing the drug prescribed to treat their alcoholism? I'm not saying there aren't people with "addictive personalities", but that is a completely different thing to what we're discussing.
I would think that the millions of smokers would give you a hint that addiction to one substance does not automatically imply addiction to ALL drugs. Imagine not being able to prescribe drugs to smokers.
On July 16 2011 23:54 Toadesstern wrote: Still it may be a chance for many people. I think there's a LOT of people here just ignoring that (possible) chance, because they think those people should be able to handle their problems alone or maybe because they think it's their own fault, cause noone forced them to start drinking. On top of that it's not a cure, if it has to be taken for the rest of their lifes. But still, it's the same way with several diseases. Cancer, aids, several mental diseases require you to take drugs for the rest of your life, some treatments may cure you, some may have to be done for the rest of your life. Still noone comes along and says it's just a replacement, or it's not a cure, it just weakens impacts of the disease.
As many said before, only very few got the background information to really judge this right and I sure don't as well, but I don't see the point of just downright ignoring it or saying you should not do that out of ignorance because you think it's not a disease or they'd be able to deal with it alone.
I completely agree with you. I just don't think it has to be termed a "disease" in order for drugs to be prescribed.
The key thing to understand is cigarettes aren't narcotics. Any mind altering substance is applicable to the addict. You can't compare other addictions like smoking or excessive gaming and whatnot to substance abuse.
On July 16 2011 22:56 beachbeachy wrote: So many in this people don't understand what an alcoholic is. You can't prescribe another drug to treat a drug addiction. Alcoholism/drug addiction (same thing) may not be genetic, but these certain "addicts" can't use drugs/alcohol AT ALL (this includes drugs like baclofen) or they will start using whatever they can get. Addicts don't use drugs to relax and hang out with friends, they use drugs because they HAVE to.
Some of these addicts can stop using, but they're only left feeling non content with cravings for the rest of their lives.The only thing that will most likely ever work for a true alcoholic/addict is spiritual recovery.
I hope you don't mean finding Jesus
Can you link to some info regarding alcoholics and how they should not use ANY drugs for risk of addiction? I've never heard this theory before.
Alcoholism shouldn't even be a term, because it's 100% synonymous with drug addiction (considering alcohol is a drug). Addicts will abuse anything they can get.
No. Just no. From personal anecdotal evidence this is not the case at all. Do you have some proper studies that suggest otherwise? Where people start abusing the drug prescribed to treat their alcoholism? I'm not saying there aren't people with "addictive personalities", but that is a completely different thing to what we're discussing.
I would think that the millions of smokers would give you a hint that addiction to one substance does not automatically imply addiction to ALL drugs. Imagine not being able to prescribe drugs to smokers.
On July 16 2011 23:54 Toadesstern wrote: Still it may be a chance for many people. I think there's a LOT of people here just ignoring that (possible) chance, because they think those people should be able to handle their problems alone or maybe because they think it's their own fault, cause noone forced them to start drinking. On top of that it's not a cure, if it has to be taken for the rest of their lifes. But still, it's the same way with several diseases. Cancer, aids, several mental diseases require you to take drugs for the rest of your life, some treatments may cure you, some may have to be done for the rest of your life. Still noone comes along and says it's just a replacement, or it's not a cure, it just weakens impacts of the disease.
As many said before, only very few got the background information to really judge this right and I sure don't as well, but I don't see the point of just downright ignoring it or saying you should not do that out of ignorance because you think it's not a disease or they'd be able to deal with it alone.
I completely agree with you. I just don't think it has to be termed a "disease" in order for drugs to be prescribed.
The key thing to understand is cigarettes aren't narcotics. Any mind altering substance is applicable to the addict. You can't compare other addictions like smoking or excessive gaming and whatnot to substance abuse.
Smoking is a totally valid comparison. Smoking has a mild psychoactive effect (soothing, etc) but, more importantly, it leads to the ingestion of nicotine. Nicotine is extremely addictive and has long-term addictive physiological effects.
On July 17 2011 00:30 Equity213 wrote: I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
Im not judging because I have my addictions too, I just dont like it when people abjegate theiir personal responsibility. Im responsible for my addictions, not some disease.
But to the OP, this sounds really cool. It makes me think of ibogaine for heroin users. Cant wait to see more studies on this stuff.
WOW. You, sir, win the Mr. Ignorant award for today. It's cool that you're an armchair expert in the realm of opinion and whatnot, but there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise.
And there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise. As far as I'm aware, alcoholism as a disease was commonly accepted in the past. The more recent trend is to move away from calling it a disease.
I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
... Please, people who know absolutely nothing about medecine, educate yourself before writing comments.
Alcoholism much like obesity has a genetic predisposition. Most of the people who actually carry those predispositions will never become alcoholics, but the few who are exposed to the a specific environnement (wich is often indepedent of the patient) "walk down" the path of alcoholism. And then there is no turning back..
While there are certain genetic factors which might make you enjoy alcohol consumption more (by a small amount) etc, there is no actual "alcoholism gene". There is no predictor for alcoholism which you can test for. Just because you might enjoy alcohol slightly more than someone else, or might have a slightly harder time stopping doesn't not mean it is a disease which you cannot control with willpower alone.
It's great that there are genetic factors that can affect your likelihood of abusing alcohol and that there are environmental factors and traumas which do the same, but at the end of the day... You are not destined to become an alcoholic. There are still a series of choices that lead up to you becoming an alcoholic. You can also stop abusing alcohol by making a choice to do so. Compare this to Huntington's. No matter what choices you make in life, if you inherited the mutated gene, that's it. End of story. You will have Huntington's. You cannot choose not to have it. THAT is a disease.
Btw, how can a patient's environment be independent of the patient? :p
You view it the wrong way. It's not about enjoyment. It's about the neural circuits in your brain and the neurotransmitters involved. There are genes that make your brain naturally more predisposed to become addicted, not just to alcohol, but pretty much to anything with addiction potential. And yes, you can make a choice to not become an alcoholic, but once you already are an alcoholic, it requires a lot more than willpower to be able to stop.
Also, abusive alcohol consumption is NOT the same as alcohol addiction, I have had an abusive alcohol consumption behaviour before, as in, I have had personal and social problems because of drinking. I have never had tolerance and/or abstinence symptoms, thus I'm not addicted. They are different medical concepts.
Also, alcoholism is a psychiatric disease, it has risk factors, mortality and morbidity rates, complications, prognosis factors and treatments. Cigarette addiction also falls under this category. Just because there's a choice involved at some moment doesn't make it not a disease.
There are also many genes involved in making a person predisposed to addictive behaviour. What you mean is the difference between a polygenic and a monogenic disease. Many people drink abusively and a LOT, not all of them become addicted, some even develop chronic liver disease without being addicted. Many people eat lots of unhealthy, sugar-heavy foods, yet not even the majority of them become diabetics or hypertensive. These are polygenic diseases, and as in all polygenic diseases, the phenotype is very dependant on the environment. Huntington's, in comparison, is a monogenic disease, and environment plays a very small to non existant role in it's pathogenesis.
Doesn't make diabetes or hypertension not be diseases.
