Old 09-30-2011, 07:52 AM
  # 383 (permalink)  
FT
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,677
You have a good point, let me think....

Originally Posted by freethinking View Post
But realistically, could you clarify how this would ever be an issue? In your example, it is highly unlikely a daily drinker would ever say "I was abstinent last night for 8 hours while i slept". In what scenario would it be an issue if someone claimed sobriety when they had not drank but did not have a "sober" mental construct?
There is a guy that comes on the substance abuse forum once in awhile that just upsets the hell out of everybody. He posts under the name of TheJuiceman, and I think some of you might find reading his threads to be interesting. I think he would like this thread, and next time he comes on I think I will tell him about it. He has a great attitude about quitting opiates -- he has beat it, he feels good about it, and he has moved on with his life. This seems to upset a lot of people who want him to label himself an addict and attend a recovery group for life. Most of those people expect him to show up at any second having relapsed, and I think there is some satisfaction is saying "I told you so". So far, he seems to be doing great. He doesn't have an alcohol problem, and so drinks once in awhile with his buddies, which also drives a lot of the other posters nuts.

To go back to the quote above, I think this guy is a good example of someone who has a "mental construct" of sobriety. (Let's pretend that's a useful term just for a moment.) No one is forcing him to be abstinent, he just is. I expect he'll succeed. If he picks up again, it will be a change in mental construct, he's just changed his mind, and I don't know if I'd even term it a relapse unless he longs to quit again and can't.

That's where I hadn't considered the idea of addiction as being relevant to the desire to quit. I'd always considered chronic alcohol and drug abusers to be addicts. So, if they really don't care about quitting, then they aren't addicted? That's a real bone of contention, because a third party would have a hard time viewing that way, especially if said third party wanted the person to quit.

So I guess the point is that recovery is a "first person" concept (or mental construct) first and foremost. The non-alcoholic alcohol drinker is just somebody that drinks but has no plans to quit. (Some may consider that an oxymoron.) Their level of drinking may be considered by some to be excessive whether or not it really is, and to others just their preference level. The non-alcoholic drinker is not "abstinent" in any sense of the word between drinks, because abstinent implies intent.

So, I suppose there lies my answer to the above question, "In what scenario would it be an issue if someone claimed sobriety when they had not drank but did not have a "sober" mental construct?" I think it only becomes an issue when the question of one's "sobriety" is raised, often in a defensive posture. You'll sometimes hear this bantered about in arguments about who is a "real addict" and who is not. I am not sure in what club it became necessary to define who is a real addict or not, but personally I don't care for the label in any sense of the word.

For me, I don't much care what anyone thinks about my being a non-drinker and a non-opiate-user, except that maybe it becomes one of my "credentials" professionally. Of course, I have not put it on my CV. Ha!

Well enough. Anyone who has read me on the substance abuse forum knows I talk too much, and here I've done it again. I didn't even know the topic of AVRT was here until a few weeks ago, or I'd have been here sooner.

FT
FT is offline