Libertarians, legislators & alcoholism
In the final thoughts on the libertarian list thread, one writer says:
“Maybe that explains why there are so many drunks in the legislature and so few principled libertarians with the true wellbeing of the people at heart.” He also mentions that a person on the list in whom I suspect alcoholism either in himself or a parent has “some pretty good insights at times. But then again so did Edgar Allen Poe.”
Another writer says:
An “inherited tendency does exist, but it does not equal alcoholism. Alcoholism means the abuse (= irresponsible use) of alcohol. Period.
“Those who inherit a genetic ‘tendency to alcoholism’ may have a harder time controlling their behavior than other people, but most manage it. The person who fails to do this needs to be told in no uncertain terms that, as a rational being, it is HIS PROBLEM and HE will be called to answer if his behavior results in damage to other people.
“The notion of ‘God’, or even the more vague notion of a Higher Power, is primarily counterproductive here because it encourages the addict to blame ‘the Devil’ or other external entities for his problem, rather than seeing that it — and its cure, if there is going to be one — can only come from his own choices.”
My response:
The first writer gets it; the second does not. Sorry.
Poe was an alcoholic. Who else could think up such bizarre stories other than an addict? Same for Steven King. And yes, the controlling behaviors of alcoholics explain much of what goes on in the legislature, as well as at other levels of government. It also explains fraud in private industry. Charles Ponzi was an alcoholic.
Irresponsible use of the drug is a symptom of alcoholism; it is not alcoholism itself. As I said somewhere near the outset, just try drinking addictively if you are not alcoholic. Ask your non-alcoholic friends how many drinks they can consume before feeling queasy or sleepy. If it’s more than four in an hour, start looking for misbehaviors.
If there is alcoholism (not just the genetic tendency–you’ve either inherited it or you have not; and genetics, contrary to the assertion of Herbert Fingarette, does not require a 100% incidence of inheritance), you cannot control it over the long run because you don’t want to (until the addict experiences massive pain from consequences). The conclusion I reach is the same as the second writer’s: answer for behaviors. However, his analysis suggests the alcoholic can “learn” to drink safely. Over the long run, he cannot. There have been numerous studies purporting to show otherwise, but these have all failed when the subjects were followed longitudinally.
This includes the Sobell study, which no one has tried to replicate because after ten years it proved to be a complete failure. Another study was stopped because it was deemed unethical to continue: 1200 alcoholics were “taught” to drink in moderation. There was a failure rate in excess of 95% (probably 99%) within two years. And please don’t bother with “well, that proves 1 to 5% _can_ learn to drink in moderation,” as we don’t allow such rates of failure in the study of, say, carcinogenic substances. I readily admit that my theories explain only 80% of unhealthy human misbehaviors and that there is 20% or so I cannot explain. But that’s a heck of a lot better than alternative theories using environment, circumstances or “free will,” which, when biochemistry enters into the equation, is irrelevant.
As for God, the reason the 12-step programs and religion work as well as they do in helping addicts stay sober is because they work to deflate the big fat alcoholic ego. Doing it without the programs is rare, but I would never say it cannot be done. You’re right–blaming the Devil is counterproductive. Biochemistry gets the nod. (If it were “learned” behavior, more addicts could “learn” to drink non-addictively. I repeat: they cannot; and if a few can, the percentage is so small it’s irrelevant to practical application.) You’re also correct in stating sobriety must come from the addict’s own choice. However, because the biochemistry makes the addict feel like he’s God, the choice is only made due to the external application of pain from consequences.
Hence, the vital importance of identifying addiction where it exists, as well as understanding that the inception of alcoholism is due to biochemistry and nothing else.
There is much more, which is why I’ve written four books on the subject.
Getting back to the subject at hand, substance addiction of one sort or another explains the behaviors of Huey Long, Justice William O. Douglas, JFK, LBJ and I strongly suspect FDR. It also explains the idiotic adolescent-like misbehaviors of Bill Clinton (he’s simply too smart to have engaged in such activities unless he’s alcoholic, and just look at the formerly bulbous nose). I think it explains the controlling features of the entire Kennedy clan (the narcissism that others have identified is a symptom of alcoholism; therefore, alcoholism and not narcissism is at the root of their need to meddle into the lives of others) and the vitriolic hatred of the Sheila Jacksons of the world. I think it explains Jesse Jackson’s need to put the blame on others, as well as his hyperbole, and it’s at the root of the current strife of Congressman Duke Cunningham. And, it explains so much more in both our personal and public lives. Simply identifying it in business can prevent our association with people who are the greatest risk factors in making our lives miserable. This, too, would be good for libertarians–we can improve our economic lot and donate more of our income to the Institutes for Justice and Catos of the world; less will be taken from damage to our rental units and frivolous lawsuits (show me an Anna Ayala giving the finger to Wendy’s and I will show you an addict).