...but I believe control is necessary and appropriate when it is truly to keep an innocent human being from being killed and that is the motivation.
I struggled over this for years, and finally got to the point where my daughter's safety or that of the public was the arbiter of whether I attempted to control a situation around my wife's drunkenness or not. If it affected the safety of others and I could control it, I did. If it did not, I let it go and she played it out on her own (including when she was arrested and sent to jail).
It took me a long time to reach that decision, and it was my decision applied to me and my scenario. I respect you a great deal Lexiecat and if you or other folks don't see it this way, please know my intention here is not to argue, but to share some experience, strength, and hope. Not so he'll do it my way, but so he will take this information and do it
his way, whatever way that is.
Take care,
Cyranoak
Originally Posted by
LexieCat 
I don't agree with that. If you deny someone else access to what is theirs, that's a form of control.
If you can't bear to be a "party" to someone else's risky behavior (and I don't believe allowing them access to what's theirs is being a "party" to it), then you are better off removing yourself from their presence. If you can't simply detach, you remove yourself (or, if it's your home, insist that the other person leave).
There's a big difference, IMO, between protecting yourself and your loved ones and exerting economic control over the alcoholic "for her own good".