The Little Engine That Could (stop drinking any time he wanted to)

We alcoholics are men and women who have lost the ability to control our drinking. We know that no real alcoholic ever recovers control. All of us felt at times that we were regaining control, but such intervals - usually brief - were inevitably followed by still less control, which led in time to pitiful and incomprehensible demoralization. We are convinced to a man that alcoholics of our type are in the grip of a progressive illness. Over any considerable period we get worse, never better. - Alcoholics Anonymous, p.30

Don't ever let anyone say that alcoholics have no will power. It takes a phenomenal  exertion of will to function effectively while still maintaining our consumption of alcohol. We are masters of control. The paradox was that every time we said we could control it, what we were really saying was that we needed to control it. Normal drinkers don't control their drinking. They don't need to control it. What would you think if someone mentioned in the middle of a conversation that he could control his bladder? Would you let him sit on your new sofa?

There are a lot of people who would take issue with the sentence that follows because they would point out that some "alcoholics" do learn how to moderate their consumption. Now, I am not interested in getting into a debate. So let's just simplify it. Our definition of a "real alcoholic" is "someone who can never regain control." End of debate. If you can regain control you are ipso facto not a "real" alcoholic. AA is not for you. We can only deal with "alcoholics of our type." Have a nice life.

It's interesting how brief periods of control were inevitably followed by still less control. Why do you suppose that is? In my own case, whenever I felt I was gaining control, the immediate temptation was to see how much more I could drink and still be "in control." Think about that. Does the phrase "control and enjoy" apply? Remember, I was never happy when I was actually drinking moderately. So there was always a constant impetus to see how far I could push it in the vain hope that I would reach that magic moment when I could drink to excess moderately. I can recall not a few times when, having gone without drinking for some arbitrary length of time, I would reward myself with a drink! This is like the pyromaniac who, having gone a year without starting any fires, rewards himself by burning down his own house.

Demoralize: to cause (someone) to lose hope, courage, or confidence : to weaken the morale of (a person or group).

In other words, because our attempts at control only exacerbated the problem, we lost hope, we lost confidence, we became pitiful and we had no clue as to why.

Now comes the next controversy. We are in the grips of a progressive illness. But is alcoholism a "disease?" I discussed this somewhat in my 9/9 post. The word is only used once in the first 164 pages, and page 64 only refers to all forms of spiritual disease stemming from resentment. Doesn't mention alcoholism per se. You could split hairs and say that, since alcoholism is a form of spiritual disease, then that makes it a disease. But even I'm not that analytical. I'll just say that, when people constantly refer to their "disease" like it was some kind of pet, I get a little irritated. "Hi, I would like you meet my disease. Its name is Fluffy." 

 The one thing that is almost irrefutable is that, whatever alcoholism is, it is certainly progressive. And our experience is almost universal that periods of abstinence do NOT reverse the progression. That delusion is at the heart of many a slip. "If I don't drink for a year then I will be where I was a year before I stopped." If you follow that logic, all you would have to do to become a normal drinker would be to stay sober as long as you drank. When that happy day arrives, reward yourself with a drink. And don't forget to set your house on fire.