I have curious ideas on absolutism (cold turkey quitting). I believe it is as much a loss of control as an alcoholic. You are trading one extreme for another. While it may be healthier, rigid adherence to an ideal is as mindless as indulgence. And it is unforgiving: if you have one drink, you break your streak and give up your chip (or whatever). I think it is likely to encourage one to go on a bender after one mis-step because, well, the first drink is just as bad as the 10th - so why does it matter if I have nine more? I believe absolutism is unnatural and unforgiving. We are humans. We make mistakes and we exist on a spectrum. Instead of preaching that "all is lost" after a single mistake, we should teach people that one mistake isn't the end of it, and that the damage is minimized if you don't beat yourself up about that mistake and you keep on trying to do your best. That's how we approach healthy food habits (or should). Beating ourselves up because of a single misstep - you are stupid, you failed, you are dumb - encourages people to go off-roading when they lose the path, and then find it again. How about if you lose the path, that's okay, just try to find it again? Moreover, I believe absolutionists exhibit a complete lack of control over themselves by having to ascribe to absolutionism. A lack of control over oneself, in alcoholism, is the same as a lack of control over the illness. There are some people it works for. But I view it as unreasonable and hard to stick to.
I find abstinence to be a bit misguided for most (but by no means all) people. That said, I've known several alcoholics who really seem to be unable to have a drink without going off the deep end. Personally, I'm thinking of making tempering my alcohol intake a New Year's resolution this year. Last night, a very close friend of mine told me she's 100% sure that I'm an alcoholic. I vehemently disagree (although those silly online "are you an alcoholic" quizzes definitely are on my friend's side, but wtf do they know?), but I do think I drink too much at times, especially when I have to drive (and to be clear, I'm not talking about driving while wasted, but certainly over the legal limit). I don't think there's anything wrong with getting shit faced from time to time, so long as you don't need to drive anywhere, but when you can't just limit yourself to three or four beers when driving, it kind of gives you pause. The last thing I need in life is a DUI (or worse). Anyway, the long and short of it is that I'm resolving to not over do it in 2014.
You don't need to be an alcoholic to drink too much. My father was fond of saying that he wasn't an alcoholic because he didn't "drink to extinguish." Yeah, but you still have five beers at lunch so what's the difference, really? I didn't drink at all for a long-ass time because I was afraid I'd turn into my parents. As it turns out not only am I a jovial drunk, but I really don't enjoy being inebriated. Drinking? Drinking I enjoy. But, as the old tavern-master says, "Drink is an excellent servant but a terrible master." Split the difference between total abstinence and total indulgence. Stop drinking for a month. See what happens. If nothing else, those binary approaches are easier to measure.
Therein lies the problem. What is too much? I guess it depends on the individual. I certainly don't drink five beers at lunch. (I'd say I only have lunch beers once a month or so.) I also believe that what defines true alcoholism is motivation, as I think--contrary to popular belief--that addiction isn't a disease itself, but rather a symptom of some other disease (depression, anxiety, etc.). I have none of those; I just happen to really enjoy marinating a good buzz, and alcohol is my substance of choice. I think I only let people make me feel bad about it, because we live in such a tee-totaling rats' nest of a society. Puritans be damned. (But seriously, I know how fucked up drinking and driving is.)You don't need to be an alcoholic to drink too much. My father was fond of saying that he wasn't an alcoholic because he didn't "drink to extinguish." Yeah, but you still have five beers at lunch so what's the difference, really?
I will state that I have mixed feelings about alcoholism being considered a disease. I believe in my comment I did use that term and I do so because of its current classification in the DSM-IV. Yesterday I had nine drinks or the equivalent thereof. Apparently that is the most a moderate drinker should have in a week. I was not hammered, was not slurring my words, was not staggering, was walking straight, etc. I did pace them out over many hours (six to seven). Does this make me an alcoholic or someone whose drinking is at a dangerous level?
Going basically one drink per hour ain't no thang. At that rate you aren't building up a dangerous amount in your system.Yesterday I had nine drinks or the equivalent thereof. Apparently that is the most a moderate drinker should have in a week. I was not hammered, was not slurring my words, was not staggering, was walking straight, etc. I did pace them out over many hours (six to seven). Does this make me an alcoholic or someone whose drinking is at a dangerous level?
I agree, and that's why I find prescriptivist approaches like "You should only have 9 drinks a week" frustrating. I wasn't getting whitegirlwasted or shitfaced. I was at a bar hanging out with a ton of people. But if you simply count the number of drinks I had, ohmygod I've got a drinking problem. People seem to assume with drink counts that your drinking is compressed into a shorter period of time. I spent 12 hours at a bar once. God knows how many drinks I had that day, but I had the day off, showed up at noon, and just had a good time hanging out with a ton of people as they came and left. By the end of the night I got slurry but I maintained for a good long time first. By prescriptivist standards I probably had enough drinks for the whole month that day. Never supposed to have more than 3 drinks in one day? More than 3 drinks is "heavy drinking"? What if I have them, as illustrated, over so many hours I never even get drunk? It reminds me of BMI.
And yet I assume no move is being made to assess and potentially update it! Did you read the article about MADD and how they're pushing for a 0.00 legal limit, basically because they need to justify their continued existence now that inebriated driving is regulated/policed and so on? I'll try to find it if you didn't. In addition, I'll note that when I attempt to find out from a government institution how much I should drink a day, what comes up is the "National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism." Seems like an agency with a very clear agenda and bias to me. (The government says one drink a day, by the way. Clearly, the government does not believe in having any fun. Also, what, they don't want my taxes? C'moonnnnn.)
See, I'm pretty sure it was on Reddit and my opinions were flavored by the comments. What I can find that seems about right is this but Reddit claims the link's never been submitted. This is clearly wrong because I was doing a site:reddit.com search on Google. Radley Balko seems to be the loudest voice in this corner. I wish I could find something not by him, but it is what it is. I think the first article is the best if you don't want to waste your time.
From what I have seen of friends, and family, I think it's often hard for people to address their problems honestly as soon as labels come into it. So, if you don't want to accept you are an alcoholic (and I don't know anything about the situation), then don't, and maybe just work on drinking less. I am sure you did not come online for a lecture, but driving over the legal limit can be very dangerous, sadly even if you feel like you can handle it. If avoiding the "alcoholic" label helps you recover, that is what you should do! Good luck!