Online Books On AA/NA

[Anonymous]

Some people do get addicted to deadly substances. What do you say to a heroin addict who's only wish in life is to be able to stop using before they die from OD? Sorry buddy, but AA/NA isn't 100% perfect so we're going to have to let you die in the gutter, since that's your choice.

Nobody chooses to be a drug addict, and nobody is immune to it happening to them. Alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, oxy, other prescription meds.. these drugs do some serious damage to people who use too much and too often. Those are the people AA/NA is trying to help. The people who have no where else to go. Not everybody has medical insurance that will pay for a 90 day rehab on the beach in Malibu.

I'm not saying AA/NA is the greatest thing in the world. It is kind of cult-like in the rituals and tradition and all that. But they did that for a reason, similar to religion they outlined the general beliefs and traditions so the program can proliferate and expand without a centralized power. It's the people involved in AA/NA that keep it going and donate money, so it must be important to them, or working for them in some way. Otherwise, the program would just fizzle out and disappear.

It's easy for us, people not addicted to deadly substances, to judge them and what they do. But they are adults and are free to make a choice as to what type of setting and social group helps them improve their life.

I know why people on fornits think it's a cult. Many here were submitted and even forced to attend bastardized program versions of AA. That's not AA, that is individual program's forming groups and using lgat confrontation, disguised as a recovery meeting. It's perfectly understandable, that a person subjected to this form of "AA meeting", especially those who didn't have a problem with drugs, would reject anything associated with the group in the future.

AA/NA is a selling point to many parents when searching for a program. It is the accepted method of "recovery" in popular culture, and so programs have adopted some the terminology and tradition to satisfy parents concerned with their kid's (perceived) drug use.

But you can't hold that against AA/NA. It's not a centralized group with a leader. Anyone can start their own meeting, and they are all different. If it didn't do something, if it didn't work, why has it grown to include recovery groups for all the different drugs, and all sorts of addictions. People congregate to form recovery groups on their own, AA just gives them an outline on how to do it.

Addressing the subject of whether addiction is a choice or not. I do not believe it is all about choice. In the beginning it is a choice. Whether to use an addictive drug the first time is a choice. But after that, biology takes over. It doesn't matter if you are happy or sad, rich or poor, smart or dumb... getting high can feel absolutely wonderful, blissful. It's totally natural for people to want to repeat and find that feeling again, and again, and again. There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.

The mantra of "everything we do is a choice" comes from life spring. It is a  psychologically trick, a cult tool that convinces the followers to feel in control of every aspect of their life, when in fact, much of our lives is out of our control. We don't control everything in our life. This is an uncomfortable reality for some people. So they seek out a group of people who will tell them otherwise. So, in a way, rejecting the idea that addiction can overtake us completely, is also program doctrine. Just a different program.

[psy]

The courts can force an addict into treatment because they're "sick"

Actually, if you have a lawyer who knows what he is doing and knows the relevant court cases, they cannot force you into treatment (or AA treatment at all).  Even if you don't have a lawyer with the relevant expertise, Stanton Peele is available to consult with your attorneys.

http://www.peele.net/faq/index12.html

while slapping a lengthy jail sentence on them as punishment for being sick?

See.  I don't see it as a disease.  If people commit crimes, it shouldn't matter at all what is in their sytem at the time.  Throw them in jail.

I agree that it is a choice to get help and stop but addiction is stronger than the individual's will power.

Again, if that were supported by evidence, it would be possible to prove a person innocent based on the legal concept I noted above.  But the law wisely recognizes that nothing forces a person to pick up the first drink (or the second, or the third).  If it is a choice to stop, it's a choice to continue.  Taking a drink is a choice, and whatever follows after that is a person's own responsibility and fault, not some "disease" which has little or no basis in science.

An addict can rationalize and justify using with a million lies.

Says who?  That sounds a lot like the denial dogma noted on the previous page (if I say i'm not an addict, it's a denial which is evidence of addiciton... lol).  It's witch dunking.  Is there any concrete evidence to suggest that users of mind altering substances are more prone to lie than anybody else?  If anything, based on my experiences in program, i've seen people confess to far, far, more than they actually did.  This coerced confession was perceived as "the truth coming out".  It doesn't have to be solid, forceful coercion either.  The most powerful social forces are those that are invisible, such as the tendency for a person to want to be accepted and to adapt to the group around him/her.

