I guess I'm having trouble distinguishing between the "endorphin buzz" (good friend) and being drunk (abusive friend) but this is only my third Nal session and I'm only at 25 mgs. I do like your comparison of alcohol and a toxic friend and have often thought about it that way. Perhaps getting to the point where our brains finally say, "since this particular friend no longer contributes enough to our happiness and well being, we might as well not extend them an invitation to the party" is what the pharmacological extinction is about.. Yes Magda, I think the separation phase is very difficult with memories of the good times consistently trying to push the bad memories aside. As you say, it sucks. Thanks for the thread. I think it can be productive to whine. Keek

I swear I rapidly go through the 5 Stages of Grief:

1. Denial - "Maybe the naltrexone didn't get digested or something and won't work this time."
2. Anger - "This sucks! I'm NEVER taking it again! I'm getting so f***ed up tomorrow!"
3. Bargaining - "Perhaps the GABA effects will be pleasant. Sure, this could still feel good."
4. Depression - "Woe is me! Why did I do this to myself? I just want a buzz!"
5. Acceptance - "I can't un-take it now. I can at least try to enjoy myself."


Keek -
Amen to that. It's completely crazy to mourn for something that has done this much damage, but there it is. I've spent too much time remembering the high and not nearly enough thinking about the horrific consequences. I'm convinced that the only way this won't work is noncompliance, so I need to check that. I'm so glad that we only have to muster enough willpower to swallow a pill once a day.

It gets better. If you power through these first few frustrating times, you'll be amazed at how quickly it gets better.

It's actually a good sign that you feel the difference so strongly. The analogy to an exercise burn is apt.

"Naltrexone + drinking may equal cure, but, let's face it: it suuuuuuucks!"

If you are still having fun drinking you might have trouble stopping.

In the book the Doctor discusses at length how drinking is no longer fun for alcoholics (it wasn't for me, except for the occasional hour of bliss when I was exactly in the right "zone"), and so taking the pill to effect a cure is a rational act. This in response to the comment argument against TSM: why would an alcoholic take a pill when he/she loves to drink?

It was (is) certainly a rational one for me. But if you are still having fun drinking, then taking Nal may not be so rational for you, and you may then struggle.

Since I've been trying to stop for many years, I agree. I didn't think it would be easy.


I do love to drink, but the arrests, broken bones, hospitalizations, lost jobs, lost relationships and financial ruin make it seem obvious to me that continuing to drink heavily is not at all rational either.

Maybe I'm not an alcoholic. Perhaps I'm just a hedonist who values getting drunk more than she values her family, friends, safety, liberty and happiness, but I think that's splitting hairs a bit.

For what it's worth, I think the good doctor is wrong. It's as if he's saying that noncompliance is only an issue if someone is not really addicted.


I've tried AA, rehab, therapy, antabuse, Campral, baclofen, SOS, RR, hypnotherapy and - embarrassingly enough - megadoses of niacin (don't ask). So, if naltrexone is irrational, I'm out of ideas, since I don't have easy access to a Mexican ibogaine clinic.

Hello. Since I noticed that Melissa is on here, I must give her congratulations for spreading the word on naltrexone on that radio show.

I'm not quite sure about the hosts , but I think you did a commendable job considering.

Magda, there clearly is no good solution to alcohol misuse, otherwise we would all be doing it. There are a jillion methods and ideas, and they all have their proponents.

I cannot imagine attempting to deal with the problem as devastating as this one is for most people, without trying every possible avenue available.

Pinning your hopes on one single method whatever it may be appears somewhat irrational, Sinclair method included. That's not to say it doesn't work for some people, it certainly has helped me, but it was by no means the answer

Even among the pharmaceutical approaches to alcohol misuse, naltrexone is way way down on the list, for some reason baclofen seems popular, although that drug seem scary as hell to me.

I'm going to keep what I'm doing, because I know it works. I don't know what I'd be cured of though, because I don't have a disease, I have a substance use disorder, which I will address and remedy.

The best comments or statements I've heard are from people that simply say they understood they need to drink less, and found rational commonsense ways to accomplish that.

Oh so true. Back when it was still fun, before I knew I was trapped, I would have rejected the buzz-blocker because the high was the whole point.



The fun we liked at first, the "innate reward," is still there. It's just not enough to justify all the bad stuff, not when considered rationally.

I'm happy for you, Magda. You're obviously committed, and you're having the experiences that many fast responders had early on. You may well be free of this thing soon.

Thanks. Yeah, the host has a personal axe to grind. That was how we "met," so I can't complain. I just tried to keep on message as best I could.



As we've all discussed recently, there are different mechanisms of addiction. What's needed is a better meta-protocol for matching each addict to the protocol with a best chance of success.

Interestingly, this subject is leading me to miss getting high. Not to crave alcohol, exactly, but missing that state of getting altered.

My life really isn't that bad. It's just my brain playing tricks on me again. I think my brain hates me.

Since I am not currently addicted to anything, I think I'll just take Nancy Reagan's classic advice.

What Kate said: "Maybe it's just a matter of (re)learning to appreciate different sensations as much as we once did the booze?" I think it's a good time to recommend one of my favorite websites, www.rationalrecovery.com and his notion of the "Addictive Voice" or "the beast." Basically, the beast is a term to describe a phenomena whereby when addicts begin to either stop drinking/drugging, or even THINK ABOUT stopping, all sorts of counter-arguments pop into the head of the addict. The more religious among us might attribute this to the devil, but really there's not need to turn to the supernatural. It is a curious phenomena, though, and the first post of this interesting thread (the most active one we've had in months) made me think about it.

I like to use the term, "That's your addiction talking" as a way to simplify the concept of the addictive voice / beast. I think any of us that have made this trek have had all manner of chitter-chatter that we had to work through. By its very nature, alcohol addiction is irrational and borderline ridiculous, so a lot of the arguments I hear now, while I sit "on the other side" of the addiction, seem kind of funny.

As rationalrecovery points out, the beast has no power other than persuasion, and doesn't really even have any good arguments, just emotional appeals. We control our hands, our feet, and our body. Once we identify and recognize the chitter-chatter of addiction, we can begin to gain power over it.