Bubovski

One of the more troubling issues I encountered with A.A. was the teaching that alcoholics suffered from an allergy or mental disorder and were quite different from "normal" drinkers.
In the Big book it clearly states that there are those who can drink moderately, lightly or even heavily. The only proviso given here is that the heavy drinkers may die a few years earlier.
I see this division as a false dichotomy and the alleged allergy and mental status of the alcoholic probably exaggerated
Surely dying a few years earlier is not to be recommended and there is also the question of light drinkers later falling into alcoholism. Indeed, and rightly so, A.A speaks of the danger of the first drink.
In my view the notion that there are many people who can drink sensibly is a false one, and one that that can be tragically proven wrong over time.
The whole liquor industry of course relies on such and will continue to prosper, but let us all remain vigilant.

ManInTheArena

I don't go to A.A., so I'm really not familiar with their official stance on this topic. I do think that anyone can develop an alcohol dependence problem if they drink enough over a long enough period of time. It's an addictive substance - eventually it will catch up to you. I think that pace at which that happens can vary tremendously (and may even have some genetic properties), and some people can effectively be moderate drinkers their whole life.

I'm not sure if this is what you were contemplating, or if I'm misunderstanding your post. Regardless, hope you are having a good day!

BrianinLondon

Yes I think the big variable is how quickly it happens and genetic makeup I'd have to guess plays a part. I go to AA and love it but am of the same view as the OP about this being a false dichotomy. I would say that it's probably not that harmful in the grand scheme of things as anyone who gets around to actually reading the big book is probably well on the way to accepting they have a serious problem. I don't like to think of myself as different to anyone - although to the extent that I am "different", I do think that my ego is more active than many others and it can lead to undesirable behaviours or feeling the world is against me. It helps me to know that sometimes when I am really really addled, bothered, angry, upset that it is usually my ego doing a number on me, trying to protect me against a perceived threat that is greatly exaggerated in my mind - I can take a step back and forgive myself for the state I'm in and try not to compound things by doing or saying impulsive things by lashing out. But sorry, I am digressing here...

spen71

I’ve tried AA a few times. My biggest gripe with it is that they poo poo PAWS. It’s real and a big struggle

LazaB

@spen71 what do they say about PAWS ?

Free2bme888

I think drinking “responsibly” is as ludicrous as telling someone to do meth, heroine, or cigarettes “responsibly”.

When I quit smoking 35 years ago, I didn’t have a disease or allergy to nicotine. I was addicted to an addicting substance.

Very good insight, Bub.

Andante

AA doesn't have any official position on PAWS as far as I know, but some of its more fundamentalist factions may say that if you're not 100% "happy, joyous, and free" as a result of working the 12 Steps, then you're doing it wrong. They may view any lingering symptoms associated with past alcohol use simply as "untreated alcoholism." Fortunately, this sort of rigid thinking seems to be on the decline.

As for the OP's opinion, I have to say it does not resonate with my experience or observations at all. Plenty of people are able to drink in moderation, and alcoholism is about way more than just how much you drink.

BrianinLondon

Never once heard PAWS mentioned in a meeting. I've only ever heard the term on this forum in fact. Because the definition is so loose I guess and it's so hard to pin down what is actually going on as the truth is not even the doctors know - they have come up with a term to try to helpfully encapsulate a range of symptoms that recovering alcoholics in early recovery tend to report more frequently. As far as I'm aware it's not a formal medical diagnosis as such. That being said, it's a pretty good guess that your symptoms are related to your alcohol abuse. But I suppose in a way that's now irrelevant - it's what can you do going forward to manage the symptoms.

I guess the whole thing with AA is: the only thing we absolutely CAN do to impact our recovery positively is to change our attitude and outlook on life and practice acceptance not just where emotional and spiritual upset is concerned - but also physical. So, in a sense, physical stuff is outside of our scope to control except for the extent of medical treatment we can seek. It's obviously a lofty goal but it's a good goal. Bad **** isn't gonna stop happening to us, but how we view it and react to it we can change and improve. My experience is that most folk in AA are understanding and not too dictatorial about how you work the programme - the central tenets are there and discussed at length, but their application varies and that's fine too.

Bubovski

Yep! those addictions come in many forms along with the hype that often suggest that smart people can manage them.
Here in Australia we have "safe injecting rooms" said to save addicts lives....................
But does this simply lengthen the on going misery aspect?

Zencat

I think (don't know for sure) alcoholics consume like 80% of the booze and only make up 10% of the population. Plenty of room for light drinkers to be found in a larger percentage or the population.

I found this google
"To recap – the top ten percent of alcohol consumers in America consume 74 drinks a week, on average. The Washington Post breaks it down for us a little further. 74 alcohol drinks are equal to more than 4.5 750ml bottles of Jack Daniels (around $105), 18 bottles of wine (around $270) or three 24-can cases of beer (around $75). This is per week. Every seven days."
https://www.intoxalock.com/blog/post...hol-you-drink/

Zebra1275

Interesting data, Zencat.

74 drinks a week is about 10 per day, I didn't average that. My Friday and Saturday night average, maybe, but during the work week it was probably 3 or 4 drinks. Looking back, I wish I could say that my daily average was zero.

Bubovski

As I look to a totally sober 2024 and reviewing this thrad, I find Zencats post of great interest.
If we look at the cash nexus its really quite frigtening; not to mention the health and social issues.
There is also the issue of pubs oroviding free drink cards and other "comeons"
Many a trap for the unwary as I have discovered ad nauseum.

ThatWasTheOldMe

I certainly can't drink normally.
the stuff makes me mentally ill.

biminiblue

I think in 1939 when the AA literature was written there was a lot still unknown about alcoholism - heck, there's a lot still unknown today. I tend to agree with ManInTheArena from back in March. Drink enough, over time, get in trouble. Is there a genetic component? Probably. I know my entire mother's side of the family had anxiety and nervous or depressed personalities. They all had some kind of coping addiction. Only a few of us used alcohol, and it ramped up over the years for all of us who did.

My dad was definitely an alcoholic. He died at age 41 of a heart attack...I'm sure the drinking didn't help.

Outonthetiles

Looking back, I was an alcoholic from my first drink onward, but I didn't know it at the time. It took years, if not decades for my addiction to take hold, but once it did, it almost killed me.

Bunker

Thank you Zenkat. By far the majority of people I personally have come across use alcohol moderately and have done so their entire adult lives. It is not the product, it is the addict. Most people use sugar and starch moderately to avoid obesity. The problem is not with chocolate, it is with the person. I believe in owning my alcohol problem. It was always me. And how to deal with it will also be me.