the dangers of equating AA and programs

[Che Gookin]

Explain that one to Teen Challenge will you?

[psy]

just for arguments sake, if 80% or whatever are gone by the end of the year, maybe they've gotten sober?

Just because they're sober after AA doens't mean it's because of AA.  Also, since they left AA I find it hard to believe they were every really into AA at all, since AA holds itself to be a "lifelong program of recovery"  for a "progressive" and "incurable" disease without with results in "death, insanity, or institutions". (now why does that sound familar)

There's also quite a bit of research providing evidence for it's effectiveness. i'm not pro-aa, but i think there's an overselling of its ineffectiveness here.
Here’s an abstract about how AA works better then cognitive behavioral therapy (50% sobriety rate vs 37%:)

http://www.jointogether.org/news/resear ... by-30.html

As one researcher/commenter pointed out on that article, the woman botched the numbers.  In the study the "researcher" also cites "spirituality" as what makes as "work".  So essentially, she's arguing the flying spaghetti monster is what helped the people quit.  LOL.  Hardly a neutral researcher.   She was also only comparing it to ONE alternative.  If you want a true study, you have to compare it to no treament at all.  That study has already been done multiple times...

Example:

A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all.  HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:

After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease.
...
Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling.

and

In table 8.2, the results of the Clinic sample at eight years are compared with five rather disparate follow-up studies in the literature which are of similar duration but which looked at very different patient populations. Once again, our results were no better than the natural history of the disorder.

Source: The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to Recovery, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, pages 283-286.

It works if you work it my ass.

This is like the scientologist scientists who wanted to prove dianetics worked, and ended up accidentally proving it to be bullshit (and getting labeled suppressive persons as a result).

AA also teaches "nobody can do it alone".  LOL. Well despite that claim a Harvard study states that most people quit on their own:

There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated. When a group of these self-treated alcoholics was interviewed, 57% said they simply decided that alcohol was bad for them. Twenty-nine percent said health problems, frightening experiences, accidents, or blackouts persuaded them to quit. Others used such phrases as "Things were building up" or "I was sick and tired of it." Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the resolution.
    Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction — Part III, The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.
    (See Aug. (Part I), Sept. (Part II), Oct. 1995 (Part III).)

Your second study you quoted here:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118520076/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Here’s a study showing that “Individuals who obtain help for a drinking problem,[aa or other] especially relatively quickly, do somewhat better on drinking outcomes over 8 years than those who do not receive help, but there is little difference between types of help on long-term drinking outcomes.” http://recoveryissexy.com/12-step-treat ... lternative.

Same study as the first one you quoted above.

I think its helpful because of the "support" and "sponser" element. aa was revolutionary because it actually alleviated the alchohlic from shame and gave the alchoholic hope.

That's one way of putting it.  The way I view it is that AA gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions were outside their control (powerlessness concept).  Let go and let god!  Yes!  Works about as well with a steering wheel.  People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless, resulting in a 5 fold increase in binging over no treatment at all , as found in:

Outpatient Treatment of Alcoholism, by Jeffrey Brandsma, Maxie Maultsby, and Richard J. Welsh. University Park Press, Baltimore, MD., page 105.

In Your Opinion, do you really feel that going to meetings was like being in CEDU? my friend defined CEDU as the place he learned "the meaning of terror and suffering." I know you don't intend it, but i actually feel pain at the comparison because it minimizes my friend's suffering. Maybe you were there in an easy year? Maybe you made freinds with a helpful staff/peer leader?

I was in a cedu clone so I can chime in here from personal experience.  There is no question that there is no comparison in terms of how bad things were.  There are, however, similarities in the philosophies and practices.  Programs are like AA plus a lot more stuff.

The way I look at it, AA is like manure.  Pure horse shit.  Not extremely harmful on it's own depending on how it's used but if you swallow too much of it... it's probably not going to be very good for you (as is shown by the above studies).  Now the program... the program is the gasoline.  Add that to the horse shit and you have yourself a volitile situation waiting to explode.  Add horse shit fundamentalist cult-like philosophy to an institutional setting where it is seen as necessary to break people down to accept "powerlessness" to save their lives and BOOM!

It also leaves people quite bitter towards those beliefs as well, as i'm sure you'll notice around fornits.  Think about it.  How many ex-members of bible based cults go to church?  Not many. Why?  Because it reminds  them of the cult.  Similarly, AA reminds me of the cult I was in to such a way that I feel real anger around AA members (and god help them if they preach at or around me).  Does this bias me against AA?  Maybe it does...  but I try to grind my axes fairly.  I DO feel that AA does a lot more harm than good and would like to think i'd feel the same way if I hadn't been in the program.