On July 16 2011 20:57 Taf the Ghost wrote: While Baclofen isn't "addictive", don't think for a second it's a terribly safe drug to come off of. Baclofen is a very dangerous drug to stop using. All of the GABA(beta) agonists are. So while it's nice that it could help for ending alcoholism, don't think it's without it's serious risks.
And that it can work for an alcoholic shouldn't be a surprise. Ethanol is a selective GABA (a)(b)(c) agonist, which is the reason why a person, when drunk, is so limber. Their muscles are really, really relaxed.
Oh, and any alcohol while on Baclofen could outright kill you. So there's that worry as well.
Baclofen is addictive. I get withdrawal if I stop using it too quickly. It can be dangerous to come off of it if you do it wrong, luckily I don't have to worry about that because I have a pump instead of taking it orally, which means only my doctor can change the dosing. Even then, my dose isn't high enough for it to be a serious concern. I have come off of it cold turkey and my withdrawal symptoms were pretty mild but that isn't necessarily true for everyone. Oh, and I drink all the time, I don't know where you got the idea that Baclofen plus alcohol could kill you (besides maybe overdosing, but that is true of any drug).
Yeah, I wasn't as careful with that statement as I should have been. I'll go back and change it. "And going back to drinking like an alcoholic cares severe risk, up to making you dead." What I meant but made it too general.
Though, with you on the infusion pump, the dosage is much lower. Orally administered does a heavy spike & drop. Alcohol (or any medication that works on the same functions) would be massively increased in effect, which is the real danger with GABA agonists. Though, for you, since you're on the infusion, odds are your GABAergic activity is so much lower, the dosage of alcohol required would be far different than someone is a generally functional GABAergic system.
And having "withdrawal" symptoms isn't a line of addiction, it's just a sign of being in a homeostatic state with the drug. If you crave the drug after it's left your body, THEN it's addiction.
amazing, if it can help other addictions then this will be a miracle drug. Once the industry realizes this, they will either ban it or make it very hard to buy so that you must pay more money for inferior drugs OR they will patent it and jack the price up extremely high to make up for only being able to sell a few since you essentially get cured for a pill(s?).
In america, pharmacy companies only want money they really don't care about the health of the country and will probably do all that they can to put a stranglehold on this drug. If the drug is dangerous, it might just end up being something only doctors can handle in hospitals.
Stopped reading there. As an addict and person passionate about psychology and neurology i can tell there is no such thing unless we are talking about physical addiction, like with heroine.
So ... the people who overcome the alcoholism with will power arent cured? How comes that? Your brain must evolve back over time to a state where you can live without it or not?
Unfortunately the brain is not that simple. Some changes can be reversed (due to the modification of receptor expression in the neurons...) but a lot can't (lost neurons aren't replaced, some neural connections cannot be severed...).
And isnt supressing urges the most normal thing which a human being should learn?
You are right, we all have to deal with a lot of urges that conflict with what is expected of us to live in a society. But drug addiction is on an all other level than lets say: not punch the guy who insulted you. In the worst cases, it defines absolutely every thing in your life. There are drug addicts that spend their day either looking for drugs or taking drugs.
And if u still statisfy the brain with the "drug"(receptors whatever) isnt that a problem?
... Please, people who know absolutely nothing about medecine, educate yourself before writing comments.
Alcoholism much like obesity has a genetic predisposition. Most of the people who actually carry those predispositions will never become alcoholics, but the few who are exposed to the a specific environnement (wich is often indepedent of the patient) "walk down" the path of alcoholism. And then there is no turning back..
While there are certain genetic factors which might make you enjoy alcohol consumption more (by a small amount) etc, there is no actual "alcoholism gene". There is no predictor for alcoholism which you can test for. Just because you might enjoy alcohol slightly more than someone else, or might have a slightly harder time stopping doesn't not mean it is a disease which you cannot control with willpower alone.
It's great that there are genetic factors that can affect your likelihood of abusing alcohol and that there are environmental factors and traumas which do the same, but at the end of the day... You are not destined to become an alcoholic. There are still a series of choices that lead up to you becoming an alcoholic.
Did you read the my last paragraph?
You can also stop abusing alcohol by making a choice to do so.
Yes you can, doesn't mean that you are "cured".
Compare this to Huntington's. No matter what choices you make in life, if you inherited the mutated gene, that's it. End of story. You will have Huntington's. You cannot choose not to have it. THAT is a disease.
That's just your definition of a disease. By that definition type 2 diabetes is not a disease either...
Btw, how can a patient's environment be independent of the patient?
I meant independent of the choices of the patient. You don't choose the environment you grow up in...
Stopped reading there. As an addict and person passionate about psychology and neurology i can tell there is no such thing unless we are talking about physical addiction, like with heroine.
Addictiveness of a drug depends on its peak plasma and half-life. The faster it reaches its maximum level in the plasma and the shorter the half-life, the more addictive it is and the more likely you will be to suffer from withdrawal symptoms. Instead of "stopping to read" when something contradicts your opinion, you should carefully examine it. Being interested in psychology for a hobby does not qualify you to make judgements about whether it is addictive or not.
Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too.
To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant.
Though, with you on the infusion pump, the dosage is much lower. Orally administered does a heavy spike & drop. Alcohol (or any medication that works on the same functions) would be massively increased in effect, which is the real danger with GABA agonists. Though, for you, since you're on the infusion, odds are your GABAergic activity is so much lower, the dosage of alcohol required would be far different than someone is a generally functional GABAergic system.
And having "withdrawal" symptoms isn't a line of addiction, it's just a sign of being in a homeostatic state with the drug. If you crave the drug after it's left your body, THEN it's addiction.
Yeah that is pretty much all true. I'm on the pump because the side effects that oral Baclofen (drowsiness, mental slowness) has are non-existent with the pump because the dose is so much lower (200 micrograms/day). I have certainly never craved Baclofen. I'm a little slow this morning (hangover), so I didn't really think about it. And, if you don't mind me asking, how do you know so much about Baclofen and infusion pumps?
Stopped reading there. As an addict and person passionate about psychology and neurology i can tell there is no such thing unless we are talking about physical addiction, like with heroine.
Addictiveness of a drug depends on its peak plasma and half-life. The faster it reaches its maximum level in the plasma and the shorter the half-life, the more addictive it is and the more likely you will be to suffer from withdrawal symptoms. Instead of "stopping to read" when something contradicts your opinion, you should carefully examine it. Being interested in psychology for a hobby does not qualify you to make judgements about whether it is addictive or not.
On July 17 2011 00:30 Equity213 wrote: I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
Im not judging because I have my addictions too, I just dont like it when people abjegate theiir personal responsibility. Im responsible for my addictions, not some disease.
But to the OP, this sounds really cool. It makes me think of ibogaine for heroin users. Cant wait to see more studies on this stuff.
WOW. You, sir, win the Mr. Ignorant award for today. It's cool that you're an armchair expert in the realm of opinion and whatnot, but there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise.
And there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise. As far as I'm aware, alcoholism as a disease was commonly accepted in the past. The more recent trend is to move away from calling it a disease.
On July 17 2011 01:40 Diavlo wrote:
I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
... Please, people who know absolutely nothing about medecine, educate yourself before writing comments.
