Hide table of contents

This is an incomplete draft for an appendix post I’m working on, I describe the rough idea here, but basically it’s a series of somewhat shorter takes expanding on/responding to my earlier article on alcoholism and talking about addiction more broadly. Part of me is worried about just being known as the EA who overshares about alcoholism, but at the same time the amount of treatment I’m getting now makes it hard for addiction not to be one of the most salient topics on my mind, and because of events that followed it, I feel some guilt with where my original post left off. I will probably cross-post the final post to the forum once I’m finished, both because it will have content relevant to EA as a group and to addiction as a cause area, and because it’s a follow up to a post I cross-posted here already. Not every section will be as relevant however.

Sorry I didn’t put any links in yet (other than the ones in this part), I’ve been working on getting the material ready, and paragraphed so that it wasn’t unreadable. I also plan to add some more sections. Current possible candidates are: a response to Ozy Brennan’s recent post on sex addiction (a rare L in my opinion), my experience with philosophical positions popular within EA that are inconvenient for recovery, some of my broad takes on policy of the form “policy is focused on getting ideal care for the patients they do treat, at the expense of getting as much good care for the overall pool of people who need help”, a review of the basics of some medical options, and discussion of other drugs. I would appreciate any comment feedback on the draft, but also more information/experience with other drugs, especially ketamine and stimulants, and if anyone is really interested in giving thorough feedback, please feel free to reach out about the possibility of scheduling a meeting. Also, worth having a content warning of some kind here, this post gets into some unpleasant territory (though often briefly) - addiction, relapse, self-harm, strained family relationships, unemployment, the works. Especially Appendix A which is also quite personal. Feel free to sit this one out, or at least Appendix A.

Appendix A

In my first blog post I said that I felt I was past the worst of it, and I was optimistic for the future. Unfortunately, I was actually past a particular bad spot, and just before another one. Overall, I never went back to drinking as much as I did in December 2022/January 2023, but the consequences of the drinking I did got worse, my ability to maintain a semi-normal life deteriorated, and I wound up getting much stronger treatment.

I started getting worse at maintaining my Summer plan for sobriety sometime in July, and getting sicker and sicker physically (the suspicion from my symptoms is that I had developed and ulcer/stomach inflammation that was actively bleeding), and eventually decided I needed to spend some time living with my father outside of the city. The exact things that went wrong with this arrangement are complicated and not all of them are mine to tell, but I was drinking quite a lot during this period, and it culminated towards the end of the month with quite destructive behavior, including serious self harm and property damage, as well as lashing out at my family. When I said in my post that you should really appreciate the people around you throughout this…this was only a few months before I failed terribly at this standard.

I eventually agreed to go to rehab, but refused to spend time in a halfway house afterwards because I wanted to keep my job. I wound up relapsing as soon as I got back to the city, and after about a month needed to go to medical detox. I relapsed badly again after this (at this point my health was extremely poor), though I never got back to needing tapering or detox again. I decided after a while of this that I needed to quit my job anyway, and go to a halfway house after all. I will be two months sober as of the 13th, though considering how wrong I was about improving when I wrote the original article, I hesitate to say that I think things are permanently better. I am optimistic, but this is a disease people deal with for decades, and many of them nearly die before successfully quitting (and of course others just die).

That said I am in a safe environment now and trying to find a longer-term safe environment, and I am in an outpatient program and going to groups nearly every night. When I wrote last time, I said that I was hesitant about Tyler Cowen’s teetotalling conclusions…but honestly I don’t think my reasons were very good and my intuitive repulsion from the idea has been worn down over time by worse and worse experiences. So honestly my advice at this point is, just don’t drink. The risk of alcoholism is shocking considering how bad it is and how many people roll that dice. If you do drink be very careful (I have more advice on using in ways that put you at less risk in my appendix on marijuana), but mostly my advice is don’t drink. If it isn’t a huge part of your life, you aren’t giving up much. If it’s such a big part of your life that you feel you are losing something important by stopping, you are probably unusually at risk already.

