Myths and Beliefs About Substance Abuse
This post is intended for non-step recovery members. It is
not intended as a gauntlet thrown down for adherents of AA. But discussion is
welcome.
Some widely held beliefs about substance abuse are
questionable, debatable, or even provably false. Why does this matter? Because
our beliefs can affect, effect, or otherwise shape our behavior.
The notion that any amount of alcohol will trigger more
drinking behavior.
This belief is so widespread in popular culture that I first
read it in Dear Abby or Ann Landers, many years ago. In Chapter 2 of Alcoholics
Anonymous, we find this quote:
ÒWe are equally positive that once he takes any alcohol
whatever into his system, something happens, both in the bodily and mental
sense, which makes it virtually impossible for him to stop.Ó
But studies have shown that people who think they are
drinking act drunk even if they arenÕt drinking alcohol. And people who donÕt
know they are drinking alcohol donÕt act drunk. The behavior results from their
thinking.
Studies have also shown that chronic drinkers will stop
drinking even after theyÕve started if they have to give up the drinking place
or situation they have come to prefer in order to continue. Even people who are
drinking can make partially rational decisions about their behavior.
Why is this belief potentially
harmful? Because it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cognitive approaches
begin with the idea that our beliefs lead to our behavior. If you believe
something will trigger a binge, it probably will. And this can be an
intensifying belief when a lapse does occur.
The notion that abstinence is the only successful approach
to problem drinking behavior.
Obviously, most of us have come to that conclusion about
our selves, based on our own past histories. I certainly believe it is my
healthiest choice. And evidence suggests that most people gradually
re-habituate to heavy drinking if theyÕve done it before.
The problem comes when we project those experiences and
statistics onto everyone. Some people do eventually drink moderately, or
socially, or just reduce the harmful levels at which they were drinking. So the
statement that Òthere is no such thing as making a normal drinker out of an
alcoholicÓ is questionable at best (depending on how you define ÔalcoholicÕ).
Dire predictions are unproductive, possibly even
counterproductive (think back to your junior high school drug ÒeducationÓ
classes). This is a pretty easy notion to test for ourselves anyway, and if
someone wants to try moderate drinking the resources at Moderation Management
(moderation . org) are very useful.
The notion that substance abuse is incurable.
Recently a young man said to me, ÒOnce a tweaker, always a
tweaker.Ó Just a variant of ÒOnce an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.Ó Nope.
Cognitive approaches based on CBT embrace the concept that
one can move beyond any behavior. Since they are based on the concept that your
beliefs cause your behavior, the logical extension of the principle is that
your behavior has largely changed once you have firmly adopted new beliefs.
Relapses occur for some people. But they arenÕt
necessarily a full-blown return to the previous behavior. This is one of the
reasons secular approaches resist the use of labels. ÷Alcoholic? ÷RecoveringÕ
or ÔrecoveredÕ? You decide for yourself. If the fear of relapse motivates you,
then the label and the notion that itÕs incurable may be useful. But itÕs a
belief, and itÕs individual: itÕs not a fact applicable to everyone.
Why is this notion potentially
harmful? Because IMO it fails to acknowledge the accomplishment of behavior
change. Although fear is useful in early abstinence, I believe long term
sobriety comes from recognizing and internalizing the benefits weÕve found.
The notion that change is not possible on our own.
This one is incredibly common: that only in recovery
groups, or rehab, or counseling (take your pick, or all three) will we be able
to get sober.
We will be Òunable to stop drinking on the basis of
self-knowledge.Ó
(Chapter 3, Big Book). ÒThe first requirement is that we
be convinced that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success.Ó(Chapter
5).
This gets at the basic concept of where change comes from.
People vary in this regard! ÔSelfÕ is at the core of cognitive behavioral
approaches. The recovery jargon is ÔinternalÕ or Ôexternal locus of controlÕ,
and you can take online quizzes to see what your own beliefs are.
Secularists are likely, IMO, to believe change is
internal. So sobriety is mostly a matter of learning new tools for changing
behavior, and new ways to cope with lifeÕs stress factors. People predisposed
to believe in a god are likely to accept that change will be external.
This notion that we canÕt get
sober on our own ignores the beliefs and values of a significant percentage of
the population. Cognitive approaches, by comparison, reinforce those beliefs.
The notion that a higher power is necessary for change is
a logical extension of the Ôexternal locusÕ idea. No problem if you are
predisposed to such a belief. But itÕs a real stretch for agnostics, atheists,
and secularists. Indeed, when taken as an absolute (Òhis defense must come from
a Higher PowerÓ, Chapter 3) it clearly states that failing to accept an
Ôexternal locusÕ of change is doomed to failure. Yet such people do achieve
sobriety.
Note: secularists are often referred to the Big BookÕs
Chapter 4: We Agnostics. But the whole premise of that chapter is non-agnostic:
ÒActually we were fooling ourselves, for deep down in
every man, woman, and child, is the fundamental idea of God.
We finally saw that faith in some kind of God was a part
of our make-up.Ó
Certainly no atheist would write that. Most agnostics
wouldnÕt. It seems to argue against our core theological beliefs by implying
that they are character defects (there are numerous examples; just re-read the
chapter if you donÕt believe me).
Again, it is a vigorous defense
of the notion of an Òexternal locusÓ of control. Again, it doesnÕt recognize
how people differ. There is no one-size recovery approach. ÒWe have foundÓ
would be preferable to Òmust come fromÓ.
The notion that we must grapple with the urge to drink
every day. One Day At A Time, and all that.
This certainly seems true in early sobriety. It really has
to do with the immediacy and intensity of urges. Dr.Thomas Horvath, President
of SMART Recovery, describes common misconceptions about urges:
á
Urges are awful or unbearable.
á
Urges are constant, and get worse.
á
Urges force one to use or act, that we canÕt control
our behavior when we really want something.
á
We will suffer serious mental anguish if we donÕt act
on our urges.
If you believe these things, each day may be an argument
about using or drinking. But in fact, we CAN stand them, they are time-limited,
they donÕt MAKE us use or drink, and nobody goes crazy or dies because they
want to drink or use drugs.
My own experience has been that
the farther I have left drinking behind, the less I think about actually doing
it. I have memories of drinking, and there are times when situations or smells
or emotions make me recall what it was like. But those thoughts arenÕt really
urges. TheyÕre memories. And they donÕt happen every day.
Progress can be celebrated even if it isnÕt perfect (seems
to me thereÕs a slogan about that somewhere). You can do it on your own, but the
good news is you donÕt have to. Nothing is inevitable. You can find the power
from within, or find comfort in seeking it elsewhere. What you believe is key.
ItÕs your recovery.