A couple reasons I couldn't vote for Rand Paul

[KacyRay]

A couple reasons, among many.

Rand Paul "Assures" Evangelicals That He Doesn't Want to End the Drug War

"In preparation for a 2016 presidential run, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is courting evangelical leaders. And we all know what that means! It's time to throw those hedonistic, libertine, drug-obsessed libertarians under the bus. The Washington Post reports on how that's going:

At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, the younger Paul assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.

Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” [Rand] said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

“He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” [said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa].

Just to hammer home what's been said already: Paul isn't a libertarian on drugs. He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That's not remotely libertarian. (Is it politically practical? Sure. So are farm subsidies.)

As for "traditional marriage," here's how Paul is selling his position to evangelicals:

He said he’s not ready to “give up on” the traditional family unit. But he added that it is a mistake for conservatives to support a federal ban on same-sex marriage, saying, “We’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now.”

“If we’re to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people,” he said.

"Win back the hearts and minds of people"? What does that even mean? That if we give the country enough time, a majority of voters will change their minds about extending equal protection to same-sex couples, and revoke it? And that would be a good thing?

Considering just how "radical" candidate Obama was, I can't help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president."

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You appear to be saying that you "couldn't vote for" the most vocally libertarian, pro-small government Senator in U.S. history because he advocates reducing current drug laws instead of full legalization.

Just as a point of reference for this discussion, Rand Paul won his race for the U.S. Senate by defeating Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, a moderate Democrat who favors expansion of Federal involvement in the War on Drugs, Obamacare, and the Patriot Act, and opposes decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

[Mike82ARP]

Kacy, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You appear to be saying that you "couldn't vote for" the most vocally libertarian, pro-small government Senator in U.S. history because he advocates reducing current drug laws instead of full legalization.

Just as a point of reference for this discussion, Rand Paul won his race for the U.S. Senate by defeating Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, a moderate Democrat who favors expansion of Federal involvement in the War on Drugs, Obamacare, and the Patriot Act, and opposes decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Ditto.

That being said, the Libertarians are going to need a reality check and adopt an incremental versus an all-or-nothing approach to politics.

[Robert Baratheon]

Ditto.

That being said, the Libertarians are going to need a reality check and adopt an incremental versus an all-or-nothing approach to politics.

The Libertarian Party, like all U.S. third parties, has no practical chance of achieving mainstream success. But what we are seeing now is a shift within the Republican Party, which is of mainstream consequence, away from Bush's expansionist "neoconservativism" and toward small-government principles that libertarians can actually get behind. Beck, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party are the major driving force behind this ideological shift (a profoundly positive development), but Kacy feels it necessary to relentlessly attack them instead of the progressive politicians and pundits who unabashedly spend their every waking moment trying to expand the power of the state.

Isn't it more logical that the targets of our ire be prioritized based on harm and the real threat they pose to our liberties?

[Serapis Bey]

Ditto.

That being said, the Libertarians are going to need a reality check and adopt an incremental versus an all-or-nothing approach to politics.

The Libertarian Party, like all U.S. third parties, has no practical chance of achieving mainstream success. But what we are seeing now is a shift within the Republican Party, which is of mainstream consequence, away from Bush's expansionist "neoconservativism" and toward small-government principles that libertarians can actually get behind. Beck, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party are the major driving force behind this ideological shift (a profoundly positive development), but Kacy feels it necessary to relentlessly attack them instead of the progressive politicians and pundits who unabashedly spend their every waking moment trying to expand the power of the state.

Isn't it more logical that the targets of our ire be prioritized based on harm and the real threat they pose to our liberties?

Kacy has previously explained that his priorities lie with personal liberties and not so much with economic ones. I believe the example he used was he is more concerned with his freedom of mind and choice than his pocketbook.

In addition, he believes our concerns about economic collapse are examples of catastrophic thinking and a result of fear mongering. It is only natural then for him to focus on the freedom to watch porn and do drugs.

This raises the question of why his concerns about the "imminent Christian theocracy" are any more or less "fear mongering" than our claims of economic catastrophe, but that is something only he can answer.

[Mike82ARP]

Ditto.

That being said, the Libertarians are going to need a reality check and adopt an incremental versus an all-or-nothing approach to politics.

