[hunterjrj]

Sometimes things in life ARE black and white. You either drink and suffer the consequences, or you don't.

You can spend as much time as you'd like rationalizing your addiction (which, based on your comments, you seem to be) but ultimately it comes down to a choice: Stop, or don't stop.

I speak from experience here. I quit smoking after smoking a pack a day for a decade. It took a long time, and it took alot of honesty with myself: Recognizing that I was rationalizing "just one more" because "I had a bad day" and that I couldn't quit because my lifestyle didn't accomodate it, etc etc.

Cut the crap and stop. If you can't stop on your own, turn to professional help.

Edit: Pack a day, not week.

[variety]

Many things are black and white, but alcohol use isn't one of them.

There's a substantial body of medical evidence emerging (not to mention 10,000 years of recorded human experience) indicating that lower levels of alcohol consumption (~1 drink a day) aren't just safe, or merely "not so bad", but in fact -- when accompanied by certain eating habits -- can be quite good for you.

[lukev]

Yes and no. Yes, moderate alcohol consumption is fine for most people.

But a real alcoholic can't just stop at a few drinks. For them, it is a binary decision. It's very rare to find a former alcoholic who now drinks lightly or moderately. Most can only overcome it by quitting entirely.

[Homunculiheaded]

There was even a study of this. Some, but very few, alcoholics have been able to stop at 'just a few'. But it turns out that after a decade members of that group either relapsed or became entirely abstinent. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12873238

So even if someone anecdotally knows a recovering alcoholic who can drink in moderation this is very likely to only be the case in the short term.

[variety]

What that article says may be true for DSM III (or IV) alcoholics (which as a class may or may not include the OP).

My point is simply that in the general population[1], patterns of alcohol (mis)use seem to fall on a fairly wide spectrum, and are not simply a matter of "isa" or "!isa" alcoholic.

*[1] based on careful sampling and rigorous application of standard methodologies, i.e. "considering people I know."

[hunterjrj]

I'll concede my blanket statement with respect to general alcohol use, but I'll argue that this man's specific case is pretty cut and dried.

There is alot of rationalization on his part throughout this thread, and speaking as someone who had a bonafide addiction and kicked it, I recognize what he's going through.

There are no two ways about it. Addiction is a problem with no tepid, dipping-your-toe-in-the-water approach to solving it.

[rue]

Not alcohol consumption, necessarily. The benefit is cited most ofter for red wine specifically, which indicates the active ingredient is something else.

10 000 years of recorded human experience only tells you that minimal alcohol consumption is not catastrophically bad for you, not that it is "safe".

[Alex3917]

Not true, your total morbidity risk decreases if you consume any type of alcohol up to 2 drinks per day. I'm guessing it still isn't great for your mental health, though I'm not positive on that.

[leif]

I believe the current thought is that it is good for your mental health. The stress relief extends your lifespan.

[rue]

Source?

[Alex3917]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/1/199.full

[rue]

Interesting, and I think I may have misread the conclusion (or your version thereof), to wit: it does not conclude that drinking up to 2 units per day is good, but that non-drinkers are worse off than people who drink up to 2 units per day - a figure which probably includes more than a few people who drink once every few days or even every few weeks (as opposed to none at all). It also does not differentiate within that group those who drink wine vs. other alcohols.

I hold the result inconclusive, then, on the subject of alcohol itself. Good info, though, thank you!