moderation or abstinence

[Guest guest]

Two points regarding the outcome result for those who have experienced drinking

problems at some point. First, there is a ton of literature done from an

epidemiological and sociological (as opposed from a treatment) perspective. The

conclusion is well established. Most persons who have had serious drinking

problems ( " alcoholics, " in the AA mythology) later revert to controlled drinking

in moderation. But a significant minority choose not to drink. Hence, the idea

of a " progressive, irreversible " disease of " alcoholism " is pure bunk. Second,

regarding why many persons do choose not to drink, I think social pressure is an

important consideration. Alcohol is conceived of by American culture -

including by the families and friends of most of us - as Demon Rum, and its use,

even in moderation, by anyone who has had a problem in the past is seen as

" opening one's self up to temptation. " Hence, there is social pressure not to

drink moderately, even tho one might know perfectly well that this is possible,

and even the norm. Sometimes it is easier to conform to minor social

injunctions of this kind (and alcohol use, or non-use, is really a rather

trivial matter, not really central to anyone's life), even when they are kind of

silly, rather than argue over something unimportant. I have a friend who is a

Buddhist, for example, and I never eat meat when around him since it makes him

very nervous. I'm not a vegetarian, and I think his views on the " sanctity " of

a chicken, or even a mosquito (he doesn't swat them), are rather silly

superstitions. But, I simply give in to social pressure when with him, since

this is a battle I don't view worth fighting. I save my energy for more

important fights. Alcohol use or non-use, to my mind, is a comprable issue.

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