The Libertarian Party, like all U.S. third parties, has no practical chance of achieving mainstream success. But what we are seeing now is a shift within the Republican Party, which is of mainstream consequence, away from Bush's expansionist "neoconservativism" and toward small-government principles that libertarians can actually get behind. Beck, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party are the major driving force behind this ideological shift (a profoundly positive development), but Kacy feels it necessary to relentlessly attack them instead of the progressive politicians and pundits who unabashedly spend their every waking moment trying to expand the power of the state.

Isn't it more logical that the targets of our ire be prioritized based on harm and the real threat they pose to our liberties?

Kacy has previously explained that his priorities lie with personal liberties and not so much with economic ones. I believe the example he used was he is more concerned with his freedom of mind and choice than his pocketbook.

In addition, he believes our concerns about economic collapse are examples of catastrophic thinking and a result of fear mongering. It is only natural then for him to focus on the freedom to watch porn and do drugs.

This raises the question of why his concerns about the "imminent Christian theocracy" are any more or less "fear mongering" than our claims of economic catastrophe, but that is something only he can answer.

From the 1973 film, Cabaret, the song "Money Makes the World Go Round" fits this discussion. Economic freedom and the benefits it provides are primary and the degree of economic freedom we possess will directly impact our personal freedoms. To ignore the economic debacle we are surely facing is foolish.

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy has previously explained that his priorities lie with personal liberties and not so much with economic ones. I believe the example he used was he is more concerned with his freedom of mind and choice than his pocketbook.

In addition, he believes our concerns about economic collapse are examples of catastrophic thinking and a result of fear mongering. It is only natural then for him to focus on the freedom to watch porn and do drugs.

This raises the question of why his concerns about the "imminent Christian theocracy" are any more or less "fear mongering" than our claims of economic catastrophe, but that is something only he can answer.

Even setting all economic issues aside (it pains me to even write those words), Rand Paul is indisputably a libertarian-leaning politician who scores far better than your average politician on issues of individual liberty. Simply because he pays Christianity some lipservice at fundraising events and doesn't unequivocally support legalization of drugs is a rather silly basis to blast him through social media while far worse offenders are ignored.

[Brant Gaede]

My feel for Rand Paul is he's gaining the gravitas that'll lead to his nomination for President by the Republican Party in 2016 and his likely election. Then the Republicans and he will be blamed for the economic pain that'll hit this country like a waterfall. So far the bread and circuses are working well enough so the Democrats don't have this problem, but they are going down big-time on gun control, of all things, in the 2014 elections. Obamacare will really hurt them by 2016.

--Brant

and that's the way it is

and that's the way its going to be

x-war(s) and the killer asteroid

[Serapis Bey]

Simply because he pays Christianity some lipservice at fundraising events and doesn't unequivocally support legalization of drugs is a rather silly basis to blast him through social media while far worse offenders are ignored.

Indeed, which is why I have repeatedly told him in the past, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good"

The message doesn't seem to be taking.

[KacyRay]

Simply because he pays Christianity some lipservice at fundraising events and doesn't unequivocally support legalization of drugs is a rather silly basis to blast him through social media while far worse offenders are ignored.

Indeed, which is why I have repeatedly told him in the past, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good"

The message doesn't seem to be taking.

You mean with all those finely honed social skills, Dale Carnegie insights, and knowledge of social dynamics, you still have a hard time getting people to give a damn what you're telling them?

The hell you say!

Must be their fault.

[Robert Baratheon]

You mean with all those finely honed social skills, Dale Carnegie insights, and knowledge of social dynamics, you still have a hard time getting people to give a damn what you're telling them?

The hell you say!

Must be their fault.

Carnegie is for business. This is entertainment.

If you're ever interested in explaining how Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are supposedly a bigger threat to our freedom than say, Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson Lee, you know where to find us.

[PDS]

You mean with all those finely honed social skills, Dale Carnegie insights, and knowledge of social dynamics, you still have a hard time getting people to give a damn what you're telling them?

The hell you say!

Must be their fault.

Carnegie is for business. This is entertainment.

If you're ever interested in explaining how Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are supposedly a bigger threat to our freedom than say, Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson Lee, you know where to find us.