Case in point, by any reasonable standards, before program I barely drank at all.  Yet in program those few past experiences were re-interpreted as grave events, symptoms of a disease.  I was told I was sick in the head and learned to doubt myself to the point where I barely knew what had actually happened and what was my "sickness".  After all, if I was in program there must be a reason (despite the fact I was sent there for completely unrelated reasons and my parents explicitly stated on the admission form that I did not have a drug/alcohol problem).  Eventually I ended up identifying as an "alcoholic".  Given the opportunity to drink at that point, I'm sure I would not have controlled myself because I would have been conditioned not to.

The point here is that more often than not, pre-existing biases against users of substances leads others to believe that they are inherently somehow prone to lying about their behavior.  This pressure leads people to confess to things they did not do to both relieve the pressure and feel part of the group.  Eventually, a person starts to believe these trumped up confessions.  Then, and only then, when all self confidence is whittled away and powerless accepted as a good thing, does one truly have a problem.

You want to get people to stop their drinking?  Well.  Cut out the disease crap, stop giving them bullshit excuses for their behavior, and emphasize that people are responsible for thier own choices and actions.  People can quit if they have the desire and willpower.  There is no spoon, there is no tooth fairy, there is no Easter bunny higher power.  The fact that AA doesn't care which one you pick should be proof enough of that.

[psy]

The mantra of "everything we do is a choice" comes from life spring.

NO.  "Everything we do is a choice" is common sense.  "Everything that happens to us is our choice" is LifeSpring.

It is a  psychologically trick, a cult tool that convinces the followers to feel in control of every aspect of their life, when in fact, much of our lives is out of our control. We don't control everything in our life.

True, and I fully understand the lures of the human potential movement.  I'm not saying we control everything in our life.  I'm saying we control our actions.  That is taking responsibility for ones actions, not taking responsibility for all actions and events in one's life which are out of one's control.

[psy]

Some people do get addicted to deadly substances. What do you say to a heroin addict who's only wish in life is to be able to stop using before they die from OD? Sorry buddy, but AA/NA isn't 100% perfect so we're going to have to let you die in the gutter, since that's your choice.

You make it sound like AA/NA is the only way to recovery.  It's not.  There are many other programs of recovery, most of them free.  While it's my policy not to refer or endorse any treatment at all (not my business), you can find loads of alternatives on google. (just don't pick Narcanon, a Scientology front)

Nobody chooses to be a drug addict, and nobody is immune to it happening to them.

People do choose to take drugs which they know can cause physical dependency.

Alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, oxy, other prescription meds.. these drugs do some serious damage to people who use too much and too often. Those are the people AA/NA is trying to help. The people who have no where else to go. Not everybody has medical insurance that will pay for a 90 day rehab on the beach in Malibu.

..Where, chances are, they will get AA meetings.  In Europe, however, AA is largely recognized as bunk, as is the disease model of addiciton.  Addiction is a habit.  Bad habits can be broken with determination and by recognizing patterns in behavior.  A change in envirnment, for example has been shown to help vietnam vets to quit.(yeah, a geographical cure).  Also, addiction is not a "progressive disease".  Even with heroin.  In countries with medical heroin (such as Switzerland), 50% of heroin "addicts" quit after 3 years either on their own or with therapy (not with AA which is abstinence only).  Article on that here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html

I'm not saying AA/NA is the greatest thing in the world. It is kind of cult-like in the rituals and tradition and all that. But they did that for a reason, similar to religion they outlined the general beliefs and traditions so the program can proliferate and expand without a centralized power.

Yes, I realize it spreads like a cancer.  I realize this very well.  When a cult leader dies (such as bill Wilson) and the followers don't realize it's a con, it's what you get. It would all be well and good if it actually worked and didn't do more harm than good.  Yet, addicts/alcoholics are stastically more likely to quit if they choose no treatment over AA/NA.

It's the people involved in AA/NA that keep it going and donate money, so it must be important to them, or working for them in some way. Otherwise, the program would just fizzle out and disappear.

Unless it doesn't work, yet the followers are convinced it does, which is the case with AA, as is with most cults and cult-like groups.  As is noted in the study in this snippet: "Those who credited AA the most were rearrested the most."  In other words, the more of a disaster these people are, the more they credit AA for saving their lives (when statistically, it's actually doing the opposite).

It's easy for us, people not addicted to deadly substances, to judge them and what they do. But they are adults and are free to make a choice as to what type of setting and social group helps them improve their life.

Oh.  By no means am I arguing that AA/NA shouldn't be free to exist and that people shouldn't be able to choose to go.  What I am doing, however, is exercising my right to educate people about the dangers (yes, dangers) of AA 12 step treatment in general.

I know why people on fornits think it's a cult. Many here were submitted and even forced to attend bastardized program versions of AA. That's not AA, that is individual program's forming groups and using lgat confrontation, disguised as a recovery meeting. It's perfectly understandable, that a person subjected to this form of "AA meeting", especially those who didn't have a problem with drugs, would reject anything associated with the group in the future.

While you're right that many on fornits might have that knee-jerk reaction, it wouldn't be accurate to say that I have come to my conclusions for those reasons.  I consider treatment (institutional) AA a front group of sorts for AA as a whole...  forced conversions institutions for the main religion.  Think of it this way:  If parents are christians and their kids are gay, they can send the kids to a place like "love in action" to de-gay them and convert them to christianity.  If parents are steppers and their kids are experimenting with alcohol, they can send their kids to a 12 step program to convert them to the 12 step religion (and courts have deemed AA a religion).  What i'm saying is that while AA itself is not a cult (it may be cult like) the institutional variants of AA fulfill the missing pieces of the cult pie.  When seen together as a whole, AA is a religion that has managed to lobby the state to get forced conversions.  That is not something a religion does.

AA/NA is a selling point to many parents when searching for a program. It is the accepted method of "recovery" in popular culture, and so programs have adopted some the terminology and tradition to satisfy parents concerned with their kid's (perceived) drug use.

I could not agree more, but they also do use AA techinques. Maybe a little more extreme, a fundamentalist variant of AA, if you will, but it's AA nonetheless.

But you can't hold that against AA/NA. It's not a centralized group with a leader.

Only because the original charismatic leader is dead and the asshole in his infinite narcisissm saw fit to write in systemic redundancy so as to spawn a religion and make himself a messiah, even in death.  The leader is the one thing AA misses currently, but how many other pieces of cult criteria does it fit?  Just because a cult leader writes in redundancy to keep the system going after he's gone doesn't mean that an organization can't be a cult (or function as one for all intents and purposes).  There is an exception to every rule.

Anyone can start their own meeting, and they are all different. If it didn't do something, if it didn't work, why has it grown to include recovery groups for all the different drugs, and all sorts of addictions.

Something doesn't have to work well to spread.  Just ask Scientology.  People believing they are being cured combined with a built in system of witnessing (12th step) is enough.

People congregate to form recovery groups on their own, AA just gives them an outline on how to do it.

Addressing the subject of whether addiction is a choice or not. I do not believe it is all about choice. In the beginning it is a choice. Whether to use an addictive drug the first time is a choice. But after that, biology takes over. It doesn't matter if you are happy or sad, rich or poor, smart or dumb... getting high can feel absolutely wonderful, blissful. It's totally natural for people to want to repeat and find that feeling again, and again, and again. There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.

And there have been studies done on humans (some of which are outlined on the previous page) to show that even serious "addicts" can control themselves and quit.

[Anonymous]

The courts can force an addict into treatment because they're "sick"

Actually, if you have a lawyer who knows what he is doing and knows the relevant court cases, they cannot force you into treatment (or AA treatment at all).  Even if you don't have a lawyer with the relevant expertise, Stanton Peele is available to consult with your attorneys.

http://www.peele.net/faq/index12.html

while slapping a lengthy jail sentence on them as punishment for being sick?

See.  I don't see it as a disease.  If people commit crimes, it shouldn't matter at all what is in their sytem at the time.  Throw them in jail.

I agree that it is a choice to get help and stop but addiction is stronger than the individual's will power.

Again, if that were supported by evidence, it would be possible to prove a person innocent based on the legal concept I noted above.  But the law wisely recognizes that nothing forces a person to pick up the first drink (or the second, or the third).  If it is a choice to stop, it's a choice to continue.  Taking a drink is a choice, and whatever follows after that is a person's own responsibility and fault, not some "disease" which has little or no basis in science.

An addict can rationalize and justify using with a million lies.

