Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Are We Creating Our Own Addiction Surge?

Rather than over-diagnosing, is psychiatry actually causing the maladies it laments?

drewleavy / Foter / CC BY-NC-NDdrewleavy / Foter / CC BY-NC-NDThe American Psychiatric Association creates the gold standard for diagnoses of mental disorders in the United States—and worldwide—through its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. DSM-IV was published in 1994. In 2013, DSM-5 was released.

As I describe in the March, 2014 issue of Reason, there are several notable peculiarities about the manual. DSM-5

eliminates the distinction between dependence and abuse. Instead it classifies substance use disorders as mild, moderate, or severe. Thus the DSM-5 does not explicitly recognize such a thing as drug addiction or dependence. But under "Substance Use and Addictive Disorders" the manual includes a category called "Behavioral Addictions" that so far consists of a lone entry: "Gambling Disorder."

These two major conceptual changes immediately aroused suspicion. Writing in the New York Times, investigative reporter Ian Urbina accused the psychiatric establishment and pharmaceutical industry of expanding the whole treatment enterprise by including "mild" substance use disorders, as well as recognizing things other than substances as being addictive. Keith Humphreys, a Stanford psychology professor, "predicted that as many as 20 million people who were previously not recognized as having a substance abuse problem would probably be included under the new definition."

My argument is more fundamental. The ways of thinking about substance use and disorders embedded in DSM-5 and promoted by American psychiatry are actually causing an epidemic of these disorders.

The DSM-5 chickens have come home to roost, so to speak. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism conducts national studies every 10 years about people's lifetime substance use. There have been three such massive studies, called first NLAES, then NESARC, each interviewing from 35,000 to more than 40,000 Americans. I have discussed NESARC's earlier results from 2001-02 in Reason.com and those of its predecessor, NLAES, in Reason.

Both studies found a steady decline in substance abuse with age, despite only a small minority of people (from 20-25 percent) who receive any kind of treatment for their substance problems. People mainly quit their drug use and moderate their drinking as they emerge from their teens and 20s. Needless to say, such "maturing out" refutes both Alcoholics Anonymous' and the "chronic brain disease" model's view of addiction and alcoholism as progressive diseases.

So the stage was set for the first national study based on DSM-5's categorization. Called NESARC-III, the study measured American drinking in 2012-13. The focus of the study report was alcohol use disorders, or AUD. Among adults 18 and older, 14 percent of Americans currently had an AUD, according to their drinking over the past year.  That's 32.5 million Americans. And almost 30 percent had an AUD over their lifetimes (68.5 million). This was a sharp increase over 2001-2002 NESARC study, when only 8.5 percent of Americans had a current drinking problem.

One typical reaction came from Tom Horvath, the distinguished president of SMART Recovery, who opined: "It was easy to predict that when AUD came to include a mild option the number of cases would expand."

But that's not true. 

How do we know? The NESARC-III researchers also analyzed the study's data using the old DSM-IV criteria. And the increase in past-year substance use disorders (SUDs) from 2001-2002 remained the same—it increased by roughly 50 percent. At the same time, using DSM-IV criteria as the standard, lifetime SUDs showed the same 50 percent increase, rising from below 30 percent in 2001-02 to 44 percent in 2012-13. (Using the DSM-5 criteria, the NESARC-III lifetime figure had not risen.)

Forty-four percent of Americans have experienced a substance use disorder in their lives?! That's heavy. But this measured increase is not due to a change in the measurement instrument. It's due to a shift in Americans' drinking. This shift involved interviewees reporting both higher levels of drinking and more drinking problems (not necessarily the same thing).

At the same time, also proving that the diagnosis was not fatuous, those with an AUD were more likely to suffer disabilities and to have concurrent emotional problems. They had significantly more "major depressive and bipolar disorders and antisocial and borderline personality disorders across all levels of AUD severity." This impact of the DSM-5 AUD diagnosis is not surprising. In order to achieve such a diagnosis, the volume cautions, a person must be both impaired and distressed by their condition.

On the positive side, as with all prior such studies, AUD is still shown to decline radically with age. Despite only a fifth of diagnosed AUD subjects having received any form of treatment for it, AUD in NESARC-III declined for each age-cohort. Of those 18-29, 27 percent had a past-year AUD. Of those 30-44, 16 percent had one. Of those 45-64, 10 percent. Of those 65 and older (my age), 2 percent did.

Why are significant substance use disorders growing overall? The NIAAA, which conducted the study, knows the answer, and how to respond to it. People are in denial, and are afraid to acknowledge their drinking problems. Therefore, the NIAAA concludes, "The NESARC-III data indicate an urgent need to educate the public and policy makers about AUD and its treatment alternatives, [and] to destigmatize the disorder...."

Really? Is the problem in America that we—and especially young people—don't hear enough about the dangers of drinking (remember, the U.S. is virtually unique in the world in restricting legal drinking to those 21 years of age and older) and how alcohol and drugs cause a brain disease? Isn't that strictly the province of American substance use ideology, steeped in our temperance traditions? In fact, research shows, those who believe in the disease theory are more likely to relapse to alcoholism after being treated for a drinking problem!

So what we are actually doing is educating people to engage in, and to experience, problematic, uncontrolled drinking. I guess we can test my theory by seeing whether, in 10 more years, all of our further education about the brain diseases of alcoholism and addiction, in which school kids are currently indoctrinated, reduces substance use problems.

The alternative approach is to normalize substance use, to teach people that they can and should control it, and to bring drinking and drug use under the aegis of individual and community control. Americans, on their own, seem to be inclined to do this. Indeed, there is no alternative.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Win Bear||

    Come on, this is America! When a policy doesn't work, we don't question whether it was wrong, we conclude that we didn't do enough of it and redouble our efforts!

  • AlmightyJB||

    As long as force is involved it's ok.

  • PapayaSF||

    Don't forget taxpayer money.

  • PigeonCider||

    Taxation is forcible.

  • Robert||

    & remember, it's double up, not down, because if you double down that means you'll go no farther than that.

  • MSimon||

    There is no such thing as addiction.

    People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers

    PTSD mostly.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The ways of thinking about substance use and disorders embedded in DSM-5 and promoted by American psychiatry are actually causing an epidemic of these disorders.

    It's not just substance abuse. Other disorders, those typical diagnosed by assessing symptoms/behaviors rather than using objective tests, are nearing epidemic levels as well. 20% of American women take some type of anti-depressant.

    We all have mental disorders now, from porn "addiction" to ASD to depression to trans-racialism, we're all fucked-up and in need of psychiatric assistance. How are the psychiatrists going to earn a living if we're not diagnosed? How are we going to qualify for our disability benefits is we're not diagnosed? How are we going to get access to the good drugs if we're not diagnosed?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    20% of American women take some type of anti-depressant.

    So help me God you better not smoke a cigarette, though!

  • Hamster of Doom||

    *inhales deeply*

    I promise not to exhale my cancer right in your face if you promise to get the fuck up out of it.

    Gawd, I remember that. At Occupy, shrooming was fine, shrooming was good, we defend your right to shroom, ma- PUT OUT THAT CIGARETTE!! *fake cough* We all have very serious allergies and are concerned for our health.

  • Chumby||

    I need to take my vitamin GSK (GlaxoSmithKline).

  • Billy Bones||

    "We all have mental disorders now..."