I generally remember debating with my fellow students of Objectivism, circa 1985, over many a beer, that the Left was a far bigger threat than the Right to freedom in America. Smart people. Some of them big shots in Objectivism even today. I specifically remember arguing that this fault line issue among Objectivists was primarily a function of temperament, i.e., the temperament of the person holding the view determined which shoulder he would be most prone to be looking over. I believe this was an extrapolation of Thomas Sowell's insights about the political realm as a whole, especially as he outlined in A Conflict of Visions.

This still seems true 30 or so years later. You both kinda/sorta seem right to me, but I am temperamentally more inclined to be suspicious of the Left.

[Robert Baratheon]

I grew up in Rhode Island - "the bluest state" - so I have a certain perspective of progressivism and its practical effects that others may not. Left-wing central planning and social programs, combined with a symbiotic alliance between organized labor, social interest groups, and corrupt Democrat politicians, have literally wrecked the economy and culture of that state. Every year, businesses and productive individuals flee by the thousands in search of jobs and a better standard of living (Rhode Island is the only state actually losing population) while illegal immigrants flood in to fill the void, lured by loosely administered and overly generous welfare benefits. The unemployment rate has been among the highest in the U.S. for 5 years running. You might have heard about the recent 38 Studios fiasco in which the politically appointed "experts" of state's central planning board invested $100 million of taxpayer money into Curt Schilling's video game company, which swiftly went bankrupt, losing the entire investment and dumping the company workforce onto RI unemployment. The Providence corporate tax rate is the highest in the U.S. The state has been ranked dead last for business two years running. A steady cycle of Democratic politicians is ferried off to Federal prison on corruption charges only to return to pick up where they left off several years later.

So when those like Kacy write off progressivism as merely having a marginal impact on our wallets - or assert that a ten commandments placard in a courthouse is a bigger threat to our collective freedom and opportunity - it distinctly feels as if my leg is being urinated on.

[Serapis Bey]

If you're ever interested in explaining how Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are supposedly a bigger threat to our freedom than say, Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson Lee, you know where to find us.

C'mon Kaeshee!

We're waiting for you...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You guys really like ragging Kacy, huh?

I wonder what you all were like when you were younger...

(I have a suggestion, but it's only that and I have a feeling I'm offering it in vain. Repeat after me, 50 times a day, "We'll just have to agree to disagree." )

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

MSK - We can forgive you for not being famliar with the "process." Kacy can ultimately be saved from himself and has been in the past. It just takes *years* of wearing down his mental defenses through attrition. He has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion, but ultimately, like a stubborn mule, he will come. We had countless arguments in which Kacy railed against Dale Carnegie's methods of conflict resolution - now he accepts them. He relentlessly ridiculed SB and me for our study of seduction literature and social dynamics - now he concedes it has a place. I endured a decade of verbal abuse for suggesting he cut back on his alcohol consumption. A few years ago, a revelatory post appeared on his Facebook page about how he had come to precisely that conclusion, lamenting all the wasted time, money, and social opportunities. I never got any credit, of course - or an apology for that matter - but simply being vindicated was its own reward in the end. A year from now - or maybe the year after that - he will cease his war against libertarian conservatives and recognize progressivism as the true defining political threat of our time.

[Serapis Bey]

You guys really like ragging Kacy, huh?

I wonder what you all were like when you were younger...

(I have a suggestion, but it's only that and I have a feeling I'm offering it in vain. Repeat after me, 50 times a day, "We'll just have to agree to disagree." )

Michael

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE

(more seriously though, he would avoid our attacks if he would simply stop calling himself a libertarian. I don't think of liberals as all bad, and Kacy has good points to make, but it is his attempt to gain the social cachet of being a libertarian "rebel" while at the same time ingratiating himself with his many liberal friends that causes RB and I much intestinal discomfort).

[Serapis Bey]

MSK - We can forgive you for not being famliar with the "process." Kacy can ultimately be saved from himself and has been in the past. It just takes *years* of wearing down his mental defenses through attrition. He has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion, but ultimately, like a stubborn mule, he will come. We had countless arguments in which Kacy railed against Dale Carnegie's methods of conflict resolution - now he accepts them. He relentlessly ridiculed SB and me for our study of seduction literature and social dynamics - now he concedes it has a place. I endured a decade of verbal abuse for suggesting he cut back on his alcohol consumption. A few years ago, a revelatory post appeared on his Facebook page about how he had come to precisely that conclusion, lamenting all the wasted time, money, and social opportunities. I never got any credit, of course - or an apology for that matter - but simply being vindicated was its own reward in the end. A year from now - or maybe the year after that - he will cease his war against libertarian conservatives and recognize progressivism as the true defining political threat of our time.

Oh, you missed the best one -- our arguments over "whining.". My attempts to educate were predictably shot down with never ending sophistry. -- until, that is, he caught flak from his coworkers. THEN, at that point he "saw the light"...and rather than credit me with any insight, proceeded to lecture others on their misguided notions regarding whining vs. legitimate complaining.

::rolls eyes::

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh God,

I thought I was trying to stay our of a fight between man and wife.

It's worse than I thought.

It's a threesome...

Michael

[KacyRay]

Just remember that you're hearing an extremely skewed side of a very long story. The two guys who are making these claims about me are the only two who know me that would make such claims.

Imagine a guy being accused of certain behaviors. Now imagine being in a courthouse where there are several hundred people on one side, all of whom know the defendant and interact with him on a consistent basis, and all of whom vouch that this behavior doesn't describe him.

On the other side are two guys, both of whom insist that yeah, he's like that. Both are bosom buddies. Both have very narcissistic tendencies. At least one of them loves taunting and trolling. The other hasn't seen or interacted with the guy in years.

Now, imagine that after the case is heard, everyone leaves the courtroom and a news agency outside the courtroom interviews two people about the case, and it happens to be the only two guys on the other side of the case.

That's basically what's happening here.

[KacyRay]

MSK - We can forgive you for not being famliar with the "process." Kacy can ultimately be saved from himself and has been in the past. It just takes *years* of wearing down his mental defenses through attrition. He has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion, but ultimately, like a stubborn mule, he will come. We had countless arguments in which Kacy railed against Dale Carnegie's methods of conflict resolution - now he accepts them. He relentlessly ridiculed SB and me for our study of seduction literature and social dynamics - now he concedes it has a place. I endured a decade of verbal abuse for suggesting he cut back on his alcohol consumption. A few years ago, a revelatory post appeared on his Facebook page about how he had come to precisely that conclusion, lamenting all the wasted time, money, and social opportunities. I never got any credit, of course - or an apology for that matter - but simply being vindicated was its own reward in the end. A year from now - or maybe the year after that - he will cease his war against libertarian conservatives and recognize progressivism as the true defining political threat of our time.

RB, do you realize how condescending, trite, and ridiculous you sound when you speak of saving me from myself? What exactly do you think I need saving from? I live quite a happy, fulfilling life. Ask your buddy SB if he can make the same claim.

15 years ago I did not have a pot to piss in. I was a waiter at Applebees, I lived at SB’s place and paid $150 rent each month. Our friend MR drove us everywhere because I didn’t have a car. I didn’t even have a bank account, let alone any money. Life was nothing but one party after another every night, one hangover after another every morning, and one bill collector after another every month. That’s how it was for me in 1998. But a series of good decisions, risks, and HARD ASS WORK has changed things for me.

Now I travel around the world. I have a profession that I enjoy the hell out of, and find quite respectable. I've met the President of the United States, I've introduced my wife to the First Lady of the United States. John McCain shook my hand, looked me in the eyes, and said "Thank you." for what I do. I've met and worked with men and women from over a dozen different nations. I've been all over, Thailand to Afghanistan to Italy to Israel to Japan to Hawaii to Spain - and I get paid to do it. That’s what my life is today.

Now I have a wife that I love and adore that loves and adores me. She makes my life a beautiful place.

Now I want for nothing materially. I have everything I ever wanted, including two houses, two Mastiffs, and a full music studio. I have a decent (and growing) retirement account, and a really good pension on the way. At the age of 50, I will retire and not be on a payroll again. I won’t need to be.

Socially, my only complaint is that I never stay in one place long enough. I make great friends wherever I go, but I always wind up leaving after a few years so I have to keep up with people online. Also, it makes it near impossible for me to be in a band or to get a lasting music presence going. But that's the nature of this lifestyle. Thank god for facebook.

Intellectually, I feel very comfortable in everything I believe. I am intellectually flexible enough to be persuaded when I hear arguments that challenge my current paradigm, or any details within. I read How To Win Friends and Influence People for the first time when I was about 22, and it had a profound affect on me then. I am pretty sure you were in diapers around that time, so it’s comical to see you try to take credit for leading me to accept the merits of Dale Carnegie conflict resolution.

But I also do something not a lot of people do – I create my own formulations about various concepts and I bounce those ideas off of high-octane minds. Now, I realize that might not be unusual or impressive in this particular crowd, but I can assure you that very few people you bump into on the street can go into depth on their own original formulations on ideas such as “Arbitrary Assertions” and “Respect” and them float those ideas among the smartest people they can find for scrutiny and possible revision.

I also make it a habit to deliberately extract good ideas from whatever source I can find, regardless of what those sources are. As far as the seduction literature – if you think you’ve somehow made you’re point, I would like once again to direct your attention over to SB. Back then I made the point that all that focus and attention on getting laid would result in – at the very best – nothing more than an empty, hollow “victory”, if such a victory was even to be had. SB quipped “But I sure would enjoy it!”.

Ask him now how well all that time and effort put into seduction theory has served him. Then continue bragging about how you’ve somehow converted me into your way of thinking. (I only comment on him at this point because I have no clue what’s going on in your personal life, so I can’t comment on that.)

I said back then that all of the time and effort he spent involved in the “Seduction Community” would end up having been nothing more than a complete waste of his time, and would deprive him of opportunities to engage in more productive activities – actions that would have tangible benefits. And as time has shown, I was absolutely right.

But what I did find value in was the science of social dynamics. And I have to tell you, I came to appreciate this despite your absolutely horrendous attempts at persuasion, not because of them. The understanding of social dynamics has become an important part of my life, but that happened not because of, but despite how loathe I was to consider anything that trolls have to say. I am not closed to new ideas, and I think I've demonstrated that to my own satisfaction at this point. If not to yours... oh well. I'll live with that.

What you seem to perceive as me being dragged kicking and screaming into new ideas is actually me accepting new ideas despite how loathsome the source of those ideas is. Reaching into a pile of dog shit and pulling out a pearl would be an apt metaphor. You wouldn’t expect someone to stick their hand in a pile of dog shit without a significant degree of trepidation, would you? That’s what it was like listening to the both of you.

But I consider the fact that I was able to listen to, and extract the value from, even the likes of you two a strength. If I can put up with the shit I get from you and still come away from it with something of value, that’s a pretty heroic degree of intellectual tenacity. But don’t think for one moment that any persuasive gains you made from me were due to some noble patience on your part. Rather it was my refusal to throw a very small baby out with a very large tub of bathwater.

As far as the alcohol consumption – the FB post (I think) you’re referring to was related to escapism, not alcohol consumption. I had this conversation with a lot of people, but none more significant my daughter, whom I was raising at the time.

I drank a lot back then, and I knew I was not an alcoholic. When she, and you, and a few others insisted I was, I knew they were wrong, but I did not know how to reconcile that with all the drinking I was doing.

You were wrong then, and after some time (a couple years) I was able to finally put the pieces together to help myself. I realized that I had allowed my life to become something I didn’t enjoy, and I was engaging in escapism. Alcohol was only one manifestation of this escapism (hours spent playing bullet chess each day was another), and once I realized that the solution to this escapism was to force myself to get out of my comfort zone and do things I wasn’t sure whether I’d enjoy or not, I broke the cycle. I stared weightlifting again, I joined a softball team, I started running, I got a night job where my daughter was working, and I didn’t have a drop of alcohol for about a year and a half. I dropped 20 pounds. I brought my Physical Fitness level back up. I started focusing at work. And I rose from the enlisted ranks to become an Officer.

And believe it or not, you weren’t involved in that process. These were not solutions your recommended. The word “escapism” was never mentioned by you. You were never part of the solution - you only served to antagonize me about the problem. When the guy who tells you that pictures are stupid and pointless tells you alcohol is stupid and pointless, it’s tough to take that advice seriously. But that was all your advice amounted to, so again… for you to take credit for my own growth during that time is comical.

But hey… ask your buddy SB about alcohol. I’m interested to hear how much of your Wise and Patient Counsel you spend with him on this issue.

So really… if you think you’re some kind of savior to me despite my reluctance to be saved (from whatever you think I need saving from), I invite you to punish me be withdrawing your Wise and Patient Counsel. I got along quite fine before I had it, I got along quite fine without it once I realized that having to listen to this kind of bullshit was hardly worth the value it provided me, and I’ll get along quite fine without it if you withdraw it now.

Save me from myself? Who the fuck do you think you are? Seriously? If you want to save someone from themselves, why don’t you focus your efforts on someone who actually needs it? I think we both know a good candidate. Or go door to door announcing the good news that you have come to show folks the path to salvation. You'll get better results from either of those options, I think.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Both have very narcissistic tendencies.

Kacy,

Don't you mean all three?

Michael

[KacyRay]

Kacy, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You appear to be saying that you "couldn't vote for" the most vocally libertarian, pro-small government Senator in U.S. history because he advocates reducing current drug laws instead of full legalization.

Just as a point of reference for this discussion, Rand Paul won his race for the U.S. Senate by defeating Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, a moderate Democrat who favors expansion of Federal involvement in the War on Drugs, Obamacare, and the Patriot Act, and opposes decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Give me a true small government candidate. Don't try to force the false choice of "big government" liberal vs "small government" Republicans like Paul. I don't consider a drug warrior a "small-government" guy. And I reject the idea that the enemies of my enemies are my allies.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

Our posts crossed.

Good on you that you turned your life around with seriousness and work ethic.

You said you used to drink a lot, but was not an alcoholic.

OK. But that's no biggie one way or the other.

I used to drink a lot and I was.

Drug addict, too--crack cocaine. (No smiley for that one. That one kicked my ass too hard...)

Michael

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

Our posts crossed.

Good on you that you turned your life around with seriousness and work ethic.

You said you used to drink a lot, but was not an alcoholic.

OK. But that's no biggie one way or the other.

I used to drink a lot and I was.

Drug addict, too--crack cocaine. (No smiley for that one. That one kicked my ass too hard...)

Michael

Wow! Kudos to you for kicking that. The idea of being hooked on something that powerful scares me to death.

The reason I say I wasn't an alcoholic was because I don't think that alcoholism is determined by the volume of alcohol you drink, but rather the reasons you drink.

For alcoholics, their brain chemistry has become wired through excessive consumption (or in some cases, was born wired) to crave alcohol. Regardless of what is going on their lives, they simply crave alcohol. All the time. They need it to feel normal. They need it to fight off whatever pain is associated with sobriety.

For alcoholics, a lifestyle transformation would have very little relevance. They would still be alcoholics. They don't drink because they're bored or unfulfilled... they drink because they have to drink.

For alcoholics, to quit drinking is a daily struggle.

(Note: I'm not saying these things to educate you. You have identified as a recovered alcoholic, so I don't presume to tell you anything you don't already know about alcoholism. I'm only saying these things in order to provide context.)

For me, a lifestyle change was exactly what it took to lose the urge to drink every day. Once I changed things in my life to make it more fulfilling, drinking was the last thing I wanted to do. Why would I want to drink when I'm about to go play softball??

For me, once I changed my lifestyle, I realized drinking was a liability. I valued my new-found fun time, and drinking was only a poison that would keep me from it. I learned to better enjoy my time with my daughter, I rediscovered the gratification of physical fitness, and I made myself leave the confines of my dark, screen-lit room in favor of a menial night job that helped me spend more time with my daughter, meet fun people, and put a little extra money in my pocket.

And after that, I was sober enough for long enough that I was able to contemplate what I was thinking to sit in there and waste my time for so long in the first place.

I realized that I had, at some point, decided that i didn't feel like putting the required effort into leading a fulfilling life. I guess I was "waiting for the winds of change to sweep the clouds away... waiting for the rainbows end to cast its gold [my] way". So in order to pass the time while I waited, I sat in my room, drank beer, played chess, chatted, gamed, posted, commented, and occasionally watched TV. To my credit, I also took many college classes online.

Then one day my boss (at the time) made us go to the gym and weigh ourselves. Good god, what a wake-up call.

I changed everything. Didn't have a drop of alcohol for the next year and a half.

At the end of a year and a half, I decided that I didn't need to stay on the wagon any longer. Getting drunk was no longer interesting, so I really had little fear of enjoying a drink every now and then.

Which is how life has been for me ever since.