define alcoholism

Based on the experience of a good friend, you are an alcoholic if:

* Kicked out of home more than once due to drinking issues
* Arrested and spent time in jail due to DUI/DWI more than once
* Lived in recovery houses and currently living in one
* Lost two jobs because of drinking too much
* Got married and divorced to girl you met at recovery programs
* Yet, you still think you can drink beers with your friends like everybody else.

I'm a recovering alcoholic who has spent five months in rehab and attended thousands of AA meetings.

"Am I an alcoholic?" is a difficult question. An alcoholic will always say "no" even though he probably knows better. But he will believe it. Because he is not thinking sanely.

If you think your friend may be an alcoholic (and you're not some kind of nosy booze-hater) then he probably is.

If you can get him to go to an AA meeting, do so. Talking to other alcoholics is amazing. Your friend will realize quickly whether or not he is like these people.

However, if he is pretty deep into his alcoholism, quitting cold turkey is not safe -- alcohol withdrawal is far more dangerous than heroin withdrawal, for example. It can kill you. Rehab centers and hospitals will detox you, usually with the help of Valium or Librium.

I don't normally read this board, but I am happy to answer any questions you have about recovery, so PM me if you like.

Originally Posted by TheDarkKnight

Click to expand...

When drinking is a substantial psychological or physical addiction.

And/ OR where drinking often causes negative consequences socially or for work, or for your physical health: Some people are high level functioning alcoholics and I have known a few. They are pleasant when drunk, hold down jobs etc. In many ways this is worse for them, as people tolerate their drinking and they can maintain their drinking, so it continues longer with more health problems.

It's a misconception that alcoholism means drinking every night, it does not. Some alcoholics may drink 2 or 3 times a week, but have no control over doing this, how much they drink and the consequences.

this

Originally Posted by willpower

Click to expand...

Continued use despite ever increasing consequences (financial, relationships, work, etc)

This is the correct answer.
The idea of the "functional alcoholic" is a myth. Most high functioning people that drink don't do so in an alcoholic manner. Although they may drink a lot for a time or at times it is not the dame as being a true alcoholic.

go to aa if you feel you need to cut back. doesnt matter what amount.

Originally Posted by NorCal

Click to expand...

This is the correct answer.
The idea of the "functional alcoholic" is a myth. Most high functioning people that drink don't do so in an alcoholic manner. Although they may drink a lot for a time or at times it is not the dame as being a true alcoholic.

Correct. My dad drank lots of scotch and sodas every day when he got home from work for I don't know how many decades. But I never saw him get drunk, and he would stop before dinner.

When I was drinking, I would wake up and start drinking, not stop until I passed out, then wake up and start drinking again. I was going through several quarts of vodka every day.

Once an alcoholic takes the first drink, he is not going to stop drinking.

Originally Posted by Icarus

Click to expand...

You're an alcoholic if alcohol is part of your routine. If you absoloutley must have a scotch or something at a certain time, or you cannot enjoy a meal without an alcoholic beverage, then you are an alcoholic.

As already mentioned, there's a big difference between being a stumbling drunkard, and a functioning alcoholic. Because of some people's lack of self control, there are certain stigmas in the US attached to drinking during the day. In the UK you can have a pint anytime without any stigmas attached to it.
I don't have a routine, sometimes I go a week or even two without a drink, but I thoroughly enjoy good beer, red wine, and scotch. Some foods I'm just so accustomed to eating with wine, it's a little hard to eat without it. I think American alcoholism vs European alcoholism is an interesting discussion. In the wine and beer belts, most adults, and even teenagers, are alcoholics by US standards.


Mmmm. I'm not sure if I agree with that.

I think more than a few eyebrows would be raised here if someone chose to enjoy a pint with their breakfast in the morning (in fact at any time before midday generally).

Originally Posted by Icarus

Click to expand...

You're an alcoholic if alcohol is part of your routine. If you absoloutley must have a scotch or something at a certain time, or you cannot enjoy a meal without an alcoholic beverage, then you are an alcoholic.

As already mentioned, there's a big difference between being a stumbling drunkard, and a functioning alcoholic. Because of some people's lack of self control, there are certain stigmas in the US attached to drinking during the day. In the UK you can have a pint anytime without any stigmas attached to it.

I don't have a routine, sometimes I go a week or even two without a drink, but I thoroughly enjoy good beer, red wine, and scotch. Some foods I'm just so accustomed to eating with wine, it's a little hard to eat without it. I think American alcoholism vs European alcoholism is an interesting discussion. In the wine and beer belts, most adults, and even teenagers, are alcoholics by US standards.

+1 - if you need the drink, if the drink is a part of your day that you can't miss without feeling it, you need to consider that an issue

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

+1 - if you need the drink, if the drink is a part of your day that you can't miss without feeling it, you need to consider that an issue

Seems way too restrictive. Lots of things can be missed but their loss still felt. Are we "addicted" to all of them?

Definitions like this are part of the nannification/tortification of modern life. Find some incredibly stupid, anti-common sense standard because otherwise it would encouarge "unhealthy" behavior. We have to define the latter by the lowest common denominator to capture all the outlier cases. And of course we can't put in print anything that might risk a class action suit.

So suddently one glass of wine a night becomes "alcoholism" because doctors don't want to be sued by the moron who says "You gave me permission to drink more and I died anyway!!!!"

It's also interesting (and strange) how health has replaced or subsumed morality.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

(...)

It's also interesting (and strange) how health has replaced or subsumed morality.

IMHO - a symptom of our me-first immediate gratification culture.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Click to expand...

IMHO - a symptom of our me-first immediate gratification culture.

I am not sure what you mean, but I would identify a different cause. We've decided, at least at the elite level and one or two rungs down, that most or many of the old things we used to consider moral matters are now off limits for judgement. But all societies have standards, and we always judge people on some criteria or other. The modern yuppie/bobo has placed a huge emphasis on health. What you eat and how much you exercise and how much you weigh are signs of your virtue--or lack thereof. It is not really moral virtue but a substitute for it.

There is also a political angle, revolving around "sustainability", the enviornment, the treatment of animals, etc.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean, but I would identify a different cause. We've decided, at least at the elite level and one or two rungs down, that most or many of the old things we used to consider moral matters are now off limits for judgement. But all societies have standards, and we always judge people on some criteria or other. The modern yuppie/bobo has placed a huge emphasis on health. What you eat and how much you exercise and how much you weigh are signs of your virtue--or lack thereof. It is not really moral virtue but a substitute for it.

There is also a political angle, revolving around "sustainability", the enviornment, the treatment of animals, etc.

Pretty much the same idea I had, but wasn't prepared to type out. To take your post along a different thread, Morality seems to have suffered in terms of being a yardstick (and forgive me if my thoughts run astray here) both because of the decline of 'community' and also because "judge not" takes on a new meaning when you look around and see so many people with dirty hands. It's easier to comment on morality when you a) have clean hands, and b) have more than a superficial involvement with said person.

But the shift from morality to health is easy because - as you said - it's become a substitute for a moral virtue (he must live clean, look how clear his skin is!). From a pragmatic view, I'm not sure that many people nowadays face a decision and consider its moral implications before considering health issues. Put it this way: "Will this beer jeopardize my afterlife" generally doesn't come up before "Will this beer make my acid reflux worse?" (Acid reflux being a more immediate concern) Maybe emptym asks the questions in that order, but I suspect he would be in the minority.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean, but I would identify a different cause. We've decided, at least at the elite level and one or two rungs down, that most or many of the old things we used to consider moral matters are now off limits for judgement. But all societies have standards, and we always judge people on some criteria or other. The modern yuppie/bobo has placed a huge emphasis on health. What you eat and how much you exercise and how much you weigh are signs of your virtue--or lack thereof. It is not really moral virtue but a substitute for it.

There is also a political angle, revolving around "sustainability", the enviornment, the treatment of animals, etc.

I am honestly not sure that I understand your point, but I would suggest:

1. 1-2 drinks a day, espectially red wine, is healthier than being a complete tea totolar. so, one could be a functioning alcohoic, by my definition, and be healthier than somebody who never drinks at all

2. people who drink, certainly a little, are a lot more fun and interesting than people who don't drink

3. I think that the issue and the definition fall on the issue of how much control you have over the issue, nothing more.

4. I think that in the past, and I am thinking espectially about victorian england and classical greece, the feeling was that being virtuous would also show in how you looked - a good person would be pretty.

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

I am honestly not sure that I understand your point, but I would suggest: 1. 1-2 drinks a day, espectially red wine, is healthier than being a complete tea totolar. so, one could be a functioning alcohoic, by my definition, and be healthier than somebody who never drinks at all ...
lol at 1-2 drinks a day being an alcoholic of any sort.

Originally Posted by ramuman

Click to expand...

lol at 1-2 drinks a day being an alcoholic of any sort.

Seriously. Only in the modern "health uber alles" kuture.