When I try to fit in or make others happy at my own expense, I am an alcoholic and addict feeding my need to fit in and feeding my need to feel good. When I live my life the way I want to, I feel better already and naturally make people happy and work towards feeling better without reckless mind altering stuff , it becomes a choice. And it becomes much easier to simply choose not to.

I'm only 41 days in and still think about drinking a lot. So yep. Still an alcoholic.

I am not an addict, nor an alcoholic...I'm just free as a bird. :dance4:

You're just "in denial." :)

Hmm... I guess I would probably call myself a recovering alcoholic, but I frankly don't care much for labels. My identity isn't wrapped up in my current or past use of alcohol, but it does provide a useful reference point for talking to others about my life experience.

I am a non-drinker, but only because I can't be a normal drinker.

A false choice has been stated here more than a couple of times. Some seem to think that we can be either 'alcoholics' or 'normal drinkers', but nothing else. I can't find the logic anywhere that says that these are the only selections possible.

I know a lot of people who have tried a beer or glass of wine, and find that they have a very low tolerance for it, and don't like it at all. Still others who have never had a drink and never will. They don't drink, so which of the above categories includes them?

I now put myself in that third category. I am not an 'alcoholic', but then again, I am not what most consider to be a 'normal drinker' either. I quit drinking, so that means I don't drink.

I don't see the logic either.

I am absolutely not a normal drinker, because I don't drink (the whole notion of being a normal drinker suggests that you DO drink). I am also not an alcoholic, because I don't drink.

Ditto. People answer this based on their own beliefs about addiction recovery as did I...it's just like religion and equally obnoxious. We all live in our own little worlds of beliefs that create our reality, that collide into each other on forums like these.

Naive to alcohol?
 

There is something called "opiate naive", and its corresponding term "alcohol naive". That term is used to describe someone who does not have a pre-existing tolerance to alcohol or opiates, and it is used to select out individuals, or select them in as the case may be, because the two different groups respond differently when alcohol or opiates are introduced in a study setting (or elsewhere, I might add).

I quit alcohol long ago. I quit opiates a year ago, after a 2 year hell ride surrounding orthopedic surgery.

Unfortunately, I will be forever be excluded from the category "alcohol-naive" or "opiate naive".

That means that if I ever expose myself to alcohol or opiates again, I will quickly build straight back up to my previous tolerance the those substances. It also works in cross addiction -- if I decide to try out a "new" drug (you pick), I will quickly build a tolerance to the new substance far more quickly than if I were not opiate or alcohol tolerant.

What does that mean in terms of whether I am an alcoholic or not? Well, it would be more dangerous for me to touch the stuff, in terms of the tendency to start the ball rolling to where I would not stop myself from becoming addicted again.

So, my answer to the question is:

Yes, I am alcohol tolerant, I am not alcohol-naive any longer. I have a "history" so to speak. But I don't walk around calling myself a "recovered alcoholic" or a "recovered opiate addict". To me, those are activist terms that I might use in an argument, but they don't define me in my day-to-day existence at all.

FT

I (me personally) am an alcoholic. I don't personally care to distinguish if I am a "recovering alcoholic" or a "recovered alcoholic". At this point in time, it's unimportant to me. What is important to me is that I do not drink. Based on my past actions, I am 100% positive that any attempt I might make in the future to deny my self-diagnosis as an alcoholic would be nothing more than an attempt to give myself license to drink alcohol again. I've fooled myself in this regard in the past. It sounds stupid to me, (how can I fool myself?) but that's the nature of my disease. I can't simply put that chapter of my life behind me and go forward as if it never occurred. For me, that would be foolish. If I don't make changes in my life, in my beliefs, in my thought process, I'll never make lasting changes in my actions and eventually, I will drink again.

I'm not adverse to using the term alcoholic or addict, but I'm not especially fond of it either. It depends on the circumstance for me. Like ejoshua said, it can be helpful in talking with others. I've had exchanges like this:
Them: Do you not drink because you're alcoholic? because sometimes I wonder about my drinking, like maybe I drink too much ya know?
Me: yes, I'm an alcoholic. What troubles you about your drinking?

So, even though I identify as a non-drinker, I may use the term alcoholic if someone is reaching out to me because that's not the appropriate time to go into a long-winded discussion about the semantics...it's just not. But I agree with OTT. I am not alcohol dependent (aka alcoholic) because I do not drink alcohol anymore. I often use the term addict in referring to myself though...
Them: Hey did you get those brown boots we saw the other day?
Me: YES! Got them in black too...and remember those red slingbacks?? UGH I'm such an addict!
;)

I will use the term under those circumstances, too, although I tend to use it in the past tense, as in "I overcame an addiction to alcohol" or "I used to be an alcoholic, but I quit drinking". Something like that, to let the person know that I understand, that I've been there. I see this as entirely different from permanent self-identification as an alcoholic.

I agree.
I think the problem some people have with this is that if I do not identify as an alcoholic, then (for them) it logically follows that I think I can safely drink again. That is not what it means.

A little OT but, there are other places where people take issue with the "ic" usage. Terms like autistic, dyslexic, etc. are not "person first language" and put the "disorder" above the "personhood" so to speak. That said, I am not a super stickler in that situation either because if I get too hung up on words, I miss the message/question/thought/chance for education in a conversation...if that makes any sense lol
But it's true this kind of self-identification can be very dangerous, or at best simply an excuse for unacceptable behavior, as in the case of my son.
"I can't practice my reading, mom, I'm dyslexic" Yeah, whatever...open the book and let's get going.

"you gotta serve somebody.
It may be the devil or it may be the lord;
But ya gotta serve somebody."

- bob dylan -

I'm an alcoholic
Je suis un alcoholique
Yo soy un alcohólico
Ana shareeb (arabic in english letters)


However you skin, or whatever language.....that's me!

I am and always will be an Alcoholic and addict. I will never be able to drink safely, nor can I socially shoot dope.

TB....I don't doubt you for a single moment. I would like to know, however, how you see etoh and dope with different eyes. Can you socially shoot etoh?in safety. Modifiers change meanings. I will never be able to safely put a mind or mood altering drug in my system. Period.

I know, I know, this sounds really nitpicky. But my e

While this is certainly true for me, being a little nitpicky I cannot allow any
mood altering substance into my body...regardless of how they get there.

And there may have been a time when I could/and did use & drink socially....those times are looooooooonnnngggggggg gone.

blessings
zb :scared:

Absolutely, I am the same.

What is etoh?