Health issues aside, stigma, definition of "alcoholism?"

[no-go]

Swim is frustrated. In all research, resources begin with health issues of excessive drinking, but ultimately advise against alcoholism primarily for its social stigma. Swim notices:

1) When identifying whether the drinker has a problem, alcoholism is taken by a loose definition: You have a problem, if others say so. If you object, even with a reasonable defense, well, of course you deny it: that is a symptom of your alcoholism and evidence of your problem.

2) The amount of alcohol you drink in a day/week/binge constitutes alcoholism. Drinking according to schedule. Drinking alone, or drinking while others do not. Not the frequency of inebriation and negative behavior changes.

3) If you are challenged to quit, and you do not, it proves you are an alcoholic. The request is always reasonable. You are not. If you do quit to appease the accuser, you may not begin again.

Now, swim recognizes there is such a thing as out-of-control drinking which affects others in a real way. Swim is talking in this case about those whose drinking habits do not manifest a negative impact on others, except this: They are bothered to believe he is an alcoholic.

To avoid causing this "problem", the one discovers based on number 2, that there is a standard limit for alcohol and going above it marks you an alcoholic. What is that limit? For males: 1-2 beers a day. Or one glass of wine. Or two ounces of liquor. Period. It does not matter how long it takes to consume the beverages, whether the person does get drunk, has had food, etc. Just tally it up at the end of the day.

For most people, this restriction makes the effect of alcohol negligible, drinking at all pointless. It means you cannot drink for enjoyment except for taste, texture, thirst, etc. not the alcohol. 1-2 beers a day? Seriously.

Swim has taken to drinking 4-6 beers a night, 4-6 nights a week. Beginning around 7pm, and ending around 11pm or midnight. During which time dinner is eaten and there is nothing to do but watch a movie or read a book or make phone calls etc. That roughly comes to one beer per hour. Swim realizes this is unhealthy physically, but seriously, is this a problem otherwise? Swim means is it a moral or psychological problem? Is there such a thing as harmless drinking beyond those ridiculous numbers above?

Swim never yells/gets mean/gets hangovers/skips work/drinks during the day/has blackouts/says embarassing things/slurs words/trips or walks poorly/breaks things/etc etc. Maybe has bad breath occasionally. Otherwise, no real impact on others. Why does swim drink? Because he likes alcohol. Same reason he smokes cigarettes. Swim does not like coca-cola, so being challenged to drink six of those in one night is silly. Though swim used to drink six cups of coffee a day. Does that count?

Is swim crazy?? Even if he were an alcoholic, he would say "So what?" Just like potheads and other users. Just about everyone in modern society uses a psychoactive on a daily basis.

In my opinion, there is an extremely unjust stigma surrounding any alcohol consumption. There is no objective evaluation on a case-by-case basis; just a widespread general understanding that drinking is wrong no matter what, liking alcohol is wrong, you need help, and you don't get a say-so. But no matter how much I research, no one agrees with this.

2 beers. Or else it's bad. That's a joke. "Don't get drunk except once or twice a year. Don't get buzzed. Don't do it every night. Why do you need to do it? You don't want to, you need to. Then you shouldn't want to." Something is wrong with this society.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	I like what you have to say
	Great thread,great topic

[no-go]

It is worth pointing out that swim has not been accused of alcoholism and has only been carrying on like this since last month. Hasn't been drunk since Christmas break, but that was a family reunion, we all got messed up.

It was in the interest of his health he looked up the daily alcohol limit (noting it lowers blood sugar, a problem for swim) and stumbled upon all the rest of this. It is especially annoying considering many medical professionals are 100% behind chronic THC use for mental health reasons. That is, if you need to relax, you can take substance X. But substance Y, oh no, that's bad.

While swim intends to drink less for his health, the other reasons are just ridiculous and he wonders if there is any prominent political/medical figure who has anything to say about knee-jerk reactions to drinking regularly for enjoyment. Is there anyone here who agrees with this?

[Nucking Futs]

Hello,

I think this boils down to the minority OR it is the early stages of prohabition.
The majority can drink a few with no problems. It is deemed WRONG when people act up whilst drunk and thus giving a bad stigma.
It's also cultural. In Russia to refuse a drink is sometimes offensive!

