Don't read this post (Revised)

...If you consider yourself an alcoholic and you depend on AA to keep you going. This is something I've wanted to say for a long time, and I'm finally saying it.

*******************************************************************************

Update: 061507 0850 PDT: A good friend, an ex-alcoholic who vigorously defends the AA system which saved him from his condition, pointed out that I had one error of fact and one error of observation in the first edition of this post. He also disagreed with the whole tone of the rant. I've changed it to correct those errors, but left the tone intact. I unpublished his comment as he inadvertently identified himself in it.

*******************************************************************************

I am more than a little suspicious of the Alcoholics Anonymous "Industry" and all that goes with it, the "interventions", the dry-you-out clinics which charge you the price of a nice ranch, and above all, I hate MADD and their fu**cked-up social tinkering, with a purple passion.

As a retired patrol Deputy Sheriff, I've seen far more of the problems alcoholics cause than most anyone. I've arrested FAR more traffic drunks than the usual career Deputy (that had more to do with the fact that each DUII arrest brought me about 11.3 hours of time-and-a-half overtime pay, which enhanced my pension and I am now luxuriating in as I write).

What I HAVEN'T seen is the clear, bright line that differentiates a social drinker such as myself (although I am down to about 10 drinks a month now, sometimes less, booze is incompatible with my medical conditions and meds I take for them) from an actual, by-God alky, one who has fu**ed him/her self up and everything around them.

So, what does the "industry" do?

Of course, they lump most of the controlled drinkers in with the alkies by their idiotic mantras like "if you ever drank because you were down, you're an alcoholic", or "if you have more than two drinks of an evening, you're an alcoholic", or "if you drink to forget someone, you're an alcoholic". Then the nanny gummint jumps in to REQUIRE expensive alcohol evaluation and/or "diversion" if you had a drop of hooch before coming to their attention for damn near any "offense", real, perceived or just plain fabricated.

What a load of unmitigated crap.

Here's the Rivrdog definition of an alcoholic:

You're an alkie if you drink enough, or often enough, to cause ANY damage to your your life or anyone else's.

End of statement.

No, I'm not finished. Stick around.

Why is it OK for folks to use an intoxicating substance, Cannabis (you will NOT believe the Oregon Medical Marijuana law, which lets you get legally high to relieve symptoms of some medical issues, and a few that are nowhere near medical: "relieve pain, get through depression etc, etc, ad nauseam), but it's not OK to use good Scotch (or even cheap vodka) to do the same thing?

Marijuana as a medication is used in an uncontrolled manner (smoking anything is the most uncontrolled way you can ingest it), whereas alcohol can be precisely measured before ingestion. There are so many effective alternatives to ganja that it's completely un-necessary as a therapeutic drug, but you can't stop George Soros' huge fortune, and what Soros wants, Soros gets (at least when there's a Clinton in office).

Is alcoholism a disease? I'm not a doctor, but I'd say it's a disease of addiction, like drugs and other compulsive behaviors. There's a strong element of individual failure of personal responsibility that goes along with alcoholism, but it's not PeeCee to talk about that, so the dry-you-out people bury that part of it deep in their therapy. Medically, the AA bidnez is wrong for maintaining the dependency of it's patients on it's therapy, with no intent to ever discharge them, and that said, I have several friends who absolutely depend on that program's steps for their daily lives. It's a tossup for me. If the entire therapy was related to rebuilding a sense of personal responsibility in the patient, and not on little "crutches" that get them through their day sober, I FIRMLY believe that most alcohics would recover without further assistance. I hold it against the AA for inserting their control in these friends' psyches and keeping the control long after they have re-established their personal responsiblity. Some will need the daily maintenance that the AA 12-Step program offers, but why does AA (and it's clones) insist that EVERYONE who comes to them for help (or increasingly, people are FORCED to them for help by the gov't) needs daily maintenance for the rest of their lives?

(Previous example deleted, I incorrectly identified it as an example of AA teaching, as it turns out.)

I feel sorry for most people who've let booze ruin their lives, but I guess I also feel a little bit peeved that they couldn't control themselves. God gave every man Jack and woman Jill the brains to stay straight and sober. Those who have thrown away that God-given talent need some help, but I still have that talent, and I don't abide some smartass telling me I'm an alcoholic if I have a few shots of Scotch at a celebration of some sort (unless he's my doctor, and he's telling me that the booze WILL start up a gout attack, which it likely will).

