Thanks for the link Andyh, that was a good TedTalk. My ideas of powerlessness and being unable to change kept me stuck for too long. I was able to quit cocaine and marijuana on my own, but alcohol was what I sought "treatment" for and it was the one I couldn't let go of, until I changed my thinking and beliefs about it with the tools of AVRT. But I bet if I'd had The Freedom Model at the time I quit, it would have helped in the same way. Even Jack Trimpey says that if we are adults and are free to continue using if we want to, but to make sure we really enjoy it and are prepared to live with the consequences associated with the high life.

This Christmas I ate a piece of Jamaican rum cake at work. I didn't even think about the fact that it had rum in it until I was a few bites in and wondered why I was getting so excited, then it hit me, "Oh no! I've ingested alcohol!" After that initial panic, I decided to relax and finish the cake. So what? It was delicious. It didn't send me into some kind of out of control spiral. I also once accidentally took a mouthful of my BF's dark ale, I thought it was root beer when I picked it up. It wasn't the end of the world. But my decision to never drink again is solid so I don't have to live my life in a state of fear of my environment, because I believe there's nothing to be afraid of. I'm in control of my actions, and I can somewhat direct my thoughts and choose which ones to nurture, or ignore, or believe in. It's true that we are what we think and that the stories we tell ourselves matter. Human beings are story tellers, it's how we learn and how we relate to ourselves and each other and our pasts. I can still learn new lessons from past events just by reframing the way I tell myself that story.

Actually I would go on to ask that question. I don't buy into the idea that anyone just wants to get sober for the sake of it. I think the underlying reason is always wanting to be happier, which means a lot of things of course including feeling less sick and in less pain, and it is for the sake of this they we want to get sober.

So I don't think it's a circular argument at all, but an explanatory one. IMO of course.

I had an interesting experience of another type of ‘craving’. I devolved into an all day, daily, drinker, with a physical dependance and consequent risk of withdrawal complications. Whilst attempting damage risk limitation, I was following a taper schedule. I’d tried and failed to taper for years, but I refused to seek medical assistance, because I didn’t want an addiction entry in my records.

I used beer, I would wait until my hands began to shake due to withdrawal and only then, drink a can. It was summer and I sat outside, in my usual drinking seat, stream tinkling, birds singing, all learned connections to drink, while I read the Rational Recovery Book, with the beer can chilling in the water, ready for my next ‘withdrawal dose’.

My hands began to shake increasingly, so I opened the can and decided to delay drinking it awhile. Unexpectedly, my hands stopped shaking before I’d even sipped the beer!

My withdrawal symptom subsided at the mere anticipation of alcohol. The brain is so powerful. This is why I appreciate Steven’s Freedom Model, because it educates and empowers the mind, in such a way that the brain can be harnessed and directed in a beneficial way: instead of fearing, fighting and subduing the brain.

I definitely think it's a matter of knowing myself well. I chose abstinence because I had accrued enough data to know that I was not able to moderate my use of alcohol.

The second statement is where I'm like...hmmmmm. We know that alcohol and other substances act on the brain. They can lower inhibitions. So even with the best intentions of moderating, once I've had a drink it is certainly easier to have another. Do you think it is possible for everyone to consistently make responsible choices about how much they intend on drinking once they're drinking? and if they cannot, does that mean it's because they "don't really want to moderate"?

I def don't think a "loss of control" occurs every time someone with a current or past addiction uses. I do think that "loss of control" is certainly a possibility though. Any time any person uses a substance, some amount of control is relinquished. That's evidenced by research done on physical reaction times of ppl who have ingested even moderate amounts of alcohol. I mean there is no denying the brain is in an altered state. Even "a little" altered can lead to one making different decisions they would otherwise make with zero substances acting on their brain.

These are difficult question but yes, I do think this is possible. So, to your second question, I think it's not that they cannot but that they don't want to make the responsible choices if they don't really want to moderate.

I think if something is able to cause a loss of control then must always cause a loss of control; it wouldn't be able to do this some times and not others. If it could, what would be the explanation for the times when you kept self-control? It must be that you ultimately had the last say on what you decided to do, and if you were able to override the effects of drinking on one occasion then you would always be able to do it. I think it is very much like this: if all engines of a plane failed then the plane goes into free-fall and the pilot, clearly, has loss of control.And this will happen every time all engines fail.

I agree that alcohol and drugs affect the brain and alter our consciousness. This is a philosophical question but I believe that our consciousness is still more than just our brain states and while the brain can affect our consciousness it does not fully determine it: we can still decide on how we act on our thoughts and feelings. If we have a drink for example this may cause a thought and urge to have another but it cannot make us decide to actually do so.

