Moderation Management.

On Sunday, I went to a lecture by a group called Moderation Management. I was invited by LawnBoy, who is as normal as they come when it comes to drinking. He's one of those people who doesn't have to think about how much he drinks. Because, when he feels like he's had enough (I already don't get it), he stops (I know, right?). Moderation Management is an organization which doesn't seek to help its members stop drinking entirely unless they want to, and does not rely on any higher power, believing that most of us have the ability to moderate our drinking through individual effort.

LawnBoy has taken an interest in my recovery for a couple of basic reasons (speculation alert), one that we're very close friends and have been for half our lives. Two, that he's a dedicated atheist, and thus is curious about AA's reliance on a higher power. Since he doesn't believe that there is a god to make changes in an alcoholic's life, he's curious as to what the scientific explanation for the success of people who stop drinking, and is curious if that could be harnessed to help people without relying on, as he sees it, a non-existent god.

And I support him in that investigation, such as it is. I have said many times that god, whatever god is, I don't think commits miracles unexplainable by science. And there are so many different and contradictory "gods" and higher powers relied upon by members of AA that we can't all be right. But that's likely where, I think, the atheists have so much trouble with AA's vision of the higher power. We don't much care about being right. And it may well be that honest faith, whether the thing the faith is placed in is real or not, is what makes the difference for many.

But I don't want to get too deeply into atheist-believer divisions here. I want to talk about the people I met at the MM lecture. None of them would have looked out of place at an AA meeting. My sponsor also came, because he's studying addiction treatment right now, and this was an opportunity for him to see another type of practice. There were two short testimonials and then a half-hour long lecture on what MM is and how it works.

The first testimonial was from a woman who described her drinking in a way that I have heard frequently at AA meetings. She drank tequila every day, often more than two gallons a week. She claims that by using the principles of MM she is drinking moderately, though she didn't really describe what that is. She claims to have 'slips' from time to time, which I presume means having more than three drinks in a day or nine in a week, which is what MM calls its "limits". She seemed happy and I have no reason to believe that that program isn't working for her.

The second testimonial, given by the woman who also gave the lecture, was of a different character. It felt much darker and she didn't seem happy at all. Like the first woman, she had tried AA and decided it wasn't for her, claiming that she 'couldn't take step two' (Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.). She described to periodic 30 day periods of abstinence. She also described doing 'planned binges'.

I know that this part is projecting to some extent, and that what is right for others is not necessarily what is right for me, and the converse. But I cannot imagine a sadder, more miserable thing than having occasional planned binges of the type this woman describes. She described needing to bulwark herself, sometimes going out and drinking a lot, but sometimes closing herself up at home, so that she could drink all she wanted and not harm anyone. She was probably 50. She looked tired, and she claimed to be in the middle of a 30 day period of abstinence during January.

The whole concept felt badly awry to me. Surely, if it can help some people, that's a good thing. But it strikes me as far more likely to do great harm. They described MM as not aiming at hard core alcoholics, people like me, for whom complete abstinence is the only approach. I'm glad they admit there are some of us. But rather, for people who are not as far along the curve, that, perhaps there's a period of time prior to full blown alcoholism when moderation can take effect without abstinence being necessary.

Maybe. Most alcoholics I know say they knew almost immediately that they were alcoholic. That there would never be a way to moderate. They fought it for years, but the result was clearly inevitable. That's how it was for me. Other heavy drinkers will naturally moderate without assistance as time goes on, and don't need a program like MM. MM seems aimed at people it either can't help, or who don't need it. Except, perhaps, for a few.

What they didn't recognize was the progressive nature of the disease. In fact they didn't recognize it as a disease, which seems wishful thinking, well contradicted by genetic evidence. I left with the impression that MM is for people who continue to wail against their condition, who recognize that they have a problem, but are in denial about what the solution is. People who, like the lecturer, are incapable of giving up their drunkenness, and want to appear to be making a stab at responsibility.

I'm not saying that AA can help those people. AA, by itself, is just an idea, a book and a bunch of gatherings. It doesn't cure anyone. There's no cure. But following that program offers many of us the last, best hope at living a free and full life. A life where I don't have to bastion myself in a room and drink to insensibility and pretend I'm achieving something by reducing the harm I've done to the world and myself, compared with all the other ways I could be drinking. It struck me as a long, dark road, the way of MM.