Alcoholism much like obesity has a genetic predisposition. Most of the people who actually carry those predispositions will never become alcoholics, but the few who are exposed to the a specific environnement (wich is often indepedent of the patient) "walk down" the path of alcoholism. And then there is no turning back..
While there are certain genetic factors which might make you enjoy alcohol consumption more (by a small amount) etc, there is no actual "alcoholism gene". There is no predictor for alcoholism which you can test for. Just because you might enjoy alcohol slightly more than someone else, or might have a slightly harder time stopping doesn't not mean it is a disease which you cannot control with willpower alone.
It's great that there are genetic factors that can affect your likelihood of abusing alcohol and that there are environmental factors and traumas which do the same, but at the end of the day... You are not destined to become an alcoholic. There are still a series of choices that lead up to you becoming an alcoholic. You can also stop abusing alcohol by making a choice to do so. Compare this to Huntington's. No matter what choices you make in life, if you inherited the mutated gene, that's it. End of story. You will have Huntington's. You cannot choose not to have it. THAT is a disease.
Btw, how can a patient's environment be independent of the patient? :p
You view it the wrong way. It's not about enjoyment. It's about the neural circuits in your brain and the neurotransmitters involved. There are genes that make your brain naturally more predisposed to become addicted, not just to alcohol, but pretty much to anything with addiction potential. And yes, you can make a choice to not become an alcoholic, but once you already are an alcoholic, it requires a lot more than willpower to be able to stop.
Also, abusive alcohol consumption is NOT the same as alcohol addiction, I have had an abusive alcohol consumption behaviour before, as in, I have had personal and social problems because of drinking. I have never had tolerance and/or abstinence symptoms, thus I'm not addicted. They are different medical concepts.
Also, alcoholism is a psychiatric disease, it has risk factors, mortality and morbidity rates, complications, prognosis factors and treatments. Cigarette addiction also falls under this category. Just because there's a choice involved at some moment doesn't make it not a disease.
There are also many genes involved in making a person predisposed to addictive behaviour. What you mean is the difference between a polygenic and a monogenic disease. Many people drink abusively and a LOT, not all of them become addicted, some even develop chronic liver disease without being addicted. Many people eat lots of unhealthy, sugar-heavy foods, yet not even the majority of them become diabetics or hypertensive. These are polygenic diseases, and as in all polygenic diseases, the phenotype is very dependant on the environment. Huntington's, in comparison, is a monogenic disease, and environment plays a very small to non existant role in it's pathogenesis.
Doesn't make diabetes or hypertension not be diseases.
I actually meant alcoholism by "alcohol abuse". My bad.
I probably shouldn't have worded the "enjoyment" part that way either. I was referring to all genetic factors that play a role in alcohol addiction. None of these factors will definitely lead to alcoholism. And once you are an alcoholic, these factors won't prevent you from stopping drinking. They might inhibit, but that's it..
I still don't agree that it's a disease. You mention that environmental factors (effectively choices) are risk factors in developing diabetes and that's comparable to alcoholism. It's not. Once you develop diabetes you cannot cure it by sheer willpower. You can stop drinking on your own accord. Yes it might be extremely difficult, but it's not impossible to cure without medicine. Medical aid can be sought to make the process easier, but there are certainly people who have overcome alcoholism by sheer willpower alone. This is why I think it should not be called a disease at all.
The fact that there are statistics for a group designated "Alcoholics" certainly does not play a factor in making it a disease or not. You could just as easily compile statistics about sex and say, "Also, sexual intercourse is a psychiatric disease, it has risk factors, mortality and morbidity rates, complications, prognosis factors and treatments."
lucidity you are so ignorant "stop drinking" =/= "cure alcoholism" i know people with 20 years sobriety that CRAVE alcohol with every passing minute. the cessation of the drinking did not by any means of the word, "cure" them
While cravings might never disappear fully, they should become less and ultimately, if you can overcome the craving I can't accept it as being a disease. Think about how you're defining a disease. "A craving for something".
I'm not disputing that addiction exists and that it's terrible. But it's not a disease.
On July 17 2011 03:57 Ghostcom wrote: I think those of you discussing if it is a disease or not should probably start out by defining what a disease actually is...
Probably. I guess some people will just call it a disease and perhaps in a very broad sense of the word it can be considered as a behavioural disease (if you want to consider addiction a disease). But as soon as it's called a disease there's this sense that the poor "carriers" of the disease are powerless over it. This isn't true. No matter how difficult, at the end of the day an alcoholic can overcome his "disease" by choices/willpower... Cravings do not constitute a disease and if it is not causing complications (whether social/medical) it really shouldn't be called a disease... The physiological dependency should disappear with time if you sober up. After that, any craving can be dealt with with willpower.
On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote: Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too.
To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant.
Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will.
I've updated the OP with a series of question/answer. If anyone has other questions, or disagrees with the answers I provided, feel free to let me know.
On July 17 2011 04:01 Lucidity wrote: I believe you are exaggerating.
While cravings might never disappear fully, they should become less and ultimately, if you can overcome the craving I can't accept it as being a disease. Think about how you're defining a disease. "A craving for something".
I'm not disputing that addiction exists and that it's terrible. But it's not a disease.
On July 17 2011 03:57 Ghostcom wrote: I think those of you discussing if it is a disease or not should probably start out by defining what a disease actually is...
Probably. I guess some people will just call it a disease and perhaps in a very broad sense of the word it can be considered as a behavioural disease (if you want to consider addiction a disease). But as soon as it's called a disease there's this sense that the poor "carriers" of the disease are powerless over it. This isn't true. No matter how difficult, at the end of the day an alcoholic can overcome his "disease" by choices/willpower... Cravings do not constitute a disease and if it is not causing complications (whether social/medical) it really shouldn't be called a disease... The physiological dependency should disappear with time if you sober up. After that, any craving can be dealt with with willpower.
There are stuff like delirium tremens which actually means that no, an alcoholic can't by sheer willpower stop drinking. It isn't all alcoholics who get so severe withdrawal symptoms, but then again it isn't all urinary tract infections or pneumonias that needs antibiotics to be cured. Yet I hope you won't go as far as to claim that a pneumonia isn't a disease?
I really think you should post your definition of disease because I'm getting the notion that yours is way to narrow to be reasonable...
The only reason you people think the "disease" or "Addiction" is with you the rest of your life because you constantly reinforce that terrible frame of mind. Bring me 2 people both with equal drug or alcohol addictions. Have person A repeat " I have a disease and I am an Alcoholic " for 10 years daily, and person B repeat " Alcohol is not a disease and I can heal from this" for the same time period ... guess who at the end of 10 years is healthier ... happier ... more confident ... more self controlled ... etc. Stop reinforcing this non-sense. And to even hint that alcohol is more addictive then heroin, meth, or cocaine is hilarious also. just stop.
On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote: Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too.
To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant.
Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will.
You make is sound like people that are not able to quit smoking or drinking don't actually want to. I guess you've never known a alcoholic in your life.
On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote: Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too.
To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant.
Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will.
You make is sound like people that are not able to quit smoking or drinking don't actually want to. I guess you've never known a alcoholic in your life.
My grandpa was an alcoholic and it almost tore my mom's side of the family apart.
Anyone else find it concerning how much standards in modern medicine have dropped?
Nowadays, they say "cured" when they really are just replacing one drug with another. Alcohol might be unhealthier and Baclofen healther, but the fundamental problem is still there.
Though, with you on the infusion pump, the dosage is much lower. Orally administered does a heavy spike & drop. Alcohol (or any medication that works on the same functions) would be massively increased in effect, which is the real danger with GABA agonists. Though, for you, since you're on the infusion, odds are your GABAergic activity is so much lower, the dosage of alcohol required would be far different than someone is a generally functional GABAergic system.
And having "withdrawal" symptoms isn't a line of addiction, it's just a sign of being in a homeostatic state with the drug. If you crave the drug after it's left your body, THEN it's addiction.
Yeah that is pretty much all true. I'm on the pump because the side effects that oral Baclofen (drowsiness, mental slowness) has are non-existent with the pump because the dose is so much lower (200 micrograms/day). I have certainly never craved Baclofen. I'm a little slow this morning (hangover), so I didn't really think about it. And, if you don't mind me asking, how do you know so much about Baclofen and infusion pumps?
Have spastic quadriplegia by a really strange set of circumstances. Had to do a whole lot of research on the GABA agonists, as that was the next set of possible treatments. Got a bit lucky and didn't need to go further with them, but had to do a *whole* lot of reading on them. They're wonderful medications that carry a lot of side issues, so need to know what's up.
On July 17 2011 04:27 Ghostcom wrote: There are stuff like delirium tremens which actually means that no, an alcoholic can't by sheer willpower stop drinking. It isn't all alcoholics who get so severe withdrawal symptoms, but then again it isn't all urinary tract infections or pneumonias that needs antibiotics to be cured. Yet I hope you won't go as far as to claim that a pneumonia isn't a disease?
I really think you should post your definition of disease because I'm getting the notion that yours is way to narrow to be reasonable...
Withdrawal symptoms may require medical attention. This does not make alcoholism a disease. The choice to stop drinking needs to be made first. After any withdrawal symptoms subside you need to make the choice not to drink again. There is no physiological dependency left. After that it's all about willpower. Many alcoholics will relapse. This is NOT because of delirium tremens -.-
Pneumonia is quite obviously a disease. It cannot be overcome by willpower.
I guess if you believe addiction is a disease, then so be it.
On July 17 2011 04:01 Lucidity wrote: While cravings might never disappear fully, they should become less and ultimately, if you can overcome the craving I can't accept it as being a disease. Think about how you're defining a disease. "A craving for something".
let's oversimplify some more please MIT is just a school the president of the USA is just a job hitler was just a bad guy who wasn't fond of jews
to narrow down alcoholism to just "a craving" is just so ignorant. do you remember when you were a kid (probably not that hard since i doubt you're much older than 16) and you wanted that <bike, super nintendo, bb gun, train set> so badly that it's all you could think about? and as christmas got nearer and nearer it just consumed your mind? you always wanted to know where the present was hidden, wanted to open it early to see if you got it, couldn't wait to take it out and play with it? alcoholics feel the same "craving" day in and day out. it's always something present in the back of their mind. even if they're having sex, busy at work, exhausted from working out, or playing starcraft, somewhere in their mind there is a little buzz going "boy a drink would sure feel great right now." having to fight that day in and day out is too much for people
that feeling is HARDWIRED into their brains. it's not something that goes away like "hey i really need to pee" and once you pee you don't need to pee any more. once you have that first drink your mind goes "well hey that wasn't so bad was it? let's drink another!" and no matter what you do, that will always be your mindset. i know plenty of people who have quit drinking for years and still feel that insatiable desire
now, imagine AFTER you finally got your hands on that christmas present, it wasn't enough. the next day you wanted another bike. the all-encompassing desire filled your brain again. every day you felt the anxiety of wanting to open another gift and get another bike. that is a DISEASE. you can try to stop thinking about the bike but in the back of your head you always want to ride it.
so if there is a pill that can actually suppress the desire to drink, i'm all for it. even for "recovered alcoholics" this would be a life-saving pill
On July 17 2011 04:35 Traeon wrote: Anyone else find it concerning how much standards in modern medicine have dropped?
Nowadays, they say "cured" when they really are just replacing one drug with another. Alcohol might be unhealthier and Baclofen healther, but the fundamental problem is still there.
According to your standards, there is no cure for diseases like diabetes, which require endless insulin injections.
The fundamental problem, as you put it, is not that they are consuming a substance. The problem is that certain substances, when consumed, produce serious health, behavioral, and social consequences. Eliminate those problems, and you eliminate the disease.
Have spastic quadriplegia by a really strange set of circumstances. Had to do a whole lot of research on the GABA agonists, as that was the next set of possible treatments. Got a bit lucky and didn't need to go further with them, but had to do a *whole* lot of reading on them. They're wonderful medications that carry a lot of side issues, so need to know what's up.
Wow, I had a spinal cord injury myself. I was pretty lucky though and mostly recovered. I can walk (limp) and stuff, but I still have spasticity that causes some muscle problems and some specific areas with limited neurological activity.
I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
This seems to deal with some of the physical components of addiction, but the temptation seems to be to advertise a miracle cure, without looking at the issue holistically. This is quite profitable for corporations manufacturing these cures, but not necessarily in the best interest of patients or the public when coupled with claims such as it 'cures' alcoholism.
It also encourages people to view alcoholism as a simple physical issue, which is again negative for the patients and for society in general.
On July 16 2011 10:26 SentinelSC2 wrote: As long as you're depending on something else, can't really call it a cure.
Well, there are many levels of "cure". Many people have to take medicines regularly to not die from some acute condition.
Alcohol is a toxin, and it causes acute impairment of judgment. It's also addictive. If you can replace it with something that is non-toxic and doesn't cause impairment of judgment, then at least you've gotten rid of the major problems that come from alcohol abuse.
Even if it does only replace one addition with another, at least the patient isn't addicted to something that kills them over long periods of time and turns them into assholes frequently. That's close enough to a "cure" that I'm willing to call it a win.
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
On July 17 2011 04:27 Ghostcom wrote: There are stuff like delirium tremens which actually means that no, an alcoholic can't by sheer willpower stop drinking. It isn't all alcoholics who get so severe withdrawal symptoms, but then again it isn't all urinary tract infections or pneumonias that needs antibiotics to be cured. Yet I hope you won't go as far as to claim that a pneumonia isn't a disease?
I really think you should post your definition of disease because I'm getting the notion that yours is way to narrow to be reasonable...
Withdrawal symptoms may require medical attention. This does not make alcoholism a disease. The choice to stop drinking needs to be made first. After any withdrawal symptoms subside you need to make the choice not to drink again. There is no physiological dependency left. After that it's all about willpower. Many alcoholics will relapse. This is NOT because of delirium tremens -.-
Pneumonia is quite obviously a disease. It cannot be overcome by willpower.
I guess if you believe addiction is a disease, then so be it.
I don't believe craving is a disease, I think it is a symptom of a disease where the disease is alcoholism - I didn't even mention addiction in the post you have quoted :S It seems to me like we've been discussing 2 different things.