Says who?  That sounds a lot like the denial dogma noted on the previous page (if I say i'm not an addict, it's a denial which is evidence of addiciton... lol).  It's witch dunking.  Is there any concrete evidence to suggest that users of mind altering substances are more prone to lie than anybody else?  If anything, based on my experiences in program, i've seen people confess to far, far, more than they actually did.  This coerced confession was perceived as "the truth coming out".  It doesn't have to be solid, forceful coercion either.  The most powerful social forces are those that are invisible, such as the tendency for a person to want to be accepted and to adapt to the group around him/her.

Case in point, by any reasonable standards, before program I barely drank at all.  Yet in program those few past experiences were re-interpreted as grave events, symptoms of a disease.  I was told I was sick in the head and learned to doubt myself to the point where I barely knew what had actually happened and what was my "sickness".  After all, if I was in program there must be a reason (despite the fact I was sent there for completely unrelated reasons and my parents explicitly stated on the admission form that I did not have a drug/alcohol problem).  Eventually I ended up identifying as an "alcoholic".  Given the opportunity to drink at that point, I'm sure I would not have controlled myself because I would have been conditioned not to.

The point here is that more often than not, pre-existing biases against users of substances leads others to believe that they are inherently somehow prone to lying about their behavior.  This pressure leads people to confess to things they did not do to both relieve the pressure and feel part of the group.  Eventually, a person starts to believe these trumped up confessions.  Then, and only then, when all self confidence is whittled away and powerless accepted as a good thing, does one truly have a problem.

You want to get people to stop their drinking?  Well.  Cut out the disease crap, stop giving them bullshit excuses for their behavior, and emphasize that people are responsible for thier own choices and actions.  People can quit if they have the desire and willpower.  There is no spoon, there is no tooth fairy, there is no Easter bunny higher power.  The fact that AA doesn't care which one you pick should be proof enough of that.

Every addict is different, I was describing my own experience and what I learned from others who didn't agree with AA's organized religion/treatment.  I thought it was a given when I said addiction is powerful enough to override logic and cause the addict to rationalize his/her problem.    

Again, my own experience:  I drank from the age of 14 on.  It helped prop up my self confidence.  Quitting was always an option, but all I knew was a drinker's lifestyle and every aspect of social life revolved around it.  I agree with you a 100% that the disease crap needs to stop, although I think addiction is genetic.  Desire and willpower aren't enough to get an addict clean if the addiction is rooted in his/her genetic code.  Calling addiction a choice may be over simplifying the problem.  Some call homosexuality an immoral lifestyle choice and believe they can make a gay person "normal".  I don't believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice that could or should be changed, it's who the person is.  The addict does need to change but it requires giving up the only identity they know.  Scary shit.

[Anonymous]

Some people do get addicted to deadly substances. What do you say to a heroin addict who's only wish in life is to be able to stop using before they die from OD? Sorry buddy, but AA/NA isn't 100% perfect so we're going to have to let you die in the gutter, since that's your choice.

You make it sound like AA/NA is the only way to recovery.  It's not.  There are many other programs of recovery, most of them free.  While it's my policy not to refer or endorse any treatment at all (not my business), you can find loads of alternatives on google. (just don't pick Narcanon, a Scientology front)

Nobody chooses to be a drug addict, and nobody is immune to it happening to them.

People do choose to take drugs which they know can cause physical dependency.

Alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, oxy, other prescription meds.. these drugs do some serious damage to people who use too much and too often. Those are the people AA/NA is trying to help. The people who have no where else to go. Not everybody has medical insurance that will pay for a 90 day rehab on the beach in Malibu.

..Where, chances are, they will get AA meetings.  In Europe, however, AA is largely recognized as bunk, as is the disease model of addiciton.  Addiction is a habit.  Bad habits can be broken with determination and by recognizing patterns in behavior.  A change in envirnment, for example has been shown to help vietnam vets to quit.(yeah, a geographical cure).  Also, addiction is not a "progressive disease".  Even with heroin.  In countries with medical heroin (such as Switzerland), 50% of heroin "addicts" quit after 3 years either on their own or with therapy (not with AA which is abstinence only).  Article on that here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html

I'm not saying AA/NA is the greatest thing in the world. It is kind of cult-like in the rituals and tradition and all that. But they did that for a reason, similar to religion they outlined the general beliefs and traditions so the program can proliferate and expand without a centralized power.

Yes, I realize it spreads like a cancer.  I realize this very well.  When a cult leader dies (such as bill Wilson) and the followers don't realize it's a con, it's what you get. It would all be well and good if it actually worked and didn't do more harm than good.  Yet, addicts/alcoholics are stastically more likely to quit if they choose no treatment over AA/NA.

