Nice speculation, but hazardous to people who have had problems with alcohol. Yes, it is entirely possible that some people who have had such problems could take a sip now and then and its also possible that there are also some cannot do that. At this time we have no known way of identifying which is which. Therefore, if you have had problems it is much safer to just not drink. Despite rumors to the contrary, it is entirely possible to have a lot of fun and a good life without alcohol. And I really don’t understand why those who can and do drink without problems are so goddamned worried that someone, somewhere doesn’t drink who possibly could.
As to the OP. I seriously doubt that anyone who meets the Queen, the President or anyone along those lines does so cold and without getting a briefing as to what is going to happen. At that briefing is the time to speak up and say, “I don’t drink.” or even “I don’t drink because I’m an alcoholic.”
Is there a better way. Are there programs for alcoholics that strive for moderate use? Us alcoholics would like to know.
No such thing as a former alcoholic. The alcoholic strives to control his drinking and constantly fails. If he can control it like the rest of humanity, then he wouldn’t be an alcoholic.
Everyone is not an alcoholic. Picturing the appropriate prophylactic.
Are you an alcoholic ?
My answer to the queen?
“No thank you Your Majesty, I’m allergic to wine.”
I’ll see if I can dig up a cite, but my claim was based on anecdotal evidence from alcoholics I’ve talked to. Most recently, I heard a talk on Monday from an alcoholic who described his struggles. After having not touched alcohol for several months, he went out for a Mother’s Day brunch with his mother and, figuring he’d finally got his drinking under control, ordered a glass of wine to have with the brunch.
He woke up from his coma ten days later, as they were trying to decide whether to remove life support. He suffered irreparable brain damage from the incident.
Again, I’m not saying it’d happen to everyone. But if I’m weighing the possibility on one hand of offending an extremely thoughtless queen, and the possibility on the other hand of falling into a coma that could kill me or could just leave me seriously brain-damaged, I’m gonna go for insulting the queen.
A Google search uncovered this: Moderation Management. I’m sure there are others, I read a US and World Report article a few years ago (sorry, forget the year/month) that listed a bunch of them as part of an article that said these programs have a higher success rate for certain types of alcohol abusers.
And I know that abstinence is not for everyone. There are people whose systems are so compromised from alcohol abuse that one drink will make them ill, like the man in LHoD’s example. However, there are also people who have had problems with alcohol in the past, but did not develop physical tolerance and can learn to deal with alcohol again in healthy ways. I think it’s incorrect to refer to the latter group as “alcoholics” and say they can never be cured. Every person is an individual, and abstinence therapy doesn’t work for every alcohol abuser any more than talk therapy works for everyone with depression, or chemotherapy works for cancer patients.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for everyone, again; it just means that, if you think it does and you’re wrong, there can be consequences.
Finally, note that the OP says that you’re a “recovering alcoholic.” That’s not language used by the MM folks: that’s language used by the AA folks. If you consider yourself to be a recovering alcoholic, the only reason to take that drink is because you want to get in a crazy fight with the beaver-hats.
Even if they don’t have a physical tolerance, if you’re a recovering alcoholic, you most likely have a remaining psychological dependency that you can’t control. If you don’t, well, you’re not an addict, really.
People usually become psychologically addicted to alcohol long before the physical tolerance level sets in.
“Moderation Management” – I don’t know many alcohol/drug counsellors and programs which put much stock in MM.
AA model of abstience seems the theory of choice. I am aware that the success rate for AA is not the greatest (but neither is any other program)
Drinking the goblet of wine seems a bad choice for our friend over in England, but the peer and social pressure of the moment might compel him or her to take that drink. . .
Of course, one reason for that is that AA got out in front of the publicity curve in the U.S. years ago and many of their positions are now considered “true” despite a lack of conclusive evidence one way or another. AA influenced opinions tend to suppress funds for research into alcohol management in the U.S. There have been such studies in Europe, although I do not know what results they have produced.
I am not about to tell anyone how they should handle their drinking, but I will note that I do know people who were “problem drinkers” who went to AA long enough to dry out, couldn’t stand that particular culture, dropped out, and later resumed moderate drinking with no episodes similar to that mentioned by LHoD. I know a guy who spent several years without ever being sober who woke up one day and said “This is stupid” and who just quit cold. He had been alcohol free for five or six years when I knew him and claimed that he never missed it and had no temptation to try it again. (He ran a bar!) I know another heavy drinker who developed gout. His doctor claimed that alcohol exacerbated the condition and he just quit. Again, despite years of drinking, he never seemed to be bothered by having it around. I know other people who definitely should practice abstinence who continue to try moderation and fall back into drunkenness.
Unfortunately, we are only at the beginning of the learning curve for all addictive behavior and we are lacking genuine data regarding the process of addiction (particularly alcohol addiction): how much of it is chemical or psychoactive; how much of it is psychological; how to discern the differences; how to test people to determine risk; and even how to treat people (other than AA’s “safe” approach of total abstinence).
The point is that we do not even have a consistently reliable definition of “alcoholic.” The AA-influenced definition in the U.S. tends to drag in people who are probably doing their livers no good, but have no “dependence,” as well as people for whom drinking is directly interfering with their ability to live from day to day with a whole continuum of people between.
The discussion often becomes a bi-polar shoutfest between those who claim that all alcoholic dependence is a chemical-based illness and those who claim it is simply a bad habit indulged by those with weak wills.
My point is simply that while we have a lot of anecdotal evidence that supports conflicting conclusions and some preliminary analysis that is not yet conclusive, the entire range of issues is still far too poorly understood to give a lot of credence to anyone who declares the “truth” on the matter.
I support anyone who has found that taking a drink is bad for them and I have physically intervened when some doofus was trying to coax or coerce some other person to drink when the other person had declined. However, I refuse to buy into grand pronouncements about “how it is” when we do not yet know what “it” is.
Yes, the Palace staff brief anyone who is actually going to meet the Queen on the ceremony and what is expected of them. So you sort out the alcohol problem then.
(As you’d expect, he Queen is given a brief description of people she is due to meet, so she can make conversation.)