Regards,

ME.

PS, Sometimes a friend of mine has questioned if he is a alcoholic due to pressures from other people but it turns out that he is not. He did however drink alot and often.

[no-go]

Right.

People here in the States act up when they drink. Especially if you are white, there is the white-trash image: A white man with a beer in hand whilst watching prime-time tv, still in his work clothes, is a bad, ugly thing in this culture. They expect you must have poor hygeine, you're mean, abusive, amoral, unmotivated, lazy, and have a go-nowhere, be-nothing attitude. White people are supposed to be well-educated and successful. Even if you are none of those negative things, they catch you in the act, and you're wrong.

That's my understanding of it, anyways. The media presents savvy and sophisticated socialites drinking themselves to death on the one hand, always appropriate, and white trash drinking always in a negative light. And swim really does resent being associated with the evils of alcohol if he does not act up.

Either way thanks for your comment and I'll just try to find some better habit for the time being. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[Nucking Futs]

no-go,

Either way thanks for your comment and I'll just try to find some better habit for the time being. I'd rather be safe than sorry.[/quote]

Im sure its not related to skin colour. What you have described is a perception problem !

[molly5190]

I think the definition of alcoholism is not being able to stop (not not wanting to stop), or needing alcohol to function. I wouldn't take anything that designates drinking a certain amount of drinks a certain amount of times in a given period seriously, because everyone's different. .

[saorsa.elegy]

I have to say that No-go does have a point. On tv, shows or commercials they will have a working class guy drinking and it's funny because he's working class. Or he's a louse because he's just been arrested on cops for shooting his gun in the yard. However, if you are white collar drinking it up at a club or a party u are sparkley, shiney, perfect, fun! It really annoys me. My luv and I see that old cliche on the tube a bit!

[drab4]

My own personal definition is that a person has a drink problem when it is effecting their life negatively - be that through health problems or some other issue, such as not being able to work or whatever

To use myself as an example. I am recovering from my own drink problem. I considered myself to have a problem when my bad health effected me enough to significantly reduce my quality of life. I realised that I was addicted when I did not want to stop, despite my health continuing to deteriorate

There were two different "wants" involved in my case. Firstly I wanted to stop drinking, because it hurt to drink (stomach ulcers and gastritis), it was effecting me physically (I was unable to box or lift weights any more due to muscle weakness and cramping), it was effecting my relationship (no sex drive due to constant intoxication), and it was even perhaps killing me (enlarged liver, terrible liver values). Secondly, and opposed to my first "want", I wanted to drink, because that is what I like to do. I prefer being drunk to sober, and greatly prefer being drunk to undergoing withdrawals!

So, I did what I wanted to do. I carried on drinking until I was very unwell indeed. At that point, the balance of power between my two "wants" shifted, and I wanted to live more than I wanted to drink. It was as simple as that for me, and from this point on I started to recover, of course with many stumbles and backward steps along the way, but I started to recover. For some people, the balance of power never shifts, and they drink themselves to death. I suppose that those people want to drink more than they want anything else

These are just my own views and I'm not sure if they will apply to others. Like the original poster, I have heard many different definitions of alcoholism. I actually prefer the term drink problem to alcoholism as a problem is something which is relatively easy to identify, whereas addiction can be slightly more difficult to pin down


p.s. This is my first post. Could somebody please let me know whether I should use the "SWIM" acronym when talking about an issue such as this? I read that it should be used when talking about illegalities, so I guess I am safe here, but am not 100% sure. Cheers

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thank you for sharing: Powerful stuff!

[Orchid_Suspiria]

Not only are alcohol commercials annoying it is even more annoying when they play a just say no to marijuana commercial after an alcohol commercial.The stupidity of western society never fails to amaze me.

[Jatelka]

drab4. Talking about alcohol and alcohol addiction do not require you to SWIM.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I approve of this post because Jatelka helpfully answered a question of mine relating to forum etiquette

[drab4]

Thanks Jatelka

[zera]

Originally Posted by no-go

1) When identifying whether the drinker has a problem, alcoholism is taken by a loose definition: You have a problem, if others say so. If you object, even with a reasonable defense, well, of course you deny it: that is a symptom of your alcoholism and evidence of your problem.