Appendix B

In my original post, I didn’t discuss recovery groups. I hadn’t been to any other than one my school’s health center runs, but now I’ve been to a ton of meetings. I think meetings like this are generally a good idea, Lorien Psychiatry has a pretty good broad overview on them, but not as thorough an accounting of their differences. There are four big categories I’ve run into. One is just general, unaffiliated. I’ve gone to a bunch of these but they’re harder to find unless you fall into a particular niche or treatment plan that refers you to one (speaking of which, did I mention that I’m trying to start back up one focused on Effective Altruists?) You also have less of an idea of what you’re getting in advance, though even the more affiliated ones have a huge variety in local culture and things that turn different people off or make them feel more at home (much like EA groups).

The three big affiliated groups are Alcoholics Anonymous, Dharma Recovery, and SMART recovery. Out of these, I find SMART recovery to be the best personal fit, and sort of the suspect this will be true for EAs more generally. That said I think AA has some surprising resonances with EA despite its reputation for being the less “rational” of the groups. Scott Alexander (writing as his Scott Siskind persona for the Lorien page) for instance describes them as a bit like a religious cult. Now, part of me reflexively looks at overbroad cult accusations like this and gets quite defensive…but some of the biggest problems I have with AA relative to other groups are things that are either more religious, or more culty than the other groups to some degree.

In terms of cultiness, AA has a sort of self-serving broad approach in a way none of the others have to remotely the same degree. If you go to a SMART or Dharma or unaffiliated meeting, typically there will be much more humility about the program’s effectiveness, and what other things members should try. AA people tend to insist that AA is what works, getting a sponsor is what works, working the steps is what works, sure fine fine you can do the other stuff if you want to, but the actual important thing is always doing AA.

There is also a very shabby epistemology when it comes to justifying their effectiveness. If you claim the 12 steps work, then can’t we just check how often people get sober after working them? Well, obviously many people get sober without AA, but they aren’t speaking at meetings. Many people also fail to get sober after working the steps. Some of them do get sober eventually, and then they will just say they weren’t really working the steps the first time. They weren’t ready, they weren’t serious, they weren’t thorough enough. Of course, when they finally do get sober, obviously that’s when they were doing them right. Others never get sober, but the program concedes that people who aren’t honest with themselves often fail. So someone dies a drunk who tried AA over and over again? Guess they were never self-honest enough.

The 12th step is also a little like this, in that it specifically tells the person doing it to try to get other people to work the program. In order to work all the steps, you need to try to rope other people into them. Obviously it’s more benevolent than this, but it has a slight unsavory MLM taste to it.

The religious element is also a major sticking point, probably the most common one people have. You can just sort of shrug off the self-serving stuff and try out the program, but the issue is working some of the steps requires “God”. Mind you, AA evangelists don’t tend to be too narrow-minded about what you choose for this role, but my impression is still that the alternatives that work in the same way require something with pretty religiony elements, like it being a power that is not you and is greater than you, one that is with you and guiding you in your worst moments, one that you can confess things to and ask things of in a fairly anthropomorphic way, one that cares about you, and one that is strongly related to morality in some way. If you do not believe in something sufficiently like this, it is very hard to get the full program.

The most plausible “higher power” candidates I’ve heard of that soooort of mostly fit these things and which don’t require any spooky religiony beliefs are the AA group itself (the refrain I hear for this one is GOD: Group Of Drunks), or your moral conscience (Good Orderly Direction), but I remain unpersuaded that you get all the same benefits with just one of these. This isn’t something I consider a general problem with the program, none of them will work for everyone, and many people are religious, but my impression is that most EAs are not, which will make it a bit less appealing.

That said, one of the elements that I like most about it is very related to EA, and that is the interest in morality. Many of the steps are in some way focused on reviewing your character flaws and past moral transgressions, and confronting, atoning, and moving past them. I think this is very important, because many addicts find themselves engaging in many behaviors they would, in a different state of mind or earlier in life, considered huge transgressions. And eventually get used to this just being their new normal. This can both be a source of moral injury which leads to broader mental health problems, and something that further erodes someone’s self esteem and prior identity, such that they are no longer as invested in sobriety, feel that drinking is who they now are and that they aren’t worth the huge effort required by them to save.

Heck, I criticized the 12th step earlier, but you can strip it of the AA-centered elements to make it less culty, and then it is just genuinely great advice. One of the best ways to maintain sobriety is to build back up a sense of identity and self esteem through moral service which would be predictably compromised by drinking again. If that identity is built not only on moral good, but also helping others with sobriety, it becomes even more effective, something more new about your identity that doesn’t just try to wipe the slate clean, and something that will be especially compromised if you relapse.

A final advantage of the AA program that I think most people in AA would be somewhat offended by, but which is a genuine strength in my opinion, is the gamification of recovery. You count days, and then say them at the meetings (and eventually months or years instead), and keeping track isn’t just useful for logistics, but also for the part of your lizard brain that gets dopamine from winning “points”. Recovery is also generally a bit of a boring and inactive process by default since the key success criterion is just continuing to not do something (sometimes I have found it useful to really lean into my laziness to avoid drinking too though. “Grooooan, I’m all cozy under the covers, do I have to get up to get a drink? Grooooan, I don’t want to have to stay up to drink all this water, but hangovers are a drag, wouldn’t it just be easier to do nothing?” “Just let me sleep/scroll a bit longer, maybe I’ll do it tomorrow” nothing wrong with the lazy strategy if it helps). The 12 steps give you different “levels” you are working on, a project you are doing, rather than just not doing something for a while. You can feel accomplished, get a dopamine hit when you win a level (finish a step). Relapse is game over, you lose all your points, start the day counter back up, have to redo the steps. This element sounds unserious but I think is underrated by even AA evangelists for this reason.

SMART recovery does almost the opposite thing to all of the stuff AA does. This includes on sort of irrelevant issues such as the word “alcoholic” itself. AA really like people calling themselves alcoholics, SMART really doesn’t. If you investigate why, there are some practical differences in their programs this can be a vague proxy for (AA starts out with admitting you have no power over alcohol, SMART focuses on personally developing self-discipline and coping tactics. AA wants people to view alcoholism as like a lifelong allergy, SMART defines alcoholism as purely behavioral, and so something you can permanently overcome), but mostly they just use the word in different ways. Both programs want alcoholics (yes, I am going to keep using the word for convenience) to be more humanized, and for them to view themselves as distinct from, and able to rise above the bad actions they have taken in the past. They just view the word as symbolizing basically opposite positions about this.

There are also more functional differences in just how meetings are run, where I typically side with SMART. AA is opposed to “cross-talk”, where people respond to or react to the statements of other people in the group. SMART is for it, and as a result feels a bit less procedural and more conversational (there is still a facilitator to moderate if the cross-talk gets counter-productive). AA is very strict about sobriety, whereas SMART will allow you in meetings even if you are under the influence so long as you don’t talk or cause trouble. SMART also lacks the “religious cult” elements. It is much more humble about its methodology, and less self-serving. It also doesn’t require any version of religion, and that’s one of the most common motives people have for seeking it out as opposed to the much more widespread AA meetings.

It is designed based on CBT, and as opposed to AA which is focused on the 12 steps, has both much more minimal and much more maximal versions. Instead of 12 steps there are “four points”, that represent very broad things that recovering addicts ought to try to pay attention to in sustainable recovery, “Building and Maintaining Motivation”, “Coping with Urges”, “Managing Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors”, and “Living a Balanced Life”. In addition to the broad elements, there are tons of more specific exercises. Rather than prose books of the kind AA has, SMART has a workbook you can practice a bunch of different tailored CBT exercises from (and many SMART meetings do a sheet from it during the meeting time).

Because it is less prescriptive about the specific ways to go through each point, people can wind up with a wide range of different strategies that wind up being local favorites at specific locations (whereas with AA, there is a feeling that for every situation there is some sort of obscure lore that the deep AA-heads can quote from like the fifth most famous AA book). I do want to mention one such local favorite that I heard of in a SMART meeting I went to while at rehab, which many people swore by as extremely helpful to them. It’s simple. First, give your addiction a name. Second, when you get urges, scream at it (in your head mostly, but you know, go bananas). Something like “well it wouldn’t be so bad if_” “shut up Frank! Shut up shut up SHUT UP!”

I have tried this a little and it hasn’t felt right to me. I think the most basic reason is that I’m not normally an angry person, and the angriest person I have been was the resentful alcoholic lashing out at my family, so trying to be angry in my recovery feels inherently sort of triggering and identity eroding. More complicatedly, I feel like the intrusive thoughts in my head aren’t some malicious external demon, the most anthropomorphic version of them is like a scared little kid that only knows how to do one thing and needs to be convinced that everything will be alright and is terrified if it isn’t allowed to do the thing. This is sort of connected to the idea that making it long-term is not just about learning not to drink, but learning how to be sober, to prove to this part of yourself that everything will be fine. Of course thinking more bluntly about addiction it’s hard to see as either a demon or scared little kid, it’s a really pervasive cognitive bias, but you can’t yell at that either.

