Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an alcholic once told me, if you can follow "any guideline" you are not an alcholic. Alcoholics have no control.

As a cancer survivor, I almost never drink. The increased cancer risks associated with alcohol is just not worth it, especially after you have had one cancer.

First, wonderful news about surviving cancer. Second, your first statement is inaccurate. Alcoholics can follow guidelines. You can decide to drink 15, and only 15 beers a night and still be an alcoholic.

Indeed, we call it white knuckling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ PP here. Another thing to add is that functional alcoholics are often in great shape, have great jobs, run marathons, have families - at least my family members suffering from addicition did / do. But they were also dependent on alcohol. They used it. No, they were never raging drunks, but they also believed they couldn't get by without 2, 3, or 4 drinks of wine, scotch, or gin a night.

I often wonder about my mom in this regard. She has wine at lunch (sometimes before lunch), in the afternoon and at dinner (less than a bottle a day). But she is in phenomenal shape at 75 and can out-hike most 50 year olds, does yoga, goes out, holds dinner parties. She is very organized and on top of everything and travels the world. She has her personality issues (is critical), but is doing much better than most her age. Is she an alcoholic? Does it matter? I tend to think not, but am not sure. PP, in what way did it matter to your family members or to you?

Friend's MIL could be your mom, exactly the same. Well, she got into an accident with her grandkids after having a glass of wine. Kids were fine (so, so fortunate), but saw a badly bruised and bloody grandma. Alcoholic.

Anonymous wrote:As an alcholic once told me, if you can follow "any guideline" you are not an alcholic. Alcoholics have no control.

As a cancer survivor, I almost never drink. The increased cancer risks associated with alcohol is just not worth it, especially after you have had one cancer.

First, wonderful news about surviving cancer. Second, your first statement is inaccurate. Alcoholics can follow guidelines. You can decide to drink 15, and only 15 beers a night and still be an alcoholic.

As an alcholic once told me, if you can follow "any guideline" you are not an alcholic. Alcoholics have no control.

As a cancer survivor, I almost never drink. The increased cancer risks associated with alcohol is just not worth it, especially after you have had one cancer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I look at it is what if DH was drinking three Cokes or rootbeers or coffees to "relax" every single night? Would you think that was excessive? I would. And as an aside, I went to a family day at a local rehab (Father Martins Ashley) and I believe they define it as anything more than 7 drinks in a week. Unfortunately, several family members afflicted with this disease and each of them highly functioning, successful, married but totally dependent on alcohol.

This is hysterical. Almost everyone I work with drinks three coffees a day at least! One women drinks at least three diet cokes. Most of these people are health nuts who run and do Tough Mudder races.

Meanwhile, we've got a nation of disgustingly obese people dying of diabetes and heart disease. Let's not go nuts over three cups of coffee or two daily drinks.

I'm the PP you quoted and I'm not talking about soda consumed over the course of the day (though, yes, it's not healthy for you). But if you drank 3 Cokes in quick succession after coming home and before dinner because it's the way you relaxed, then YES, I would find that concerning.

Actually my co-worker does drink several diet cokes, one after another, in the morning. And my younger brother's friends drink Red Bulls the same way. I'm not overly concerned about any of these people. I think it's very strange that you feel the need to be the soda and coffee police and compare it to alcoholism.

I also know people who eat too many cookies at night - they are not fat, but they do enjoy those cookies, one after another.

Is that a problem too?

Completely bizarre thinking, PP.

Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. But many alcoholics binge drink or consume multiple drinks to self medicate and to address feelings of anxiety, stress, depression, etc. People use food in the same way. So yes, if my loved one sat and downed cookie after cookie, night after night, I'd be concerned. If they got home from work and opened up can after can of soda and downed them all in quick succession, I'd be concerned. Binge consumption isn't normal. Is it always a sign of addiction? No. But whether it be food or drink (alcoholic and non alcoholic) people "use" these things to "treat" their pain and feelings of XYZ. A lot of addiction is in plain sight but because people are afraid to acknowledge it and/or confront another person in pain, they pretend it's not a problem. If it doesn't fit the stereotype (raging drunk or terribly obese person) they pretend there is no issue. To me, that's bizarre.

And by the way, the Taurine in Red Bull is quite strong and while you do build a tolerance after a while, it can give you a kind of buzz that a lot of people crave. It also amplifies the effect of alcohol. One of the many reasons it is an attractive drink to a lot of young people (I used to drink a lot of it in my younger years, so I speak from experience).

Op - does his drinking change him in any way? can you tell if he has had his drinks or not? Once he is drinking do you notice any mood or behavior changes?

Any hangovers in the morning? sick days? loss of memory? impacting on family life?

Does he talk about needing his daily drinks? Can he go without them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way I look at it is what if DH was drinking three Cokes or rootbeers or coffees to "relax" every single night? Would you think that was excessive? I would. And as an aside, I went to a family day at a local rehab (Father Martins Ashley) and I believe they define it as anything more than 7 drinks in a week. Unfortunately, several family members afflicted with this disease and each of them highly functioning, successful, married but totally dependent on alcohol.

This is hysterical. Almost everyone I work with drinks three coffees a day at least! One women drinks at least three diet cokes. Most of these people are health nuts who run and do Tough Mudder races.

Meanwhile, we've got a nation of disgustingly obese people dying of diabetes and heart disease. Let's not go nuts over three cups of coffee or two daily drinks.

