I suspect that AA would, for practical and political reasons, like to define as many people as possible as alcoholics. Get ready for new variations, like “sidestream alcoholic” or “alcoholic by proxy.”
Would you give us list of those “practical and political reasons?”
Sorry to burst your bubble, but AA doesn’t define who is an alcoholic. That is up to them.
BTW:
AA is not affiliated with any political or religious sect, nor does it endorse support or profit from any individuals or organizations. There are no dues or fees and the only requirement for membership is the desire to stop drinking.
It is not for everyone but no one is restricted.
The more members an organization has, the more influential (and less marginalized) they become. That’s both practical and political. I know AA does good work and has helped a lot of people; I’m just antsy about mass movements. Especially ones that judges routinely order some defendants to join.
My mistake.
Actually, I can think of twelve other requirements, one of them involving the acceptance of a higher power. That’s a little bit religious.
Again, I am aware of the positive impact AA makes on society. And, as you said, you’re aware it isn’t for everyone.
If you are claiming that AA “influences” judges to order people to attend meetings, you are mistaken. AA has no political agenda which makes political influence valuable to the organizations. AA does not receive funding from any outside source and will not accept it if it is offered.
Sorry Krokodil I’m not against you here. Okay, but AA is by no means a religious organization. It absolutely does not endorse or require its members to be religious. It does NOT EVEN require a belief in GOD. Although the word GOD (as we understand God) is used frequently and prayers are said in meetings. No-one is told what or how to define their “higher power”.
In fact, as many as half of AA’s membership are or were atheist or agnostic according to popular religions. Most of the rest had “given up” on God helping them. It is indeed a spiritual program. Yet, I have seen a few folks stay sober in AA without fully committing to the higher power aspect. Not many though. The idea is that if YOU can’t get control every aspect of your life, then you need something or one to turn that control over to. It could be your sponsor, your group, your minister, fate, GOD, or whatever you choose at the time to be your higher power.
As far as politics goes, in the past 60+ years (since 1935) not one time has any “representative” of AA ever publicly endorsed any candidate OR religion to the best of my knowledge. The members would have their ass if it ever happened. It is NOT about you or y’all. It is about alcoholics surviving their disease, hopefully with dignity and happiness and friendship.
My father has been a diehard member since 1973. I’ve been to thousands of meetings in my life and even though I DO drink. I know what’s up when it comes to AA and its benefits. My old man is a “real alcoholic” he drank at least a quart of Jim Beam everyday while working 60+ hours a week. Damn near killed him…hell it did kill him, he actually died in the hospital when he bottomed out. Tried to quit cold turkey. Not good. 
Old friend of mine Jimmy J. outta Dallas…died of cancer a few years back. Probably one of the best examples I ever saw. Atheist to his core…in the beginning, ex marine, coonass, and hardheaded drunk. If it worked for him, it CAN work for just about anyone. BUT you gotta let go of your old ways and beliefs. Work the steps, that’s all they are is steps to sobriety NOT requirements. Simple steps recommended by those who have been successful, so far.
Anyway, sorry about the rant/hijack, I’m done. What da they say?
Live and let live 
good words to live by
Wouldn’t “Functional Alcoholic” be similar to “Functional Illiterate” in the use of the word “functional?”
Wow, this thread is all over the place (not that that’s a bad thing!). 
Would it help with the “functioning alcoholic” question to try a different definition of alcoholic? How about mine?
Consider an alcoholic someone who cannot stop drinking once they start, and cannot predict what will happen once they start drinking. Does that help?
And David, don’t blame your writing, blame my speed read of the thread!
Regarding the definition of an alcoholic: I had a friend whom we all feared at one point was on the road to alcoholism. He was drinking heavily, daily, and though it wasn’t (at the point) affecting his job or his responsibilities, we were all very worried about him, and he laughed at the whole idea that he might be an alcoholic as a big joke. Thankfully, he and his wife had their first child, and that was motivation enough for him to curb his drinking, and he’s doing great.
But at the time when he was drinking, someone had once called him an alcoholic, to which he had this reply: “I’m not an alcoholic! I have a drinking problem. There is a difference. Alcoholics go to meetings…”
As has been well observed, it comes down to your definition of alcoholic. In my mind, the term is of limited value. But I consider it requires a diminishment of control over one’s drinking. Once a certain percentage of drinking results from factors other than specific reasoned intent, IMO it becomes increasingly meaningful to describe such a person as an alcoholic. Problem drinker may do just as well.
If asked to describe a “functional alcoholic”, one of my friends comes to mind. He is a tin-knocker in his mid 70s. Founded and ran his own very successful HVAC company, which he is in the process of handing off to his adult son. Has 2 fine kids and several grandkids. Been married seemingly happily for 40+ years. No legal problems I am aware of.
Yet, he could not imagine not drinking beer on a daily basis. He does not drink in the morning or while working. But for the 20 years I’ve known him, every afternoon/evening without fail, he puts down at least a 6-pack. When we are on vacation together, he’ll start around noon, and can easily go through 12 a day.
Would you call someone who consumes such quantities of beer so regularly an alcoholic? Probably. Would you consider this man functional? Most definitely.
The other category has been mentioned before. I used to work doing maintenance and labor for various printing companies. We had a number of guys whose duties were essentially limited to sweeping, mopping, emptying trash, etc. Several of these guys were hard core boozers. But they showed up to work regularly (often looking like hell), and did their jobs adequately. Tho I did not envy their lifestyles, they were gainfully employed and were not on the streets.
Of course, I’m not mentioning the machine operators in the binderies, who used to see how many pitchers they could go through at lunch. Was it coincidental that none of them had all 10 of their fingers?
David Simmons said:
“If you are claiming that AA “influences” judges to order people to attend meetings, you are mistaken.”
I may be taking the meaning this statement out of context, but I once signed up for some help in an alcohol rehabilitation clinic, ran by the county, or maybe the state (not Mr. Rockefeller, I), where, I’d say, 60% of those attending were mandated by the courts to be in this rehab. Those who were mandated were brought over to the clinic from the county jail, participated in each session (five a week, in the evenings), then went back to jail. As I said, they had no choice, it was a condition of their sentence.
They had two very strict rules, among many others, that everyone had to adhere to:
- You must attend at least one AA meeting every single day while in the program.
- You must always submit to the weekly, and sometimes surprise, drug tests.
I don’t know, but I think judges, those around here anyway, are very influenced by AA.
Of course, if you mean that AA members are going around soliciting and/or advertising their organization to the various members of the judicial system, then nevermind.
My sister-in-law, who died from alcoholism at the age of 42, went into the hospital because she was so sick from drinking. They will tell you to KEEP drinking until you get to the hospital. At that level of alcoholism, you can die if you stop the flow of alcohol in your system. It has to be stopped carefully and under the direction of doctors, and usually with the aid of drugs.
She died one year ago today.
I understand your concern regarding judges ordering folks to attend AA meetings. As a matter of fact, every group that I am familiar with shares this concern as well. Very few of the AA members that I have known (literally hundreds or more of them) actually approve of the idea. Yet they go along with it because if even one person in a thousand finds his/her sobriety via the court. Then maybe it’s worth the trouble of enduring the aggravation of listening to those who DON’T want to quit drinking and DON’t want to be there.
The only influence AA has on the judge is its success. It is the only proven successful program for Alcoholics. Also many judges use this as a way of keeping up with the “offender”. Most detox units are like halfway houses for alcohol related “crimes” DWI…etc. AA usually holds meetings at these places. So, it is merely a babysitting service in many cases. ALTHOUGH :rolleyes: I have known a lot of people who found sobriety this way.
So what do you do? You tell the local judge it is okay for him to use your group for this purpose. That’s right, he can’t order someone to a group without the group’s permission. At least it is/has been this way for every group I know. Then again, there are usually judges in the group too. 
It’s true.
BUT The judges that are members in AA that I know, DON’T order people to AA. Because they know it won’t work if you DON’T want to stop drinking. Believe me, I’ve known a lot of lawyers and judges in the program.
Actually, that’s A LOT religious. Like, it’s totally religious. Maybe not denominational, but anyone who says it’s not religious has listened to AA’s rhetoric one too many times.
