I do know more folks than I can count who blow it out every Friday, end of work week. It's their reward to themselves for a grueling work week and the anticipation of family time for 2 whole days. They over drink in my estimation but maintain a level of sanity & security for their families. By your definition they would be alcoholics and I guess you'd be right. I'll give you that. I am 100% in accordance with tough love.
My bone of contention with AA is the admitting and convincing oneself that they are powerless to overcome alcohol and that their lives are unmanageable because of that lack of power. That admittance alone goes against every fiber of my being. I, we, they, no one is powerless. That is why I say this is not a disease nor a predisposition to some gene based hogwash. This is a sober choice folks make before they take that first drink that will lead to too much.
I agree they are not powerless. Show me an alcoholic who wants their drink and I will show you someone with greater willpower than I could ever muster.
The trouble is, they don't want to stop drinking because it makes them feel so damned good. Many recovering addicts I interviewed used the phrase, when speaking of their first drinking episode, "For the first time in my life, I felt powerful." That feeling continues throughout their drinking and using careers. The fact it makes them feel powerful is rooted in egomania, which in turn is a result of euphoric recall: they can do no wrong.
Addicts obviously process the drug differently than you and I do. That's a genetic predisposition, causing a differential biological response. This causes them to act badly, some of the time. Like drinking to excess before a long weekend when they have to be with their family and avoid heavy drinking on the weekend. The questions I have are, do they really love their families more than the hooch? and are they really providing a level of sanity and security for their family--or, perhaps, does being able to so provide serve to inflate their egos? In other words, ego inflation can serve to do good. It does not mean the results will be good every time, nor does it mean they are not alcoholics.
There are some fine lines. Churchill did great good, but his financial life was a mess. Thomas Paine, who I view as the true founder of the United States (the Declaration summarized his "Common Sense," which sold more per capita than any book ever except perhaps the Bible), had six or so people attending his funeral because his misbehaviors as a result of alcoholism caused him to gradually lose nearly all of his friends. I have known two absurdly heavy drinkers in whom I could not confirm alcoholism; well, one admitted he recently got sober. I still don't know about the other because none of his friends or family has come clean about any misbehaviors.
I find no continuity in your discourse. We are going around in circles. One phrase I agree with and have seen for myself, the next is a contradiction. IMO you draw to broad a stroke at the same time too fine a line. "Two heavy drinkers" you could not confirm as alcoholics? Yet a Friday nighter is labeled such. Good parents who carve out time for themselves weekly are just that, good parents. Your analogy is even more upending.
Churchill was a absurdly heavy drinker, morning to night, abominable disposition who was solely responsible for starting WW11. He did NO good yet his funeral was treated as hail the conquering hero.
Did he drink like a pig because of his ego or did the drink give him his ego.
Thomas Paine, a giant of a man, ruffled a few feathers yet no one showed up to his funeral. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good oft interred with their bones". By that metric, Paine was evil and Churchill was the good guy. So all the egotists showed up for that monsters funeral and same did not show up for Paine. I'm not picking up what you're trying to lay down, so let it be with Caesar.
And that is how variable alcoholism is. The common thread: acting badly some of the time, which can be connected to heavy use.
Not only can a "Friday night" drinker be identified as an alcoholic if they act badly; one who drinks once a year can be, if they drink enough and screw up badly enough (as in destroying a relationship or life on their one bender of the year). Yet many "normies" drink every day--think the French and Italian and their wine--and they don't act badly and, therefore, cannot be identified as alcoholics.
You can drink all day and not be one. A 200-pound person can drink a bottle of wine spread out evenly over the day and reach a BAL of--near zero. Two bottles spread out over 12 hours and, at the end of the day, the BAL is .06%. A 120-pounder? .18%. She's an alcoholic, while he is not.
The drink gave Churchill his egomania. As for good v. bad, I might agree with you on Churchill; I haven't studied him adequately. But consider greatness: five of eight Nobel Prize winning authors from the United States during the 20th century were alcoholic. 30% of Academy Award winning actors have been alcoholics (skewed just a bit because Jack Nicholson won three times). There has been almost no revolutionary change in music brought about by non-addicts, from Beethoven to Lennon.
The variability of behaviors and the fact that journalists, historians and biographers don't look for alcoholism in their subjects--too many of them are alcoholics--makes it difficult to find and confirm. But show me their personal lives and I will tell you with 80-90% degree of certainty whether the subject is an alcoholic. The problem is digging deep enough.
I do know more folks than I can count who blow it out every Friday, end of work week. It's their reward to themselves for a grueling work week and the anticipation of family time for 2 whole days. They over drink in my estimation but maintain a level of sanity & security for their families. By your definition they would be alcoholics and I guess you'd be right. I'll give you that. I am 100% in accordance with tough love.
My bone of contention with AA is the admitting and convincing oneself that they are powerless to overcome alcohol and that their lives are unmanageable because of that lack of power. That admittance alone goes against every fiber of my being. I, we, they, no one is powerless. That is why I say this is not a disease nor a predisposition to some gene based hogwash. This is a sober choice folks make before they take that first drink that will lead to too much.
I agree they are not powerless. Show me an alcoholic who wants their drink and I will show you someone with greater willpower than I could ever muster.
The trouble is, they don't want to stop drinking because it makes them feel so damned good. Many recovering addicts I interviewed used the phrase, when speaking of their first drinking episode, "For the first time in my life, I felt powerful." That feeling continues throughout their drinking and using careers. The fact it makes them feel powerful is rooted in egomania, which in turn is a result of euphoric recall: they can do no wrong.
Addicts obviously process the drug differently than you and I do. That's a genetic predisposition, causing a differential biological response. This causes them to act badly, some of the time. Like drinking to excess before a long weekend when they have to be with their family and avoid heavy drinking on the weekend. The questions I have are, do they really love their families more than the hooch? and are they really providing a level of sanity and security for their family--or, perhaps, does being able to so provide serve to inflate their egos? In other words, ego inflation can serve to do good. It does not mean the results will be good every time, nor does it mean they are not alcoholics.
There are some fine lines. Churchill did great good, but his financial life was a mess. Thomas Paine, who I view as the true founder of the United States (the Declaration summarized his "Common Sense," which sold more per capita than any book ever except perhaps the Bible), had six or so people attending his funeral because his misbehaviors as a result of alcoholism caused him to gradually lose nearly all of his friends. I have known two absurdly heavy drinkers in whom I could not confirm alcoholism; well, one admitted he recently got sober. I still don't know about the other because none of his friends or family has come clean about any misbehaviors.
I find no continuity in your discourse. We are going around in circles. One phrase I agree with and have seen for myself, the next is a contradiction. IMO you draw to broad a stroke at the same time too fine a line. "Two heavy drinkers" you could not confirm as alcoholics? Yet a Friday nighter is labeled such. Good parents who carve out time for themselves weekly are just that, good parents. Your analogy is even more upending.
Churchill was a absurdly heavy drinker, morning to night, abominable disposition who was solely responsible for starting WW11. He did NO good yet his funeral was treated as hail the conquering hero.
Did he drink like a pig because of his ego or did the drink give him his ego.
Thomas Paine, a giant of a man, ruffled a few feathers yet no one showed up to his funeral. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good oft interred with their bones". By that metric, Paine was evil and Churchill was the good guy. So all the egotists showed up for that monsters funeral and same did not show up for Paine. I'm not picking up what you're trying to lay down, so let it be with Caesar.
And that is how variable alcoholism is. The common thread: acting badly some of the time, which can be connected to heavy use.
Not only can a "Friday night" drinker be identified as an alcoholic if they act badly; one who drinks once a year can be, if they drink enough and screw up badly enough (as in destroying a relationship or life on their one bender of the year). Yet many "normies" drink every day--think the French and Italian and their wine--and they don't act badly and, therefore, cannot be identified as alcoholics.
You can drink all day and not be one. A 200-pound person can drink a bottle of wine spread out evenly over the day and reach a BAL of--near zero. Two bottles spread out over 12 hours and, at the end of the day, the BAL is .06%. A 120-pounder? .18%. She's an alcoholic, while he is not.
The drink gave Churchill his egomania. As for good v. bad, I might agree with you on Churchill; I haven't studied him adequately. But consider greatness: five of eight Nobel Prize winning authors from the United States during the 20th century were alcoholic. 30% of Academy Award winning actors have been alcoholics (skewed just a bit because Jack Nicholson won three times). There has been almost no revolutionary change in music brought about by non-addicts, from Beethoven to Lennon.
The variability of behaviors and the fact that journalists, historians and biographers don't look for alcoholism in their subjects--too many of them are alcoholics--makes it difficult to find and confirm. But show me their personal lives and I will tell you with 80-90% degree of certainty whether the subject is an alcoholic. The problem is digging deep enough.