I know this girl I was in program with. Before the program, she never drank, never smoked cigarettes (much less pot), never did drugs.  She was there for issues unrelated to substances. Well.  Very shortly after leaving the program, she was shooting meth.  Was it the program's abusive nature or the concept of powerlessness instilled by the program that caused that?  Don't know for sure, but it's probably a combination of both.  Like I said.  Horse shit and gasoline.

Either way... Even if AA worked, it would still be illegal and unethical to force people to attend.  It's religious for one, so it violates the establishment clause in the constitution, and it's forced treatment, which, regardless of what anybody says, is re-education.  You might say that people aren't "forced" to participate, even though they were forced to attend, but if you've read studies on social influence, you'd realize that, like it or not, people adapt to the perception groups around them, people generally listen to authority, etc etc...

Read work by Cialdini, Milgram, or check out this thread on how group perception can influence yours to the point where you disbelieve your own objectively correct perceptions:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26470#p322195

[Anonymous]

Explain that one to Teen Challenge will you?

They know, they just don't give a shit because they think they're right.  These types of people believe that the end justifies the means.  Always.  Teen Challenge, specifically, would like to convert the entire world.  They can't, so they do their level best to indoctrinate their court ordered charges.  Why wouldn't they?  They've got a captive audience and federal dollars.  Don't forget that.  Y'know.....faith-based 'n all.  Treatment, adolescent or adult, is a booming and very profitable business.  With W's faith based crap, religious organizations can now legally profit from convincing people they're addicts, whether they actually have a problem or not.  The abuse is astounding.

And how many people have been to meetings where someone actually does have the nads to question Bill W. or the AA doctrine, what happens?  Seriously.  How is that generally handled?  In my experience it's usually some form of the deadinsaneorinjail lecture (remember, they're "surely signing their own death warrant") accompanied by the self-assured snickers of the 'old timers' reassuring themselves with comments of how so-and-so will be back when he "hits bottom".  And they do it with such dripping, condescending "support" (like the 'love yas' in group).  Basic tactics of thought reform and behavior modification.  Scare the shit out of them, create an environment of 'groupthink', then bring it on home with the 'love-bombing'.  It's a brilliant strategy.  And it works, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

This is like the scientologist scientists who wanted to prove dianetics worked, and ended up accidentally proving it to be bullshit (and getting labeled suppressive persons as a result).

AA also teaches "nobody can do it alone". LOL. Well despite that claim a Harvard study states that most people quit on their own

The irony, of course, in your impassioned plea against AA, is you sound just like a Scientologist going on about the dangers of psychiatric medicine and medications. They believe the same things as you. Only directed at the psychiatric illness theory, instead of the addiction theory. You both believe that instead of biological reasons, these disorders are caused solely by a character flaw, that can be overcome by will power alone. Scientology believes that cure for mental illness doesn't work, and harms people. You believe the same about AA.

Maybe you can explain why the disease model of addiction is any different than say, the disease model of depression. They are both subjective to only what the patient has to say to the doctor, there is no blood test for addiction or depression. Both are treated with medication, and therapy, usually by the same doctors even. So what really is the difference?

I've taken anti-depressants before. In my opinion, they do absolutely nothing. They are placebos as far as I am concerned. Studies show only a small portion of people get better taking psychiatric meds. This is the same claim made against AA in this thread.

I will never again waste my time going to a psychiatrist and ask for meds. I believe they are more fraudulent than AA is, and they can diagnose just about anyone with a mental illness. The difference between psychiatry and AA is one of them has built a multi-billion dollar industry based on their psuedo-science, while the other remains a grass-roots, community oriented non-profit.

If you go to a psychiatrist and are completely honest with them, they will diagnose you with something. According to them it would seem that being a human being with passionate feelings is a mental illness in of itself. They will prescribe hundreds of dollars per month worth of medications that do nothing (other than inducing horrible side effects). All of this based on a theory that your "brain chemicals" are "unbalanced" and their medication had a 30% success rate in trials. They give you a prescription, send you on your way, and expect everything to magically get better. Or maybe they are just trying to medicate everyone into a walking zombie, so nobody really cares what is going on anymore.

Take a look at this paragraph. All I had to do was change a couple words around, and I could use Psy's statement to criticize psychiatry:

That's one way of putting it. The way I view it is that Psychiatry gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions and feelings were outside their control (powerlessness concept). Let go and let the meds work! Yes! Works about as well with a steering wheel. People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless


By claiming AA is tainted because a bastardized version of it is used in programs, you open yourself up to the argument that therapy, and psychiatry are also tainted, because they are also utilized services within programs. I saw a "therapist" in the program, but it's not what one would experience if paying for therapy as a free person. I received "psychiatric treatment" while locked up, but again, this is not the same as it would be if I went as a free person and voluntarily sought out a trusted psychiatrist I felt comfortable with. We can go on and on about how dangerous AA is because programs use it, but then we will also have to include any and all services provided in programs as similarly tainted. I cannot make that leap myself, and having experienced these various organizations and treatments as a prisoner, and free person, I know how different they are.


I find it hard to understand how someone who has put their faith in psychiatry can be so anti-AA. Psy, I read that you taking medication for depression a while back. That means you must be seeing a psychiatrist. What if I were to say how outraged I am that a survivor would dare return to treatment and defend a pseudo-science such as medication therapy. That's what it sounds like when you say you are saddened anyone would dare defend AA. You have accepted the mental illness biological argument, but refuse the addiction biological argument. That makes absolutely no sense to me. If you reject AA for being anecdotally based psuedo-science, and tainted for having been used in a program, you must also reject psychiatry for the very same reasons.


Both the anti-AA and anti-psychiatry people want people to accept their disorders as personal, self-induced, character flaws. Like an earlier posters said, alcoholics were once treated this way and ashamed to ask for help. It also used to be this way with mental illness. Now both are recognized for the medical disorders they are, and proper treatment can be provided. People with serious addiction problems don't just go to AA, they go to medically based rehab centers. Guess what? AA is in those places, run by doctors and psychiatrists and professionals too. If your mental problems are serious enough, the same treatment is available. If it were up to the anti-AA and anti-psychiatrist people, no help would be provided, these people would be stigmatized to the point where suffering in the dark is the only option. Well that, or suicide. I think we have made progress as a society addressing these issues. Even though I didn't have the best of luck with psychiatry, it seems to work for other people,and I can leave well enough alone. Why not respect AA in the same way?

[Anonymous]

I find both AA and a good bit of the psychiatric industry harmful.  Depression is not a disease, nor is addiction.  If you go to an AA meeting and are completely honest with them, they WILL dx you as an alcoholic.  And if you, ahem, deny it then you are what........?   C'mon....say it with me now........IN DENIAL and it's a 'symptom of your disease'.  What complete and utter bullshit.

[Anonymous]

That's one way of putting it. The way I view it is that Psychiatry gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions and feelings were outside their control (powerlessness concept). Let go and let the meds work! Yes! Works about as well with a steering wheel. People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless

Wrong.  Psychiatry and CBT actually do attempt to 'get to the root' of the problem.  Very often this is a combination of dealing with nature AND nurture AND our own selfish, immature actions.

[Anonymous]

Look, I don't have a problem with people thinking AA works for them.  That's obviously their right.  What chaps my ass is the original poster having the fucking BALLS to insist that we not even discuss the similarities.  For fear of preventing someone from seeking help.  I have no problem with people seeking help.  I just think they have a right to informed consent.  And I hope this conversation DOES steer people away from AA, as I believe it to be harmful.

[psy]

Opie,

I never said charachter flaws (though AA does say "defects of charachter"), I never said "sin".  I never said anything like that. I said that people choose to put what they want in their bodies.  They shouldn't be condemned for those choices any more than they are absolved for their actions under the influence of substances.

Quit trying to change the subject to psychiatry since you don't' want to discuss AA's dismal rate of failure.  Did the place I was in employ therapy?  No.  Lots of ex-con junkies with "real world experience", yes, but no therapists.  They called it therapy, yes, but it wasn't therapy.  I have been to a shrink.  I used to talk to one fairly regularly on a weekly basis until earlier this year when I tired of it.  Did he diagnose me with anything?  No.  Not at all.

In AA, on the other hand, or in a program, Denial, as the above guest notes is a symptom of the "disease".  So basically if you accept you're an alcholic, you're an alcoholic and if you deny it, that's further evidence you're an alcoholic.  LOL.  It's witch dunking all over again.  If the woman drowns, she wasn't a witch.  If she lives, she's a witch, so burn her.  Either way, if you get accused of being a witch, you're fucked.  It would be comical if the groupers didn't truly believe the shit they were shoveling.

Sure some of that exists in psychiatry as well.  Is our society over-medicated?  For sure it is.  Does psychiatric medicine also help some?  Yup, it does, but that's besides the point.  I am against forced drugging just as much as I am against forced treatment of any kind.  I believe a person owns his own body and NOBODY has a right to infringe on that sovereignty, no matter how well meaning.  Do I take Prozac?  Yes.  It's my personal choice.  So what.  Do I put faith in it?  Not necessarily at all.  If I could take back the clock I would have probably never gone on it at all.  Now I am in a situation where if I go off it I have severe withdraws (been on since 13).

