A government-financed study of alcoholism released last week, the largest to date, suggests how deeply this ‘moderate use’ idea has taken hold. The study found that the treatment produced ‘good clinical outcomes’ in about three-quarters of the almost 1,400 heavy, chronic drinkers in the study. Some quit altogether; most, however, had moderated their drinking — to 14 drinks a week or fewer for men, 11 or fewer for women.
‘The fact is that these moderate measures are becoming more and more accepted in judging treatments,’ said Dr. Edward Nunes, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University.
Millions of recovering addicts and their families as well as counselors working in the trenches consider this approach to be foolhardy and immoral. Addicts are by definition unable to control or manage their addictions, they say, and leaving an opening for moderate use only encourages the experimentation that can lead to ruin or death.
Cases like that of Mr. Kennedy dramatically illustrate how close to breakdown many addicts live, they say. ‘Implying you can simply cut down does a tremendous disservice to those who have this addiction,’ said Stanley L., a recovering alcoholic in Pennsylvania who still attends group counseling sessions.” (New York Times )
I can’t help thinking that part of the impetus to accept moderation instead of abstinence comes from the growing prominence of pharmacological approaches to addiction which either moderate the desire or reward; or substitute a ‘more benign’ addiction for a more destructive one.
