I am in an argument with a friend. I told him that I believe an alcoholic can decide to go to moderate drinking, instead of abstinence, and be just as successful beating alcholism as an alcoholic who chooses abstinence. I have no idea where I get off with this, but it just seemed to me that it should be true.
If I have a problem that is out of my control…I may try to deal with it by *regulating *the problem, instead of eliminating it. I don’t know why it should be assumed that it must be abstinence or nothing.
I fully admit that I don’t have a clue about this. My friend and I argue topics all the time about all kinds of stuff that doesn’t really apply to us, so it’s not personal. I just want to be right.
Anyone got the numbers on this?
ETA: Sorry for the poor grammar in the thread title. I be doin’ dat sometimes. My mistake.
Not safely or consistently in general. There are moderation programs but they aren’t generally endorsed by medical professionals, mental health professionals, addiction specialists, or alcoholics in recovery. That isn’t to say that someone, somewhere hasn’t pulled it off or that certain types of alcoholics may be more likely to be successful than others. A person that binge drinks a whole lot when they are young may be able to moderate easily later while someone who drank to excess consistently for 20+ years every day might not be able to.
See this eye-opener on denial:
"Moderation Management is a nine-step program that promotes abstinence for the first 30 days. It limits the number of drinks allowed, nine per week for women, and 14 for men.
But last March, Audrey Kishline, the program’s founder, got behind the wheel of her pickup and plowed head-on into a car, killing a man and his 12-year-old daughter. Her blood alcohol level was more than three times the legal limit."
Yeah but that happens with kinds of alcoholics all the time. Right? Somebody was on the wagon, doing great, and then, they fall off. It could have gone either way with Audrey.
At least they died doing what they loved! Too soon?
Funny story about that Audrey whatserface cult leader otherwise.
Since anecdotes I guess are the order of the day, yeah, someone can moderate if they aren’t giant boners. I drink once or twice a week – at most. Many weeks not at all. Granted, when I choose to drink, I do it like a man with a great thirst, but so what? That’s enough for me until the next time I choose to have alcohol, during which time I am generally abstinent, since I don’t eat at restaurants.
The first famous people I thought of are Don Johnson and Melanie Griffin. Married in the late 70’s and hard drinkers. Divorced and then Rehab. Don got sober, and cast in Miami Vice. He got back together with Melanie and they enjoyed an occasional glass of wine with dinners. I think Don kept it in moderation for a year or so. (based on the interviews I recall.) Then he had a major relapse. Melanie relapsed too. More rehab, Divorced again.
They’ve both been in and out of rehab since then. Moderation just doesn’t work for addicts.
I personally have relatives with addiction problems. My uncle is a recovered alcoholic. My wife and I were out a lot of money trying to help a cousin of mine with a crack problem. We took her in, paid for rehab and I even helped her get a job at my work. Every paycheck she got disappeared within three days. It all went to the dealers until she was fired. She was taking stuff from us. We caught her bringing her johns into the house and kicked her out. Last I heard she’s back on the streets.
Is there any family tht hasn’t been harmed by addiction? Seems like everyone has at least one relative that has a problem.
Part of the problem is that “alcoholic” is not a clearly defined term. If an alcoholic is just someone who has a drinking problem, then yes, some of them can successfully drink in moderation. But if an alcoholic is defined to be someone who can’t control their drinking at all, then no, moderation is not going to be an option for alcoholics.
Yeah, this is where the argument got heated. I said to him, “I promise you, plenty of people have gone from alcoholic to social drinker, dude.” and he said, “Then they weren’t alcoholics in the first place. Maybe they were just problem drinkers.”
Now that’s some ‘no true scottsman’ stuff right there.
Thats what I was going to say, aren’t there different varieties of alcoholic? Some seem to drink a controlled amount all the time, some seem to be medicating anxiety issues. Some others are binge drinkers or drink to black out with an unlimited supply constantly.
In my own case (I know anecdotes don’t prove anything), there was a time in my life, maybe ten years ago, when I drank too much. Never at inappropriate times, never got into any trouble, but every night after work, when I got home, I’d drink until I fell asleep.
Eventually I stopped doing that. Just lost the desire, and the bad stuff in my life that was at the root of the drinking got straightened out. Now I don’t drink much at all, and don’t really feel the desire. It just isn’t there.
So was I an alcoholic? I doubt it. But I certainly went from heavy drinking to moderation.
That is correct. To answer this question in full, we would need to get into the studies (and arguments) that suggest that some of the more severe forms of alcoholism aren’t just a matter of drinking too much too many times. Instead alcoholism is a symptom of an underlying condition that already exists possibly from birth for some people. Alcohol exposure also aggravates it.
The evidence for that particular model comes mainly from brain wave studies (MRI and PET scans) of very young or even newborn sons of male alcoholics. Some alcoholics display abnormal brain wave patterns in the centers that control the brain reward circuits and also the areas that are associated with impulse control. It turns out that their sons do too some of the time even before they have ever been exposed to alcohol or any other drugs and they are much more likely than average to become alcoholics and/or drug addicts later in life even after you account for other factors.
For people that display that particular pattern, never starting drinking (or drugs) at all is the best defense and certainly shouldn’t be after the problem is illustrated by past behavior. Moderation is almost guaranteed to fail because the underlying condition cannot be cured. It can only be mediated by strict behavioral modification.
If someone is a true alcoholic the disease will continue to progress wether they drink or not. I can tell you story after story of guys and gals who were clean anywhere from 10 to 25 years. Decided to have a drink and were dead from drinking in less than 30 days. I was a heavy drinker for at least 20 years but not a true alcoholic even though I could pass the test to qualify with flying colors. I now have an occassional drink. My girfriend is hardcore and if she takes a drink she is gone for two weeks and will usually end up in a hospital or jail. Nothing to play with.
I was thinking about starting a similar thread. Obviously if someone is a chronic over-eater, the solution is not to abstain from food forever. Does my analogy break down somewhere? Is it somehow better, “just in case” that a problem drinker never drink again or is there some science behind the fact that some people can have a couple of drinks and be fine, but others will always want to drink until they pass out, miss work, and get divorces?
I agree with the other posters that you run into a True Scotsman problem in that alcoholic is often defined as someone who cannot successfully moderate their drinking. I don’t know of any studies, but I know anecdotally of plenty of people who were problem, binge, or situational/contextual drinkers who successfully managed to either consciously moderate their drinking, or just moved on from that phase naturally. In either case, though, I think it’s easier just to either quit entirely, or change their drinking habits to incorporate some very simple to follow rule such as “only drink socially” or “only drink what is offered” - rather than try to moderate overall amount of drinking in a general way or using a method that requires too much thinking.
I agree with the others that there is a definition issue. ‘Alcoholism’ is a pretty large umbrella term covering people with a wide range of drinking habits. There is a big difference between eating to excess and alcoholism however. The latter distorts your normal judgement by design so any pre-made plans about when to stop get thrown out the window once the judgement is gone and the brain reward circuits are screaming for more.
It isn’t a terrible analogy however. Some people just eat too much, too often and wind up overweight. They can do better by moderating their eating. Others are binge eaters who might be triggered to eat 4 full boxes of cookies the second they pick up the first one. The latter probably have a lot in common with some types of alcoholics and have to go through extreme behavior and environment modification in order to arrest the problem. A large percentage of that group fail at that and can die an early death from it just like alcoholics do.
I can only speak for myself, but I tried, and failed. I quit drinking for three years, then tried drinking non-alcoholic beer. That led me to try drinking real beer in moderation, which led to four more years of alcohol abuse. I finally quit again, and have been sober for fifteen years, this October 16th.
I am convinced my brain is different from those who are not alcoholics. Leo McGarry said it best on The West Wing:
Right, but it’s not an option to tell the latter group to never eat again.
Let me rephrase my point: Imagine a world where food was only a luxury; it is not necessary to survive.
Would we tell all overweight people to never touch another morsel of food, or would we tell them to cut back? Or would some overweight (or binge eaters) be able to handle food in moderation, but others would need to abstain entirely?
Alcoholism (whatever it means) took my Dad’s life at 58. I don’t want to go down that road. Should I never touch a drop “just in case,” should I monitor for a problem, and then stop immediately, or if I see a problem, can I moderate.
Or does it depend on my own personal genetic or behavioral issue (potentially) with alcohol?
IOW, what in the hell is it? Behavioral, genetic, problem drinker, drunk, party boy, or do we all have to define our own life in circumstances that are undefinable?
Does my analogy break down somewhere? Is it somehow better, “just in case” that a problem drinker never drink again or is there some science behind the fact that some people can have a couple of drinks and be fine, but others will always want to drink until they pass out, miss work, and get divorces?