[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Well, these questions get to those details that are so tough to flesh out in a message board. Different people drink different amounts in different situations. And I agree, good friends and family generally should agree to inconvenience themselves to help one another. So a lot has to do with this particular group’s dynamics and history.
One of my buddies is having a big rib cookout down by the lake this weekend for like the 15th year in a row. Every year they have had a keg, and every year folks who chose to smoke pot did so (tho generally discretely as more and more folks began bringing kids.) No reason for me to expect these folks to change their practices, simply because I changed my habits.
Similarly, I know another group who goes on a yearly camping/rafting trip. As I understand it, they get pretty ripped. If one member chooses to stop indulging, I see his best options are pretty much to deal with it or not go.
Re: the “societal obligation” and default assumption, I think the obligation is personal between the individuals or among the small group/society. And I generally feel the greater obligation lies with the individual who made the change such that he is acting differnetly than the group historically has. If I decide to become vegetarian or Jewish, it would take a lot of nerve for me to show up at this weekend’s ribfest and start complaining that they didn’t have anything I could eat.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, sure, but this case we have eight adults and three kids - probably not the annual “lets go out in the woods and get lit” campout. Bailey’s family is “bringing along” a friend - which I’m taking to mean that the friend insisting on the alcohol is more a tag along rather than part of the core group of campers. There isn’t anything about this particular campout that’s making me think that its an event that has alcohol as a core component - the other six adults don’t seem to think its a big deal one way or the other - or that Bailey’s friend is in a position to demand that alcohol is a core component.
My bookclub gets together and drinks wine. If I decide to stop drinking I probably would excuse myself from bookclub for a while. I’d be pleased with my friends if they said “we don’t need the wine, we’d rather have you” but it wouldn’t be something I’d insist on. And if one of our other members had a drinking problem, I’d suggest we switch to tea. But most of us have been part of the group for over ten years. If someone new to the group (or periphrial to the group) showed up at the next meeting and insisted we not drink, I’d have a problem with that. Likewise, if we dropped the wine for someone and someone new came along and insisted we drink, I’d have a problem with that too.
I think what gets me is Bailey’s friends’s sense of entitlement - or the sense of entitlement I read. She has every right to drink, but she really shouldn’t be insisting on changing the dynamics of the group - any more than the guy in recovery should. And if the way the group works needs to change, it should either change to the person with the greatest need (in this case the alcoholic) or the person more central to the group (which I’m reading to be someone other than her).
Once in a while we get a newbie on this board who makes a big post in the pit about how we should all change. Naw, we shouldn’t - we like the way we are. Not for some guy who showed up yesterday. Once in a while we get a member of the community who needs a little extra TLC in how we treat them - and - not all of us - but most of us adapt. We don’t poke so hard, we give a little extra consideration.