Simply- being a heavy drinker does not make one an alcoholic. Being a very heavy drinker does not make one an alcoholic. Being as we say, a boozer, does not make one an alcoholic.
Being an alcoholic does not necessarily make one a very heavy drinker. An alcoholic can have a dependency of, say , 1/2 bottle of wine nightly, but they must have it.
Churchill, and many like him, was not impaired by drink, far from it. Many professional soldiers in days gone by were very heavy drinkers, but impeccable in service and on parade. Many of these were among the very best of soldiers. After and outside of politics, Churchill a great orater, a great author, and a significant painter.
He remains a giant and his record defies destruction by pygmies.
(present company excepted, of course.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doppleganger I think he was indeed an alcoholic too. There is far too much anecdotal evidence to support this view. For example, it was claimed that "Churchill pleaded with William Lyon Mackenzie King, the prime minister of Canada, to shift production in his country's distilleries from raw materials for the war effort to whiskey and gin, twenty-five thousand cases of it." [1] I can't find any further evidence online to back this up though. |
Did he drink the whole damn lot?