On July 17 2011 04:40 caradoc wrote: I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
This seems to deal with some of the physical components of addiction, but the temptation seems to be to advertise a miracle cure, without looking at the issue holistically. This is quite profitable for corporations manufacturing these cures, but not necessarily in the best interest of patients or the public when coupled with claims such as it 'cures' alcoholism.
It also encourages people to view alcoholism as a simple physical issue, which is again negative for the patients and for society in general.
This is one of the best posts in this thread and I can't stress how correct especially the first paragraph is.
On July 17 2011 04:01 Lucidity wrote: While cravings might never disappear fully, they should become less and ultimately, if you can overcome the craving I can't accept it as being a disease. Think about how you're defining a disease. "A craving for something".
let's oversimplify some more please MIT is just a school the president of the USA is just a job hitler was just a bad guy who wasn't fond of jews
to narrow down alcoholism to just "a craving" is just so ignorant. do you remember when you were a kid (probably not that hard since i doubt you're much older than 16) and you wanted that <bike, super nintendo, bb gun, train set> so badly that it's all you could think about? and as christmas got nearer and nearer it just consumed your mind? you always wanted to know where the present was hidden, wanted to open it early to see if you got it, couldn't wait to take it out and play with it? alcoholics feel the same "craving" day in and day out. it's always something present in the back of their mind. even if they're having sex, busy at work, exhausted from working out, or playing starcraft, somewhere in their mind there is a little buzz going "boy a drink would sure feel great right now." having to fight that day in and day out is too much for people
that feeling is HARDWIRED into their brains. it's not something that goes away like "hey i really need to pee" and once you pee you don't need to pee any more. once you have that first drink your mind goes "well hey that wasn't so bad was it? let's drink another!" and no matter what you do, that will always be your mindset. i know plenty of people who have quit drinking for years and still feel that insatiable desire
now, imagine AFTER you finally got your hands on that christmas present, it wasn't enough. the next day you wanted another bike. the all-encompassing desire filled your brain again. every day you felt the anxiety of wanting to open another gift and get another bike. that is a DISEASE. you can try to stop thinking about the bike but in the back of your head you always want to ride it.
so if there is a pill that can actually suppress the desire to drink, i'm all for it. even for "recovered alcoholics" this would be a life-saving pill
What you are describing might be considered a disease. If you are truly thinking about alcohol every minute of every day, you clearly have a psychological disorder. If you are uncontrollably fantasizing about alcohol to such a degree that you cannot have sex, work, eat, sleep or do ANYTHING because you're thinking about it every single minute, then sure. None of the recovered addicts that I know are like that though. (Granted these are mostly non-alcoholic. Including heroin. Somehow I think that would be harder to kick, but hey?) They get cravings, sure. But these only last a certain amount of time. And the longer they stayed sober, the less frequent the cravings became. They would usually be triggered by events which they associated with the drug.
I think what you are describing is a great minority of alcoholics. To group all alcoholics under the same umbrella and call it a disease would be wrong. Alcohol dependency is not a disease. What you described is a mental disorder which can only be treated with medicine. There's no way anyone can stay sober if they're craving a substance literally every minute. Somehow I think you are (or the person you're talking about is) exaggerating though.
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
On July 17 2011 04:40 caradoc wrote: I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not
Personally I find the theory of psychological disease to be unconvincing. I think that a physically unhealthy person will be unable to maintain its mental health. Medicine and science are just not advanced enough to truly understand human physiology, so we resort to finding "alternate explanations" for things we can't explain. These alternate explanations are always entirely subjective though - they can't be proven nor disproven.
On July 17 2011 04:40 caradoc wrote: I'm pretty skeptical to be honest. Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not
Personally I find the theory of psychological disease to be unconvincing. I think that a physically unhealthy person will be unable to maintain its mental health. Medicine and science are just not advanced enough to truly understand human physiology, so we resort to finding "alternate explanations" for things we can't explain. These alternate explanations are always entirely subjective though - they can't be proven nor disproven.
well you should actually read some medical literature because its the consensus viewpoint. Its not an 'alternative explanation'. Your position is also muddled and imprecise to the point of being meaningless. Do you have a point, or are you simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease.
Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
[B] well you should actually read some medical literature because its the consensus viewpoint. Its not an 'alternative explanation'. Your position is also muddled and imprecise to the point of being meaningless. Do you have a point, or are you simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
Having suffered from chronic illness for 10 years, I'm quite familiar with how most doctors think. About 9 out of 10 said my problems were psychological and suggested the usual treatments for this type of diagnosis. I wasted a lot of time and money following this bad advice.
I eventually found a doctor who figured out what the problem was (gluten intolerance). My psychological symptoms have disappeared since following this doctor's advice (unless I accidental eat gluten which creates celiac disease like symptoms, despite my anti-gluten antibodies being well within the norm). He isn't a genius or something, he was just willing to experiment rather than settling for a comfortable explanation to explain things away.
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease.
Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable.
Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd.
Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world.
I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic.
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote: Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too.
To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant.
Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will.
You are wrong, there was a point in my addiction where I was thoroughly convinced that using was my only option, my will power was directed AT using. It's like being in a thick psychosis. Do not talk about things that you do not understand.
On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote: Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too.
To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant.
Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will.
You are wrong, there was a point in my addiction where I was thoroughly convinced that using was my only option, my will power was directed AT using. It's like being in a thick psychosis. Do not talk about things that you do not understand.
What were you addicted to, and for how long? And how did you end up stopping your abuse (assuming that you did stop)?
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease.
Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable.
Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd.
Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world.
I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic.
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits.
Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior, which frequently cause the comorbid symptoms of anxiety, tension, etc.
Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior.
[B]On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote: Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
I agree that it is good to treat patients holistically. I'm aware that an addiction can destroy a person's life to such an extent that psychological support becomes important.
I just disagree with the common sentiment that the cause (and thus the solution) of conditions with psychological symptoms must lie in the psyche.
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease.
Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable.
Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd.
Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world.
I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic.
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits.
Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior.
Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior.
Individual patients aren't the ones with the agency to create or propagate these news stories. That would be the media/research organization/pharmaceutical establishment. In any population there will be a wide range of opinions on a specific issue-- saying 'the patients are saying X' and leaving it at that is an obfuscation. One could also say 'the patients are saying not X', and it would be just as true. Really, we are reading a news story, not talking to patients. Presenting patients with a particular homogenous viewpoint certainly helps to legitimize the drug in question, but to be honest we have no clue what patients are saying unless we talk to all of them, and even then we need to question whether the progress is not overstated-- did the 'things that patients say' come before a relapse? The news article doesn't know or care.
You said that 'the body of research which is accomplishing more than any other' -- would you care to quantify that statement? How do you define 'more', how do you back it up? How do you make a comparison with 'other' bodies of research? Why are these 'bodies' or research competitive to each others' aims in your mind? It sounds like you're simply just re-stating your previous point but with a off-the-cuff reference to GABA receptor agonists. Clearly this is not irrelevant at all-- none dispute that there is a physical component to most addictions, but I don't see how reducing an addiction to a single physical correlate is helpful to any but the people doing research on that precise topic (i.e. more prestige) and the establishment that profits from selling classes of drugs which target that specific site.
I'm not sure what you're saying in your final paragraph.