All that being said, Psychiatry and Psychology is based on science.  AA is not and it does not work.  It has been proven not to work by it's own supporters (see the Vaillant study at Harvard).  In fact, it causes more harm than no treatment at all (binge increasing).  If I know somebody who has a drinking / drug problem who asks for help I tell them to choose anything but AA (and why).  Statistically, they're better off on their own.  If they need support, "suffering in the dark" is not necessary.  There are many other support groups, and therapists who deal with addictions (who do not subscribe to AA's disease concept).  The AA concept that "only an X knows an X" is just to sucker more people into meetings.  Often talking to a friend, finding new activities, etc, can help to break existing habits (not diseases).  If Alcholism were truly an incurable progressive disease as AA holds, people would not recovery without it, yet that happens every day.  AA is full of lies, mistruths, and fundamentist assertions of having the "only way", "inspired by god", etc...  As penn and teller said (about AA too), it's BULLSHIT.

Here.  Read a book by stanton peele.
Diseasing of America - How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control

Read that chapter. It might enlighten your viewpoint on this a little.

[Anonymous]

Here's an alternative to AA that might be interesting to those that feel they need help.  I like that they teach self-reliance, rather than learned powerlessness.

http://www.smartrecovery.org/intro/index.htm

Our Approach

* Teaches self-empowerment and self-reliance. as opposed to self doubt and powerlessness
* Works on addictions/compulsions as complex maladaptive behaviors with possible physiological factors. as opposed to an undiagnosable 'disease'
* Teaches tools and techniques for self-directed change. as opposed to turning your will over or groupthink or living according to the Bibl.....I mean Big Book/12 & 12
* Encourages individuals to recover and live satisfying lives. as opposed to being sentenced to a lifetime of meetings that for some take over their entire lives. (90 meetings/90 days; keep coming back; old-timers there for 20+ years)
* Meetings are educational and include open discussions. as opposed to the rejection of critical thinking in AA (let go and let god; your best thinking got you here; etc.)
* Advocates the appropriate use of prescribed medications and psychological treatments. as opposed to many meetings and sponsors that encourage subjects to reject their medications.
* Evolves as scientific knowledge evolves. do I really need to say anything here?
* Differs from Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and traditional 12-step programs. Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!

[Anonymous]

Another.

http://www.rational.org/faq.html

What is Rational Recovery®?

Rational Recovery® is the exclusive, worldwide source of counseling, guidance, and direct instruction on self-recovery from addiction to alcohol and other drugs through planned, permanent abstinence. We use an exclusive method, AVRT®, which is by far the most cost-effective, dignified approach of all.

What is AVRT®?

Addictive Voice Recognition Technique® (AVRT®), is the lore of self-recovery from addiction to alcohol and other drugs, without the use of groups, shrinks, or rehabs. Many visitors to this website have recovered using The Crash Course on AVRT. In fact, AVRT is based upon the common thread of success as described to us by thousands of self-recovered people.

It is a comprehensive remedy for addiction, allowing addicted people to fully recover in as short a time as they like, without regard to age of onset, the substance of choice, previous unsuccessful attempts at recovery, and the existence of other personal problems. AVRT-based recovery is nothing more or less than secure, permanent abstinence.

AVRT is simple, quick, and easy ­­ so much so, that it may seem "too good to be true." That objection, of course, is an example of the Addictive Voice, because it supports continued addiction. The definition of the Addictive Voice is, any thinking that supports or suggests the possible future use of alcohol and other drugs. Any contradiction of a personal commitment to permanent abstinence is the Addictive Voice. Simple, isn't it? AVRT is powerfully simple!

Where is the nearest Rational Recovery meeting?

Be glad there are no Rational Recovery groups, anywhere! In AVRT-based recovery, you are on your own. AVRT is incompatible with the group format, and contradicts practically every concept presented in recovery groups. We believe strongly that your desire to attend recovery groups is couched in the belief that you will relapse if you do not attend meetings. In AVRT-based recovery, you will quickly recognize that self-doubt as an example of your Addictive Voice. Then, you will not want to congregate with others who would reinforce that crippling, dependent belief.



Meet Your Rational Recovery Sponsor,
who will never let you down...


http://www.rational.org/img/sitemap_pages/sponsor.gif

[Anonymous]

Opie,

I never said charachter flaws (though AA does say "defects of charachter"), I never said "sin".  I never said anything like that. I said that people choose to put what they want in their bodies.  They shouldn't be condemned for those choices any more than they are absolved for their actions under the influence of substances.

People get physically addicted to the chemicals they are putting in their bodies. In the beginning it might be a choice, but after a while it is no longer a choice. If you think depression is bad, try withdrawing from opiates and it's derivatives. Try withdrawing from a serious alcohol addiction, that can kill you, if not done with the help of medical professionals. Not everybody has health insurance, or can afford to go to a medical rehab. That's where AA comes in. All it is, is a meeting place for like minded people. The only thing they have in common, is they want to stop using alcohol or drugs. People who have been through it want to help others do it too. I mean, it's not that complicated. I don't need to read books and studies to know what's going on. I've been through it all myself and form my opinions based on that.

By saying addicts and alcoholics are choosing to be that way is the same thing as saying people choose the way they feel. You are choosing to be depressed. You are choosing to be anxious. You are choosing to have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Nobody would ever choose to be an alcoholic or an addict. It can happen to anyone. I know that makes some people feel uncomfortable. They want to think they are fully in control. Well, if you abstain from additive drugs altogether you might avoid it. But it's clear, out of the majority of people who can drink and use without being addicted, a certain portion will become addicted. That's a fact.

Quit trying to change the subject to psychiatry since you don't' want to discuss AA's dismal rate of failure.  

If anything, the failure rate proves the biological disease model of addiction. Some people seem to have more problems than others with alcohol and drugs. Consider yourself lucky, you are in the large majority who are able to handle drugs and alcohol responsibly. It doesn't give you the right, however, to tell those who do have a problem with it how they should handle themselves. By telling them it's a choice, you are telling them they are a stupid person, because they make bad choices every day. It's a horrible way of dealing with addiction. The person who explained why AA came about in the first place described it best, how alcoholics were marginalized and shamed in the past. You want to return to that old way, I think that's a mistake.

Did the place I was in employ therapy?  No.  Lots of ex-con junkies with "real world experience", yes, but no therapists.  They called it therapy, yes, but it wasn't therapy.

Just like AA in programs, is not the AA a free person would see. Why don't you hold therapy accountable for the program version of therapy? This is something I do not understand.

I have been to a shrink.  I used to talk to one fairly regularly on a weekly basis until earlier this year when I tired of it.  Did he diagnose me with anything?  No.  Not at all.

In AA, on the other hand, or in a program, Denial, as the above guest notes is a symptom of the "disease".  So basically if you accept you're an alcholic, you're an alcoholic and if you deny it, that's further evidence you're an alcoholic.  LOL.  It's witch dunking all over again.  If the woman drowns, she wasn't a witch.  If she lives, she's a witch, so burn her.  Either way, if you get accused of being a witch, you're fucked.  It would be comical if the groupers didn't truly believe the shit they were shoveling.

I think it's natural for people to assume people in an AA meeting are alcoholics. If you aren't an alcoholic or addict, then walk out of the AA meeting. If it makes you uncomfortable in any way, leave. If you want to, try going to another meeting. Or don't, nobody else will try to stop you. I've never seen bars on the windows of AA meetings. I've never seen anyone restrained in an AA meeting. I've never seen thugs standing at the door watching guard. I've never seen people forced to share in an AA meeting. I've never anything remotely program like in an AA meeting, as a matter of fact. This is why when you claim AA and programs are the same, I shake my head in confusion. I wish I was in a program in some way similar to AA, what an easy time that would of been. Free coffee and donuts, cigarettes, nice people, free will to go as I please, optional group sharing. Please, sign me up for that program.

Sure some of that exists in psychiatry as well.  Is our society over-medicated?  For sure it is. Does psychiatric medicine also help some?  Yup, it does, but that's besides the point.

This is also true of AA. You just can't see that for some reason. Anyone who suggests this same fact as you just did in relation to AA, is uneducated, brainwashed sheep, and need to read a chapter of a book and studies to enlighten them. Scientologists will quote studies about how dismal the rate of success is with medication, and ask you to read their literature. I wish you could see how similar you sound to them, it's scary almost. Why can't you acknowledge that AA helps some people, usually the people who need it most?

I am against forced drugging just as much as I am against forced treatment of any kind.  I believe a person owns his own body and NOBODY has a right to infringe on that sovereignty, no matter how well meaning.  

Nobody has ever been forced to attend AA in the history of the organization. If you are talking about the slim portion of attendees who are court ordered, well that is also an option. They are not dragged into a meeting in handcuffs and forced to sit there. If that were true, then yes I would say it was program like. People are offered this as an alternative to other forms of punishment. Take it up with the justice system if you don't like their way of doing business. It has nothing to do with AA. AA did not lobby the criminal justice system to force people to attend, they do not get paid by how many people attend.

