That’s not what she said and you know it. It’s a fact: alcohol withdrawal CAN kill you – it almost happened to a relative of mine. Alcohol addiction is no laughing matter.
Dr Pepper isn’t good for you, but to stop drinking it cold turkey won’t kill you – going cold turkey on the booze will. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that all people who drink are alcoholics, or that alcohol is evil. Just that abusing it is dangerous. I’ve seen it happen, and it’s not fucking pretty.
Everything in moderation, duh. (And I’d still like a cite for AA saying that all people who drink are alcoholics.)
In my personal and entirely non-professional opinion, the line between alcoholic or not is whether he drinks because he needs to drink or if he drinks because he wants to drink. I’ll even specify that the need has to be physical and not just habit. Someone who has a glass of wine every evening is going to be antsy if they’re not able to indulge simply because their routine has been upset, not because they’re craving that ounce and a half of alcohol.
Even though you crossed those names out, it’s still a fine line, so don’t cross it.
It was meant to be entirely humorous but got honed to extra-edgy. Absolutely no insult intended.
Okay, cross that off as a short answer on a limited keyboard late at night.
Her answer is exactly what I meant overall: that moderate alcohol use (defining moderate pretty broadly) is placed in a special case for reasons that I don’t think warrant the treatment. The popular tropes and maxims and beliefs leave no room for a category between teetotaler/five drinks a year and gutter-rolling alky; anyone who drinks regularly, more than some ill-defined minimum or (frankly) with pleasure is tabbed “alcoholic” with some number of equally ill-defined adjectives. Dry drunk, closet drunk, functioning alcoholic, binger, whatever - I won’t say these terms don’t have referents, but they are tossed around loosely by people who are terrified or repulsed by alcohol use and used to describe “someone who drinks more than I think is normal/good/healthy and is therefore [sweeping and damning label].”
In that moderate range, I don’t concede that alcohol use is any more significant, dangerous, or detrimental than a Dr Pepper binger or Twinkie fanatic who gets bitchy and off-center because they’re deprived. Both can lead to obesity and severe health issues including death; just because alcohol is more powerful in that regard doesn’t place it in an entirely separate category.
Drinking moderately - up through what many people would consider “heavy moderately” - does not equate to alcoholism and does not universally lead to abuse or control issues. Just because someone is AA-indoctrinated, self-recovered or can’t handle more than a drink or two does not mean their viewpoint and experience applies to the large category of people who can drink more than a tad, don’t have any problems with it and are not on any path to develop problems.
Short form: I don’t buy the “alkohol iz bad” rubberstamp argument, nor any minimized version of it that claims only the lightest and most infrequent drinking is not “alcoholism.”
Maybe so, but nevertheless, it still can’t be allowed, because then people could just use that to insult others for real but claim they were just joking “See? I crossed it out!”
I meant my reply as a sincere apology and acknowledgement that my post was over the line. I’m sorry I didn’t make that more clear. I was not trying to deflect the purpose or validity of the warning, and appreciate the gentle rap on the knuckles as understatement.