Thanks for another no-nonsense blog. I wonder what you think about the genetics underlying addiction? You mention native Americans, for example. Is there any truth to the notion that there is an enzyme they lack which leaves them more susceptible to alcoholism?

As to your closing line, "Ask me one night when you catch me in a bar, and I'll tell you all about it."

Would a tapas-bar count?

I think the population in general is too focused on solutions to pre-existing problems and blind to prevention. The medical field is riddled with cases of patients that waited until the last minute to obtain the needed tests and professional guideance that diagnose symptoms. Prevention is such an amazing tool because it not only keeps the problem behavior from occuring in the first place, it actually creates healthier lifestyle habits that will continue to be beneficial throughout an individual's life. People are amazed when I offer them small changes to their daily lives that make a large impact on their overall outlook.People are willing to endure and pay for painful procedures, and years of counceling instead of making slight alterations in their own attitude and lifestyle.It is as if health is no longer a necessity, but a luxury for those more driven individuals.

“…..by extension, everyone is equally susceptible to alcoholism and addiction”. Where on earth does that come from?

As someone who has spent quite a few years working on basic research into alcoholism and addiction, I can tell you I have not met one “expert” who would believe this is true.

Just to be clear, here is the text from the original poster (I’m sure you can’t read it from the thumbnail picture):

“There’s no such thing as typical, we have all kinds. 10 million Americans are alcoholic. It’s our number one problem”.

I don’t see where the “extension” comes from. The textbook view is this; alcoholism is a complex, heterogeneous disease. There are multiple risk factors, both genetic and environmental (including social settings). You have invented the controversy here.

This post is a classic example of a straw man argument; misrepresent or simply make up your opponents position and then destroy that imaginary position. From the title I assume there are to be further examples of “lies” told by addiction experts. Perhaps for these we could have some actual citations, links or quotes to make the straw man real?

I think posts such as this are dangerous. Why you might ask I say this. Well the truth is that addiction does affect anyone in any social or economic situation, perhaps it is more likely to affect those who haven't had a stable situation growing up, but it in no way proves that addiction is not disease. As someone that has had suffered from an addiction and knowing many other who also have had addiction problems, I and almost everyone I know, didn't fit into the category of persons which the author of this post describes.

What the author here is describing are just some of the more common contributing factors to addiction,and not addiction itself. The truth is addiction does not discriminate, it doesn't care if you are rich or poor, well educated or not. All it takes is using a substance for any reason, and then possibly becoming addicted to it.

Not only does this article argue against a premise which does not exist, as stated above, but it does so using loosely defined language and without control of numerous variables. What does it mean to say economically successful people drink more but are less likely to "drink unhealthily." Does unhealthy equal addiction? What is drinking unhealthily? Assuming differences do exist, think of all the variables that could also explain these (early treatment, non reporting. etc) differences.

Most importantly, what is your point and why would Psychology Today want to push this agenda? Even if it is a myth, why is it the #1 myth, and what harm does the myth cause. Do you want a certain class of people to feel they are not at risk? Alcoholics do not need your help in fueling denial, thanks very much.

Or is the point just to say that addiction results from the inability for an addict to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps thus putting the the poor and underprivileged especially at risk. Would you feel more comfortable with a campaign that said "addiction happens to anyone but especially you poor, minorities from broken homes".

The underlying point of the article seems to be that alcoholism and other forms of addiction result solely from environmental factors. That is proven nonsense and is in fact the real #1 myth regarding addiction and a very very dangerous one.

A very disappointing blog.

A very challenging article indeed...
Defeatism while degrading socioeconomic status & race? It was little rough... People regardless of any "difference" can become addicts, OR NOT! That said socioeconomic status is a very real factor and the "once of prevention = a pound of cure" is always a valid point.

I'm too lazy to look it up for "truth-teller", but I think the missing enzyme in Natives ("that makes them susceptible to alcoholism") is the same enzyme missing in Asians (which makes them NOT susceptible... obviously!:^)