Do I take Prozac?  Yes.  It's my personal choice.  So what.  Do I put faith in it?  Not necessarily at all.  If I could take back the clock I would have probably never gone on it at all.  Now I am in a situation where if I go off it I have severe withdraws (been on since 13).

Going to AA is a personal choice. Going to meetings might help people, just like some people think medication helps them. It's no different. If you think medication helps you that's great. Imagine if I was some scientologist who quoted you my literature, and suggested you are ignorant to what you are doing to yourself, and said how sad it is that a survivor would use psychiatry since programs use it (remember kids are abused in psychiatric hospitals too). I would sound like an arrogant extremist, unwilling to even acknowledge that some people might, in fact, be helped by taking medication. I am able to acknowledge that the abusive, coercive psychiatry that goes on in some hospitals is not the same as voluntary, individualized treatment as a free person. Why cannot you acknowledge the same about AA?

All that being said, Psychiatry and Psychology is based on science.  AA is not and it does not work.  It has been proven not to work by it's own supporters (see the Vaillant study at Harvard).  In fact, it causes more harm than no treatment at all (binge increasing).  If I know somebody who has a drinking / drug problem who asks for help I tell them to choose anything but AA (and why).  Statistically, they're better off on their own.  If they need support, "suffering in the dark" is not necessary.  

Do you really believe that AA helps no people at all, and actually makes 100% of it's attendees addiction's worse? If you do believe that, then go to a few AA meetings and you can see with your own eyes that is not true. I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it. I'm sure it doesn't work for everyone. They can leave, and search for an alternative that will help them.

There are many other support groups, and therapists who deal with addictions (who do not subscribe to AA's disease concept).  The AA concept that "only an X knows an X" is just to sucker more people into meetings.  Often talking to a friend, finding new activities, etc, can help to break existing habits (not diseases).

If those meetings worked so well, why is AA so much more popular? People are free to choose what type of support they want. Bad mouthing one option, and propping up another is not the business I am in. I think people are intelligent enough for themselves to figure it out. If they don't like it, they can leave after 30 seconds. I don't see what the big deal is. Not everybody can afford to go to therapists.

If Alcholism were truly an incurable progressive disease as AA holds, people would not recovery without it, yet that happens every day.  

Good for them. If they want they don't have to attend AA meetings. It's a free choice. They can go to the AA alternatives you describe. The whole point is to help people get sober. Some people are tempted for the rest of their lives to pick up the bottle when times are tough, so they feel the need to stay in recovery. I would say it's more like going into remission, than a cure, since it's always possible to relapse and become fully addicted again. People that know they have the potential to become addicted again want to try and avoid it, I don't see what's wrong with that. People relapse, get worse and sometimes die of alcoholism or drug overdose. I don't see the point of opposing a self help group made of people who want to avoid this result. What's the point of opposing it?

AA is full of lies, mistruths, and fundamentist assertions of having the "only way", "inspired by god", etc...  As penn and teller said (about AA too), it's BULLSHIT.

Well if a couple of magicians say something, it's got to be true then. Have you read the AA and NA big books? All it is, is stories by people who were addicted to alcohol and drugs and what helped them recover. What is so offensive about the concept of God? They don't even call it God, they call it a Higher Power. I think that term is inclusive, and the meetings I've been to always make sure to add "and those who don't believe in a God". It's not a religious organization. It has one purpose, to help people get sober and stay sober.

Here.  Read a book by stanton peele.
Diseasing of America - How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control

Read that chapter. It might enlighten your viewpoint on this a little.

I'm not going to read this, I have no reason to.

My viewpoints are very simple actually. I think AA helps some people get sober and stay sober. I also think that AA is nothing like abusive programs. I think by comparing the two, it minimizes what really goes inside of abusive programs, to an offensive degree. That's it, I don't hold a very complicated set of beliefs here. I think it's common sense, based on what I've seen. Blurring the lines between the coercion and abuse inside of programs, with organizations such as AA, is dishonest, and I cannot take part in it. Nothing I have ever experienced in the "free world" compares to what goes on inside of a program. Nothing.

[psy]

If you outright refuse to read what I have to offer, there is really no point in continuing a debate with you.  Your mind is not open at all.  The chapter of the book I linked you to addresses most, if not all of your arguments.  It would be redundant of me to go around in circles with you arguing what Peele and other researchers already have.  I have read everything you have had to offer me.  If you're not going to offer me the same courtousy, there is no point continuing this discussion.

There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but I kept an open mind, read Peele, read schaler, etc... and I changed my mind.  All you're demonstrating here is that you will fanatically defend a point without considering evidence to contradict your faith.

