Treatment - Do you have a problem with alcohol?

[rokman nash]

Here is a quick estimating tool that could help you determine if you have a problem. I posted this in a thread but its sorta hard to find, so I thought it might be easier to find if I started a thread. This comes from a doctor friend and I have added a question that another swimmer proposed. Hope this can help.

1 Do you ever feel guilty about your alcohol intake?

2 Do you ever have a drink when you wake up(an eye opener)?

3 Have you ever felt the need to cut back on your alcohol intake?

4 Do you get annoyed by people who tell you you drink to much?

5 Do you ever drink to excess alone?

If you answer yes to one question, you may have a problem.
If you answer yes to two or more questions, you probably do have a problem or will in the near future.

This is a tool doctors use to determine if someone might potentially have a problem.
I hope this can help

Good Thoughts

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great idea to have it stickied & going

[Nature Boy]

SWIM says:

1) No. His drinking isn't severe enough to cause problems that would threaten his career, friendships, health etc.

2) Yes, sometimes. It's called "chasing the buzz".

3) Not really. That post-Christmas period involves a natural decrease in drinking however.

4) No but then again, people don't tell him he has a drinking problem.

5) Yes and he doesn't see anything wrong with that. If a man can't have a couple of beers on his own, he doesn't trust himself. The idea that people who drink alone are alcoholics is absolute madness. The kind of bullshit you expect to hear from AA morons. Control is what determines whether you're an addict or not. If you can't exercise that control alone, what hope have you got? This "once an addict, always an addict" can't-have-a-single-drop attitude may apply to some people but I don't think it applies to the overall majority.

[missparkles]

Looks like swi Nature Boy doesn't have an alcohol problem then, doesn't it?
But then it is just a gauge to estimate if a person has a problem, not a "bang on accurate" diagnostic tool.
Sparkles thinks that anyone who wakes up in the morning with a need to drink to overcome a hangover, or chase a previous (nights) buzz could be looking at a problem, if they continue to do that.
As for people who use AA/NA being morons and perpetuating this BS...she thinks Nature Boy is generalising. (she also wonders why this subject illicits such an intense, kneejerk reaction)
Anyone who has been addicted to any substance, be it alcohol or drugs, will never be able to go back to "social" use of that substance. The fact that they couldn't control it the first time gives an indication of just how little control they had, why would they risk ruining their lives just to test the theory?
If he believes this idea to be moronic he might be wise to UTFSE, check out just how many people have tried to go back, use alcohol or drugs, see how many managed to do it without it wrecking their lives, once again.
Sure some can, but Sparkles believes they weren't addicted in the first place.
But we are talking physical and psychological dependence...not overdoing it at Christmas.
Sparkles thinks it's a good topic. She's doesn't use AA/NA, she has in the past, but she knows it helps some to stay clean. That's all that counts...isn't it...it saves lives?
Take care.
Sparkles.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by missparkles

Anyone who has been addicted to any substance, be it alcohol or drugs, will never be able to go back to "social" use of that substance. The fact that they couldn't control it the first time gives an indication of just how little control they had, why would they risk ruining their lives just to test the theory?

You're missing the point. Being able to control a habit is a true indicator of overcoming an addiction. Physical addiction is certainly temporary and psychological addiction need not necessarily be permanent. Take a trauma victim for example. Would it be right for someone in this situation to permanently live in fear? I don't think so.

Of course avoiding a troublesome substance is sensible but being unable to resist urges is still admitting to being an addict. Active or not, still an addict. It's a negative mindset in a sense.

[missparkles]

Sparkles totally agrees, addiction, like trauma, can be overcome. But whatever causes a person to go back to the negative feelings (and behaviour) that the original problem caused, is best avoided.
A person who suffers trauma from a car crash doesn't have to get back in a car...yeah they can stress over it, but that ain't gonna help them to get from A to B. There are other ways of traveling.
Addiction is no different.
Sparkles also agrees the idea that a person is always an addict can be seen as negative, but she prefers to see it in much the same way as a diabetic sees their illness. Their life may be difficult to adjust to without sugar, especially if they have a sweet tooth, but eventually they learn to cope with it. Find alternatives. An addict can do the same, looking at their substance of choice as something that poisons them (and could kill em) and just has to be avoided. And they find alternatives.
Perhaps they could drink/use after a long dry spell, but why risk trying? And once they have their life back on track why would they want to...to prove they can?
Sparkles has found that telling herself she can never use again closes the door on her even considering it, it's no longer an option. If she even thought that one day she could use sensibly she'd have problems.
The longer she's clean the more inner strength she seems to get. The more she gets the less she wants to drink or take drugs.
It works.
Take care.
Sparkles.


