Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Why younger generations are embracing a ‘sober curious’ lifestyle

Published

on

Why younger generations are embracing a ‘sober curious’ lifestyle

If you’ve been on social media in the past five years, there’s a good chance you’ve come across the “sober curious movement.” On TikTok alone, the hashtag has hundreds of millions of views; on Instagram, almost 800,000 videos have the same tag.

As a recovering alcoholic, I’m a little ashamed to admit that — until recently, — I found the hype around the “sober curious movement” a bit annoying. I had no qualms with the concept — which encourages low or no alcohol consumption as a lifestyle choice and has been adopted largely by Gen Z and millennials — but the trendiness of the term grated on me. It joined a slew of similar phrases that have grown in popularity over the last decade: “Dry January,” “Sober October,” “soft sober” and “sober adjacent.”

The reason these semi-new buzzwords gnawed at me is that they made quitting drinking seem, at best, easy, casual and even fun.

At the core of these concepts is a fundamentally good idea: re-evaluating one’s relationship with alcohol. Research shows that even small to moderate amounts of alcohol can have harmful health effects. Societally, we’ve normalized a lot more than moderate alcohol use. It’s no accident that, in picking months to attempt sobriety, people have chosen the months that bookended the winter holidays: October and January. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States says a quarter of the $49 billion-a-year distilled spirits industry’s profits come from the month between Thanksgiving and the New Year.

So, what could have been my problem with an objectively good, healthy phenomenon? I never would have said as much aloud, but the reason these semi-new buzzwords gnawed at me is that they made quitting drinking seem, at best, easy, casual and even fun. At worst, it appeared performative, and when the predictable fusion of influencers and sponsored mocktail marketing deals hit, it was too Goop-y for my taste.

Because, for me, getting sober was about as far from easy, casual or fun as a thing can be.

I got sober on Jan. 24, 2008 — not because of a last-ditch attempt at Dry January, but because I had no other option. The previous evening, I had been admitted to the emergency room with a potentially fatal blood alcohol content, and less than 24 hours later, I was on my way to the hospital’s psychiatric ward. There, a doctor explained that I had most likely survived such a high BAC because — despite being only 23 years old — I had a long history of chronic alcohol use that allowed my body to adjust to what amounted to daily poisoning.

Sobriety was a long, arduous process — one that involved a near-death experience, a stay in the psych ward and a month in an inpatient treatment center — all just to keep me away from alcohol for a month. After that, there were 12-step groups, therapy and the hard work of figuring out who I was and how to live as a sober person.

Through my limited perspective, I unconsciously put people into two separate buckets: The first was filled with people like me, who couldn’t control their alcohol use and for whom staying sober required talking about sobriety and recovery, and the second was “normal people,” who could use alcohol whenever and however they wanted to and it all worked out mostly fine.

Over the 16-plus years that followed, my beliefs about substance use, alcohol use disorder and recovery evolved. They became more expansive, inclusive and flexible. Those two disparate buckets became a Venn diagram: two significantly overlapping circles. I stopped seeing alcohol addiction as something one either had or didn’t have and started seeing it as one end of a very broad spectrum. It was the end to which I belonged, sure, but millions of people occupied every other space on that line, all the way to the polar opposite end: the people who’ve never picked up a drink.

It wasn’t a new or original way to think about substance use, but it was one that I didn’t see discussed as much as I would have liked. So I started writing about it, including in an advice column — first for a recovery website and later for Paste Magazine. I brought the column back as a Substack newsletter a few months ago. I alternate between answering questions about substance use and addiction and writing short essays about recovery-related topics.

The newsletter’s themes boil down to these: There’s no one right way to get sober, there are many paths to recovery, it’s personal and nonlinear, and we all have to find our way — ideally with a supportive community around us. An inclusive recovery landscape is vital because people aren’t getting much-needed help.

In the United States, deaths tied to excessive alcohol use rose 29% in just five years. Doctors say younger people, in particular, are experiencing a huge spike in alcohol-related liver disease.