[B]On July 17 2011 05:14 caradoc wrote: Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
I agree that it is good to treat patients holistically. I'm aware that an addiction can destroy a person's life to such an extent that psychological support becomes important.
I just disagree with the common sentiment that the cause (and thus the solution) of conditions with psychological symptoms must lie in the psyche.
I don't think you've understood the point. Addiction is a set of behaviours, and the accompanying psychological and social environment or context that the behaviour occurs in. Accompanying virtually any addiction are self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues that need to be dealt with in order to deal with the addiction itself. The fact is a lot of people drink a lot, but not everyone becomes an alcoholic-- this is not what you would expect if alcoholism was purely physiological.
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease.
Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable.
Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd.
Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world.
I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic.
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits.
Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior.
Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior.
Individual patients aren't the ones with the agency to create or propagate these news stories. That would be the media/research organization/pharmaceutical establishment. In any population there will be a wide range of opinions on a specific issue-- saying 'the patients are saying X' and leaving it at that is an obfuscation. One could also say 'the patients are saying not X', and it would be just as true. Really, we are reading a news story, not talking to patients. Presenting patients with a particular homogenous viewpoint certainly helps to legitimize the drug in question, but to be honest we have no clue what patients are saying unless we talk to all of them, and even then we need to question whether the progress is not overstated-- did the 'things that patients say' come before a relapse? The news article doesn't know or care.
I'm not sure where you are getting the information that this is being propagated by news stories and the pharmaceutical establishment. I've never heard baclofen treatment mentioned a single time on either television or in the news, until I did an actual search for baclofen. The information I am getting comes specifically from the medical studies which are being published, and the online communities where patients are treating themselves with balofen.
You can visit those public forums whenever you want and read what the actual patients are saying about their own treatment. I'm not making it up, and it isn't some advertising campaign or something. You assume this information is coming from news articles, and it is not.
Try browsing sites like "mywayout.org" sometime, instead of whatever news articles you are reading, if you want to hear patient experience first hand.
Stopped reading there. As an addict and person passionate about psychology and neurology i can tell there is no such thing unless we are talking about physical addiction, like with heroine.
Addictiveness of a drug depends on its peak plasma and half-life. The faster it reaches its maximum level in the plasma and the shorter the half-life, the more addictive it is and the more likely you will be to suffer from withdrawal symptoms. Instead of "stopping to read" when something contradicts your opinion, you should carefully examine it. Being interested in psychology for a hobby does not qualify you to make judgements about whether it is addictive or not.
It depends on how do you define "addictive". For me, it means something that can make you addicted to it. And just about anything can, because it's up to your brain, not the substance. Unless we are talking about physical dependance, which i also mentioned in my prevorious post.
Alcoholism, like most addictions is usually a lot more complex than a physical dependency on alcohol, its often also a real psychological disease as well-- if underlying self-esteem/self-image/compulsivity issues aren't dealt with, the patient will either relapse after a short while or engage in other addictive behaviours more often than not.
I agree in principle, but we're not talking about something off-the-shelf here. This is a prescription drug; that means that a doctor of some kind was involved at some point. So the person is already in some form of therapy; this is just another tool that can be used.
I'm not sure if I follow this logic-- my issue isn't with the substance itself per se, but with the way it is being touted as a 'cure'. It is not a cure, it is a relief of physical symptoms. It is no more a cure than morphine is a cure for cancer and its accompanying pain.
Touting this as a 'cure' is damaging to the public discourse which, quite correctly in my opinion, describes alcoholism, or any addiction for that matter, as an extremely complex condition with deep psychological and social roots.
Addiction, if we are to call it a disease, is one of the few diseases which is defined entirely by it's symptoms. If you eliminate the symptoms, you have effectively eliminated a disease.
Your comparison to cancer is a terrible analogy. Cancer isn't defined by it's symptoms, but by it's physical existence, which will kill you whether you feel the symptoms or not.
This is a false dichotomy. Addiction is a behaviour. The choice to engage in a particular behaviour is psychological, so there can be no MRI scan to detect a psychological tumor, so to speak. Symptoms are utilized (along with other psychological metrics I might add, it is not solely diagnosed based on symptoms) as diagnostics simply because they are relatively measurable.
Cancer is a discrete entity with physical boundaries, so can be measured, yes, but under your charicaturization, a drug which induces a coma would be sufficient 'cure' for any psychological illness (since there is no "physical existence" as you put it), which of course is absurd.
Of course, this is why we have conceptual frameworks for categorizing and diagnosing and treating illnesses with a psychological component, like addictions-- if psychological metrics of a patient fall within the conceptual framework of an illness, a diagnosis can be made-- this is similar to diagnosing cancer (we have a conceptual framework of what healthy tissue looks like, and conversely what cancerous tissue looks like-- and if an excision or a scan reveals tissue which falls within the second box, a diagnosis can be made)-- but differs in the fact that its not physical tissue we are utilizing as criteria, but sets of behaviours and orientations to the world.
I think you're disagreeing simply because you like to be right, but I'll continue the conversation if it stays on topic.
Again, reducing addiction to a set of physical symptoms such as 'withdrawal' or 'physical craving' does injustice to a whole body of research in the last 50 years which shows quite convincingly that addictions have complex, psychological and social components and that addictions need to be treated wholistically. Claims that a single pill can 'cure' alcoholism do not help.
The claims of being cured aren't coming from pharmaceutical companies, they are coming from the patients themselves who are experiencing the change first hand. It does no good to tell such individuals that their experience is "more complex than that," or to discourage others who are suffering from enjoying the same benefits.
Yes, there's been a lot of research on addiction for the last 50 years, but both the treatment methods and the effectiveness of treatment have remained relatively unchanged for decades. The body of research which is accomplishing more than any other is focused fairly specifically on GABA(B) receptors and a possible GHB-deficiency as the cause of addiction symptoms/behavior.
Psychological/Social behaviors, though complex, at the end of the day are simply physiological responses in the brain. The fact that we don't yet fully understand these processes do not mean that they do not exist, and cannot be simply modified to significantly improve human behavior.
Individual patients aren't the ones with the agency to create or propagate these news stories. That would be the media/research organization/pharmaceutical establishment. In any population there will be a wide range of opinions on a specific issue-- saying 'the patients are saying X' and leaving it at that is an obfuscation. One could also say 'the patients are saying not X', and it would be just as true. Really, we are reading a news story, not talking to patients. Presenting patients with a particular homogenous viewpoint certainly helps to legitimize the drug in question, but to be honest we have no clue what patients are saying unless we talk to all of them, and even then we need to question whether the progress is not overstated-- did the 'things that patients say' come before a relapse? The news article doesn't know or care.
I'm not sure where you are getting the information that this is being propagated by news stories and the pharmaceutical establishment. I've never heard baclofen treatment mentioned a single time on either television or in the news. The information I am getting comes specifically from the medical studies which are being published, and the online communities where patients are treating themselves with balofen.
You can visit those public forums whenever you want and read what the actual patients are saying about their own treatment. I'm not making it up, and it isn't some advertising campaign or something. You assume this information is coming from news articles, and it is not.
Try browsing sites like "mywayout.org" sometime, instead of whatever news articles you are reading, if you want to hear patient experience first hand.
