- Home
- Help Yourself Addiction Tools
- Self Management Tool Box
- Problems To Change
- Alcohol
- The Common Sense of Drinking (1930)
The Common Sense of Drinking (1930)
- By Misc Author
- Published 01/2/2007
- Alcohol
-
Rating:
At the expense of some repetition, I wish to consider the treatment as it directly affects the patient.
The alcoholic is first shown that there are two types of men whose reaction to drink is so extreme, so abnormal, and so detrimental to themselves, and to those about them that they cannot afford to indulge any longer in the habit unless they are willing to sacrifice their life to it.
These types are the continuous drinker and the "bad actor."
The difference between the normal or hard drinker and the alcoholic is carefully described to the patient, as well as by what route the transformation between the two is made. The influence of inheritance and the influence of early environment on his nervous system are pointed out as being causative but by no means compulsive factors.
He is told that practically every inebriate has had some such background as a cause of his trouble, and that if these were insurmountable obstacles to a cure, nobody would ever recover.
Then the patient is informed with all the emphasis that can be brought to bear that the sum total of experience to date has shown that if a man has ever definitely been unable to drink in a normal way (in using the word "normal" plenty of leeway is allowed for a good deal of dissipation) he can never again drink anything containing alcohol without the ultimate results being disastrous.
He may do so "successfully" for a few times after long periods of abstinence, but there is a wealth of evidence to show that in the long run (and it may not be very long either) he will become an addict again.
If an individual insists that he is the exception to this rule, then the best thing for him to do is to go out and prove (or disprove) it, for there is nothing so convincing as personal experience, and there is very little use trying to persuade a man who his had an insufficient amount of it.
If he is only a partial drunkard or an occasional malefactor, he will not be convinced that his problem is a vital one demanding solution unless he is unusually farsighted.
The average man must learn the truth from his actions even though these actions may bring disaster in their wake. On the other hand, if a man is a definite alcoholic and yet will not admit that there is anything the matter, he is serving notice to the world to leave him alone, which is the only thing it can do until such time as his conduct necessitates incarceration -- or he changes his mind.
Once the alcoholic takes up treatment, he must be absolutely honest in giving an account of his thoughts and actions, and he must take great precautions against lying ingeniously (rationalizing) to himself. "To be frank and honest in all relations," writes Professor McDougal, "but especially in all relations with oneself, is the first principle of mental hygiene."
A lie obviously does not hurt the instructor, but it creates such a conflict in the mind of the student that progress is at a standstill until it is uncovered. That a man will lie when drunk or when trying to sober up in order to get more liquor goes without saying.
Furthermore, he may lie to his wife or to anyone else whom he fears, in order to cover his tracks and avoid a scene, but it is a very different thing to lie to the person who is treating the situation in a professional manner.
As no promises are ever exacted, and as no one is ever ridiculed or scolded, there is no particular reason for untruthfulness save an unnecessary feeling of shame. If a person goes to a doctor with a pain in his stomach, he does not tell him that it is in his head if he wants to get well.
While on the subject of honesty we might mention that there seems to be a feeling among some people that secret drinking is a particularly reprehensible form of indulgence.
As a matter of fact, if a drunkard is going to drink at all, there is nothing peculiar in his sneaking drinks in an environment which is naturally hostile. It shows rather more of a social consciousness than if he did blatantly what he knows is the part of folly.
But on the other hand, where there seems to be no reason why a person should not drink in company and where he has plenty of opportunity to do so, then a preference to drink in solitude would probably indicate an abnormal personality.
The alcoholic is first shown that there are two types of men whose reaction to drink is so extreme, so abnormal, and so detrimental to themselves, and to those about them that they cannot afford to indulge any longer in the habit unless they are willing to sacrifice their life to it.
These types are the continuous drinker and the "bad actor."
The difference between the normal or hard drinker and the alcoholic is carefully described to the patient, as well as by what route the transformation between the two is made. The influence of inheritance and the influence of early environment on his nervous system are pointed out as being causative but by no means compulsive factors.
He is told that practically every inebriate has had some such background as a cause of his trouble, and that if these were insurmountable obstacles to a cure, nobody would ever recover.
Then the patient is informed with all the emphasis that can be brought to bear that the sum total of experience to date has shown that if a man has ever definitely been unable to drink in a normal way (in using the word "normal" plenty of leeway is allowed for a good deal of dissipation) he can never again drink anything containing alcohol without the ultimate results being disastrous.
He may do so "successfully" for a few times after long periods of abstinence, but there is a wealth of evidence to show that in the long run (and it may not be very long either) he will become an addict again.
If an individual insists that he is the exception to this rule, then the best thing for him to do is to go out and prove (or disprove) it, for there is nothing so convincing as personal experience, and there is very little use trying to persuade a man who his had an insufficient amount of it.
If he is only a partial drunkard or an occasional malefactor, he will not be convinced that his problem is a vital one demanding solution unless he is unusually farsighted.
The average man must learn the truth from his actions even though these actions may bring disaster in their wake. On the other hand, if a man is a definite alcoholic and yet will not admit that there is anything the matter, he is serving notice to the world to leave him alone, which is the only thing it can do until such time as his conduct necessitates incarceration -- or he changes his mind.
Once the alcoholic takes up treatment, he must be absolutely honest in giving an account of his thoughts and actions, and he must take great precautions against lying ingeniously (rationalizing) to himself. "To be frank and honest in all relations," writes Professor McDougal, "but especially in all relations with oneself, is the first principle of mental hygiene."
A lie obviously does not hurt the instructor, but it creates such a conflict in the mind of the student that progress is at a standstill until it is uncovered. That a man will lie when drunk or when trying to sober up in order to get more liquor goes without saying.
Furthermore, he may lie to his wife or to anyone else whom he fears, in order to cover his tracks and avoid a scene, but it is a very different thing to lie to the person who is treating the situation in a professional manner.
As no promises are ever exacted, and as no one is ever ridiculed or scolded, there is no particular reason for untruthfulness save an unnecessary feeling of shame. If a person goes to a doctor with a pain in his stomach, he does not tell him that it is in his head if he wants to get well.
While on the subject of honesty we might mention that there seems to be a feeling among some people that secret drinking is a particularly reprehensible form of indulgence.
As a matter of fact, if a drunkard is going to drink at all, there is nothing peculiar in his sneaking drinks in an environment which is naturally hostile. It shows rather more of a social consciousness than if he did blatantly what he knows is the part of folly.
But on the other hand, where there seems to be no reason why a person should not drink in company and where he has plenty of opportunity to do so, then a preference to drink in solitude would probably indicate an abnormal personality.
