Alcohol?

Agreed, Genetic ..... No reason to beat a dead horse even if it keeps changing its color

Due to my medications I have to avoid it.... It can have severe side effects like passing out... And to be passed out at a party can be dangerous in today's world... sadly.

______________________________________________________

Wow! Morethingswrong. You've got it, lady!

I'm satisfied that the subject was thoroughly discussed, and I'm
through with that one for good.

Keep it up, Lady.

I'm sure there will be many other threads pop up that need our attention.

Hmm my mom had the idea that if you were going to try it anyways try it at home. I was an alcoholic for years. Guess it can really go either way on that end. I was a bit younger, guess that is comparrible to europe. I have seen this go both ways many times.

Europe does have plenty of alcohlics, they are not immune.

Actually, in this comment I do take offense, Genetic. The way I read your statement is that you are suggesting that I am a heavy drinker and was promoting this behavior to the poster.

I am not a heavy drinker, at most I have a couple of glasses of wine occasionally. Also, if you read my two replies, my advice to the poster is that if he chooses to drink socially, then he should first check with his medical professionals to learn what is an acceptable amount.

I descend from a family of alcoholics, as I have posted before, and this is why the conversation is an ongoing one with my therapist.

I do agree that heavy drinking is very unhealthy. Not only does it affect the brain, but also can cause damage to the liver. Both are irreversible conditions. While the 100 billion brain cells we are born with sounds like a lot, we need to treat the organ with care. As for the liver, my uncle died from cirrhosis of the liver, as a result from alcohol abuse.

Again, if you read the poster's original request for input, it was about social drinking, not about the drug abuse you mentioned.

Judging from your character and knowledge, I imagine that the ability to make good choices is possessed iby your grandchildren. While it is wise to be vigilant in sharing your knowledge with your grandchildren, I believe they will be okay.

Bluemountains

A lot of findings show that moderate drinkers' cognitive function beats that of both teetotalers and heavy drinkers. The whole thread is about moderate drinking.

At least, it does not make things worse.

E.g. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jan 20;352(3):245-53.: conclusion "Our data suggest that in women, up to one drink per day does not impair cognitive function and may actually decrease the risk of cognitive decline."

The thing about teetotalers is that they are more often than not former alcoholics because most people who can handle drinking responsibly do so and do not need full abstinence. Non-alcoholic full abstinence due to preferences (my late maternal grandma just did not like it at all in any form) is relatively rare. Therefore, it could be that relatively poorer cognitive function of full abstainers reflects past damage from heavy consumption of alcohol, which should be taken into account when interpreting the data.

So it is a U curve. That is the most important thing.

It is the same with overall mortality: light to moderate drinking is best, better than full abstinence and heavy drinking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10606482

And here is how young bp patients are brainwashed:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ad-combination

a middle-aged PhD-holding man writes:

"First, it's fairly obvious that the introduction of mind altering chemicals into the brain doesn't exactly help to sustain mental stability."

So he uses persuasive language (in bold) which does not belong at all in evidence-based medicine or psychology, and just does not bother with data and data analysis/interpretation. He does not think he needs to prove his conclusions - he just posits that they are obvious. Nice and easy.

Whoever conferred the PhD on him should have known better.

Well, I can only say, Blue Mountains, that I'm sorry you took offense at that. I hadn't your problem in mind at all when I posted that. I was considering the use
of alcohol per se in drunkenness. If I had intended to use you (which I would never do , as the subject of a statement), I should think I would be banned from posting here.

It is never necessary to demean someone in pointing out a symptom of alcohol ingestion or to demean another for any reason. (I have been taught too clearly how demeaning retaliates in one's own unconscious as a result.)

You seem to be to me such an intelligent and savvy person; I regret the loss
of your friendship but understand that you may wish that.

None of my posts are directed at you, just as my threads about diet changes are not directed at any one individual except the person who has an open mind about alternative care for bipolar illness.

