On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:17:11 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/7/2014 12:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:50 -0600, Califbill wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/7/14, 10:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:46:00 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Yeah, what we have created in this country is a growth industry for the

privatization of penal institutions. The corporations pressure the

legislators to pass more laws and stiffer sentences so more people can

be imprisoned for longer periods of time and so the private slams will

be guaranteed more income. It's a wonderful system and requires a lot

less brainpower than something that might actually work.



What would you do to handle the drug problem?



I don't claim to have *the* solution, but I do know that creating a
growth industry in prisons for the private sector ain't it. I think
decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would be a good
starting point, though.

I suppose that's for all the drugs up through heroin? I suppose you
disagree with the idea of
marijuana being a stepping stone to the 'better' stuff. So where would
you draw the line?

Heroin is actually not a really bad 'hard' drug. Lots of heroin addicts
were functioning members of society. Lots turned to crime because of the
costs to procure, but heroin may kill you in the end because of paranoia.
Ray Charles was a heroin addict for years. Lots of other examples. There
are drugs too nasty to legalize, but the country will not come to an end
with most drugs available. Alcohol probably causes more deaths than hard
drugs. Including the drug wars for sales territory. You have a friend, I
think it was you, who is hooked on OxyContin. Is he still a functioning
member of society? What the hell is accomplished by sending someone to
prison for use? Puts their family in the welfare system, costs to
incarcerate, and ruins any prospect for a decent job later. If they commit
a crime to pay for the drugs, then jail them. But if costs are low enough,
they will work and pay for the drug, just like alcohol. This was supposed
to be a free country. We are being controlled more, and observed more than
a lot of western countries these days. And it is both major parties
responsible, not just one side or the other.

I'm no expert on drugs, and don't have an oxycontin hooked friend, that
I know of. I suppose the
cost of incarceration are more than the costs for emergency OD care, so
stopping the incarceration
may be a good idea. It's obviously not much of a deterrent.


I have a good friend who's daughter got hooked on oxycontin and then went
to heroin because it's cheaper. I have a niece who has followed the same
path. Both started as teenagers in high school. Both have been through
rehab, one twice, the other three times. Both have stolen money, jewelry
and other items from their parents, grandparents, other relatives and
former friends to fund their addictions. Failed marriages, abortions,
and heartbreak for the parents. My 61 year old sister-in-law (mother of
the niece) is now in therapy and is taking anti-anxiety pills because
she's coming apart emotionally due to her daughter's lifestyle.

Anyone who tells me heroin is "not a really bad hard drug" has a lot of
convincing to do to me.

But is the heroin the problem or the screwed up person using? And if was
more legal, how screwed up would they be? Maybe not need to take up a life
of crime to pay for the drugs.

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:17:11 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/7/2014 12:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:50 -0600, Califbill wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/7/14, 10:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:46:00 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Yeah, what we have created in this country is a growth industry for the

privatization of penal institutions. The corporations pressure the

legislators to pass more laws and stiffer sentences so more people can

be imprisoned for longer periods of time and so the private slams will

be guaranteed more income. It's a wonderful system and requires a lot

less brainpower than something that might actually work.



What would you do to handle the drug problem?



I don't claim to have *the* solution, but I do know that creating a
growth industry in prisons for the private sector ain't it. I think
decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would be a good
starting point, though.

I suppose that's for all the drugs up through heroin? I suppose you
disagree with the idea of
marijuana being a stepping stone to the 'better' stuff. So where would
you draw the line?

