Many months ago, the cover of a national
magazine leaped out at me with its title of a provocative
story: "What AA Won't Tell You." It was followed
by this subhead: "Controlled drinking works for
many problem drinkers who are not alcoholics. But it's
heresy to say so."
For me, this title and the subsequent
story were a case of deja vu all over again! More than
twenty years ago, a prominent think tank came out with
a report that some alcoholics could return to normal
drinking. I can still hear the moans of fellow AAs who
were sure that this report would cause some people to
go back to drinking. This was so serious that I'm sure
some members thought the General Service Office should
frame a response.
In keeping with our Traditions, GSO
made no comment about what was really a public controversy.
But the AA Grapevine did permit me to voice an opinion
in the January 1977 issue ("Is Public Controversy
Ever Justified?"). The thrust of the article was
that AA should never enter public controversy even when
its own interests are involved. As for the argument
that the report would persuade some alcoholics to drink
again, my argument was that we don't need a think tank's
backing if we want to drink--any friendly bartender
or drinking companion will serve just as well.
Perhaps I can also make some observations
about programs aimed at teaching people controlled drinking.
One thought is that I did think the title was a bit
unfair in implying that we are somehow withholding important
information or are even responsible for giving out information
about such programs. The fact is, AA members don't tell
people about such programs because we know very little
about them or the results they are getting. Nor are
we even capable of telling who might be the best prospects
for recovery in AA. Despite our personal experience,
we really have very little expertise in diagnosing the
seriousness of another's drinking problem. Many of us
probably feel that virtually nobody comes to AA unless
there's been some kind of drinking trouble, so we immediately
begin telling any newcomer within earshot how the AA
program works.
But even if somebody would give us information
about an alternative program that keeps drinking in
the picture, I'd feel nervous about suggesting it. It
may be that our approach may be viewed as implicitly
calling all newcomers alcoholics, but they are not required
to believe us. Yes, we might have bored or offended
them, but they are always free to reject what we have
to say and to hurry back to the bars. The more serious
fault, I feel, is in our being unable to convince real
alcoholics that they have a problem, not selling the
program too hard to people who may still have a chance
to handle their booze.
But suppose we have unwittingly convinced
some persons to remain abstinent a day at a time when
they really could be belting a limited number of drinks
with impunity. Are we doing them grave harm in some
way? (The article did hint that total abstinence is
a very extreme remedy that should only be applied in
very serious cases!)
I suppose our program could be seen
as harmful if the person missed out on some important
experiences by not drinking at all, though it's hard
to think what these might be. But at the time of the
think tank report, twenty-one years ago, a wise doctor
explained it to me this way. (He is a nonalcoholic who
seems to have considerable understanding of the alcoholism
field.) He said that it's known that about three persons
out of every ten who have a burst appendix can survive
without surgery. But doctors have no way of knowing
who those people might be, so they recommend surgery
in every case of a burst appendix. In the same way,
we have no way of knowing who the prospective controlled
drinkers might be, so we recommend AA for everybody
who comes through our doors. And we can even concede,
in this day of court and employer referrals, that we
might indeed be getting some newcomers who have the
ability to control their drinking after having brief
troubles with alcohol.
Does AA offer any way people can tell
for themselves if they're just problem drinkers who
can really control the stuff or are alcoholics who are
over the line? Far from avoiding this issue, AA did
tackle it way back in 1939 with the publication of the
Big Book. AA's simple suggestion about this is on pages
31 and 32 of the basic text, Alcoholics Anonymous
(Third Edition): "We do not like to pronounce any
individual as alcoholic, but you can quickly diagnose
yourself. Step over to the nearest barroom and try some
controlled drinking. Try to drink and stop abruptly.
Try it more than once. It will not take long for you
to decide, if you are honest with yourself about it.
It may be worth a case of jitters if you get a full
knowledge of your condition."
This might be a useful statement to
share with newcomers who are having real doubts about
the nature of their condition. Better yet, they can
deal with those doubts by getting in touch with any
program that aims at controlled drinking. If it works
for them, we should feel glad that they found useful
answers in turning around what threatened to be a bad
situation. If it turns out not to work, we're always
delighted to welcome them back into AA.
GO
BACK
GO
BACK