Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sappho]

I have never been a problem drinker. I averaged about 1-2 drinks per day. On the other hand, after moderately drinking for some years, I stopped and underwent several weeks of intense withdrawal, so bad that for several days I was bedridden and semi-delirious. By your definition, I'm not an alcoholic, because I've never had a drinking problem - but I was clearly addicted to the alcohol, otherwise I wouldn't have had withdrawal symptoms.

I think this is a very important distinction to make. You can be an alcoholic without having a drinking problem - and you are still addicted and still suffer the consequences of withdrawal if you choose to stop drinking. You can be a problem drinker without being addicted to alcohol.

Alcoholism is a physiological addiction to alcohol. It's not psychological. It's a physical dependence. I have that. A drinking problem is drinking way too much, way too often. I do not have and never have had a drinking problem. They are not the same thing.

Google "alcoholism vs problem drinking" and you'll find plenty of sources. Here's a random one:

Alcoholics are addicted to alcohol. They are physically and mentally dependent on it. Alcoholics find it hard not to drink and struggle with dependency every day. Alcoholics can achieve sobriety, but they will always be an alcoholic and at risk for relapse. They will often relapse after just one drink, no matter how long they have been sober.

Problem drinkers are not physically dependent on alcohol. They can go days, week, or months without drinking, if they want to. If they abstain, they will not have detox symptoms. They may drink a lot, or they may drink occasionally. The issue problem drinkers have is that when they do drink, it causes an issue in their life or in the life of someone they know. They may say and do things that hurt others or themselves. Drinking is not a problem for these individuals, but it does create problems in their lives.

Source

Another from an article in the Examiner

Often in the media and in the public perception the terms alcoholism and alcohol abuse are used interchangeably, which does not help in treatment because they are distinctly different. Alcoholism is a disease with a genetic source. It affects about eight percent of the population. Alcohol abuse is a behavioral problem, a disorder shared by an estimated 27 percent of the population. One does not cause the other, although no alcoholic will show symptoms of the disease, ever, without first abusing alcohol.

There are many other differences, but the medical one is a big one. Alcoholics are born with an inherited gene disorder impacting the way the body handles alcohol and altering biochemicals in the brain and physical tissues in the body. Alcohol abuse isn’t genetic, physiological or biochemical, but psychological. The latter is 100 percent curable; the former is a progressive, chronic and fatal primary disease with no cure.

And here's a source from Harvard University, if you insist on a "scholarly" article.

[Thief^]

If your plan is to use alcohol as a hypersensitivity medication, perhaps you should treat it that way? I.e., get a working dose, and then try to wean it down over time and see if your body naturally adapts. At the very least it would allow you the curative effect without as much of a health risk. This approach could be aided by using an alcohol you dislike.

It could also be unrelated, I've not heard of hypersensitivity in respect to alcoholism before.

Good luck.

[Harry Baldman]

Yeah, that's just the alcohol abuse/alcoholic distinction. Saying something has 'a genetic source' isn't terribly meaningful usually, particularly when there doesn't seem to be much apparent genetic research underlying the claim. Also doesn't help that quite a few people who otherwise are alcohol abusers are keen to claim physical dependence as well. Furthermore, no psychology occurs without underlying biochemistry. Not to mention that the Harvard one is noticeably nonspecific on the actual origin of alcoholism, noting that it "is a medical condition that applies to individuals who have strong cravings for alcohol, can’t control their drinking, show withdrawal symptoms if they stop drinking, and continue to drink despite health or other alcohol-related problems". There's a risk you might be assembling a version of alcoholism that fits the conclusions you'd like to draw rather than drawing conclusions from descriptions of alcoholism.

The distinction really doesn't matter, though, since self-medication is the key issue. It's not a good option by any means, since it's just about the most subjective kind of medication there is, and substance dependence has a way of impacting your judgment no matter its origin. Hence you want some kind of external check in place, which you do appear to have in the form of friends. Sometimes the only good options you have are kind of shit, I guess. Best of luck.

[sirdanilot]

May I suggest using weed rather than alcohol for your hypersensitivity?

Although I don't recommend being stoned everyday generally, you might want to try it to wean off alcohol, then maybe you can slowly wean off the weed as well? I think using low doses of weed everyday is better than using low doses of alcohol everyday.

But in any case, I also drink at least 2 standard consumptions of alcohol a day and many many more at parties. However when I am with family or away or something I can easily go 3 weeks without a drop if I have to, therefore I am not addicted. However if I don't have to I'm not going without alcohol.

[Orange Wizard]

Why yes, breaking the law is obviously a better option.

[sirdanilot]

Why yes, breaking the law is obviously a better option.

Ahooga ! Ahooga ! Bigot alert !

Newsflash: in various countries nowadays, smoking weed isn't actually illegal anymore. And the topic starter hasn't, as far as I have read, told us where he's from.

Besides, have you never ever sped while driving your car, pissed against a wall or thrown a used can of coke into the bushes? Never? Ever?

[Orange Wizard]

Ahooga ! Ahooga ! Bigot alert !

bigot
/ˈbɪɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

*snrk*

...

Anyway, according to Wikipedia, medical marijuana is in fact legal in Czech Republic. So I guess you could go that route if you want to get a prescription.

[Shadowlord]

I keep hearing that alcoholics (that is, people who are physiologically addicted to alcohol regardless of how much they drink - not people who simply drink a lot or all the time) can never be "moderate" drinkers. That because of their body's reaction to alcohol, once they quit, they can never have another drink again.

I always heard that the reason an alcoholic can't even have one drink is that the one drink will immediately restart the addiction

IIRC this is Alcoholics Anonymous doctrine, which isn't actually based on science at all. Their failure rate is remarkably high. My source for that:  http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_pseudo_science_of_alcoholics_anonymous_theres_a_better_way_to_treat_addiction/

Here's the thing. If alcohol is what allows you to function, and you don't drink to excess, is the fact that you experience withdrawal if you stop really a problem? If possible, just don't stop, right?

I can think of two concerns:
First, your blood alcohol concentration, driving, and whether you exceed the legal limit (and whether it might impair your driving or other activities, but it can't be worse than trying to drive with hypersensitivity). I assume there is a BAC limit where you are. I don't know enough to know what the alcohol "should" be doing as far as your BAC goes, or any effects on your reactions, etc, but from what you've said I wouldn't expect it to conform to what's stated on the internet (for how much a beer increases your BAC and how fast it leaves your system based on your weight and gender). If you don't drive or operate anything that puts anyone's life at risk, this is probably not as much of a concern.

Second, I'm wondering if you'd be at risk of alcohol-related diseases. I'm not even remotely an expert, and this is probably a far future concern, if it's a concern at all. It's always possible to periodically check on your liver's health with blood tests (this is what they do if you're on a medicine that can potentially damage your liver).

[Sappho]

I appreciate everyone's continued attempts to help. Last night I opened a beer and had a drink for the first time in 6 weeks. I felt instant relief. I also didn't feel the need to drink it quickly or to have more. In fact, after 2 hours, I had only had a little over half of it, and felt I was done and went to bed. I know that will change as my tolerance returns (probably very quickly), but I am not concerned with it becoming difficult to stick to one drink per day. If I start to find I want to drink more or start to worry I will not have the willpower, I will reevaluate the situation.

To answer a few comments/questions:
1. I'm a woman (check the text under my picture) and I live in Prague (I'm sure I've mentioned that - in any case it's in my profile).
2. Marijuana is legal here for medical purposes and not criminal for personal use. People smoke on the street and police do not bother them. You can have up to 5 grams without really breaking the law.
3. I have tried using marijuana but it doesn't help. Sadly, my unusual (hypersensitive/autistic) nervous system responds differently to it. It can help me sleep at times, but physically it only makes me more sensitive and more aware of sensory input. I quite rarely use it.
4. I don't drive or do anything else that requires me to be sober. It's even normal here to have a beer during working hours, on your lunch break, though I have no plans to do that.
5. Long-term health effects are something I'll have to keep in the back of my mind, but on balance, the present urgent need for a treatment for hypersensitivity outweighs the low risk of future health problems that could come from a small amount of regular drinking. On the other hand, I've heard that regular light drinking also has health benefits, so who knows.
6. Thief^: yes, I intend to treat the alcohol as a medication. Looked at through that view, it's actually less addictive and dangerous than most other types of medications that might be tried to treat this problem. For now I will stick to beer because I live in the country with the best beer in the world, and it's literally cheaper than (bottled) water. But if I start to find I have a problem with craving more, I will keep in mind the suggestion of using an alcohol I dislike the taste of.

Hypersensitivity is, sadly, something there is almost no research into that I can find. Most people still seem to think of it as an emotional/psychological problem rather than the physical/neurological problem it actually is. The reason seems to be that most sufferers are autistic, and since autism is still regarded as a "disorder" in its own right, all too often all the "symptoms" of that disorder are simply lumped together as "this person is autistic" and the person is often dismissed as disabled/broken without much thought given to how individual problems can be helped. This is made worse by the fact that the worst sufferers of hypersensitivity are unable to communicate verbally (and in fact hypersensitivity/sensory overload is the CAUSE of someone being non-verbal), so they can't explain easily that they are in pain and why. It's something I would like to try to change, if I can find a way to spread my information more effectively. But looking at communities of autistic people online such as wrongplanet.net, there are many autistic people who "treat" their hypersensitivity with alcohol for lack of any better way of dulling the pain. Most of them are not alcoholics, so they don't end up in my situation.

I suppose this whole thread was started due to my fear of the word "alcoholic" and all the stigma people attach to it. That to be addicted to alcohol is bad in and of itself, regardless of how much you drink, and you have to quit cold turkey and that's the end of it, no matter what. But if I am able to carefully control my alcohol intake, and if the alcohol offers me the enormous benefit of allowing me to live an independent, non-disabled life, whereas without it I would eventually become unable, lose my right to live in this country due to inability to work, get deported back to the USA, and either live on disability or go back to my abusive family desperate for assistance... Well, it's kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? And if you ignore the stigma, the emotional reaction most people have when they hear "alcoholic", and compare alcohol to, say, antidepressants, anti-anxiety medication, or tranquilizers, the side effects and addictive properties are actually quite mild as long as moderation is observed. No one would tell someone with major depression that they should stop taking the antidepressants that allow them to function purely because they are addicted to them (they all are) or because they have some negative health effects (they all do). The benefits far outweigh the negative effects.

So I'm quite satisfied with my final conclusion. I will drink, I will moderate my intake, and my support system of friends will keep an eye on me just in case. The alcohol really isn't hurting me, as far as I can see, and it's helping enormously.

[Shadowlord]

And if you ignore the stigma, the emotional reaction most people have when they hear "alcoholic", and compare alcohol to, say, antidepressants, anti-anxiety medication, or tranquilizers, the side effects and addictive properties are actually quite mild as long as moderation is observed. No one would tell someone with major depression that they should stop taking the antidepressants that allow them to function purely because they are addicted to them (they all are) or because they have some negative health effects (they all do). The benefits far outweigh the negative effects.

If communicating clearly is a concern for you, consider whether everyone you've talked to about this seems to think you mean something other than what you really mean, and whether there's anything you can do to correct that, preferably other than telling them that they're wrong about word definitions.

Or, if you want the telling-you-you're-wrong, they're not addicted, they're dependent. http://neuroscience.mssm.edu/nestler/glossary.html

If you now feel that you have to defend your definitions because I said that they're wrong, that's the same thing everyone else feels when you tell them that they're wrong (or they just ignore it and you end up talking past each other).

(Of course, as of DSM-V it's all 'alcohol use disorder', apparently, which seems as clear as mud to me, but hey.)

P.S. Since you said you got your definition of alcoholic from http://www.lakesidemilam.com/alcohol-drug-addiction/under-the-influence/a-guide-to-the-myths-and-realities-of-alcoholism/

Reading the entire page, it's apparent that they actually have the standard AA version of alcoholism, and are basically pushing the standard AA model of alcoholism, blaming alcoholism entirely on a person's body and saying that there is no way for them to resist it if they ever touch a drop of alcohol. The "Addiction to alcohol is primarily physiological. Alcoholics become addicted because their bodies are physiologically incapable of processing alcohol normally." line is just their way of justifying this. I presume that their purpose in creating that page and writing that book was likely to raise publicity for their clinic and get more patients (because that's way more profitable than a book). Raising their profile may cause judges to be aware of them when they're sentencing people to mandatory treatment at a particular clinic, which is a thing that happens.