*Sparkles plagiarised the diabetic analogy...it wuz Dickons*

[rokman nash]

After consulting with my doc friend, and reading Nature Boys comments I have altered the last question.


Good Thoughts

[yaba]

Swim can say yes to all of them... But it doesn't course him trouble and if it did he would stop ! Then again alcohol isn't the only drug swim is using..

[dadrone]

Originally Posted by rokman nash

1 Do you ever feel guilty about your alcohol intake?

2 Do you ever have a drink when you wake up(an eye opener)?

3 Have you ever felt the need to cut back on your alcohol intake?

4 Do you get annoyed by people who tell you you drink to much?

5 Do you ever drink to excess alone?

No, yes, yes, no, yes.

SWIM is fucked.

[Sushi]

1 Do you ever feel guilty about your alcohol intake?

No, Alf drinks moderately for the most of the time.
His only true alcoholic intoxications are controlled, even if sometimes spontaneous and emotional. And rare - they happen just a few times a year.

After years of practice Alf reached a state of mind when he approves "non-hangover" drinking only and having a hangover for him is a signal that he uncontrolledly overdosed.

Or maybe there is one time when some form of guilt is perceived - when alcohol is used purely as anxiolytic.
And it happened to him at least a dozen of times in his life.


2 Do you ever have a drink when you wake up(an eye opener)?

No.
Or maybe it happened a few times but actually rather more as a decadent stunt during poly-using 5 day parties when he was 30 or so.

Rok, I would expand this question too, because an eye-opener happens in at least 2 forms, and one of them, i.e "curing" hangover with an alcohol is in itself a symptom, a warning signal and a great way to speed up development of addiction to alcohol. All at once. Very dangerous practice. I personally wouldn't call it exactly an eye-opener, because the ingestion itself can be postponed for some time, although, in fact, it is what it is - starting a day with alcohol intake.

Alf says firm no to such practices altogether.


3 Have you ever felt the need to cut back on your alcohol intake?

Yes, Alf once fell in love, hopelessly, blindly and romantically.
It was a totally non-reciprocating love for an alcohol-abusing creature that will stay in his heart forever, till this damn world will perish in black flames. After a few months of drinking together, Alf simply stood up and said that it's over and it can't be like this any longer, meaning both excessive drinking and "dating" her. And then he did it: he stopped spending time with her and he cut his drinking back to civilised usage level.

It was like 7 years ago. It never happened again.


4 Do you get annoyed by people who tell you you drink too much?

Alf has not heard it for years (and even then it was him talking to himself). He could have been angry with himself then -although the memory is vague- and he is angry with himself now more often than not, so who knows, maybe he should count it as "Yes"? But then again he talks about himself "this fat drunkard" oftentimes -even though he weighs 65kg/143lbs and drinks moderately- and is not getting angry with himself about it. He's generally not very stable mentally, you know.


5 Do you ever drink to excess alone?

Yes, it already happened that Alf got intoxicated alone this year (one of his 5-6 intoxications this year so far). Emotional frictions and being left by a girl alone with a bottle of gin just do not mix particularly well on a Friday night. Two shameful days of wallowing in a drunken depression. Bleh.

Alf is a fat drunkard.

[shivakiva2112]

Yes to all 5, at least at some point in time. No to all 5 in the present tense. SWIM may have had a drinking problem in the past, but does not have one at the moment, and may have one in the future, but is not concerned in the least about that prospect.

SWIM is too engaged with life to be alcoholic. This is not justification in the slightest.

[sirmoonie]

Never understood the emphasis on drinking alone that these tests make. As if drinking an equal amount with someone watching you makes whatever degree of problem drinking there is, some degree worse. And if you travel and spend a lot of time in airport and hotel bars with strangers is that "alone"? The whole notion that it must be a problem if you do it alone is outdated, if it was ever even true to begin with.

