Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone
In some ways, I suppose that it draws attention to substance-related issues. Labeling all consumers of substances as "dependent/addicted" can help with funding for everything from prevention to aftercare. On the other hand, diagnoses stick with people and follow them around.
If I abused alcohol and got a DUI, that doesn't mean anything (in the eyes of substance work) other than I got wasted and made a bad choice--doesn't necessarily mean I am alcohol dependent. I guess that is what bothers me. Substance treatment is its own entity in mental health, because there are so many complexities and nuances. I am curious to see what the DSMV looks like in relation to all this, as so far I have only seen the aforementioned limitations in crisis assessments and treatment authorization. We shall see...
|
Most good post. You see that it's confusing to follow or determine a logic from paragraph one of my excerpt to paragraph two. Let's stick with (fancy letter)P1.
Wait, I'm giving up kind of. Sidetracked from your last quoted paragraph supra -- it seems to me that dependence is a bright line, and I'm guessing any alcohol-depedent subject is very well aware of waking up and literally needing a drink to do things like get out of bed, have a shower, prepare some food, or even shave (men AND women -- I'm looking at you, ex-wife-thing
).
The one thing AA gets sort of right is that, objectively (as if there were any other way), any alcohol use is really not of benefit to a person's health. It's toxic, but, and this is its raison d'être, its use may arguably improve group cohesion. Perhaps culinary benefit, or whatever, but I lost track of where I was going with this, so, I thank you for the response and that is all.
Hey, btw what is up with your signature catchphrase, "That is all." Kind of stern, don't you think?