We Could Buy Alcohol, but We Couldn’t Go to a Recovery Meeting

During the early days of COVID, our recovery group was stunned.

The order was clear. Liquor stores would remain open. We were told that if alcohol suddenly became unavailable, hospitals would be overwhelmed by people in withdrawal.

That explanation made grim sense.

What did not make sense was what came next.

Health authorities decreed that it was too dangerous for us to attend our support group meetings because gathering in person might spread the virus. In other words, it was acceptable to continue drinking, but not acceptable to gather with others who were trying to stop.

Does that make sense?

First and foremost, support group meetings are lifelines. They are not social events or optional gatherings. They reduce relapse, reduce isolation, cost nothing, regulate themselves, and provide human contact when people are most vulnerable. The same is true for churches and other forms of mutual support where people gather for meaning and connection.

Yet the rules made one thing clear: the risk of transmission somehow disappeared if alcohol was involved, but became dangerous if sobriety was involved.

One member of our group summed it up by quoting George Orwell’s 1984:
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Up was down. Down was up.

Protecting access to a substance that fuels addiction was treated as a public health priority. Protecting access to the community that helps people survive addiction was not.

To be fair, concern about alcohol withdrawal was understandable. Keeping liquor available to prevent medical emergencies made sense. But that does not explain banning recovery, no matter how it is spun.

As far as we know, the people making these decisions had zero days of lived experience with addiction and recovery.

Those who have never struggled with addiction often see recovery meetings as optional or social. They do not see them as life-saving in the way they see medicine or vaccines. Those of us who have lived it know differently. For us, this is often the difference between life and death. I would challenge any leader to debate that with someone who has actually been there.

This was not just a public health decision. It was a values decision about what society considers essential.

Chemicals were essential. Human connection could wait.

History tells a different story. Connection, belonging, and love have saved more lives than any bottle ever has.

I do not believe the people making these decisions were cruel. They were working at a population level, under pressure and fear. But that does not mean their decisions were harmless.

People died alone. Recovery was disrupted. Isolation deepened suffering.

If we ever face another pandemic, we cannot repeat this mistake.

Recovery meetings are essential. Declaring them “non-essential” is unacceptable.

Science must guide public health. But science alone is not enough. Charts and models cannot measure what happens when people are cut off from meaning, belonging, and hope.

Lived experience must have a seat at the table.

Saving lives does not come only from data.
It comes from human connection.

If these stories resonate, you’re invited to join my Reader’s Circle for reflections and behind-the-scenes insights.
You can sign up anytime at drlarrysmithauthor.com.

— Dr. Larry Smith