[missparkles]

Of course drinking alone isn't a sign that anyone has a problem, as stated that would mean that every single person who works late, comes home and has a glass of wine to relax, would be an alcoholic.
But when people drink considerable amounts alone, as opposed to with friends, or socially, then it could be an indication that they're trying to hide the amount they consume. One or two drinks alone isn't a problem, but drinking is a social thing done to relax. Not something done on the sly to make one feel better. And the question above does say "Drinking to excess."
Sparkles often wonders what the motives are of anyone who bashes good, solid, helpful info. After all, if anyone feels the need to read this checklist to ascertain if they have a problem, they're already worried about their drinking.
And if they check it out with a doc, and find they don't have a problem, no harm has been done, they ain't gonna become one by reading that damn checklist. If it helps one person get help then it's done it's job, enabled a person to get help. Could Sirmoonie have a problem, perhaps that's why this info evoked such a negative response? Just wondering?
Take care.
Sparkles.

[sirmoonie]

Originally Posted by missparkles

Sparkles often wonders what the motives are of anyone who bashes good, solid, helpful info.

I bashed that particular part of that test because I didn't think that particular part of it was good, solid or helpful info.

I also thought that bashing that particular part of that test was good, solid and helpful - for the reasons I mentioned. Drinking X amount alone still seems no different to me than drinking same amount with your friends. Some people simply enjoy being alone, and feel "socializing" is overrated sober or loaded. Your bashing of my bashing was loaded up with qualifications, assumptions and truisms, that weren't there previously.

Originally Posted by missparkles

After all, if anyone feels the need to read this checklist to ascertain if they have a problem, they're already worried about their drinking.

Exactly. So the checklist should be good, solid and helpful, instead of containing at least one broad, innacurate generalization that doesn't provide much help. At least in my opinion it doesn't.

Originally Posted by missparkles

And if they check it out with a doc, and find they don't have a problem, no harm has been done, they ain't gonna become one by reading that damn checklist. If it helps one person get help then it's done it's job, enabled a person to get help. Could Sirmoonie have a problem, perhaps that's why this info evoked such a negative response? Just wondering?
Take care.
Sparkles.

Not sure what any of that, including the descent into amateur psychology, had to do with what I said. My problems are legion - I once inhaled 6 cans of butane because I was angry and bored. Sorry, I mean SWIM did. But, he did it around other people, so maybe it's not a problem.......

Take care.
Sirmoonie.

[Dickon]

Play nice people!

[missparkles]

Apologies Dickon. Sparkles adds nothing to any discussion by getting arsey.
Good to be reminded of that...thanks.

Sparkles.

[rokman nash]

To be honest that question was not one of the original questions, but when Dave consulted with his doc friend, he said it was a valid addition that most doctors use in estimating a potential problem. If someone doesn't like it simply ignore it and move on. But if it strikes such a strong chord, it might be time to reflect on Swims personal situation.

Good Thoughts

[sirmoonie]

Originally Posted by rokman nash

If someone doesn't like it simply ignore it and move on. But if it strikes such a strong chord, it might be time to reflect on Swims personal situation.

Good Thoughts

What a needlessly sensitive bunch.

Rokmash, it was a reply comment on a post you affirmatively made on a drug and alcohol related message board.

Is there some rule I don't know about that says you have to two thumbs up everything?

Here, try this flip side logic - it makes more significantly more sense than what you just said: if you don't like your posts replied to, simply ignore the replies and move on. But if having your posts replied to strikes such a strong chord, it might be time to reflect on Swim's personal situation. Good grief.....

Reputation Comments on this post:

-2 Points for being rude, arrogant, obnoxious, etc. Rokman Nash was just trying to help you out and you have already be...

[missparkles]

Sparkles doesn't think sensitivity is needless.
Instead of telling everyone how wrong they all are, why not tell them why he's right? If he thinks excessive drinking when alone, isn't an indication that someone has a potential alcohol problem, then lets hear it?
But Sparkles thinks he already knows that this topic was about excessive secretive drinking, not normal solitary drinking, and he's just trying to be awkward. People are trying to be supportive, help others who are struggling with addiction problems, maybe he could offer some advice, as opposed to being critical of others that are trying to help.
Sparkles.

[motorhead]

I think if one is to answer yes to questions 1 and/or 3 then this could be a true indication. Obviously, if one answers yes then something is not right in ones life for them to feel this way.

Drinking when you wake up or getting smashed by yourself(2+5) aren't bad unless you do it on a regular basis and it interferes with your life imo.

Question 4, really depends on who that someone is. I'm sure everyone's Mother has told them they drink to much, but if your spouse or boss is nagging you then this is a different story.

It's all very subjective. We used to get similar quizes from the drug counsellers in high school.

[Dickon]

Note to others: Please, let's try to be considerate of others and their views, even if you disagree.

Note to self or other mods: edit this thread sometime when it's not current.

This is an interesting topic and the questionnaire is a useful springboard for discussion. I've already asked people to play nice. If I need to do so again, I'll simply close the thread and delete anything I feel I need to.

Dickon [Jackbooted voice of totalitarian authority!]

[Sushi]

I've read the thread once again and would like to share a few thoughts and observations.

I have to agree with Sirmoonie's criticism of no.5 on our list and I think that the only problem with it was his failure to pinpoint what's exactly wrong with this one. In my opinion saying it's "outdated" clearly misses the point.

I'm not sure, but I think I suggested to Rok adding this point to his questionnaire, what he did after consulting his friendly doctor. This point attracted a lot criticism since then, and I would like to criticise it too.

But first of all let me state the questionnaire as a whole has one major flaw, i.e. it doesn't specify any particular time-frame for a person using it to gauge his relationship with alcohol.

We already saw it here where it leads, creatures answering "yes" to all questions, but specifying it all happened in some more or less distant past and is not applying to them nowadays. Hence it gives "false", confusing readings, in fact. Maybe, to avoid this kind of outcome, it should be given 2 runs always - one with a life-time perspective, the other assessing "present" time, for -let's say- an arbitrary 1 year period?

The questionnaire is a useful tool but it certainly needs some calibrating and reworking to be really valuable, and I think we should give it some more attention. Thanks to Nature Boy we had a chance to clarify the thing a bit already. We should treat Sirmoonie's criticism of it seriously too, because it really seems to be valid, even if he initially failed to specify more precisely what's really wrong with it.

Let me state now how I see it currently.

Frowning upon drinking alone stems form social norms and as it is with social norms, this one too is artificial and conventional. It is also enacted for our safety and for the good of society itself, especially for the good of a family. For example, if a member of a family drinks while no one else is drinking, and especially if there are kids around watching him or her doing it, then there is severing of social bonds and a negative example for children. Harm is done. It's "bad".

Now take a loner, a confirmed bachelor or just some lost soul having no friends. Said person regularly drinks a glass of wine, let's say after a dinner or a supper. Is any harm done? Is it a symptom of alcohol addiction? No, or at least by itself it proves nothing yet.

Let's say said person finally meets some people and instead of having his glass of wine at home, goes out to a pub, downs 6 beers and gets shitfaced. According to our questionnaire no one should say a thing to him, because the questionnaire doesn't even take into consideration getting drunk or excessive drinking - other than drinking excessively alone.

Now take a woman doing the same as above, drinking small amounts alone or getting properly plastered with friends in a pub. Both activities will draw criticism in her case, because social norm is different for both genders.

And the norm itself is artificial and conventional, it's nothing set in stone and it's not a divine revelation or something. What's more society as a whole *needs* people breaking it's own rules, transgressivist and troublemakers, even though it punishes them severely sometimes.

Also, idolising those rules leads sometimes to cynical exploits committed often times by mental health specialists and therapists dealing with addictions.

Anyway, while trying to understand what constitutes an addiction (not just an alcohol addiction) I reached the conclusion that there is one such thing:

The loss of control over a drug of choice.

This is what AA assesses while asking in its questionnaire whether one is unable to stop alcohol intake while it's been started. And it's a multi-facet phenomenon, it includes a multitude of symptoms (some are included already in our questionnaire, some are not). After reaching this point (the loss of control) and after quitting alcohol one finds himself where all "true" addicts are: unable to get back to controlled usage without risking a full-blown relapse. It may seem fatalistic and pessimistic but all honest addicts know it's - unfortunately - true, for most of them. Maybe there are exceptions, sure, but they are exceptions to the rule and nothing else.

Let's try to rework our questionnaire. Maybe we should compare it with AA surveys? It surely needs expanding and clarifying at some points. It's not perfect and probably will never be but we surely need some understanding what are warnings, symptoms and dead give-aways of alcohol addiction, even though its manifestations may differ from person to person. Otherwise we will be even more lost then we are now.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good points made.

[sirmoonie]

Originally Posted by Sushi

I've read the thread once again and would like to share a few thoughts and observations.

I have to agree with Sirmoonie's criticism of no.5 on our list and I think that the only problem with it was his failure to pinpoint what's exactly wrong with this one. In my opinion saying it's "outdated" clearly misses the point.

I thought I had explained the reasons that I thought No. 5 made no sense. Again, what possible diagnostic difference does it make knowing how many people are around - zero vs. 1 or more - when a person drinks to excess? That would be the thesis question. I can't come up with a reasonable answer to it, and I have tried.

Since then, I've also thought the following: consider applying the goofball logic inherent in that question to other drugs. For example, if you shoot speedballs (to excess) all alone its trouble, but shoot speedballs (to excess) with friends, then ehhhhh not so much? It doesn't make sense.

Actually, at the risk of going back on my previous promise, and also proceeding very hesitantly because I realize now that the list carries a massive emotional weight around here for some reason, I think the whole list is pretty idiotic, and looks like it was quickly and haphhazardly cobbled together by some doctor who felt a fleeting desire to make a list for list-making sake.

Nos. 1 and 3 are cumulative and redundant to each other. They are also conclusory. They are also subsumed by what is, if you actually think about it, the only question that makes any sense: "Yes or no, do you think you have an alcohol problem?"

No. 2 - what possible difference does it make what time of day you drink? You have one drink in the morning and its a problem, but drink a 12 pack with friends in the evening, and it's somehow less indicative of a problem? I know several people who had a "dram" early in the AM, and that was it for the day. Or SWIM knew them. They most definitely did not have a problem. It was more a cultural thing with them. I can't think of any reason to emphasize or de-emphasize temporal aspects of drinking.

No. 4 - wouldn't it be more of a problem if you didn't get annoyed by people who told you that you drank too much? Or what if you are one of those very laid back types with a drinking problem, incapable of being annoyed by others? Or what if you DON'T have a drinking problem, and quite reasonably get annoyed with some religious or hyper-critical person suggesting that you do? Just seems like a dumb question - basing a diagnosis of a serious health issue in large part on the subjective observations and comments of people who happen to monitor the amount you drink. But hey, at least you probably weren't drinking alone......

That list of questions is pretty worthless, and must yield an absurd number of false positives (and even false negatives). You could hopelessly "flunk" that quiz if your spouse or significant-other annoys you by complaining about your single morning Bloody Mary or single morning Champagne with orange juice that you drink by yourself, yet you could "pass" it by getting loaded everynight with friends, not worrying one bit about it, and laughing off any suggestions that you drank too much. I guess that's what I meant by "outdated" earlier. These old notions about what a problem drinker does and how they behave seem like relics of 1950s psychiatrists - almost like a misinformed Reefer Madness mentality that just causes more distractions and needless anxiety, than actual benefit to people.

That's just my opinion. Or SWIM's opinion if having opinions is illegal. The opinion is not intended to annoy, injure, disparage, upset, harrass, obfuscate, marginalize, criticize, etc., but you are free to take it all those that ways if it's your desire to do so.

[guntroll]

I hate tests like these. These always pointed that I was a mild problem drinker. Which is not what I am.

It should be either simplified to "does drinking cause you social/ health problems," or expanded to a much larger test based on whether one binge drinks (which is only 5 shots for guys, 4 for women), how often one binge drinks compared to non-binge drinking, if one ever blacks out, if they've ever ended up in the hospital, etc.

But I'll put myself in simple terms. Yes, I have a strong history of probem drinking.

[aman201]

Originally Posted by guntroll

I hate tests like these. These always pointed that I was a mild problem drinker. Which is not what I am.

It should be either simplified to "does drinking cause you social/ health problems," or expanded to a much larger test based on whether one binge drinks (which is only 5 shots for guys, 4 for women), how often one binge drinks compared to non-binge drinking, if one ever blacks out, if they've ever ended up in the hospital, etc.

But I'll put myself in simple terms. Yes, I have a strong history of probem drinking.

I've never liked this question either, i mean imagine someone ended up in hospital at a young age after abusing alcohol too young, but hasn't since needed the hospital because of over-drinking?

Most teens when they 1st realise drinking at what 14/15? over do it? But they learn from their experiences.

This is what happened to me, i was hospitalised only once, but haven't since. It makes no difference to my current situation.

[guntroll]

No that should be a question, I'm saying. I guess it then should be "In the past X years have you been hospitalized?"

But, still. What time of the day you drink, etc. Aren't really indicators of problem drinlking. It's more how much how often and in what circumstances.