• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Stop drinking

sorry no humour in this post, I've asked myself more than half a dozen times if I can stop drinking.

I can. But I dont. I look forward to it, a lot, I enjoy it.

Very occasionally, (maybe once a year) I have a blow out and get very messy.
But on the whole it's just that, when i could have one, I have four. It doesn't go past that weekly, monthly, daily, but i can't do one
I got drunk on New Years Eve at the end of 1981, was hung over the next day and asked myself, "Is this improving my life in any way?" After five seconds of contemplation, I decided the answer was "no," and I stopped drinking entirely on January 1st, 1982. Since then, I had one beer in 1987 (still hated it), a shot of whiskey in 1993, and an accidental sip of wine on an airplane in about 2006. I don't miss it one bit. I like the idea that it's impossible for me to get a DUI.
 
Thanks folks, for such a rewarding read. Powerful stuff.

Many moons ago, an old friend from uni, a recovered alcoholic, a mature-age student who successfully navigated various degrees in Psychology - undergraduate and post-grad. - and did extraordinarily well throughout, talked often about the "disease" model, free-will, and the "abstinence violation effect." His approach was to take possession of the problem, throughout his own recovery and beyond, so he naturally aligned himself with the "free will" way of thinking. The difference, he said was that one hands responsibility to an externality, a higher power, while the other retains control - the onus being on you then to get beyond the problem.

Both can be equally effective. Mario just happened to see himself not as a diseased individual but as one normal person who'd gone off the rails. Life spits out some very challenging adventures sometimes - strategies for dealing with those (mis)adventures will sometimes bring us unstuck. Culture, just as much as genetics, can be seen to influence our behavior, be it good or ill. "Addiction doesn't necessarily mean we're diseased." I happen to agree with him, wholeheartedly. And I like the fact that we can go beyond our addictions by exercising our own free will. This 'free will' deal can be hugely important no matter what you believe, really.

The memory of Mario's struggle, and his education, is now my Jimminy Cricket, who has helped me through some challenging times and continues to ride with me. I don't know where he is today but Mario's genius for psychology, and what he taught me all those years ago, rides like a big chrome hood-ornament above the engine of my conscience and all I need to do is give a little whistle every now and again to bring it all back.

One final thought; Throughout this maize maze of alcohol induced adventuring, addiction has left its mark - indicating at least one way out of the maze. I saw a doco on the history of Whiskey some time ago. (Poteen or Poitín was in the title, I think) And in it, the point was well made, that the most insufferable addicts in this story actually turn out to be our governments. But it's not the grog they're addicted to. It's the excise that flows from it, and everything else, that they're hooked on - the scallywags.

Edit: This is that Poteen doco's opening, where you'll hear the narrator mention that on Christmas Day, 1661, the Irish began their illicit distillation of whiskey - the British Government introduced an excise on alcohol on that day in 1661 and very soon the tax was introduced into Ireland.



 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JMacBass65
You are aware that there's a fairly large portion of the medical community who don't agree that alcoholism is a disease, don't you?
Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this statement. It's not a 'large portion' and much of it isn't even from the medical community.

I think I'll follow the AMA, which declared it a disease in 1956 and the Mayo Clinic, which considers it a disease.
 
...One thing that happens to me is that booze winds me up. I suppose it gets my adrenaline going. It keeps me up at night. Instead of passing out, I'll just keep drinking. It's an awful way to live, in my opinion. My body is still recovering from the stress I put it through in the last year and a half.

THIS is usually the one good indicator to determine if a substance has potential to be a problem somewhere down the line in your life. Alcohol (like opiates) is a central nervous system depressant, so should not get you more jazzed up the more you drink. I hear people say they had to stop taking their doctor prescribed pain pills because it "knocks them out" and they "can't function." Yet others get energy and very easily get hooked on them.

It's all perspective ... I don't think people who smoke 4 cigarettes a day have a bad addiction to nicotine because I smoke a pack+ a day. But if they CAN'T NOT smoke those 4 ciggs a day, they still have an addiction. period. I wish I could just smoke 4 ciggs a day, but because I can't doesn't make their addiction to nicotine any less so.
 
Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this statement. It's not a 'large portion' and much of it isn't even from the medical community.

I think I'll follow the AMA, which declared it a disease in 1956 and the Mayo Clinic, which considers it a disease.

I have to agree. Just because scientists can't isolate the addictive gene under a microscope (just yet), addiction is very much a disease in the way that once you've caught it, you need to monitor it and treat it or suffer the ill effects from it.
 
I have to agree. Just because scientists can't isolate the addictive gene under a microscope (just yet), addiction is very much a disease in the way that once you've caught it, you need to monitor it and treat it or suffer the ill effects from it.
+1

I also believe that you have an obligation to seek treatment, just like any other disease. Just because you are an alcoholic, it doesn't mean you can give up and blame everything on the disease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: catcauphonic
+1

I also believe that you have an obligation to seek treatment, just like any other disease. Just because you are an alcoholic, it doesn't mean you can give up and blame everything on the disease.
Exactly. It may not be your fault to be prone to it, but once you know you have it you're responsible for treating it
 
FWIW

As an agnostic who has attended thousands of AA meetings and has known a handful of full-on atheists who have gotten sober through the use of AA's principles, it's not all about the G word. It took walking out of the first dozen meetings I attended (after hearing the G word) and becoming desperate enough to try ANYTHING to stop to finally get past my closed mindedness and stick it out.

There are other ways for those who really can't get over themselves enough to to give in, like Smart Recovery.

I'd still be attending meetings to this day if they'd change their attitudes about marijuana and other regularly prescribed drugs. One thing I miss the most is walking with men through the process and seeing the change in them happen.
 
That if the cure for a disease is God, than it's not really a disease.

I think you are taking a far too simplistic view of the AA 12 steps.

You can think what you like, but as someone who has been involved with recovering alcoholics, on a deeply personal level, since the age of 14 (I am 50), I think I might have some insight that you are lacking.

To sum up the AA "cure" as God misses a great deal of what an alcoholic in the program really needs to do to stay sober.

If the answer was simply "God", why don't they all just go to church? The answer - Because it ain't that simple.
 
FWIW

As an agnostic who has attended thousands of AA meetings and has known a handful of full-on atheists who have gotten sober through the use of AA's principles, it's not all about the G word. It took walking out of the first dozen meetings I attended (after hearing the G word) and becoming desperate enough to try ANYTHING to stop to finally get past my closed mindedness and stick it out.

Makes my point far better than I did.
 
In general, anyone who feels that they 'need' to control their drinking has a problem. 'Normal' people generally don't even need to think about 'control.' While I drank my fair share when I was younger, I am not an alcoholic. So, my pre-frontal cortex doesn't tell me to keep going after 2 glasses of wine (my limit). AA has a pamphlet, I think it is called 'Am I an Alcoholic?' Google it and answer the questions honestly as possible. As for Alcoholism being a 'disease,' I'd say the label is largely irrelevant, as is the aetiology. The only relevant issues, as I stated above, are social and health issues. If alcohol consumption impacts one or the other, or both, then perhaps you need to look at it more seriously.
 
Interesting article I read recently: The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous - The Atlantic
This stirred up quite the hornet's nest when I shared with friends, some of whom are involved with 12-step programs. I think the point is that one size does not fit all, and that the medical model of treatment (or spiritual/medical hybrids) can be a valid option for some. Whatever method for recovery you choose, you have to work the method to get results.

To get to the OP's original post: Doesn't seem all that bad to me on the surface. I enjoy beer, wine, bourbon, and scotch in the same way others enjoy chocolate. I don't get too stressed about having a drink or two, might overdo it once or twice a year but never to the point of a hangover, get out of others' way in those instances, and never drive if having more than a couple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BboogieXVII
Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this statement. It's not a 'large portion' and much of it isn't even from the medical community.

I think I'll follow the AMA, which declared it a disease in 1956 and the Mayo Clinic, which considers it a disease.

I already addressed the studies and statistics in a post above and how the AMA's designation was a political maneuver to gain access to insurance funds. One study said 25% of physicians believe in is a moral shortcoming or psychological issue, not a disease.
 
Last edited: