I was talking with someone earlier today and they said that amount and time doesn’t matter when it comes to being an alcoholic…but rather consistency.
Example: If you have to drink every day, you’re an alcoholic. By the same token (they went on to say) if you feel you have to drink every weekend, you’re still an alcoholic (even if you don’t drink a drop all week long).
Here I thought alcoholism was mostly needing booze all of the time, in daily doses…but this person said “Nope, some people just drink every weekend, and if you feel like you HAVE to drink every weekend, that’s being an alcoholic too”.
So then I asked him “So you’re saying that if I had to have some booze (let’s say a beer or two), say, the 14 of EVERY month (March 14th, April 14th, May 14th, etc)—but never drank a drop any other day of the month, I’d be an alcoholic?”
His answer? “Yep, that’s what AA teaches.”
Really? :dubious: So an alcoholic doesn’t necessarily have to have booze all the time or every day? It’s more based on having to have it at certain times, even if those times are spaced very far apart?
There is no strict definition of alcoholism. It depends on who’s doing the defining. It depends on whether the definer wants to include someone or exclude them. My understanding (from having lived with an active alcoholic) is that it is someone who is dependent on alcohol in some way and to some degree. That’s a big wide open field, I know. And you’re right, it doesn’t have to be every day. Alcoholics who are quite dependent will deny it because, “I’ve never missed a day of work due to drinking.” Well, yeah, they only drink on weekends, or, like my exBF, only drink after work (6-18 beers in an evening). No doubt a discussion will follow, as the definition is not a straightforward thing.
This is an excellent sitewhere you can find out some definitions.
While I wouldn’t put a whole lot of faith on what AA considers being an alcoholic - “needing” something is a sign of addiction - and a pretty strong one. I’m not as familiar with alcoholism as I am - say opiate addiction, but if you actually felt you “needed” heroin once a week - then some would say you were an addict.
Most heroin addicts would not - as the physical withdrawal doesn’t last that long - and no one ever gave blowjobs behind a save-a-lot or robber liquor stores to support a heroin habit of once a week. Not cause it is much cheaper - it just doesn’t really happen that way.
I suspect the same thing might be said about alcoholics, but I don’t know.
Addiction & dependence - a fine line sometimes - and not everyone agrees on all definitions.
No, it isn’t true. Alcoholism is when you drink to the point you are harming your life, you want to stop, but you can’t. Having a ritual of two or three beers every Friday is not alcoholism, even if you get frustrated if you can’t have your Friday drinks for some reason.
This. You get the so-called “functional alcoholics” who manage to hold down a job and therefore think there’s no problem.
I have a brother-in-law who managed to fool us for quite a while. At family gatherings, wine drinking was a big deal, but he didn’t seem to drink to excess. That’s because when he wasn’t around other people, he’d drink lots of hard alcohol to seemingly make up for lost time, and managed to damned near kill his liver (alcoholic hepatitis) before age 40. (He got lucky and his liver managed to rebuild itself during a long ICU stay, followed by months in a physical rehab facility so he could walk again after the hospitalization. He’s still legally considered disabled due to lingering physical issues.) He could control himself around wine and family to only get tipsy like most of the rest of us, but chugged enough hard alcohol when no one was around to almost kill himself.
Similarly, if you get weekend binge drinkers who do stupid shit like driving drunk, blacking out, taking big chances, and continue even when they start seeing what terrible choices they’re making, I’d call that an addiction, since they choose to continue drinking in the face of all of the reasons not to.
I agree with this. Adding that if you can’t function without your 2-3 beers every Friday, then that’s probably a bad sign. If you’re just frustrated or bummed if you have to skip them, not a problem.
The line between WANT and NEED is fine and erratic though, no?
I have a glass or two of wine or a hard cider most evenings, but not always. I genuinely like the taste, and I guess I like the ritual, marking the end of my day. My husband doesn’t drink, and we both suffered from alcoholic parents, so he looks at me sometimes as though I’m going over the edge, but he’s never actually said anything.
I don’t actually like getting drunk or even buzzed, and there are nights when I just want tea or cocoa instead. But there are also times when I really want a beer or cider or some wine and for whatever reason I can’t have one. It does nag at me, but never so much that I would run to the store or sneak from someone’s stash. The want is still there, but I can usually stave it off with chocolate
Seriously, do I want one most nights? Yes. Do I NEED one, like can’t sleep-get bitchy need? No. And I don’t consider myself alcoholic. Am I wrong?
AA is based on a bunch of non-scientific maxims, beginning with the one that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic” and that any slightest pattern of dependence or habituation to alcohol means you’re an alcoholic. (Let’s not even get into the ‘dry drunk’ model, where victims don’t even need alcohol to be fallen brethren.) They also foster the belief that abstinence must be total and even the slightest drop of alcohol will send an “alcoholic” careening back to the gutter.
Blithering Depression-era nonsense, given the status of medical/scientific fact - untested and nearly untestable.
I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily true either. You could also just be irresponsible. In my younger days, and to a lesser extent today, I knew countless people who did shit like that on a regular basis. Clubs and college campuses are FULL of people doing those things. Most of them outgrow it.
This is how I have always understood alcoholism as well. The amounts, frequency, etc. of alcohol consumed are not determining factors of alcoholism. What are determining factors are the damage the drinking causes to the drinkers life, whether it be personal, professional, financial or whatever and the inability to stop what is causing that damage.
I guess it depends on how bad the stupid things are. Too many blackouts, destroyed friendships, a DUI citation, fender-bender from drunk driving, getting into fights or getting attacked? Then continuing to binge drink is showing a mindblowing level of irresponsibility and definitely pushing the boundary towards classifying you as an alcoholic.
AA has worked for millions of people, it’s strictly voluntary, and if it doesn’t work then they are free to walk away. I have never, ever seen a person forced to show up. Even the people “sentenced” to go to AA meetings have options to either go somewhere else or simply not show up.
Why so much vitriol for something that helps people?
True, the more you’re messing up your life and the longer it goes on, it’s more likely that you have a problem with alcohol specifically and not just a problem with responsibility. The people I know who are still doing these things a lot in their 30s, I would say most of them probably do have a problem.
“You can just violate the court order requiring you to attend” is not quite the same as “strictly voluntary”. I mean, it’s pretty much the opposite. And yes, there are other meetings people MIGHT be able to attend instead if it’s allowed and if they’re available, but the vast majority of meetings are AA.
It is the same thing. You are under no obligation to go to AA meetings. If it bothers you so much to go to a place where help is available for a problem you clearly have (otherwise the judge would not have sent you there), you are perfectly free to accept the jail term instead of participating in a diversionary program. Absolutely 100% voluntary. Not a single member of AA will call you and coerce you into coming.
I think the 12 step method has preventing addiction specialists from looking for other cures for the problem. The “great” Dr. Drew Pinsky, who I used to respect back in the old days, still uses this program. It was born in the 30s and based off of the spurious ‘science’ of the time and heavily involves faith.
The vitriol comes directly from the fact that science (medicine and psychology) seems to have turned it’s back on this problem and funnels everyone to god based 12 step programs.
PS - Arent you violating one of the 12 traditions right now?
It’s debatable that help is available at AA meetings, since there isn’t enough evidence to say it does help. It’s also debatable that a given person does actually have an addiction problem just because courts say so. Sending someone to AA can be pretty much just default.
And no, obviously AA members aren’t the ones requiring anyone to go. But if “hey, feel free to go to jail instead” means something is strictly voluntary then I guess all laws are voluntary.
So yes, according to the medical defintion (unless it has changed since then) the “have to” (“impaired control”) is considered a key bit even if it is episodic, as is “harming your life” (“continuing despite adverse consequences”).
Are there 12 step programs available for people who compulsively use the word “obligation”, despite demonstrating that they have no earthly idea what it means?