    When a person's profession (source of income) is "fixing broken people", then everyone becomes broken and in need of fixing. Just like the old axiom, "When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

  • ||

    And when a good number of those "fixers" got into the profession in an attempt to fix their own fucked up minds...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I agree with this. In my experience they are very self-obsessed and use their profession as a way to talk about themselves.

  • Chumby||

    +1 Dr Phil

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I had a mom come up to me at one of the kids' school functions. Extremely hot, extremely crazy. The amount of nonsense that came out of her mouth was amazing. It was like talking to a homeless schizophrenic.

    Yep, she was a psychiatrist. My age, and divorced 3 times. I think she'll spend the rest of her life trying to figure herself out.

  • ||

    You are a known and outed slandererer.

    Why would anyone take anything you say to be serious discourse ?

    Slanderer ! Begone! you ruiner of reputations !


    *holds head high and haughty in posture of those of the moral highground*

    .

  • Paul.||

    Did she ask about me?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You were married to one of those, huh?

  • ||

    Every chic I knew in college who was taking Psych courses was fucked up and usualy not on the top of anyones date list, although they made it onto a few late night booty call lists..

    And after Psych 101 they all thought they were Sigmund fucking Fraud.

  • macsnafu||

    "And after Psych 101 they all thought they were Sigmund fucking Fraud."

    Freudian slip? Or Fraudian slip?

  • juris imprudent||

    I'm thinking my next handle just might have to be Sigmund Frodo.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yes, and then there is the confusion regarding cause and effect. If you have a lot of people come to you that have problem and a certain percentage display certain behaviors they assume everyone who engages in those behaviors have a problem. I think this is why prosecutors can't fathom legalizing drugs. They see criminals everyday who smoke pot. But no one they know personally would ever admit to them that they smoke pot so all therefore all pot smokers are headed for a life of crime. And everyone who likes to drink "has a problem".

  • Illocust||

    In the defense of the depression diagnosis, do remember that they didn't diagnosis it at all a couple generations back. Four generations of women in my family have gotten depression in their twenties that lasts about five years before going away with or without drugs (Yaaaa, genetics). Before the last two generations, that just meant the women got into borderline abusive relationships and popped out kids. Now we just take drugs for a few years until whatever stupid biological stage passes and the hormones even out. The problem was a problem and it was always there, we just didn't have a treatment for it until recently.

  • PapayaSF||

    Good point.

  • JFree||

    It would not at all surprise me if autism is a consequence of the combo of those women taking antidepressants and other psychotropics during pregnancy combined with later-age pregnancies

  • PapayaSF||

    I wonder if something like that, or exposure to plastics, explains the jump in "gender questioning youth" or whatever we are supposed to call them this week.

  • AlmightyJB||

    nah, that's just good old fashioned propaganda at work.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "To swallow and follow, whether old doctrine or new propaganda, is a weakness still dominating the human mind"

    Charlotte Perkins Gilman

  • JFree||

    Wouldn't surprise me at all. Whether the chemical is psychotropic or environmental or whatever, it is likely to have an impact on the fetus during its development. IDK what the real source of the gender-questioning stuff is - but I seriously doubt it is just made up by people who welcome the abuse that results (ie an actual 'choice'). Maybe its a result of brain changes in the fetus. Maybe its a result of physical/genetic changes when the fetus is 'gendering'.

  • JFree||

    That said - a significant part of the increase is probably simply that it has become more acceptable to report it and talk about it publicly. The analogy is reported rape in the Muslim world (and much of 3rd world) v the US. Saudi Arabia is virtually rape-free according to reported stats. But a woman who reports being raped in Saudi Arabia is gonna face counter-accusations that she is a whore for which the penalty is being stoned to death. So not surprisingly a lot of women STFU - and according to the data, Saudi Arabia is a freaking paradise for any woman who wants to walk around at night. nb - not recommended.

  • Zeb||

    That would be my guess. Before it became acceptable to admit or discuss gender confusion publicly, there were just sissies and tom-boys. I very much doubt that the underlying cause, whatever that may be, is more common. There are just different words people use to talk about it.

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    "It would not at all surprise me if autism is a consequence of the combo of those women taking antidepressants and other psychotropics during pregnancy combined with later-age pregnancies"

    The current working theory is that autism is linked to older people having children.

    "The risk of having a child with ASD had a more complicated relationship to age in women than in men – whose risk of fathering a child with ASD increased linearly with age across their lifespan. Among women giving birth before the age of 30, the risk of ASD in the child showed no association with age -- it was simply very low. But for babies born to mothers aged 30 and older, the chance of developing ASD rose rapidly with the mother's age."

    This also explains why autism rates have increased over the last 20 years as people have been having children at older and older ages.

  • JFree||

    Hard to separate the two though. Older mothers are also more likely to have taken antidepressants or other psychotropics as an adult - if only by virtue of having more years to have taken them. And you can bet the drug companies (or the FDA/etc) ain't very interested in a study that actually controls for both potential factors. So who's gonna fund the study that does control for both?

  • Paul.||

    Taking them as an adult doesn't mean they took them during pregnancy.

  • JFree||

    What if they make permanent or semi-permanent genetic/chemical changes in the body? Or in the DNA of the eggs in the ovary?

  • american socialist||

  • JFree||

    No. Note the absence of 'autism spectrum disorders' (or related) in that FDA stuff. The UK regulator was able to say those words - the FDA wasn't.

    And Depakote is an off-patent psychotropic from Abbott. FDA already approved the drug 22 YEARS AGO. So long ago that the drug is now generic. So where was the fucking FDA 22 years ago???? They come in now and recall/ban a generic drug (turned generic 1 year before that FDA announcement) for a side-effect of a drug that they previously approved for a patent and have been collecting info on side-effects now for 22 years?

    The company has been sued in court for some of the side-effects of that drug. And far more significantly, it was sued/fined by the FDA for being marketed for a long-time to a target demographic (elderly dementia patients in nursing homes) for unapproved 'disorders' (antipsychotic) that has absolutely NO freaking possibility of generating children - autistic or otherwise. So that particular fraud is not the source of any clinical data re autistic births. So ask yourself - apart from the obvious 'profits' - why did Abbott choose elderly dementia for its fraud and why did the FDA allow that for 10 freaking years? Answer in all probability - because BOTH of them knew about the autism/retarded problem long ago but it didn't matter for this fraud.

    This is a classic case of cronyism and bureaucratic butt-covering and regulatory capture. Thank you for letting me educate you on reality you dumb red twit.

  • JFree||

    As an aside however - pharmaceuticals is one reason I am a classical liberal not a libertarian. Information assymetry is a problem. A market/pricing system cannot necessarily deal with it on its own. Neither however can government.

    Adam Smith did see this problem 240 years ago. His particular example was a case where the market could solve it - but he also phrased his 'infrastructure' function of government to include it. And the wording in our Constitution re patents also indicates the founder realized that the quid pro quo for patents is release of information to the public

  • RAHeinlein||

    Not really difficult separate, most physicians pull prescriptions for pregnant women, and have done so since thalidomide (even those with long histories of use).

    The data related to age and autism is extremely compelling and has been available for some time. Unfortunately, this has not been widely publicized because anti-woman to suggest women who post-pone pregnancy are harming both their children and society.

    Additionally, certainly politically expedient to play the autism card when targeting new EPA, food regulations, profitable companies, et.