Do you know what the term is for someone who completely disregards the opinions and feelings of others? A sociopath.

I would say that your friends are the best indicator of when someone has a problem, much more so than any concrete rules. Humans are social animals, and have an extraordinary capability to understand and empathize with the specific actions of others and the context in which those actions exist. If your friends identify a problem that you might have, then its a pretty good indication that you most likely do.

If you dispute it, its either a dispute over a) facts or b) values. If its facts that are in question while they may not know the facts as well as you, in sum total if your friends reach a consensus and you disagree I would guess that the group is probably right. The aggregated opinion of crowds usually are much better predictors than any single individual, hence the reason its difficult to beat the stock market or why the betting markets are better predictors of sports games and political elections than any single person.

If the disagreement is over values, I think you need to ask yourself why you have friends that have such divergent values from yourself. You should potentially be ready to make new friends if this is the case.

[DAVOTHEGOD]

Dude, if you pound 4-6 beers a night, no big. I do that too, kinda....I think the big thing your worried about is that your worried. Society will stick a psychological boner in your ear until nukes go off, just to get its way, but, the big question is whether or not it becomes detremental to the quality of yours , or your familys life. Right now my sister is suffering the weirdest addiction to alcohal ive ever seen. She pounds beer and sleeps and thats it and its ruining her marriage and her children are suffering developmentally. I wouldnt be so concerned if she got drunk every night and told stories at dinner and played with her kids, but its like she doesnt even exist when shes drunk.

[cannabis-sam]

I would of thought alcohol addiction is a physical dependence, that includes withdrawal symptoms when stopped. In my opinion if you're drinking in the morning or are always drunk that's alcoholism.

If you're asking (OP) whether you're an alcoholic I doubt it as you did say you aren't getting drunk. Although if you're drinking last thing at night and driving in the morning be careful becuase you could still get picked up for drink driving but that's beside the point.

Others could also be saying you have a problem because of the social stigma of being a daily drinker. Hey I drink daily maybe one or two cans of lager in the evening (I actually despise being drunk but I love a beer).

[Dickon]

^ ^
Manifesting drunkenness has nothing to do with alcoholism. In fact a lot of alcoholics do not seem drunk as they have got used to their daily dose of alcohol.

no-go, the level of alcohol consumption doesn't seem all that high. I've drank a lot more over a considerable time, and one thing I know is how easy it is for 4 beers to become 5, 5 beers to become 6, 7pm to become 6.45pm. I've always been sceptical about the really low health guidelines for alcohol consumption. I heard once (and this could be nonsense) that the number of units considered safe in guidelines (at least in the UK) was plucked from thin air.

How would you feel if you had to stop for a week? You go on about drinking 6 coca-colas but that's simply a false comparison. You don't need to constantly guzzle liquid through an evening. A glass or two of water would suffice.

Be aware. Alcoholism isn't clearly definable. It's simply when (to use another non-definable word) addiction to alcohol is manifest. That will happen differently for different people. The addiction to alcohol will not be physical unless you drink vast quantities for years, so watch your feelings. My cat has been borderline alcoholic before, and it's not like heroin where there's a clear physical demarcation line that you know when you've crossed.

All the best

Dickon

[rokman nash]

I definitely(as usual) agree with Drd on this.Personally I would consider myself an alcoholic(who happens to be alcohol free at this time).When I was drinking daily,the goal wasn't necessarily to get drunk,but more often than not that was the outcome.I didn't drink every day,sometimes I would go several days between drinks,but that didn't change the fact that I was/am an alcoholic.

There are so many factors that come into play when making a determination of alcoholism.To me no one but yourself can make that determination(though many think they can label you)because the factors that determine the outcome are different for everyone.

Though I don't agree personally with the health professions definition of an alcoholic,I am smart enough,and emotionally strong enough to accept that I am an alcoholic as defined by me.


Good thoughts