That said, again, a bunch of people swear by this method, and I think it is useful for squaring the circle between two conflicting attitudes: “you are not at fault, you are worth fighting for, this is not you acting” and “you got this, you can make the choice to be sober and make it out”. To make these things compatible, just name the different sides different things. You are the victim, Frank is the abuser, you have power and so does Frank, and recovery is finally being done with the abuse and screaming down Frank’s manipulations.

Finally there’s Dharma. Unfortunately I have very little to say about it because I haven’t been to many meetings. It’s in that unhappy middle where I like it less than SMART meetings, and it’s harder to find than AA. That said, I think it has many similar advantages over AA to SMART. Despite its name it is merely “Buddhist inspired” in the sort of Western, self-help program sense that doesn’t involve very bold metaphysical claims. As far as I can tell, none of its program requires any form of religion to do effectively. It is also not very culty in the ways I described for AA. My big complaint with it is that it basically always involves meditation, which I don’t have any belief which contradicts, but which just never works for me.

That said, it’s a kind of chill environment where you can meditate and share your feelings, and get some decent advice without the AA dogmatism, so if that sounds good to you, try it out. Again, I just haven’t been to enough meetings to give more ringing endorsement or more damning critiques of Dharma recovery. My own recommendation is mostly to try multiple different ones, especially early on.

Appendix C

I hear many people say that “marijuana is not addictive”. This is very silly, I have met numerous marijuana addicts, in fact it is maybe the fourth or fifth most common addiction I see (after alcohol, nicotine, and cocaine, and somewhere close to opiates). Mind you it is also one of the most common substances people casually use, close to alcohol which is a much more common addiction in the (non-random sample of) addicts I meet. I don’t think it is nearly as addictive as some of these other substances, but it is dangerously misleading to tell people it is not addictive. No, it definitely is.

My impression is that people get the idea that “scientifically, weed isn’t addictive” from the fact that you don’t really get physical withdrawal symptoms from it when you stop. This is not what addiction is. If it was just about getting withdrawal when you stop, people would be cured as soon as they went to detoxes, or finished tapering, or white knuckled through withdrawal. Addiction is the thing that drives people to ruin their lives all over again when they try the substance again twenty years later, it is the thing that drives people to relapse on it half an hour after getting out of detox. It is the thing that you feel like you can’t live without, that even when you feel completely confident you will never do it again, you come back the next day. The thing that causes you to keep thinking about using for hours on end on days when you have already decided that you definitely won’t use, and can only silence the obsessive unrelenting thoughts by finally giving in. Marijuana acts ways like these for lots of people. For god’s sake, people get addicted to sex and gambling, where do people get the gall to say that in the case of marijuana, there’s some magic addiction chemical that is absent?

If you took away the withdrawal symptoms from heroin but kept everything else the same, I think it would be incredibly silly to say that you have solved heroin addiction. Silly and dangerous, withdrawal treatment is a very small portion of the addiction related services people use, and indeed it’s my experience that most services require you to have successfully withdrawn before you are access their services. The methadone clinics and heroin detoxes would be pointless, but support groups, rehab, naltrexone, halfway houses, IOPs, will all have basically nothing about their uses affected.

If you want to use it fine, I think it’s ridiculous to outlaw it, especially if you don’t support outlawing alcohol, but you should really treat it like the dangerous and addictive substance it is and avoid certain uses of it. Don’t use it every day. Don’t use it just to get to sleep unless you can figure out a plan for how to stop. Don’t use it to control severe anxiety or depression unless you have a way to stop before too long. Do not attach your identity to being “a stoner”. Don’t use it both to comfort yourself when something bad happens and celebrate when something good happens, and if you do it for these two, for the love of god, don’t use it out of boredom as well. Try not to use alone, but also if you use with others frequently, make sure it is not the only thing you do with your friends (many people have to cut off most of their relationships and face early recovery with little support network because most of their friendships became based on using).

These are all ways that things can go wrong with a substance like marijuana. It won’t always, but you are at more risk if you do these things. If it sounds too hard to avoid them, consider that you may already not be in the most healthy relationship with the substance, and consider quitting while you’re ahead.