I have to admit I've only skimmed some of the material and even less of the discussion, but a few thoughts came to me. First, I'm a bit of a dialectical thinker, and those who remember me know I'm not much of an either/or, right/wrong, my way/your way kind of guy. So, that said:

I agree that using is a choice, even for the so-called addict.

I agree and disagree about the disease model. If it is a disease, neuroplasticity tells us it can be healed, or at least sustained and repeated redirection away from formerly dysfunctional behavior can create new neural pathways and weaken the old.

There is evidence that certain medications like methodone and suboxone can help keep people alive. I'm just not a fan of the idea, and I think the sooner we stop messing with our neurotransmitters the better.

Which brings up the whole area of co-occurring disorders. A large percentage of people who have substance use problems have substance use problems largely because they started self-medicating for anxiety, depression, or other symptoms. Stopping substances doesn't cure the underlying problem, but it sets the stage for addressing them effectively through exercise, diet, self-help, mindfulness, and if necessary, therapy and even medication. It's not all that helpful to tell people that if they just choose to stop drinking or using they'll be fine or "free."

I, too, bristle at "recovery culture," and I no longer tell people I'm in recovery. I simply do not drink or use other drugs. The thought of a lifetime of AA or NA meetings makes me want to drive an ice pick through my head.

And "loss of control" is relative. I quit before hitting bottom, as they say, and though a few drinks often snowballed, that never happened if I had to work in the morning.

One way or another, we do ourselves a favor if we can find ways to get past our past. For me, substances served a purpose. They were a solution that became problematic. They were a source of much fun and much misery. I have no desire to go backwards.

I went to a bar on St. Patrick's Day to see a band. Great time. I could care less that people were drunk or sneaking vapes of THS. People were friendly and I was energized and loving the music. It took a few years, but that's where I am these days.

I used to frequent SR for the support. I needed it. I don't need it anymore. Once in a while I log on out of boredom, or to see if some of my old connections are still lurking. I owe a great debt of gratitude to the people who frequent this website. Some disappear because they're using, some maybe died, and some disappear because they're fine.

If you're not fine today, I hope you will be soon. Just choose not to use. And get some exercise!

I find the loss of control phenomenon to be more of a sliding scale kind of thing and the strength of the control to be inversely proportional to the level of inebriation.

well, driving on a well worn tire has the ability to cause a loss of control, but doesn't do so every time I drive the car. Only when it finally blows do I veer off the highway.

I believe that lowering inhibitions by using substances can most definitely alter our ability to make clear decisions.

Would you agree that there is an amount of substance that could alter one's decision making? If you agree that there is an amount, how can one know that amount?

No, I don't agree that. Suppose I had drunk 10 pints and ran out of beer. I felt consumed by a desire for more and so had to get my coat, find my wallet and walk to the local off-license to get some more. Do you believe that in all that process I had no control?

Imagine that the nearest beer was not in the off-license but right next to me. The answer you've just given would still apply here. If you don't think it does then why wouldn't it?

Clearly there is, it's really self-evident. If it were not true, we wouldn't have drunks continuing to drink to blackout, or doing ridiculous embarrassing things, we wouldn't have drunk drivers, we wouldn't have innumerable instances of domestic violence and fights involving drunk people, etc. I wouldn't use the words "lack of control", but clearly there is a reduction in control applied. "Inhibition of control caused by the degraded decision making abilities" is closer, I think. I can't imagine that anyone here hasn't experienced this first-hand.

isn't being consumed by a desire the same as being controlled by it? you clearly had control of yourself in the sense of being able to walk to the off-license & buy beer, but did you have the control to *not* go to the off-license?

No one ever held me down and poured alcohol down my gullet. The choice to drink was always mine. I control what I put in my body. Not some external power, not some beast construct. Just me.

Thanks to the authors of this book. I’ve enjoyed reading the two chapters that were linked. Their thoughts seem to mesh with my experience. I made the decisions that resulted in my drinking issues and I alone made the changes to free myself.

About moderation... just no. Not for me. I don’t drink. Ever.

So if I read you correctly, you are saying that my reasoning/ cognitive functioning/ faculties are operating at the exact same level after drinking 10 pints as they are when there is no alcohol present in my system.

Please expound. From what I'm gathering here from the conversation about the text, if you really want to moderate you can. You just have to really want to.

I really Don’t want to moderate. I really don’t want to drink any alcohol. So I don’t. I hope that is clear.

Could I moderate.? I don’t care one way or the other. I’ve had enough alcohol for one lifetime.

Yes, of course it's clear. I don't drink ever either, ru.

My question was really more to tease out this notion presented earlier in the thread that moderate drinking is achievable in the exact same way that abstinence is. I absolutely can decide to never drink again. I don't see that as exactly the same kind of decision making as "I can absolutely decide to have only 2 drinks", because once I've introduced a substance into my brain, my functioning is affected.

I don't care either way, since I'm a non drinker it's really moot, innit? I was just discussing it since it's a point I take issue with...and this is...um like a discussion thread. so yeah.

I wasn’t trying to be snippy. Just typing on a phone sometimes results in curt responses ...

I like discussions. I do know that in the past I often drank more than was good for me. And often more than I intended to drink. So for me, I just don’t play the moderation game. I like being a non-drinker. I like being the sober person at the party.

I know I really, really, really wanted to, but in the process of coming to the understanding that I couldn't ever do it, I racked up the worst consequences of my drinking career. ;) And I tried, oh I tried.

I remember a counselor telling me once, "Ohhhhh.... You're a doctor? That's bad, you are gonna have a REAL hard time quitting", and it took me 4 more months of drinking to understand what she meant, but it was that you can't fight an irrational illogical process (addiction) with logic and reason, not past some fuzzy point in the progression when your brain isn't working right anymore. You just have to toss the twisted "logic" out the window and stop, or you'll keep spiraling down the drain, and that realization was a critical milestone for me even if it came 4 months later than it might have.

That's what concerns me about this model, the notion that you can either quit or learn to moderate, if you want to. I've actually never met anyone who was an addict and learned to moderate, I'm sure those people do exist but they must be rare. Just about all other approaches to ending drinking problems (MM excepted), no matter what they disagree on, do agree on the same central goal: Permanent abstinence.

Just a general point. This is an interesting discussion but I wonder if we should try to make it clearer in our posts what aspect of the Freedom Model it is that we are discussing? This would hopefully help anyone reading the thread to have a better understanding of what the model says.

I realise I should have been clearer in my posts about this so that someone reading them is clearer about what the Freedom Model says or at least my interpretation of what it says.

From my understanding, the authors are using scientific data from massive studies that showed that many people who had substance abuse problems solved their problems and are now moderate users. I'm not defending moderation, I don't think moderation is for me, but I never wanted to use moderately, I always used for the high and the higher the better. I don't think they are promoting moderation either, just like they aren't pressuring people to quit, they are presenting information and challenging the recovery industries messages about addiction, and then leaving the decision up to the reader as to what they want to do about their substance abuse issue.

The difficulty I perceive in this discussion (which I appreciate) is that people are second guessing, based on their reading of the excerpts and not the whole book. Having (almost) read the book (because I was reading the myriad cited links concurrently) the issue of moderation, upon which you’re all focusing, is dealt with sensitively and not recommended, nor promoted.

Having stopped drinking, forever, via, RR/AVRT, I believe I would’ve achieved the same goal, with this Freedom Model.

Yes, that is the difficulty. This thread can help us learn about the Freedom Model from it but the trouble is it's new to all of us!

Of course we now have Steven's offer to ask any questions we might have and that's obviously a great way to learn about the model.

Here's question I'd like to ask Steven: if you have a friend who's not happy with their level of substance use and asks you how the Freedom Model can help them and what is the best way they could approach it what would you say?

Of course, because we all dip in and out of this forum as and when we can and want to, please don't anyone feel they have to wait for an answer to this before posting anything that they would like to :)

ok, so here's my question again. AlericB and Steven, do you believe that my level of functioning and decision making is the same after 10 pints as it is with no pints?

Also would like to add that I'd love to read the book for purposes of discussion, except that I don't want to drop the $30 for it. I stopped drinking forever 11 years ago, so I'm cheap now in terms of material related to addiction. I'll just have to go by what the author posts here.

Although not addressed to me, IMO, 10 pints wouldn’t be moderating and afterwards, the pre-frontal cortex, executive functioning etc., would certainly be affected and less effective at making or sticking to a decision.

I bought the Kindle version for less than £10, because my alcohol challenged relative, for discrete reasons, cannot use AVRT. Therefore I was researching another, non-program, non-religious, non-meeting, non-disease model, method; and discovered the Freedom Model.

I think soberlicious that the Positive Drive Principle (PDP) says that we will always choose to do that which we perceive will make us the happiest in that moment. If we've had 10 pints we're probably quite likely to feel that that means carrying on drinking, whereas if we haven't had a drink at all we may decide that we'd be happier not drinking even if just for that day.

Two different outcomes of course but both are the result of where we saw our happiness lie and so our capacity to choose is the same in both situations. It wasn't impaired by the 10 pints - we choose to carry on drinking because that was our preferred option at that time.

So your ability to make logical, rational, happiness-based decisions is the same, after 10 pints or 0 pints? A drunk chooses to beat his wife after 10 pints because, logically and rationally, he decides that that is what will make him happiest at the moment? I must be misunderstanding you, because that would make no sense.

.
A Female BAC Chart is linked below. This is a near & dear topic around MesaVille, since Missus Mesa partakes sometimes; albeit it at a greatly-reduced level now with GFs.

The reason so many States have the .04 BAC DWAI level is because it's known to be a point at which both Motor Skills and Judgement are impaired.

Note the 2 Drink intake Threshold for some Body Weights...
.
- Female BAC Chart -
.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm agreeing that you're very likely to make bad and irrational choices when you've had 10 pints. However it is still your choice no less than it was your choice if you are sober and make a healthier choice.

I'm saying that because of the PDP you always have the power of choice and will always choose to do whatever it is that you perceive as your happiest option. The fact that that option may be monumentally the wrong thing to do does mean that you do not think that it's a good idea at the time and that you are not choosing it.

That was in response to soberlicious saying: "Would you agree that there is an amount of substance that could alter one's decision making? If you agree that there is an amount, how can one know that amount?"

(sorry but I don't know how to reply with both those quotes showing up as quotes)

JeffreyAK's response assumes that people don't make bad/irrational/troubling/non-optimal choices while sober. There are people who choose to drive recklessly while sober. There are people who engage in violence while sober. There are people who do all sorts of awful things while stone cold sober.

Drunk drivers know they shouldn't drive, whether for the fact that their reaction times and sensory perception may be impaired, or the fact that they'll be dragged through hell if they get caught. But they say "screw it" and drive anyway. They rationalize how they'll get away with it, or how they'll do it safely because it's a short ride on an empty road, or whatever.

Considerably less drunk driving happens now than in the 80s when the big efforts against it started. It's down by something like 50%, even with lowered limits and dramatically increased enforcement (which should reveal more drunk drivers). Did 50% of drunk people stop having their *judgment* impaired by alcohol so that they can now choose to call a cab?

I'm highlighting the term judgment because I think we need to clarify what we mean by the term. Do substances impair our sensory input and processing of that input so that it's harder to judge when to hit the brakes or turn a steering wheel or speed up or slow down or whatever? Absolutely. And they can impair our abilities which might fall into a realm of judgment for all sorts of activities. I think "judgment" is often used to refer to the problems we have with physical activities while intoxicated. But the term "judgment" is also used to describe "moral" choices - whether or not to hit someone, cheat on a spouse, call the cocaine dealer, or even have another drink. I don't think it's right to conflate these two sorts of "judgment."

In The Freedom Model we discuss this conflation, to say that these "moral" choices aren't rocket science or even as tough as parallel parking. If you've agreed to monogamy, it takes no special level of cognitive functioning, -and in fact very little other than to just know that you yourself are in a monogamous relationship- to not cheat. There is no "judgment" involved in terms of some kind of tough logical reasoning, rigorous fact-gathering, and intense mental problem-solving process. We call these matters of judgment, but they aren't. You don't need to be Einstein, and in fact you can fall on the exact opposite end of the mental ability scale as Einstein and still not cheat on your spouse. It takes no "judgment," even thought the choice to cheat falls in the realm of choices we refer to as "poor judgment."

And I'd say the same about calling the coke dealer so you can keep the party going, or having the Nth drink that people always tell me they know will put them into a blackout before they take it.

Anyways, we often demonstrate "poor judgment" with or without substances. We needn't postulate pharmacologically "impaired (moral) judgment" to explain these choices. We also shouldn't conflate these types of choices with those that do take some lightning fast reasoning and fully engaged cognitive ability (like operating heavy machinery).

ETA: I will address the issue of "lowered inhibitions" a little later when I have some time. It is also covered in The Freedom Model.

I think this is getting a little off-topic. TFM doesn't promote heavy usage - it only suggests that moderate usage may be an option if you genuinely want to moderate, ie not just like the idea of moderation but really want to use heavily. I think, by definition, if you are moderating you are not sufficiently impaired that you're not able to make a choice that is informed by the impact that choice will have on your overall "happiness". YMMV.

I think TFM would work for me if I was to define "happiness" as a longer-term goal. having a drink right now would probably make me happy for 10 minutes, but over the longer term the downsides would outweigh that pleasure. thinking of "happiness" in terms of "utility", from Utilitarianism, which is defined as "pleasure or absence of pain, or as Aristotle's "eudaimonia", often translated as "happiness", but more correctly as "flourishing", would be more helpful for me.