I will answer a few points that aren't in the above article, however.  First off.  I'm not equating programs and AA.  I'm comparing the two.  Even Peele talks about Synanon confrontational therapy in relation to institutional AA (he also discusses it's harm).  Is he nuts too?  (he addresses that point also, noting that those who critize AA or it's disease concept are...  attacked, for lack of a better term).

Does AA help people?  Statistically, no.  You say some people are helped by AA.  What you're really saying is that some people are better after joining AA.  The part you're leaving out is whether or not they wouldn't have improved with no treatment at all (post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this because of this).  Statistically, the odds are about even, even by Vaillant's studies (AA World services trustee).  You're leaving out the control group and relying exclusively on anecdotal evidence.  I will not acknowledge what is not backed up by fact or hard evidence or what is flat out bullshit.  Let me offer you the same ultimatum I offer the program reps: you say it works?  Prove it!

"Nobody has ever been forced to attend AA in the history of the organization. If you are talking about the slim portion of attendees who are court ordered, well that is also an option."

LOLOLOOLOLOLOLL!O!L!

Slim portion?  Try over 60% of AA's current membership who are either introduced to AA by either the health care or criminal justice systems.  (AA Grapevine newsletter, November 2002)

"AA did not lobby the criminal justice system to force people to attend,"

LOL!  Oh yes they fuckin did!  Hazelden's little red book states this specifically, in ways AA members can "carry the message":

"By telling the A.A. story to clergy members, doctors, judges, educators, employers, or police officials if we know them well enough to further the A.A. cause, or to help out a fellow member.
The Little Red Book, Hazelden, page 128."

Do you really believe that AA helps no people at all, and actually makes 100% of it's attendees addiction's worse? If you do believe that, then go to a few AA meetings and you can see with your own eyes that is not true.

Been there, seen that, got the t-shirt.

I don't need to read studies, I've been to many meetings over many years, and know many people who have stayed sober because of it.

That speaks volumes ("FUCK THE EVIDENCE.. I KNOW WHAT IS THE TRUTH.  BILL WILSON'S WRITINGS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD!  AWAY SATAN!  AWAY STINKING THINKING!  AWAY DEVIL DRINK!")

Now you've finally admitted you're a grouper, I can understand why you won't consider any evidence contradicting your faith.  Well... Faith without reason is blind.  If you choose to ignore any evidence other than what you want to see, you're not living in reality and that's very clear to anybody viewing this discussion from a neutral standpoint.

[Froderik]

Not having experienced AA, I don't have the same feeling some people here have for it (not to downplay anyone else's take on it or anything).

That being said, i have grown to hate these "AA debates"; I find them tiresome and repetitive.....and rather pointless.

Perhaps these discussions are worse than AA itself?  

[Anonymous]

This is like the scientologist scientists who wanted to prove dianetics worked, and ended up accidentally proving it to be bullshit (and getting labeled suppressive persons as a result).

AA also teaches "nobody can do it alone". LOL. Well despite that claim a Harvard study states that most people quit on their own

The irony, of course, in your impassioned plea against AA, is you sound just like a Scientologist going on about the dangers of psychiatric medicine and medications. They believe the same things as you. Only directed at the psychiatric illness theory, instead of the addiction theory. You both believe that instead of biological reasons, these disorders are caused solely by a character flaw, that can be overcome by will power alone. Scientology believes that cure for mental illness doesn't work, and harms people. You believe the same about AA.

Maybe you can explain why the disease model of addiction is any different than say, the disease model of depression. They are both subjective to only what the patient has to say to the doctor, there is no blood test for addiction or depression. Both are treated with medication, and therapy, usually by the same doctors even. So what really is the difference?

I've taken anti-depressants before. In my opinion, they do absolutely nothing. They are placebos as far as I am concerned. Studies show only a small portion of people get better taking psychiatric meds. This is the same claim made against AA in this thread.

I will never again waste my time going to a psychiatrist and ask for meds. I believe they are more fraudulent than AA is, and they can diagnose just about anyone with a mental illness. The difference between psychiatry and AA is one of them has built a multi-billion dollar industry based on their psuedo-science, while the other remains a grass-roots, community oriented non-profit.

If you go to a psychiatrist and are completely honest with them, they will diagnose you with something. According to them it would seem that being a human being with passionate feelings is a mental illness in of itself. They will prescribe hundreds of dollars per month worth of medications that do nothing (other than inducing horrible side effects). All of this based on a theory that your "brain chemicals" are "unbalanced" and their medication had a 30% success rate in trials. They give you a prescription, send you on your way, and expect everything to magically get better. Or maybe they are just trying to medicate everyone into a walking zombie, so nobody really cares what is going on anymore.

Take a look at this paragraph. All I had to do was change a couple words around, and I could use Psy's statement to criticize psychiatry:

That's one way of putting it. The way I view it is that Psychiatry gives people "absolution"... makes them feel like all those things they did weren't really their fault because they have a "disease". It's an attractive lie to people who have a lot of guilt and would rather feel like their actions and feelings were outside their control (powerlessness concept). Let go and let the meds work! Yes! Works about as well with a steering wheel. People learn powerlessness and then they truly become powerless


By claiming AA is tainted because a bastardized version of it is used in programs, you open yourself up to the argument that therapy, and psychiatry are also tainted, because they are also utilized services within programs. I saw a "therapist" in the program, but it's not what one would experience if paying for therapy as a free person. I received "psychiatric treatment" while locked up, but again, this is not the same as it would be if I went as a free person and voluntarily sought out a trusted psychiatrist I felt comfortable with. We can go on and on about how dangerous AA is because programs use it, but then we will also have to include any and all services provided in programs as similarly tainted. I cannot make that leap myself, and having experienced these various organizations and treatments as a prisoner, and free person, I know how different they are.


I find it hard to understand how someone who has put their faith in psychiatry can be so anti-AA. Psy, I read that you taking medication for depression a while back. That means you must be seeing a psychiatrist. What if I were to say how outraged I am that a survivor would dare return to treatment and defend a pseudo-science such as medication therapy. That's what it sounds like when you say you are saddened anyone would dare defend AA. You have accepted the mental illness biological argument, but refuse the addiction biological argument. That makes absolutely no sense to me. If you reject AA for being anecdotally based psuedo-science, and tainted for having been used in a program, you must also reject psychiatry for the very same reasons.


Both the anti-AA and anti-psychiatry people want people to accept their disorders as personal, self-induced, character flaws. Like an earlier posters said, alcoholics were once treated this way and ashamed to ask for help. It also used to be this way with mental illness. Now both are recognized for the medical disorders they are, and proper treatment can be provided. People with serious addiction problems don't just go to AA, they go to medically based rehab centers. Guess what? AA is in those places, run by doctors and psychiatrists and professionals too. If your mental problems are serious enough, the same treatment is available. If it were up to the anti-AA and anti-psychiatrist people, no help would be provided, these people would be stigmatized to the point where suffering in the dark is the only option. Well that, or suicide. I think we have made progress as a society addressing these issues. Even though I didn't have the best of luck with psychiatry, it seems to work for other people,and I can leave well enough alone. Why not respect AA in the same way?

i agree. its quite ridiculous. i don't like the selective acceptance of scientific studies on A.A, either.
Scientifically, at most, you can fairly say there is evidence for and against A.A., you cannot say there is no evidence it works. There is.

And programs use a "bastardized version of A.A." therefore A.A's a cult? Programs use a bastardized form of human interaction, excersize, clenlieness therapy...therefore all of these things are bad, and a cult? that black/white absurdity here is hard to take. Thank you for defending common sense.

[Anonymous]

A study done by George Vaillant (an AA World Services trustee) at Harvard University found that AA was no more sucessful than no treament at all.  HE (an avid AA supporter) wrote:

Here is a "neutral" take on Valient's work, from wiki:
George Vaillant
[6] In the sample of 100 severe alcoholics from his clinic, 48% of the 29 alcoholics who eventually achieved sobriety attended 300 or more AA meetings,[7] and AA attendance was associated with good outcomes in patients who otherwise would have been predicted not to remit.[8] In the sample of 465 men who grew up in Boston's inner city, the more severe alcoholics attended AA, possibly because all other avenues had failed[9] Vaillant's research and literature surveys revealed growing indirect evidence that AA is an effective treatment for alcohol abuse, partly because it is a cheap, community-based fellowship with easy access.[10] Although AA is not a magic bullet for every alcoholic, in that there were a few men who attended AA for scores of meetings without improvement, good clinical outcomes correlated with frequency of AA attendance, having a sponsor, engaging in a Twelve-Step work, and leading meetings. Vaillant concluded that AA appears equal or superior to conventional treatments for alcoholism and that skepticism of some professionals regarding AA as an effective treatment for alcoholism is unwarranted.[11] However, he also notes that the “effectiveness of AA has not been adequately assessed”[12] and that “direct evidence for the efficacy of AA... remains as elusive as ever.[13] For example, if an alcoholic achieves sobriety during AA attendance, who is to say if AA helped or if he merely went to AA when he was ready to heal?[14][15]