The expression “California sober” has become popular in the last few years, which has led to its extensive, though sometimes contradictory, use.
This impreciseness in turn undermines the value of the term, since a person following the so-called California lifestyle is measuring themselves against a sliding scale rather than the fixed standard that Covenant Hills rehab and the majority of treatment facilities set for themselves.
The Working Definition
The term “California sober” usually refers to people who have quit drinking alcohol and doing hard drugs. In most versions they continue using marijuana, sometimes with psychedelics added to the mix. Another interpretation reverses this, permitting alcohol but excluding cannabis and psychedelics. Finally, the term can also apply to people who cut down on alcohol consumption instead of quitting it entirely. These variations in definition are why “California sober” deserves a closer examination.
Where the Idea Comes From
The concept sits inside the long-running debate between the proponents of abstinence-only recovery and those who follow the harm-reduction philosophy. The latter group focuses on reducing damage first, on the basis that an approach someone will actually follow beats one they abandon. The pro-abstinence group’s position is based on the belief that anything less than full-scale commitment leads to relapse in this particular area. The phrase “California sober” became popular after several celebrities openly admitted using this definition to describe their approach to handling their addictions, with at least one later stating that it was, in essence, not working.
The Argument in Its Favor
For people whose addiction revolves around alcohol and whose experiences with full-scale abstinence programs have been largely negative, this method can be a more achievable way to address the issue. The approach is similar to the harm-reduction tactics used by many treatment facilities for opioid abuse, with few arguing against its effectiveness in that area. Advocates for this approach claim that the same principle should be applied to alcohol as well.
The Argument Against
There are three strong arguments against using the California method. First of all, there is the risk of developing cannabis use disorder, which is a genuine medical condition and affects a considerable share of regular users. Another problem is that the “slippery slope” of sobriety is rarely noticed by the person in recovery, even when it is right in front of their nose. The final issue is that anyone can use this label, which in turn prevents the creation of realistic expectations, whether on a personal or professional level.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
There is little direct research into whether substituting marijuana for alcohol actually helps people with substance use disorder. This is not the same as saying that no evidence exists, but there is not much that is conclusive in this particular area either. This is an honest description of the situation, which makes it harder to use either side’s claims as an absolute truth.
Who It Works For and Why, and Who It Does Not, and Why Not
In most cases, people for whom this approach works have had a relatively singular addiction (alcohol) that they want to replace with another but with no prior history of cannabis use disorder. In addition, these people often use auxiliary tools, medications, or regular doctor visits. When such conditions are not met, and when a person’s addiction has been multi-substance or multi-activity with elements of transition from one substance to another, the California approach rarely works. This goes for conditions where cannabis abuse is used as a coping mechanism for an underlying mental health issue, where such an approach tends to fail in both addiction treatment and mental health recovery.
Where the Term Creates Practical Issues Outside of One’s Personal Use
First of all, most sober living homes require full abstinence from substances, so a person who continues to use cannabis is, at best, under a constant threat of eviction. Employers or authorities who require regular drug testing do not care how a person describes their approach. Finally, using the phrase within a treatment setting tends to produce a plan that quietly stops matching what is actually happening, since the definitions used differ greatly between the patient and the medical staff.
The Practical Test for Whether the Term Applies to a Particular Case and Lifestyle
Instead of asking whether one is “California sober,” it would be useful to consider several practical questions. First of all, is the amount consistent with six months earlier? Second, is the reduced substance used in a social setting or is it consumed on a daily basis in solitude? Third, are any of the adverse effects of the addiction returning? Finally, can someone else actually assess these factors? Answers to these questions will be much more meaningful in terms of an honest self-assessment than the phrase “California sober” or its negation.
Conclusion: A Description, Not a Plan
For some people, the approach works, functioning as a genuine reduction in harm rather than a loophole. For some, it serves as a convenient excuse, which may be the result of either the approach itself or a particular individual’s failure to implement it correctly. There is no definitive answer for everyone, because individual circumstances differ. Nevertheless, asking the right questions can help determine the effectiveness for a particular case, ideally with the help of professionals.