  • JFree||

    That is not the same thing at all. A drug that has the 'no pregnant women' clause is NOT tested for any permanent or semi-permanent effects. It is quite clearly only tested for short-term effects. And if the drug actually does have long-term effects (see the link above re FDA), then a 'no pregnant women' clause can actually be used to disguise the need for controlling for the two separately. Because that clause would tend to mean no usage of that drug during pregnancy so a researcher who is looking for unknown controllable variables wouldn't even see that as a factor.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's also just diagnosed more now.

    I've know a number of people, including my brother in law and best friend's wife that are clearly aspergers (or whatever they call it now) but have never been diagnosed as such (they
    re both in their 60s).

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    When autism is over diagnosed by "professionals" who have no clue what they are doing, parents pushing for a diagnosis to receive special treatment from schools and perks from the government, and schools pushing for diagnosis to get extra funding, funny how more people are diagnosed.

  • american socialist||

    Is this part of the brainy coalition of women in the Reason commentariat that we were talking about a couple of days ago? I say we might need more brains. Lady, are you an IT professional by any chance?

    As long as the subject of public health is up for discussion here's a recent paper published in a prestigious journal estimating that a handgun control law has reduced firearm homicide rates by 40%. I'm looking into it to see how much dirty money this journal gets from the soros'es. I'll let you know what I find out.

    http://ajph.aphapublications.o.....015.302703

  • Chumby||

    Amsoc

    The safest state in the union (safer rhan the UK by about 40 times) has constitutional carry. The second safest state has "shall issue" carry permits and is about to pass constitutional carry.

    Get a paradigm that isn't broken.

  • american socialist||

    You mean taking a small sample size from a largely rural and ethnically homogeneous sample and then extrapolating how their economic and political system might be superior to one's own? No. I've heard that's not a legitimate argument.

  • SugarFree||

    I so sorry you evil fucks haven't made us helpless yet.

  • Chumby||

    Small sample size? Two states? Not really. And this from the guy that posted a link to an article regarding single men under a certain age with multiple arrests traveling in areas of Philly known for gang activity.

    If you think Maine and Vermont are ethnically homogeneous you are ignorant.

    If you want to make the rural argument, then shouldn't high crime areas like CT, MA, MD, and DC change their zoning to restrict/reduce urbanization?

    I made no economic or political extrapolation. I made an individual rights argument.

  • Chumby||

    And maybe those that cherry-picked data er....conducted the "study" could explain why DC has had a gun ban and yet is the most violent state/district/territory in the union.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And Chicago - horrible gun control laws and a very high rate of crime.

  • american socialist||

    I'll be sure to note your objections the next time I talk about Denmark and socialism

  • ||

    Hey dipshit, no one will pay attention next time you talk about your beloved Scandinavian hellholes, because you're a dishonest piece of shit. And you're scum to boot. But you knew that, right?

  • Chumby||

    I recall letting Holger Dansk reply to your misrepresentations of Denmark since he's from there.

    And applying Danish culture to the United States is not equivalent to applying what works very well in two actual states.

  • american socialist||

    Don't worry chumby. Pretty much, I agree with you and think that if libertarians want to make their homes several times more dangerous by owning a firearm, well-- that's up to them.

  • Chumby||

    Had we not had a loaded handgun in our house that was accessible my wife would likely be dead.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I used a handgun in defense of my property less than a month ago.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    If libertarians want to make their homes several times more dangerous by owning a firearm

    That's some grasp of causality you've got there, buddy. Clearly you're qualified to evalute peer-reviewed statistical publications.

  • ||

    Like how you morons do with Sweden? And shouldn't you be busy herding us into death camps or something, you disgusting immoral scum?

  • american socialist||

    "Like how you morons do with Sweden"

    Bingo. Except-- you know--reverse it so we're talking about how right-wingers talk. We all know socialism doesn't work unless it's run by Nordic White people.

  • Sevo||

    american socialist|6.14.15 @ 2:31PM|#
    "[...]We all know socialism doesn't work unless it's run by Nordic White people."

    "The EU.15 as a whole, which Krugman presents to his readers an economy as dynamic as the US, would be the 49th poorest state, below Alabama, a State that Paul Krugman ridiculed in 2005."
    http://super-economy.blogspot......urope.html

  • Chumby||

    Amsoc

    Can you link to the study without a paywall? I'd like to read through it as opposed to just the "settled science" abstract.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Handguns are public health. Who would have thought?

    Are you suggesting that you're more intelligent than Lady B? I'd bet $10k against it, right now. Would you?

  • american socialist||

    I don't know since I don't know lady Bertram. I sometimes get drunk and the comments that I make here might suffer. So, let's hope her dime store rant about how psychiatric disorder is really a make work project for psychiatrists was similarly conceived-- for her sake, you know.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're currently under the care of a psychiatrist right now, most likely for a mood disorder.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    her dime store rant about how psychiatric disorder is really a make work project for psychiatrists

    Straw man. I have collaborated on plenty of psychiatric research, I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't think various incentives in the field have the potential to be corrupting. I could go on in great detail, but I don't sense you're worth the trouble.

  • Unable2Reason||

    This is the reason O'care needs to cover mental illnesses - the next stimulus package. The quacks have run out all the physical diseases already.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    So what we are actually doing is educating people to engage in, and to experience, problematic, uncontrolled drinking.

    As a drunk, teenage boy I approve of this. Grow our ranks!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If drinking isn't a problem you wouldn't need government to fix it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That and it's yet another example of our Puritanism. It turns every act of pleasure into a "problem"'. There's no doubt that some people have real problems with alcohol but most people who drink even to excess at times are just enjoying life. We're just human beings doing what comes naturally. Party on.

  • John Galt||

    If it wasn't for government mistakenly believing it knows how to fix things there'd most likely be a lot less drinking.

  • ||

    And John slides into home plate for the Internet Winz.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "People are in denial, and are afraid to acknowledge their drinking problems. Therefore, the NIAAA concludes, "The NESARC-III data indicate an urgent need to educate the public and policy makers about AUD and its treatment alternatives, [and] to destigmatize the disorder...."

    Notice how culturally American this is.

    My understanding is that having a beer with lunch is perfectly acceptable behavior in the UK workplace, and if that's so, then there probably isn't anyone who is ashamed of drinking at lunch.

    Here in the U.S., if you come back from lunch with alcohol on your breath, every day? Your chances of being fired for it start to approach 100%. In fact, most people don't want their boss to know if they had something to drink with lunch.

    Point is that the DMS manual seems to "stigmatize" a huge chunk of American workers, who may only have a drink with lunch a few times per year, and may "destigmatize" 80% of workers in the UK, who aren't ashamed one bit that they drink during lunch every single day.

    It's just cultural.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. Do 80% of college student have this disorder because they're not ashamed of their drinking?

    Or do 80% of college students have a disorder becasue they're in denial about their drinking being a problem?

  • Jackand Ace||

    While in Germany, I noticed every restaurant was packed at lunch time, and most businessmen and women were drinking beer. I worked on Belgium and it was common for them to have wine at lunch.

  • Chumby||

    Jack

    Tell us about the wind turbines in Germany.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Whew! I was counting on someone asking! Thanks!

    http://www.theguardian.com/env.....-in-europe

  • Chumby||

    Must be part of their austerity measures. Replace inexpensive and reliable forms of energy with those that are not.

  • Suellington||

    If only we could litter our countryside with mass numbers of ornicide machines that use large amounts of rare earth metals like Europe does. They are so sophisticated over there.

