From: fullerto@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy dwight fullerton)
Subject: Re: easier?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:34:46 GMT

In article <18l8a2INNskf@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield) writes:
>barbaraj@csc.ti.com writes:
>> Somewhere in AA dogma (I'm sure many of you know exactly where!) is the 
>> thought about the easier, softer way availed us nothing.  What I hear
>> Richard saying is that for some people, the easier, softer way worked.
>> I think I am one of those people... [story about learning how to control
>> alcohol use without total abstention]...
>
>Why do you think that it is "easier" to learn how to use alcohol
>in reasonable quantities than it is to learn how to abstain from
>it completely?  It seems to me the former would be much harder.
>The former requires learning judgement, to know when and how much
>is appropriate for you in your different contexts.  The complete-
>abstinance approach gives you a clear, objective measure of whether
>you're succeeding or failing:  you either took a drink or you didn't.


	Good Point! I doubt anyone could dispute it. Speaking for myself 
alone, I struggled to control my recreational drug use every day for 
three years and proved to myself beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am 
completely incapable of controlling my drug usage by myself, and that a
single breach of abstinence will trigger an uncontrollable relapse of 
the obsessive/compulsive disorder. Even after it had ripped my heart and 
soul out! I have found countless people who share this experience.


	It does not seem to me to be unreasonable that, after sufficient 
recovery, deep spiritual awakening, and achievement of deep spiritual 
fulfillment, one could control recreational drug use where he had been an
alcoholic.


	HOWEVER:

	My behavior with other, less mood altering diversions... caffeine,
television, sex, work, Internet... gives me a subtle clue that this is 
not true. Also, I know people with decades of recovery who have broken 
their abstinence, and they tell me from their experience that this is
not true. 

	I am not saying at all that anyone is being dishonest with him or 
herself. I don't know you and AAs are frequently quick to judge. The 
reason is that most people in early recovery are in a state of deep 
denial about a lot of things, and our confronting what we perceive to be 
lies hopefully shows the person not only how transparent they really 
are, but that we used the same lies on ourselves--usually, 
rationalizations for drug use. Regrettably, sometimes our arrogance 
takes us overboard, and people have been known to flame when they don't
know what they are talking about. The practice, though, is still necessary
and saves a lot of lives. In my opinion, this outweighs the damage done
by assholes.

	If you can honestly state that you can control your use after 
having had a period of abuse and be happy, more power to you. Have a 
blotter and a six pack for me! (I wont even begin to cite big book 
definitions of an alcoholic vs. abuser. I'm sure you will hear it
relentlessly for ever).

	Whether or not one can use socially after the aforementioned 
conditions have been met is irrelevant. IT IS A STUPID AND INSANE RISK
TO TAKE WITH MY LIFE.

	Therefore, yes. Total abstinence is an easier and softer way.


	Not a flame of anyone or anything. I just hadn't read the opinion put
like this yet. So...

		Tim F.