None of the above is germane to the sentences in your previous posts to which I take just a little bit of exception. Your statement started by stating that AA as an organization had an interest in defining the term “alcoholic” as broadly as possible in order to gain “influence.” I then asked for examples of the reasons AA would want influence and your reply mentioned that more members means more influence with the implication that AA as an organization wanted influence for some purpose. And it ended with this, “I’m just antsy about mass movements. Especially ones that judges routinely order some defendants to join.”
It is not the idea of anyone in the AA central office or any AA group that I ever heard of to want judges to do this. When someone who has been ordered to attend meetings comes it is often great for those who want the program because they frequently get to see one pissed off and denying individual in action. It often helps reinforce their program.
As t-keela said, most groups are not too happy with the arrangement but find it hard to tell judges they don’t like it because someone might be helped. And, of course judges get to hand down the sentences and some are jealous of that prerogative. I’m inclined to say that the drawbacks outweight possible benefits. As far as I personally am concerned I hope those whose drinking causes them problems find a way to stop, but I’m not into evangelising. I have enough troubles of my own without trying to solve those of others.
TeaElle Sorry to have missed you. You are correct in your analysis of functional aspects regarding psychological and physical dependence. The thing is, there is NO precise or “standard” (if you will) set of criteria when it come to variables defining alcoholics and their level or progressive state of the disease. I suppose one could define themselves as a functional alcoholic even AFTER finding sobriety. Maybe especially then.
Kalhoun “She died one year ago today.”
I am very sorry to hear that. It is a terrible thing to watch a loved one suffer the agony you have been witness to. I’ve lost friends and family to booze myself. Watched my father-in-law pass a couple of years ago. No-one couldn’t have recognized him from merely a few weeks before. My little brother was killed by a drunk driver at 10 yo. A long list could follow…not necessary.
Yeah, this would leave a bad taste in my mouth regarding AA. It has before, as a matter of fact, I have in the past held resentments against SOME members in the way they abuse the program. Hey, nobody said it was perfect. Let mankind get his EGO and selfish nature involved and anything can be perverted. I finally got over my negative attitude (Live and let live). I had some newbies playing recruiter with me for awhile. The old timers found out about it and shut that shit down quick.
You can’t make someone WANT to quit. You can only nag their ass and do more harm than good. You push them away.
Again, YOU may think it’s religious. That’s okay, your definition of religious is broader than mine. For you then, I guess it IS religious. I suppose you might consider many martial arts to be religious then or team sports or politics even. You see what I mean. Simply because it addresses the question of GOD’s existence AND because it delves into the spiritual aspect of humanity…
does that make it a religion or religious?
So for a definition we try: Webster at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/mwwod.pl
def. start
One entry found for religion.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back – more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
2 entries found for religious.
religious[1,adjective]religious[2,noun]
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
religious[1,adjective]religious[2,noun]
entry 2 religious
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural religious
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from religieus, adjective
: a member of a religious order under monastic vows
def. end
I suppose one could say AA is a religion for some members by definition #4 religion.
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
This definition does not apply to the group as a whole however, nor does it apply to every individual. Some groups and/or members are more or less ardent than others.
However, one’s particular cause, principles, belief system or their fervor for said things is NOT a standardized, defined , or even required for that matter.
Is it “religious”? Well considering the nature of the definition. It seems to be open to interpretation. It wouldn’t be too hard to describe any group of people with a similar cause (that would be “to stop drinking”) …w/ a similar cause…as possibly religious using a loose interpretation of this:
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
“relating to an acknowledged HIGHER POWER” my translate By using this particular approach, I could see AA as religious to some folks. Problem is that this HIGHER POWER is in no way defined by the group. However some members and/or groups do sometimes take on religious appearances, attitudes or fervor. This is the fault of the membership, not the program.
"totally religious" is a bit overzealous I think.
I’ve been to groups that were predominantly anti-religious/agnostic/atheist…whatever label you prefer, I really don’t care. I’ve been to groups of every “type” of people you can imagine. It’s up to you, if you can’t quit by yourself, they’re available. If you don’t like this group, find one that you do like or don’t. It’s your life…live it. Drunk or sober.
But please don’t preach to me, cause I’m not religious either. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a higher power though (one of my own definition and understanding, something that I can believe, most assuredly NOT typical).
Need a thread I guess…sorry folks. I’m done now.
