denny57

I usually don't like to get into semantic arguments, but IMO there is a difference between problem drinkers and someone who is alcoholic. Minnie - is this a statistic for one, the other, or both?

Thanks.

minnie

Alcoholic is not actually a term I am comfortable with using, Denny. I am happier with alcohol abuse/dependency definitions. I shall dig out the stats tomorrow.

DesertEyes

Yeah I wasn't clear at all in my post. I was trying to answer the general question of the thread, and I fouled that up by quoting you specifically. My apologies.

Let's see if I can address this without fouling it up again

My point is that "on their own" is a very broad phrase. I prefer to be more specific. I don't see that a person becomes aware of their drinking being a problem (however you wish to define "problem") unless some _other_ person brings it to their attention. At that point I consider the beginning of that recovery to _not_ be "on their own".

In addition, once recovery is started there is going to be a great deal of hardship to overcome, whether it be withdrawal, psychological addiction or whatever. In order to overcome that hardship the recovering person is going to make use of outside sources of some kind, whether it be therapy, medicine, religion, family or even some form of technical or inspirational literature. To me that is not "on their own", but using the power of other people, however indirectly, to assist in recovery.

You are quite correct. What I have learned is that the answer to that question is found in the concept of "boundaries". If a person's behavior oversteps my boundaries then it does not matter to my _why_ they overstep the boundary. If I focus on the drug of choice, or the number of meetings, or the program or lack thereof then I am failing to maintain _my_ recovery by failing to protect my boundaries. Any time I get hung up on whether my loved one does, or does not, do _anything_ then I am actively in my own "disease of co-dependency".

I think you and I agree on this issue, we just approach it from opposite sides.

Mike
p.s. sorry for the confusion

minnie

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...-000003&page=1

denny57

Thanks, Minnie. I have to admit to an extreme dislike of Stanton Peele (and yes,
Five, I've read his entire site and some of his books). He doesn't believe in addiction in a physiological way at all. I respect his opinion, but we part company there. I know a lot of people don't like the term alcoholic; but to me it's like calling someone who is diabetic a sugar abuser. I try not to use it as a label as in "an alcoholic." But I do believe it is a disease.

JMHO, as always.

DesertEyes

I respect Mr. Peele's opinion, as I respect any human beings opinions, but I find that he is taking an extreme position in order to support those opinions.

Including Vietnam Vets, and the horrors they were exposed to, in the same basket as people who have a lack of impulse control when in the presence of sugar is a great diservice to both groups.

All the formal recovery programs recognize the difference between the phsyical dependency caused by a chemical and the emotional addiction caused by myriads of other factors. All biological forms of life develop a dependency to certain chemicals, suffer withdrawls, and may die if the dependency is severe enough. For details see

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/

There is a wide gulf between the "problem drinker" and the "homeless wino" in terms of chemical dependency, cognitive damage and available resources. Yet another chasm between the brain damage of alcohol and the absence of brain damage among nicotine addicts. Mr. Peele's position that all these issues can be lumped into one solution is naive and simplistic.

My position is that to the spouse of an alcoholic, to the abused children, it does not matter in the slightest what recovery program the alcholic uses, or what word is used to categorize the abuser, or whether they are a Vietnam Vet or a Minister of the church. To the people who suffer, such as those on this forum, the only thing that matters is that they stop.

This is why the 12 step programs of recovery, and the family programs in particular, do _not_ define "alcoholism" or "addiction" in any way. They focus on the _behavior_, they focus on how each one of us can establish "boundaries" to protect ourselves from _any_ harmful behavior regardless of it's cause or definition.

If I try to define the difference between "problem drinker" and "wino" and "alcoholic" then I am completely missing the point of recovery. Those definitions are for the scientists in the laboratory. I am recovering from the damage that occured in my life as a result of allowing my wife's behavior to ravage our marriage. My focus must remain on how I protect myself from the damage she did, how to prevent getting into another harmful relationship, and how to continue living a life that is happy, joyous and free. Anything else is a "relapse" of _my_ disease.

Based on that my answer to the original question; "Is AA essential?" is that what is essential for "them" to recover is not going to do _me_ any good whatsoever. What is essential is that _I_ recover from my inability to maintain my "boundaries", because that is the only way that I will stop hurting. Once I can maintain my boundaries it won't matter at all what "they" do because I will protect myself from harm in an appropriate manner.

I know it's sounds trite, but the little Al-Anon slogan summarizes this concept nicely. "Keep the focus on me".

Mike

minnie

Denny, I simply dislike the word alcoholic because, to me, it is a simplification. Just as there is a distinction between Type I and Type II diabetes, so there is with problem drinking and this is now recognised clinically. I can understand why people need to define themselves or others as alcoholics, however I am yet to be convinced that it is in anyone's best interests. But, I have no problems with agreeing to disagree, I hope you know.

Mike, why have you referred me back to the organisation that carried out research referred to in the previous article? You have me puzzled there.

And I was pointing out that 12 Step meetings are not essential for that to happen, with research to back up that claim. And I hope that by illustrating this point, I may help to quell some anxiety in newcomers who are asking the same question. However, as you say, the focus on a loved ones "treatment" is unhelpful if I don't look at my own behaviour at the same time.

equus

Mike,

Can I tell you something just about me? I got quite ealy on that there were alternatives to AA, I didn't struggle with D's choice not to use AA but for a long time the lack of evidence of 'something' left me feeling a huge 'He should...'. You write confidently a whole list of things that could be that something but it's so broad in reality it becomes something you can't SEE somebody do. If you look at the question from the OP and think about why it was written both here and in other forums it tells you something - try to listen with your heart to the feeling because it's one I recognise well.

D didn't naturally seek help, he did so largely because I went with him which was acknowledged from the outset by those offering the help. That wasn't about his desire to quit, it was about who he is and how he does things, what he's learned is successful for him. For D to be put on the spot and asked to talk (even by the expectations of the situation) is uncomfortable, even just with me and that has an effect on him. I can observe he goes very quiet, I can hear what he's telling me that he can't think or remember - but I have to LISTEN not argue, accept not dispute and LEARN that just isn't his way.

While trying to deeply understand that for months I read about needing 'something'. On the few occasions he used a forum he used it very genuinely but found other posters stories upsetting, especially one that seemed to disappear - he gave it a good shot. When he told me it actually made not drinking harder I worried, thanks to our doctors firmness on a different subject I also left it alone - he wasn't drinking.

D was left in a void of 'outside' help - I worried. I've lost count of the 'musts' I've read here, lost count of the number of interpretations that backing away from help means something bad, I couldn't tell you how odd it is to read that someone has set a boundary of their partner attending AA for life.

I knew that people recovered alone - there's more than Stanton Peele reporting that, but I'm not going to get into that here because I'm writing about my FEELINGS.

So to get to the point, Mike, listen to me - you have no idea how overjoyed I've been when I've read success stories of people who got there alone (ie without outside help), that personal touch. It's hard to describe my feelings of being on the outside when I've read how AA or 'something' is essential. It's concerned me at every level when posters have confidently written to judge the S/O of another poster's motives based on the evidence of that spouse/friend etc wanting to do it alone.

We all need 'something' remove all the things you wrote in your very broad list and most human beings would go NUTS - that's why solitary confinement is a torture used across cultures. But in a world that does have some caring people, in an unisloated existance for some people it's about doing it their way, living life and moving on - withot continued 'outside' help, maybe without any at all.

D wouldn't be D if he was someone who went to AA - not because AA would morph him but because to be there he'd have to already be different. In my house, in my home, in my heart D has every right to be who he is as he is - I don't want him different and I get daily evidence that is quite possibly one of the MOST important parts of 'recovery'.

Mike, some people do it alone - not in solitary confinement but without structured continued help, sometimes without help at all.

minnie

Just so you know, Eq, the "something" I refer to includes what D has. Reasons for stopping. I was not simply referring to structured programmes, because I know from the experiences of people close to me that it is not necessary. Changes in thinking lead to changes in actions.

equus

I nicked the word 'something' because it got picked up on and saves a long list!! But it's good to know your definition and that is one I utterly agree with!

It's taken along time for it to truly sink in that I also can stand alone if needed. What I see must also change my behaviour, from someone living with a sword of damaclese (sp?) over their loved ones head, to someone confident that D is actually the best expert on D. We can talk to each other and share ideas, I can let him know he choices will be respected, I can make sure he's aware of alternatives should he CHOSE to take a different path. When he was really ill I could say with confidence you NEED to see a doctor and go from there. All of those things are ok in my belief but not to judge his actions by my preconceptions despite seeing that they are genuine and successful. In that case it's my preconceptions that need to be altered not his actions.

Like I said earlier it's a waste of a beautiful day to spend it worrying someone else's path doesn't match my expectations. Our way of life is my business, his way of getting there is his.

Jazzman

I don't fit into that paradigm Mike. In complete isolation, I did the awareness, acceptance, action and recovery thing along with all the hardships you mention above. Granted I recovered from a cocaine addiction and wasn't struggling with alcohol addiction but I still see a chemical dependency as just that. I can't speak for others but to answer the original question by confused jen, it's very much an individual thing.

This Sunday will be my one year anniversary of joining this forum and as a result of my very 1st thread I got the answer I came here for. The difference between one persons method as opposed to anothers method I believe is directly related to the amount of self esteem they started with. If you believe you can beat a chemical dependency then the less outside support you will need.

I also have to make the comment that I would not have made as much progress at fixing my broken picker issue without the suport I have come to enjoy here

(thanks for that and thanks for all the diverse opinions one can absorb around here)

Jazzman

That's why I have become comfortable with the term "chemically dependent". It covers everything in my mind, daily and/or binge use, alcohol, crack, meth, nicotine, caffeine, you name it, all drugs, all frequency and recency categories. In my mind it addresses the brains reaction to drug use and leaves the "problem" debate where it belongs, in it’s own category.

Humans have been self medicating ever since we found the first whacky root, (or what ever)

denny57

I see what you're saying. I'm pretty wedded to the disease concept. I can't lump it - to me it would be like saying breast cancer is the same as liver cancer or lung cancer.

All that debated - I don't believe AA is the only way for someone to find sobriety any more than I think Al-Anon is the answer for all co-dependents. However we get healthy works for me.

pmaslan

Denny your last sentence sums it up quite nicely for me...thank you.

Jazzman

LOL!! Why not cover all the controversial topics in one thread! What the hey, I'm game

I can reason that lung cancer is a possible consequence of nicotine abuse, that's easy for my brain to comprehend. But I didn't become addicted to cocaine because I suffered from any disease. I will concede that my self esteem was low enough to put my own health at risk with little regard to the consequences of cocaine abuse. (The why would you stick a fork in your eye if you valued yourself paradigm.)

I'm fortunate that my self esteem was not SO low that I couldn't recognize my behavior pattern as self destructive and effect a change in my life for the positive.

One can argue that diseased thinking can perpetuate self distructive behavior but in the case of chemical dependency it's thinking by a brian that is chemically altered by a substance.

DesertEyes

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I refer to the NIH and NIAAA because they have the most comprehensive website regarding the phsyiological aspects of addiction. I am not trying to prove or disprove anything, therefore I am not trying to provide any kind of evidence.
I agree completely with you on that.

----------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for taking the time to share with such feeling and depth. I have always found your posts to be inspiring and heart warming. I want to be very clear that I have the deepest respect for you and D and the admirable life you lead.

I think you and I are focusing on separate areas of "recovery" and that is why we are not communicating. I think we are also using different definitions for "outside help". Let me try to explain myself in a different way.

Alcohol used in excess causes physical damage to the body. Unlike nicotine, a person who stops excesive alcohol consumption runs the risk of fatal withdrawls. People who have become heavily dependent on alcohol can die from withdrawls. When family members arrive here on this site and ask if their loved one can quit alcohol without outside help it is important to inform them of the need for a medical consultation. Only a doctor in real life can examine the person and determine if there is a risk, particularly cardiac risk, for that individual person.

Once the medical issue is dealt with there is the next step in recovery from dependence on alcohol. This involves a huge amount of possible influences on the recovering person. Everything from work environments to home environment to emotional issues come to bear on the recovering person, and each person is going to be uniquely different. Because each person is different it is then necessary for each person to examine the resources available to them and put together what they need for their own specific needs.

The example you provide of D's approach is _exactly_ what I suggest. From what you have shared on this forum I conclude that D went to great effort to examine all the available options to him. It seems to me that he found the formal programs inadequate for his needs. What is important here is that in his examining of these options he was learning from _their_ experience. He noted what techniques had been tried by these groups and found that based on the results these groups obtained he would not obtain the benefits he required. I see his research as a clear example of using the experience of other people to help him determine what is useful or not useful to him. I see that research as a form of "outside help". I see his research and learning from the mistakes of others as a form of "something" that is a cornerstone of his own personal "recovery program".

In addition, it is also clear to me that he received extensive emotional support from a person with an exceptionsl amount of kindness, compassion and strength of purpose. That person is _you_. Not all of us "friends and family" have the depth of your spirit.

When family members arrive here on this site and ask if their loved one can quit alcohol without outside help I feel that they need to be introduced to all the resources available to them so that they can choose which resources are useful to them. To me that is _not_ "doing it alone". That is doing it by using the experience of countless others who have overcome similar challenges in the past.

There is a large number of people who are still active in their addiction, and the words "doing it alone" is a convenient excuse to do nothing at all.

Based on all of the above I suggest that the answer to "Can my loved one do it alone?" is "no". A loved one needs to see a physician to check their physical condition, and also needs to review the experience of countless others in order to determine for themselves what action they need to take in order to overcome the specific challenges they are facing.

My answer to the question "Can my loved one do it without meetings of AA" is based on my "no" answer to the broader question. "Your loved one needs _something_ other than complete isolation with which to support recovery from addiction. That _something_ has to be determined by the recovering person based on their own unique needs."

It is my understanding that D had a very impressive "something" in his own life. He had the benefit of all the research he did, and the support of a devoted partner.

I am including D's physician, research and your support as "outside help", whereas you do not. If that is the case, then I think we only disagree on a definition. If not, I still think you two guys are awesome and am honored to count you as friends.

whadya think?

------------------------------------------------------

Mike

denny57

Mike - you do a great disservice to a lot of people here with that statement.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Cynay

I dont know Denny...

I still learn from Equus about love, devotion etc....

Her depth far outweights mine only in that she has such a different perspective of it all.

denny57

I'm not arguing about what I learn from anyone here. I said Mike does a disservice to speak for others. It's fine if you want to say it. Don't say it for me. I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll leave it for another time.

equus

Help - this isn't about me!!