  • Sevo||

    Get Jack to tell us how fracking causes earthquakes!
    Oh, he was practically orgasmic when he found that study! Here's proof we need to return to the neolithic!

  • Suellington||

    I am mostly finished with "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" which I would highly recommend. If you have seriously looked in to "green" energy it won't be a huge surprise, but he does systematically lays down a very strong argument for the continued use of natural, organic plant based energy forms.

  • Sevo||

    Thank you; in the shopping cart.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Careful, Epstein is an *shudder* Objectivist!

  • Sevo||

    "Careful, Epstein is an *shudder* Objectivist!"

    I read something called "Atlas Shrugged" once, so I'm immune now.

  • ||

    Yeah, me too. Every 10 years or so I re-read "The Fountainhead", just to remind myself of that feeling of olde tyme depression..

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I did a "back of the napkin" and it would take a windfarm roughly the size of North Carolina to replace fossil fuels in the US. No environmental concerns there.

  • Suellington||

    China mines and extracts almost all the rare earth metals that we use. Clean and green wind turbines use an awful lot of rare earth metals.

    http://instituteforenergyresea.....-minerals/

  • Ken Shultz||

    One of the reasons China has so much of the world production is because environmentalists shut the American mines for rare earth metals down.

  • John Galt||

    Jack, when I was a young man here in the USA it was extremely common, and acceptable, for workers of all types to have a beer or wine with our lunches. And you know what? It was completely acceptable. The world didn't come crashing down.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which conducts the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), defines binge drinking as drinking 5 or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on at least 1 day in the past 30 days.
    SAMHSA defines heavy drinking as drinking 5 or more drinks on the same occasion on each of 5 or more days in the past 30 days.

    According to those guidelines 80% of college students have a disorder, and I am willing to assume a large number of the non-college student population binge drinks once a month (I had six beers yesterday...in one sitting!!!!!!!!).

  • AlmightyJB||

    They can define "binge" drinking or "heavy" drinking howerever they want. That does not make either an innate "problem" that needs to be solved.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I agree. I was trying to show that those are the standards used to make their statistical arguments.

  • PapayaSF||

    It's bizarre to define those levels by "drinks." Someone who weighs 100 lbs. will feel five drinks much more than someone who weighs 200 lbs. And even at the same weight, some people are more sensitive to alcohol. Three drinks would be enough to make me stumble around. If I did that five times in a month, that would be "heavy drinking" for me.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    According to those guidelines 80% of college students have a disorder

    They are telling those 80% they have a disorder, by pulling numbers out of their asses, in order to control their behavior.

    It's slut shaming.

    That half the nation fits the description is of no matter. Drinking is bad, because we don't approve, so anything is justified, to include complete fabrication, to make people drink less.

  • Robert||

    The mere fact of the percentage's being high doesn't make it impossible. Just because we frequently get colds doesn't mean we aren't sick when we get them, nor that we couldn't be better. Same w flu, diarrhea, or headaches. Or for chronic conditions, the need for eyeglasses.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's NEW cultural. I remember people talking about the two martini lunch in the 80s. We CERTAINLY drank at lunch, in uniform, if there was no flying related activities scheduled for the rest of the day in the early 90s. And we drank AT WORK before noon if you had an early go.

    This is nothing more than nanyism's slow march to dictate how to live your life through social pressure.

  • ||

    As a frequent traveler, I always wondered why people would more often than not try to buy a pilot, in uniform, a beer if they were sitting alone in an airport bar. Yet those same people would probably shit their pants if they saw a construction worker having a cold one at lunch just off the job site.

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    It was also more acceptable to hit the bar after work. Between the cultural changes and DUII crackdown, it's less attractive to the casual drinker in my opinion.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It was also more acceptable to hit the bar after work.

    And I miss that. That's why I have such high hopes for driverless cars. If they go mainstream, I'm investing in the bar industry! ;-)

  • AlmightyJB||

    More than likely, this will come first

    http://thenewprohibition.com/alcohol-sensors.php

  • AlmightyJB||

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    If that happens, I'll become one of those guys fixes and drives old cars for the rest of my life.

    They'll probably consider that justification for pulling someone over.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You would think hacks will come out shortly after deployment.

  • ||

    "These devices could take the form of alcohol sniffers in headrests, retinal scanners that follow your eye movements or steering wheel sensors that analyze alcohol content in your skin."

    Invest in plastic bag headrest covers, mirrored sunglasses and gloves for the win.

  • Lord at War||

    GCCL-

    Nothing is better than the looks you get staggering out of a bar at 10:30AM after working third shift...

  • Billy Bones||

    Your comparison to the British reminded of me of when I was in the Navy. While doing joint exercises with British Navy, we learned that their sailors were allotted 2 beers/day while at sea. US Navy? Alcohol 100% banned while at sea. I have no way to prove it, but I have to believe that, when pulling into a foreign port, the locals had much fewer problems from the British sailors than from the Americans. Prohibition, even if inadvertently, promotes binge drinking. This creates an even bigger problem with our under-21 crowd. Mix the binge drinking because of limited availability of alcohol (and the "backroom" society that it creates) with the inexperience of the effects of alcohol, and horrific situations will arise (rape, alcohol poisoning, fatal accidents). We need to lower the drinking age back to 18, at the very least.

  • ||

    I used to live near Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico and I can assure you the Royal Navy ships coming in meant local businesses needed to double their security (or triple it if there were naked women involved). Those filthy Limey fucks were animals and it was all we could do to stand being around them: constantly picking fights, harassing the strippers, destroying bathrooms out of pure malice.

  • PapayaSF||

    The rowdiest, meanest drunks I've ever seen were Brits vacationing in the Balearic Islands. Not that I'm an expert in bar fights, but I was astonished to see one erupt in an instant. None of the "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah!" preliminaries that one expects. There was a brief moment of uncomfortable silence, and then some guys trying to kill each other.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "The rowdiest, meanest drunks I've ever seen were Brits vacationing in the Balearic Islands"

    Location independent.

    also, Scottish.

    My experience with Eastern Europeans was that the best thing to do is try and keep the relative levels of drunkenness as humanly close to equal as possible* (its not - but its the effort that counts).

    The most dangerous thing is to be sober when they are drunk. if you are almost as drunk, they respect you. if you're equally drunk, it doesn't matter because you are probably a greater danger to yourself at that point, so even if they rob you and beat you to a pulp, you won't notice and even rightly blame yourself.

  • ||

    Chrysler Union workers claim to be trans national in their cultural affiliations.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX7KlUgdCDk

  • Ken Shultz||

    Perhaps what they need to do is treat some kind of "addictive personality disorder".

    Maybe it should be like OCD and anxiety. Some people don't feel good about leaving the house until they've checked that the front door is locked two or three times in a row. They're not exactly disabled like people who feel compelled to wash their hands a hundred times a day. There are people who experience anxiety who aren't necessarily disabled by it. If I didn't ever feel any anxiety in my job, that would be some kind of disorder. Point is there are lots of people who experience anxiety that aren't disabled by it.

    Addiction should be like that, too. If you have an addictive disorder, maybe it's disabling in some way. Otherwise, your drinking is just like somebody that checks the front door is locked two or three times before you leave--but isn't disabled by and doesn't have obsessive compulsive disorder.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I drink 4 drinks a day (on average). I do it because I like it. I have no "problems" other than being a little overweight. My life is completely unaffected by my drinking. If I'm in a situation where I can't drink, it's not an issue at all. I've stopped for months at a time (while dieting) without giving it a second thought. It has NEVER once impacted my ability to perform my job. Perhaps the MOST one could say about it negatively impacting my life is that the time I spend doing it could be used for more productive purposes (same with commenting on H&R), but that's MY choice.