It's the people involved in AA/NA that keep it going and donate money, so it must be important to them, or working for them in some way. Otherwise, the program would just fizzle out and disappear.

Unless it doesn't work, yet the followers are convinced it does, which is the case with AA, as is with most cults and cult-like groups.  As is noted in the study in this snippet: "Those who credited AA the most were rearrested the most."  In other words, the more of a disaster these people are, the more they credit AA for saving their lives (when statistically, it's actually doing the opposite).

It's easy for us, people not addicted to deadly substances, to judge them and what they do. But they are adults and are free to make a choice as to what type of setting and social group helps them improve their life.

Oh.  By no means am I arguing that AA/NA shouldn't be free to exist and that people shouldn't be able to choose to go.  What I am doing, however, is exercising my right to educate people about the dangers (yes, dangers) of AA 12 step treatment in general.

I know why people on fornits think it's a cult. Many here were submitted and even forced to attend bastardized program versions of AA. That's not AA, that is individual program's forming groups and using lgat confrontation, disguised as a recovery meeting. It's perfectly understandable, that a person subjected to this form of "AA meeting", especially those who didn't have a problem with drugs, would reject anything associated with the group in the future.

While you're right that many on fornits might have that knee-jerk reaction, it wouldn't be accurate to say that I have come to my conclusions for those reasons.  I consider treatment (institutional) AA a front group of sorts for AA as a whole...  forced conversions institutions for the main religion.  Think of it this way:  If parents are christians and their kids are gay, they can send the kids to a place like "love in action" to de-gay them and convert them to christianity.  If parents are steppers and their kids are experimenting with alcohol, they can send their kids to a 12 step program to convert them to the 12 step religion (and courts have deemed AA a religion).  What i'm saying is that while AA itself is not a cult (it may be cult like) the institutional variants of AA fulfill the missing pieces of the cult pie.  When seen together as a whole, AA is a religion that has managed to lobby the state to get forced conversions.  That is not something a religion does.

AA/NA is a selling point to many parents when searching for a program. It is the accepted method of "recovery" in popular culture, and so programs have adopted some the terminology and tradition to satisfy parents concerned with their kid's (perceived) drug use.

I could not agree more, but they also do use AA techinques. Maybe a little more extreme, a fundamentalist variant of AA, if you will, but it's AA nonetheless.

But you can't hold that against AA/NA. It's not a centralized group with a leader.

Only because the original charismatic leader is dead and the asshole in his infinite narcisissm saw fit to write in systemic redundancy so as to spawn a religion and make himself a messiah, even in death.  The leader is the one thing AA misses currently, but how many other pieces of cult criteria does it fit?  Just because a cult leader writes in redundancy to keep the system going after he's gone doesn't mean that an organization can't be a cult (or function as one for all intents and purposes).  There is an exception to every rule.

Anyone can start their own meeting, and they are all different. If it didn't do something, if it didn't work, why has it grown to include recovery groups for all the different drugs, and all sorts of addictions.

Something doesn't have to work well to spread.  Just ask Scientology.  People believing they are being cured combined with a built in system of witnessing (12th step) is enough.

People congregate to form recovery groups on their own, AA just gives them an outline on how to do it.

Addressing the subject of whether addiction is a choice or not. I do not believe it is all about choice. In the beginning it is a choice. Whether to use an addictive drug the first time is a choice. But after that, biology takes over. It doesn't matter if you are happy or sad, rich or poor, smart or dumb... getting high can feel absolutely wonderful, blissful. It's totally natural for people to want to repeat and find that feeling again, and again, and again. There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.

And there have been studies done on humans (some of which are outlined on the previous page) to show that even serious "addicts" can control themselves and quit.

Is being brainwashed a choice? Can you chose not to have depression or be brainwashed? Why does recovery from an addiction "prove" there is no such thing as addiction, anymore than the recovery from depression "prove" there is no such thing as depression? Does recovery from being brainwashed "prove" there is no such thing as being brainwashed as well? Do you agree we should tell kids in program to stop the bullshit, take responsibility for themselves, and not be brainwashed? Tell survivors to not have PTSD!?!

I find it funny that you believe in brainwashing, which science is much less accepting of as authentic, but not in addiction. Whether or not addiction is a reality, cultic psychological torture is not acceptable ethically, or as a treatment modality. I think denying the existence of mental illness or addiction as a way to negate the necessity of any program is not the way to go. Mental illness and addiction can exist, and abduction, forced imprisonment still be evil, harmful, and unjustified.

