Moderation Theory

As evidenced by the tremendous range of scholarly articles included in this special issue, it is readily apparent that harm reduction is more than a theory, treatment approach, or policy. Rather, harm reduction is an orientation and belief system that has widespread empirical support as a means to improve the lives and functioning of individuals who use and abuse alcohol.

Personality one, AA, believes that anyone who realizes that alcohol has negatively affected his/her life, can't seem to quit on his/her own, and wants to get help is an "alcoholic." Personality two, NIAAA, reflecting the bulk of the latest alcohol research, believes that an "alcoholic" should have the four symptoms that are supported by science.

Approaches to implement controlled drinking include Bibliotherapy and Therapist-Assisted CD Treatment. Controlled Drinking may also be a topic in abstinence oriented treatment.

In May 2006, the Institute on Lifestyle and Health at Boston University School of Medicine and the International Center for Alcohol Policies jointly sponsored an international symposium to examine harms and benefits associated with moderate drinking.

Safer drinking recommendations for older people are debated and vary from country to country (e.g., 1 or less drink per day in the United States but 2 or less drinks per day in England).

Doctors know, for instance, that drugs like blood thinners have a narrow “therapeutic window” where slightly altered doses can harm patients. Could alcohol fall into this category of friend and foe?

Both epidemiologic and basic science studies must be considered in evaluating the relationship of moderate drinking and health.

This chapter reviews the controlled-drinking controversy. It presents cameo descriptions of the controversy's three major episodes.

A report on evidence related to health risks and potential benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, with particular focus on the areas of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, obesity, birth defects, breastfeeding, and aging.

The preponderance of evidence suggests that while severely dependent drinkers do better with abstinence approaches, there is increasing acceptance of the proposition that those with less severe problems often improve by moderating their drinking.