awuh1

In AA, when people use the word recovered they are typically referring to having recovered from a "seemingly hopeless state of mind and body". They have gotten something back which had been lost.

When people refer to being in recovery they are typically referring to doing things which help prevent them from taking a first drink. It's the active part of the process.

In neither case do the words recovered or recovering refer to somehow regaining the ability to drink normally. People who have lost the ability to control their drinking don't get that ability back, even after very long periods of time without a drink.

blossom123

That's a hopeless prospect!

What does that even mean, "the ability to control one's drinking"?
Do people who "drink in moderation" have the "ability to control their drinking"?

D122y

I recovered physically for the most part...yay...

Mentally....much better....but still feel like I am walking a path next to a giant cliff....

The cliff is relapse...it is a threat....like North Korea.... like getting cancer....like getting in a car crash.....it will never go away...

Constant vigilance is how I have been rolling.

I feel like I stiff arm the crave at times. It is trying to tackle me.

The crave is tenacious....tiring....

But, not as tiring as being a drunk...that is for sure.

Proudly sober.

Fly N Buy

I am recovered from alcoholism but never cured. As long as I do not pick up the first drink life continues on a path sans insidious insanity.

Sobriety is not a struggle - recovery is a joy, today.

Glad you're here with us
Thanks for the post !

miamifella

Alcohol is not poison to everyone. Most people do drink moderately.

Claiming it is poison is like claiming water is poison because some people drown or eating is dangerous because some people become morbidly obese.

gettingsmarter

What ever you want to call it like to think of recovery as a state of trying to constantly improve my life. Not somthing I was willing to do before.

madgirl

I'm still definitely in the early days but maybe it's a bit like a bad breakup with a person in which you still had powerful feelings about them after your decision to part ways.

At first you obsess about the person and your relationship with them - and all the things which went wrong. You reminisce about good times spent with them, and the painful times which ultimately led to the demise of the relationship.

Eventually, with the passage of time and a policy of zero contact with them, you find that you think of them less and less. You truly move on.

The trick is to establish the policy of zero contact, because alcohol is a toxic relationship partner for us.

I don't think "recovered" means you can re-establish a relationship with alcohol. I think "recovered" means you're no longer obsessed about having the relationship with alcohol in the first place. I hope so, anyway.

Eagle108

Alcohol is poison to the alcoholic...just like peanuts and peanut products are poison to someone with a peanut allergy. They will never be cured of that allergy and should remain diligent about never exposing themselves to anything with peanuts in them...just like alcoholics must remain diligent about their sobriety. There is no cure and any thoughts of moderation or a "hiatus" period to get it "under control" should be removed...the only viable path forward is not too drink.

Mountainmanbob

That all sounds good Stevie and in theory should be true but, to state it in a way that all are recovered after Step 9 is a stretch. I have seen some who have completed their Steps and are still very sick and many will return to the drink.

So we could say many things here regarding my comment.
They didn't do the Steps right ?
They weren't ready and willing ?
The list goes on ????

Today I consider myself recovered unless I should take a drink.

I'm thinking hard regarding when I think that I switched my thinking
from being in recovery to being recovered ?
I'm just really not sure -- possibly at around 3 years sober ?
There is a reason for the 3 year mark.
That was the longest that I had been sober before this sober go round.

MB

freshstart57

I don't have an allergy. I don't have a disease. I simply don't drink. Ever.

I can drink, however, and I have three and a half decades of experience doing it alcoholically. But I have chosen to live my life differently.

Madgirl? That is exactly the way I see it too. I had this bad relationship, abusive, soul destroying, debilitating, but I ended it. It's over. And I would never ever go back. No matter what happens.

fini

What does that even mean, "the ability to control one's drinking"?

blossom,
good question for each of us to answer for ourselves.
what does it mean to/for you?
what is your own experience with attempts to control or moderately drink?

stargazer016

I think sometimes we can get lost in semantics.

My wife smoked cigarettes for years but quit 16 years ago. Is she considered a recovered nicotine addict or someone still in nicotine recovery? Or is she simply someone who is now a non smoker?

I drank daily for decades but haven't for a year. Am I a recovered alcoholic? Or am I in recovery? Or am I simply a non drinker? In any case, if I drank again, or my wife smoked a few cigs again, our addictive behaviors would return along with life changing ill effects. We both realize this and choose not to engage in these risky behaviors.

I know I can never drink again. I am happy with that decision and no longer wish to drink. Am I recovered?

In my view, I am not worried about what label is bestowed upon me. I am striving to live each day to the fullest and without my addiction dictating everything I do. I have rescued and recovered my life from the mess that it was, but I feel that I am on a lifetime recovery journey still.

oldsoul1122

For myself it's recovered from alcohol itself but not the ism. But I also need to be sure that I don't use the ism recovery as an excuse for bad behavior and from irresponsibility as in "don't expect too much from me.... I'm still sick."

soberaccountant

To everyone who has responded to this question, or continued to do so...I truly thank all of you. Being a part of this forum, I have learned so much and have been able to gain a better perspective on many things that trouble me.

Am I perfect? Far from, and I don't think any of us can claim this...but I have certainly made some progress, and I can only have an expectation of further progress.

There are many things I have been able to take from AA these past few months, many I leave at the door. I went to AA to discover if I really am an alcoholic or not. I am still trying to figure all of that out, but AA has certainly helped me to learn how to better manage my emotions. I am not perfect there either, but I take it one day at a time, one step at a time.

Again--thank you everyone.

awuh1

What I meant by "ability to control" ones drinking is to have the ability to set the limits of the drinking before it begins. Being able to say "I'll never have more than (at most) 3 (but preferably 2) small normal drinks, and then be able to do that consistently and without any discomfort for an extended period of time (years). In addition, be able to do this without fail,

That's controlled drinking, at least as I see it. If you have a 4th (or third) drink, on one single occasion in those years, then you have proved to yourself you cannot control your intake (at least all the time) and that it has the potential to control you, and the potential to put you in places you will wish you had never gone.

blossom123

This idealizes / idolizes those who can drink it "moderately"!

Also: So you're saying that some people have such cells and tissues in their bodies that aren't adversely affected by alcohol, while other people known as alcoholics have such cells and tissues in their bodies that are adversely affected by alcohol?

That some people can get brain damage etc. from drinking alcohol, and others don't?

If alcohol has the same damaging effect on different people's cells and tissues, then it's poison, and the answer for why some people can "drink moderately" lies in something else.


No. Your analogy does not hold.

Alcohol has a long-standing universal cultural history of being considered an intoxicant, while water and food don't.

There is some cultural variation as to what particular substances are considered intoxicating (e.g. some think that real tea and coffee are intoxicants and others don't think they are intoxicants).
But alcohol is generally considered an intoxicant.


- - -

That is has nothing to do with alcohol, but a lot of with how much and esp. how, in what manner one has internalized particular social norms (especially those concerning public self-image).

Some research in psychology shows that there are two ways to internalize something: by introjection or by identification. There is, however, a difference between people who have internalized something and those who have introjected it: those who identify with a particular belief or social norm feel empowered, feel normal; whereas those who introjected it, feel more helpless and depressed.

I couldn't find a conveniently available sociological or psychological study on this online, but I found some from the field of religiosity:
https://books.google.si/books?id=6LN...ligion&f=false

http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/S...nRigbyKing.pdf

I think similar applies to how people internalize beliefs, social norms even when they aren't specifically religious; such as beliefs and social norms about how a person must present themselves in public or what to think of oneself.

So, for example, a person can internalize the social norm"One must always be presentable" as an introjection or as an identification. If they identify with it, they feel empowered, feel good about it; if they introject it, they feel helpless about it. At first glance, externally, both people may appear the same (both always look presentable), but the former are happy about it and the latter aren't.

I think it's similar with our social norm "Drinking alcohol is normal and necessary." Those who identify with this norm are "able to drink moderately". Those who have introjected it, will have troubles.

blossom123

Can you say more about "the ability to set the limits of the drinking before it begins"?

How does one develop it?
Is it learned, or not?
Is it something that is either innate, or one doesn't have it?

awuh1

How does one develop it? You don't. You either have the ability or you don't IMO

Is it learned, or not? No, it's not learned, but the stuff will try it's best to make you believe otherwise.

Is it something that is either innate, or one doesn't have it? This is a complicated thing. Different people have differing biological makeups. I think some folks are (were) never able to process alcohol normally. I believe that most individuals who are unable to control their drinking have, at some point, lost the ability to process alcohol in a way that allows them to say "enough". Their biology might also be a factor, at least to some extent also.

blossom123

That is a horrible prospect! It's the new eugenics!
Since blatant classism, racism, sexism, and some other forms of social segregation and discrimination are not socially acceptable anymore, some people are resorting to more subtle forms of social segregation and discrimination ...


I say the "ability to drink moderately" is learned. Just because the people who seem to be able to drink moderately don't remember having learned it, doesn't mean it's not learned.

awuh1

I suspect that my opinion is difficult for you to accept because you wish to be able to (learn how to?) drink moderately.

Been there done that.

If my viewpoint is indicative of a new and socially accepted form of social segregation or discrimination then I'm proud to say that I'm doing it to myself.

Are you drinking right now blossom?