Alcoholism, is a disease that makes people more likely to abuse alcohol after trying it.
Poorly stated. Many if not most alcoholics were more-or-less responsible drinkers for a long time before they went over the edge. Some unrelated problem was the catalyst that caused them to crawl into the bottle, they didn't do it after "trying" it. If you're saying that people who are already alcoholics won't be able to stop drinking if they take a single drink, that is basically true. But it doesn't speak to the important question of how they got that way in the first place.
Again, poorly stated. Alcoholic parents are more likely to have alcoholic children, but it is because of their upbringing, not their DNA.
But it makes me wonder why is there no nicotineism, or gamblimgism, marijuanaism, and stuff? If your addicted to alcohol you have a disease but if your addicted to these other things your just plain addicted.
It's just semantics and it's influenced by politics, so you can't expect it to be logical. Still, there are some key differences. (I'll ignore gambling because it's not a drug and needs to be covered separately.) Of all the popular recreational drugs, alcohol is the only one that results in a significant degradation of both skillful and responsible behavior after only a modest dose that can be ingested quickly.
Nicotine is arguably the most harmful of all these drugs to the addict in the long run, but its effect on behavior is mild. In fact I've seen it described as a mood-leveler, which tends to improve one's functioning in society. Even the withdrawal symptoms don't usually cause anything socially worse than irritability.
Cocaine and heroin were once legal. Older adults I knew when I was a kid remembered doctors and lawyers who were addicts but had no trouble doing their jobs. The criminal behavior associated with these drugs today is 100% due to their illegality and the high prices of a black market, and would nearly vanish if we adopted a sane drug policy.
Marijuana is intoxicating in a way that coke and heroin are not, but not in the same way as alcohol. In most people it induces a sense of peace bordering on lethargy, goodwill bordering on subservience, and caution bordering on paranoia when physically active. For example when stoners drive they're not in a hurry so they don't drive fast, and they're constantly worried about cops and accidents so they arguably overcompensate for their impairment. Pot has essentially no physical withdrawal symptoms and it's almost impossible to stay high for more than a few hours so they have to come back to earth--if it could be done the Rastafarians would have figured it out by now.
Alcohol is nothing like these drugs. It makes people feel strong, clever and invulnerable. It's highly intoxicating and makes many of them fall down or at least act and sound profoundly stupid. And it's possible to stay drunk round the clock, so they can completely avoid their worldly responsibilities. Alcohol is in a class by itself so it's become politically correct to call it and only it a disease.
On the other hand, substances like nicotine, heroin and cocaine are clearly biochemically addictive. People go through severe withdrawal when they quit these drugs and exhibit intense physical symptoms, whereas alcoholics only experience mentally-based symptoms when they decide not to drink. They don't shake and miss sleep and freak out; they just feel the depression that alcohol had covered up for so long.
This is simply false, they do exactly those things. I'm guessing that you've had the good fortune never to know a serious alcoholic. A bad case of alcohol withdrawal may require medical treatment but will surely involve a lot of pain and bodily dysfunction. That makes it in this regard worse than nicotine, far far worse than cocaine, not on the same planet as marijuana, and only "better" than heroin.