Time magazine is linked in the OP. Companies with patents on specific drugs or infrastructure to produce them regularly fund research on other uses of such drugs, and such research tends to get disproportionately more exposure. But yes, it is off patent, so there is less incentive than a patented drug would be, but not none.
Again, as I've said numerous times above, I'm not attacking the drug itself-- if its useful in dealing with some physiological components to the addiction, that is a great advance, and should be incorporated into a comprehensive treatment program. My issue, again, is that terms like 'cure' (in the OP) or equating treatment with a pill (Time magazine linked in OP) do inadvertent harm.
The fact that you continually misconstrue and simplify my intent in my posts as well as the fact that your last paragraph suggests that you aren't actually reading what I'm typing, since you seem to believe that I'm against medical treatment of physiological components of addictions is not helping this discussion. I won't be replying to straw man arguments in the future.
Though it should be said, I found this phrase fairly disturbing: "for the treatment of addiction, it appears that baclofen must be taken indefinitely, since cravings return once the drug is stopped."
Indefinitely? As in, forever? What other effects are there? If you need to take a drug permanently that interferes with your body's dopamine release, it will have more effects than simply on addiction. To say nothing about how expensive (and conversely profitable for those concerned) this would be in the long term.
On July 17 2011 03:25 Ryan307 wrote: Unless you've actually experienced addiction yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I completely understand how from an outside perspective it seems as if people have no will power, and the idea of it being a disease sounds silly. Once you've actually experienced it it's completely different. I would label addiction as more of a disorder than a disease. It's called a disease because it's progressive, but I guess disorders can be progressive too.
To reiterate my point, unless you have actually experienced addiction you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The mindset of being in active addiction is absolutely beyond words, and anyone who chalks this up to a lack of willpower is completely ignorant.
Of course it's a lack of will power. You are doing something to your OWN body that you KNOW destroys it but you continue to do it anyway. Regardless of any physical, genetic or psychological reason for rationalizing your choice to continue doing it, it is still a choice. I could lock a chain smoker in a room and feed him food and water and he will survive. The reason why he chooses not to quit smoking is a lack of will.
You are wrong, there was a point in my addiction where I was thoroughly convinced that using was my only option, my will power was directed AT using. It's like being in a thick psychosis. Do not talk about things that you do not understand.
What were you addicted to, and for how long? And how did you end up stopping your abuse (assuming that you did stop)?
I was addicted to benzodiazapines (and alcohol) for roughly 5 years. During that time I went to 4 treatment centers and numerous psychologists. Ive been clean for almost 2.5 years but I still have a good amount of cravings. The fourth rehab finally took in conjunction with 12 step meetings and intense therapy. The only way I can describe addiction is like a thick, obsessive psychosis.
it doesn't necessarily "cure" alcoholism but taking these pills over drinking is a huge step, and a big bravo to whoever made it! it may be just replacing a drug with a drug, but this drug isn't unhealthy and destroying your body, relationships, and all the other jazz that comes with alcohol. i wish i could tell my dad about this <.<;
On July 16 2011 10:26 SentinelSC2 wrote: As long as you're depending on something else, can't really call it a cure.
But if it completely suppresses the urge for alcohol, one can assume over time that that urge for alcohol would gradually wane. That's what I'd imagine anyways. But I'm sure many struggling alcoholics would gladly take a pill in return for freedom from alcohol.
It wouldn't be any different from people who need to take pills in order to stave off a life threatening illness. I'm sure they don't mind taking a pill every so often in order to keep breathing lol.
On July 17 2011 12:56 Stropheum wrote: Science: 1, Self control: 0
Personally, I can't even understand what self-control or will is supposed to mean...
The way I see it, every single event that takes place in the universe is either caused, and therefore determined, or uncaused, and therefore arbitrary. I can't even imagine a possible alternative to determined/arbitrary, or caused/uncaused.
The idea of an event "self-causing" itself, or "willing" itself into existence sounds very unscientific, more like metaphysical voodoo or psychological astrology than anything else. Human action like everything else in the universe is caused by factors outside of our control, and therefore is determined. A person can't increase their own "self-control."
Kind of off-topic, but just wanted to offer my 2 cents on the matter. Until someone can explain how an event is neither caused or uncaused, I will reject these notions of "choosing" to be addicted or not.
As somebody who just quit Adderal,I can say that there are no miracle drugs out there and that everything has side effects, even if you don't notice them while you are taking them. I wouldn't think of this as an end all cure to alcoholism. I honestly now believe that every substance, even those that are non addictive can be addictive in nature.
On July 17 2011 12:56 Stropheum wrote: Science: 1, Self control: 0
Personally, I can't even understand what self-control or will is supposed to mean...
The way I see it, every single event that takes place in the universe is either caused, and therefore determined, or uncaused, and therefore arbitrary. I can't even imagine a possible alternative to determined/arbitrary, or caused/uncaused.
The idea of an event "self-causing" itself, or "willing" itself into existence sounds very unscientific, more like metaphysical voodoo or psychological astrology than anything else. Human action like everything else in the universe is caused by factors outside of our control, and therefore is determined. A person can't increase their own "self-control."
Kind of off-topic, but just wanted to offer my 2 cents on the matter. Until someone can explain how an event is neither caused or uncaused, I will reject these notions of "choosing" to be addicted or not.
well quantum interactions are non-deterministic, for what its worth.
Wow great news. If it has less and better side effects then alcohol i dont se why everyone hates it. It may not be a cure but its a better alternative.
On July 17 2011 00:30 Equity213 wrote: I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
Im not judging because I have my addictions too, I just dont like it when people abjegate theiir personal responsibility. Im responsible for my addictions, not some disease.
But to the OP, this sounds really cool. It makes me think of ibogaine for heroin users. Cant wait to see more studies on this stuff.
WOW. You, sir, win the Mr. Ignorant award for today. It's cool that you're an armchair expert in the realm of opinion and whatnot, but there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise.
And there are ACTUAL professionals out there with plenty of research and evidence to tell you otherwise. As far as I'm aware, alcoholism as a disease was commonly accepted in the past. The more recent trend is to move away from calling it a disease.
I get real tired of this 'alcoholism is a disease' crap. Im addicted to cigarettes, can we call that a disease? I drink to much coffee, maybe I have a disease. Yeah its a disease called a weak will.
... Please, people who know absolutely nothing about medecine, educate yourself before writing comments.
Alcoholism much like obesity has a genetic predisposition. Most of the people who actually carry those predispositions will never become alcoholics, but the few who are exposed to the a specific environnement (wich is often indepedent of the patient) "walk down" the path of alcoholism. And then there is no turning back..
While there are certain genetic factors which might make you enjoy alcohol consumption more (by a small amount) etc, there is no actual "alcoholism gene". There is no predictor for alcoholism which you can test for. Just because you might enjoy alcohol slightly more than someone else, or might have a slightly harder time stopping doesn't not mean it is a disease which you cannot control with willpower alone.
It's great that there are genetic factors that can affect your likelihood of abusing alcohol and that there are environmental factors and traumas which do the same, but at the end of the day... You are not destined to become an alcoholic. There are still a series of choices that lead up to you becoming an alcoholic. You can also stop abusing alcohol by making a choice to do so. Compare this to Huntington's. No matter what choices you make in life, if you inherited the mutated gene, that's it. End of story. You will have Huntington's. You cannot choose not to have it. THAT is a disease.
Btw, how can a patient's environment be independent of the patient? :p
Semantics. Disease not in the sense of a genetic disorder (I of all people do not need a lecture on genetics or molecular biology), but in the sense that it isn't something one can simply "quit" with willpower alone. It's physically addictive. Arguing against the use of "disease" is just an irrelevant focus on words - the point is that it's a medical problem more serious than "lack of willpower".
Moreover, there are psychological implications as well. The entire situation affecting an individual is incredibly complex, and as such, it may be called a disease. You can rigidly define disease all you want, and then focus your efforts on debating the point of nomenclature all you want, if that's what is more important to you...
On July 17 2011 12:56 Stropheum wrote: Science: 1, Self control: 0
Wait, so helping people overcome a physical dependence and assert self control is, a loss for self control? Slavery is freedom?
In the US people don't normally find drug addicts victims but rather people lacking in character unable to control themselves in the first place and thus why they got addicted they simply could say no early on and make a proper decision is the sentiment, so even if there is more effective treatment the one that instills a sense of self is liked the most to the public.
Aaah a topic on the general forum with information in the OP, who would have thought?
As has been said, alcoholism is an addiction and drugs alone cannot solve the problem. However any new avenue of treatment of welcome. This certainly seems promising, especially that it is off patent.
On July 22 2011 09:49 Probe1 wrote: Interesting. My favorite part of the OP is Baclofen has no wrongs about it. That sure instills confidence when a drug is pitched like snake oil.
I did state that there are problems associated with sudden withdrawal, and also stated that it is currently an indefinite solution.
If you think there are any bad aspects of baclofen that I didn't mention please be sure to actually tell us what they are.
By the way, no one is "pitching" an off-patent drug. That hardly even makes sense. One of the biggest problems with baclofen is that because it is off patent, there isn't enough financial incentive for anyone to study the drug in further depth. Thankfully people are willing to donate their own money to study the drug.
To all those "self control is easy" guys: Self control is very, very hard and there are tons of circumstances where nobody would be able to control himself. Lots of people are overweight, smoke, drink alcohol, spend to much time in front of the tv/computer, have depressions, eat unhealthy food, have unhealthy habbits, procastrinate etc Most of them know that they could do better but and have an idea in their mind of a perfect lifestyle but most wont change a thing! Because its not that easy!
With dangerous drugs like alcohol its even harder! Once you are addicted it's very hard to get of and you are never cured. And lots of people who get addicted to alcohol are in very bad circumstances when they get addicted to alcohol (divorce, relative dies, financial problems, social problems, harrassment, etc).
Saying its just a matter of self control is as stupid as saying I would ressist torture because i know how to control myself (even the hardest of all men are at one point going to beg for their lifes and tell everything).
That isn't my job. I only have to be scrupulous while the FDA tests it in relation to alcoholism treatment.
Every time there's a sensationalist news article or thread it turns out to be bunk. I appreciate that this isn't a peer review kind of website but when something sounds that good, it's my instinct to believe it will be significantly less enormous than originally stated.
On July 22 2011 10:37 Probe1 wrote: That isn't my job. I only have to be scrupulous while the FDA tests it in relation to alcoholism treatment.
Every time there's a sensationalist news article or thread it turns out to be bunk. I appreciate that this isn't a peer review kind of website but when something sounds that good, it's my instinct to believe it will be significantly less enormous than originally stated.
Think I've read the announcement of "cure for hiv/aids has been found!" at minimum 3 times on this website alone.
On July 22 2011 10:37 Probe1 wrote: That isn't my job. I only have to be scrupulous while the FDA tests it in relation to alcoholism treatment.
Every time there's a sensationalist news article or thread it turns out to be bunk. I appreciate that this isn't a peer review kind of website but when something sounds that good, it's my instinct to believe it will be significantly less enormous than originally stated.
Fair enough. I am a very skeptical person myself.
The reason I am enthusiastic about this treatment is partly because the people who are singing it's praises are not from any company or advertising campaign, etc. but are the patients themselves who are experiencing help. Of course nothing is a perfect solution. If anything, the drug will help to shed more light on the nature of addiction in the brain, so that one day perhaps we can effectively cure it with something as simple as a pill.
Another reason I am enthusiastic about it is because of how safe the drug is, as shown by numerous studies and decades of use. If you contrast it with other addiction-treatment drugs, such as methadone, it is certainly much safer. And yet, we are widely prescribing methadone to people to help with addiction. Also, drugs like disulfiram are very dangerous. They prevent the liver from processing alcohol, causing severe intoxication symptoms if any alcohol is consumed. The idea is aversion therapy, that the patient will fear getting sick so much that they will stop drinking. The problem is such drugs do not treat the cravings themselves, and if the patient DOES consume large enough amounts of alcohol on them, they will die.
My wife and I have both lost family members to alcoholism, so it's something that has affected us profoundly and it is something I've spent some time studying. I have a lot of experience with the standard treatment protocols, and I also know how ineffective most of them are at actually treating people. The brain's physiology is simply more powerful than any words or support group you can offer people.
Addiction is one of the few diseases whose treatment has remained virtually unchanged for more than 75 years. The ideas and methods have been essentially the same since AA was founded in 1935. The fact that there are severe alcoholics in the world right now who are walking around with absolutely no craving for alcohol, because of a pill, is extremely encouraging.
I don't disagree with you at all jdseemoreglass. After reading your response I'm slightly more convinced but a lot more open to the idea. I completely agree that the overall methodology to treatment of alcoholism has not changed significantly along with the rest of the modernization of medicine.
Mouth full of bullshit words I agree Baclofen should be pursued strongly as a treatment along with traditional support therapies after additional testing and double blind studies to verify the safety in general use by alcoholics. The current double blind study's method
Methods: A total of 39 alcohol-dependent patients were consecutively enrolled in the study. After 12–24 h of abstinence from alcohol, patients were randomly divided into two groups. Twenty patients were treated with baclofen and 19 with placebo. Drug and placebo were orally administered for 30 consecutive days. Baclofen was administered at the dose of 15 mg/day for the first 3 days and 30 mg/day for the subsequent 27 days, divided into three daily doses. Patients were monitored as out-patients on a weekly basis. At each visit alcohol intake, abstinence from alcohol, alcohol craving and changes in affective disorders were evaluated.
Upon seeing a hundredfold increase in trial size and tripled duration of testing produce similar results, I would be very convinced. With one year of successful usage without acute and terrible side effects then I would be completely convinced.
However I understand the urgency that I read implied in your posts. I, too, have had alcoholic friends and still have one surviving. If I could convince him to try something new like this, I may go back on my stance in my posts and recommend him to talk to his doctor.
Small, insignificant end note: Don't compare methadone to alcohol dependency drugs. Methadone is a necessary evil, barely better than the opiates it replaces. It does little to cure the dependency on heroin for users and is incredibly dangerous. It is a stopgap measure to help people quit. (*One of my closest friends used to abuse methadone clinics when she couldn't afford heroin. I'm slightly tilted in my bias)
EPT
)