In the United States, deaths tied to excessive alcohol use rose 29% in just five years. Doctors say younger peoplein particular, are experiencing a huge spike in alcohol-related liver disease. What could be more necessary than a broad, nonprescriptive movement discussing the benefit of cutting back or quitting drinking?

I was a month or so into writing the newsletter when someone asked me what I thought of “the whole sober curious thing.” I was halfway into a Pavlovian eye roll when I realized how ridiculous I was being. The sober curious movement was generally talking to a different demographic than I was: I was writing for people who felt like they were struggling with alcohol; the sober curious seemed to be focusing on people who weren’t compulsively using alcohol but wanted lifestyle or health changes. But we were saying the same thing. Give it a shot. See what works for you. Talk to others about how it feels. Don’t beat yourself up if you slip; just evaluate how you got there and try again if you want to.

Watching a handful of “sober curious” videos, I realized I’d made yet another misjudgment. While there were plenty of people who appeared to take to the alcohol-free lifestyle pretty easily, others documented the challenges they faced — many of which depicted the kind of struggles I was used to talking to people about: craving, relapse and social avoidance. The sober curious tent was much bigger than I initially understood.

As for the trendiness of the terminology? I now see that as a blessing, especially during the holidays. The fact that it’s a ubiquitous term has normalized people’s being mindful about their alcohol use. People walking into holiday parties and other heavy drinking occasions now have a handy phrase at the ready should family members and friends start questioning why someone isn’t engaging more fully in holiday spirits.

In some circles, there has always been an unspoken assumption that if you can drink (i.e., you aren’t an alcoholic or pregnant or you otherwise have a condition that renders you unable to do so), you will drink. I wish people didn’t feel the need to have an excuse to abstain from alcohol, but until that happens, I’m immensely grateful that the sober curious movement — and the 50 zillion TikToks about it — exist.

Katie MacBride

Katie MacBride is a health and medical writer whose work has appeared in New York Magazine, Slate, The Daily Beast, Vice News, Buzzfeed News, Rolling Stone, and Longreads, among other publications. Her newsletter, Ask A Sober Ladyanswers questions and explores essays about substance use and recovery.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

The Latest: Trump seeks help opening the Strait of Hormuz as Iran war chokes oil shipping

Published

on

The Latest: Trump seeks help opening the Strait of Hormuz as Iran war chokes oil shipping

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

BBC asks a court to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit

Published

on

BBC asks a court to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit

LONDON (AP) — The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against it, warning that the case could have a “chilling effect” on robust reporting on public figures and events.

The suit was filed in a Florida court, but the British national broadcaster argued that the court did not have jurisdiction, nor could Trump show that the BBC intended to misrepresent him.

Trump filed a lawsuit in December over the way a BBC documentary edited a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021. The claim seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and a further $5 billion for unfair trade practices.

Last month a judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida provisionally set a trial date for February 2027.

The BBC argued that the case should be thrown out because the documentary was never aired in Florida or the U.S.

“We have therefore challenged jurisdiction of the Florida court and filed a motion to dismiss the president’s claim,” the corporation said in a statement.

In a 34-page document, the BBC also argued that Trump failed to “plausibly allege facts showing that defendants knowingly intended to create a false impression.”

Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice,” it said.

The document further claimed that “the chilling effect is clear” when Trump is “among the most powerful and high-profile individuals in the world, on whose activities the BBC reports every day.”

“Early dismissal is favoured given the powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending against expensive yet groundless litigation, which would constrict the breathing space needed to ensure robust reporting on public figures and events,” it said.

The documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was aired days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The program spliced together three quotes from two sections of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote, in which Trump appeared to explicitly encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol building.

