Okay, that title is a little facetious. But not entirely.
I just want to hear what people have to say about this question. That said, I’m pretty sure that tempers run high on this issue, so I’m starting it in the Pit rather than GD or IMHO.
The inspiration for this thread was in another thread where somebody mentioned in passing that they had blacked out from drinking a couple of times. Several people chimed in saying that this was a big danger sign, that the poster should stop drinking immediately, etc. That conversation didn’t get particularly, heated, nor did it tick me off so that I felt I had to go start a Pit thread because I was just SO indignant. But it did get me thinking…
I’ll get to the point. Why is being a drunk so much worse (if it is) than being something equally dangerous?
I know someone who almost died skateboarding. My cousin has almost died and was seriously, permanently injured due to his love of extreme adventure tourism. I know another guy who put himself in the hospital for 6 months in a snowboarding accident.
Now, if I came on this board and told you that I’d gotten so drunk I fell down the stairs and broke my leg, or that I’d drunk a whole bottle of vodka and went to the hospital with alcohol poisoning, I think a lot of people would say “Wow, that guy’s got a real problem; he should get himself into treatment pronto.” (Incidentally, I haven’t ever done either of those things myself.)
But if I said I’d broken my leg skiing, or that gotten malaria rafting down the Congo, you’d say that those things were unfortunate, and maybe even that I should be more careful. But most people wouldn’t judge me the way they would for drink-related accidents of comparable seriousness.
So, why is drinking to excess worse than having any other dangerous hobby? I’m not saying it isn’t, I just want to know why the general consensus seems to be that it is. It seems like 50 years ago, the travails of drinking were seen as just part of doing business. Old movies are full of people who are hung over, or who spend a night in jail, or have other booze-related problems that I can’t think of right now, and it’s presented as relatively normal. A guy who blew all his money on booze was no better or worse than one who blew all his money on expensive cars, and one who acted like an ass from drinking was no worse than one who acted like an ass because he stressed out too much over his job.
One caveat: in the interests of making this a more interesting philosophical debate, I’m taking drunk driving off the table. We’ll assume that our test subject doesn’t have a car and doesn’t drive.
So: Is someone whose drinking causes him injury or inconvenience more to be censured than someone who has a hobby that causes him a comparable amount of injury and inconvenience, but who doesn’t drink? And if so, why?