I have an issue with logic of the idea that "Well, if they can quit without AA then they weren't truly alcoholic" or "If they can quit and then later go on to do controlled drinking, they weren't true alcoholics."
Just anecdotally, I know someone who had such a bad drinking problem in her 20s and 30s that she would drink a fifth of hard liquor a day after work, every day. She went 10 years completely abstinent, and later was able to drink a beer or a glass of wine here and there- on the order of less than one drink a month. I think it's hard to look at how much she was drinking (and how much it affected her personal relationships and health) and say she wasn't a "true" alcoholic.
But, anecdotes aside, AA doesn't get to define what alcoholism is. An addiction to any substance is defined by psychologists a) dependence and growing tolerance and b) for it to affect your personal or work life or get you in trouble with the law. There are CLEARLY people who fit that definition who successfully learn to drink in moderation.
Further, the idea that "alcoholics who can learn controlled drinking through professional treatment aren't really alcoholics because alcoholics can't drink responsibly" sounds like fallacious reasoning to me, but I'm having trouble pinning down which fallacy it's committing- sounds a bit like a tautology, but there might be something else going on. *pondering*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: (part 1 of 2)
Date: 2010-05-21 07:48 pm (UTC)Just anecdotally, I know someone who had such a bad drinking problem in her 20s and 30s that she would drink a fifth of hard liquor a day after work, every day. She went 10 years completely abstinent, and later was able to drink a beer or a glass of wine here and there- on the order of less than one drink a month. I think it's hard to look at how much she was drinking (and how much it affected her personal relationships and health) and say she wasn't a "true" alcoholic.
But, anecdotes aside, AA doesn't get to define what alcoholism is. An addiction to any substance is defined by psychologists a) dependence and growing tolerance and b) for it to affect your personal or work life or get you in trouble with the law. There are CLEARLY people who fit that definition who successfully learn to drink in moderation.
Further, the idea that "alcoholics who can learn controlled drinking through professional treatment aren't really alcoholics because alcoholics can't drink responsibly" sounds like fallacious reasoning to me, but I'm having trouble pinning down which fallacy it's committing- sounds a bit like a tautology, but there might be something else going on. *pondering*