In a recent column I challenged the “it’s-a-disease” excuse that is a popular approach to dealing with the havoc wreaked on families and society by people who abuse alcohol and other drugs.
I wrote: “Parents’ drinking does not relieve them of responsibility for their actions, nor does it remove their moral obligations to others.”
I was not surprised at the large response to the column; I was surprised that the responses were 9 to 1 in agreement. Here are some of the highlights from those letters:
– “Bravo and hooray to you for speaking the truth about who the real victims are when someone chooses to stay drunk. As one who works with these patients, I see them doing a lot of blaming and not taking any responsibility for their behaviors. Keep telling it like it is.” Idaho Springs, Colo.
– “Not too many years ago I was a staunch advocate of the `alcoholism-is-a-disease’ shibboleth as expressed in statute and recent folklore. I deeply regret (as a defense attorney) having made such arguments to a court, even though ethically obligated to, and I silently thank those judges who had the good sense to ignore my arguments.
No one holds a gun to an alcohol abuser’s head to make him or her stop drinking; he or she stops drinking when he or she musters the character it takes to say no.
Alcoholics Anonymous is character-based, and that is the reason it is successful. There are those in AA who try to fold in or superimpose or otherwise ascribe the `disease’ notion on AA, but a review of the 12 Steps clearly states otherwise. Moreover, AA is not out to harm anyone, including the alcohol abuser, taxpayers, insurance payers and vulnerable parents and family.” Bainbridge Island, Wash.
– “I was raised by a drunken, hateful woman who blamed me for all of her problems. Criticism, verbal abuse and negativity was a constant from her to me in my attempts to meet her approval. My mother remained bitter, manipulative and hateful to her death.
Breaking away was painful, but I wish I had done it years before. I also wish that friends, relatives and especially church members had been more supportive (of me).” Seattle
– “I am profoundly grateful for your comments on the responsibility of drinkers. I once attended the trial of a man accused of attempting to rape the daughter of a neighbor. She testified as to her horror and bruises; the motorist who happened by and leaped out of his car to help her added his observations.
It was all to no avail. The jury, six middle-aged men, found him not guilty by reason of being intoxicated and therefore not responsible. Imagine my faith in American juries!” Hawthorne, Fla.
– “When it comes to any addiction, whether substance or behavior, the addict doesn’t have relationships, he takes hostages! They set up others to handle their responsibilities so they can continue using. And when someone finally does say something about `the elephant in the living room,’ the addict is enraged that he once more will have to be responsible. If they want help, there’s plenty!” Rosamond, Calif.
– “You are right on about addicts and their victims. If feeble willpower can have me go 67 years with no vices–anybody can. I’m so puzzled why people much smarter than I need a crutch. If I die today or at 100, I’m going to remain free, slave to no vice and no man.” Lake Forest, Calif.
I am by no means suggesting that bad habits, such as drinking, are always easy to stop or that it isn’t often frustrating to the drinker to maintain control. But that’s all I’m willing to give on this point: It’s difficult.
It is not impossible. And that is the problem I have with those who would excuse or tolerate the destructiveness of drinkers on the family (“He can’t help it–it’s a disease”) by suggesting that the behavior is beyond control.
As the great American jurist, Louis Brandeis, so wisely put it, “The irresistible is often only that which is not resisted.”
———-
Questions may be sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger in care of the Chicago Tribune WOMANEWS section, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611. Questions of general interest will be answered often in this weekly column; unpublished letters cannot be answered individually.