    Fuck every single one of these idiots attempting justify their existence/livelihoods by telling me I have a fucking problem and need their help. What a complete load of shit.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    De Nile ain't just a river in Sudan.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Case in point.

    What, exactly, is being denied?

  • Suellington||

    Four drinks a day is a healthy amount of alcohol. The stress relief it brings probably brings more health benefits than any ill effects of ethanol on the liver. Teetotalers die earlier than moderate drinkers.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Because they deserve it. ;-)

  • Suellington||

    Teetotalers may or may not live longer, but it certainly seems longer!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Why aren't you in church right now?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, after he admits he has a problem, isn't the next step to acknowledge that there's a higher power?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    12 step program failure...

    Can't work on godless heathens.

    Eddie, SAVE ME!

    The following are the original twelve steps as published by Alcoholics Anonymous:[10]

    1 We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
    2 Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
    3 Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
    4 Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
    5 Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
    6 Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
    7 Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
    8 Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
    9 Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
    10 Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
    11 Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
    12 Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Jesus is gonna set you free, Francisco.

    You're gonna love being a Jesus freak.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Who says he's not

    http://www.thechurch.ie/

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sarcasm, bro.

    I agree with you.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Sorry.

    *kicks detector, replaces batteries*

  • ||

    I drink 4 drinks a day (on average).

    This might be of interest to you then.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    I know the take-away there seems to be that "mild alcohol consumption" is associated with better health outcomes than either "None" or "Shitloads"

    ...but isn't the fact that there's almost no difference (after margin of error consideration) between "Teetotalers" and "face down in a puddle of vomit, daily",

    ....and that the measures 'in between' are so vague and dependent on accurate self-measurement of 'averages' (Ha!)...

    ...that you should probably just throw the whole fucking thing out, have a cocktail* and stop giving a fuck?

  • ||

    It looks like any amount of alcohol protects your heart, and the benefits don't start to be overshadowed until you're shitfaced all the time and you die of being a drunk moron. So avoid that and you're good.

  • Zeb||

    Over 6/day is a large range. I'm sure if you get up to 12 or so you see the curves go up. But no one thinks drinking that much is a good idea.

  • Chumby||

    I guess I have to toss my copy of DSM-IV into the wood chipper...

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tom Cruise caught all kinds of grief when he argued the same exact thing.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I believe Tom Cruise said that vitamins and exercise are all a person needs to treat themselves if they feel like they have a mental illness or addiction, like postpartum depression.

    You will have to explain (and boy I am sure you can't wait having to explain) how the article and what Tom Cruise claims are the exact same thing.

  • Jackand Ace||

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y7CpS0gtlk

    Ok, I know that Reason commenters just have a need to be snarky, and then opine on something they know nothing about, but you can watch the above clip for yourself. I am sure you will have a Reason why it's not exactly the same...but it is.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That does not answer my question: how are they exact same thing?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Because the complaint about the new manual is that psychiatry is actually increasing addictions, including drugs. And that was Cruise's complaint. For him, it was the way they prescribe drugs.

  • Sevo||

    "[...]And that was Cruise's complaint.[...]"

    And here he sounded just like a nut-job babbling on incoherently!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Tom Cruise has all sorts of problems, including a massive personality disorder. There's a good reason why L Ron was afraid of psychiatrists.

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    Well, Tom Cruise's point about Ritalin is absolutely correct. Ritalin has been wildly overprescribed to children and it's basically speed.

    There are certainly people who need these drugs and some people are unquestionably helped by Ritalin, but 15% of school age boys are currently on Ritalin. When 15% of a group allegedly has a 'disorder' doesn't it seem likely that you're merely pathologizing normal behavior among children and pumping them full of Ritalin so that their teachers don't have to deal with irritating behavior people would have just shrugged off at any other time in human history?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    A lot of things are very over diagnosed, in part because people are always looking for a quick fix.

    That's not what Scientologists rail against, though. Their founder was a certifiable nut, and all of his writings after 1950 or so reeked of mental illness. They are against ALL psychiatry, because their founder was scared to death of being institutionalized.

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    I'm not agreeing with Cruise's overall disdain for all psychiatry, I'm just agreeing with him that psychiatric drugs are doing a lot of damage due to over prescription.

  • Sevo||

    Irish Says Enough Woodchippers|6.14.15 @ 1:30PM|#
    "Well, Tom Cruise's point about Ritalin is absolutely correct. Ritalin has been wildly overprescribed to children and it's basically speed."

    If you cherry-pick enough of Cruise's comments, you can find a whole lot of stuff to agree with. The problem is that you'll also find that he's a nut job and you'd hope you *didn't* find anything to agree with.

  • Zeb||

    I wish they'd given me Ritalin. That shit works, whether or not you have a disorder. Wouldn't want to take it every day, though.

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    Also, Joe, tell us again how great Hugo Chavez was while we're on the subject of 'opining on something you know nothing about.'

  • Adans smith||

    I'm 6',175, I eat beef,fish,cheese,fowl,lots of fresh veggies and some pasta.They last time I was sick was 1995 with the flu.I drink 2-3 dark beers a day.My only drinking problem is I can't afford to drink Samuel Smith oatmeal stout every day.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You should cut back on the fresh veggies, I hear they cost like a million dollars. That should help with the stout budget. By the way, excellent choice, one of my favs as well.

  • ||

    I've got a similar diet although I'm 10-12 lbs heavier than you.

    The only thing you could supplement your diet with would be some probiotics (which can easily be made at home via wild fermentation). If you did that, you'd be so much more efficient that you'd eat less food and would therefore have a larger stout budget.

  • Suellington||

    Haven't had a Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout in years. Great stuff. I usually subsist on a beer diet of Sierra Nevada, Anchor Steam, and Anchor Liberty.

  • AlmightyJB||

    New Holland makes a pretty good Oatmeal Stout called The Poet.

  • Suellington||

    If you can ever find it Anchor makes a excellent porter. Have I mentioned that I love Anchor Brewing?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I've had a few Anchor Steams. Very nice. Don't recall ever having one of their Porters. I will have to look for it.

  • Suellington||

    Their Liberty Ale was the first modern American IPA I believe. I'm not a huge IPA fan, but that one is exceptionally drinkable, very balanced with the hops.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I want to go on record as stating that I'm proud of my IPA advocacy. I wouldn't want IPAs to have the same reputation around here as deep dish non pizza.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "deep dish non pizza"

    Why are you being redundant?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    If I had just said "deep dish pizza", there's a 100% chance that the next comment would have been "That's not pizza!!!"

    I just can't win.

  • JeSuisRaison, moulin à bois||

    The correct terminology is "Deep dish manna from heaven."

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    See? You didn't call it pizza!

  • 3||

    Real Chicago style deep dish is the shit. I don't care what you or anyanyone else says.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Dude, I just drink Kefir. Less chance of poisoning yourself if you buy it at the store. Anywhere from 10-15 species of probiotics.

  • ||

    i enjoy the process and creating something. So I have that benefit as well, which I can't get from the store bought stuff.

    I'm sure they have the same health benefits though.

  • Ted S.||

    There are people who drink that nasty stuff?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Sweetened and flavored, it's not much different than yogurt.

    After I do antibiotics, I'll do a round of unsweetened goat kefir. You can really taste the goat.

  • Robert||

    I guess that beats having the goat taste you.

  • Zeb||

    You get used to it.

  • Zeb||

    I'm a big fan of kimchee.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The fact that heavy drinking declines with age tells us that we do a pretty good job of regulating this ourselves. For the most part, our bodies tell us when to slow down.

  • ||

    Heavy drinking declining with age may also have to do with older heavy drinkers falling out of the sample set due to health issues brought on by heavy drinking killing them.

    Also, having responsibilities means you have less opportunity to party all the time. (Except for Episiarch). And that people make a mental (not physical) decision to spend their time in other ways like raising a family or working more hours to get ahead.

    Basically, I'm questioning whether it is our bodies telling us to slow down or our mind. I'm still thinking the mind has more to do with it, because 44 year old me can keep up with 22 year old me but chooses not to because my time can be more wisely spent than getting faded every night.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "I'm questioning whether it is our bodies telling us to slow down or our mind."

    I think it's probably depends on the person. I think it's more that the next day (or two) is harder to deal with as you get older.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So as I'm typing that above, my page keeps automatically scrolling up to the top because of some autoplay ad. That does not work for me.

  • ||

    Isn't that largely a figment of our imagination though? I remember the odd hangover back in the day having the same effect on me it does now. Only thing is, I'm smarter now and know that if I drink about a quart of water and a couple cups of juice from a jar of clausen pickles just before bed, I won't have a hangover.

    Hangover causes are always the same regardless of age. Maybe you're just a pussy now that you're getting older while I'm actually becoming a stronger and more virile man.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's totally possible:)

  • Marshall Gill||

    44 year old me can keep up with 22 year old me

    Really? I could drink just insane amounts in my early twenties and very rarely was hungover. I can't imagine how shitty I would feel if I drank a half-gallon in a single day now.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Yeah, same here.

    Its not the drinking part that's the problem. I can out-drink my 22 yr old self without breaking a sweat. And occasionally do.

    Its the next day. When I was 22, i could eat a greasy breakfast, do a full day's work, then go for a run to work out any remnants.

    Now, i'll basically be in a coma.

  • Trevor St McGoodbody||

    I don't drink for a variety of reasons: the taste, the expense, the annoying flush, especially in my face. Articles like this one make me want to start just for the spite.

  • Almanian - Woodchipper||

    Heh - yeah, this. I quit smoking five years ago after a good 25 years at it.

    I want to start again just to piss off the nannies....

  • Marshall Gill||

    I want to start again just to piss off the nannies....

    Don't smoke, vape. I quit after 30 years of smoking after my brother was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. The very best part is that you don't pay the fucking government any sin taxes on juice, so it is fantastically cheaper.

  • ||

    ... the annoying flush, especially in my face.

    Are you Asian?

  • Trevor St McGoodbody||

    Nope.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You're missing the enzyme, though.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I get the annoying flush too. Does that mean there's an Asian or two in my Euro-mutt ancestry?

  • JeSuisRaison, moulin à bois||

    Yeah, I downed a can of Four Loco back in the day right before they took the caffeine out of it just to piss off the nannies.

    Found out real quick that just because nannies hate something doesn't mean that it's good...

  • Rich||

    Forty-four percent of Americans have experienced a substance use disorder in their lives?!

    Perhaps accidentally knocking over a bottle of beer counts.

  • geo1113||

    Does knocking over the bong count too?

  • Almanian - Woodchipper||

    Mmmm - the smell of dried bong residue - it's like being in college again.

  • AlmightyJB||

    the smell of sensimilla and quaalude powder.

  • Chumby||

    Knocking over the gas can used to fuel the woodchipper does.

  • clearasmud||

    Isn't this what they did with homosexuality:

    "In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). "

    Only "empirical data" that is cited is:

    "Just as influential in the APA's decision were the research studies on homosexuality of the 1940's and 1950's. Alfred Kinsey's and colleagues' study on male and female sexuality marked the beginning of a cultural shift away from the view of homosexuality as pathology and toward viewing it as a normal variant of human sexuality."

    And:

    "Clellan Ford and Frank Beach's Patterns of Sexual Behavior (1951), relying on data from the Human Relations Area Files, found homosexuality to be common across cultures and to exist in almost all nonhuman species. Their work supported the notion that homosexuality was both natural and widespread. "

    And:

    "Psychologist Evelyn Hooker's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. "

    However, these studies do not provide "empirical data"

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The information in the article directly contradicts the headline.

  • JFree||

    I doubt psychiatry is causing these maladies because in most cases the maladies don't even exist. The only evidence for most of them existing is that the APA votes to combine certain 'symptoms' (read behaviors - maybe - or feelings or thoughts) into a category that is then voted on to become a 'disorder' that can then become the basis for a patent extension - that can then be used for an ad campaign on TV to get new patients into the psychiatrist office to be prescribed drugs. That's politics and cronyism - not science.

    Even the serious stuff which probably does exist (like schizophrenia) is mostly characterized by the same political process rather than actual objective diagnosis of something objective. Basically that stuff is like porn - people know it when they see it

    What is a VERY serious problem is that the psychotropic drugs are creating nasty side effects. Roughly 16% of the population cannot metabolize those drugs because of differences in the CYP450 gene. So the drugs can't cross the blood-brain barrier and can't be metabolized and create toxic chemical side-effects. One of which seems to be homicidal akathisia - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3513220/ - which could possibly be the cause of a whole bunch of the school shootings and such. Except that the drug companies and psychiatrists and govt don't have the slightest intention of actually making anything transparent there - or even allowing any of that stuff to interfere with the clinical trials.

  • JFree||

    As an aside, psychotropic drugs exist for political reasons. When we decided to close mental institutions in favor of chemicals/outpatient/'community' starting in the late 50's and early 60's; psychotropics were the chemicals that 'passed the test'. Very early on, 'suicidal akathisia' became a major 'side-effect'. When those early patents expired, the number of 'disorders' was expanded to expand the market. First to mild stuff like depression/anxiety among normal adults - and then to ADD/etc among kids (that's when homicidal akathisia began - maybe cuz kids brains are different from adult brains so they don't know how to stop the akathisia) - and now to smoking/alcohol/addiction.

    It's like a frog in boiling water. We don't even know when this stuff started anymore. The water's now boiling. And we're just focused on whatever the most recent temperature change is.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "Even the serious stuff which probably does exist (like schizophrenia) is mostly can often be characterized by the same political process rather than actual objective diagnosis...."

    in my limited experience, when it comes to the "real" stuff, there isn't much confusion or disagreement about what the problem is. Its as obvious as smallpox.

    Its "who the fuck is going to pay for this"

    because "Real" (and i qualify it only because its the distinction you make) mental illness is generally a permanent and disabling condition...its costs are limitless. Don't even get into the liability issues.

    Consequently, the political process involved is that there's a "Real Diagnosis", and then there's the one that is officially chosen (and which changes as time passes) for the political reasons - or for medical coverage reasons.

    As one doctor put it to me =

    "I can have three patients in exactly the same stage of their schizophrenic condition, but need to work with a dozen different diagnoses depending on their medical coverage, their state of residence, their family's ability to care for them, or what medication seems to be most effective *at this point* depending on their metabolism... etc etc."

    you are exactly right that the issue has gone so far beyond the simple issues of "diagnosis and treatment" that its a ridiculous mix of bureaucratic self-serving bullshit and conflicting incentives

  • ||

    One of which seems to be homicidal akathisia - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC3513220/ - which could possibly be the cause of a whole bunch of the school shootings and such.

    1. Did you actually read that paper?

    2. If yes to (1), did you actually believe that it provided any sort of convincing evidence?

    3. If yes to (2), are you retarded?

  • JFree||

    I must be retarded.

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/test.....c-20013543

    http://www.mayomedicallaborato.....tive/60334

    Well golly. The Mayo Clinic has tests for that exact cyp450 genetic variation. Hmmm. They must be retarded too.

    Good thing everyone knows Mayo is a bunch of quacks and comes to you instead for their medical/scientific opinions.

  • dan'o, waster of ammo||

    "Needless to say, such "maturing out" refutes both Alcoholics Anonymous' and the "chronic brain disease" model's view of addiction and alcoholism as progressive diseases."

    No, it doesn't. AA's position is that there are 3 types of drinkers: moderates (most people), hard drinkers (most remaining) and "real" alcoholics (tiny minority.) Regarding drinks, moderates can take it or leave it. Hard drinkers may or may not drink continuously, and might develop health, relationship, employment and/or legal problems as a result of their consumption. The disease concept does not apply to these groups, only to the "real" alcoholic.

    A statistic demonstrating that most people growing out of their drinking and drug use is perfectly in line with the disease concept, which only concerns a tiny, single digit percentage of people who use drugs including alcohol.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Expanding definitions are never a problem. Its being *inclusive*? Why are you not inclusive, you hater-person?

    And why does the author ignore the exploding problem of Autism in America? which is obviously caused by Vaccines, GMOs, Global Warming, or the Koch Brothers - or some combination of the same.

  • Chumby||

    The Autist formerly known as Prince

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    And here I thought it was caused by the hard cash infusions into the school districts.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Yeah, that's probably a huge influence.

    I've witnessed firsthand how public schools often encourage that a child be officially 'classified' - (*determined to be a 'special needs' student for reasons of 'learning disability, handicap, illness' or whatever) - for their own benefits/purposes.

    It has multiple drivers/incentives, as far as I understand it. Both getting extra budgetary resources based on their # of 'special needs' students they handle.... as well as changing the student's performance grading* reporting/requirements

    (*my experience was watching a system try and shove my brother into these programs when he was in high school. he managed to avoid it and ultimately benefited immensely by preventing their "help")

    **I suspect this incident actually was one of many reasons I started trending libertarian- watching the school nearly destroy my brother's life for the sake of their bureaucratic bullshit 'classification' process was an enlightening experience where I discovered that the main purpose of institutions is to further themselves above all else.

    same basic reason that the DSM is endlessly expanding

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I have a long story that I've told here before. There's an autistic kid in my son's class who is severely disabled, and he needs all the help he can get. He'll be lucky to live independently as an adult.

    There are 3 other kids who seem just fine to me. I've talked to all of them extensively, and they've attended my kids' birthday parties. They also have the autism diagnosis, and the full time personal assistant/attendant that comes along with it. It's pretty clear that their parents are scamming the system, and it pisses me off. In my neighborhood, we have these perfectionist parents who flip the fuck out if their 4 year old isn't in the 99th percentile of cognitive abilities. So they have the cash and go to the right docs, and now the school district has to drop over $100k a year per student on this bullshit. I have a hard time being civil to some of these parents.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "the school district has to drop over $100k a year per student on this bullshit."

    yeah, the diagnosis of 'mental illness' in kids is a freaking goldmine.

    a client of mine is a pediatric psychologist. on the upper west side. he rakes it in.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The top 2 docs in town here are cash only. Visa/Amex.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    You have no idea how much damage this causes from a research perspective. Anyone trying to demonstrate the effectiveness of a new autism treatment has to regress their data against pure noise. So, good treatments basically never reach large scale grant support.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Yep. I had one kid introduced to me as "non-verbal". And then we had a 10 minute long conversation about dinosaurs.

    OMG He's cured!!!

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    24 hours in a day. 24 beers in a case.

    Coincidence? I think not.

    ... Hobbit

  • np||

    Re: DOJ Subpoena
    The article was posted May 31, with the cited comments appearing later in the day, and Preet Bharara's letter was dated June 2. The FEE article reports it went out "within hours". Regardless if that phrase was accurate, the entire process was awfully quick. Basically it was done in a day.

    Initially I was thinking about someone like Mary/Kizone reporting it. But would that have resulted in such a quick turnaround time? Or are they actively monitoring either the entirety of certain sites including Reason, or any site covering certain topics like Silk Road. For example, DHS subpoena'd Reddit for information of users posting in darknetmarkets subreddit:
    http://www.wired.com/2015/03/d.....rug-forum/

  • AlmightyJB||

    There are some pretty sophisticated tools out there to monitor blogs and social media. Certainly wouldn't surprise me if they had an entire department (or more) doing just just.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Just that. I HATE MY PHONE!

  • np||

    Yeah that seems likely. It makes me wonder what other requests Reason has received aside from this and that civil libel case.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not to worry. Nobody expects the wood chipper revolution!

  • PapayaSF||

    All they needed was a Google alert for the names involved, and someone in the office to monitor the emails. Give that the judge had gotten (real) threats in the past, they might well have done that, and jumped on the not-real threats quickly.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Ixnay on the Openasay?

  • np||

    After years of silence, Amazon releases first transparency report

    The report covers subpoenas, search warrants, court orders, national security requests, and non-US requests from January 1, 2015 through May 31, 2015:
    http://d0.awsstatic.com/certif.....Report.pdf

    Subpoenas received: 813
    How Amazon responded:
    Full response: 542
    Partial response: 126
    No response: 145

    Search warrants received: 25
    How Amazon responded:
    Full response: 13
    Partial response: 8
    No response: 4

    Other court orders received: 13
    How Amazon responded:
    Full response: 4
    Partial response: 5
    No response: 4

    National security requests received: 0-249

    Non-U.S. requests received: 132
    How Amazon responded:
    Full response: 108
    Partial response: 7
    No response: 17

    Removal requests received: 1
    How Amazon responded:
    Full response: 1
    Partial response: 0
    No response: 0
  • PapayaSF||

    Huh? How can they have a "no response" to a subpoena or search warrant or other court order?

  • Ken Shultz||

    They may be improperly executed.

    I used to be responsible for the release of information for a hospital, and if I received the subpoena after its expiration date, or the person's information was entered incorrectly, or the subpoena was addressed to the wrong subsidiary, or something like that, you had to ignore it or you'd be violating confidentiality without a properly executed subpoena--and you'd get the hell sued out of you.

    You'd just forward the subpoena to your counsel to contact the court.

    Maybe a third of the subpoenas I used to get where improperly executed. I'd usually look at the sheriff and try to explain it to them that they needed to take the subpoena back then and there, but sometimes they'd get pissed off and leave it at the reception desk that way.

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    "They may be improperly executed."

    Exactly. Sometimes the people you subpoena don't have the information requested, sometimes you send the subpoena to some Amazon district headquarters when in order for them to respond it needs to go to corporate, etc.

  • Chumby||

    Perhaps DOJ was asking for information Amazon does not have.

  • F. Gaear Grimsrud, Jr.||

    Are We Creating Our Own Addiction Surge?

    Why not? Is our society not always in the market for victims?

  • Medical Physics Guy||

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Ugh, way to remind everyone of the horrible misogyny in science

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Philae's tweet was microaggressive against comets

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'd be asking that chick if she could scoot back a couple feet.

  • BuSab Agent||

    She does appear to be perilously close to sitting on his face and telling him that she loves him.

  • sarcasmic||

    What if she has gas?

  • This Machine Loves Big Brother||

    What if she has gas?

    Depending on where your nose is placed during this encounter, it may not matter so much.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not responsible for my actions! It's the disease's fault! I'm blameless! Totally blameless! Hell, I'm a victim! A victim I tell you! Nothing I did was my fault! I'm a victim of a disease!

  • BuSab Agent||

    Sarc, life gets ever so much freer from stress when you realize everything is your fault. Seriously, I blame you ;)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    OT: Known UFO theorist says Hillary Clinton to Address Foundation Concerns at 'Appropriate Time'

    That Chuck Todd knows how to follow-up, I can tell you that much.

    Also, the interview blurbs that play after are absurd, and not in the fun way.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That dude is fucking nuts.

    He was high up in the Clinton Administration and presumably had a Yankee White Cat 1 security clearance.

    He knows (or reasonably should know) that he's completely wrong, but spews the UFO bullshit anyway.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Apropos, the Roswell Museum is cool and completely worth it. The hubs is going to be talking aliens for weeks. Skip the gift shop unless an alien pencil sharpener is exactly what is missing in your life.

    They had nothing about alien/Nazi love, which was mildly disappointing.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Nothing to see here. Just a weather balloon.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Skip the gift shop unless an alien pencil sharpener is exactly what is missing in your life.

    Note to self: Get to Roswell to achieve life completion.

  • Sevo||

    "They had nothing about alien/Nazi love, which was mildly disappointing."

    And what did you learn about Elvis' alien love-child?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Sevo was alive during Roswell. Coincidence? I think not.

  • Sevo||

    Alive, you say? Ha!
    That was mid-way through one of my existences!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I agree with you. He was one of Obama's advisers, so presumably he had a high security clearance then, too. Then he resigns, tweets this, and then is the mouthpiece for Hillary. That is apparently all acceptable.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I love it. Put him at the front of the bus, where everybody can see him.

    One of 2 things happened there: He criminally leaked classified info, or he lied.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Or are they actively monitoring either the entirety of certain sites including Reason, or any site covering certain topics like Silk Road.

    Based on Judge Crazywoman's comments at sentencing, I'm inclined to believe she or someone on her staff was actively mining the intertubes for accolades and the heartfelt gratitude of the plebs on her decisive and noble actions to save society from libertarian anarchist dope fiends.
    What she found flipped her out. Violent, anarchic heretics. Heretics everywhere. Heretics in her closet and under her bed.

  • This Machine Loves Big Brother||

    Urge to woodchip... rising...

  • Chumby||

    From heretofore woodchip shall be known as the "W" word.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Jesus Christ on the fucking cross! This trend needs to end. It keeps getting more ridiculous every day. Talk about government changing the rules to justify its own expansion.

  • Not an Economist||

    Here is my thoughts on this.

    Those *&(^^%^%%###!!!@$%^%&^&*&&*** CPS people need to have a &^$%$#%^&^&&!!! clue.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    and ended June 10 when their children were returned after the parents won a court ruling based on the fact the mother and children are eligible for enrollment in the Tlingit Native American tribe. The federal Indian Child Welfare Act makes it more difficult for state officials to separate Native American families. Michigan has a similar state law.
    If the family had not had the Tlingit link, the case still would be ongoing, with the children still in foster care.

    Land of the Free.

  • Robert||

    Seems we have to get as many libertarians, or just reasonable people, as possible to work for Child/Family/Youth Protective Services, or whatever it's called in your state. You might have a better chance preventing such horrors by getting such a job than you would have as a voter, juror, poll worker, or even policeman. We need to displace these monsters, fast! Comments (this is not the 1st time I see them) indicate that they preferentially leave the bad families alone while destroying, or at least harassing, the good ones.

  • ebohlman||

    That's actually a very good idea: a big part of the problem is that many if not most of the people who go into child-protection work do so because they grew up in abusive families. One of the unintended consequences of this is that many of them have little idea how a non-abusive family works and see something wrong when there isn't.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    In honor of this thread, I have just poured myself and Mrs. Manhattan some prickly pear mimosas.

    Later, Racer 5 IPA.

  • This Machine Loves Big Brother||

    Maker's on the rocks. But I like where your head's at.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    I used to drink a lot of makers. a technically-unhealthy amount

    now i prefer Bulleit if its available. its very similar, but with less of the super-sweetness of Makers. The rye is also great.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I've been drinking Bulleit too lately, since I can't get Buffalo Trace on a regular basis anymore.

    The bourbon shortage is killing me.

  • This Machine Loves Big Brother||

    There's a bar in town that makes a killer Buffalo Trace Old Fashioned. It is not to be fucked with.

  • lap83||

    Maker's and Bulleit are both really good, but have you ever tried Breckenridge's bourbon? It's only aged for a few years but it's unbelievably smooth.

  • lap83||

    Maker's and Bulleit are both really good, but have you ever tried Breckenridge's bourbon? It's only aged for a few years but it's unbelievably smooth.

  • lap83||

    GD squirrels

  • This Machine Loves Big Brother||

    Breckenridge? Like, Colorado Breckenridge? You goddamned heathen, bourbon only comes from Kentucky.

  • Sevo||

    Or Tennessee.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Can't do that anymore. I'm young, but I have the stomach of an 80 year old.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    Whiskey soothes a nervous stomach.

    Bourbon & coke is like an anti-emetic. Its the perfect drink* for bumpy flights. Plus they'll give you the whole can

    (always order 2 at a time = because you never want a flight attendant to have to make change).

    Only thing i can think of that's better is dark spiced rum.

    Gin, tequila, vodka, brandy, wine etc. are the things i can't hold too much of.

  • lap83||

    whiskey and dark spiced rum are my faves too, but ginger ale is my preferred mixer...especially for flights

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    you read my mind. I meant to suggest ginger ale as the coke alternative, esp. w/ dark rum

    dark & stormy is my fave summer-mixed-drink (goslings, ginger beer, lime)

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I do rum and coke for flights, especially when I'm headed East.

    Pro Tip:
    Free wine on Hawaiian Airlines.

  • GILMORE, Clownish Brat||

    "Free wine on Hawaiian Airlines."

    British Airways back in the day had free booze during transatlantic flights. and they served 18yr olds. and kept serving them. even after they were begged to stop. even after they stopped responding to the attendant button, and lurched into the back of the plane to dig through the drawers for whatever booze they could carry.

    I still feel bad about that, BA. really. I presume that policy was ended shortly afterward. I was not a good Ambassador for America.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I have a strict vacation regimen (now). I can get inappropriate, but never out of control anymore.

    My last vacation without the kids, we went to Hawaii and Maui, and I think I was lightly drunk the entire time, with no major incidents. I make friends with the bartenders, and make sure that they know that they won't regret giving me heavy pours.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Have you had the 46? Love that stuff.

  • This Machine Loves Big Brother||

    Have you had the 46? Love that stuff.

    I agree. Split a fifth with my dad awhile back and now I make it a regular purchase.

  • falardea||

    I lean more toward the "Rat Park" explanation of drug and alcohol addiction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netcash5.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netcash5.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online