Heroin is actually not a really bad 'hard' drug. Lots of heroin addicts
were functioning members of society. Lots turned to crime because of the
costs to procure, but heroin may kill you in the end because of paranoia.
Ray Charles was a heroin addict for years. Lots of other examples. There
are drugs too nasty to legalize, but the country will not come to an end
with most drugs available. Alcohol probably causes more deaths than hard
drugs. Including the drug wars for sales territory. You have a friend, I
think it was you, who is hooked on OxyContin. Is he still a functioning
member of society? What the hell is accomplished by sending someone to
prison for use? Puts their family in the welfare system, costs to
incarcerate, and ruins any prospect for a decent job later. If they commit
a crime to pay for the drugs, then jail them. But if costs are low enough,
they will work and pay for the drug, just like alcohol. This was supposed
to be a free country. We are being controlled more, and observed more than
a lot of western countries these days. And it is both major parties
responsible, not just one side or the other.

I'm no expert on drugs, and don't have an oxycontin hooked friend, that
I know of. I suppose the
cost of incarceration are more than the costs for emergency OD care, so
stopping the incarceration
may be a good idea. It's obviously not much of a deterrent.


I have a good friend who's daughter got hooked on oxycontin and then went
to heroin because it's cheaper. I have a niece who has followed the same
path. Both started as teenagers in high school. Both have been through
rehab, one twice, the other three times. Both have stolen money, jewelry
and other items from their parents, grandparents, other relatives and
former friends to fund their addictions. Failed marriages, abortions,
and heartbreak for the parents. My 61 year old sister-in-law (mother of
the niece) is now in therapy and is taking anti-anxiety pills because
she's coming apart emotionally due to her daughter's lifestyle.

Anyone who tells me heroin is "not a really bad hard drug" has a lot of
convincing to do to me.

But is the heroin the problem or the screwed up person using? And if was
more legal, how screwed up would they be? Maybe not need to take up a life
of crime to pay for the drugs.

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and
then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom
might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

Then addiction is finished.

Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:17:11 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/7/2014 12:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:50 -0600, Califbill wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/7/14, 10:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:46:00 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Yeah, what we have created in this country is a growth industry for the

privatization of penal institutions. The corporations pressure the

legislators to pass more laws and stiffer sentences so more people can

be imprisoned for longer periods of time and so the private slams will

be guaranteed more income. It's a wonderful system and requires a lot

less brainpower than something that might actually work.



What would you do to handle the drug problem?



I don't claim to have *the* solution, but I do know that creating a
growth industry in prisons for the private sector ain't it. I think
decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would be a good
starting point, though.

I suppose that's for all the drugs up through heroin? I suppose you
disagree with the idea of
marijuana being a stepping stone to the 'better' stuff. So where would
you draw the line?

Heroin is actually not a really bad 'hard' drug. Lots of heroin addicts
were functioning members of society. Lots turned to crime because of the
costs to procure, but heroin may kill you in the end because of paranoia.
Ray Charles was a heroin addict for years. Lots of other examples. There
are drugs too nasty to legalize, but the country will not come to an end
with most drugs available. Alcohol probably causes more deaths than hard
drugs. Including the drug wars for sales territory. You have a friend, I
think it was you, who is hooked on OxyContin. Is he still a functioning
member of society? What the hell is accomplished by sending someone to
prison for use? Puts their family in the welfare system, costs to
incarcerate, and ruins any prospect for a decent job later. If they commit
a crime to pay for the drugs, then jail them. But if costs are low enough,
they will work and pay for the drug, just like alcohol. This was supposed
to be a free country. We are being controlled more, and observed more than
a lot of western countries these days. And it is both major parties
responsible, not just one side or the other.

I'm no expert on drugs, and don't have an oxycontin hooked friend, that
I know of. I suppose the
cost of incarceration are more than the costs for emergency OD care, so
stopping the incarceration
may be a good idea. It's obviously not much of a deterrent.


I have a good friend who's daughter got hooked on oxycontin and then went
to heroin because it's cheaper. I have a niece who has followed the same
path. Both started as teenagers in high school. Both have been through
rehab, one twice, the other three times. Both have stolen money, jewelry
and other items from their parents, grandparents, other relatives and
former friends to fund their addictions. Failed marriages, abortions,
and heartbreak for the parents. My 61 year old sister-in-law (mother of
the niece) is now in therapy and is taking anti-anxiety pills because
she's coming apart emotionally due to her daughter's lifestyle.

Anyone who tells me heroin is "not a really bad hard drug" has a lot of
convincing to do to me.

But is the heroin the problem or the screwed up person using? And if was
more legal, how screwed up would they be? Maybe not need to take up a life
of crime to pay for the drugs.

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and
then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom
might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

Then addiction is finished.

Humanitarianism expressed by those on the far right always impresses me.

F.O.A.D. wrote:
Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:17:11 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/7/2014 12:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:50 -0600, Califbill wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/7/14, 10:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:46:00 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Yeah, what we have created in this country is a growth industry for the

privatization of penal institutions. The corporations pressure the

legislators to pass more laws and stiffer sentences so more people can

be imprisoned for longer periods of time and so the private slams will

be guaranteed more income. It's a wonderful system and requires a lot

less brainpower than something that might actually work.



What would you do to handle the drug problem?



I don't claim to have *the* solution, but I do know that creating a
growth industry in prisons for the private sector ain't it. I think
decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would be a good
starting point, though.

I suppose that's for all the drugs up through heroin? I suppose you
disagree with the idea of
marijuana being a stepping stone to the 'better' stuff. So where would
you draw the line?

Heroin is actually not a really bad 'hard' drug. Lots of heroin addicts
were functioning members of society. Lots turned to crime because of the
costs to procure, but heroin may kill you in the end because of paranoia.
Ray Charles was a heroin addict for years. Lots of other examples. There
are drugs too nasty to legalize, but the country will not come to an end
with most drugs available. Alcohol probably causes more deaths than hard
drugs. Including the drug wars for sales territory. You have a friend, I
think it was you, who is hooked on OxyContin. Is he still a functioning
member of society? What the hell is accomplished by sending someone to
prison for use? Puts their family in the welfare system, costs to
incarcerate, and ruins any prospect for a decent job later. If they commit
a crime to pay for the drugs, then jail them. But if costs are low enough,
they will work and pay for the drug, just like alcohol. This was supposed
to be a free country. We are being controlled more, and observed more than
a lot of western countries these days. And it is both major parties
responsible, not just one side or the other.

I'm no expert on drugs, and don't have an oxycontin hooked friend, that
I know of. I suppose the
cost of incarceration are more than the costs for emergency OD care, so
stopping the incarceration
may be a good idea. It's obviously not much of a deterrent.


I have a good friend who's daughter got hooked on oxycontin and then went
to heroin because it's cheaper. I have a niece who has followed the same
path. Both started as teenagers in high school. Both have been through
rehab, one twice, the other three times. Both have stolen money, jewelry
and other items from their parents, grandparents, other relatives and
former friends to fund their addictions. Failed marriages, abortions,
and heartbreak for the parents. My 61 year old sister-in-law (mother of
the niece) is now in therapy and is taking anti-anxiety pills because
she's coming apart emotionally due to her daughter's lifestyle.

Anyone who tells me heroin is "not a really bad hard drug" has a lot of
convincing to do to me.

But is the heroin the problem or the screwed up person using? And if was
more legal, how screwed up would they be? Maybe not need to take up a life
of crime to pay for the drugs.

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and
then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom
might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

Then addiction is finished.

Humanitarianism expressed by those on the far right always impresses me.

Maybe it is more the personal responsibility. You and your lack of family
values screw you up, make do.

On 2/7/2014 5:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Califbill wrote:
Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:17:11 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/7/2014 12:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:50 -0600, Califbill wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/7/14, 10:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:46:00 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Yeah, what we have created in this country is a growth industry for the

privatization of penal institutions. The corporations pressure the

legislators to pass more laws and stiffer sentences so more people can

be imprisoned for longer periods of time and so the private slams will

be guaranteed more income. It's a wonderful system and requires a lot

less brainpower than something that might actually work.



What would you do to handle the drug problem?



I don't claim to have *the* solution, but I do know that creating a
growth industry in prisons for the private sector ain't it. I think
decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would be a good
starting point, though.

I suppose that's for all the drugs up through heroin? I suppose you
disagree with the idea of
marijuana being a stepping stone to the 'better' stuff. So where would
you draw the line?

Heroin is actually not a really bad 'hard' drug. Lots of heroin addicts
were functioning members of society. Lots turned to crime because of the
costs to procure, but heroin may kill you in the end because of paranoia.
Ray Charles was a heroin addict for years. Lots of other examples. There
are drugs too nasty to legalize, but the country will not come to an end
with most drugs available. Alcohol probably causes more deaths than hard
drugs. Including the drug wars for sales territory. You have a friend, I
think it was you, who is hooked on OxyContin. Is he still a functioning
member of society? What the hell is accomplished by sending someone to
prison for use? Puts their family in the welfare system, costs to
incarcerate, and ruins any prospect for a decent job later. If they commit
a crime to pay for the drugs, then jail them. But if costs are low enough,
they will work and pay for the drug, just like alcohol. This was supposed
to be a free country. We are being controlled more, and observed more than
a lot of western countries these days. And it is both major parties
responsible, not just one side or the other.

I'm no expert on drugs, and don't have an oxycontin hooked friend, that
I know of. I suppose the
cost of incarceration are more than the costs for emergency OD care, so
stopping the incarceration
may be a good idea. It's obviously not much of a deterrent.


I have a good friend who's daughter got hooked on oxycontin and then went
to heroin because it's cheaper. I have a niece who has followed the same
path. Both started as teenagers in high school. Both have been through
rehab, one twice, the other three times. Both have stolen money, jewelry
and other items from their parents, grandparents, other relatives and
former friends to fund their addictions. Failed marriages, abortions,
and heartbreak for the parents. My 61 year old sister-in-law (mother of
the niece) is now in therapy and is taking anti-anxiety pills because
she's coming apart emotionally due to her daughter's lifestyle.

Anyone who tells me heroin is "not a really bad hard drug" has a lot of
convincing to do to me.

But is the heroin the problem or the screwed up person using? And if was
more legal, how screwed up would they be? Maybe not need to take up a life
of crime to pay for the drugs.

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and
then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom
might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

Then addiction is finished.

Humanitarianism expressed by those on the far right always impresses me.

It's called reality. Something you folks in "la la land" are not
familiar with.

On 2/8/2014 1:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:50:53 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

How many people did you run into in the army who were addicted to
alcohol? I certainly saw plenty in the Navy and CG



I knew many heavy drinkers in the Navy. I was one of them. I know many
heavy drinkers now. I am not one of them, not because I don't like it,
but because as you age it doesn't like you as much. Most drinkers,
including myself never become alcoholics.

Alcoholism, like drug addiction, radically changes how a person thinks
and acts. His/her personality changes. Scientists have mapped areas of
the brain that responsible for cognizant thinking and routine awareness.
The inter-cell transmitters of electrical signals have been destroyed,
often permanently. A recovering alcoholic has to "re-wire" his/her
thought process to avoid relapses. Same with some drug addicts.

A heavy drinker isn't "the" definition of an alcoholic or one addicted
to alcohol. There is much more to it.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/8/2014 1:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:50:53 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

How many people did you run into in the army who were addicted to
alcohol? I certainly saw plenty in the Navy and CG



I knew many heavy drinkers in the Navy. I was one of them. I know many
heavy drinkers now. I am not one of them, not because I don't like it,
but because as you age it doesn't like you as much. Most drinkers,
including myself never become alcoholics.

Alcoholism, like drug addiction, radically changes how a person thinks
and acts. His/her personality changes. Scientists have mapped areas of
the brain that responsible for cognizant thinking and routine awareness.
The inter-cell transmitters of electrical signals have been destroyed,
often permanently. A recovering alcoholic has to "re-wire" his/her
thought process to avoid relapses. Same with some drug addicts.

A heavy drinker isn't "the" definition of an alcoholic or one addicted
to alcohol. There is much more to it.


I have a simple definition. If alcohol is causing problems for the drinker, and the drinker persists
in drinking alcohol, then the drinker is exhibiting alcoholic behavior. The only question then is
how big the problems have to get before the drinker realizes he/she is an alcoholic.

On 2/8/14, 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 1:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:50:53 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

How many people did you run into in the army who were addicted to
alcohol? I certainly saw plenty in the Navy and CG



I knew many heavy drinkers in the Navy. I was one of them. I know many
heavy drinkers now. I am not one of them, not because I don't like it,
but because as you age it doesn't like you as much. Most drinkers,
including myself never become alcoholics.

Alcoholism, like drug addiction, radically changes how a person thinks
and acts. His/her personality changes. Scientists have mapped areas of
the brain that responsible for cognizant thinking and routine awareness.
The inter-cell transmitters of electrical signals have been destroyed,
often permanently. A recovering alcoholic has to "re-wire" his/her
thought process to avoid relapses. Same with some drug addicts.

A heavy drinker isn't "the" definition of an alcoholic or one addicted
to alcohol. There is much more to it.


It depends on who is doing the defining.

I have heard lots of groups that set that bar pretty low.


If you drink a six pack every night, guess what...you're an alcoholic.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:21:22 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 1:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:50:53 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

How many people did you run into in the army who were addicted to
alcohol? I certainly saw plenty in the Navy and CG



I knew many heavy drinkers in the Navy. I was one of them. I know many
heavy drinkers now. I am not one of them, not because I don't like it,
but because as you age it doesn't like you as much. Most drinkers,
including myself never become alcoholics.

Alcoholism, like drug addiction, radically changes how a person thinks
and acts. His/her personality changes. Scientists have mapped areas of
the brain that responsible for cognizant thinking and routine awareness.
The inter-cell transmitters of electrical signals have been destroyed,
often permanently. A recovering alcoholic has to "re-wire" his/her
thought process to avoid relapses. Same with some drug addicts.

A heavy drinker isn't "the" definition of an alcoholic or one addicted
to alcohol. There is much more to it.


It depends on who is doing the defining.

I have heard lots of groups that set that bar pretty low.


If you drink a six pack every night, guess what...you're an alcoholic.

That's based on some scientific fact?

On 2/8/14, 11:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:21:22 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 1:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:50:53 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

How many people did you run into in the army who were addicted to
alcohol? I certainly saw plenty in the Navy and CG



I knew many heavy drinkers in the Navy. I was one of them. I know many
heavy drinkers now. I am not one of them, not because I don't like it,
but because as you age it doesn't like you as much. Most drinkers,
including myself never become alcoholics.

Alcoholism, like drug addiction, radically changes how a person thinks
and acts. His/her personality changes. Scientists have mapped areas of
the brain that responsible for cognizant thinking and routine awareness.
The inter-cell transmitters of electrical signals have been destroyed,
often permanently. A recovering alcoholic has to "re-wire" his/her
thought process to avoid relapses. Same with some drug addicts.

A heavy drinker isn't "the" definition of an alcoholic or one addicted
to alcohol. There is much more to it.


It depends on who is doing the defining.

I have heard lots of groups that set that bar pretty low.


If you drink a six pack every night, guess what...you're an alcoholic.

That's based on some scientific fact?



Having six alcoholic drinks a night puts you well into the
classification of being a heavy drinker, according to the CDC:

"What do you mean by heavy drinking?
For men, heavy drinking is typically defined as consuming an average of
more than 2 drinks per day, or more than 14 drinks per week. For women,
heavy drinking is typically defined as consuming an average of more than
1 drink per day, or more than 7 drinks per week."

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm#excessivealcohol

Heavy drinking every night is a sure sign of alcoholism. Six beers a
night is 42 drinks a week.