Alcoholism: A chronic, primary, hereditary disease which progresses from an early, physiological susceptibility into an addiction characterized by tolerance changes, physiological dependence, and loss of control over drinking. Psychological symptoms are secondary to the physiological disease and not relevant to its onset.

Only a very small number of people wind up unable to control their drinking - and most of them can be treated  with naltrexone. That page makes no mention of it.

If you think that's you...

The word “cure” should not be used because it implies that the alcoholic can engage in normal drinking after his “problem” has been corrected.

This sounds so much like Newspeak to me.
Especially since Naltrexone is a cure as long as it continues to be taken, and not the "makes you throw up" kind of cure (which also exists). The kind that just makes you not experience the craving for more.

Now, since I don't know how alcohol does what it does to you that allows you to function, I don't know if naltrexone would interfere with it. I assume it wouldn't, but I'm no doctor or anything.

This article is very detailed, and talks about naltrexone, among other things: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/04/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/

(It's much better than the last article I linked - I was actually looking for this one but my google-fu wasn't strong enough at the time to find it)

[Orange Wizard]

Regards to social stigma, it might be better not to say you're alcoholic, but to say something along the lines of, "I have hypersensitivity so normally I'd get a lot of pain/headaches/etc., but a bit of booze makes it much more manageable". If people are curious you can explain more to them; if they start going all "teh evul alcoholisms" you can ignore them and change the subject.

[Harry Baldman]

I've had some thoughts.

You said you've had bad experiences with antidepressants. What kinds, if I may ask? Just SSRIs or more interesting sorts as well?

One of the things that makes me wonder as well is how your hypersensitivity might work. Judging from the way alcohol appears to help, it may be that inhibition in your nervous system is less effective than it ought to be (resulting in overstimulation). Alcohol positively modulates GABA_A receptors, the main inhibitory receptor in the central nervous system (it also negatively modulates the NMDA receptor, which is important for synaptic plasticity and is also probably relevant), and detox is associated with decreased efficacy of these same receptors (life -> living hell). What's more, your description of your reaction to cannabis (increases hypersensitivity) is in line with this model, since cannabinoids inhibit inhibition in the nervous system.

Another fact - autism is characterized by an overabundance of synaptic spines in your central nervous system. In other words, too many connections between your neurons. Can't really link it directly to decreased efficacy of inhibition, but you could certainly have the beginnings of an argument there nevertheless.

A test of this model (inhibition deficiency causes hypersensitivity), however, would be how you react to benzodiazepines. Have you ever taken any sedatives or anxiolytics like Xanax or diazepam? If this model I pulled out of my ass is correct, they ought to create an improvement. On the other hand, if the fact that one of the major side effects of quite a few antidepressants is depression is any indication (namely, an indication that any psychoactive substance that binds to a given receptor also binds to at least 20 others, each with a likely unforeseen and possibly invisible effect), this may just be a gross oversimplification that could lead you into serious trouble.

[Sappho]

I could write a very long answer to that, Harry Baldman, but I don't have the time at the moment, so I'll just quickly say that I have had diazepam on many occasions. I keep a supply of it for emergencies because it is the only thing that can help abort a meltdown when I'm in a situation I can't escape from (usually work-related). I don't take it any more than a few times per year (and my goal is to never take it at all, but it's good to have as an emergency backup). It does reduce the sensory overload to a manageable level, but it's so extremely addictive and dangerous that I am careful not to use it any more than absolutely necessary. If I have it even more than once in two months, I can already see reduced effectiveness, so it's not a solution for anything other than the most extreme emergencies.

If you're really interested in the differences in my brain, I'd be happy to tell you more, though it's off topic so better to do it elsewhere. Maybe send me a PM. One thing I will say is that I don't consider "autism" to be a disorder. From all the research I've done into the subjective differences between autistic and non-autistic people (a LOT of research - but I know little to nothing about neurology itself), it seems clear to me that autistic people are not in any way damaged or disordered. They just have a different type of brain and nervous system which has just as many advantages as disadvantages (just like the non-autistic brains), but which unfortunately the modern world is not designed to accommodate, so many of us end up having problems that never would have existed 100 years ago or so. And since the non-autistic people intrinsically value social interaction, the assumption is that anyone who doesn't crave it or doesn't find it natural is somehow broken. Whereas non-autistic people are geared towards managing social interactions and quickly deciphering the broad strokes and "bigger picture" of a situation, autistic people are geared towards details and logic and solving problems, seeing all the details before ever considering a "bigger picture". Both types of brains are equally valid per se and it takes a combination of both to keep humanity functioning. The problems come from each group's expectations of the other, and from the sensory-overload-hell that is the modern world.

Anyway, that's already more than I meant to write. Send me a PM if you want to discuss further. As far as the original purpose of this thread, I think I have all the answers I came for. I thank everyone who attempted to help and who offered their opinions, even if I disagreed with some of them. I'm feeling excellent today and very optimistic about the current situation and the future.

[sirdanilot]

I could write a very long answer to that, Harry Baldman, but I don't have the time at the moment, so I'll just quickly say that I have had diazepam on many occasions. I keep a supply of it for emergencies because it is the only thing that can help abort a meltdown when I'm in a situation I can't escape from (usually work-related). I don't take it any more than a few times per year (and my goal is to never take it at all, but it's good to have as an emergency backup). It does reduce the sensory overload to a manageable level, but it's so extremely addictive and dangerous that I am careful not to use it any more than absolutely necessary. If I have it even more than once in two months, I can already see reduced effectiveness, so it's not a solution for anything other than the most extreme emergencies.

If you're really interested in the differences in my brain, I'd be happy to tell you more, though it's off topic so better to do it elsewhere. Maybe send me a PM. One thing I will say is that I don't consider "autism" to be a disorder. From all the research I've done into the subjective differences between autistic and non-autistic people (a LOT of research - but I know little to nothing about neurology itself), it seems clear to me that autistic people are not in any way damaged or disordered. They just have a different type of brain and nervous system which has just as many advantages as disadvantages (just like the non-autistic brains), but which unfortunately the modern world is not designed to accommodate, so many of us end up having problems that never would have existed 100 years ago or so. And since the non-autistic people intrinsically value social interaction, the assumption is that anyone who doesn't crave it or doesn't find it natural is somehow broken. Whereas non-autistic people are geared towards managing social interactions and quickly deciphering the broad strokes and "bigger picture" of a situation, autistic people are geared towards details and logic and solving problems, seeing all the details before ever considering a "bigger picture". Both types of brains are equally valid per se and it takes a combination of both to keep humanity functioning. The problems come from each group's expectations of the other, and from the sensory-overload-hell that is the modern world.

Anyway, that's already more than I meant to write. Send me a PM if you want to discuss further. As far as the original purpose of this thread, I think I have all the answers I came for. I thank everyone who attempted to help and who offered their opinions, even if I disagreed with some of them. I'm feeling excellent today and very optimistic about the current situation and the future.

Ooh you live in Prague ! Then why are you bothered by the fact that you need a drink every day? I think it's the most normal thing there is there, and yes I visit prague quite a bit and have family there (no I dont speak a word of Czech though). I also don't think you are going to encounter any form of social stigma if you drink a beer every day.

Just stick with your habit and have a pint of urquell a day, it isn't gonna hurt you.

[Orange Wizard]

One thing I will say is that I don't consider "autism" to be a disorder.

Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior.

In medicine, a disorder is a functional abnormality or disturbance.

Babies and young children have a much larger number of neural pathways than an adult. A large part of early neurological development is culling the pathways that are used less often, and strengthening the ones that are used more often.
After a few years (I'm afraid I can't remember the specifics) the brain "locks" these pathways into place. Autism is a result of this locking process happening earlier than it should; and the effect of that is something we're both quite familiar with.
I know I sound really anal, but autism is, by definition, a disorder. The brain functions differently to the way it was (by and large) intended to. Obviously it doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else, and to think you're broken is missing the point so badly I can't even. But the only reason to think it isn't a disorder is feel-good points (which I suppose is a fairly convincing argument).