ANST - Annoying the chemically defendent

[Dennis and/or Dory Grace]

In response to Johan's:
>> >>Drinking at events is a long-standing tradition. 

I wrote:
>> How I love this rationalization. "Such&such is ok because it's A
>> Tradition." Oh yeah. That's enough justification for me, by golly.
>> Three guesses how much respect I hold for this freestanding
>> rationalization. First two don't count.

and Joel Schumacher responds:
>Hey, live and let live!  If you don't drink because you're a recovering
>alcoholic, because of religious reasons, because you don't like the
>taste, whatever your particular reason is, DON'T DRINK!  But don't
>attempt to impose your views on the multitude of people who enjoy it.

Um, is this thing on? Hello? Did parts of my previous post get lost in the
ether? I don't remember trying to impose anything on anyone, I shared some
opinions--none of which included the idea that *no one* should drink since
I don't. The snippet above is in response to
the--thank-you-very-much--*stupid* rationalization that if you call
something a "tradition" it somehow makes it a Good Thing.

>I'm originally from Milwaukee, which touts itself "the beer capital of
>the world".  In Milwaukee, alcohol (or at least beer) was prevalent.
>You could go just about anywhere and they'd serve beer - the museum,
>the zoo, festivals.  Beer even flowed a-plenty at church festivals.
>Any "dry" festival was attended very poorly.  Why?  It was the choice
>of the majority to have beer.  You don't provide what the majority
>wants, you don't bring in the crowds or the money that comes with them.

I'm originally from America, where 75% of the population is at some level
of obesity. Why? Because it is the choice of the majority to eat improperly
and maintain low levels of physical activity. Maybe we should put more
attention on how much food we make available at SCA events and down-play
the fighting and other physical activities, since that would better reflect
the values and wants of the "majority" and perhaps then we could charge
more money for event fees?  

>And dry events really do take away some socialization.  Not that you
>can't socialize without alcohol, but people do lose their inhibitions
>when they drink.  For many people, their inhibitions prevent them from
>socializing and meeting others.  I was very shy and didn't approach
>people I didn't know.  After I started drinking, I met and made a lot
>more friends than before.  I'm not an alcoholic and I don't need drink.
>But I can't denying that it has a postive effect on my social life.

How much sober socializing do you do now that alcohol has entered your
life? Are you no longer shy and full of self-confidence without a drink or
too? Then maybe you learned from some experiences you had after drinking
enough to shut down some primary  inhibition levels. Or do you still prefer
to have a drink or two before or while socializing? Do you still think you
have more "fun" if you're inebriated to some degree? Alcohol doesn't make
you not-shy. It just shuts down some brain functions.

>> if you're making social decisions based primarily on whether you
>> can consume alcohol or not, you have a drinking problem. Get help.
>
>Maybe not on whether I can consume alcohol or not, but is alcohol being
>consumed by others is the question.  Wet events are more lively, more
>entertaining, whether I'm drinking or not.  Dry ones are, well, dry.
>
>Think of the parties at Gulf War.  Now think of what they'd be like
>with everybody drinking coke and water.  Much more subdued, much more
>boring.

I guess it just depends on what you find entertaining. There are a lot of
things that happen due to people drinking too much that are dangerous,
scary, and downright obnoxious or disgusting, none of them entertaining. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that an event where alcohol
is being consumed holds greater odds of the above type things happening.
Personally, I had a great time at Gulf Wars drinking nothing but coke and
water, and had a great time with friends who were drinking nothing but coke
and water. I also spent some time with friends who were drinking and had a
great time with them too, seeing as they were all drinking in moderation
and still coherent. I would have had just as great a time with them if they
were sober.

>> You're missing out. I know.  It's amazing how fascinating life can
>> become once you quit poisoning yourself.
>
>An alcoholic has a dependancy problem - alcohol.  Getting out from 
>under any dependancy is a good thing and I'm sure life is better
>afterwards. But don't categorize all drinkers as going through the
>same things that an alcoholic does.

Once again, I don't remember saying anywhere in any of my posts that all
drinkers go through the same things that an alcoholic does. Can you show me
where I said this?

 I think you might be assuming that just because I'm a recovering alcoholic
that I'm automatically going to turn evangelical on the subject of
drinking. It that's the case, you're wrong. I am well aware that the world
is just full of people who can drink socially and with impugnity for that
fact. I'm also well aware that a frightening percentage of people who drink
are subject to some level of chemical dependency. Some signs are more
obvious than others. Can I diagnose such a condition over an email list
with absolute certainty? I rather think not. Can I sometimes recognize
rationalizations that fit the m.o. of a using chemically dependent person?
After a couple of unsuccessful attempts at sobriety, out-patient treatment,
in-patient treatment, more out-patient treatment, some directed studies in
college, and a decade of chemically-uncompromised brain function and a dash
of 20-20 hindsight, I think I can make an educated guess. Yes, I could be
wrong. Then again, I could be right. That's all neither here nor there and
is all, in the end, merely my opinion.

>And alcohol is not a poison either.  Alcohol in moderation has
>documented health benefits in that it lowers bad cholesterol (is it
>LDLs or HDLs?).

Um, yes, alcohol *is* technically a poison (that's why people can die from
what's called "alcohol poisoning"). It doesn't take a whole lot of alcohol
to kill brain cells. It doesn't take a whole lot to cause fetal alcohol
syndrome and birth defects. As to documented health benefits to alcohol
itself, no, not necessarily. Some studies have *suggested* that a glass or
two of wine per week with dinner might aid digestion, but most support in
that area leans more toward lifestyle as having the primary health
benefits, not  the alcohol itself. Frankly, if this is the justification
for drinking that you're going to use, then going to an event at a dry site
should be no problem, since no study I've ever heard of suggests that the
purported health benefits from one to two glasses of wine with dinner per
week be ingested on the weekend.

I think the odds are that most anyone who gets riled up and defensive about
drinking are an intervention case waiting to happen. That's a pretty broad
generalization I realize, but I could also say--with some temerity, I'm
sure--the same thing about most anyone who gets riled up and defensive
about being able to physically settle differences with their spouses, or
most anyone who gets riled up and defensive about smoking. Just something
to think about.

Aquilanne


Dory Grace--The Inkwell
denouncer of Tytyvylus & warrior crone
Austin, Texas
mailto:amazing at mail.utexas.edu
http://www.angelfire.com/biz/aquilanne
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.