[FemanonFatal2.0]

My opinion on "addiction" is that there are two kinds of addicts. Those who are self medicating and their initial mental weaknesses are driving their apparent need to use drugs, and those who started for fun, became comfortable with the lifestyle and formed a habit. One of which is addicted BECAUSE of a pre-existing condition and the other is simply making a series of bad choices. Although they are both considered "addicts" I believe the treatment for their reasons to use drugs should be treated, not just assuming you can guilt an addict into not using.

AA/NA might be the system that some ex addicts hold onto in order to keep themselves sober but AA/NA is NOT treatment. AA/NA is very similar to a cult, in the way they operate and their belief system. I'm honestly surprised that a system like this would be so main stream, to the point that people are actually being court ordered to attend meetings. The whole thing just creeps me out and reminds me of the program. The fact that you would HAVE to admit (believe) that there is a god and you must submit yourself to his will just makes me laugh! So atheists aren't allowed in AA/NA? So you must first convert to a religion before you can get sober?

Just STOP drinking, snorting coke, smoking meth and your cured! How hard is that? AA/NA making all these excuses that your powerless and addiction is a disease only sets drug users up for failure. They brainwash vunerable "addicts" to NEED AA/NA by playing on their addictive tendencies to swap one "temporary void filler" for another. So if they stop going to meetings they are programed to fail, thus proving the supposed dependency on AA/NA. However if the source of their addiction to drugs was properly treated they would be able to abstain from using drugs without any 3rd party system as a crutch and would find much more success in their sobriety.

I understand that some people are just prone to abusing drugs, and never seem to grasp the concept of moderation. But why is that?... are people really genetically predisposed or is it some kind of chemical imbalance that drives them to over-indulge despite there being many logical reasons not to?

I have the same question about women who stay with men who are abusive, why is it so hard to just walk away from the poison that is destroying their lives?

[Anonymous]

My opinion on "addiction" is that there are two kinds of addicts. Those who are self medicating and their initial mental weaknesses are driving their apparent need to use drugs, and those who started for fun, became comfortable with the lifestyle and formed a habit. One of which is addicted BECAUSE of a pre-existing condition and the other is simply making a series of bad choices. Although they are both considered "addicts" I believe the treatment for their reasons to use drugs should be treated, not just assuming you can guilt an addict into not using.

AA/NA might be the system that some ex addicts hold onto in order to keep themselves sober but AA/NA is NOT treatment. AA/NA is very similar to a cult, in the way they operate and their belief system. I'm honestly surprised that a system like this would be so main stream, to the point that people are actually being court ordered to attend meetings. The whole thing just creeps me out and reminds me of the program. The fact that you would HAVE to admit (believe) that there is a god and you must submit yourself to his will just makes me laugh! So atheists aren't allowed in AA/NA? So you must first convert to a religion before you can get sober?

Just STOP drinking, snorting coke, smoking meth and your cured! How hard is that? AA/NA making all these excuses that your powerless and addiction is a disease only sets drug users up for failure. They brainwash vunerable "addicts" to NEED AA/NA by playing on their addictive tendencies to swap one "temporary void filler" for another. So if they stop going to meetings they are programed to fail, thus proving the supposed dependency on AA/NA. However if the source of their addiction to drugs was properly treated they would be able to abstain from using drugs without any 3rd party system as a crutch and would find much more success in their sobriety.

I understand that some people are just prone to abusing drugs, and never seem to grasp the concept of moderation. But why is that?... are people really genetically predisposed or is it some kind of chemical imbalance that drives them to over-indulge despite there being many logical reasons not to?

I have the same question about women who stay with men who are abusive, why is it so hard to just walk away from the poison that is destroying their lives?

I don't know about people being genetically predisoposed or not, but i think once a person is chemically addicted, as in, if they do not meet their bodies need for the drugs they will go into withdrawal, they have an addiction. I think it's a psychological issue and physical issue.

[psy]

Every addict is different, I was describing my own experience and what I learned from others who didn't agree with AA's organized religion/treatment.  I thought it was a given when I said addiction is powerful enough to override logic and cause the addict to rationalize his/her problem.

Well. My advice on this and just about everything is to accept nothing as a given.  Sometimes things aren't as simple as they seem on the surface.

Again, my own experience:  I drank from the age of 14 on.  It helped prop up my self confidence.  Quitting was always an option, but all I knew was a drinker's lifestyle and every aspect of social life revolved around it.  I agree with you a 100% that the disease crap needs to stop, although I think addiction is genetic.

I'd say that alcoholism can be genetic.  or that people can have a genetic propensity towards physical alcohol dependence.  As for whether or not there is some inherited personality defect, I would dispute that.  I'm more inclined to believe a "problem drinker" learns from his/her environment and how he/she has seen other people drink.  Either a person grows up with prohibitionists, eventually tasting the "forbidden fruit" and overindulging on a regular basis to the point where it forms both a physical dependency and a habit or they grow up around other "problem drinkers", learning that alcohol is addictive, learning how not to drink, and most likely getting an unhealthy dose of AA dogma along the way (teaching him/her that a person is powerless over alcohol).

Desire and willpower aren't enough to get an addict clean if the addiction is rooted in his/her genetic code.  Calling addiction a choice may be over simplifying the problem.  Some call homosexuality an immoral lifestyle choice and believe they can make a gay person "normal".  I don't believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice that could or should be changed, it's who the person is.  The addict does need to change but it requires giving up the only identity they know.  Scary shit.

Well.  Homosexuality is a slightly different issue, but personally I subcribe to the Kinsey scale, where all people fall somewhere between one to six on the gay-straight scale.   Let's accept for the sake of argument that both homosexuality and alcoholism is genetic.  In either case a person can choose not to fulfill that genetic disposition.  A gay person can lead a straight life (although most would argue this is both unhealthy and pointless), and a person with a propensity to alcohol dependence can choose not to drink (this would probably be healthier, unless you live in Ireland where most of the country would be considered problem drinkers by American standards)

The point is that a genetic code does not make decisions. It can influence, yes, but people always have choices.  Even if there is a genetic predisposition, I do not accept that people with such problems cannot quit on their own.  Why?  As i've said, because statistically, if they do not go to AA people are statistically better off, more likely to quit, and less likely to binge if they continue to drink.

[psy]

Is being brainwashed a choice? Can you chose not to have depression or be brainwashed? Why does recovery from an addiction "prove" there is no such thing as addiction, anymore than the recovery from depression "prove" there is no such thing as depression?

It depends on what what you mean by the term "addiction".  Even if there is a genetic predisposition towards a behavior, it's still a behavior and this does not make it a disease (just like homosexuality).  Propensity does not mean destiny.  That being said, I believe people have the right to drink or put whatever they want in their bodies.  At the same time they shouldn't be trying to blame their actions under the influence on some uncontrollable urge (which research shows is more or less an excuse, as even "dire" cases can control themselves as circumstances change around them... see some of the studies on the previous page).

If being under the influence automatically absolved me of my actions, I would probably down a bottle of vodka, run down a whole slew of program directors with my car, and blame it on a disease I don't have and likely does not exist (even if a propensity that behavior does).  LOL.

Does recovery from being brainwashed "prove" there is no such thing as being brainwashed as well? Do you agree we should tell kids in program to stop the bullshit, take responsibility for themselves, and not be brainwashed? Tell survivors to not have PTSD!?!

I find it funny that you believe in brainwashing, which science is much less accepting of as authentic, but not in addiction.

Here is the difference:  Brainwashing is something a person does to another person or group of people.  For this reason, it is largely out of a person's control.  Drinking is a choice, on the other hand, and becoming physically dependent on alcohol or developing a habit can happen as a result of that choice.  People know that.  Those who consume alcohol fully consent to drinking.  Nobody consents to Brainwashing (it requires that people are unaware that it's going on).

Yet people do quit cults, and brainwashing is not seen as a disease either.  It can cause problems and even psychological disorders such as PTSD, but such conditions are ultimately and for the large part treatable.  It's not a lifelong condition that one has to accept powerlessness over, unlike the popular perception of alcoholism.  Unlike alcoholism also, people who have been brainwashed and have educated themselves or been educated about how it works are less likely to be conned in the future.

Whether or not addiction is a reality, cultic psychological torture is not acceptable ethically, or as a treatment modality. I think denying the existence of mental illness or addiction as a way to negate the necessity of any program is not the way to go. Mental illness and addiction can exist, and abduction, forced imprisonment still be evil, harmful, and unjustified.

Well. We agree 100% there, but that's besides the point.

[psy]

I don't know about people being genetically predisoposed or not, but i think once a person is chemically addicted, as in, if they do not meet their bodies need for the drugs they will go into withdrawal, they have an addiction.

Sure.  They have a physical dependency.  But once the substance is out of their system there is nothing influencing them and all they have is a habit.  Habits are not diseases.  They are patterns of behavior that are broken.  I used to bite my nails.  I barely even noticed I was doing it.  I didn't call it a disease and give up, however.  I tried a few times and on one attempt I successfully broke the habit.

[psy]

There have been studies done with monkeys, when given the choice between cocaine and food, they choose to get high.

There is a snip in at least one of the books about that.

In one of the cruelest experiments, a monkey is ”wired up“ so that it can press a lever and inject itself with a drug. The monkey, isolated from others of its kind and restricted from normal monkey behavior, sometimes even strapped to the wall of a cage, will inject itself until death. These studies have been used to demonstrate the addictive nature of the drug itself.

Now think about it.  If you were strapped to a wall indefinately and given the choice of living miserably or dying comfortably (not that the monkeys know that they can die, unlike humans), what would you pick?  But while you think about that, consider this:

A more sophisticated method of getting animals to drink or drug themselves heavily is called intermittent reinforcement.101 In this method, a rat is fed just enough to keep it always hungry. The hungry rat is placed in a cage where it can get only a tiny pellet of food about every minute. Under these conditions, if alcohol is available, the rat will quickly begin to “drink alcoholicly.” If an opiate solution should be available instead, it will become a “drug addict.” In either case the rat is subject to be aggressive and to behave bizarrely in other ways, such as eating its litter.*

This appears to be an excellent demonstration of the power of the drugs. Any substance considered addictive can be used and the results will be similar. The only weakness in this model of addiction (which is also its strength) is that the conditions create excessive behavior. The behavior isn't caused by the particular chemical available.

Water can be substituted for the alcohol or drug. Rats will consume as much as one half of their body weight in water in just three hours. They will become aggressive and behave bizarrely. They become just as “addicted to water” as they do to alcohol and opiates. Of course, the roots of the excessive behavior in rats is not in the alcohol, the opiate or in the water. It is in the environment and in the rats.

Rats aren't the only animals that respond this way under intermittent reinforcement. Excessive behavior has been brought about in a long list of animals including squirrels, pigeons, monkeys and even humans. Nor is food the only item which can be manipulated to bring on excessive behavior. Anything needed by any mammal, including humans, can be used. Water, sex, space or status all can be used to bring about the same effect.

Very little is needed to bring about the excessive behavior characteristic of addiction. All that is needed is for the animal or person to be in a frustrated state. Something must be needed which is not available in sufficient quantity but available enough so continued effort will partly fill the need. Giving up must appear to be the worst option. For instance, if rats are given the same amount of food at once instead of a little at a time, they will eat it and give up on finding more. Their behavior doesn't become excessive. It is only in the frustrating gap between enough reward to keep trying and not enough to fill the need that excessive behavior occurs. It can be stated that chronic frustration causes excessive behavior. While over simplifying things, it can be stated that chronic frustration causes addiction.

There is also a snip on the VIetnam vets I mentioned:

During the Vietnam War, many U.S. soldiers became addicted to heroin. The problem was so widespread many government officials feared what would happen when the troops returned home. There were visions of drug addicts running wild in the streets committing crimes to feed their habits. That didn't happen. After returning home, only about 10 percent had further experience with opiates. After returning home, only about one-eigth became readdicted.96 It was also found that, of those who didn't quit upon return, 63 percent had already been using narcotics before going to Vietnam.

Rather than looking at heroin addiction as merely a pharmacological effect of using heroin, it is more productive to look at the many other factors that come into play. For instance, what is the effect of the environment?

By comparing the Vietnam Vets with troops stationed in other areas, it becomes clear that being in the war zone, and presumably the associated stress, had a lot to do with whether or not a soldier would become addicted. Soldiers stationed in other areas, like Thailand and Korea, where heroin was available but away from the war zone, had a much lower rate of addiction. It is also noteworthy that even after addiction, a change of environment, specifically going home, usually ”cured“ the soldiers stationed in Vietnam.

And AA says Geographic cures don't work!  HAH!  AA is the modern equivalent of bloodletting.  Harmless at best (certainly doesn't help), and could very well kill you if you put too much faith in it.