Appendix D

This appendix is not going to be some sort of lengthy argument, but basically just a PSA. Like marijuana, I hear some people say that Kratom is not addictive. This is not true. It is not even true in the fairly trivial sense people appeal to for weed where you don’t get withdrawal symptoms. You can get quite nasty withdrawal symptoms from kratom. It is not a common addiction, but as far as I can tell this is mostly because not a ton of people take it yet, and if you get addicted now, the rarity of the addiction just makes things worse for you, because you will have much fewer resources. For what it’s worth, here’s one support group I’m aware of for it.

Just don’t take it as, like, a non-addictive alternative to alcohol or something. It is not as bad as alcohol in various ways, the withdrawal isn’t as dangerous for instance. The same is true of heroin. I hope I’ve already covered in some detail why this is a poor standard on its own for measuring how bad a drug is, and alcohol is just uniquely bad in some ways. Do not take too much comfort in the obvious dimensions kratom is better than alcohol along.

Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

If anyone knows how to insert this table in my post, I would be very appreciative. I don't know if it's obvious or something, but I haven't seen any instructions for it and I am not technically skilled.

Can be a bit finicky, but I think I've figured out the easiest way. 
1. Select the text of the table and copy. 
2. Paste into your draft, making sure to paste into a paragraph/ normal text section, and not into the heading. If you paste into the title, it'll be reformatted as a title rather than a table. 
LMK if this works!

Hey Devin, seems maybe your topic is the broader issue of addiction??

As part of the argument to advocate for people not to drink, maybe you want to point out the norm that about half of Americans don't drink alcohol normally (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm) as opposed to this projection by movies and advertising that makes it seem like people drink every day.  

Yeah, I’m getting the impression that one of the big things I ought to do with a final draft is expand my discussion of this change in my position, and possibly spin it off into its own appendix. For what it’s worth if this is true it means the risk from drinking is even higher than apparent, as even when you control for the portion of non-drinkers who are alcoholics or former alcoholics (depending on your preferred nomenclature), a quite significant portion of the people who don’t become alcoholics just don’t drink anyway (how much depends in large part on how many of these people used to drink a good deal and stopped, but never became alcoholics).

What stat are you working off of for people who become alcoholics?  

I meant for the stat of non-drinkers to be a positive signal for the general population to choose not to drink and still feel normie.  I believe there are hopeful stories of people beating alcoholism through behavior change such as moving to a new place where their identity is not tied to drinking.  So I feel like stats don't tell us everything.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here:

"I meant for the stat of non-drinkers to be a positive signal for the general population to choose not to drink and still feel normie."

Could you rephrase? As for my stats, this is an example that's been helpful. I definitely agree that most people can eventually recover and stop drinking pretty much for good (or less reliably, in moderation). I'm currently sober for about two months, and hope to fully recover myself. What I meant is that even if you do eventually recover, there are huge costs that are typically incurred along the way in physical and mental health, personal relationships, career, finances, time, immoral actions, sense of identity/control, raw suffering, and certainly an above average risk of just dying before you recover (either from things like heart attacks and cirrhosis, or suicide). Even considering that most people can eventually recover, it seems like drinking isn't worth the risk of all this unless it was significantly rarer than it is.

Yes, let me try this rephrase.  The average American who currently drinks casually in social settings may be behaving so because they think everyone else is drinking and this would be considered normal behavior.  Sharing a statistic that nearly half of American do not drink regularly (as defined by the CDC) shows that it is also normal behavior to go out and not drink.

I think this is a positive reinforcement for not drinking.  On the other hand, I would say warning people they should not drink because there is a 14% chance they may become an alcoholic is negative reinforcement, which could lead to backlash or otherwise be questioned.  It could be questioned if occasional drinking is the sole and direct cause for alcoholism.  Rather, most cases probably arise from a combination of drinking and genetic prevalence, family influence, social norms, body type, stress triggers, and other factors.  This could open the door to people deciding such scenarios don't apply to them.