I dislike intensely any effort to cover up the real basis of the need for alcohol either in a social or personal effort to alleviate psychological pain or to have a more relaxed and pleasant comfort zone in social interaction. People who are the victims of social drinking will agree. Anyone who has ever been fortunate enough to have escaped the effects of drunkenness are unaware of what deleterious effects drinking may have.
______________________________________________________________

I could just as easily share being offended by the statement that I should share my knowledge with my grandchildren. I am not offended, however, because I wouldn't think you are the type who would suggest such a thing.
_______________________________________________________________-
Frankly, I don't believe there is such a thing as social drinking; there are rarely
occasions that I have attended when at least one person was unable to manage
his liquor in a socially acceptable manner. I'm not prudish in my thinking; I've just
lived long enough to see how it really does function in society.

The whole subject, in my view, should have been directed to the Addiction Forum which is better able (from knowledge and experience) to help a youngster in
understanding what it it all about.

I have apologized to that forum for this discussion and I'm finished with this one, as I told Morethings wrong, earlier.

12% of people in the US have had alcoholism according to Wikipedia. That is a minority of people. The trick is to distinguish those at risk and advise zero consumption to them AND THEM ONLY while advising moderate alcohol consumption to the majority of people for whom such consumption would yield optimal outcomes along many axes from better social cohesion and lower mortality. That is for the population as a whole, with some exceptions for mentally ill people but not in a blanket prohibitionist way.

There is no controversy that the relationship between alcohol consumption and positive health outcomes is not linear. It is not the case that zero consumption yields the best outcomes and the more a person consumed, the worse the outcomes become, progressively. Nope, the curve has a U-shape; in other words, there exists a sweet spot of optimal moderate alcohol consumption that outperforms BOTH abstinence and heavy consumption. The disagreement is only about what exactly the sweet spot is - 1 serving a day? 2 servings a day? 1-6 servings a week? etc. There is no disagreement regarding the shape of the curve.

Advising zero consumption, assuming that people follow the advice, optimizes the outcomes for the 12% of the high risk population while treating the low risk 88% as collateral damage, denying them the many benefits that would accrue to them should they be advised to consume alcohol in moderation.

To advise zero consumption is akin to performing a C-section on every pregnant woman. Sure, this way we would definitely catch those few high risk women that really need a C-section, but at the cost of worse outcomes for the majority of women and their babies.

It is also akin to the now outdated practice of prescribing antibiotics indiscriminately. Sure, if a doctor prescribes antibiotics to everyone who enters his office, he will most definitely prescribe them to those few who really need them.

In information retrieval terms, the zero consumption advice has only one benefit - of perfect recall, with respect to alcoholics. But the precision is absolutely horrendous.

Usually, one tries to find a way to balance precision and recall.

More on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall

In pattern recognition and information retrieval, precision is the fraction of retrieved instances that are relevant, while recall is the fraction of relevant instances that are retrieved. Both precision and recall are therefore based on an understanding and measure of relevance. Suppose a program for recognizing dogs in scenes identifies 7 dogs in a scene containing 9 dogs and some cats. If 4 of the identifications are correct, but 3 are actually cats, the program's precision is 4/7 while its recall is 4/9. When a search engine returns 30 pages only 20 of which were relevant while failing to return 40 additional relevant pages, its precision is 20/30 = 2/3 while its recall is 20/60 = 1/3.

So blanket zero consumption advice correctly catches ALL alcoholics, who are in the minority. Hence, it has perfect recall.

A better policy is to distinguish between at risk people and advise zero consumption to them and them ONLY, while advising moderate consumption to the low risk population.

There are some changes when you apply it to mentally ill people due to individual reactions and individual drug interactions, but the main point remains is that the zero consumption advice given to 100% of people is good only in that it serves the whatever percentage of dual diagnosis (with alcoholism) folks is AND NOBODY ELSE.

