out of the closet

In spite of the authors’ positioning as controversial and victimized . . . yawn:

  • Recoveries of individuals who have been severely dependent on alcohol predominantly involve abstinence.
  • Recoveries of individuals who have not been severely dependent on alcohol predominantly involve reduced drinking.
  • The association of outcome type and dependence severity appears to be independent of advice provided in treatment

Has it ever been widely controversial that people with low-severity alcohol problems might successfully moderate their drinking?

The sticking point is not the treatment goal but classifying those with alcohol problems. Specifically, how to differentiate dependence and addiction.

What might be a little more controversial is their misinformation and condescension toward treatment providers:

The provision of such services in the United States differs from most other countries in two ways. First, the majority of the work-force in the alcohol field, unlike the mental health field, does not consist of trained professionals (e.g. social workers, psychologists, mental health counselors, psychiatric nurses).

Ahhh. The crux of any disagreement is the ignorance of others. (An unfortunately common assumption in disagreements. [Go to 9:58]) However, a quick google search finds reports on addiction treatment workforce surveys that suggest the authors are misrepresenting the education of the addiction treatment workforce:

Credentialing bodies now exist in every State, and a college degree is the norm rather than the exception for professionals in the field. Eighty percent of direct care treatment staff, for example, hold a bachelor’s degree (Johnson et al., 2002; Knudsen et al., 2003; RMC Research Corporation, 2003) and 53 percent have a master’s degree or above (Harwood, 2002).

Now, why would they make such a characterization?