David,
I think you’re conflating Kent4mmy’s posts with mine. And for what it’s worth, I consider “politics” to cover a much broader range of social influence than who is elected to what office. If I have a position of responsibility or prominence in a community-based group, and a local judge is sentencing people to join my group and follow my instructions, that is political. It doesn’t matter whether the group is AA, Community for Creative Non-Violence, Habitat for Humanity or McDonalds (Yes, people have been sentenced by courts to work at McDonalds! I’ll look for a cite but don’t have one at the moment), that judge has crossed a line and it is a political line.
I’m a little alarmed whenever a judge actually sentences a defendant to a 12-step program; I’ll take you and T-Keela at your word that AA doesn’t think much of the arrangement either.
I used to be part of a nightclub comedy act that played a lot of bars and hotels. Once we were at the local Hyatt-Regency the same weekend as a big Narcotics Anonymous convention. The conventiongoers’ rooms were regularly swept for drug paraphernalia, and they found plenty on every sweep. Anyone can stumble, but word was these were mainly people under court order to be there.
I’m all for 12-step programs, provided that the people in them are there as a result of their own decision, not someone else’s. Some things have to be come by honestly.
I can’t substantiate the “sentenced to work at McDonalds” claim, and therefore withdraw it.
I think the air is clearer. Just a couple of points. I think that people come to AA via the courts when judges grant probabtion on a condition that the defendant attend AA meetings. As I understand it, probation can always be refused by the defendant. If there is a strong wish to continue drinking and driving (a typical offence) the defendant can always choose jail and a fine.
The second thing is that AA as an organization isn’t really an organization in the sense that word is usually used. Each individual meeting group is an entity unto itself and is responsible only to its own members. And the members are mainly whoever happens to drop by that night. The central office in New York is only for the purpose of provind literature, publishing books, etc. It doesn not run AA in any sense of the word. And if you ask the political establishment or the populace in any city or town whatever who is the “leader of AA in that town and what is the status of his or her of prominence and responsibility” you will draw nothing but blank looks.
As for the definition of an alcoholic, I think of it as; where once you consumed alcohol, it now consumes you (both figuratively and physiologically). Where you once controlled it, it now controls you. It may sound a bit metaphorical, but it’s what I have seen.
As for a functioning alcoholic; I believe it has a cyclical effect as with most any addiction: the consumption promotes more dependency, the dependency promotes more consumption and, if left on its natural path, it is only a matter of time before it becomes more dysfunctional. While I have not performed a case study in any sense, I have been one helplessly standing by and observing the whole cycle firsthand. As we have already seen in the many posts, there are variant degrees, but even in a case where the person ‘seems’ to function normally, I am led to believe that the term ‘functioning alcoholic’ is very subjective, and in many cases a misnomer, as most substance addiction/abuse has some dysfunctionality by nature alone. YMMV.
When I was a child I would go fishing with my uncle, who I idolized. We would bring with us two coolers, one for my lunch, and one for his (lunch) drink of choice. Early on I never noticed, or paid attention to it, but it became obvious as I got a little older. Never though, did I see him stumbling drunk. There was always a drink close by. At the time he was a successful man, married, kids, well liked, a great sense of humor and owned and operated a shoe store. At this stage a ‘functional alcoholic’ in every sense. I found out later that this started while he was in high school. His wife made every attempt to help him, as she saw his deterioration. However, he slowly spiraled downward, needing more and more, and eventually totally lost control. He eventually lost everything; his wife (and two other wives afterward), kids, his business, other family relationships along the way and literally wound up a derelict on the streets of Seattle. Then devoid of the most common faculties of reason, comprehension, and responsibility, he completely alienated himself from everyone. Whenever we tried to help him, he just wanted to be left alone. It always came down to it being someone else’s fault. It was tragic to see. Had he made the choice to acknowledge the problem and seek help while he was still ‘functional’, I think a lot may have been avoided.
Amazingly within the last several years, he has finally gotten some help. But because of his numerous health problems, he is largely being looked after by his younger brother (my other uncle). He now at least has a fixed address and holds a small job which has given him back some of his dignity. He would tell you his change started by him taking ownership for his past mistakes and admission of his current problem (neither of which he ever did before). For someone who was so far gone, this may be a unique case, but it says to me that we should never abandon hope.