Why do we harm our selves by choosing destructive habits? Is it because things like alcohol and drugs have some mysterious power to control us? No. We choose our actions based on our experiences, our habits, and the way we think. If we want to change our destructive behavior we must change; we must learn to choose different solutions to our problems.

“Our liquor was but a symptom. So we had to get down to causes and conditions.” ~William G. Wilson, The Big Book, page 64.

We can simply choose to avoid the substances and experiences that are destructive. I have heard the term “white knuckling it” to describe this solution: it is uncomfortable, difficult, and usually leads back to our destructive behavior as a way to relieve the pain. We must understand that we choose those behaviors because on some level, they work. When we simply stop the behavior without finding a more beneficial alternative, we suffer. Avoidance does not eliminate the underlying thoughts, beliefs, and lack of knowing of alternatives behaviors that drew us to the destructive behavior in the first place.

In this video Sogyal Rinpoche discusses how the mind works to perceive the world around us. As he explains, we must look inward to get to the root of suffering rather than focusing on the external symptoms. We can change to address the causes of our condition, and we can address the real problem we were trying to fix with our destructive behavior.

“All men’s miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.” ~Blaise Pascal

To explain some of the terms used in this video for the non-Buddhists: “Samsara” refers to a general state of overt or subtle sufferings that occur in day to day life. “Nirvana” is the state of being free from that suffering.

Thank you to Darren Littlejohn, The 12-Step Buddhist, for acquainting me with Sogyal Rinpoche’s videos.

I am often asked if Buddhists pray, and if so, to whom. In this short video Sogyal Rinpoche explains the role of prayer in Tibetan Buddhism, and how it relates to, and differs from, the western religious understanding of prayer.

The word “alcoholism” does not describe a disease but rather it’s a behavior. Behavior is self-determined by choice.  Choice, then, is the cure for alcoholism and any other form of drug abuse.  In fact, personal choice is the only method by which people stop alcohol and drug abuse.

“Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” ~ Julius Caesar Act I, Scene II

For at least the last 500 years man has tried to blame unwanted behavior on anything and everything but himself: as in, “If there is a disease for overindulging in alcohol or other drug, then I am not really responsible for my drinking and drugging behavior.”

I am not alone in the assertion that alcoholism and drug additions are not diseases. So, let’s set aside the hysteria and look at this from a common sense point of view.

In science, nothing exists that has no proof of existence.  That which has no proof, but is thought to exist, exists as a matter of conjecture and faith, not science.  In the case of disease, meaning “a condition that results in medically significant symptoms in a human,” there exists no credible evidence supporting the notion that regular excessive use of any substance is a disease.  This conclusion is based on the normally accepted understanding of the word “disease.”

Diseases are determined and described by the scientific method.   If, indeed, the excessive consumption of alcohol is a disease there must exist some scientific study that determined it to be a disease.  Such a study would describe a specific and predictable set of symptoms that would involuntarily manifested in the sufferer.  No such study exists.

Consider the facts surrounding the disease theory, and its development, which provides evidence that the “disease of alcoholism,” indeed alcoholism itself, is merely folklore and not established by way of the scientific method.

When adding “alcoholism” to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1956 the American Psychiatric Association was, for the most part, relying on the work conducted by Dr. E.M. Jellinek at Yale University during the  the 1940’s.  Subsequently, Jellinek’s study was determined to be flawed according to Yale University. At the request of Yale University, Jellinek retracted all of his conclusions, stopping just short of admitting that his research was fraudulent.  Later, Jellinek was found to be a fraud:  The schools where he claimed to have earned his degrees had no record of him receiving any. The point here is not to malign Jellinek or Yale, but to merely provide an historical account with respect to the origin of “alcoholism, the disease.”

It is important to understand that the disease theory is just that – a theory. Additionally, it is important to understand that this theory is only accepted as fact by the treatment industry here in the United States. The rest of the world considers the disease theory for alcoholism unsubstantiated. In his book Why We Should Reject The Disease Concept of Alcoholism, Herbert Fingarette, Ph.D., makes the following observations:

“…In the United States, but not in other countries such as Great Britain (Robertson and Heather, 1982), the standard answer is to call the behavior a disease – ‘alcoholism’ – whose key symptom is a pattern of uncontrollable drinking. This myth, now widely advertised and widely accepted, is neither helpfully compassionate nor scientifically valid. It promotes false beliefs and inappropriate attitudes, as well as harmful, wasteful, and ineffective social policies.”

The myth is embodied in the following four scientifically baseless propositions:

1. Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.
2. The condition once it appears persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.
3. Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition (“cure the disease”) or at least ameliorate its symptoms.
4. Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures.

The idea that alcoholism is a disease has always been a political and moral notion with no scientific basis. It was first promoted in the United States around 1800 as a speculation based on erroneous physiological theory (Levine, 1978), and later became a theme of the temperance movement (Gusfield, 1963). It was revived in the 1930s by the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), who derived their views from an amalgam of religious ideas, personal experiences and observations, and the unsubstantiated theories of a contemporary physician (Robinson, David, 1979)

Another observation is offered by Jeffery Schaler, Ph.D.  in June of 1995:

“Extensive research supports the idea that addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better explained by individual psychological and environmental factors, than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs.”

In another article authored by Dr. Phil Stringer entitled Disease, Victimization, and Personal Responsibility, he raises the question:

“How many people who never decide to drink would ‘catch’ the ‘disease’ of alcoholism?”

The obvious answer is none. In the traditional meaning of the word “disease,” a chosen behavior does not define a disease because one can just as reasonably choose not to drink or use drugs. The disease theory simply provides the person with a drug or alcohol problem an easy out from taking responsibility for themselves, their behavior, and the problems they cause.

There are hundreds of researchers who have looked carefully at the alcoholism disease theory. Most have rejected the notion that alcoholism is a disease. The only studies that support the disease theory are those conducted by organizations and individuals who have a vested interest in the over consumption of alcohol or other drugs being a disease (e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous, NIAAA and NCADD). The studies that have touted alcoholism as a disease are researchers who derive a living, in one way or another, from the treatment industry. These are hardly sources that can be trusted.

Finally, consider the paradoxical nature of the disease theory: the theory contends that once the disease is in place (diagnosed), the alcoholic has lost the power of choosing not to drink or the drug addict to not use drugs. But, how can that be true when millions of “diagnosed” alcoholics have stopped drinking and never return to problem drinking and drug addicts have stopped using drugs? If, indeed, they lost their power to choose to not use alcohol or other drugs, how did these millions of people with drug and alcohol problems stop drinking or drugging? Are we to believe that counselors and other professionals can make the choice for their patients because their patients have “lost their personal power of choice?” Or perhaps Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs provide some “magic” that gives members their choice back, but only “one day at a time.” Or maybe we are to believe that there is some universal power (choice power) that is channeled only through licensed counselors and other would-be professionals.

When common sense prevails, often the right answer is what we have known all along: The fault, dear Brutus …is in ourselves. Alcoholism and drug addiction is not disease. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any scientific evidence of such a nonsensical assertion.

I want to be clear: I am in no way asserting that physical addiction to a substance does not exist. It is a fact that the human body does become accustomed to, and even learn to relay on, unhealthy and even poisonous substances. The human body is extremely adaptable, even to extremely adverse conditions. The result of physical drug addiction can be observed as the withdrawal symptoms seen when drugs or alcohol stop being introduced to body: it is caused by the body trying to again learn, or adapt, to regulating body functions without the interference of the substance. However, once the sustenance has been cleansed from the body, only the psychological effects remain. Just as drug use is a learned behavior, overcoming the habitual and destructive thought processes associated with  drug use are skills that can be acquired, practiced, and eventually mastered. It is not a lifetime disability; it’s a choice.

Don’t be fooled by the propaganda that attempts to make you believe you are helpless and have a lifetime incurable disease. You can choose to learn how to be well, and stay well for the rest of your life. While it can be difficult, and take time to learn to how to overcome unhealthy habits and thought processes, it is possible.

Rational thinking presents a vivid contrast to its illogical opposite: It is based on reality – it emphasizes seeing things as they really are, keeping negative events in perspective, tolerating frustration and discomfort, preferring rather than demanding, and self-acceptance. This way of thinking helps you achieve your goals and purposes; It creates emotions you can handle; and It helps you behave in ways which promote your aims and survival.

I’m not talking about so-called “positive thinking”. Rational thinking is realistic thinking. It is concerned with facts – the real world – rather than subjective opinion or wishful thinking.

Realistic thinking leads to realistic emotions. Negative feelings aren’t always bad for you. Neither are all positive feelings beneficial. Feeling happy when someone you love has died, for example, may hinder you from grieving properly. Or to be unconcerned in the face of real danger could put your survival at risk. Realistic thinking avoids exaggeration of both kinds – negative and positive.

In Buddhism, the fist step on the Eight Fold Path is “Right View.” This simply means to see and to understand things as they really are. When our view of the world is clouded by irrational though, we impose our interpretation on the world instead of accepting the reality of how it actually exists: this can cause suffering. Right View is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. Right View is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, Right View is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, Right View yields right thoughts and right actions. This is a skill that with practice, we can mastered. By recognizing our irrational beliefs, and  choosing to changing them, we can start to see and accept the world as it exists.

In Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT) certain core self-defeating and irrational beliefs, which have been clinically observed, are understood as the root of most disturbances in our life.

Below are twelve examples of common irrational beliefs, and contrasting rational thoughts.