Wow... strong views and I understand. But Genetic... I see extremist thinking, ending your friendship with Blue Mountains? Apologizing to the Addiction Forum for a BP Forum topic? I just don't see the connection. Why alert the Addiction Forum to a topic in the BP forum that might be really triggering for them?

I have strong views on alcoholism. My ex chose alcohol over me and our son, many times. While I was out of town last week, he checked himself in to the BHU to try to quit. They discharged him next morning. Somehow with nurses all around, he had a seizure, broke his head open, 12 stitches, black and blue face and body. Many years ago he had a seizure trying to quit when our baby was 3 Weeks old, he dropped my son on the floor, we are lucky baby was ok. Many other times I've watched him seize from alcohol withdrawal. Anyway there are so many different types or levels of alcoholism, it's very complicated.

I found something so contradictory at a family class I attended while my older son recently was in rehab. The teacher at this class loved his coffee, he'd quit everything else, even cigarettes. He passed out Brain Spect Images by Dr. Amen to the class, I'm very familiar to Dr. Amen's work, as he's an adhd specialist. The last picture on the handout was of the damage caffeine on the brain. Teacher ignored that one, when I brought it up, he dismissed me and said laughing, "Nope coffee's good, everything else is bad". Then he took a big sip of his coffee. Idk, I suppose my point is that things are very complicated, and I recommend we accept them as such.

Thanks, Blue!

Do you believe, Blue Inanna, that calling Alcoholics Anonymous a "cult" is not insulting to people who have followed the guides in Alcoholics Anonymous and that they are not offended by statements of that type? They would hardly be human if they were not.

I will always apologize to any group when I am writing on a thread that
has that kind of ignorance employed in its efforts to convince immature young people that all may drink "responsibly" as the alcohol manufacturers advertise.

Yes, I would suggest that I have extremist views about this subject.
And I don't apologize for those views. I have known people who have
been alcoholics and they have struggled unbelievably with their illness,
not to mention the exasperation of their not being able to integrate information causes to those exposed to it.

This isn't a type of venture in which it is "better to have loved and lost
than never to have loved at all". This one is dangerous. Extremist or
not, alcoholism is what it is for more people than I care to name. It's the
most difficult problem that the U. S. military deals with.

I'm not going to look up any more statistics or write any more about this.

Wow .. just wow.

Maybe this thread will not only help the OP but also as a reminder that more kindness should be happening.

Diagnosis is actually based on self reported experiences, and there are lists of criteria for someone to be diagnosed. It in fact depends on both the duration and presence of certain signs and symptoms.

while I have not bought boxed wine yet (I was at Costco in the morning, but forgot to ask), I went to Trader Joe's and asked a clerk to help me select bottles with screw-on tops, without corks. He asked "what wine". I said "Let us do Merlot". Not only did he pick out a couple of bottles of inexpensive Merlot, he also offered me a bottle of organic sulfite-free Merlot, saying that it is really good for the heart. I have not had the time to research whether this is true and if so, why, and I do not have n allergy to sulfites, but sure, it was still inexpensive, so why not. And, I now know how those screw_on tops look like so I will not need help next time. And, looking at me with pity in his eyes as if I were severely retarded, the clerk suggested a two dollar thingie to deal with corks. I got it so I will try to deal with the regular bottles at home. And, a very pretty young girl named Olivia, my check-out clerk, asked me whether I was old enough to buy alcohol. A middle aged woman behind me and I looked at one another and started laughing! This time I appreciated being asked this question. Olivia believed me and did not card. She noticed the sulfite-free wine and said that she had been given this exact wine but not tried it yet. But she does have sulfite allergy and needs special shampoo.

So so far it has been an altogether pleasant experience and I hope the wine will taste good when I try it.

The organic with no detectable sulfites is too bitter. I am going to stick with conventional but tasty for now. Nice try though.

Honestly you guys, I see this as an honest discussion with various view points. I have read through this a few times and I do not think that anyone is particularly acting out of line or needs called out. It is a touchy subject and like all touchy subjects it can be emotional. That said I have seen far worse bahaviour on this forum where no one says a peep. Sometimes we just have to agree that we don't all agree. We all have our own reasons for feeling about how we do on this issue. So maybe we should just keep in mind that it is an emotional topic. I don't think anyone here was trying to hurt anyone else. I know I felt a bit offened at one statement about being so reasonable as a parent. But I also realize that people see it different and my discomfort lies with me in that.

For myself, I can have alcohol. Yes I was an alcoholic years ago. But there is zero chance I would ever go back to that. That said I don't enjoy the taste, like your friend Hamster I also have a sulphite allergy which triggers my asthma badly, so that is not really safe for me to drink wine when it can have such high and undetermined levels of sulphites which are undeclaired on labels. Yes you can get sulphite free wine, but I also do not enjoy the flavor. I don't really feel any want or need to drink at this time in my life.

I realize there are a lot of studies about the benefits of moderate drinking, and there are many on the negative effects as well. So it is confusing, just like with food. It seems there is always so much contradictory info around. But for me I will probably just continue the way I am for now. I think I have an allergy to alcohol or something because no matter what kind I have tried about 15 minutes later every muscle in body aches terribly, like I just ran a few marathons and then I get a headache.

Alright everyone! Thanks for all the posts (which unfortunately I do not have the time to read).
I just wanted to update the Forums after two weekends in a row which I drank each Friday and Saturday.
I had fun, met a couple of girls, witnessed my roommate in a drunken state do some pretty foolish yet hysterical things, and have not suffered from it in the slightest.
I think some of the original posters are correct in saying that alcohol use should be done with a VERY large grain of salt and assumed responsibility of the drinker.
I limited myself to 3 drinks each night to avoid getting drunk.
Although there is a risk of mania or depression etc. from drinking alcohol for manic depressives such as myself, I think the positives outweigh the odds heavily if one is responsible.
I really enjoyed myself and I think that had I not drunk I wouldn't have had as good of time.
Happiness is a very good medicine, and I think drinking helped me with that.
It had been a long time since I drank, and quite frankly I'm glad I did!
Of course, I would not want to encourage alcohol use--that is a personal decision as it's a powerful drug.
However, I think for me the real danger lies in not getting enough sleep.
Anyways, good luck everyone. Gotta Study!

I mean 3, not 3-4

Anika, I did finish that bottle of sulfite free red wine over the course of several days. I just did not want to waste it. By the time I was on my last glass, I was more or less fine with the taste. It takes some getting used to but in the end it is ok. The initial shock from the bitterness does wear off, with just a little perseverance.

I have not yet found out whether wine without sulfites is better than conventional wine for people like me, without allergies to sulfites.

OP, happiness is a great medicine indeed. For bipolar specifically, due to the tendency of depressed people to isolate socially, all occasions for social gatherings are great. Traditionally, alcohol is often part of such occasions. Removing socialization opportunities is harmful, which is why the message about alcohol delivered by doctors to patients should be worded very very carefully, in a very balanced way, acknowledging that social gatherings are undeniably a good thing but some people might benefit from a no alcohol rule but then should immediately decide upon replacement social gatherings and socialization opportunities as to compensate for what would be lost due to abstinence.

In fact one reason I think twelve steps programs are popular is that they provide replacement socialization. People go to meetings to socialize and build connections, and that is what people enjoy doing.

from my alma mater: Moderate Drinking Helps Middle-Aged and Older People Live Longer, Research Shows | News

POSSIBLE association between moderate drinking and better longevity in middle-aged adults.

But remember, non-drinkers in later years are often former alcoholics. To really do research properly, one would need to compare moderate drinkers to people who have never drunk, excluding former alcoholics.

Uh oh alcohol topic is back.... I'm having a small glass in an old jam jar.. Nite nite