Just sayin'

Nothing personal, just the Truth.

I just needed to rant this, because by my lights, there a LOT of folks who agree with me (other than hopeless alkies), and IMHO, the only reason that the AA schtick is so pervasive is that our nation has collectively given up on individual responsibility.

Oh, excuuuuse me, I've ranted without proposing a solution. Very politically incorrect of me, so here goes:

Make the alkies who've ruined their own lives and/or damaged others' pay for for treatment to get sober again and the direct damage, if any. Leave the bars, restaurants, clubs and the booze sellers the hell out of the equation. Guns don't cause murders, and booze doesn't cause alcoholics.

Rant ends

Comments

[Flintlock Tom]

Acknowledged, thanks for the elaboration.

Respectfully,

[Flintlock Tom]

I don't understand your objection to M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)
From what I have seen they push for harsher sentences for repeat, drunk driving, offenders. And the harshest sentences for those who injure others while doing it.
In other words: they push for consequences to irresponsible actions. That seems to be in line with your premise.
?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Answering your question, it is the position they take that drunk driving is a "super-misdemeanor" and requires mandatory jail time, mandatory prosecution, reserved jail space, etc. There are plenty of laws on the books already that can be enforced to provide consequences for offenses associated with drunk driving.

We are a nation of laws, and we entrusted those who wrote those laws to classify them as to severity. MADD comes along, butts into the middle of all that, and demands that "their" crime of DUII is a "super-crime", and must have different treatment than other misdemeanor crime. If you've been on the inside of the justice system like I have, you know that special treatment for special criminals is the surest way to wreck the balance of the whole system.

Then, of course, if you challenge MADD, you are some sort of unpatriotic asshole to them, even when you point out that spousal abusers, theives and other misdemeanants are getting away with fewer consequences because the Sheriff has to lock up so many drunks, because guys like me get VERY efficient at catching them and there is a special prosecutor who does nothing else but prosecute them (and special defense attorneys who do nothing but defend them. They are usually the sharpest lawyers around).

I could tell you stories all night FT, about much worse dangers to the public that NEVER get prosecuted, while one sip over the line guarantees you 3 nights in the bucket and about $25,000 in related expenses, BEFORE you pay your whopping new insurance bill.

Believe me, it's nothing special, DUII. Just another minor crime, but thanks to MADD, the criminal justice system has to spend a significant part of it's total time on it.

MADD sucks.

[Jim]

I am a charter member of D.A.M.M.

Drunks Against MADD Mothers!

Our motto? "Don't drink and drive. You might hit a bump and spill your drink!"

Seriously. MADD was one of the first manifestations of the Nanny State. And sadly, they were far from the last.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

[Morenuancedthanyou]

There were drive-through liquor stores in Colorado too.
I've been suspicious of the ever-shrinking limits for defining alcoholics for some time. Riverdog summed it up well.

[Guy S.]

Used to be the same in Texas, if memory serves. I DO REMEMBER there being "drive-thru" liquor stores. When I was stationed out DFW way back in the late 70's. I agree whole-heartedly with both you gents, it was much better when the law centered around one BEING RESPONSIBLE / ACCOUNTIBLE for their actions. Speeding used to be handled in the same manner. (Though the dynamics for speed limits has more to do with revenue generation, then it has to do with anything else.) In Nevada (back in the 60's, you could drive as fast as you wanted on the "Superhighways", AS LONG AS YOU DIDN'T CROSS THE LINE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD (solid line or hash mark divider, didn't matter). If you failed to stay with in your lane, regardless of speed, then you didn't have control of your vehicle and were going to be ticketed for same. (there is that pesky personal responsibility thing again *grin*.)

[PawPaw]

I agree. Completely. Here in Louisiana, until recently, it wasn't illegal to drink and drive. It was illegal to drive drunk, and the driver was supposed to know the difference. But, if a working man was getting off work and stopped at the local convenience store on the way home and bought a beer for the road, it wasn't against the law.

Then the nannies got involved. Waaaa.Waaaa.Waaaaa.

Ya know, sometimes I think we'd be better off if we'd just repeal all the laws passed since 1964.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I concur. That makes us (gasp!) (wait for it!)...............RETROGENARIANS! (the generation which wants to go back).