Ptcapote

Hey Guys, I was a little surprised when I read this in the New York Times editorial section this morning. I know this is not "new" reasoning but all I could think of was how very dangerous this could be to other women. Especially women like me who was looking for anything and anyone to tell me that I could be a "moderate drinker" again if I tried really hard.

Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/op...f=opinion&_r=0

jdooner

Interesting op-ed. Its just that an op-ed though. I can't worry about others, only myself. For me, I know I can never drink unless I want to deal with the consequences. I also don't understand who the heck would ever want to moderate. I like being the best at whatever I do, including drinking. Moderation seems like a half assed approach to drinking.

suki44883

I read that op-ed earlier and was just shaking my head the whole time. Best response, IMO, came from Dave in Portland.


This has to be one of the most misguided op-ed pieces I have ever read in the Times. The reason we are 'treating' alcoholism the same way since 1935 is simple--for tens of millions of men and women over the last 80 years, Alcoholics Anonymous has helped them stop drinking and never start again.

AA never purports to be the only way to treat alcoholism, or that everyone who comes to a meeting is an alcoholic. But a statement that "a systematic review found no conclusive evidence to show that A.A. can help patients to achieve abstinence" is insulting to the millions of us who have not only abstained from drinking but have learned to live a sober life.

This article doesn't even attempt to discuss the disease of alcoholism, it simply encourages "non-dependent" women to just reduce consumption. While that may work for a non-alcoholic who just finds themselves drinking more than they probably should, for a true alcoholic the idea they can control their drinking is just a destructive dream.

I find it shameful the Times editors are allowing Ms. Glaser to trash AA and blatantly peddle more of her books without even discussing the difference between casual over-consumption of alcohol and the ravaging affect real alcoholism has on millions of women and their families. AA is not the only answer, but since 1935 it has been the overwhelming favorite of doctors, psychologists, social workers, and judges for one simple reason--it works for those alcoholics who are willing to work it.

Jan. 2, 2014 at 7:07 a.m. You recommended this. 254

regeneration

I didn't drink that much compared to some alcoholics but in the piece it is saying stick to safe limits of 9 a week.... I mean c'mon, can you imagine trying to do that? That is why I stopped, I tried not drinking for a couple days here and there and it was mental torture.

The writer also talks about there being a push from 12 steps/AA to say we should aim for abstinence, that is incorrect as plenty of other alcohol programmes also promote abstinence (and I use one of them, SMART). I don't think the article makes sense.

readerbaby71

I don't really see her piece as "trashing AA". Not everyone who has had issues with drinking is an alcoholic. Moderation is possible for some. There are all kinds of options out there, and discussing them doesn't negate the benefits that some get from programs like AA. Recovery is not one-size-fits-all.

KateL

My gob is on the floor. I am not an AAer, but what a load of absolute drivel. AA has got nothing to do with the fact that we know we cannot have one, two or three. Ok maybe I have managed it in the past, but have just lay on the bed, staring at the ceiling, wanting more. It's torture and better not to have any at all. Did someone actually get paid to write that ***t?

endlesspatience

I am glad you posted that link. It is a very interesting piece and it has provoked some lively and stimulating debate in the comments beneath it. We're not the only forum on the internet to enjoy such input with a range of different perspectives!

One point early on in the piece struck me as particularly unbalanced. It associated AA with a "multi billion dollar treatment industry and popular culture."

As for popular culture, AA is most often lampooned in comedy and as anyone who's been associated with it well knows, it is widely misunderstood by those on the outside as a last resort for people who have lost everything.

Secondly, one of the really good things about AA is that it's extremely cheap because it's so amazingly efficiently organised. There is absolutely no profit motive and its lack of hierarchy means no one at the top is seeking influence or glory as a result. It is not supporting in any way a multibillion dollar industry and don't forget that it is a model that can work in any society, rich or poor.

There are many other points I could make about this piece but here's just one other. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that AA agreed to allow an outside organisation to monitor its success. Let's imagine, say, that a university team offered to do so.

Who would they ask? There's no chief executive or head office. There's no system in place for AA to make a collective decision about anything. That could be seen as a weakness as it might leave it resistant to scrutiny or development, as this article suggests.

I would say though that on the whole this is one of its strengths. It prevents any possibility of it being sidetracked by outside issues. And that leaves it in a far better position to offer help and support to alcoholics, which is its stated primary (and only) purpose.

alphaomega

In my opinion, if you can moderate succesfully and long term, you don't have a problem.
And who wants to moderate ? That's just straight up torture to an alcoholic

One sip, and I'm flipping on the b1tch switch and calling in the flying monkeys.

I've never failed at something so bad as I did at moderation.

jdooner

Never tried it...I just never saw the point. I Have tried to moderate other things to no avail. I think when you have to control a habit then it's become and addiction not a passion. It's stealing from you soul not enhancing it.

MeSoSober

And while it’s not healthy to pour yourself a third or fourth glass every night, it doesn’t mean you’re powerless to do anything about it.

Hahahaha -- a third or fourth glass? I'd barely be hitting my stride at that point.

I'm a binger -- my idea of "moderation" would be to only get blackout drunk a handful of times every year.

I would not presume to tell others what they are or not capable of in terms of moderation, but I tend to agree with alphaomega -- if you're able to moderate successfully long term, you probably never had a problem to start with. For me, to have to stop drinking right about the time I was feeling a nice buzz would SUCK. I'd rather have nothing at all. So I won't.

sugarbear1

AA is really extremely loosely organized. And somehow it still works well, in my opinion.

AA has no opinions on outside issues, including that of the article mentioned.

bigsombrero

"Gabrielle Glaser is the author, most recently, of “Her Best-Kept Secret: Why Women Drink — and How They Can Regain Control.” "

It's written by someone who is trying to sell a moderation book. Of course she's going to promote it. Why The Times allowed this piece of junk in their newspaper, on the other hand, is a puzzler. It shows that very few of their editors have a clue when it comes to the recovery community. This is nothing but wishful thinking, a lot like other self-help phenomena such as "The 4 Hour Work Week" (Tip #10: If you run out of money, just borrow some from your father's trust fund) but way more dangerous.

A black eye for The Times for sure. A lot of women who have been considering sobriety were just given hope by a credible source that they can keep drinking.

JustODAAT

I'm glad I didn't read that a year and a half ago when I committed to sobriety. I would have wasted many more years trying to moderate.

For me, moderation was just another way to have my life ruled by thoughts of alcohol. When I was drinking, I was consumed by thoughts of shame. When I was "moderating," I was consumed by anxiety about whether I was drinking too much, when I could "safely" drink more, blah blah blah blah blah.

It is only in sobriety that I have felt that my life wasn't ruled by alcohol.

Johnston

I moderated for about a year but the could no longer get a buzz after 2 beers. You know what happened next....

karate

ONE thing for sure if we don't drink ANY ,it impossible to drink too much .

We KNOW that works ,for damn sure .

LDT

I dont get it.....If the drug "blocks the reward produced by drinking" then what's the point really? Isn't that why we drank? To receive what we ( mistakenly ) thought was a reward? I didn't drink to NOT get a buzz. I drank with intention.

I also tried the Moderation Management Program.....FAIL.

nf1983

The article seems to suggest that AA dictates 'Cold Turkey' withdrawal (which we all know to be a very dangerous approach).

From my perspective, neither AA nor any other harm reduction organisation suggest "Cold Turkey" withdrawal from a state of alcohol dependency, as it would be potentially lethal.

Underlying conditions are a very strong likelyhood (IMHO), but dropping alcohol cold turkey...never.

silentrun

I like this point
“personal responsibility for choosing and maintaining their own path, whether moderation or abstinence
I choose abstinence. Not because of AA or some model. I just know once I start all I want is more. For people without a drinking problem moderation is effortless. If it gets someone to start thinking about their problem I guess it's good. At least do some harm reduction and not drive under the influence.
Besides if you have done any damage to your brain abstinence is the only way to repair.

EndGameNYC

Because it's controversial, because it gives "problem drinkers" of every stripe a "way out," and because it attracts eyeballs.

EndGameNYC

That's the exact process by which Naltrexone works. After repeated drinking sessions with no buzz, the drinker theoretically stops drinking, not getting the effect he or she wants.

They use the term 'pharmacological extinction' in the same way that behavioral psychologists use the term 'extinction' -- an indication that, since the stimulus (alcohol) gradually ceases to provide the desired "reward," the response (drinking) will then be "extinguished."