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Trump’s lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction” of him, and called it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The broadcaster’s chairman has apologized to Trump over the edit of the speech, admitting that it gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” But the BBC rejects claims it defamed him. The furor triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news last year.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The DOJ’s ethics proposal would have a corrupt fox guarding the henhouse

Published

on

State bar associations play an important accountability role across the country. Trump administration lawyers know that their legal licenses are subject to censure, because practicing law in the United States remains a privilege, not a right. But if Attorney General Pam Bondi has her way, even this guardrail could disappear.

Last week, Bondi proposed a new rule that would allow the Department of Justice to take over investigations of alleged attorney misconduct of its own lawyers. State bar authorities would have to pause their investigations while the Justice Department conducts its own probe. The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

It doesn’t feel like a coincidence that there has been a series of state ethics complaints filed against Trump administration lawyers, including Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and federal prosecutors handling immigration cases. President Donald Trump’s polarizing pardon attorney Ed Martin is currently facing just such a complaint from the D.C. Bar.

As outlined in the Federal Registerthe proposal argues that “political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process.” Of course, even if it were true that frivolous complaints were being filed against Justice Department lawyers, state bar grievance authorities should be able to weed them out just as effectively as the department’s own investigators. In fact, having an independent review process would provide more credibility than the DOJ would in dismissing such claims.

Federal law requires all federal prosecutors to comply with the ethics rules of the state where they practice law, including the District of Columbia. The new rule requires Justice Department lawyers to obey the substance of their state’s ethics rules, but gives the DOJ the authority to investigate violations. According to the proposal, whenever a bar grievance is filed, “the Department will have the right to review the allegations in the first instance and shall request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department’s review.”

From there, multiple scenarios are possible. First, “if the Attorney General decides not to complete her review,” the state bar disciplinary authorities “may resume their investigations or disciplinary hearings.” Second, if the attorney general finds misconduct, “the State bar disciplinary authorities will then have the option of beginning or resuming their investigations or disciplinary proceedings” and, if appropriate, “to impose additional sanctions beyond those already imposed by the Department, including suspension or permanent disbarment.”

But what is missing from the language of the rule itself is a potential third scenario. What if the attorney general clears the attorney of misconduct? On that, the rule is silent.

Say, for example, a federal prosecutor in Minnesota is accused of making false representations to an immigration judge. The judge or opposing party could file a grievance with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Under the new rule, the state bar would be required to stand down and await a DOJ investigation, with no provisions for time limits or transparency. Of course, even the delay could compromise the subsequent Minnesota probe. But if the Justice Department clears the lawyer, it is also unclear what happens next. According to Bloomberg“If the DOJ finds no violation, that blocks the state from investigating the alleged infraction.” This conclusion may be a fair inference for a department that has thrown its weight around. According to the proposed rule, “the Attorney General retains the discretion to displace State bar enforcement and to create an entirely Federal enforcement mechanism.”

But even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion. According to a comment posted by the Illinois State Bar Association, the DOJ is attempting to “shield” its lawyers from accountability. The proposed rule also includes an ominous provision that if bar disciplinary authorities refuse the attorney general’s request, “the Department shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General’s review of the allegations.”

Even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion.

In the decades since the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department has conducted robust investigations of allegations of ethical misconduct by its own attorneys and imposed discipline. In fact, it was common for state bar authorities to wait for the DOJ to complete its investigations before initiating their own probes, because the federal process held attorneys to standards even higher than state ethics rules. But that landscape changed last year, when Bondi fired the head of the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and its chief ethics officer. Now there is a risk that DOJ lawyers will be even further sheltered from meaningful ethical oversight.

In the first nine days of the 30-day notice and comment period, the proposed rule has attracted more than 30,000 comments. And once implemented, the rule will no doubt invite legal challenges and ultimately could be struck down. But until then, it threatens to give carte blanche to DOJ lawyers who represent the Trump administration not just zealously but with impunity, knowing that the attorney general can simply delay or even block state bar ethics complaints. And the rule represents one more openly regressive blow against the checks and balances that are essential to democracy.

Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending