I will say this only one more time. If you are on this medication it is imperative that you do not come off of it ever, if you decide to drink again. It is a re-uptake inhibitor, as it decreases ethanol action, while increasing ethanol's effect. Its just that simple. TSM is based on the fact that alcoholism and addiction is a learned behavior. That is patently false, as has been shown in dozens of rat studies. If it was a learned behavior, every single rat would have become addicted, which was not the case. This "learned behavior" theory is similar to the SMART recovery program, which involves CBT/DBT training. If it is not genetic, can someone explain the heritability studies done with indentical twins? Or people of Native American descent being very prone to the disease of addiction, and conversely not people of Asian descent? If it was a learned behavior, why would every person who has ever gotten drunk not have become an addict?

And what I find frankly hypocritical about not being part of the "treatment industry" here is you have to take a medication made by pharmaceutical companies every time you want to drink. Does anyone else get the irony?

Even people with the genetic tendency to alcohol addiction would never enter full-blown addcition after one night of heavy drinking!

I am certain I have every genetic predisposition to both alcohol and nicotine addiction, but it still took me years of consistent use to reach full-blown addiction to both. With alcohol at least five, and with nicotine at least two.

And how about commenting on my previous point (which you barely dismissed) that there are almost entire communities in the US addicted to crystal meth. It's just lucky chance that so many adults with the genetic disposition ended up living right in the same town where crystal meth is available to all? Jeesh.

Show me entire communities addicted to crystal meth. Point them out. Give me statistics and put them on here. Give populations of communities and show that the entire community is addicted. You still purposefully miss the point. Why would people who go out and drink and get drunk not all become addicts?

Here is the documentary I watched about crystal meth communities in America. You may not be able to view the video through the normal site outside the UK, but it is available on torrents for download:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m572d

This is only one of myriad documentaries on similar topics. Anecdotal evidence is even more prolific, naturally. Now, show us studies of any sort that demonstrate that those without the genetic disposition to alcohol/crack/cocaine/heroin/nicotine/whatever addiction but with prolonged exposure will not get addicted.

And of people who go out and get drunk 'not all' become addicts? It's prolonged exposure - purely learned behaviour. They don't have enough prolonged, consistent exposure = they don't become addicts. Those with the genetic dispositon of course make this many times much more likely with the exposure (the learning), I don't dispute that. I'm sure most eventual addicts of alcohol have the dispositon in their nature. But your contention that it's purely genetic seems to me to have no basis whatsoever in fact, and yet you present it as proven science.

I have become quite weary of this. Yes, I think (yes, "I") that there is a genetic component in alcoholism. Yet is is a learned behavior. One is not instantly transformed into an addict with one drink, if there is a genetic predisposition; it takes time and persistence. Others may contend that anybody can become an alcoholic given enough time; I don't necessarily believe this myself, but that is not relevant. People become addicted to alcohol; they become alcoholics. Who cares about how it happens? We have a medication (Naltrexone), that when taken properly causes pharmacological extinction of the addiction. It works. There is no denying that. Oh, maybe in some it doesn't work as planned, but in the majority it works. I'll be very interested in how this method works with American Indians as it has worked with Firebird. As far as Asians? I don't know any Asians, but I trust it works with them too. I don't see any reason why it would not.

As I stated in the beginning, this discussion is becoming wearisome. Try it or don't. It is that simple.

Bob... not putting up with any more s h i t.

I'm done with this, other than to make two final points.

1. Dreadnought is not the least bit serious about trying TSM. HIS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR MY COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THE POINT: SHOW US THE STUDIES ABOUT THE UNDENIABLE CATASTROPHIC IMPACT OF OVER 110 DRINKS PER WEEK ON THE HUMAN BODY AND COMPARE THEM TO YOUR BOGUS "CONCERN" ABOUT UPREGULATION (or "up-reregulation" as he calls it). Anyone who is more concerned about upregulation (which is both temporary and rendered inconsequential by taking naltrexone) is simply not engaged in a serious discussion.

2. Dreadnought offers NO SUPPORT for his entirely bogus claim that alcoholism is purely "genetical", as he calls it. To date, the only information offered in support of this phony, concocted argument is coming from his pie hole, which has zero credibility, based upon the endless stream of inaccurate opinions that come streaming from it.

Others feel free to debate this guy -- I'm done with it because I'm entirely convinced he has no interest whatsoever in trying TSM.

Yeah, this is it for me. I'm surprised so many other good folk had the patience to bother with him, but they are better people than me no doubt.

This thread got way off topic, perhaps it could be renamed? Or at least the dreadnought bit split off? Oh well, not a big deal...

Ive seen this too. I have looked at many facets. This is not scientific evidence, but as you said anecdotal. NOT science based. Tell us, in major cities, where crystal meth is also widely available, why does the "entire population" not become addicted? You are missing the point purposefully again. I have said quite clearly about rat studies, which you ignore. Its not prolonged exposure. Its genetics. You guys are as bad as the rigid "faith" of recovery, ignoring science and logical arguments. It is proven in science. twin studies, rat studies, asian and native amercian studies. The problem you guys have is ignoring facts and blind faith in your "method". Try having an open mind and looking at what I have posted. Attack the argument, not the poster.

Bob, open your mind as you want others on the other forum to open their minds. And I have also said this on the other forum to closed minds. I have posted science based facts about the drug. And the ironic tone here about not being part of the 'treatment industry" when in fact you have to take a drug.