I'm the PP you quoted and I'm not talking about soda consumed over the course of the day (though, yes, it's not healthy for you). But if you drank 3 Cokes in quick succession after coming home and before dinner because it's the way you relaxed, then YES, I would find that concerning.

Actually my co-worker does drink several diet cokes, one after another, in the morning. And my younger brother's friends drink Red Bulls the same way. I'm not overly concerned about any of these people. I think it's very strange that you feel the need to be the soda and coffee police and compare it to alcoholism.

I also know people who eat too many cookies at night - they are not fat, but they do enjoy those cookies, one after another.

Is that a problem too?

Completely bizarre thinking, PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:37 you seem really defensive and hung up on the label. This is the deal: whether one glass or fifty, what defines an alcoholic is the need - or perceived need - to drink alcohol and the inability to control that urge. Sorry if this hits a nerve for you, but that's the reality.

I'm not defensive. I just think it is kind of clueless and offensive to people who have had loved ones who are actual alcoholics to pretend that having 2 drinks/night is alcoholism. Alcoholism has a clinical definition -- no matter how much you like those two drinks, it does not make you an alcoholic. Get back to me when your loved one is literally falling over drunk in their puke; still drunk the next morning; and you literally fear for their lives. Not all alcoholism is this severe all the time, but it is just stupid to act like two drinks is a "problem" any where close to the equivalent of true alcoholism, the kind that obviously threatens your health, job, and relationships.

I'm the PP you quoted. Your comments are clueless and offensive. I have several loved ones, my parents and brother included, who are "actual alcoholics," as you put it. Yes, I know a thing or two about "actual alcoholism." Not every "actual alcohlic" is a raging drunk. It's that kind of thinking that keeps addicts and their families in denial for years - or decades - and not only destroys lives and relationships, but minds and bodies as well.

Anonymous wrote:17:37 you seem really defensive and hung up on the label. This is the deal: whether one glass or fifty, what defines an alcoholic is the need - or perceived need - to drink alcohol and the inability to control that urge. Sorry if this hits a nerve for you, but that's the reality.

I'm not defensive. I just think it is kind of clueless and offensive to people who have had loved ones who are actual alcoholics to pretend that having 2 drinks/night is alcoholism. Alcoholism has a clinical definition -- no matter how much you like those two drinks, it does not make you an alcoholic. Get back to me when your loved one is literally falling over drunk in their puke; still drunk the next morning; and you literally fear for their lives. Not all alcoholism is this severe all the time, but it is just stupid to act like two drinks is a "problem" any where close to the equivalent of true alcoholism, the kind that obviously threatens your health, job, and relationships.

2-3 drinks not a problem.

17:37 you seem really defensive and hung up on the label. This is the deal: whether one glass or fifty, what defines an alcoholic is the need - or perceived need - to drink alcohol and the inability to control that urge. Sorry if this hits a nerve for you, but that's the reality.

Again, 17:37, what does it matter whether you call it a "problem" or alcoholism? It's still unhealthy and it's still a [i]problem. [/] FWIW we don't know if OP's dh has this particular problem. That's for her to figure out.

But if he has three scotches every night for months, then he will ultimately increase it over time in order to feel the effects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's always interesting in these threads is how important it is for some posters to avoid the label alcoholic. If OP's husband needs to drink that much and can't do without it, he has a problem. It doesn't matter whether you call him an alcoholic or not.

George W. Bush quit drinking and drugging and never called himself an alcoholic. Seems to me that he did what he needed to do and that's what was important. If he didn't want to call himself an alcoholic, that's his business.

(BTW this is not an endorsement for Bush who sucked as a president.)

This. My mom says that alcohol "didn't agree with her." She has been in AA for 24 years and actively works on her recovery. She drank 2 - 3 glasses of wine every night and felt like it became an essential part of her day that she couldn't do with out. She craved it and as a result felt shame and embarrassment when she couldn't stop for more than a day at a time. But she certainly wasn't a drunk - never once do I remember seeing her affected by alcohol.

Some people seem more preocuppied with the label than with the dependency that indicates a serious problem.

I'm sorry, but if your mom went to AA for two glasses of wine a night, then her real problem was either with shame and embarassment, not alcoholism. Either that, or she was drinking a lot more than she told you.

Different poster here. Her problem was obviously that she couldn't stop drinking for very long. That's what a number of posters have been saying. If you need to have two drinks a night, you have a problem. If you can take it or leave it - as most people can - then it's not a big deal.

OK, I give up. It may be a "problem" in the mind of the Internet, but I challenge you to find me one screening assessment or piece of scientific literature that says that having 2 drinks/night constitutes actual alcoholism.

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. Sorry, 17:30, you don't have to go on a bender every so often to be an alcoholic. I've been around a fair number of alcoholics who didn't go on benders.

Argh, that's not what I said! A binge is one indication that you MIGHT be an alcoholic. Some people will binge and not be alcoholics. Some alcoholics will go through periods of fooling themselves that they can drink moderately, and just because they are not binging at the moment does not mean they are not alcoholics.

But yes, I do think that you can't be defined as an alcoholic unless you ACTUALLY GET DRUNK. I'm not saying this will look like the stereotypical drunk-in-the-gutter drunk. But the OP's husband apparently is not even getting drunk (unless his 2-3 drinks are actually 3 doubles pounded at once). An average size man can have 2-3 drinks over the course of an evening without raising his BAC very significantly.

Geez, I need to move to France already.