Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (2876)	10/16/2006 4:14:16 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"DMA thinks most people have abused alcohol. But the reality is that only a small percentage of the population has abused alcohol. It is not normal or typical to be an alcoholic." Thanks for sorting that out and saving me the effort. <g> Being an alcoholic or having an alleged alcoholic temperament is not remotely the same as ever having abused alcohol by that five drink measure. I abused alcohol once, by that definition. It was a glorious, glorious night in Taxco, Mexico when I was a student. But I probably haven't had many more than a hundred drinks in my whole life. I would imagine that the majority if not the vast majority of people have abused alcohol at least once. Apples and oranges.

To: Rambi who wrote (2876)	10/16/2006 9:03:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

I'm not sure that definition is very good either, even if its probably much better than the binge drinker definition. Alcohol abuse is defined as a pattern of drinking that results in one or more of the following situations within a 12-month period: • Failure to fulfill major work, school, or home responsibilities; • Drinking in situations that are physically dangerous, such as while driving a car or operating machinery; • Having recurring alcohol-related legal problems, such as being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or for physically hurting someone while drunk; and • Continued drinking despite having ongoing relationship problems that are caused or worsened by the drinking. Although alcohol abuse is basically different from alcoholism, many effects of alcohol abuse are also experienced by alcoholics. So if someone called in sick, because they had a hangover once 240 days ago they would be an alcahol abuser? Both definitions have the same basic fault. The impose a label that implies a chronic condition for even one act within a specified time frame. There are also specific weaknesses about parts of the definition (for example "Continued drinking despite having ongoing relationship problems that are caused or worsened by the drinking." would seem to imply that if someone broke up with you because you occasionally drink moderately and they hate alcohol, that you are now an alcohol abuser), but such specific weaknesses are probably less important than the overall problem of applying a chronic label to one individual action. One action doesn't make for "a pattern of" anything.