Thanks, I see what you’re saying now. I can see value in positive reinforcement at least, but I guess I have a few reactions to some of the more specific points here:

  1. Insofar as people can find reference classes they don’t fit that predict alcoholism, they can do the same for not drinking. Muslims, some other conservative theists, people with physical health conditions, people who are recovering alcoholics, people who rarely hang out with friends. I think you are at high risk if you are say a young atheist socialite in somewhere like NYC, and you can also count on very few of your friends being teetotalers. Given this I think the bigger difference the half non-drinker stat makes is to the risk of alcoholism if you do drink, which it doesn’t quite double, but probably something close to doubles (base rate I would guess is nearly a quarter of American who drink qualify as alcoholics at some point in their lives).

  2. If there are sufficiently reliable things about someone’s situation/history that they can reference that it brings their risk down very significantly, then good! I would still probably disagree that it’s worth the personal risk, and think “drinking culture” is sufficiently bad that even if you fall in that bucket there are morally irresponsible ways to promote drinking, but if I can only convince people who do not have strongly mitigating factors not to drink (or heck, even just the people who have strong risk factors), then I think that would do a lot of good.

  3. Honestly as I’ve mentioned here I don’t trust people that much to judge their own risk factors off of reasonable criteria. Too many people I run into spend literal decades in denial when they actually are already alcoholics by their own later admission. Heck, I have a close friend with a personal history of an addiction-like disorder, co-occurring mental health problems, and family history of alcoholism who I haven’t been able to convince not to use cocaine because they “don’t have an addictive personality”. I think the best heuristic in these cases is usually to just not assume you’re special and go with the averages, which don’t look great.

Wanted to be clear, in your Appendix A, are you suggesting categorically that people not use alcohol, regardless of whether they have reason to believe they are/would be an alcoholic?

I would certainly agree with you that this advice would be prudently taken by alcoholics. 

However, many (most?) people can enjoy alcohol occasionally and in moderations for pleasant experience without this usage causing problems in their lives. If you are someone who occasionally drinks, enjoys it, and this usage isn't causing problems in your life, I think it is advisable to continue occasional, responsible drinking.  

I mean, people aren’t given “future alcoholic” cards. I think there are circumstances under which you can be sure drinking is especially risky, such as being a recovering alcoholic or having history with a different addiction or having a decent amount of recent family history with addiction, but I’m not aware of a ton of factors you can reference to be confident you won’t be one.

I don’t think your odds are more than half, but I do think they’re around one in ten if you’re an average American (if you’re drinking enough that cutting alcohol is a significant sacrifice, then I would guess your odds are worse than that). Those are very bad odds considering how badly this disorder fucks up your life and how small the upside is by comparison.

There’s also a risk of contributing to a drinking culture in which casual drinking is normalized or even expected in many contexts, hurting others who casually stumble into drinking because they didn’t realize how dangerous it was/just want to fit in (and drinking alone makes your odds even worse). I think we should treat alcohol a bit more like we tend to treat tobacco, so…the short answer is yes, I think almost no one should drink.

I wonder if the target audience for the advice could be a crux here.

From the perspective of a teenager who is deciding whether to start drinking, I am skeptical that doing so would be a net positive. Their odds of developing  alcohol use disorder (AUD), experiencing significant problems due to problem drinking, alcohol-related disability or early death, etc. are ~average -- and those risks are considerable as Devin points out.

On the other hand, suppose you're a 40-year old who has consumed alcohol for the last 20-25 years, but has never experienced significant problems due to their drinking. For the past decade, your drinking has (with rare exceptions) been consistent with the guidance for low-risk drinking.[1] Significant reliance on base rates in the general population wouldn't be appropriate in this hypothetical; the question is how often people with a similar history end up developing problematic drinking habits.

Of course, there are many points of gradation between these two hypotheticals. My hot take is that choosing or continuing to drink is generally going to be net negative in expectation for anyone in a community/subculture/friend group that pressures its members -- even indirectly -- to drink immoderately. Social conformity is a powerful drug, and people routinely overestimate their resistance to that drug.

  1. ^

    UK guidelines here, but note that the UK "unit" is smaller than the US "standard drink." I'm skeptical of the degree of difference for women & men in the US guidance, but in light of UK guidance that may be because the US guidance for men is too permissive.

This seems right to me.

Worth adding though that alcoholism can get gradually worse over long periods, and many alcoholics spend decades in denial, so if you are trying to rule yourself into this class, you really should look at this much more objective criteria rather than sorta vibing "I've done this forever and I'm not an alcoholic".

Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities