Problem drinking affects 33 Million, 14% of US Adults. Lindsey Tanner, AP Medical Writer via HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
(That's right kids, the Houston Chronicle is now placing AP copy behind their increasingly expensive firewall. Or, you can get the same article, for free, here)
The revised handbook, the DSM-5, defines problem drinkers or those with the disorder as people with at least two of 11 symptoms, including drinking that harms performance at work, school or home, frequent hangovers and failed attempts to limit drinking. Mild problems involve two to three symptoms; severe involve at least six symptoms. The new handbook combined alcohol abuse and dependence, which had been separate disorders, added craving as one symptom and eliminated alcohol-related legal problems as another.
In other words, if you drink, you're probably going to have 2 of the 11 "symptoms" that they have decided are indicative of a "condition". Not only is that ridiculous, it's damaging to people who really do suffer from the horrible problems associated with true alcoholism.
These are the unintended consequences that arise when the government tries to shoe-horn into people's private lives and classify normal adult behavior as a 'disorder'. It's not and it shouldn't be.
Enjoying an adult libation dates back to the ancient Egyptians, overindulging is hardly a new concept, nor is it something that makes one somehow ill, except in the crazy land of government health science. We're to a point now that almost any behavior outside of that the vegetarian, naturapaths partake in is considered to be diseased behavior at some level or another.
Drink too much? You have alcohol use disorder. Eat too much, you have an eating disorder. Eat too much meat? You have a dietary disorder etc. etc.
None of it is true and it's all just a bunch of stuff dreamed up to try and stir up the populace and increase the government's control over our private lives and choices. And, yes, the conspiracy theorists will say that this is all linked to Obamacare and the government wanting to mandate what you eat and drink going forward.
While I won't go that far, if you've ever dealt with a regulatory agency you realize that they're not smart enough to be able to operate with any degree of foresight, especially the foresight to carry out those plans, I do think that there are those in government who truly believe that they are the only things standing between the average American and a fat, slovenly life of idiocy and ignorance. We call these people low-to-mid level bureaucrats.
Even worse, I fear that by dumbing down the idea of "problem drinking" this diminishes the personal crisis that people go through in cases of real alcoholism. In recent years we've seen government reports that try and suggest a large portion of Americans are "addicted" to soda, sugar, salt, fat, steak, alcohol, eggs, processed foods and pretty much anything that is convenient and tastes good. Doing this does not help the general public (never mind that most of the government's health advice is eventually proven wrong [see links at top of post]) but instead leads to confusion and distrust of the Federal guidelines that actually might hold some water.
What these chicken little proclamations really do is distract resources from those who have addictive personalities and who really need help.
If I could petition the government to consider one thing before releasing junk-science such as this it would be the following:
Is my behavior here hurting me or anyone around me in a material way?
By "material way" I mean is there any imminent risk of harm or death. Don't tell me that drinking can lead to whatever symptom, so can life. We're all dying we just don't know how fast yet.
If the answer to this is "no", then please, keep your study to yourself and leave me and mine alone.
Now, if you'll excuse me I believe that it's five o'clock somewhere. A beer and burger sound like the correct response to this mess.
